Not true street, but shot in public as found

bdcolen

Okay, this is NOT what we normally think of as a street photo...or....
But it was not posed, not set up, and was in a public park. On the other hand - nah, it's not a street photo...but I like it.:rofl

pgaviria

How do you define street photography?

bdcolen

How I define "Street Photography."

pgaviria wrote:

How do you define street photography?

First, let me preface this by saying that I hope that this subforum becomes a home for candid photography, capturing reality in any number of ways, and that we don't limit it strictly to real "Street Photography."

Okay, so what is "Street Photography?"

First, let me state what it is not: "Street Photography" is not simply a photo you happened to shoot in the street. What "Street Photography" is as a photographic genre is photography of people in public settings that captures the ambiguity, humor, surprise, horror, pathos, comedy, tragedy, and just plain normality of life around us - in interesting ways. "Street photography" encompasses the in-your-face style of a Weegee or Bruce Gliden's flash pops, the "What-the-F#*K?!" surprise of a Winnogrand, the subtle humor and underlying kindness of a Helen Levitt, the surrealism/formalism of a Cartier-Bresson, and the sweeping, all-encompassing grandeur of Eugene Smith's Pittsburgh project. (Which is also documentary photography). Serious "Street Photography" is not something approached with a beer in one hand and a camera in the other. It is not a game of visual 'grab-ass' played on the street. Like any other serious photography, good Street Photography requires skill, hard work, thought, planning, and careful execution, even if it looks casual.

I, for one, do not intend to point out that a particular image posted here is "not a Street Photo," unless the poster labels it as such. If you just post a candid image, I'm going to look at it at what it is - a candid image.

divamum

Tangential question: how does this differ from "documentary"?

I've never thought about the definition in "street" photog detail before, but to me street photog is

- not posed
- public environment
- subject often not aware of the photograph being taken
- says something more than the bald facts of "this is what was there" - has a juxtaposition or some kind of *message* above and beyond the visual aesthetics or interest

But (rereading) perhaps this is simply repeating what you said above in different words

Interesting question and answers, BD - I hope it spurs some good discussion!

seastack

bdcolen wrote:

Serious "Street Photography" is not something approached with a beer in one hand and a camera in the other.

Although there are always exceptions, if I were to take that statement literally, and beer bottles do make decent flash modifiers on occasion )

bdcolen

divamum wrote:

Tangential question: how does this differ from "documentary"?

I've never thought about the definition in "street" photog detail before, but to me street photog is

- not posed
- public environment
- subject often not aware of the photograph being taken
- says something more than the bald facts of "this is what was there" - has a juxtaposition or some kind of *message* above and beyond the visual aesthetics or interest

But (rereading) perhaps this is simply repeating what you said above in different words

Interesting question and answers, BD - I hope it spurs some good discussion!

Essentially you have - repeated what I said in different words.

Richard

Street photography is any damn photograph you take on the street.
:hide

But what is good street photography?

BD has given a nice, concise summary of what has made a few of the great street photographers so famous. I think that it's a mistake, though, to think that we have to do what they did in order to "qualify" as street photographers. Learn and emulate, certainly, but only as a first step in developing a personal approach and style. The urban environment is incredibly rich in imagery. You can be sure that the next "great" street photographer will not achieve fame by imitating Winogrand or HCB or even by mastering their methods, but rather by finding a new way of seeing what we have overlooked until now.

divamum

bdcolen wrote:

Essentially you have - repeated what I said in different words.

Hey, it's Sunday morning and I was up half the night with a leaky roof. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.....

bdcolen

Richard wrote:

Street photography is any damn photograph you take on the street.
:hide

But what is good street photography?

BD has given a nice, concise summary of what has made a few of the great street photographers so famous. I think that it's a mistake, though, to think that we have to do what they did in order to "qualify" as street photographers. Learn and emulate, certainly, but only as a first step in developing a personal approach and style. The urban environment is incredibly rich in imagery. You can be sure that the next "great" street photographer will not achieve fame by imitating Winogrand or HCB or even by mastering their methods, but rather by finding a new way of seeing what we have overlooked until now.

Richard - all due respect - but what street photography precisely is not is "any damn photograph you take on the street." I agree completely with you that people should develop their own style and approach, but street photography really is an established photographic genre that is much more than photographs of yet another fat guy eating a hot dog.

Richard

bdcolen wrote:

Richard - all due respect - but what street photography precisely is not is "any damn photograph you take on the street." I agree completely with you that people should develop their own style and approach, but street photography really is an established photographic genre that is much more than photographs of yet another fat guy eating a hot dog.

OK, so I was being provocative. But I really do think it's important to avoid being bound by the past. Respect it, learn from it but keep moving on. And above all, don't get hung up on definitions. He not busy being born, and all that.

Sc0tty

bdcolen wrote:

First, let me preface this by saying that I hope that this subforum becomes a home for candid photography, capturing reality in any number of ways, and that we don't limit it strictly to real "Street Photography."

Okay, so what is "Street Photography?"

First, let me state what it is not: "Street Photography" is not simply a photo you happened to shoot in the street. What "Street Photography" is as a photographic genre is photography of people in public settings that captures the ambiguity, humor, surprise, horror, pathos, comedy, tragedy, and just plain normality of life around us - in interesting ways. "Street photography" encompasses the in-your-face style of a Weegee or Bruce Gliden's flash pops, the "What-the-F#*K?!" surprise of a Winnogrand, the subtle humor and underlying kindness of a Helen Levitt, the surrealism/formalism of a Cartier-Bresson, and the sweeping, all-encompassing grandeur of Eugene Smith's Pittsburgh project. (Which is also documentary photography). Serious "Street Photography" is not something approached with a beer in one hand and a camera in the other. It is not a game of visual 'grab-ass' played on the street. Like any other serious photography, good Street Photography requires skill, hard work, thought, planning, and careful execution, even if it looks casual.

I, for one, do not intend to point out that a particular image posted here is "not a Street Photo," unless the poster labels it as such. If you just post a candid image, I'm going to look at it at what it is - a candid image.

You've turned me on to Bruce Gilden! Helen Levitt is great as well. Thank you for bringing attention to these types of street photographers, they truely are great.

rutt

But it's a very cool shot. I like how the reflection gives it a 90-degree symmetry.

bdcolen

rutt wrote:

But it's a very cool shot. I like how the reflection gives it a 90-degree symmetry.

My daughter, a School of the Museum of Fine Arts grad who works at a major photo gallery in NYC and is thinking about these things 24/7, points out the following -
"I also might point out that street photography really became a thing when urban people really lived
a lot of their life on the street. The socializing, the playing, even the marketing. Ones' neighborhood was an extension of ones home. So in some ways, these photographers were not just documenting a random
great moment on the street."

More to think about. :-)

And, yes, Richard, we hopefully evolve, reinvent, constantly move on. My point is simply that a shot that happens to be taken in public is not automatically a "street photo." But I'm being pedantic. :ivar

Tina Manley

I agree totally with B.D.'s definition of street photography. 98% of what I do is not street photography, though. It's not urban, in public or on a street. Most of my photography is done in rural settings, in a home. The people are certainly aware that I'm there taking photos, but I hope that they've gotten so used to me that they are ignoring me and my cameras. I think of what I do as documentary photography which I hope fits into the larger definition of photojournalism and is, therefore, allowed in this forum! I'm glad we're discussing all of this. It's very interesting.

Tina
www.tinamanley.com

bdcolen

Tina Manley wrote:

I agree totally with B.D.'s definition of street photography. 98% of what I do is not street photography, though. It's not urban, in public or on a street. Most of my photography is done in rural settings, in a home. The people are certainly aware that I'm there taking photos, but I hope that they've gotten so used to me that they are ignoring me and my cameras. I think of what I do as documentary photography which I hope fits into the larger definition of photojournalism and is, therefore, allowed in this forum! I'm glad we're discussing all of this. It's very interesting.

Tina
www.tinamanley.com

What you do absolutely is documentary photography, Tina, and absolutely belongs here! I might argue that while it's documentary, it's not journalism, because it's commissioned for clients. But so was the most iconic of all documentary photography, the work of the FSA photographers during the 1930s - so...

michswiss

bdcolen wrote:

My daughter, a School of the Museum of Fine Arts grad who works at a major photo gallery in NYC and is thinking about these things 24/7, points out the following -
"I also might point out that street photography really became a thing when urban people really lived
a lot of their life on the street. The socializing, the playing, even the marketing. Ones' neighborhood was an extension of ones home. So in some ways, these photographers were not just documenting a random
great moment on the street."

One of the things that makes street photography in China interesting to me is how private lives and settings spill into public spaces. The street is full of what would otherwise be intimate and hidden. I think a lot of those opportunities are lost, or are somewhat contrived in most of today's modern western settings.