Impact by poising or impact by hap-chance

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, lmans said:

If I pose someone....is it street photography? 

Are you worried either way? Would it make a difference to you, and whether you'd take the photo, if you knew which category it fell in?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[pippy]

3 hours ago, lmans said:

If I pose someone....is it street photography? 

It is if you are in a street.

Philip.

[lmans]

Yes it would....if someone poses a shot on the street, I regard it as not the same level of difficulty of a shot as when you hunt for and find a shot that gives one the same impact, but without being posed. It is a level of difficulty and spontaneity that sets one apart from the other. One is street photography, one is street portrait. 

I saw a fantastic shot the other day of some lady on a train......up close, and the scene behind her blended in. I asked the photographer was it 'staged' or not....he stated yes. Now, it doesn't take away from the overall impact, but it  does take away from what I feel is the intangible aspect of what true street photography is (spontaneity) and unstaged. 

I suppose there are two sides to this..... People who want that perfect photograph and are willing to stage or have someone pose for them.....and others who want true 'state of being....spontaneity, realism....   I just happen to be in the latter camp (obviously) and do get miffed when the two types of photography are lumped together as one. 

[Luke_Miller]

I am primarily a social event photographer and try to capture interesting expressions, gestures, and groupings. When folks become aware of me, they will often stop and pose for the camera.  I will take the shot but rarely use it.  I am much more interested in capturing their unaware-of-the-camera behavior.  I am always on the lookout for an interesting face and try to capture what I call a candid portrait of their natural expression.  A long lens gets me a tight shot, isolates the subject from the normally busy background., and allows me to work unnoticed.  At the other end of the spectrum, I do studio photography and endeavor to capture the expression most flattering to the subject.

So unposed when shooting for myself and posed when shooting for others.

[pippy]

23 hours ago, lmans said:

Yes it would....if someone poses a shot on the street, I regard it as not the same level of difficulty of a shot as when you hunt for and find a shot that gives one the same impact, but without being posed. It is a level of difficulty and spontaneity that sets one apart from the other. One is street photography, one is street portrait. 

I saw a fantastic shot the other day of some lady on a train......up close, and the scene behind her blended in. I asked the photographer was it 'staged' or not....he stated yes. Now, it doesn't take away from the overall impact, but it  does take away from what I feel is the intangible aspect of what true street photography is (spontaneity) and unstaged. 

I suppose there are two sides to this..... People who want that perfect photograph and are willing to stage or have someone pose for them.....and others who want true 'state of being....spontaneity, realism....   I just happen to be in the latter camp (obviously) and do get miffed when the two types of photography are lumped together as one. 

I completely understand where you are coming from with your personal viewpoint Imans but - as far as my own shooting is concerned - I have found I couldn't possibly adopt such a restrictive approach towards - nor such a narrow definition for - 'Street Photography'.

Let's consider just a few of the differences between 'posed' and 'unposed';

When out on The Street you see an interesting situation developing and bring your camera up to your eye. You might request some reaction from 'The Subject' and 'The Subject' reacts accordingly. When something is requested but, even although they have seen you, 'The Subject' ignores your request. When something is requested but 'The Subject' reacts differently from your request. When nothing is requested but 'The Subject' instinctively strike up a pose because 'The Subject' knows you have a camera and acts-up accordingly. When nothing is requested but, just by your very presence, 'The Subject' still strikes up a pose - showing-off perhaps? - even although 'The Subject' doesn't know you have a camera.

You still get your snap in each one of these situations. All the resultant photographs are sublime. How many 'Street Photography' categories should we create for these five pictures captured in five different sets of circumstance?

For me the numerous blurred and grey areas are all simply far too numerous, blurred and grey; they make a mockery of such a Narrow Classification for Street Photography as to that which you wish to adhere. If, however, your find that your own personal definition and restrictions works for you then, of course, good luck to you.

Philip.

[lmans]

On 5/3/2022 at 7:57 AM, pippy said:

I completely understand where you are coming from with your personal viewpoint Imans but - as far as my own shooting is concerned - I have found I couldn't possibly adopt such a restrictive approach towards - nor such a narrow definition for - 'Street Photography'.

Let's consider just a few of the differences between 'posed' and 'unposed';

When out on The Street you see an interesting situation developing and bring your camera up to your eye. You might request some reaction from 'The Subject' and 'The Subject' reacts accordingly. When something is requested but, even although they have seen you, 'The Subject' ignores your request. When something is requested but 'The Subject' reacts differently from your request. When nothing is requested but 'The Subject' instinctively strike up a pose because 'The Subject' knows you have a camera and acts-up accordingly. When nothing is requested but, just by your very presence, 'The Subject' still strikes up a pose - showing-off perhaps? - even although 'The Subject' doesn't know you have a camera.

You still get your snap in each one of these situations. All the resultant photographs are sublime. How many 'Street Photography' categories should we create for these five pictures captured in five different sets of circumstance?

For me the numerous blurred and grey areas are all simply far too numerous, blurred and grey; they make a mockery of such a Narrow Classification for Street Photography as to that which you wish to adhere. If, however, your find that your own personal definition and restrictions works for you then, of course, good luck to you.

Philip.

I guess I am not saying 'don't have that narrow definition of street photography but DO have a distinguishment between street photography that is pure candid and one that is posed. There is a huge difference in how one shoots and the results you can get. I know many people who simply cannot do 'true candid street photography', which is a skill. They are afraid /scared / nervous about taking shots and moving on. They are afraid/ nervous/ scared about that process and if people will yell at them or if the light is right or if something is in the background that shouldn't be etc etc....   Candid street photography is simply uncontrolled and they don't like it. But they gladly will ask if they can take a shot or Posed Street Photography. The process is not the same, and that is what irks me. I will

People lump street photography 'posed and candid' into one category and they don't belong there. It would be like someone doing studio photography with some people using lights and the other person attempting to make a similar photo from what light  naturally occurs. The two skill- sets simply differ. Same with Candid and Posed street photography; two totally different skill-sets and given that, they do not belong together. Those are two broad categories and when I see a person who comes out with a perfect 'posed image' on the streets and then convey it to be 'street photography' candid, ...well, no...simply not. 

Edited August 4, 2022 by lmans

[pippy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

50 minutes ago, lmans said:

I guess I am not saying 'don't have that narrow definition of street photography but DO have a distinguishment between street photography that is pure candid and one that is posed. There is a huge difference in how one shoots and the results you can get. I know many people who simply cannot do 'true candid street photography', which is a skill. They are afraid /scared / nervous about taking shots and moving on. They are afraid/ nervous/ scared about that process and if people will yell at them or if the light is right or if something is in the background that shouldn't be etc etc....   Candid street photography is simply uncontrolled and they don't like it. But they gladly will ask if they can take a shot or Posed Street Photography. The process is not the same, and that is what irks me. I will

People lump street photography 'posed and candid' into one category and they don't belong there. It would be like someone doing studio photography with some people using lights and the other person attempting to make a similar photo from what light  naturally occurs. The two skill- sets simply differ. Same with Candid and Posed street photography; two totally different skill-sets and given that, they do not belong together. Those are two broad categories and when I see a person who comes out with a perfect 'posed image' on the streets and then convey it to be 'street photography' candid, ...well, no...simply not. 

By all means do what you do - and good luck to you - but don't for one millisecond believe that everyone should conform your iconoclastic concept of what 'Street Photography' embraces. Clearly you have formed your own singularly personal interpretation of what might be called an 'Art Form'. Accept that others may interpret this same genre in a different way.

Philip.

[lmans]

Phillip....it isn't iconoclastic and it isn't pinpointing what street photography "is or isn't'...Read my posts....     it is stating that both are street photography but each has a special set of sub skills and that should be recognized and indeed that separates them. One is not the other....they might be under the same umbrella of street photography but they are not equal. 

[lct]

1 hour ago, lmans said:

[...] both are street photography but each has a special set of sub skills and that should be recognized [...]

Hard to achieve w/o proving that the so-called candid photo was posed or that the seemingly posed photo was candid i suspect. Should please lawyers though .

 

[pippy]

7 hours ago, lmans said:

...but each has a special set of sub skills and that should be recognized and indeed that separates them. One is not the other....they might be under the same umbrella of street photography but they are not equal. 

"they are not equal"?

Are you being serious? Do you really think that as "they are not equal" one approach is somehow deserving of more credit than the other? If so then please enlighten us as to which is which. I'd love to be instructed which is the superior approach and, more specifically, why such might be considered to be the case. Examples to illustrate your point conclusively will, of course, be required.

I look forward to reading all about your 'reasoning'.

Philip.

Edited August 5, 2022 by pippy

[lmans]

A different set of skill sets required by each doesn't imply that one is not better, just that they are not equal in skill set, and thus, are not the same category. 

[pgh]

On 4/9/2022 at 8:32 PM, lmans said:

The latter is the complete opposite of the former examples.

No it isn't. There are many shades of grey in between. 

There are no rules here, and any context you get with an image is the decision of the photographer. The idea of some sort of purity - an objective, documentary photograph died (and rightfully so) decades ago. There is still a strain of documentary work that shares a lot of dogmatic/fundamental beliefs in a way that borders on evangelism but it doesn't make the work any better or any more interesting. 

The only people actually bound by some strict code of only photographing what happens are those who are photojournalists on contract with a publication or agency that dictate this as part of their code of ethics - and even then it depends on what you are photographing. The world is mostly freelance now, and so when I work for one publication I have one way I must approach things and another might give me more freedom. Neither approach is better or worse or even more accurate in the end - in fact, probably the most honest pictures are the portraits where the image itself acknowledges that both photographer and subject are aware of the dynamic in place.

But yea, everything else, you can assume that a photographer may have taken creative liberties - and if they didn't, that in and of itself is still a creative choice. The photographer being at the scene necessarily impacts it anyways. 

[charlesphoto99]

I would say that most of what passes for 'street' photography these days, at least by amateurs, is bullish*t (or just plain bad, depending on how you want to label it). A person walking by talking into their cell phone is NOT street photography (it's just lame). Bruce Gilden asking (or not asking, as he also does) to take somebody's portrait IS street photography - because the result is part of the artist's legacy and body of work, not just a lame attempt at being edgy. Winogrand, Friedlander, Meyerowitz, Gilden, etc etc all hated the term 'street photography' - to them, what they are/were doing is just making great photography, plain and simple.

[pgh]

10 minutes ago, lmans said:

A different set of skill sets required by each doesn't imply that one is not better, just that they are not equal in skill set, and thus, are not the same category. 

This is an argument that's been had for a long time. 

The consensus answer, especially in the world of art, is that nobody cares and it doesn't matter. A good picture is what matters.

Sure, some photographers may care to dive deep and dissect the process and one may respect some approach above another but that is not stuff that is widely interesting the the general public. That's what these forums are for, I guess, but really - the discussion will never get past the philosophical and the answer is really up to you for your own practice. Do not expect the larger world to conform to your opinions about it. 

[Erato]

When a street photographer talk too much about his/her theories, that could be an issue.

[Stuart Richardson]

In all sincerity, you might benefit from reading a bit about photographic theory. One place to start would be here: https://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/themes/photography/photography-as-witness/

It seems though that you are fixated on the fact that one kind of photography is "hard" and one is not as hard. Or that being posed and being unposed has an effect on how an image is read. This is a topic in which the more you learn about it, the grayer it all becomes. There really are not any binaries involved. Is a photo still posed if the subject moved into a different expression while you pressed the shutter, or if there was something happening in the background that you did not notice? What about if you are taking a street photo and the subject notices you and smiles or grimaces? I think what people are trying to indicate is that all photography is posed. Taking a picture is posing...just by pressing the shutter you are defining the picture. Whether you do that on the basis of choosing a composition and picking a moment out of time or you do it by interacting with a subject is not always a meaningful distinction. Certainly not in the world of art. I think most of the people you would think of as master street photographers incorporated "posed" images alongside their other work. There is a sense in the general public that a photograph is truthful, but it is usually not so simple. In the absence of any real definitive "truth" the closest we get in photography is the agreed upon standards of the major news organizations, like AP, NYT, BBC, Reuters, World Press Photo etc.

[lmans]

Show me where I have been fixated that one photography type is hard / or easy....I am simply stating that there is a different set of sub skills for each one and that should be recognized. I saw a photo the other day (and it was a good photo) of a lady on a train. It was in BW and she was turning / twisting her neck to look back slyly at the photographer with an expression....and there was no one else on the train so excellent bokeh and a nice balance between nothing in the background to this expression in the foreground.  Nice looking photo and it was posed, for I asked the photographer.

As a layman looking at that photo and not knowing much about photography, a person might state that 'wow' ...I wish I could do that and then go out under the impression that this person just grabbed this photo as in a 'candid' photo. That photo most likely couldn't be had as a candid photograph, and it was posed / staged. But a layman looking on wouldn't grasp that. They would say....'fantastic photo' but I can never do that, thinking of 'candid' in mind.... as opposed to posed/staged. If the photograph would have been recognized as that of being 'posed', the layman photographer or appreciator of photography might then have a different understanding of the shot and how taken. 

But it wasn't a candid shot.....

The photography skills to take that photo were aimed at posed photography, ..... a person who was attempting to capture a shot like that might have to wait for hours until no one else was on the train, then they would have to sit in back of the person and hope that person turned around just enough to see a side of their face, and then didn't slap them for taking the shot, and also the right light would have to have been there. That, being a candid shot would encompass an entirely different set of photography sub skills. 

That is my point...that is what I am trying to show. I am not stating one is better....but just like in paintings, the painter will speak to the medium used...acrylics, oil...etc...  No different.... 

[pippy]

35 minutes ago, lmans said:

...I saw a photo the other day...of a lady on a train. Nice looking photo and it was posed...But it wasn't a candid shot...

Could you please explain why the fact that the photographer spoke the lady matters? Why should 'Street Photography' need to be candid to be worthy?

If I was faced with the situation of getting a fantastic shot by speaking to my subject or else missing the fantastic shot by keeping my mouth shut I know which I'd rather choose to do because, first and foremost, I'm a Photographer and, secondly, I'm not so stupid that I'd miss the opportunity to take a great photograph on such a totally irrelevant point as having to speak to someone beforehand.

As it happens, in actual fact, I almost never ever ask anything from anyone who might be in any of my street-snaps but that doesn't mean that I would not do so if a better result could be obtained by doing so.

Philip.

Edited August 5, 2022 by pippy

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Ouroboros]

17 minutes ago, lmans said:

Show me where I have been fixated that one photography type is hard / or easy....I am simply stating that there is a different set of sub skills for each one and that should be recognized....

I don't think you are 'fixated', which is a rather silly and pejorative term in the context of your thread. I agree with you that different skillsets are involved; street photography and street portraiture are easily seperated as being distinctly different genres but equally valid .   

[Stuart Richardson]

1 hour ago, lmans said:

Show me where I have been fixated that one photography type is hard / or easy....

How about this? :

On 5/2/2022 at 3:16 PM, lmans said:

Yes it would....if someone poses a shot on the street, I regard it as not the same level of difficulty of a shot as when you hunt for and find a shot that gives one the same impact, but without being posed. It is a level of difficulty and spontaneity that sets one apart from the other. One is street photography, one is street portrait.

It is pretty clear to me that you are focusing on there being a divide between what you characterize as two different skills, and that you view one to be more difficult than the other. By the way, I did not mean fixated as a pejorative. I just meant that you seem to keep returning to the same point, that you want separate skill in taking a candid photo to skill in taking posed photos, and you seem to think that candid photos have a greater degree of difficulty. I think what most people are trying to indicate is that this is not very important to what makes a great photo. One of the refrains I always heard from professors in my MFA program was when photographers tried to explain all the context around their picture. They would say, "Yes, but is it in the picture?"

An example would be if you have a photographer taking a portrait of a person. They might launch into a lengthy backstory regarding how they made the picture and all the ways they felt about it: "Well, you see this was my ex partner who did this and this and we were talking about this and that and I was feeling particularly aggrieved that day because Mercury was in retrograde etc etc". And the professor would butt in and say, "yes, but is it in the picture?" Their point was that in most cases the viewer does not care what you had to go through to make a picture, what you think about it, how you and the subject are related. In a good photograph, you will see those things in the image. You will read the expression in the subject that gives meaning. The light and and the composition and all the things that are contained in the frame will tell that story. Migrant mother is not powerful because it was candid or not candid, it is powerful because of the subject's countenance, the composition, light etc.

Edited August 5, 2022 by Stuart Richardson