What is street photography?

NorthernNikon

NorthernNikon

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,032
Name
Barney
Edit My Images
Yes
DiddyDave posted this on another thread:
And that's still my problem with 'Street' togging - however nice a snap it is it's still a snap - something to look quickly at as just as quickly forget in most cases
Click to expand...

It's an interesting point of view, but what I would argue is that what Dave is referring to isn't good street photography, it's the poor street photography that's being taken and submitted to forums such as this one which are just snaps. Good street photography is never just a snap, it's a combination of some or all of observation, political statement, social comment, juxtapostion, timing, compostion, irony, humour. Just taking a photo of someone isn't enough. Just as a portrait can be a 'snap', uninteresting to anyone who doesn't know the subject and even then something to pass over quickly, good portraits capture something which enthralls the viewer. So it is with good street photography, except I think that it's a hell of a lot harder.
 
I'll buy a bag of that. :thumbs:
 
Street photography to me, is exactly what it says on the tin. It is recording the unusual in the usual everyday activities of people. I don't think street togging has to have any meaning or the need to provide the viewer with an amazing experience, just the need to capture the details of the mundane, in a way that makes it appealing, IMO:thumbs:
 
Meh, I'm fine using my 50mm in Canada for it but I think I'd get beaten / stabbed back home!
 
...and I wrote in that same other thread "Here's a definition: Street photography is a type of documentary photography that usually features people in candid situations in public places such as streets, parks, beaches, malls, political conventions, and other settings.

As to what is candid - here's a definition: can·did (kndd) Not posed or rehearsed: a candid snapshot. So they're also candids." Not my definitions, I picked them up online.

I enjoy this topic. There was a bit of an acrimonious thread a week or so back about what constituted a "candid" shot. Some people seemed to suggest that it meant that the shot had to "tell a story". I don't believe that. Anymore than I believe that a street photograph is anything more than a photograph taken on the street. It's what we amateurs do to amuse ourselves and those who don't, photograph birds or planes or cars or wasps or their wee girl or whatever - and that's good. Beats beating your wife or getting drunk all day as a pastime.

As to what constitutes a great street photograph (or candid) then I do believe we move up a level into something approaching ART - and that, only a few very capable and dedicated people are capable of consistently achieving and we admire them for it. The beauty of amateur photography is that each and every one of us is capable of achieving that level occasionally or by accident or by sheer hard work and luck and that is what keeps us trying. I really don't see any value in denigrating those who try and don't quite reach those high levels (which I don't) but who have fun trying nevertheless. One of these days one of us might just pull it off.
 
aberal said:
...and I wrote in that same other thread "Here's a definition: Street photography is a type of documentary photography that usually features people in candid situations in public places such as streets, parks, beaches, malls, political conventions, and other settings.

As to what is candid - here's a definition: can·did (kndd) Not posed or rehearsed: a candid snapshot. So they're also candids." Not my definitions, I picked them up online.

I enjoy this topic. There was a bit of an acrimonious thread a week or so back about what constituted a "candid" shot. Some people seemed to suggest that it meant that the shot had to "tell a story". I don't believe that. Anymore than I believe that a street photograph is anything more than a photograph taken on the street. It's what we amateurs do to amuse ourselves and those who don't, photograph birds or planes or cars or wasps or their wee girl or whatever - and that's good. Beats beating your wife or getting drunk all day as a pastime.

As to what constitutes a great street photograph (or candid) then I do believe we move up a level into something approaching ART - and that, only a few very capable and dedicated people are capable of consistently achieving and we admire them for it. The beauty of amateur photography is that each and every one of us is capable of achieving that level occasionally or by accident or by sheer hard work and luck and that is what keeps us trying. I really don't see any value in denigrating those who try and don't quite reach those high levels (which I don't) but who have fun trying nevertheless. One of these days one of us might just pull it off.
Click to expand...

Basicly most of this I either like the humourous kind with a funny sign/advertisement or people in all kinds of funny positions in one frame things like that or any photo that makes you think a little.

I seen a suit sitting on the pavement other day reading some folder of some kind:shrug: with people just walking by so just took a shot I hope it turns out well as it'll get whoever I show it too thinking well I hope it does :lol:.

It does take Alot of dedication and patience which is why I bought my olympus xa2 for those moments I need to be quick.The challenge and the pleasure of getting 'that shot' is what its about more than anything else for me.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/onthestreet/ a great group for the kind of shots i'm talking about
 
When I first started in tog-world (it was only 32 years ago!) what appears to be 'Street' now was then simply 'Candid'

I even had books/mags on it telling me to use a lens of 200mm or more so that the subject wouldn't be aware of being shot, and there was this funny lens attachment that allowed you to shoot 90 degrees to the subject. Cameras with super quiet mirror/shutters were recommended to not draw attention, as was using rangefinder cameras as they are quieter still (no mirror to thump about). It was also suggested we learned to shoot 'from the hip', again to hide the capture

Today you're 'cheating' or 'spying' if you're not using a 50mm or even a superwide and not making it obvious what you're doing by being only a few feet from your subjects - an interesting change of approach methinks

I often view Street work in the same way I view holiday snaps over 'proper' photos. Every day a 1,000 or more people will shoot Big Ben but perhaps only a couple will capture something worth taking time enjoying & admiring. To me, for every Street shot full of humour, irony, story, etc. there are too many images where I can only think 'WTF?'

But is not 'getting it' my fault or the togs?

:thinking::thinking::thinking:

DD
 
I don't see why a snap is such a bad thing, in fact I'd goas far as to say practically all photos are snaps, as apart from a couple of news photos, and a couple more bits of fine-art there are few that stick out in my mind, maybe 12 or 13.

I think we should stop saying "that's a snap", "that's valid togging" based on our own preconceptions.

My own style is more around documentary photography, making an accurate record than about constructing something unreal and then capturing my temporary break from reality. It's no less valid, just less ordinary. The problem is that for every 10-15 captures that document something you get one that can stand up on its own without the other photographs or text accompaniment, the trick is deciding which one is worth showing alone. Apparently the internet has removed most people's ability to do this.
 
A street photograph:

kertesz.jpg


Ultimately, like all images a good photograph of the street should make you want to come back and consider it time and again. And of course the distance of time can make the most mundane street 'snap' of any period seem infinitely fascinating.

I even had books/mags on it telling me to use a lens of 200mm or more so that the subject wouldn't be aware of being shot, and there was this funny lens attachment that allowed you to shoot 90 degrees to the subject.
Click to expand...

I remember those! The subject wasn't meant to notice the gaping hole in the side of the lens. I think really though that there are so many cameras taking so many pictures now - especially in cities - that the only people who even notice them are Community Support Officers so there's really no need to be a telephoto lens away to capture spontaneity.
 
There tends to be alot of issues over what actually constitutes street photography and the lens you should use, personally i prefer the longer lens approach..:) ive only captured a couple of good images, still fun to do though.
 
I don't really understand the meaning fully, the edges are somewhat smudged and open to misinterpretation, which goes some way into explaining the art genre I feel, somehow the confusion is intended or at the least a side effect.

My own interpretation is there's certainly more to it than just being a photograph/snap taken in a street, which to me fundamentally has little to do with the genre but also everything to do with it, I like the references above to art and I could slot it in nicely as an arty form of the more traditional candid.. What lens you may or may not use seems irrelevant overall, although most of street is at the shorter end simply because thats where the action is but does that have to be fixed as such... its the image thats the photograph not which brush was used to paint it I feel.

Interesting thread:thumbs:
 
I think it can be anything that makes you think, laugh, smile...

Anything slightly different from the norm. Facial expressions, etc.

A friend of mine has got some pretty cool stuff:

2704560822_44d1d42577_o.jpg


2703723775_a2e72c350a_o.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top