Does Street Photography Need People ?

mikepennmikepenn Registered Users Posts: 214 Major grins
edited May 26, 2010 in Street and Documentary
Well ?

Does Street Photography Need People In It ? 28 votes

Yes
35% 10 votes
No
60% 17 votes
I don't know
3% 1 vote

Comments

  • michswissmichswiss Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 2,235 Major grins
    edited May 20, 2010
    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.

    Cat's also work also :D
  • sabeshsabesh Registered Users Posts: 194 Major grins
    edited May 20, 2010
    Nope, there's a lot of interesting non-human objects and events in the street.
  • mikepennmikepenn Registered Users Posts: 214 Major grins
    edited May 21, 2010
    I thought the poll would show up ?
  • sabeshsabesh Registered Users Posts: 194 Major grins
    edited May 21, 2010
    mikepenn wrote: »
    I thought the poll would show up ?
    They have some sorta restriction here. Happened to me when I posted a poll earlier too:

    http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=166521

    I think it has to be approved by a Mod before being made public.
  • RichardRichard Administrators, Vanilla Admin Posts: 19,893 moderator
    edited May 21, 2010
    sabesh wrote: »
    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.
  • RichardRichard Administrators, Vanilla Admin Posts: 19,893 moderator
    edited May 21, 2010
    mikepenn wrote: »
    Well ?

    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.
  • WillCADWillCAD Registered Users Posts: 722 Major grins
    edited May 21, 2010
    Though it's called "Street" photography, to me it's always meant "people on the street" or "candid portrait" photography.

    Pics of stuff without people would seem to fall under other categories to me, such as Urban Landscape or Architecture.
    What I said when I saw the Grand Canyon for the first time: "The wide ain't wide enough and the zoom don't zoom enough!"
  • thoththoth Registered Users Posts: 1,085 Major grins
    edited May 21, 2010
    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.
    Travis
  • mikepennmikepenn Registered Users Posts: 214 Major grins
    edited May 21, 2010
    Sorry i wasn't more clear when i posted this.

    Does a street photograph require people or a person to be present in the photograph ?
  • DaddyODaddyO Registered Users Posts: 4,466 Major grins
    edited May 21, 2010
    An interesting conversation and I am glad to be exposed to its features. :D
    Michael
  • PattiPatti Registered Users Posts: 1,576 Major grins
    edited May 22, 2010
    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.

    patti hinton photography
  • mikepennmikepenn Registered Users Posts: 214 Major grins
    edited May 22, 2010
    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.
  • thoththoth Registered Users Posts: 1,085 Major grins
    edited May 23, 2010
    mikepenn wrote: »
    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.
    Travis
  • FlowermanFlowerman Registered Users Posts: 141 Major grins
    edited May 24, 2010
    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.
  • bdcolenbdcolen Registered Users Posts: 3,804 Major grins
    edited May 25, 2010
    Streets without people?
    mikepenn wrote: »
    Well ?

    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.wings.gif
    bd@bdcolenphoto.com
    "He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan

    "The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
  • thoththoth Registered Users Posts: 1,085 Major grins
    edited May 25, 2010
    bdcolen wrote: »
    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.wings.gif
    Are you calling me vague, B.D.? :D

    Yes, that is very much what I meant and I do appreciate you putting it down more succinctly. thumb.gif
    Travis
  • W.W. WebsterW.W. Webster Registered Users Posts: 3,204 Major grins
    edited May 25, 2010
    mikepenn wrote: »
    Does a street photograph require people or a person to be present in the photograph ?

    Thank you for Voting on this poll. The results will be announced shortly!
    ne_nau.gif
  • mikepennmikepenn Registered Users Posts: 214 Major grins
    edited May 25, 2010
    I was expecting a percentage closer to 75% to 25%
  • bdcolenbdcolen Registered Users Posts: 3,804 Major grins
    edited May 26, 2010
    thoth wrote: »
    Are you calling me vague, B.D.? :D

    Yes, that is very much what I meant and I do appreciate you putting it down more succinctly. thumb.gif


    Not calling you vague at all - just 'borrowing' from you, or repeating what you said, or rephrasing, or something like that...thumb.gif
    bd@bdcolenphoto.com
    "He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan

    "The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
  • thoththoth Registered Users Posts: 1,085 Major grins
    edited May 26, 2010
    bdcolen wrote: »
    Not calling you vague at all - just 'borrowing' from you, or repeating what you said, or rephrasing, or something like that...thumb.gif
    thumb.gif
    Travis
Sign In or Register to comment.