Is this street photography?

Sam

Found this from long long ago................... City people seem to wander all over the street without concern........:D

Sam

richardman

If he's Chinese, a bit shorter, and hopefully a bit skinner, he would look exactly like me.

Oh a different camera too.

But I'm sure I have done exactly the same thing, on the exactly same damned cable car tracks :-)

Andy

Sam wrote: »

Found this from long long ago................... City people seem to wander all over the street without concern........:D

Sam

And here's the shot I took right about that time

Richard

So, moral of the story, Andy got the better shot.

bdcolen

The first shot would really work if a street car was coming over the hill...otherwise it's just a guy getting ready to shoot.

RSL

To answer Sam's original question: "No."

Richard

RSL wrote: »

To answer Sam's original question: "No."

Sure it is. Why not? It isn't a compelling street shot, but could have been if--as BD suggested--there were something else in the frame as well. Street doesn't necessarily mean good.

In any event, I think Sam's intent was just to share a shot of Andy at work.

bdcolen

Ditto. We really need to insert the word "good" into questions like this? ;-)

RSL

Richard wrote: »

Sure it is. Why not? It isn't a compelling street shot, but could have been if--as BD suggested--there were something else in the frame as well. Street doesn't necessarily mean good.

Right, Richard. But there wasn't anything else in the frame, which was BD's point, made very gently. Regarding your final point and BD's follow-up question, I don't see anything in my post about "good."

black mamba

RSL wrote: »

To answer Sam's original question: "No."

This is an excellent example of why I disagree with people like Russ who arbitrarily dismiss a certain photograph because it doesn't conform to their personal interpretations of what constitutes street photography. To blatantly decree that Sam's shot is not street photography, Russ exposes a mindset that, regardless of how well read he is, reeks of prejudices that have no place here.

It would have been fair to express an opinion that Sam's shot wasn't a " good " photo. Even better, it would have been helpful to suggest, as BD did, certain things that might have improved the overall quality of the shot. But, as Richard so well points out, Sam's picture is correctly identified as street photography.....no matter what Sam's motives were in taking the shot and not considering any elements of a critique as to the photos subjective qualities.

Tom

RSL

Fair enough, Tom. But if Sam hadn't asked the question I wouldn't have answered it, nor would I have made any comment about the picture at all. But what Sam asked is: "Is this street photography?" Unless you really believe a picture of a guy on a street is street photography then the answer obviously is "no." I've stopped gratuitously pointing out that certain pictures don't meet even basic criteria for street photographs, but when somebody asks a question like that I have to assume he wants an answer.

I couldn't care less about the "goodness" of Sam's picture. If he asks, I'll tell him how "good" I think it is, but as far as "prejudices" are concerned, as long as the name of this forum is "Street & PJ," I think it's fair to answer the question Sam asked -- when somebody asks it. Even BD agrees that the name of the forum should be changed to prevent the question popping up. Notice that BD didn't talk about the "goodness" of Sam's picture. What he said, in effect, was that the picture didn't "work." That's a different thing from "goodness," and goes directly to Sam's question.

M38A1

RSL wrote: »

Fair enough, Tom. But if Sam hadn't asked the question I wouldn't have answered it, nor would I have made any comment about the picture at all. But what Sam asked is: "Is this street photography?" Unless you really believe a picture of a guy on a street is street photography then the answer obviously is "no." I've stopped gratuitously pointing out that certain pictures don't meet even basic criteria for street photographs, but when somebody asks a question like that I have to assume he wants an answer.

I couldn't care less about the "goodness" of Sam's picture. If he asks, I'll tell him how "good" I think it is, but as far as "prejudices" are concerned, as long as the name of this forum is "Street & PJ," I think it's fair to answer the question Sam asked -- when somebody asks it. Even BD agrees that the name of the forum should be changed to prevent the question popping up. Notice that BD didn't talk about the "goodness" of Sam's picture. What he said, in effect, was that the picture didn't "work." That's a different thing from "goodness," and goes directly to Sam's question.

The issue Russ is, you simply responded "no" without any reason as to why you responded as such. Only when called out did you reply with additional comment.

And I'll go back to my earlier posting, if you've been around here long enough, you would have keyed straight-away on the image being of Andy. So in some respects the brevity in your comment tells me a couple things. First, you really don't 'get-it' how we play and more important - interact here. And second, you really don't take time to truly look at the content of an image or you would have known the intent of the posting.


But back to Sam's question... I think it's a great candid shot of which I'd be proud to have taken myself knowing Andy's relationship to this forum. I'm sure the day was quite fun for both Sam and Andy, and I'd bet with some sleuthing, the rest of the shots captured that day are pretty good as well. It put a smile on my face to see it. Could it have been better with other artifacts in it? Sure. Yet at that moment in time when the shutter was released, that's what was there.


.

RSL

Okay, Scott, so your take is that any snapshots, or as you put it, "candid shots," made while out horsing around with another S&PJ poster are street shots?

First problem is that the fact it's a shot of another S&PJ poster on the street doesn't make it any more a street shot or photojournalism than a shot of a complete stranger on the street. Second problem is that we're right back at that exclusive club thing. What you're telling me is that if you don't recognize the members of this clique by sight you have no right to make a comment.

Sam asked a question: "Is this a street shot?" He didn't ask why or why not, and considering the level of Sam's expertise as a photographer it should have been obvious that he asked the question with tongue in cheek. The short answer, with tongue equally in cheek, is "no." Sam also posted a second picture with a tongue in cheek question: "Or is this more like street photography?" The second one clearly was a street photograph, but, with tongue in cheek I answered: "It's closer." After seeing the incredible lack of a sense of humor in most of the responses to this post, I had to go back and change my answer to his second question, because it was obvious nobody "got" what Sam was doing.

Bottom line is that you're telling me this forum isn't about street photography or photojournalism. It's about personal snapshots. If that's what S&PJ really is about, I'll move on, but as long as I'm here, if somebody on a forum that calls itself "Street & PJ" asks if his post is a street shot, even in jest, I'll try to answer the question. If there's some question about why or why not I'll be happy to discuss it. In this case there was no question regarding what was going on and the situation clearly didn't call for discussion.

Richard

I find it annoying that you, Russ, have appointed yourself the arbiter of what is street photography and what is not. Inside jokes apart, the shot that was posted is an unposed shot of a photographer possibly taking his life in his hands by walking down the middle of an urban street to take pictures. For those who reflect on it, it has the additional merit that Sam was very likely doing the same thing, which adds a little meta-irony. Is it a great shot? Certainly not. But other than dismissive labels like snapshot, you haven't really said why this isn't a street shot.

RSL

As I've said before, Richard, I'm not the least bit interested in the "goodness" or lack of "goodness" in this photograph. I'm not arbitrating anything. Sam asked a question as a joke and I answered as a joke. What more is there to say? I can see you still don't "get" the joke. Is humor against the rules on Street & PJ?

Richard

RSL wrote: »

As I've said before, Richard, I'm not the least bit interested in the "goodness" or lack of "goodness" in this photograph. I'm not arbitrating anything. Sam asked a question as a joke and I answered as a joke. What more is there to say? I can see you still don't "get" the joke. Is humor against the rules on Street & PJ?

You're right. I didn't take it as a joke. If that's all it was, then I apologize. Humor is always welcome here.

TonyCooper

RSL wrote: »

To answer Sam's original question: "No."

Give us a break and post your "basic criteria" for what qualifies as "Street".
I know many of us will sit with bated breath and withholding our images
until you give us the go-ahead by explaining the genre.

Sam

OK.......lets all calmly sit down, take our shoes off cross our legs, bend our elbows, touch our fingers to our thumbs, close our eyes, empty our minds, relax, breath deeply and slowly.

In the stream of life does it really matter if this is "street photography" or a snapshot? No one's life hinges on the answer. No fortunes to be won or lost.

I take no offense to any of the comments made. I am what I am. The image is what it is. All is well.

Sam

RSL

I'm glad all is well, Sam, but the question is, were you serious? If so then I screwed up by not explaining that a picture of a guy on a street isn't necessarily a street photograph. Your second post was right on the money, and taking the two posts together, which is where they were when you first posted it, I still think I guessed right. You were kidding.

Sam

Kid, josh, tease???

One would be wise not to tease a renowned photographer and SmugMug rain maker. He could with a nod of his head end a photographers hopes and dreams faster than a frog being swallowed by an alligator.

Word!

Quincy T

Mispost.

Quincy T

IS THIS MEAT PHOTOGRAPHY?

RSL

TonyCooper wrote: »

Give us a break and post your "basic criteria" for what qualifies as "Street".
I know many of us will sit with bated breath and withholding our images
until you give us the go-ahead by explaining the genre.

Okay Tony, I'll "give you a break." Here's what will let you recognize street photography when you see it:

1. Go to a really great bookstore. Oops, you're right. There aren't any in Orlando. So go to Amazon and buy this starting list of books. Don't get them from the library because once you follow instruction 2 they'll all end up overdue. If you check them out one-by-one they'll still end up overdue, one-by-one.

Bystander: A History of Street Photography
Andre Kertesz: His Life and Work
David Seymour (Chim)
Henri Cartier-Bresson: The Man, The Image & The World
Robert Doisneau: A Photographer's Life
Willy Ronis: La Vie En Passant
Walker Evans: The Hungry Eye
Elliott Erwitt Snaps
Marc Riboud Journal
Here and There
Looking In: Robert Frank's The Americans, Expanded Edition
Winogrand: Figments From the Real World
Friedlander
Vivian Maier Street Photographer

2. Now, sit down with these books. Don't just read them or page through them, but study each photograph until it's stuck in your mind -- so you practically can draw, say, something like HCB's "Behind the Gare Saint-Lazare" from memory.

Once you've done that you'll have internalized the definition of what qualifies as street photography. And it's not "my" definition. There's no way to put what constitutes "basic criteria" for street photography into a text-based list, or even to explain what it is in words. You have to look at the pictures. Photography, painting, printmaking, visual art in general, deals with images -- not words. And these are the people who defined street photography -- with their photographs. Yes, the photographs you'll see are "dated." But so is Leonardo "dated," and yet modern painters ignore him at their peril.

I'm not suggesting that after you've studied these photographs you'll be able to go out and do what these people did. I certainly can't, and I'm familiar with them all. But you'll understand what HCB means when he says something like:

"For me, content cannot be separated from form. By form, I mean a rigorous organization of the interplay of surfaces, lines, and values. It is in this organization alone that our conceptions and emotions become concrete and communicable. In photography, visual organization can stem only from a developed instinct."

lensmole

Mr. Lewis
It is a good thing we don't all think the same,because if we did the world would be a very boring place.
I know you have very strong opinions about what street photography is or isn't , but I have said this before that I am sure their are as many opinions about street photography as their are photographers.

Since you are an educated man in this regard, and everyone brings a little something different to the table. Is their anything written in the concrete side walks of the the street that describe what elements
determine a street photo apart from Design,Information,and Emotion ?

Maybe I should be reading some books you suggested on the subject .
In your view,what elements should be important in a street photo ?
You don't have to tell us if you don't want to.

Syncopation

Here we go again - duelling keyboards. :duel

Please stop this playground bickering about what is/isn't street.

I've warmed to Russ's comments and contributions over the past few months and feel that he has much to offer in terms of constructive criticism. I've also learned that if he's questioned, confronted or challenged then he's likely to respond in a direct and uncompromising manner, which he's perfectly entitled to do.

As I've said before, I find reading some of these posts rather depressing and, to be honest, boring and therefore ask that people check their egos at the door, stop trying to score points and basically grow up.

I've already started to post photos and comments in other forums, something I thought I'd never feel the need to do. I suspect that's also true of others.

Quincy T

Here we go again - duelling keyboards. :duel

Please stop this playground bickering about what is/isn't street.

I've warmed to Russ's comments and contributions over the past few months and feel that he has much to offer in terms of constructive criticism. I've also learned that if he's questioned, confronted or challenged then he's likely to respond in a direct and uncompromising manner, which he's perfectly entitled to do.

As I've said before, I find reading some of these posts rather depressing and, to be honest, boring and therefore ask that people check their egos at the door, stop trying to score points and basically grow up.

I've already started to post photos and comments in other forums, something I thought I'd never feel the need to do. I suspect that's also true of others.

Yep.

RSL

lensmole wrote: »

Mr. Lewis
It is a good thing we don't all think the same,because if we did the world would be a very boring place.
I know you have very strong opinions about what street photography is or isn't , but I have said this before that I am sure their are as many opinions about street photography as their are photographers.

Since you are an educated man in this regard, and everyone brings a little something different to the table. Is their anything written in the concrete side walks of the the street that describe what elements
determine a street photo apart from Design,Information,and Emotion ?

Maybe I should be reading some books you suggested on the subject .
In your view,what elements should be important in a street photo ?
You don't have to tell us if you don't want to.

Hi Mole. You're right, there are many opinions about street photography, but you won't find the definition in words. As I said: "There's no way to put what constitutes "basic criteria" for street photography into a text-based list, or even to explain what it is in words. You have to look at the pictures. Photography, painting, printmaking, visual art in general, deals with images -- not words. And these are the people who defined street photography -- with their photographs." No, you don't need to "read" the books I suggested. You need to look at the pictures. The pictures these people made define the genre.

Regarding Synco's "dueling keyboards:" When you were in college did you knuckle under and parrot back everything your professors dumped on you or did you engage your teachers in contentious discussion? The second approach is how you learn, and if you have a really good prof, he or she loves a good duel too.

lensmole

Thanks Russ
I didn't see your last response to Tony until after I posted my questions to you.
I am defiantly going to read Bystander , and Thank you for your insight.

RSL

Syncopation wrote: »

I've already started to post photos and comments in other forums, something I thought I'd never feel the need to do. I suspect that's also true of others.

I'm glad to hear it, Synco, and I hope you're right that others on here are doing it too. If you confine your work to street or photojournalism you're rejecting a world of wonderful stuff youi can do with a camera. For instance, if you go over to Luminous Landscape you can see a series of three very good landscapes -- one particularly stunning one -- by Jennifer (michswiss).

But even when it comes to street photography you'll find that a number of the people on LuLa are good at it and understand it very well. Michael Reichmann, the outstanding photographer who hosts LuLa, is into landscape photography in a big way, but from time to time he posts one of his street shots, and they're always real street shots and usually good. I know he shoots a lot more street than he posts, but Michael knows how to cull. I just checked and he has a pretty good street shot on his front page right now. That doesn't mean it'll be there by the time you look, though.

In any case, branch out. That gadget in your hands can do wonderful things you might never have thought of.

michswiss

Oh right. I go and take a shot of a few trees in a field, post it at LL and I'm suddenly a landscape photog

I say screw taxonomy and genres. Take pictures of things that move you. Make images that move others. Post or share with the communities that represent the type of feedback you want.

RSL

Jennifer, With your eye you can be any kind of photographer you want to be. How about just "photographer?" That's what people like HCB and Walker Evans wanted to be called, and it's a much-to-be-desired title.