Street Photography dumping ground

Just as an exercise, Philip, help out the people who seem to be annoying you, so that they can get it right in the future.

Succinctly, in one sentence, describe/define "street photography."

Hi Philip,

I think the, &Documentaty in the title of this forum allows for a broader scope of images than Street Photography alone.

Steve

Other than a similar name, the "street photography" category in the rating system has nothing to do with this forum. This forum is not the place to complain about any aspect of the rating system.

Shots of legs only can be great! ;-)

This forum has nothing to do with the gallery or the rating system, so it's not clear at all what you are talking about.

I also notice that you haven't tried to improve the situation by posting things you think are relevant.

Model

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the...picture...is not that." Justice Potter Stewart, minus a word or two.

More than just legs, but no street. Does a bike path count?

Nota Bene: "Community > Photo.net Unified > Forums > Street & Documentary"

Yes, DOCUMENTARY and the explanation info that pops up even mentions "candid portraiture"

Furthermore, as Matt said, just what privileges YOUR own conception of what constitutes "Street Photography" even if this were only a street photography forum.

easily answered. Because it's obviously HIS opinion. All people got opinions on that and I respect that, even if I don't always agree. It's therefore a valid question Philip asked. Also I see no complaint about the rating system.

Nice quote Damon.

He comments that he found these photos while "rating." This forum has no photo ratings. It would appear that there is some confusion about forums versus galleries. That's why clarification, which hasn't yet been given, makes a difference.

I wasn't as much saying that Philip was on about something invalid... I'm suggesting that it's just not very constructive to say that people are falling outside the bounds of a genre, without offering up a lucid desciption of where those boundaries lie. That always seems to be particularly problematic when it comes to "street."

Jeff, true. Let's just forget about Philip for a moment and I'll give you my take for what it's worth. Yes it was picked up in the rating forum but this site did create a categorisation and one of these categories is street photography. So either in a forum on street or in a gallery on street I think that the consensus should be that you upload there street work. In the street gallery I see a lot of photo's uploaded that in my opinion have nothing to do with street photography. Also, in the last few days in the forum some photo's have been uploaded that in my opinion have nothing to do with street photgraphy. I mean, no offense intended here, but when I see a photo from a concrete staircase and nothing else than yes, it was obviously made in some street but that's about it. So yes, there sems to be some confusion. And as far as documentary is concerned that needs context.

Matt, I wasn't responding to your comment but to JDM's. It was him that referred to you (wrongly I think) but you're right. Where most categories are reasonably defined street photography is a bit more fluid definitionwise. Of course there is not one simple definition. But there is a thread started on that already and I'm not inclined to start another one here. Regardless of where Philip picked it up, he has a point.

Mostly however these and all of the above are circular arguments because, no doubt twenty years from now you're likely to find similar threads as this one.

Question: Would you consider the majority of Atget's work street photography? 2nd question: Does street photography require people in the picture? I answer the first question yes and the 2nd question no.

John, first of all and to avoid any misunderstanding. I myself am not too hung up on strict definitions. I'm too pragmatic for that and enjoy good photography no matter what label people want to stick onto it. Concerning Atget, to answer your question, he did indeed a lot of street photography but mostly within in documentary context is my opinion. To answer your second question, in general yes for I believe that street photography should be reflective of contemporary life in a social and cultural context. But as I said earlier, there isn't a single definition that isn't debatable and your question in a way proves how fluid it is or rather is perceived. That's not a qualification, merely my opinion.

Here is my take for what it is worth..

I have always thought that "street" photography was outdoor, available light photography practiced primarily in towns & cities that generally included the face of at least one human being..This type of candid photograph was taken to highlight the facial expressions & body language of the person(s) in the photo..These facial expressions & the accompanying body language were in & of themselves telling a story..If the photographer chose not to show the face of the person being photographed, then the body language of the person along with the lighting captured in the print told a compelling story..For me, at least, street photography symbolizes a dynamic, fluid type of candid photography that showcases the entire gamut of human emotions ranging from extreme joy all the way to extreme despair..

Can compelling architectural photographs without people in them be considered street photographs?..That is a much harder question to answer..I tend to think not, although there are many photographers such as Atget that can assuredly capture my attention..

Bruce

Going out into the street and shooting anything that moves is like hunting and shooting anything that moves. Either way your gonna come home with some bad stuff. For me it's capturing that look, that glance, that special moment that moves the emotions in one direction or another. The back of someones, head is boring to me.

PS and if you shot hundreds and came up with 10 really good one in one years time that would be a notible accomplishment.

Well, let's call this one a hybrid between "travel" and "street" photography. On our trip to the Sacre Coeur in the Montmartre part of Paris, I got this shot at 200 mm only minutes after thwarting their onslaught, getting the finger, and being called a "bitch". And it smelled like urine right there where I got this shot.

btw--does anyone know what part of Africa these guys are from? Which country? They reminded me of the movie, Blood Diamond...set in South Africa.

oops had to downsize...here it is

Jeff,you are right I meant Galleries not Forum.I just wished to seek the opinions of the street shooters of this my favourite Forum. Sadly some do not think I should express any that run counter to theirs(maybe I offended the parked bicycle shooters,I must admit perhaps that was a little unkind!).Others think I should not only pose the question but supply the answer.To those who defended my right to be wrong,thank you. Damon thank you for that qoute.It is now one of my favourites. John even Atget knew he was Documenting a disappering Paris. Some of the gallery photos had neither street nor people. Joe,Sir I have seen a Model leg and believe me Sir those legs in the gallery were not a Model ! :-).This has proven to be a quite lively debate as I would expect from this forum.Thanks guys.

Some of my photos are clearly street but is this? Or is it architecture?, humour? I was taken with the conjunction of the curved pole with the word 'BENT', in a context of straight lines. Is it perhaps abstract?

Thanks, Hakim

As he tries to upload the photo ...

Thanks, Hakim

"Chip Reuben , Oct 29, 2008; 01:07 a.m. Well, let's call this one a hybrid between "travel" and "street" photography. On our trip to the Sacre Coeur in the Montmartre part of Paris, I got this shot at 200 mm only minutes after thwarting their onslaught, getting the finger, and being called a "bitch". And it smelled like urine right there where I got this shot. "

Well here is a shot I made just around the corner from your shot. I was using a 19mm lens and standing in the crowd - and liked the way everyone was looking at the same thing...

I photographed extensively in Paris over a period of two weeks and was never once confronted or abused - I guess it is all about how one carries oneself in any street OR maybe they just like Leica cameras over there- who knows? -:)

Peter A's photo is the definition of "Street Photography" for me. This is photography and art. Question: would it be better if we knew what they were looking at?

is this street, actually beneath the freeways

let me try again

I would think that street photography is taking pictures of what you see while going down the street. Would that not include people (portraits), buildings (architecture), dogs (animals), landscapes, and even abstracts? Do you consider street photography to be only pictures taken of the street itself. I would also think that street photography would be more of a method of photography, rather than subject matter, just walking around downtown taking photos of whatever captures your eye with no pre-planned notion of trying to achieve a particular shot.

What about 'Fine Art' too...?

I agree with the dumping ground aspect.

There are so many shots of people walking down a street or against the wall that have no pull, narrative, mystery, interest, or even care towards composition. Just a stranger on the street doesn't mean it's SP. There is an aesthetic.

This is quite a good definition (by Nathan Craver)...However I would say that the focus of street photography should be to capture the life that revolves in and around the street. I have a problem about clubbing street and documentary together - documentary can be anything from a village fair to a rock concert.

I'd say Chris Weeks compiled a pretty damned good summation...
street_photography_for_the_purist

(hosted on DeviantArt.com)

i wouldn't mind to see more legs in this forum either...

"Peter A's photo is the definition of "Street Photography" for me. This is photography and art. Question: would it be better if we knew what they were looking at?"

If you click on the image, you will find a blog on Flikcr that answers that question: the subjects were looking at the work of a street painter, which is a very common scene in that area and in Paris in general. For example, at Place du Tertre (up the hill and around to the left from the image I made), that square is full of them.

In the "string men" image above, you will see two fellows going through wallets (likely stolen ones, given what has been told to me and what has been posted on the web) and others with espressions of longing as if they still need to get theirs. Unfortunately, the "string men" of Sacre Coeur is also a common situation, but perhaps a little more difficult (and dangerous) to capture 2 of them looking though wallets in a photograph?

I suppose what makes it street is, does it have an attitude? A view point? Just the normal concerns for any good photograph apply, Is it interresting, does is convey an aesthetic, does it suggest narrative, does it have interesting formal aspects. Does it make you want to look at it? Any or all of the above.

Nathen.portraits,architecture,animals pets,landscapes and abstracts have their own galleries for very good reasons.Why would you wish to display them in other galleries and recieve low ratings.You would never expect interior church wedding shots displayed in the architecture gallery.

You would never expect interior church wedding shots displayed in the architecture gallery

Unless the image shows an unusual talent - on the part of the wedding photographer - for capturing the beauty or majesty or romance or history of the building in which it was shot. Or unless the image is a showpiece that proves how well suited the architectural surroundings are for a wedding. Perhaps the bride and groom will be riding away to their honeymoon on two bicycles, which are leaned up against a wall on the street, outside, too. Should those bicycles be ruled out of the wedding forum, if they're just there waiting? There are some nuances here, Philip. Things aren't always what they seem.

I dont think that this snap defines anything - but I think it has a visual 'hook' - everyone looking at exactly the same thing..begging a question - what is that thing..

Chip - I lied about the painter - actually it was three dark dudes mugging a tourist with a telephoto zoom around his neck - everyone was fascinated.

Does it matter what was going on ? - either a pic works or it doesn't..

If people focussed on pics that 'work' - engage the viewer at some level - that is all the strict definiton they need and a whole bunch of verbal too and fro can be consigned to the filing bin - where it all belongs.

I have to apology ;-) I have posted a photo of "legs only" recently..... and I have categorised it under SP. But Philip, in which Gallery would you suggest to be posted ? "Other forums do not have this problem" is probably because a portrait is a portrait, a child is a child, an animal is an animal, and a nude is a nude. SP is a bit more difficult to define. You may all have your "noble" definition of what SP is, but I think a bit of tolerance is also needed. If some of us were Henri Cartier-Bresson, Robert Frank, Alfred Eisenstaedt, W. Eugene Smith, William Eggleston, Brassaї, Willy Ronis, Robert Doisneau and Garry Winogrand, we probably would not be here on PN discussing those things. If one accepts that SP is a type of documentary photography that features subjects in candid situations within public places such as streets, parks, beaches, malls, and other settings, that leaves margin for intepretation which we should all accept. My best regards to all, Loic

"Does it matter what was going on ? - either a pic works or it doesn't.."

If your picture were of someone mugging another, or committing some other crime, then it wouldn't "work" in a court of law because it illustrates no more than a group of people looking at the action, without showing the action itself. Whether the subjects in your picture look interested or not becomes irrelevant (and IMNSHO, aesthetically quite nominal)...so to answer your question, yes...it can absolutely matter what is going on. Your image fails to document what is going on. It tells no real or specific story.

If either one of those wallets in my image, however, had belonged to a crime victim, my image could be useful in a court of law--and for that matter--ultimately may be!

BTW--a child unlikely would have had the expression of the little girl if a tourist had been getting mugged...so your comment, Peter, is really pretty silly.

And to respond to your earlier comment:

"I photographed extensively in Paris over a period of two weeks and was never once confronted or abused - I guess it is all about how one carries oneself in any street..."

The "string men" and other con artists such as the ring people are strictly there to make money. It doesn't much matter to them whether you are touring or not...just whether they are going to get payed...the bottom line. Perhaps you just looked like a poor schmuck.

Hey Folks,

Not quite a Model but I think it at least qualifies for SP...

does street have to b on the street?

does street have to b on the street? under the street?

I got this shot at 200 mm only minutes after thwarting their onslaught, getting the finger, and being called a "bitch". And it smelled like urine right there where I got this shot.

maybe because you were shooting with a not-so-discrete bazooka?

btw--does anyone know what part of Africa these guys are from? Which country? They reminded me of the movie, Blood Diamond...set in South Africa.

And you know for a fact that they are from the continent of Africa because???

maybe because you were shooting with a not-so-discrete bazooka?

Nope. Do your homework on what has been written so far, so that you won't ask such ignorant and irrelevant questions.

I got this shot at 200 mm only minutes after thwarting their onslaught, getting the finger, and being called a "bitch". And it smelled like urine right there where I got this shot.

Perhaps you just looked like a clueless schmuck.

BTW--the anti-long lens attitude here is suggestive of a profound ignorance of photography in general. Obviously a long lens lets you shoot from a distance, which is intrinsically more discrete and less intrusive than getting in their face with a wide angle. (personally, I think the best way to shoot in the street with a wide lens [11-19 mm] is 'from the hip') Those dudes wouldn't let me photograph them. But with them having such a narrow and short attention span, and myopic view, I only had to get a bit up the hill to catch them in their act...with the wallets out no less. And I did the same thing later that day in another part of Montmartre (people who never saw me because I never let then get close enough)...those people can't see outside of the bubble of their scams. Really, it's sort of like animal photography, for which we use long lenses.

Oh, ...."And you know for a fact that they are from the continent of Africa because???"

I know for a fact that you are a photographer because??? You know for a fact that my lens could be characterized as a "bazooka" because??? Obviously we make reasonable assumptions. And based on what I have read, and on their accents, and on the *well known* current, as well as historical situation in Paris, it is quite reasonable to assume that these guys are from Africa. I mean, if you want to be absolutely epistological about it, I couldn't even confirm that these guys weren't from Ireland, Iceland, Russia, etc. Not relevant.

"Perhaps you just looked like a clueless schmuck."

Well, the clueless schmucks were actually the ones who I photographed getting scammed, not me. I brought my wallet home.

Loic,was she really that ugly?why chop her head off or should I look for a deeper meaning.It looks like you took this shot and could not place it in any catagory and so dumped it into SP(:>).

Chip Reuben: btw--does anyone know what part of Africa these guys are from? Which country?

They were born in Paris, which makes them French. You can't be serious!

Some people equate national origin with skin color, I guess.

You know I read the pieces on Chris Week's site, and I have to say that basically it sounds like a Leica commercial and I simply can't buy into this shoot film, use leica or it's not street thing. Load of rubbish.

Philip...I believe travel can still be street, however you have to remember we don't all live in the US! (Sorry this is one of my pet peeves with the online community!) So someone's pic of Manilla might be home for them. I live in Ukraine. Street pics of where I live may look like the pics you take when you travel. If I ever visit the US I'll make sure I post in the "travel" section ;)

Well, I think discussion is enough for me to decide that I will not be renewing my membership. Thanks for your time. Hakim

Street photography should be something out of the ordinary, should not include events,

and legs certainly are nice, not sure they belong in street photography

Myriam,I live in Toronto Canada and yet I can shoot travel style photos in my city and turn the corner and shoot SP .When I travel to New York or elsewhere I choose to shoot Travel or SP depending on the mood. When I mentioned Travel these were submissions firmly of that genre.........Hey Hakim don,t give up now its just getting interesting.Too bad we all could not have this discussion over a beer .I bet it would be much more civil and the bigots would hold their tongue.

*laugh it is the best medicine

Says someone who doesn't even post a single photo...

Are we allowed to take Street Photographs on boulevards and avenues? I mean alleys and crescents would be pushing it, but I think a pavilion should be allowed, given context of course. I won't even mention highways, not for any defining reason, more for the fact that one could get killed trying to take candid shots of cars speeding by.

Hey Peter ! Finally a belly shot !.Are you saving his legs for another posting?(:>)O= Thanks I needed laugh.Philip

References to "which part of Africa are these guys from", "the movie Blood Diamond" and "dark dudes" are completely irrelevant to this forum and in fact to the original posting. In the future, please leave statements like these out, as they can be construed as offensive and inappropriate. And please don't shut down or insult people who try to make it right.. You cannot make judgments on people's immigration status or origins by appearance or accent. As well, criminals come in all colours, shapes and sizes. Let's remember that. Just let the image stand by itself, please, and let's try to keep the discussion relevant.

Well, let's call this one a hybrid between "travel" and "street" photography. On our trip to the Sacre Coeur in the Montmartre part of Paris, I got this shot at 200 mm only minutes after thwarting their onslaught, getting the finger, and being called a "bitch". And it smelled like urine right there where I got this shot.

It's not what I'd call street photography. Of course, that doesn't mean you can't call it anything you like - hybrid is as good a word as any. But I think where this thread may be losing traction is in trying to define a genre in absolute terms. I don't know if it can be done - any more than it's possible to define in absolute terms what makes a good picture.

It seems to me that any interpretation is intrinsically personal, and depends on the vision of the photographer and the vision of the viewer. I try not to take pictures like yours because pictures like that don't interest me; not because there's anything wrong with them, but because there's an absence of certain aesthetic or subjective elements that I like. I'm drawn to pictures with stronger subjects, more dramatic visual style and a closer relationship with the viewer, ideally shot with a much shorter focal length to maintain that relationship. But that's my interpretation, based on my rules for what I like in pictures.

Having done a fair bit of street photography now, I've come to the conclusion that personal interpretation is everything. In the end you can only shoot for yourself. Maybe people will like it. Maybe not. In both cases they're right.

is this street? even if its not on the street?

Why has this forum become a magnet for complainers :)?

Ryan Swank wrote:

I read it and imo it's more of a rant. Stating that a rangefinder is a requirement for doing street photography is ridiculous and makes it clear that he's more concerned about doing street photography than creating street photography. He celebrates the rangefinder's viewfinder and then shows photos of how he shoots from the hip. He boasts about the rangefinder's quite shutter yet dismisses digital cameras even though some are an order of magnitude quieter than a rangefinder. Why do you need a rangefinder if you're going to pretend to photograph your girlfriend when you're really framing someone else? An SLR, P&S, or any other kind of camera will work just fine for that. He's treating his Leica as some kind of street photography magical amulet.

I think his essay is a great intro for anyone who wants to emulate the stereotype of a street photographer. But as an introduction to street photography itself, I think it is too narrow minded.

It's like a primer on motorcycle touring where the author insists that it can only be done on a Harley Davidson cruiser. The author's clear bias makes you wonder about the veracity of his other assertions.

larsbc

>>> I think his essay is a great intro for anyone who wants to emulate the stereotype of a street photographer. But as an introduction to street photography itself, I think it is too narrow minded.

Indeed. Essays like that are what helps keep leica in business; good for those wanting to embrace the romanticism of being at one with His HCBness.

Beyond that, it's a bunch of hooey...

Look past the Leica snobbery and read/feel about being in a moment and succeeding at capturing the perfect convergence of expression, scene, emotion. That being said, I'd say the majority of the photos in the article speak for themselves and only add credence to the "purist" opinion. I agree that the end result of many formats and techniques can achieve successful SP results. But the success rate is higher for followers of this mentality in my opinion.

Hakim Oerton: "... Well, I think discussion is enough for me to decide that I will not be renewing my membership. Thanks for your time. Hakim ..."

Hakim, Please reconsider, don't be swayed by one or two insensitive people. There are mostly positive folks on this forum. It's mostly overblown talk that is easy to do on the internet, the same people won't be saying such things in face-to-face situations.

">>> I think his essay is a great intro for anyone who wants to emulate the stereotype of a street photographer. But as an introduction to street photography itself, I think it is too narrow minded. Indeed. Essays like that are what helps keep leica in business; good for those wanting to embrace the romanticism of being at one with His HCBness. Beyond that, it's a bunch of hooey..."

Street Photography resists easy definition. The online literature is of course dominated by personal evocation. Regarding Leica M cameras- one either likes them or not. Most people who use them like them. It is probably an advantage to like what you are shooting with.

When people decide to broadcast their individual preferences as something more than just that - thats when I switch off.

hmm. well. okay. perhaps there needs to be a category for "Random Shots" as Street/Doc seems to have become a catch-all. i'd like to see a "Clubs/Concerts/Live Events" forum too.

the purpose of these forums is to share pics, tips, technique and feedback, right?. i guess PN could add categories for "Whiners" and "Trolls" but that wouldn't stop them from posting elsewhere.

Complaining about what street photography has become is not an exercise in being constructive; still, i think that despite the vague parameters of this particular forum, there is clearly both Street-style and Doc-style picture taking being posted here. It's hard to say exactly what it is but you know it when you see it. Street to me is informal settings, window into-a-world stuff; Doc is a form of photojournalism that tells a story with or without words. Everything else is, well, everything else.

here's a pic which is unmistakably both street and doc:

take two

"It looks like you took this shot and could not place it in any catagory and so dumped it into SP(:>)"

Hi Philip, no I did not dump it. I did not even ask myself the question of whether another Gallery should be appropriate for this photo. Having said that, you did not answer my question : in which of PN Gallery would you suggest it should have been posted ? . Oh but I forgot, you probably have never ask yourself this question, as you don't post any photo, I am sorry...

PS : reason why I have chopped her head off is not your call but mine only. Your call is only limited to like, dislike, or be indifferent, or hate it - and rate 3/3 (:->) PPS : the real duming ground for me is Abstract.....

now here's a pic that isn't really street or doc (unless you're talking about documenting live events), but IMO is an interesting shot. but it has nowhere on PN to go, except perhaps w/nw...

Manuel, Is the man in the rainstorm picture reverse HCB puddle jumper?

I have seen the photo above before, don't remember where, but no in fact it is a woman who rides the same bus I do. The rain was pouring down and the wind blowing so hard that the shelter that we were under was of little help. I was standing behind a large column protected from the rain some what when I took the photo.

This is Dwayne, chose to show his face out of respect for him, Dwayne wasted his brain on drugs. His favorite place to rest and sleep was next to the police station. This photo was taken there. I have been taking photos of street people for about 4 years now, some I have known since 1994, from my daily walks. Many of the street people are more then willing to pose especially when they are begging, but I prefer candid shots.

Hi Loic,Perhaps Digital alterations or Fashion. According to this forum or galleries it is my call to critique or ask of your creative motivation.In this way we all learn and grow.No offense was intended. I agree with you regarding Abstract. I gave up rating this,it was a chore.I am busy editing at the moment and will soon post photos.I look forward to your critique.

Someone said legs were street, isn't it?

Hi Philip, I did not thinkt about Digital alterations or Fashion, you are right. Still, I consider it as SP ! Looking forward for your photos.

In living color

I'm drawn to pictures with stronger subjects, more dramatic visual style and a closer relationship with the viewer, ideally shot with a much shorter focal length to maintain that relationship.

Here ya go...

I believe street photography to be interesting when it captures something of society - a picture of life in a given place at a given moment. Humour isn't a must but often a plus. This is my take:

Maybe the answer is that the pictures your calling "not" street are actually just bad photographs. If that is correct then I concur.

I'm sure the subject of the photo above (the one with 'cycles in it) is not very pleased that you used a shorter focal length to capture her fumbling in her crotch....just a thought..