Street photography cliches

could you two please get a room
 
I'd be more than happy to carry on in PM if Gramps wants. Maybe though... this conversation is starting to reveal why there is so much distrust between these two trains of thought on photography.
 
Pookeyhead said:
this conversation is starting to reveal why there is so much distrust between these two trains of thought on photography.
Click to expand...

but only to those who can be arsed to read through the multiquotey pages of you two flirting , which can't be many
 
I'm not defensive David, I have a point of view ... there is a difference, neither am I only referring to your comments in this thread. Whereas you decry images of Durdle Door, for example, just climbing down onto the beach, getting a pleasing image and making it back up the slope would be very satisfying to me.

I take onboard some of the things you say and acknowledge they have merit, yes getting a different pleasing street (or any other genre) image would be satisfying but not something like this, (random), which is surely different but of absolutely no appeal to me whatsoever.

"Stubborn"? ... I'm 65, we do stubborn sometimes.

"Winogrand" ... maybe I'll do a Google :)
 
Last edited:
with pleasure , if you two are about to take your relationship up a gear i don't want to see what might happen next - there isnt enough mind bleach in the world
 
Oh I wouldn't worry... I don't think Gramps likes me all that much :)


gramps said:
"Winogrand" ... maybe I'll do a Google :)
Click to expand...


No offence intended, seriously... but you like street photography and you've never seen this guy's work?

Do it... do it now. Forget me... forget this thread... just go and do that.
 
Last edited:
Well I've read it all and can see both Gramps and David's side of the argument. I think it just goes to show that photography is many different things to different people.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Lightweight :)
Click to expand...

Convince the wife! :D


Winogrand ... like some of his work, ('sailor', the girl on the traffic island, the child emerging from the garage etc), some of it though is the typically angular, cut-off, 'grabbed' work that I don't like and wouldn't emulate.
But yes there are certainly some ideas there.

I guess it comes down to what someone posted on TP a while ago about 'street', that it is often used as a term for "shooting candids in the street" rather than what has become known as the 'street' genre per se.
If I'm truthful I guess that any 'street' photos I take would probably be classed as 'candid in the street'.
 
One of the street photography books I got was criticised by a reviewer on Amazon as being full of cliches. Clearly they hadn't been on flickr.
 
Steve said:
Maybe there is no such thing as an original idea. But street photography seems to rely on cliches more than any other genre of photography. Either that or I've just been unlucky to see the same repetitive dross on flickr masquerading as street photography.

So here are my top five repeated street photograpy cliches.

1. Black and white conversions. Not just black and white, but with unfeasibly large grain that makes the photo look like a photocopy of a newspaper picture from the 1980s.

2. Someone sitting on a bench. That's what they are there for....sitting on. Hardly an unusual activity. Maybe timid street photographers like the idea that their target is sitting so is unlikely to challenge them.

3. Old people. One day we will all be old, and look tired/confused. Just because someone is old, doesn't make them an interesting subject.

4. People talking on mobiles. Maybe 20 years ago but now.....really?

5. Street traders and street artists. I'm lumping these together as they're both a common sight of people just making a living on the street. They are everywhere and not generally very interesting.

Of course, the above can be cumulative... I can imagine faux street photographers wetting themselves at the black and white conversion they have planned of that old woman texting while sitting on a bench next to a veg stall.
Click to expand...

So to remove these so called "cliche" you would be left with?
These things you mentioned are part of the fabric that makes up our streets and towns, city's and community's. To not shoot them any more would be a loss to photography and a win to the ******s who do more talking than walking (and shooting)
I read your post and immediately started to see the series of images i shot that i called grabbed http://www.simondaviesphotography.co.uk/grabbed/album/index.html
I suppose all are cliche according to your post but im still proud of them, they took some balls to shoot and im proud of what i achieved.
Can we see some of your non cliche street photography please?
 
Simon photo said:
So to remove these so called "cliche" you would be left with?
These things you mentioned are part of the fabric that makes up our streets and towns, city's and community's. To not shoot them any more would be a loss to photography and a win to the ******s who do more talking than walking (and shooting)
I read your post and immediately started to see the series of images i shot that i called grabbed http://www.simondaviesphotography.co.uk/grabbed/album/index.html
I suppose all are cliche according to your post but im still proud of them, they took some balls to shoot and im proud of what i achieved.
Can we see some of your non cliche street photography please?
Click to expand...

Well...although flickr is full of the cliches I listed, there are still many websites, books and photographers managing to avoid them as has been pointed out in many posts in this thread already.

And as I also admitted.... I have only one 'street photograph' and I displayed that in a previous post already....and I admitted it was full of cliches.
 
Steve said:
And as I also admitted.... I have only one 'street photograph' and I displayed that in a previous post already....and I admitted it was full of cliches.
Click to expand...

Agree with Simon, you cannot avoid them because they are part of street photography which is why you had the same issue in your one shot.

It is like taking pictures of cars and claiming they are cliched because they have a car in them. It is how you take the picture of the car that matters.
 
ernesto said:
Agree with Simon, you cannot avoid them because they are part of street photography which is why you had the same issue in your one shot.

It is like taking pictures of cars and claiming they are cliched because they have a car in them. It is how you take the picture of the car that matters.
Click to expand...

Nice to see you back on topic rather than making ridiculous accusations about war mongering.

Of course the cliches can be avoided.

I didn't avoid them because I just saw something I liked and shot it. So this was a choice to take the easy cliched option. It was in a park rather than on the street, so don't know if it even counts as street photography :)

But read David's posts in this thread to see examples of photographers avoiding such cliches. I've seen lots of original and non cliched street photography on websites and books too. It can be done.

If people wan't to take formulaic street photographs (as I did), then that's better than taking nothing at all. But let's not pretend that it's not possible to avoid cliches.
 
Steve said:
Nice to see you back on topic rather than making ridiculous accusations about war mongering.



If people wan't to take formulaic street photographs (as I did), then that's better than taking nothing at all. But let's not pretend that it's not possible to avoid cliches.
Click to expand...

Lighten up about the war mongering, it was clearly a joke.

Of course it is possible to to take a shot that you don't count as cliched but those shots are difficult to get and probably not even possible for most people as they may not have the creativity to do so and need the 'guidance' from other peoples shots.
 
ernesto said:
Lighten up about the war mongering, it was clearly a joke.

Of course it is possible to to take a shot that you don't count as cliched but those shots are difficult to get and probably not even possible for most people as they may not have the creativity to do so and need the 'guidance' from other peoples shots.
Click to expand...

Phew...sorry mate... I had assumed it was a joke but then wasn't sure and began to think it was serious :)

Well some people are saying it's impossible to avoid cliches. I'm not saying it's easy....just that it is possible.

There was an article in AP about 6 weeks ago about a street photographer. I forget his name, but somebody else may recall it. He was talking about attending a march in Northern Ireland as he thought it would be a good place to get some photos. He said he was out for something like 6 hours and got 1 photo.

One photo in six hours....I'm sure that most of us (including me) would wan't more than 1 keeper in 6 hours, but maybe that's what separates the wheat from the chaff.
 
I tend to be a mix of very self critical and not very good at photography so 1 keeper would be good for me :)
 
Steve said:
There was an article in AP about 6 weeks ago about a street photographer. I forget his name, but somebody else may recall it. He was talking about attending a march in Northern Ireland as he thought it would be a good place to get some photos. He said he was out for something like 6 hours and got 1 photo.

One photo in six hours....I'm sure that most of us (including me) would wan't more than 1 keeper in 6 hours, but maybe that's what separates the wheat from the chaff.
Click to expand...

ernesto said:
I tend to be a mix of very self critical and not very good at photography so 1 keeper would be good for me :)
Click to expand...

There's a difference between '1 photo' and '1 keeper' ... if I was out for 6 hours I would certainly expect to get more than 1 photo but 'keepers' would be a different thing altogether.
 
Simon photo said:
So to remove these so called "cliche" you would be left with?
Click to expand...

The ones that aren't clichés?


Simon photo said:
These things you mentioned are part of the fabric that makes up our streets and towns, city's and community's.
Click to expand...

Part of it, yes. A very well covered part of it.



Simon photo said:
To not shoot them any more would be a loss to photography and a win to the ******s who do more talking than walking (and shooting)
Click to expand...

Disagree... when a subject becomes saturated, and such a heavy influence so that it self perpetuates, then less photography of everything else as a result is what I would consider a loss to photography. ... and I shoot plenty thank you very much.


Simon photo said:
I read your post and immediately started to see the series of images i shot that i called grabbed http://www.simondaviesphotography.co.uk/grabbed/album/index.html
I suppose all are cliche according to your post but im still proud of them, they took some balls to shoot and im proud of what i achieved.
Can we see some of your non cliche street photography please?
Click to expand...


I agree... they are a nice series of images. I do question the hard core black and white, and I also question why they are all old. Was that a conscious choice? If so, why? The title is Grabbed... not Old People Grabbed. Why not include a broader section of society? If it was your intention to shoot only old people... can you rationalise that decision?

Some exposure/processing issues with some of those too.


ernesto said:
Agree with Simon, you cannot avoid them because they are part of street photography
Click to expand...

I disagree. Just don't press the shutter if you see a cliché in your viewfinder. You make it sound like there's no choice to be had :)

ernesto said:
It is like taking pictures of cars and claiming they are cliched because they have a car in them. It is how you take the picture of the car that matters.
Click to expand...


No.. it's like taking pictures of a car in a urban car park, or industrial estate... with light painting.... or a car shot using a rig... or having a lightly clad female draped across the car... or any other things that are clichés. The fact that it has a car in it doesn't make it a cliché any more than taking an image on the street makes it a cliché.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
I agree... they are a nice series of images. I do question the hard core black and white, and I also question why they are all old. Was that a conscious choice? If so, why? The title is Grabbed... not Old People Grabbed. Why not include a broader section of society? If it was your intention to shoot only old people... can you rationalise that decision?

Some exposure/processing issues with some of those too.
Click to expand...

Did i miss the part where any critique was asked for ?? :nono:
I thought the rules were very clear on that!!

David, you are obviously very accomplished at what you do, but why the one man mission to educate TP?

As has already been stated by others in this thread, some of us are just in this for our hobby, are we not allowed to make our own mistakes and learn from them? Also pointed out in this thread, whilst shooting the clichés (some of which may of been our original inspiration in the first place, a cliché wasn't always a cliché) we are learning about technique and composition, some of us just learn the hard way. :bonk:
 
Bassit said:
Did i miss the part where any critique was asked for ?? :nono:
I thought the rules were very clear on that!!
Click to expand...

I apologise unreservedly for that.... there was no evil intentions I promise you. Merely forgot the rules. [edit] However, me talking about why they were all old, was not critique... it was a relevant question perfectly in context and valid for this debate.


Bassit said:
David, you are obviously very accomplished at what you do, but why the one man mission to educate TP?
Click to expand...

Of course not... I'm taking part in the discussion. I'm not accusing those that have a different view to me of trying to "educate" me, so why assume I'm trying to "educate" you? Am I not just taking part in the debate like everyone else?

Bassit said:
As has already been stated by others in this thread, some of us are just in this for our hobby, are we not allowed to make our own mistakes and learn from them?
Click to expand...

Of course, and it's actually a very useful way to learn, but in order to learn from a mistake don;t you have to actually recognise it as one? Shooting cliché is not a mistake though, not in the same way getting exposure wrong is a mistake: It's a choice, and being a free one, much harder to debate.

Bassit said:
Also pointed out in this thread, whilst shooting the clichés (some of which may of been our original inspiration in the first place, a cliché wasn't always a cliché) we are learning about technique and composition, some of us just learn the hard way. :bonk:
Click to expand...

Of course, but you don't have to shoot clichés in order to learn techniques and composition. It offers no advantage really. I suppose it gives a readily available benchmark to measure yourself against, and I admit there is some logic in that, but at some point, having that as justification for shooting cliché will outlive it's usefulness... then what? Without the desire to stop shooting cliché, surely you will carry on? Again.. personal choice... which is why this debate has the potential to be endless I suppose... much like all these debates. That doesn't mean those debates shouldn't happen, or not be encouraged, because having them may help people decide where they want to go creatively.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
I apologise unreservedly for that.... there was no evil intentions I promise you. Merely forgot the rules. [edit] However, me talking about why they were all old, was not critique... it was a relevant question perfectly in context and valid for this debate.

No apology needed to myself, i just wanted things to be kept civil i suppose.


Of course not... I'm taking part in the discussion. I'm not accusing those that have a different view to me of trying to "educate" me, so why assume I'm trying to "educate" you? Am I not just taking part in the debate like everyone else?

I see your posts to be a bit more assertive than most on here, i assume its a confidence thing in that you are very confident in what you have to say and kind of feel like you are talking to us as you would your students.


Of course, and it's actually a very useful way to learn, but in order to learn from a mistake don;t you have to actually recognise it as one? Shooting cliché is not a mistake though, not in the same way getting exposure wrong is a mistake: It's a choice, and being a free one, much harder to debate.

I am not sure if your own style can ever become clichéd, but surely at some point we all would get a bit fed up with shooting to the same style and eventually feel the need for change, i know i would.

Of course, but you don't have to shoot clichés in order to learn techniques and composition. It offers no advantage really. I suppose it gives a readily available benchmark to measure yourself against, and I admit there is some logic in that, but at some point, having that as justification for shooting cliché will outlive it's usefulness... then what? Without the desire to stop shooting cliché, surely you will carry on? Again.. personal choice... which is why this debate has the potential to be endless I suppose... much like all these debates. That doesn't mean those debates shouldn't happen, or not be encouraged, because having them may help people decide where they want to go creatively.
Click to expand...

As my reply above really.

Thank you for taking my post in the context it was intended :), im not the best at getting my point across (on a forum or even face to face :eek:), i don't really have much to say or add to this debate other than i said in my first post, so will bow out of this, thank you for your reply though. :thumbs:

EDIT: My reply didn't come out as i intended so have highlighted my reply's.
 
Last edited:
Dunno that it's confidence... I get really passionate about photography is all I think. Like all creative people, I'm riddled with self doubt... I've just learned that that is perfectly normal is all :)

As for getting fed up shooting the same stuff.... well yeah... Of course. I think anyone's style can become clichéd. Not in the wider context... if you're original to begin with, but you'll become a cliché of yourself though... in many ways, I think that would be worse! :)
 
Last edited:
fabs said:
There is no reverse snobbery, people are just defending their right to take the photos they wish to take so please untwist your knickers.

and the swear filter is there for a reason.
Click to expand...


I'd just like to point out that you seem to be ignoring swear filter abuse in the Funny Comments thread, yet **** hot with it in here... during a post about reverse snobbery.


The irony :)
 
Pookeyhead said:
I'd just like to point out that you seem to be ignoring swear filter abuse in the Funny Comments thread, yet **** hot with it in here... during a post about reverse snobbery.


The irony :)
Click to expand...

Did you report any of those? There's a good chance I haven't even read most of the posts in there let alone spotted anyone bypassing the swear filter,

In any case, if you have an issue with any moderating decisions, please use Contact us, as stated in the form rules.
 
Nope, not reported... doesn't bother me personally.

There's not many... perhaps three. I'm sure you did notice, because you're active in that thread, and you also replied to someone, and quoted him using "****ing" and no mention of swearing was made. WHether he actually typed the letters, or asterixed them himself I have no idea... but according to the rules, even using asterix is a no no.
Oh well.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Nope, not reported... doesn't bother me personally.

There's not many... perhaps three. I'm sure you did notice, because you're active in that thread, and you also replied to someone, and quoted him using "****ing" and no mention of swearing was made. WHether he actually typed the letters, or asterixed them himself I have no idea... but according to the rules, even using asterix is a no no.
Oh well.
Click to expand...

Well, I made just 1 post in that thread and the swear filter automatically replaces the first 4 letters of that particular word (if you don't believe me, try it using the preview post button) so there was no need for me to mention anything was there. I can assure you I didn't notice any others in there, whether you want to believe that is entirely up to you. If I had noticed them, I would have taken exactly the same action unless you're insecure enough to think I'm picking on you. :)
 
fabs said:
Well, I made just 1 post in that thread and the swear filter automatically replaces the first 4 letters of that particular word
Click to expand...

The swear filter did the same thing in my post, but I still got told off for it

vIsJngQ.jpg
 
****.


Seems to work for me. Same letters. (shrug).
 
I did? If so , then ignore me.. I'm just in a moany mood.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top