Studying the masters takes us above and beyond our own thoughts and ideas, expands our awareness, elevates our thinking, and shows us possibilities and greatness. I don't play the music of Mozart much these days, but having done so was certainly an important part of my musical training, and listening to his music - to the complexities and genius that lie within his works - inspires me and lifts me to a level beyond my own pitiful self.
Studying the masters takes us above and beyond our own thoughts and ideas, expands our awareness, elevates our thinking, and shows us possibilities and greatness. I don't play the music of Mozart much these days, but having done so was certainly an important part of my musical training, and listening to his music - to the complexities and genius that lie within his works - inspires me and lifts me to a level beyond my own pitiful self.
Perfect! (Not the pitiful self part, but the rest of it. )
I am from this new school of street photography. I have no formal training. I just have a camera and a desire to shoot. I have been shooting for a few years and I still learn something new everyday. I don't have a specific definition for "street photography", I would say anything that is shot unscripted and in the street would be "Street Photography". Just get out there and shoot. The only requirement for a good photograph is that it looks good. Knowing how to technically use a camera increases your odds of capturing a better shot but sometimes rules restrict you.
I am from this new school of street photography. I have no formal training. I just have a camera and a desire to shoot. I have been shooting for a few years and I still learn something new everyday. I don't have a specific definition for "street photography", I would say anything that is shot unscripted and in the street would be "Street Photography". Just get out there and shoot. The only requirement for a good photograph is that it looks good. Knowing how to technically use a camera increases your odds of capturing a better shot but sometimes rules restrict you.
Sorry, but that's far too facile. To be worthwhile, a good street photograph must be more than something that "looks good." A well exposed, focused, and framed photo of a flower "looks good."
True- If it looks good it is a good photo. If it looks great or WOW- then it is a great photo. I have seen great photos that were over exposed or crooked or slightly out of focus. Composition is a big part of a great photo. Some people see this better than others.
Nelson, "looks good" by any measure is only a part of "street" or PJ. Bruce Gilden says "if you can smell the street, then it's a good street photo." Getting it expose correctly and even technically competently is easy and of course is a requirement.
I don't buy this "new breed of street photog" business. It's not about formal training. It's about understanding....
I have seen many photos exposed incorrectly that look great. Some people do it for a dramatic effect. It doesn't work all the time but when used in the right way it "looks great". Composition and vision will help you "smell the street" more than anything. Being technically sound will help you capture your desired image more consistently but you still need to have an eye for it. Anyone can get lucky and shoot a great image from the hip but being patient and confident along with being technically sound will increase your odds. I am just saying that I am not afraid to break rules to try something new. I am out in the streets of NYC for most of the day with my camera and I just try to capture what I see. I call it "Street Photography". It is street art. unscripted, raw, non-commercial NYC. I prefer L.E.S. over Times Sq. In the end I come up with images of People, Places and Things that I like to say are New York. When people ask what I like to shoot, I usually say it has to be "Pretty, Gritty or New York City". If I had some strobes or a few models with me I wouldn't call it street photography. What else would you call it?
Let me try again: I am not a stickler for the proper definition of street and PJ. Russ can fight that battle :-) I am fighting for good street and PJ photos.
I will say again, it takes more than just a person walking down the street to make a good street / PJ photo, even if it IS just a person walking down the street.
Liz asked how come we don't talk about current photog much as being good street/PJ photographer. Try this: http://semetko.com/the-book-unposed/ Craig is current, and he does street.
Richard, I'm not sure there is such a thing as a "proper" definition of street photography, at least not in the sense that it can be defined in words. Attempts at a literal definition of any art form typically are all over the place.
But, as I've said before, to me street photography is defined by the photographs of people like HCB and Gene Smith. And even as I say it I'm not sure that's the correct way to say it, since the two can't really be compared. As BD pointed out earlier, Gene's photographs go beyond Henri's in the way they deal with human traits and human interactions, but Gene's pictures are more studied and darkroom-modified than Henri's. Still, in the end, I'd pick Gene's as the pictures that to me epitomize street photography, though in doing so I'm ignoring a kind of spontaneity that Henri's pictures have and that Gene's don't have. I really want both in my definition, but I can't have both if I'm looking for a literal definition.
The bottom line for me is that to be what I'd call a street photograph the picture must convey something to me not only about human behavior, but about human emotion. I keep saying that the picture must contain a story, but as I pointed out in the short article I posted a while back, that doesn't mean the picture has to "tell" a story. Ambiguity can be a powerful thing in a photograph. That's why I think HCB's surrealism phase produced more significant street photographs than his later story-telling phase, which BD won't call photojournalism.
Here's an example of the kind of picture I think falls into the street photograph category. Everything in the world is new for this kid, and he just saw something he never expected to see. Practically everybody's seen little kids do this, and, to most of us, a kid's sudden, limitless joy brings joy. The effect I get from this picture is transcendent. I can't put it into words, but it always improves my day. I suspect it would improve the day of most people.
I am not trying to discredit the past photographers but it is hard to classify a genre of art by a specific artist. I think it is great that everyone has their own opinion, this helps the style grow. I know dozens of what I call "street photographers" that have different styles but one thing in common- They shoot the streets! It is unscripted, raw emotion! it is all about capturing a moment, if that's not your goal then you are capturing art.. If you can artistically capture a "moment" then you've done good. I only know a few photographer that have this special ability.
Richard, I'm not sure there is such a thing as a "proper" definition of street photography, at least not in the sense that it can be defined in words. Attempts at a literal definition of any art form typically are all over the place.
But, as I've said before, to me street photography is defined by the photographs of people like HCB and Gene Smith. And even as I say it I'm not sure that's the correct way to say it, since the two can't really be compared. As BD pointed out earlier, Gene's photographs go beyond Henri's in the way they deal with human traits and human interactions, but Gene's pictures are more studied and darkroom-modified than Henri's. Still, in the end, I'd pick Gene's as the pictures that to me epitomize street photography, though in doing so I'm ignoring a kind of spontaneity that Henri's pictures have and that Gene's don't have. I really want both in my definition, but I can't have both if I'm looking for a literal definition.
The bottom line for me is that to be what I'd call a street photograph the picture must convey something to me not only about human behavior, but about human emotion. I keep saying that the picture must contain a story, but as I pointed out in the short article I posted a while back, that doesn't mean the picture has to "tell" a story. Ambiguity can be a powerful thing in a photograph. That's why I think HCB's surrealism phase produced more significant street photographs than his later story-telling phase, which BD won't call photojournalism.
Here's an example of the kind of picture I think falls into the street photograph category. Everything in the world is new for this kid, and he just saw something he never expected to see. Practically everybody's seen little kids do this, and, to most of us, a kid's sudden, limitless joy brings joy. The effect I get from this picture is transcendent. I can't put it into words, but it always improves my day. I suspect it would improve the day of most people.
I'm going to hate myself in the morning for getting into this, but i just can't help myself. Sorry, Russ, but this just doesn't do it for me as some sort of example of what a street shot should be; it's a lovely snap of a happy child. Great expression on the little boy - absolutely joy. But not much else. I've been trying to figure out why, and I think it's because there's really nothing compelling here, compositionally, or in terms of a story, nor is their any ambiguity. Little kid, happy about the water. And, unfortunately, the image is at once both lose and cluttered - is it about the kid? The statute? The kid and the statue? For whatever it's worth, it would have been much stronger - I believe - shot much tighter, and from the little boy's front, so we'd have that wonderful beaming smile, the Thomas the locomotive shirt, and the pouring water - and nothing else. And then it wouldn't be a street photo, but it would it be a much better photo of childhood joy.
Again, just my opinion - and I really don't want to get into a debate over it. And I wouldn't have commented had this not been held up as an example of classic street photography.
Fair enough, BD. I won't argue the point because there's enough truth in what you're saying that the argument could go on for days. The main thing the picture does for me, that I expect any good street photograph to do, is give me a transcendent connection with something important in human behavior. From a literal, story-telling sense, the story's thin, but it's there. I have plenty of pictures with better composition, less clutter, more ambiguity, and much more compelling stories in a photojournalistic sense, that don't give me the jolt this one gives me. But of course, that's a subjective thing: a good reason not to argue your points. As far as positioning is concerned, that smile was on his face for less than a second. In a case like that you take what you can get. As far as the question "what's the picture about" is concerned, it's about his smile. As far as composition is concerned, I think the diagonal created by the kid's gaze and the statue's assumed gaze is pretty strong. But, again, that's a personal opinion.
Don't hate yourself in the morning. I certainly understand that urge to say what you mean.
Nelson, please provide examples of these new photographers that capture raw emotion. Thanks.
As for Russ photo, this is just my opinion: if it looks like a good photo in color, but not as strong in B&W, UNLESS the colors are an integral part of the story, then *usually* something is missing in the photo. This is the rationale behind "with colors, you see distraction, and with B&W, you see the soul."
AGAIN - this only applies if the colors are not the main theme. In those cases, presence or absence of colors change the picture to a different picture.
I noticed that a couple of these are most likely not your own shots (Nos 3 & 4 although I'm confused about the rest as it looks like your smugmug gallery is shared with someone else?). As a curtesy you should attribute them and only provide a link. Apologies in advance if I'm mistaken. As to the ones that are your shots, why not drop them into their own thread?
I just grabbed a few random photos to show examples of what I think is "Street Photography".
Nelson, are there suppose to be photos inline? I don't see them. Some of us were having similar issues with (I think Torags') photos and then he fixed it somehow?
Comments
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
Perfect! (Not the pitiful self part, but the rest of it.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
:d:d:d
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
Sorry, but that's far too facile. To be worthwhile, a good street photograph must be more than something that "looks good." A well exposed, focused, and framed photo of a flower "looks good."
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
I don't buy this "new breed of street photog" business. It's not about formal training. It's about understanding....
// richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com>
richardmanphoto on Facebook and Instagram
Urban Studio
My Galleries
Flicker
G+
I will say again, it takes more than just a person walking down the street to make a good street / PJ photo, even if it IS just a person walking down the street.
Liz asked how come we don't talk about current photog much as being good street/PJ photographer. Try this: http://semetko.com/the-book-unposed/ Craig is current, and he does street.
// richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com>
richardmanphoto on Facebook and Instagram
But, as I've said before, to me street photography is defined by the photographs of people like HCB and Gene Smith. And even as I say it I'm not sure that's the correct way to say it, since the two can't really be compared. As BD pointed out earlier, Gene's photographs go beyond Henri's in the way they deal with human traits and human interactions, but Gene's pictures are more studied and darkroom-modified than Henri's. Still, in the end, I'd pick Gene's as the pictures that to me epitomize street photography, though in doing so I'm ignoring a kind of spontaneity that Henri's pictures have and that Gene's don't have. I really want both in my definition, but I can't have both if I'm looking for a literal definition.
The bottom line for me is that to be what I'd call a street photograph the picture must convey something to me not only about human behavior, but about human emotion. I keep saying that the picture must contain a story, but as I pointed out in the short article I posted a while back, that doesn't mean the picture has to "tell" a story. Ambiguity can be a powerful thing in a photograph. That's why I think HCB's surrealism phase produced more significant street photographs than his later story-telling phase, which BD won't call photojournalism.
Here's an example of the kind of picture I think falls into the street photograph category. Everything in the world is new for this kid, and he just saw something he never expected to see. Practically everybody's seen little kids do this, and, to most of us, a kid's sudden, limitless joy brings joy. The effect I get from this picture is transcendent. I can't put it into words, but it always improves my day. I suspect it would improve the day of most people.
www.FineArtSnaps.com
Excellent capture well composed. I wonder what the color shot looks like
Nice work
In some ways I prefer the color version.
www.FineArtSnaps.com
Again, just my opinion - and I really don't want to get into a debate over it. And I wouldn't have commented had this not been held up as an example of classic street photography.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
Don't hate yourself in the morning. I certainly understand that urge to say what you mean.
www.FineArtSnaps.com
Me, too!
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
As for Russ photo, this is just my opinion: if it looks like a good photo in color, but not as strong in B&W, UNLESS the colors are an integral part of the story, then *usually* something is missing in the photo. This is the rationale behind "with colors, you see distraction, and with B&W, you see the soul."
AGAIN - this only applies if the colors are not the main theme. In those cases, presence or absence of colors change the picture to a different picture.
MHO.
// richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com>
richardmanphoto on Facebook and Instagram
www.FineArtSnaps.com
But what a minute it's not B&W, therefore it sucks....
Nice work - expressions of happiness, exhibitionism and the urban condition well shot and well composed
Nelson, are there suppose to be photos inline? I don't see them. Some of us were having similar issues with (I think Torags') photos and then he fixed it somehow?
// richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com>
richardmanphoto on Facebook and Instagram