Street Modes ; Are They?

I vote for "or what." Looking through good collections of street photography should provide a richer set of "definitions."

I'm beginning to wonder about the allure of what some consider to be "ordinary street scenery"...

Seems there sure is a lot of "shoot a random person walking down the sidewalk photos" with no endearing aesthetic; other than it was of a person and shot on the sidewalk. Is anything being said or revealed? Interesting composition? Juxtaposition or tension of elements? Humor? Mystery? Sadness? Empathy? Anything other than it's a random person?

The man behind the St Lazare train station has now been suspended in mid-air for over 75 years. But its just a man jumping over a puddle. Our craft is completely subjective vis-a-vis quality and success.

Michael J Hoffman

When asking the question, I built up my mind according to a previous forum post . The answers were challenging but so simple in the meantime. Maybe that's because streets are complex and simple in anyway.

"In general aspect, can street photography be divided into eye-catching moment scenery and ordinary street scenery? Or what? Just because I wonder"

First of all you should make that photography without the street addendum I think. It's getting rather tiresome that so many people (among them some street photographers as well) seem to think that the same principles of good photography don't (have to) apply to street. Some seem to feel that sloppy work i.e. composition, lighting, printing amongst others is acceptible in street. It isn't.

To be of value good photography is and should be subject to the highest standards artistically as well as technically, it's as simple as that.

Michael, sorry but your analogy is a bit too simple for me. I won't bite but concerning your example, however subjective as you say, there is historical context, body of work, concistency and a artistic concept to consider. I understand the context of your remark but shoving one of the greatest photographers of his time aside so easily seems pedantic to me. No offense intended btw.

Yes street is complex but good photography as such, in whatever category, is by definition complex.

I agree with you, Brad. I'm amazed that some shooters don't get sick to death of capturing basically the same scene over and over of unemotional unexpressive people passing by the camera. Recently someone here said they were going to set up a camera and set it to shoot whatever happened to be passing by at a set interval. I knew he would not do this, but it was an interesting criticism.That kind of work is good for the photographer but of no interest to me. Somtimes it might need a disciplined edit, other times a rethinking of their purpose, sometimes an acceptance of average talent. Who knows? On the other hand, I'm not crazy about photography that relies too much on characters or colorful scenes seemingly from Central Casting. Even in NYC there is balance between the ordinary and the extraordinary. Your job is to keep it real and meaningful.

>>> I'm amazed that some shooters don't get sick to death of capturing basically the same scene over and over of unemotional unexpressive people passing by the camera.

That's something I don't understand. For me, an interesting photograph needs to have some unique pull, and/or the potential to release narrative or something discoverable.

Character is what makes people interesting. Who ever talked to someone and said, "Wow, that person was really boring, I have to do that again"? The same thing applies to visuals. Bland photos of boring people on the street are just that, nothing more. Elevating them because they were taken on the street is meaningless, which may be why most of the people who look at street photographs are other street photographers. The public seems amazingly uninterested, until there's a narrative or a documentary. But that's not happening here.

Moments, are like music, you can shoot on the beat or off the beat, but you have to capture something happening, either play of elements, people, light etc. To me its just learning to see photographically and being open. Look at Jeff's portraits, he captures people like very few can, Brad has his style, likewise everyone here, but all agree, just shooting people on the street can be visually boring. I mean, its good to get over reluctance to photograph, but you have to move beyond and however you respond, there has to be some visual idea of interest contained with the photograph.