What is street photography? [Discussion thread only]

[Guest Ming Rider]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This has been moved out of a Photo thread, as it is a general discussion about the nature of street Photography.

 

Unusually, it seems to be more appropriate to leave it in this new sub-forum, as it is pertinent to the sub-forum's creation itself.

AB 3/9

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________

 

"What is Street Photography?" Not again PLEASE !!!

 

It's taken the best part of 6-8 years to get a Street Photography category and is the result of much discussion, argument, bribery, blackmail, kidnap, death threats, sexual favours, etc . . .

 

I may have made some of that up.

 

Needless to say, the genre known as Street Photography is as old as photography itself and therefore has no need to justify it's existence.

 

Peace.

[erl]

"What is Street Photography?" Not again PLEASE !!!

 

It's taken the best part of 6-8 years to get a Street Photography category and is the result of much discussion, argument, bribery, blackmail, kidnap, death threats, sexual favours, etc . . .

 

I may have made some of that up.

 

Needless to say, the genre known as Street Photography is as old as photography itself and therefore has no need to justify it's existence.

 

Peace.

 

Ming Rider, some patience is in order. Not everyone is as well informed as you. Maybe not even I! It has not been suggested that 'Street' needs to justify it's existence BTW, just 'declare' itself.

 

Now that all the corrupt 'charms' you have referred to have been effective, Pandora's Box has been opened.

Live with it.

[fotografr]

We have an interesting discussion here as to what constitutes street photography. I tend to agree with Erl's points about no arrangement and premeditation. I would say street photography involves shooting people who are unposed and generally unaware of the camera--or, at least, who are not changing their behavior for the camera. It is a purely spontaneous moment involving a brief encounter between the photographer and the subject. When the subject becomes aware of the camera and begins to act for it, I would say the resulting photographs move into the realm of "people," or "portraiture."

[Rolo]

It is so difficult to get consensus on this and unless some Rules are applied specifically stating whats allowed, then it's open to interpretation by any individual and your views are as invalid as another. The only other solution, avoiding Rules is to allow the photographer to decide where it sits and for no Moderator to move it along, unless it blatantly has nothing to do with a street.

 

Then what's the definition of the street ? Is it open air street and not a shopping arcade, or an exhibition hall ? Is it a location thing, or a shooting approach ? If its inside a barbers shop is it not street ?

 

I've been working on an extended series of 'street portraits'. I had no contact with the subjects before the moments before the camera was focussed. They are not 'candid' for sure, but are street, see here: Flickr: Rolo .'s Photostream They are portraits and definitely people, but they are street portraits and I may choose to reinforce the street element. I won't be posting them here, but I'd suggest that there are rules, or no rules and not repeated interpretations that take us nowhere.

 

I'm totally in favour of the photographer deciding it to be placed in the Street Photography Section, if that's what he wants. We campaigned a long time for this section and I'm delighted it's arrived. I'm dismayed, a little, that others are still trying to define what 'street' is.

[andybarton]

Weren't you one of the people calling for a "Street" section?

 

Given that there was no consensus re the definition of "street" prior to the sub-forum being opened, I would suggest that it's up to the individual as to whether it's "street" or not.

 

_This_ Mod won't be moving any thing out of here unless it's clearly here in error

[mgcd]

We have an interesting discussion here as to what constitutes street photography. I tend to agree with Erl's points about no arrangement and premeditation. I would say street photography involves shooting people who are unposed and generally unaware of the camera--or, at least, who are not changing their behavior for the camera. It is a purely spontaneous moment involving a brief encounter between the photographer and the subject. When the subject becomes aware of the camera and begins to act for it, I would say the resulting photographs move into the realm of "people," or "portraiture."

 

Then what differentiates it from say, documentary photography? A total lack of narrative elements? Your image tells a story. I guess you see where I'm going with this...

[bill]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No.

 

Does one label really matter more than another? We now have a street forum. The time for existential angst is over. Why the bloody hell can't people ever be satisfied around here?

 

 

 

Sent from another Galaxy

[erl]

Maybe the malcontents should be out on the street!

(Just joking, why waste a good line. No offense intended)

[mgcd]

No.

 

Does one label really matter more than another? We now have a street forum. The time for existential angst is over. Why the bloody hell can't people ever be satisfied around here?

 

 

 

Sent from another Galaxy

 

Actually yes. It matters. It's not a question of labels frankly I would not expect a change in Forum labels. It's just about truth and integrity not about changing the name. I am actually amused by the tone of your answer, if you do not wish to participate in this discussion, please don't. There wasn't a hint of rudeness in the discussion until your answer. For years, while teaching photojournalism at the undergraduate and graduate levels, it was clear that there was no such thing as "Street Photography". Now that the Forum has elected to institute such a category I was truly curious as to how people around here define it. That doesn't give anyone permission to flame anyone else.

 

Sent from THIS very Galaxy

[erl]

Actually yes. It matters. It's not a question of labels frankly I would not expect a change in Forum labels.

Nothing is forever (to quote a source greater than myself). The 'street' label has been long request and now offered.

 

It's just about truth and integrity not about changing the name. I am actually amused by the tone of your answer, if you do not wish to participate in this discussion, please don't. There wasn't a hint of rudeness in the discussion until your answer. For years, while teaching photojournalism at the undergraduate and graduate levels, it was clear that there was no such thing as "Street Photography". Now that the Forum has elected to institute such a category I was truly curious as to how people around here define it. That doesn't give anyone permission to flame anyone else.

 

Sent from THIS very Galaxy

 

I don't smell any burning!

 

Not sure exactly where or when you were teaching, but that is irrelevant. In my 50+ years of active photography there has always been 'street photography'. It was one of the first disciplines I practiced, mainly because I thought I didn't understand 'landscape'.

'A rose by any name.......".

 

Assumes other hat:

This part of the discussion is of interest to many I suspect, but does not belong in this thread belonging to an excellent image. I suggest protagonists of this 'other' discussion please start a separate thread out of courtesy to mark, the OP.

[bill]

I agree. Conrad, I'm sorry if I offended your finer sensitivities (but if you think that was "flaming" you need to get out more). What I was reacting to was un-necessary verbiage on a thread for a really enjoyable image.

 

I don't particularly remember you as a leading light in all the debates that led up to the formation of this sub-forum; It's a bit rich to hijack Brent's thread to try to reheat the debate when the deed is done.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Sent from another Galaxy (if you don't understand the reference, don't try to comment )

[andybarton]

This is the thread from which this discussion evolved

 

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/street-photography/253161-street-photography.html

 

I am sure that it would be greatly appreciated if people could remain civil with each other (and that doesn't only apply to this thread, of course... )

[euston]

 

"What is Street Photography?" Not again PLEASE !!!

 

 

Yes, the question has rather been done to death, hasn't it!

 

When it comes to assigning things to categories, I believe that an empirical approach is generally to be preferred to a dogmatic one.

 

Street photography is whatever the photographers who profess to practise it show it to be. There is no need to define it in advance with all the friction and silliness that would accompany the attempt to do so.

 

The pictures posted in this Street Photography forum will over time demonstrate what collectively we believe it to be. It’s starting to happen already.

[earleygallery]

Street is a very diverse subject, I'm not sure that it can be defined as everyone has their own idea of what it is.

 

I know what it isn't (for me). To some it's just random snaps taken outside, often just someone sitting on a bench in a park, a human statue, a down and out or the back of someones head. Some of those will be 'street' and some won't.

 

I think it's the complexity and diversity which makes it such a captivating genre. Let's just wait and see in time how the participants here interpret it. No need to lay down any rules.

[Guest Ming Rider]

This has been moved out of a Photo thread, as it is a general discussion about the nature of street Photography.

 

How did that happen? I've told Harrison before, "I am quite capable of opening my own threads thank you !"

 

Having a lovely time over at the 'Cat Lovers' thread. I feel like a new man, and the wife says she does to.

 

Wish You Were Here and just sending a postcard.

 

May I suggest that Street is 'simply' the study of human behaviour and interaction . . . as long as it's in a streetish situation . . . and is not posed . . . but can contain dogs . . . or shop fronts . . . or wheely bins . . . or graffiti.

 

There, simple isn't it?

 

. . . To some it's just random snaps taken outside, often just someone sitting on a bench in a park, a human statue, a down and out or the back of someones head. Some of those will be 'street' and some won't.

 

You won't find me taking anything like that, heavens forbid.

[earleygallery]

 

May I suggest that Street is 'simply' the study of human behaviour and interaction . . . as long as it's in a streetish situation . . . and is not posed . . . but can contain dogs . . . or shop fronts . . . or wheely bins . . . or graffiti.

 

You may, but I wouldn't say I agree with you!

[Your Old Dog]

No.

 

Does one label really matter more than another? We now have a street forum. The time for existential angst is over. Why the bloody hell can't people ever be satisfied around here?

 

 

 

Sent from another Galaxy

 

(as we used to say in school) Oh oh! I think I know that one!

 

I think many Leica-fites (fights!) are perfectionist by nature. They desire to see everything defined to perfection so that there is absolutely no slop in the interpretation. But it isn't a perfect world and it's not a digital yes/no or black/white world. There is always the gray matter and for my money that's what makes life interesting. If people got the description they are seeking would they then expect me to take a day to read all the mandated requirements necessary for me to submit a "street" photo?

[mgcd]

.

 

May I suggest that Street is 'simply' the study of human behaviour and interaction . . . as long as it's in a streetish situation . . . and is not posed . . . but can contain dogs . . . or shop fronts . . . or wheely bins . . . or graffiti.

 

There, simple isn't it?

 

 

 

You won't find me taking anything like that, heavens forbid.

 

Well, it is simple. However, that's exactly the definition of documentary photography save for the "streetish" specialisation which is included in broader documentary photography. I also want to say that I am in no way, shape or form seeking to rename this sub forum, just to be clear.

 

Cheers,

[pauledell]

I'm confused as to the argument going along about how rigid the rules of what defines street Photography should be. I agree that there needs to be a broad definition as to what it is but what is the forum for? I thought it was to showcase good pictures. Do we have to hold all entries up to HCB's work to define street photography?

 

Paul

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Stephen.s1]

Just noticed this sub-forum.

 

HOORAY! sez I.