What is "street photography"

bdcolen

I was struck by this definition of "street photography," which I think says pretty much all there is to say: :rofl

“Candid, un-staged photography which captures, explores or questions contemporary society and the relationships between individuals and their surroundings.

"Street photography is perhaps more easily defined as a method than a genre. The results can fit into documentary, portraiture and other genres, but the key elements of spontaneity, careful observation and an open mind ready to capture whatever appears in the viewfinder are essential. (emphasis is mine.)

http://londonstreetphotographyfestival.org/competitions/street-photography-award/entry-information-open

Richard

So if that's street photography, what do you call that same sort of photography when it's done, like, you know, on the street?

:hide

Andy

I can more easily tell you what it is NOT Telephoto lens shots, taken from a distance. That's not Street Photography. I think that you are part of the scene but not manipulating it.

I think the photos should be evocative - tell a story.

bdcolen

No argument at all with that, Andy. What I like about the definition I posted is it's breadth - and the idea, which I have been repeatedly pushing :-), "Street photography is perhaps more easily defined as a method than a genre." But absolutely - lose the telephotos - that's sniping, not shooting. ;-)

anonymouscuban

OK... so if the use of a telephoto lens is not Street Photography (I agree), then how do you feel about those that shoot from the hip or other positions the mislead the subject into believing they're being photographed? Oh... and what about shooting from inside a car while driving down a street?

One can argue that this is not Street for the very reasons "sniping" is not.

W.W. Webster

Andy wrote: »

I think the photos should be evocative - tell a story.

I agree Andy, and your image is a fine example.

However, and unfortunately, many 'street photography' images we see in this forum are no more than the result of someone pointing a camera along a footpath or around a fast food restaurant to snap an image without any merit whatsoever. In fact, IMHO, many of such images could have been captured by a pre-schooler.

anonymouscuban

W.W. Webster wrote: »

I agree Andy, and your image is a fine example.

However, and unfortunately, many 'street photography' images we see in this forum are no more than the result of someone pointing a camera along a footpath or around a fast food restaurant to snap an image without any merit whatsoever. In fact, IMHO, many of such images could have been captured by a pre-schooler.

Glad you made this post. Not saying my shots are any better but I often wonder if I am missing something. There are photos that are posted in this forum that I find quite pedestrian (pun intended), but get an overwhelming number of positive comments. Then there are other's that I think are fantastic and they get little to no attention.

Maybe I lack the eye or understanding of what makes a great "street photo" but after seeing that someone else feels the same way I do, I'm starting to think it's not me.

lizzard_nyc

anonymouscuban wrote: »

Glad you made this post. Not saying my shots are any better but I often wonder if I am missing something. There are photos that are posted in this forum that I find quite pedestrian (pun intended), but get an overwhelming number of positive comments. Then there are other's that I think are fantastic and they get little to no attention.

Maybe I lack the eye or understanding of what makes a great "street photo" but after seeing that someone else feels the same way I do, I'm starting to think it's not me.

Many newcomers are also wetting their feet and posting here, so if there is progress then encouragement follows, but yes when starting out, it almost does feel like one is a pre schooler, but that's how you start.
Not everyone posts great shots all the time. I try new things out and bomb, or I do my regular thing and bomb. They're not all going to be brilliant, I think that applies to all of us.
Also what blows me away may not blow others away, it can be subjective.

lizzard_nyc

W.W. Webster wrote: »

I agree Andy, and your image is a fine example.

However, and unfortunately, many 'street photography' images we see in this forum are no more than the result of someone pointing a camera along a footpath or around a fast food restaurant to snap an image without any merit whatsoever. In fact, IMHO, many of such images could have been captured by a pre-schooler.

Couldn't you also say that about any of the other subforums?

And arent' we getting away from the original point.

W.W. Webster

lizzard_nyc wrote: »

arent' we getting away from the original point.

I was simply comparing and contrasting Andy's image with many other so-called 'street photography' images posted here. That's all.

anonymouscuban

Liz,

I'm going to hang it out there and be very frank, I find this forum to be quite, "clique-ish"... not a real word but the best way to describe it. There are a group of people that frequent this board. Images posted by them get feedback and posts by "newcomers" don't. It's the only forum on Dgrin this way and it is probably why not many post here. I can see how it could be quite discouraging to many. I often see threads talk about encouraging people to develop their "Street" skills but this forum, IMO, does the opposite. I know this is my opinion but it is shared by quite a few other Dgrin members and is why I decided to post this.

bdcolen

lizzard_nyc wrote: »

Couldn't you also say that about any of the other subforums?

And arent' we getting away from the original point.

Thank you, Liz - A. We are definitely getting away from the original point. And B. There are no Gary Winnogrands or Helen Levitts here; there are, however, some very good photographers, some mediocre photographers, and some rank beginners. And thank goodness for that. The point is that everyone here has something to learn, room to grow, and this is a good environment in which to do both.

I should have known better, but I was not attempting to start yet another endless debate. I simply wanted to pass on a good, broad definition of street photography that stressed the ethos, rather than the place in which an image is shot.

Angelo

BD, I am so happy to see you post this and thanks to Andy for hitting the mark!

IMHO, all too often we see images posted here with no more justification for being in this forum than they being shot "outdoors".

An example: There was a recent image of a man walking along a path in a park-like setting. Comments, critique, encouragement, all followed in posts but none of that has anything to do with level of skill or whether the shot was "pedestrian", or whether the shot actually belonged in this forum rather than say "Landscapes" where it could've been moved.

As for "guerilla / in your face" vs "from the hip", I think there are important justifiable distinctions that both qualify as legitimate and viable Street Photography (I'll return with examples)

Angelo

Andy wrote: »

I can more easily tell you what it is NOT Telephoto lens shots, taken from a distance. That's not Street Photography. I think that you are part of the scene but not manipulating it...

so true! and supported by at least one of the greats...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWEzm2disjM&feature=channel

.

sara505

bdcolen wrote: »

I was struck by this definition of "street photography," which I think says pretty much all there is to say:

“Candid, un-staged photography which captures, explores or questions contemporary society and the relationships between individuals and their surroundings.

"Street photography is perhaps more easily defined as a method than a genre. The results can fit into documentary, portraiture and other genres, but the key elements of spontaneity, careful observation and an open mind ready to capture whatever appears in the viewfinder are essential. (emphasis is mine.)

http://londonstreetphotographyfestival.org/competitions/street-photography-award/entry-information-open

Uh-oh - slow day at work?

Richard

sara505 wrote: »

Uh-oh - slow day at work?

pathfinder

Andy wrote: »

I can more easily tell you what it is NOT Telephoto lens shots, taken from a distance. That's not Street Photography. I think that you are part of the scene but not manipulating it.

I think the photos should be evocative - tell a story.

I am almost afraid to post this, but since anonymouscuban has already opened the thread to frank discussion, I think I will continue it.

How, exactly, would this image have been different whether shot with a 50mm or a 200mm lens, Andy, as long as you captured the same peripheral borders of the frame?

I have watched several well known, published photographers shooting in the street with 70-300mm lenses.

Jay Maisel was one of them. I think some of his images would certainly fit the criteria of street. Not all, certainly, but some. Most of the images you see of folks in front of signs from across the street are shot with teles, not wide angles. Even some of Richard's. I'll bet.

BD's definition of street photography "“Candid, un-staged photography which captures, explores or questions contemporary society and the relationships between individuals and their surroundings" has no specific requirement of shooter-subject interaction whatsoever. BD's train shots do not always portray subjects who are aware of his shooting them. Some do, some don't. I wonder if some of them were hip shots due to the low angle of view.

Walker Evans shot folks in the tube, with a hidden, camouflaged camera. Were those not street shots?

If you are really in close, aren't you actually at risk of altering what you are trying to record, by your very presence? Kind of a Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle applied to photography? Wildlife shooters have to avoid getting too close before they actually drive off their subjects, is not the same effect present in the street sometime, too?


Is focal length really that critical a dimension in whether an image is street?

Andy

pathfinder wrote: »

I am almost afraid to post this, but since anonymouscuban has already opened the thread to frank discussion, I think I will continue it.

How, exactly, would this image have been different whether shot with a 50mm or a 200mm lens, Andy, as long as you captured the same peripheral borders of the frame?

Technically it wouldn't. But I engage with my street subjects. He knew I was shooting his pic and he didn't complain, because I was right there

anonymouscuban

pathfinder wrote: »

I am almost afraid to post this, but since anonymouscuban has already opened the thread to frank discussion, I think I will continue it.

How, exactly, would this image have been different whether shot with a 50mm or a 200mm lens, Andy, as long as you captured the same peripheral borders of the frame?

I have watched several well known, published photographers shooting in the street with 70-300mm lenses.

Jay Maisel was one of them. I think some of his images would certainly fit the criteria of street. Not all, certainly, but some. Most of the images you see of folks in front of signs from across the street are shot with teles, not wide angles. Even some of Richard's. I'll bet.

BD's definition of street photography "“Candid, un-staged photography which captures, explores or questions contemporary society and the relationships between individuals and their surroundings" has no specific requirement of shooter-subject interaction whatsoever. BD's train shots do not always portray subjects who are aware of his shooting them. Some do, some don't. I wonder if some of them were hip shots due to the low angle of view.

Walker Evans shot folks in the tube, with a hidden, camouflaged camera. Were those not street shots?

If you are really in close, aren't you actually at risk of altering what you are trying to record, by your very presence? Kind of a Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle applied to photography? Wildlife shooters have to avoid getting too close before they actually drive off their subjects, is not the same effect present in the street sometime, too?


Is focal length really that critical a dimension in whether an image is street?

Great post Path... rather thought provoking.

Firehouses of Ohio

Andy wrote: »

Technically it wouldn't. But I engage with my street subjects. He knew I was shooting his pic and he didn't complain, because I was right there

When I first started out shooting on the fireground my presence was felt and eventually accepted and now it's more of a brotherly kind of thing to make sure even though I work hard not to get in a bad spot or hurt I don't get that way. There are times I don't want my guys to know I'm there and while I do very little outside of that comfort zone and when that does happen depending on the person they can tell feel that your nervous or feel out of place.


I really don't like even setting up a firetruck shoot because sometimes what you find what's undisturbed works the best, hey what do I know right?

Qarik

while we are letting it all hang out..I don't think this sub forum is any more clique like then any other sub-forum. That said I think this sub-forum has more then it's share of uninspiring shots. But when someone hits here..wow! like that board walk shot with the bicycle and seagull. You just have to wade through oceans of mediocrity to find those gems. I like to peruse the forum though because you can a real sense of americana/culture here that you can't get in other forums.

pathfinder

Engagement is fine, Andy, I know you do that, and I respect that, but that certainly is not true of all street photographers, is it?

I am not trying to create dissension here, but really trying to understand, with respect, exactly what comprises street photography. Or how big is the basket of street shooting?

I think I have a pretty good idea, but then folks introduce all these rules and I think a lot of us get confused....

We had this discussion thread about focal lengths last year

I have a friend who can shoot his DSLR with a 12-24mm lens on the street with remarkable ability to frame and capture really neat stuff with the camera held down at his waist in one hand, while looking in a different direction, while never looking through the viewfinder. Kind of a neat skill to have at times, but is that sniping??

Richard

I suppose I've said all this before, but I don't mind repeating. Postmodernists insist that the text is all there is and that applies to images as well. The only thing that matters to me is the pic, not the lens that was used, what PP may have been done or whether the subject knew the photographer's intentions or not. If the image is great, the image is great and if not, well, who cares how it was taken? That's not to say that there are no practical differences between shooting long and shooting wide or between looking through a viewfinder and shooting from the hip--there are, and you have to adjust your thinking and technique accordingly. Similarly, engaging with the subject or not is a choice you make; you can get great images and lousy images either way.

I tune right out when I see claims that unless you are following some arbitrary rule or other, you are not truly doing street photography. The important question to me is, does the image work? Everyone is entitled to his own set of rules and standards, of course, but please recognize that there are many other approaches out there that may also produce stunning results.

Patti

So, if you're in the mix so to speak and your subjects realize you're shooting them, it still falls into the street genre? I've hesitated posting such photos thinking that because my subject had cottoned on, they did not fit the genre. An example:

Richard

Fits in fine as far as I'm concerned. And it's a good shot.

sara505

pathfinder wrote: »

I am almost afraid to post this, but since anonymouscuban has already opened the thread to frank discussion, I think I will continue it.

How, exactly, would this image have been different whether shot with a 50mm or a 200mm lens, Andy, as long as you captured the same peripheral borders of the frame?

I have watched several well known, published photographers shooting in the street with 70-300mm lenses.

Jay Maisel was one of them. I think some of his images would certainly fit the criteria of street. Not all, certainly, but some. Most of the images you see of folks in front of signs from across the street are shot with teles, not wide angles. Even some of Richard's. I'll bet.

BD's definition of street photography "“Candid, un-staged photography which captures, explores or questions contemporary society and the relationships between individuals and their surroundings" has no specific requirement of shooter-subject interaction whatsoever. BD's train shots do not always portray subjects who are aware of his shooting them. Some do, some don't. I wonder if some of them were hip shots due to the low angle of view.

Walker Evans shot folks in the tube, with a hidden, camouflaged camera. Were those not street shots?

If you are really in close, aren't you actually at risk of altering what you are trying to record, by your very presence? Kind of a Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle applied to photography? Wildlife shooters have to avoid getting too close before they actually drive off their subjects, is not the same effect present in the street sometime, too?


Is focal length really that critical a dimension in whether an image is street?

Excellent points, and well written.

I submit that none of it is carved in stone. My style leans towards up close and engaged, but there are times to use a longer lens; times to interact, times to be a fly on the wall, though I'm not a fan of sniping and snooping. I've said it before, but let's leave dogma where it belongs, in religion.

Andy

pathfinder wrote: »

Engagement is fine, Andy, I know you do that, and I respect that, but that certainly is not true of all street photographers, is it?

You are correct. Doubt the man flying across the puddle or the guy on the bike knew about HCB's presence. But the boy with the wine bottles did. There aren't absolutes, that's for sure.

bdcolen

Andy wrote: »

You are correct. Doubt the man flying across the puddle or the guy on the bike knew about HCB's presence. But the boy with the wine bottles did. There aren't absolutes, that's for sure.

Sorry to jump back in, but. While I agree with you, Andy, about not using long lenses, I do not agree at all on the issue of engagement. While there are people who do outstanding 'street portraiture,' to me the idea of street shooting is to capture life in the street as it occurs, without interfering with it. If I engage my subjects, I am having a direct impact upon their lives and behavior, and am not capturing life as it occurs; I am not capturing reality. That doesn't make engaging wrong, it just suggests that it is a different kind of photography. I agree entirely about using 'normal' or wide lenses, because I believe they are necessary to convey a sense of immediacy, of being there, that a long lens simply does not convey.

damonff

It doesn't matter at all whether you use a wide, a normal, or a super tele or whether or not you engage or whether you use a digital sensor or film. The only thing that matters is the photograph.

sara505

Patti wrote: »

So, if you're in the mix so to speak and your subjects realize you're shooting them, it still falls into the street genre? I've hesitated posting such photos thinking that because my subject had cottoned on, they did not fit the genre. An example:

This is a great photo that needs no explanation, commentary, or excuses - whatsoever.clap

rdalland

I think this is a valuable discussion, and am glad to see it. Obviously, the definition of Street Photography is not black and white...

This site brings me some clarity about what is and what isn't Street Photography: http://www.street-photographers.com/

Does this shot meet the criteria for "Street Photography"?



(Taken at 120mm w/telephoto lens.)