Is this Street?

WhatSheSaw

Still trying to understand this genre.

#1


#2

bdcolen

WhatSheSaw wrote:

Still trying to understand this genre.

#1]

First, I'm going to say - Lovely images; particularly the first! Next I'm going to say - yes.
I'm not going to get into another food fight over what is or isn't Street Photography. But I will, yet again, urge anyone interested in the subject to familiarize herself with the work of Gary Winnogrand, Helen Levitt, Lee Friedlander, Joel Myerowitz - the early work; and others. I will opine, once again, that studying - looking at - the work of other photographers is a necessity if you want to improve your own. For what it's worth, over the past 15 years I have built a library of about 120+ books of photography. I realize that not everyone would consider this a good investment - though many of the books are now worth multiples of what I paid for them (and Amazon offers photo books for about 40 percent off cover price). But the images in these books have been the source of my photo education.
Now with the internet you don't even need to go to the library to find examples of the work of great photographers - you can find it on line.

phillybikeboy

bdcolen wrote:

But I will, yet again, urge anyone interested in the subject to familiarize herself with the work of Gary Winnogrand, Helen Levitt, Lee Friedlander, Joel Myerowitz - the early work; and others.

Would you hate me for invoking the name of Weegee?

bdcolen

phillybikeboy wrote:

Would you hate me for invoking the name of Weegee?

Not at all The only reason I didn't include him his that his stuff is such a mix of what we'd call "street" and what would be called "photo journalism." (Although in today's world, Weegee would have been canned as a PJ within about three minutes because so many of his images were 'arranged.'

WhatSheSaw

Thanks, B.D.! I will look at the work of the photographers you mentioned. I have looked up other folks that I have seen mentioned here. Sometimes I look at an image and I can see why they are good and other times I am puzzled.

Being the analytical type, I am developing some guidelines.
1. Get a story. Architectural images can be good, but they are not necessarily street & PJ.
2. Get close - with few exceptions. Richard's photo of the man on the curvy steet works.
3. Catch expressions - either body language or facial expressions.
4. Composition and focus and other technical qualities take a back seat to the first 3, but should still be considered.

Richard

The guidelines you listed are all worthwhile. Do keep in mind that the most important thing is to get a good pic, not a street pic. I say this because sometimes we spend more time talking about categories than the pics themselves, which can get a little tiring.

I completely agree with BD about the value of looking at what other photographers have done. Not only will it help you to improve, but it is a great source of pleasure. Masters of Photography is a nice Web site for a quick and easy introduction to many of the names we see mentioned here frequently and others as well. There are also a few links to the work of some of the masters in the Tips, Threads and Inspiration sticky at the top of this forum.

I like both of the shots you posted, the first for its color and sense of movement, the second for the reflection and detail on the boot. Good job. Oh, and yeah FWIW, it's street.

bdcolen

WhatSheSaw wrote:

Thanks, B.D.! I will look at the work of the photographers you mentioned. I have looked up other folks that I have seen mentioned here. Sometimes I look at an image and I can see why they are good and other times I am puzzled.

Being the analytical type, I am developing some guidelines.
1. Get a story. Architectural images can be good, but they are not necessarily street & PJ.
2. Get close - with few exceptions. Richard's photo of the man on the curvy steet works.
3. Catch expressions - either body language or facial expressions.
4. Composition and focus and other technical qualities take a back seat to the first 3, but should still be considered.

These are good, but I would definitely ad Richard's admonition to first of all, get a good image. I would also add - look for humor, pathos, AMBIGUITY, conflict, etc. ALSO - do keep in mind that street photography and photo journalism are two very different things. Photo journalism is journalism produced with a camera, it involves covering an event, telling a specific story. It usually - of course there are exceptions - requires getting caption material (subject IDs, location, a brief description of what's happening, etc.) VERY, VERY little of what gets posted here is photo journalism.

phillybikeboy

WhatSheSaw wrote:

1. Get a story. Architectural images can be good, but they are not necessarily street & PJ.

Hopefully I'm not picking linguistic nits (and forgive me if I am), but "get a story" is a bit too confining. Among photojournalists, a phrase you'll often hear is "capture a moment." Quite often a great shot doesn't have even the smallest bit of storytelling, but has some intangible thing going on. For my money, one of the best street shooters out there is Michael Penn. Some of his shots tell a story, but many don't. Check this one out. Story? Probably not, but there sure is a moment there.

The point is, don't over think this. Take good pictures, and don't worry so much about which category the fit into, or if they even fit at all.

WhatSheSaw

Thanks, Phillybikeboy! Michael Penn has some great shots!

Thanks, B.D.! Part of the guidelines is an attempt to understand what makes a good image. Certainly, technical qualities, like composition and focus, are part of it. But a photo can be technically great and still fall short. And it can be technically poor and yet be a great photo. Thanks for the clarification on PJ.

Thanks, Richard! Especially for the link to Masters of Photography. I'll be walking through them over the next while. I think I have been through everything in the Tips, Threads, and Inspiration, but I will go back through. I may have missed something the first time. And I may get something different from a second look at a photo.

bdcolen

phillybikeboy wrote:

Hopefully I'm not picking linguistic nits (and forgive me if I am), but "get a story" is a bit too confining. Among photojournalists, a phrase you'll often hear is "capture a moment." Quite often a great shot doesn't have even the smallest bit of storytelling, but has some intangible thing going on. For my money, one of the best street shooters out there is Michael Penn. Some of his shots tell a story, but many don't. Check this one out. Story? Probably not, but there sure is a moment there.

The point is, don't over think this. Take good pictures, and don't worry so much about which category the fit into, or if they even fit at all.

First, you're absolutely correct that the goal is to get great pictures and not to worry about categories - although as long as we're posting here, it would be nice if images fit into one of the three state categories here - street, pj, and documentary.

As to street and pj - no, street photos often don't tell a specific story - but they almost always suggest one, or many stories, which tend to be in the mind's eye of the beholder. But in terms of photo journalism - again, photo journalism is photography by journalists who carry cameras rather than pens and notebooks. The shot the PJ is trying to get usually is expected to have news value, either by itself or as illustration for a story. Someone functioning as a photo journalist doesn't simply go out to get "good shots" of random nothingness. The photojournalists is getting good shots that help readers of newspapers, magazines, news websites, better understand events and stories. At least that's the goal.

P.S. I really like allot of Michael Penn's stuff, though it's way over processed for my taste. Thanks for pointing it out.

Dogdots

I really like those boots and the 1st one is my favorite

Wonder if they have those boots in my size

WhatSheSaw

Thanks, DogDots! They really take on a life of their own.

NYC Collector

phillybikeboy wrote:

Hopefully I'm not picking linguistic nits (and forgive me if I am), but "get a story" is a bit too confining. Among photojournalists, a phrase you'll often hear is "capture a moment." Quite often a great shot doesn't have even the smallest bit of storytelling, but has some intangible thing going on. For my money, one of the best street shooters out there is Michael Penn. Some of his shots tell a story, but many don't. Check this one out. Story? Probably not, but there sure is a moment there.

The point is, don't over think this. Take good pictures, and don't worry so much about which category the fit into, or if they even fit at all.

That's right, genre lines in photography are becoming blurred but there are still photographers, dealers collectors and galleries that try categorize every photograph. Michael Penn's work has been getting a lot of attention lately and deserving so. I purchased three of his photographs while they're still affordable a couple of months ago and they hang on the wall next to Trent Parke, Daido Moriyama, Bruce Davidson and Fan Ho. When friends come over some call them "fine art" while some will call the same photograph "street", "urban" or "documentary". Some are so worried about classifying a photograph that they take the enjoyment away.

NYC Collector

WhatSheSaw wrote:

Thanks, B.D.! I will look at the work of the photographers you mentioned. I have looked up other folks that I have seen mentioned here. Sometimes I look at an image and I can see why they are good and other times I am puzzled.

Being the analytical type, I am developing some guidelines.
1. Get a story. Architectural images can be good, but they are not necessarily street & PJ.
2. Get close - with few exceptions. Richard's photo of the man on the curvy steet works.
3. Catch expressions - either body language or facial expressions.
4. Composition and focus and other technical qualities take a back seat to the first 3, but should still be considered.

I prefer the second photo