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.

The best photographs are not dependent on only character. The best photographs have an interesting dynamic between each subject, the surroundings, and the photographer. Somehow these are all related in some meaningful way that makes both immediate sense and yet leaves a vague sort of room for long-term definitions, a mystery, that makes us want to revisit the photograph over and over, each time a process of discovery and rediscovery. In this we find what pleases and educates us, whether grounded in emotion or intellect or both.

I know one possible reason wny so much of street photography seems to be a mantra is the act of taking a street picture. This brief plunge into the human pool and approaching this tidal movement is so intoxicating, like the first and strongest hit of a drug. We do this again and again like crazed addicts on a rampage. I know for me the act of taking the picture is often the peak of this drama. I often could care less about actually taking a picture and would rather linger for as long as possible wondering if life could get any better, here, witnessing all the little explosions of faces, expressions, conversations, ballet, even the terror of being in people's way as they work their way around you and your camera. If you would for a few moments ignore any discomfort from being the rock in the stream, the quick hot stares and sharp comments of unsettled strangers, you can quite possibly feel the joy of being aeing alive.

Very good discussion, and a nearly poetic comment above by Orville @ 5:08.

Allow me, for just one second, to speak up on behalf of the "unemotional inexpressive" masses and especially those snappers who, like me, all too frequently take their photographs. :-)

For me, a number of these photos represent the "working on it" phase of street photography, which includes mustering the courage and comfort to be out there, improving one's awareness of the light, learning how your camera responds, and most importantly, developing an eye for something of interest. I may be wrong, but I'm not sure you get to street photos like Orville's, Jeff's, Brad's, Barry's, Ton's, etc. unless you've first snapped -- and probably continue on occasion to snap -- some of the ordinary, some of the routine.

I encourage people to try out street photography the way I encourage kids and adults to try tennis, a sport I've played and taught, because I have enthusiasm for it. And when people on this or another forum post results -- and especially if they announce that these are early efforts -- I try to say something positive. Sometimes that's along the lines of, "Way to go. You're out there snappin'. That's what matters."

And with the newer tennis players, I've probably been guilty of a bit too much praise/enthusiasm for ordinary shots. I haven't told them I'm going to call Roger Federer to arrange a challenge, but I've encouraged them. And I plan to continue to do that with the photographers as well.

My tribute to the "unemotional inexpressive" ... and to the sports they play.

I too like and appreciate Orville's 5:08 comment.

The "hold your camera 45 degrees to the wall while you're walking down the sidewalk and snap whatever walks by" shots are easy and I do them as well - you feel like you're doing something and you're hoping to get lucky with a reaction of some sort. But at some point afterwards, there's an editing process. And you look at what you've snagged and decide which shots are worthy of showing; those that reveal something special, mystery, emotion, narrative, etc. Or a composition where the elements pleasingly align.

But without some sort of visual pull, what's the point?

Good points. Isn't this what Eugene Sherba was talking about a few months back?

Great discussion everyone. I believe like anything else, SP should open doors to further explorations in creativity. The problem for some may be that they get held back by their relationship to their gear and what they expected from it, or perhaps they fall into a narrowly defined application meaning that SP can only be shot in such a way that will produce predictable shots. Hey if it worked for Winogrand then maybe it can work for me. That kind of thing.

For the first couple years I never could understand what the appeal of wide lenses were for many street shooters. Maybe because many shots seemed to be of people walking down the street and I never could understand what relationship between the people in the photograph and their environment the photographer was trying to express. I've since decided to start using a wide lens myself much more then usual (I usually used a standard length if I could get a fast enough shutter speed) since earlier this year and it has become my favorite lens.

Another way my shooting as changed is that whereas before I might only take one or two shots and move on, I am more frequently shooting multiple rolls of a scene. I just love seeing things unfold as I click away.

eye catching is subjective..

Andy, Eugene Scherba was saying something similar. The problem was his delivery, not his message. If you want to have discourse, you have to sound like you want discourse, and Eugene's "sound" often put people on the defense. Some people will always react defensively, but it seems like Eugene was a bit over the top.

Eugene's web site has disappeared and he hasn't been here for a while.

I will repeat my primary point on this topic - most street photography, and especially what appears here, appeals to some other street photographers and that's about it. If you look at books with street photography, they are built around themes, typically documentary. There aren't many shows on it from what I can tell, except for some of the most famous, like Winogrand. There are very few places that "random shots of random people" do well.

So what's the conclusion then, if any?

"there is balance between the ordinary and the extraordinary. Your job is to keep it real and meaningful" Definition in a nutshell? I think it's as good as any.

Maybe it's also approach. Some, like Orville, seem to have a philosophical or conceptual approach (some may even call it romantic) while others take a more rational path. Both can be equally valuable and lead to equally great results and that has less to do with equipment as you might think, that's only a small part of it. Anyway it means diving into it. Sure there are happy snappers but don't we all do that every now and then? That's why they invented the bin;-)

What defines good from mediocre is concistency and a certain outlook at life because when you get down to it it's a absolute fascination with human kind. I don't want to get too mushy about it but isn't that what drives a street photographer. Sort of a common denominator?

So yes. there are those who produce consistently uninteresting work and others who work very hard to get it "real and meaningful" Nothing new then really, is there.

Jeff, yes, Eugene was a little pointed in his remarks. But he has a sharp, analytical mind.

There is a lot of dross in any subject, SP included. Michael is right that some of the photographers/photos posted here are are really beginners. The trouble is many photographers don't make the effort to get beyond that phase, which Brad identified, so we end up with reams of trite, uninteresting pictures. That really was and continues to be my dislike of many W/NW threads; they're often a dumping ground for an awful lot of mediocre, B-roll shots. (I am guilty of it on occasion as well.)

This discipline-- and I think discipline is a good word because you need it to do SP well-- is much more difficult than most other areas of photography. I don't think there are few people that appreciate it, I think there is little truly good work to be appreciated.

One more follow up as regards criticism. I am not sure if anyone is benefitting if we don't apply a bit more criticism to the work that is posted here by all of the "regulars". I'm sure everyone has their views, but I rarely if ever see them expressed.

Say something specific on photos then Andy, nobody is stopping you. As to Eugene's "analytical mind," that's hilarious. Making negative statements about photographers who make both black and white and color photographs and then saying- as if he were some photography god- "and I know who they are" was idiotic. Talking about how much money he was going to make being a great artist, at the same time posting crap of his own- was the behavior of an imbecile.

Jeff, most people wouldn't know the value of Garry Winogrand's or Robert Frank's or any other great photographer's work if it hit them in the face.

I am not sure if anyone is benefiting if we don't apply a bit more criticism to the work that is posted here by all of the "regulars".

The problem is that any kind of negative critique gets met with a bunch of people who jump in with statements to the effect of "well I like it." That's not useful. This isn't just on this forum, it's across the board on web forums. And the ones who appear to be best at critiquing get attacked the most because they are critical. In the end, the "Great photos!" comments win out because some people just don't want to hear it.

Jeff, most people wouldn't know the value of Garry Winogrand's or Robert Frank's or any other great photographer's work if it hit them in the face.

I'm not sure what the point of this comment is.

a grain of sand by itself does not much convey, place several million next to each other and you could have the making of a beautiful beach

Personally I've learned how to be a street photographer by studying not only accomplished work by the masters but furtive experiments, botched attempts, near misses, and even the decidedly mediocre put out there by legions of photographers and artists of all stripes. Since I will always be learning how to be a better street photographer I sure do rely on, for instance, Michael's experiments and triumphs and failures to know what to do and what to avoid. Cheech and Chong were wrong; you do have to step in crap to know what it is. Crap then can be the so-called fertilizer for a great image.

"Crap then can be the so-called fertilizer for a great image." (lol) Well said Orville.

Just take a look at Bruce Gilden and compare him to Martin Parr. The answer is simple. "Or What?"

People tend to make the same shot over and over and over again

sometimes this develops int a style that is recognizable - if that is what one aspires to achieve - you know another brand name floating around in the ether.....you have to give it a break sometimes to clear your head...otherwise the same shot comes out all the time - whether you understand this or not..

oh yeah also never forget regarding barbie doll pretty PS/CS work overs - you cant polish terds..ok? -:)

I say you encourage everyone to take and show their photos no matter how bad they are. Its an internet forum for f's sake, not a gallery. If people want to have a juried presentation, and the people who make the decisions are willing to defend them, then you will have de facto critique.

@ Peter, taking a mental break is good sometimes, concur. The problem of taking the same photo over and over again seems to start to pop up at certain points in the photo path. This talk of style is a whole huge area of exploration. Sometimes repitition isn't style, its just path of least resistence, shots you know you can get.

Good points, Barry. When i go out shooting I don't worry about whether I'm shooting accouding to any style. I simply get very connected to the camera and my surroundings. Your style is really your personality rather than something to do with an intentional calculation. That's why I always credit my wife and my parents and my close friends for my so-called style than any photographer or artist. I have many influences, but style is really the most gray area you can peer into. It's entirely subjective and best left to others to discuss about your work.

eye-catching moment scenery and ordinary street scenery? Or what? Just because I wonder... MF

Or, what? Interesting is the thought that comes to mind.

Sometimes repetition isn't style, its just path of least resistance…

I like that though. Doing the same thing over and over again must get to be really boring.

you cant polish terds..ok? -:)

A lot of folks like polished turds…a technical term for a boring technically perfect photo.

As for the rest I agree with Barry word for word…