Iduna Posted April 17, 2015 Share #21 Posted April 17, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Cuthbert, We take pictures for there is something that attracts our interest. Afterwards we categorize and define. Taking shots in a city, being on a road etc can be defined as street. It is not dependent on the subject and does not need necessarily people in it. But to my opinion there should be the element of time or movement or an definition of space and time in the picture. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 Hi Iduna, Take a look here Is this street photography?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Cuthbert Posted April 17, 2015 Author Share #22 Posted April 17, 2015 Yes, otherwise I wouldn't have shot it. ___________________________________ Not necessarily. It may be that the scene interested you in some way but the way it was framed, composed and/or exposed produced a result that wasn't in line with your expectation. This happens to me every day. Make no mistake, though. If this type of subject matter interests you, you should by all means shoot it until you heart is content. It is what makes you happy that matters. It shouldn't matter what other people think. I feel that by putting it up for consideration as "street photography" you are implicitly concerned what other people think. This really is irrelevant at the end of the day. It could be that other people's viewpoints could cause your own tastes to evolve. This is perfectly fine, and I think even important. But at the end of the day it is between you and yourself.... The entire point of the discussion is not what others think about this picture, but the definition of "street photography", everybody in the Leica world (but not just Leica owners) talk about SP, but my impression is that unless there is a definition of the term, at least in a broad sense, it's just a lot of chat and chat. Nobody disputes what a cityscape is, or a portrait, but the mythological SP looks like something that can be everything or nothing. On an Italian newspaper once there was a heated discussion the famous picture "mother immigrant" and if it had to be considered street photography or straight photography, for instance. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted April 17, 2015 Share #23 Posted April 17, 2015 (edited) The entire point of the discussion is not what others think about this picture, but the definition of "street photography", YOU NEVER REALLY ESTABLISHED A POINT OF YOUR THREAD. YOU SIMPLY POSED A QUESTION AND THEN RESPONDED TO OTHER'S COMMENTS BY MAKING COUNTERPOINTS everybody in the Leica world (but not just Leica owners) talk about SP, I DON'T SEE THIS WHOLE SP THINGS AS LIMITED TO LEICA TO ANY EXTENT WHATSOEVER. but my impression is that unless there is a definition of the term, at least in a broad sense, it's just a lot of chat and chat. RIGHT, THIS IS WHAT I SAID FROM THE BEGINNING! I DONT THINK THE TERM CAN BE DEFINED IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY. Nobody disputes what a cityscape is NOT TRUE , or a portrait, ALSO NOT TRUE but the mythological SP looks like something that can be everything or nothing. I AGREE On an Italian newspaper once there was a heated discussion the famous picture "mother immigrant" and if it had to be considered street photography or straight photography, for instance. I WOULD THINK THAT THERE PROBABLY MORE POINTLESS DISCUSSIONS TO TAKE UP EMPTY NEWSPAPER SPACE. BUT THIS IS UP THERE. Edited April 17, 2015 by A miller Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted April 17, 2015 Share #24 Posted April 17, 2015 everybody in the Leica world (but not just Leica owners) talk about SP, but my impression is that unless there is a definition of the term, at least in a broad sense, it's just a lot of chat and chat. I'm not quite sure what is wrong with "a lot of chat and chat" (especially on a forum, which is essentially the point of its existence). More importantly, I'm also unsure what difference it would make to your's or other people's photographs if there was an accepted and serviceable definition of street photography. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manoleica Posted April 17, 2015 Share #25 Posted April 17, 2015 I don't think any one definition about SP is correct.. SP to me -> a place between destinations ie Home & Work/Zoo/Museum etc. etc.. Why must we keep categorizing? enjoy the image..... 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manoleica Posted April 17, 2015 Share #26 Posted April 17, 2015 Just sitting here playing with my new Safari set, many years ago "Street Photography" was:- in main tourist areas ie. Oxford Street London, or around Buckingham Palace there were flash guys with old Rollie's who took your "Street Picture" then they took your name & address and you paid them a small fee - thereafter at some point your b&w image arrived in the mail.. Hopefully I was always baffled how they knew who was #6 on the roll!! -- anyways "Thats Street P".......... 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuthbert Posted April 17, 2015 Author Share #27 Posted April 17, 2015 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm not quite sure what is wrong with "a lot of chat and chat" (especially on a forum, which is essentially the point of its existence). More importantly, I'm also unsure what difference it would make to your's or other people's photographs if there was an accepted and serviceable definition of street photography. You don't understand...these were comments of readers who were commenting an article, not the article itself. The entire point of the discussion is not what others think about this picture, but the definition of "street photography", YOU NEVER REALLY ESTABLISHED A POINT OF YOUR THREAD. YOU SIMPLY POSED A QUESTION AND THEN RESPONDED TO OTHER'S COMMENTS BY MAKING COUNTERPOINTS everybody in the Leica world (but not just Leica owners) talk about SP, I DON'T SEE THIS WHOLE SP THINGS AS LIMITED TO LEICA TO ANY EXTENT WHATSOEVER. but my impression is that unless there is a definition of the term, at least in a broad sense, it's just a lot of chat and chat. RIGHT, THIS IS WHAT I SAID FROM THE BEGINNING! I DONT THINK THE TERM CAN BE DEFINED IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY. Nobody disputes what a cityscape is NOT TRUE , or a portrait, ALSO NOT TRUE but the mythological SP looks like something that can be everything or nothing. I AGREE On an Italian newspaper once there was a heated discussion the famous picture "mother immigrant" and if it had to be considered street photography or straight photography, for instance. I WOULD THINK THAT THERE PROBABLY MORE POINTLESS DISCUSSIONS TO TAKE UP EMPTY NEWSPAPER SPACE. BUT THIS IS UP THERE. You sound quite pissed off, perhaps it's time to take a break from the keyboard? The scope of the thread is clear: to ask people if they consider this example street photography and why in order to understand how different opinions are on the subject, if you don't like the pic of the discussion you are not forced to participate. Edited April 17, 2015 by Cuthbert Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuthbert Posted April 17, 2015 Author Share #28 Posted April 17, 2015 (edited) Just sitting here playing with my new Safari set, many years ago "Street Photography" was:- in main tourist areas ie. Oxford Street London, or around Buckingham Palace there were flash guys with old Rollie's who took your "Street Picture" then they took your name & address and you paid them a small fee - thereafter at some point your b&w image arrived in the mail.. Hopefully I was always baffled how they knew who was #6 on the roll!! -- anyways "Thats Street P".......... That's a good one, as the article of wikipedia is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_photography I especially like this: Street photography is disinterested in its nature, allowing it to deliver a true depiction of the world.[9] Street photographs are mirror images of society, displaying "unmanipulated" scenes, with usually unaware subjects.[4] Edited April 17, 2015 by Cuthbert Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted April 17, 2015 Share #29 Posted April 17, 2015 not pissed at all. all good. just a little frustrated. so i will bow out. catch you later Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted April 18, 2015 Share #30 Posted April 18, 2015 Pidgeon holes are for pidgeons, pictures are for pleasure! If you enjoy it, that is all that matters. If other enjoy it, that is a bonus. If others don't enjoy it, that is their loss. I think it is clearly established in many posts on this forum that the 'Definition' of Street Photogrphy that everyone will agree on will never happen, and neither it should, IMO. As soon as you try to nail something down it will be restricted, one way or another. Make the picture because you want to, post it where you think it will elucidate the best reaction. That may even be in the 'wrong' sub-forum. Guaranteed to wake viewers up. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
likalar Posted April 18, 2015 Share #31 Posted April 18, 2015 Wikipedia knows all ;-) ....an interesting 2 minute read about street photography. I hope it's ok to post a link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_photography 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted April 18, 2015 Share #32 Posted April 18, 2015 (edited) - it's in a public environment that is mostly free accessible - mostly not interior - mostly people are the subject, in some meaningfull way interacting with the environment, preferably with some symbolic meaning but at least bearing some narrative possibility for the viewer - mostly shot from a distance of 2 a 30 meter, that is to say closer would be portrait or something else and farther is any-scape (this is a bit normative, see the discussion about 'what is art or art photography or is photography art'. But I like that) Edited April 18, 2015 by otto.f Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuthbert Posted April 18, 2015 Author Share #33 Posted April 18, 2015 (edited) Nice one too... Wikipedia knows all ;-) ....an interesting 2 minute read about street photography. I hope it's ok to post a link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_photography I already did two posts earlier! - it's in a public environment that is mostly free accessible - mostly not interior - mostly people are the subject, in some meaningfull way interacting with the environment, preferably with some symbolic meaning but at least bearing some narrative possibility for the viewer - mostly shot from a distance of 2 a 30 meter, that is to say closer would be portrait or something else and farther is any-scape (this is a bit normative, see the discussion about 'what is art or art photography or is photography art'. But I like that) Good one, shall we add it has to be candid and not posed? Edited April 18, 2015 by Cuthbert 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
likalar Posted April 18, 2015 Share #34 Posted April 18, 2015 Nice one too... I already did two posts earlier! Oops; sorry I missed that. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuthbert Posted April 18, 2015 Author Share #35 Posted April 18, 2015 Nice one too... I already did two posts earlier! Oops; sorry I missed that. Just joking...as a matter of fact the article on wikipedia is well written, once I visited an exposition at the Tate regarding film photography and I always thought the definition of "film photography" was relatively standardised...until I visited this board! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted April 18, 2015 Share #36 Posted April 18, 2015 I wouldn't call the photo 'street' but I don't doubt that my idea of what street photography is, isn't going to be the same as other peoples. Cuthbert, I don't see why you need to define street photography. As I said it's different things to different people, just the same as defining what 'attractive' means, or people we find interesting, irritating or boring. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
atournas Posted April 19, 2015 Share #37 Posted April 19, 2015 (edited) The first reply, by Dunos, to the opening post is, perhaps, a settling comment. The way I see it, a street photograph is, technically, a sophisticated snapshot. However, if one follows the work of established street photographers, a couple of interrelated elements are noticed. First, the photographer seeks to be right in the middle of the action. That's why the 50mm lens is the upper limit in lens choice, with the 35mm being the best. Second, the actual deed of taking a street photograph is more important than the photograph itself; HCB is the best-known herald of that attitude. This is, recently, the second post that touches the topic of what street photography is. So, what do the people in this thread believe is the definitive street photograher in the history of the medium? Paul Edited April 19, 2015 by atournas Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted April 19, 2015 Share #38 Posted April 19, 2015 Second, the actual deed of taking a street photograph is more important than the photograph itself; HCB is the best-known herald of that attitude. Pardon? I do not know any street photograph that has come up with such amazing results, so HCB's results can never be less important than the deed of.. But maybe I understand you wrong Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
atournas Posted April 19, 2015 Share #39 Posted April 19, 2015 Pardon? I do not know any street photograph that has come up with such amazing results, so HCB's results can never be less important than the deed of.. But maybe I understand you wrong Otto, perhaps I overemphasized my point. What I mean is that various street photographers have several times stated that they enjoy the moment of chasing a good street shot for the moment itself and not necessarily for the final print. HCB has remarked on that more explicitly than others. Thanks for taking time to read my post. Paul Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted April 19, 2015 Share #40 Posted April 19, 2015 Ok Paul. HCB was a very modest / humble person who would never boast about his art, but instead would elaborate on the fun of making it. Btw, I find it a bit cheap to avoid discussions about street photography to stop the conversation with lines like: - oh that is different for any subject - the process is more important than the result, FOR YOU.... Have fun! Enjoy life! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.