Literally? No. But for me there needs to be a connection or allusion to people. So, yes. But I'll agree in advance with others that Street is an approach and ethos to photography as much as the actual content.
The one rule I really believe in is that there are no rules. Human presence tends to make shots more interesting, but one sees plenty of banal people-on-the-street pics. And you don't need people to convey human presence--laundry will do, for example, or a discarded pair of eye glasses, or an empty shopping cart. The trick is to make it visually interesting. As I have said many times before, I have little interest in discussing taxonomy.
I said no entirely on a technicality as I assume you want to know if a person must be present in a street photograph. While I do consider street photography (I prefer B.D.'s 'Real Life' or the 'Candid' nomenclature) to be entirely about people, a particular photograph need not contain a person to be about them.
If your poll means to say, 'Does street have to be about people?' then I say yes, absolutely.
I agree that the photo has to have some illusion of human existence in it, as Richard mentioned, something personal to human existence. I also agree that without that, photos become urban landscape/architecture which I also like.
The use of a camera is similar to that of a knife. You can use it to peel potatoes, or carve a flute. ~ E. Kahlmeyer
... I'm still peeling potatoes.
This is where personal opinion comes into to play. To some photographers the human "element" or "existence" means anything made by the hand of man. It can get confusing to some, when I was at the Aipad show in NYC I was listening to three gallery owners discuss what category/genre an Atget photograph belonged in and they all had a different opinion, it's one of the reasons I started this thread.
This is where personal opinion comes into to play. To some photographers the human "element" or "existence" means anything made by the hand of man. It can get confusing to some, when I was at the Aipad show in NYC I was listening to three gallery owners discuss what category/genre an Atget photograph belonged in and they all had a different opinion, it's one of the reasons I started this thread.
I suspect there are as many opinions about this as there are consumers of street photography. Much of what is 'street' is subject to endless debate and that, for me, gives it a life that other genres do not have. The genre is as ambiguous as the subject matter.
I voted Yes a person has to be included. When I look at a "Street" photo I place myself in the middle of what is presented. If I can't relate - no WOW factor from me - cpature missed it.
I think Travis said it best - if he said this: A "street photograph" has to be about people, whether or not it includes a person or persons.
What we think of as street photography developed in an era before air conditioning, when people lived on the street. Street photographers captured all manner of city life - everything from children playing hopscotch to people sleeping on fire escapes, to the kinds of scenes and oddities that Weegee captured.
I consider street photography to be more of a way of seeing, than being photographs taken in a particular place, or "street." The street can be a country lane, it can be a store in the mall. Street photography is photography is non-journalistic photography of the human condition, in all its forms and with all its quirks.
Which, as Travis either noted or as I wish he had, is why I would much rather this forum be called "Candids," or " or "Real life" because those labels are less confusing, and less likely to cause debates and arguments, than "street." They are also less likely to get us photographs of...streets.
I think Travis said it best - if he said this: A "street photograph" has to be about people, whether or not it includes a person or persons.
...
Which, as Travis either noted or as I wish he had, is why I would much rather this forum be called "Candids," or " or "Real life" because those labels are less confusing, and less likely to cause debates and arguments, than "street." They are also less likely to get us photographs of...streets.
Are you calling me vague, B.D.?
Yes, that is very much what I meant and I do appreciate you putting it down more succinctly.
Comments
Cat's also work also
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=166521
I think it has to be approved by a Mod before being made public.
Polls do not need mod approval. There is sometimes a delay before they appear, which is a peculiarity of the forum software.
The one rule I really believe in is that there are no rules. Human presence tends to make shots more interesting, but one sees plenty of banal people-on-the-street pics. And you don't need people to convey human presence--laundry will do, for example, or a discarded pair of eye glasses, or an empty shopping cart. The trick is to make it visually interesting. As I have said many times before, I have little interest in discussing taxonomy.
Pics of stuff without people would seem to fall under other categories to me, such as Urban Landscape or Architecture.
If your poll means to say, 'Does street have to be about people?' then I say yes, absolutely.
Does a street photograph require people or a person to be present in the photograph ?
... I'm still peeling potatoes.
patti hinton photography
I think Travis said it best - if he said this: A "street photograph" has to be about people, whether or not it includes a person or persons.
What we think of as street photography developed in an era before air conditioning, when people lived on the street. Street photographers captured all manner of city life - everything from children playing hopscotch to people sleeping on fire escapes, to the kinds of scenes and oddities that Weegee captured.
I consider street photography to be more of a way of seeing, than being photographs taken in a particular place, or "street." The street can be a country lane, it can be a store in the mall. Street photography is photography is non-journalistic photography of the human condition, in all its forms and with all its quirks.
Which, as Travis either noted or as I wish he had, is why I would much rather this forum be called "Candids," or " or "Real life" because those labels are less confusing, and less likely to cause debates and arguments, than "street." They are also less likely to get us photographs of...streets.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
Yes, that is very much what I meant and I do appreciate you putting it down more succinctly.
Not calling you vague at all - just 'borrowing' from you, or repeating what you said, or rephrasing, or something like that...
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed