Trying to define 'Street Photography' for me

Just for clarity - no HDR was used/hurt in any of my pics :D

Enhanced clarity & grunge look, yes :lol:

So we've really come no closer to defining Street then - it seems to be...

1 - anything you think it is
2 - so long as a street was nearby-ish, and
3 - people were in it somewhere
4 - and by any normal standards of what is considered a good photo, that doesn't matter in Street

Is there ANY other genre so wide open as this ??? :thinking:

Dave
 
What was that we were saying about Klein the other week?
 
DG Phototraining said:
Just for clarity - no HDR was used/hurt in any of my pics :D

Enhanced clarity & grunge look, yes :lol:

So we've really come no closer to defining Street then - it seems to be...

1 - anything you think it is
2 - so long as a street was nearby-ish, and
3 - people were in it somewhere
4 - and by any normal standards of what is considered a good photo, that doesn't matter in Street

Is there ANY other genre so wide open as this ??? :thinking:

Dave
Click to expand...

From what ive seen of photography and only being new to it all...the answer id say is no...but a think its a good thing seems like it makes for good discussion and critiquing
 
DG Phototraining said:
Just for clarity - no HDR was used/hurt in any of my pics :D

Enhanced clarity & grunge look, yes :lol:

So we've really come no closer to defining Street then - it seems to be...

1 - anything you think it is
2 - so long as a street was nearby-ish, and
3 - people were in it somewhere
4 - and by any normal standards of what is considered a good photo, that doesn't matter in Street

Is there ANY other genre so wide open as this ??? :thinking:

Dave
Click to expand...

There is no definition

Take say Bresson:

art_henri20cartier-bresson20-20aquila20degl.jpg


Vs

Klein
5+ave+3.bmp


One is in your face, involves interaction and emotive, one is distant involves the environment and is non interactive and still emotive

take your choce
 
Bresson's were all "SOOC" too. Apparently he loathed the darkroom stuff, often "relegating it to someone else" (his words), not even cropping, ever. Mental really, but despite this, his images all have a remarkably well balanced composition - they somehow look "nice". Well worth a google for a butchers'.
 
Last edited:
Richard King said:
There is no definition

Take say Bresson:

Vs

Klein

One is in your face, involves interaction and emotive, one is distant involves the environment and is non interactive and still emotive

take your choce
Click to expand...

You can't simply define a photographers style by simply Plucking one image from thousands they have shot! Some of bressons work is very up close and personal, portraits, candids. He shot the lot.
 
henri-cartier-bresson_valencia_1933.jpg
ZoneV said:
Bresson's were all "SOOC" too. Apparently he loathed the darkroom stuff, often "relegating it to someone else" (his words), not even cropping, ever. Mental really, but despite this, his images all have a remarkably well balanced composition - they somehow look "nice". Well worth a google for a butchers'.
Click to expand...

The image above is widely known to be cropped, as it was shot through a fence, the fence panel is visible in the un. Cropped version.
And as far as straight out of camera, his lab and printers would and did manipulate his images with contrast control, dodge and burning, all your standard darkroom practices.
 
Simon photo said:
*Snip*
The image above is widely known to be cropped, as it was shot through a fence, the fence panel is visible in the un. Cropped version.
And as far as straight out of camera, his lab and printers would and did manipulate his images with contrast control, dodge and burning, all your standard darkroom practices.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, he used to emphasise the fact his images were uncropped by printing them with a narrow border, from the unexposed area of the negative outside the image, in all of his pictures. I don't know where you've heard different, but everything I've seen and read seems to say that he never used darkroom techniques beyond basic development. He believed in "the moment". If you capture it, great. If not, then don't try and rescue it - do it again.

I'm not saying I think his stuff is the be-all-and-end-all, but it sure is interesting and I like many of his pictures.

cartier_bresson_01.jpg
 
Last edited:
DG Phototraining said:
Okies - well I've had a look at that flickr link and I reckon you're just taking the pee :lol:

I scanned the first hundred or so just laughing that anyone would think any of them worth showing others; that's not a genre just a collection of crap no-one should suffer looking at IMO :lol:
Click to expand...

:D

Words like blind, blinkered, missing the point spring to mind. ..that link set, is a fabulous set of Street for me.

So ok, let me get this straight...you haven't understood street at all, just pretend too, and my uplifting general comment about your shots was a waste of effort as you clearly still don't understand anything about the subject. ..well, theirs still time left yet I guess. ;)
 
Agree Adam. There are some great shots in there and I would put the OP down as someone who wants to understand by defining things rather than just looking at the images.
The fact all the images in those examples are considered crap tells me that street photography is not something he gets or enjoys (nothing wrong with that)
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
:D

Words like blind, blinkered, missing the point spring to mind. ..that link set, is a fabulous set of Street for me.

So ok, let me get this straight...you haven't understood street at all, just pretend too, and my uplifting general comment about your shots was a waste of effort as you clearly still don't understand anything about the subject. ..well, theirs still time left yet I guess. ;)
Click to expand...

ernesto said:
Agree Adam. There are some great shots in there and I would put the OP down as someone who wants to understand by defining things rather than just looking at the images.
The fact all the images in those examples are considered crap tells me that street photography is not something he gets or enjoys (nothing wrong with that)
Click to expand...



Maybe I'll concede a point here - I 'get' what I think Street is - but I certainly don't get what you are seeing in that pile of crap :D

Best leave it here then

CLOSED THREAD :lol:

Dave
 
Well we can't all like the same things
 
Last edited:
The 1st image is by far the best shot. the light / reflections / contrast are simply beatufiul in my opinion.

I don't see why it wouldn't be a street shot?

As said by others, they're all street shots, just different styles. The only thing I dislike is the HDR style processing on some of the images.

PS; manchester is lovely to shoot at this time of year, but yes you are right about the weather - braving the cold is a challenge in it self :D haha
 
Last edited:
Count me in as blind/blinkered/missing the point too...... the majority of those images were pretty poor/average imo.

Must be my fault of course if I don't get it. Couldn't possibly be a case of Emperor's new clothes?

And no, I don't 'get' pickled sharks either.
 
or unmade beds, or piles of bricks, or dissected cows in formaldehyde ...
 
Steve said:
Must be my fault of course if I don't get it.
Click to expand...

well it can't really be anybody else's fault. Yes, you don't get those photos just as I don't get the hundreds of photos of peoples kids and certainly can't see why anybody else would want to see them either, but they clearly do.
 
Oh yes, I dislike children at the best times and I certainly don't want to see pictures of other peoples. However, that is my 'problem' and I just skip over those threads and images.
 
I think I read somewhere that only about 1 out of every 400 shots submitted to the HSPC flickr pool ( http://www.flickr.com/groups/onthestreet/pool/ )actually get "approved" and added to the pool.

They also have a submission limit of 2 pictures per week maximum.

I think that street is still very much a "niche" type of photography that only really appeals to a small minority of photographers.
 
Hi,
Im unsure how you would say what "is2 or "is not" street photography. what I would say is I love the shot thats the second one in of the guy pointing and talking to someone.
I'm going to be bold and say that say's to me "LIFE" is real, open no frills. looks as if they are in a full blown conversation.
I wish I could find these type of shots. I just dont seem to have the subject or composure in my mind when out and about. well done.
 
gramps said:
I find that quite staggering looking at a selection of them, based on what I see I imagined anyone could upload absolutely anything.
Click to expand...

I see entirely the opposite, as I can image the onslaught of shots taken in the street given to them, and the very slow selective picking of those that actually cut the mustard so to speak.

Some of the shots in their make me feel like an absolute novice I can tell you. :shake: :thumbs:
 
We're all different, (as has already been said), and that's great ... but personally some of those shots make me stop doubting myself - not all, as there are some crackers there but for me so many are 'crackers' in an entirely different way :)
 
Last edited:
:lol:
Did you love that one too

For me, In basics its candid and unrepeatable reality, its a daft moment of everyday life caught as a one off moment, ...Id guess what makes it a cut above is its an excessive hiccup, an unusual and odd looking example of such a moment, framed and caught in an odd way... I mean looks like he's being hung by the wind doesn't it, like rubbish even. lol

Its a simple but good one to me.

what do you see in this one?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/oggsie/7827489778/in/pool-onthestreet
 
Last edited:
DG Phototraining said:
This has to be one of my favs - moreso when I read the 'amazing' comments

Oh how I to aspire to be able to shoot like this...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/oscar_luis/8176784448/in/pool-onthestreet

NOT :D

If ANY of you arty Street lovers can make a sensible argument for this being good photography (Street or otherwise) then you're a genius :lol:

Dave
Click to expand...

This comment made me chuckle. Gotta love Flickr: "This photo was invited and added to the Physically Awkward, Off-Balance, Hidden Face group." :lol:

I'll resist commenting on the picture, since it wasn't offered up for crit by the taker. :)
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
:lol:
Did you love that one too

For me, In basics its candid and unrepeatable reality, its a daft moment of everyday life caught as a one off moment, ...Id guess what makes it a cut above is its an excessive hiccup, an unusual and odd looking example of such a moment, framed and caught in an odd way even... I mean looks like he's being hung by the wind doesn't it. lol

Its a simple but good one to me.

what do you see in this one?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/oggsie/7827489778/in/pool-onthestreet
Click to expand...

I'm left wondering what's happening to the left that's so interesting, and why the photographer isn't photographing that instead of relying on a pathetic attempt at humour by positioning some bloke (lower down) walking passed so he's made to look like he's lusting after that girls tit :shrug:

I suspect that rather than trying to capture this as is the tog was photographing the beauty in front of him as that bloke walked by, later at home, he saw the unfortunate positioning of that bloke and uploaded it as he felt it was funny

Intentional observational Street capture ??? - defo not

So what do you see ??? :thinking:

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
I'm left wondering what's happening to the left that's so interesting, and why the photographer isn't photographing that instead of relying on a pathetic attempt at humour by positioning some bloke (lower down) walking passed so he's made to look like he's lusting after that girls tit :shrug:

I suspect that rather than trying to capture this as is the tog was photographing the beauty in front of him as that bloke walked by, later at home, he saw the unfortunate positioning of that bloke and uploaded it as he felt it was funny

Intentional observational Street capture ??? - defo not

So what do you see ??? :thinking:

Dave
Click to expand...

Suggestion is more powerful than revealing the subject outright. It's probably some boring street performer anyway, and they're usually poor subjects for street photography. The moment of capture probably was intentional too, after shooting street for a while you tend to be able to survey a scene very quickly and get a feel for what looks right in the viewfinder.
 
DG Phototraining said:
I'm left wondering what's happening to the left that's so interesting, and why the photographer isn't photographing that instead of relying on a pathetic attempt at humour by positioning some bloke (lower down) walking passed so he's made to look like he's lusting after that girls tit :shrug:

I suspect that rather than trying to capture this as is the tog was photographing the beauty in front of him as that bloke walked by, later at home, he saw the unfortunate positioning of that bloke and uploaded it as he felt it was funny

Intentional observational Street capture ??? - defo not

So what do you see ??? :thinking:

Dave
Click to expand...
Well you might be right, maybe it was an after spot, I can see why your cynical...I hadn't even thought from that perspective. .. I see an imagined story of sitting man dozily breast feeding like a baby while mother worries kind of thing. ..Id bet the photographer would be happy with either response.
 
Last edited:
ZoneV said:
As far as I know, he used to emphasise the fact his images were uncropped by printing them with a narrow border, from the unexposed area of the negative outside the image, in all of his pictures. I don't know where you've heard different, but everything I've seen and read seems to say that he never used darkroom techniques beyond basic development. He believed in "the moment". If you capture it, great. If not, then don't try and rescue it - do it again.

I'm not saying I think his stuff is the be-all-and-end-all, but it sure is interesting and I like many of his pictures.
Click to expand...

Perhaps watch the first few minutes of the documentary called the impassioned eye.
You will witness a print being made of an image of mattise holding a dove taken by bresson.
The printmaker can be clearly seen burning in detail on the dove....bresson then viewing the finished prints and rejecting certain ones due to dark prints.
So as for straight out of camera goes, im afraid to say its a bit of a misguided statement.
 
Simon photo said:
Perhaps watch the first few minutes of the documentary called the impassioned eye.
You will witness a print being made of an image of mattise holding a dove taken by bresson.
The printmaker can be clearly seen burning in detail on the dove....bresson then viewing the finished prints and rejecting certain ones due to dark prints.
So as for straight out of camera goes, im afraid to say its a bit of a misguided statement.
Click to expand...

Maybe SOOC is stretching it, but the point I was trying to make was his lack of interest in PP. He believed in the moment of captue, not post processing, hence his reluctance to even crop his images. It's one of the things he's most well known for as any search of "bresson darkroom" seems to confirm.
 
gramps said:
It's just a mish-mash for me, I can see how it might appeal to some due to the apparent interaction between the man and woman centre of frame but it holds nothing for me.

Now this one ...
Different story altogether :D


http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4013/4224617157_152b17c5b6.jpg
Click to expand...

...got side tracked.

Is it like you require some level of quality in composition for it to be street then? No room for a little context to sort of emphasize the random moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top