Are street togs the Rodney Dangerfields of photography?

my last comments can be found here:
http://photo.net/pentax-camera-forum/00XFGz

I absolutely think street photography is photography as much as news photography is photography; not only does it record events directly, there is an art form to it. When it is done correctly, it is beautiful, when done badly, well it can suck.
I think it gets criticized, because mainly, it is a difficult form of photography, that the majority of people can not master. It requires the basic photography knowledge, but you also need to be able to think on your feet, be able to be aware of your surroundings and see photo opportunities at the same time. Plus, you need people skills and self confidence, I think that the criticism comes from envy. And I am not trying to start fights, but it goes back to the old saying "those who can do, those who can't criticize." It takes a certain personality to go out and talk to strangers, let alone take photos of them!
Well that is just my opinion, I think your work is excellent!!
William

I don't mind being photographed; on the street or any place else.
I'm among those who are out in the streets with a camera, with every intent to document our time.
As long as it's in the public domain, I don't see anything wrong with it.
There are places where people don't mind being photographed, and places where people would react violently if a camera was pointed towards them.
It does take courage. But more importantly, it takes a great eye. Bruce Gilden has both.
It takes some measure of restraint, because I don't believe in portraying people in a bad way. The human condition may at times be negative, but I want to have their dignity to come through loud and clear.

I love street photography the way Mis or Camus showed it here or like a master like HCB did and I liked Javiers photos about the homeless and the beach series he did some times ago and also some of the new ones beside the flaws I mentioned. I find it a very weak excuse for poor photography skills or simply laziness when "everything" goes with a certain genre of photography and if a street shooter ***only*** shows "babes" taken from a distance in technical miserable quality (distorted, wrong exposure, no composition or story at all, bad postprocessing) like we have seen lately in this forum, I suspect more male "overse... and underf..... motivation behind it than real passion for photography.

William, when is street photography "done correctly" in your opinion?
And why do you think criticism comes from envy? In any form, for example like I did or do?

Wonderful discussion folks and will address a few things mentioned by you guys shortly.
Let me speak for me. I never hide what I am doing. Infact, I am very obvious. 90% of the people I shoot, know I am shooting them. I also use short lenses. 18mm, 21mm, 24mm most of the time. A long lens for me is a 28,40, or 50mm lens. The reason I shoot with short lenses is because I like to be a part of the scene and I believe it is evidenced in my photographs. I agree with Markus that sitting at a corner with a Telephoto lens shooting ''babes'' is not a good idea. Of course this comes down to opinion and style. I believe in going out and getting the shot as opposed to letting it come to me. Having said that, most people starting out do start with long lenses. I did and frankly, looking back, most I am embarrassed about. Still, though, I got out and tried and tried. I for one have no problem interacting with my subjects and in fact make it a habit to do so. Sure I get cussed out here and there and all the rest, but I want to be the best ''i'' can be.

On the technical side of things, I am far more concerned about capturing the scene, than I am about ''certain'' technicalities. If the picture is gritty, blurry, crooked, under or over exposed; in my eyes, It is acceptable so long as it shows ''context''...I also believe a good street photo should be well composed even if you have to do some cropping to get it. The rules of 1/3's is really helpful in a street photo... PP techniques is one of those things where one has to find his own style as he will be defined by it....

More in a little bit.

Here is one of my early pictures. Looking at it today, This would hit the trash bin in a second.
Yes I was up close, but there is nothing personal about this shot. Infact it is impersonal. How different this shot could have been had I got in front of her and got a snarl or a smile out of her...I see to many bad street photos like this. Now I am not saying a good street photo has to have eye contact. In fact most street photos don't need it ;;IMO'', but in this case it would have helped.

Blown highlights and crooked, gritty and dirty, but I like this one. And believe me, I am closer than it looks.

Personally, I don't know why anyone would NOT consider street photography as photography especially considering as some of the most famous pics of all time were "street" shots.

Examples: shots of 9/11 all sad and tragic, but certainly historical and powerful.

And how about the sailor in Times Square kissing the girl after the announcement to the end of WW II?

I'm sure I could find examples of tons of more important street shots.

And Javier, Mis, Markus' and other Pentaxians street shots are wonderful. I like em. Keep em coming.