99.98% of Street Photography pictures are c#$p

<p>The subject of editting your pictures is slowly becoming the latest topic by many well known photographers. David Alan Harvey, Magnum, had words on it about 6 months ago from his blog, and there have been others since, that I don't remember. Here's an interesting blog post on Blake Edwards blog site "B: rumblings from the Photographic Hinterlands".</p>

<p><a href="http://blakeandrews.blogspot.com/2009/09/streetwise.html">http://blakeandrews.blogspot.com/2009/09/streetwise.html</a></p>

<p>Blake Edwards is a photographer on Nick Turpin's In-Public Street Photography site. In the Blake Edwards post there is also a link to Nick Turpin's sevensevennine photography site......and to Flickr's HCSP (Hard Core Street Photography).....although the last one is of dubius worth as most of Flickr's groups are glorified clics in my opinion. However, Blake Edward and Nick Turpin's words on the subject I tend to agree with.....well, maybe not 99.98%.....but it's up there.</p>

<p>It is also of special concern with me. Editting has always been tough for me. And confusing too boot. I am pretty ruthless.....you have no idea how much c#%p I have that NOBODY will eversee. Thing is, sometimes I will show a few to photographer's whose opinions I respect....and way too often, they tell me I'm crazy....."that's a great pic" they'll say. And that's where it all starts. I start to doubt my own concept of editting and let some borderline things get thru. Not asking them all the time about future ones......all of a sudden I get called out (sort of) on something I decided to post anyhow.....but originally wasn't going to.</p>

<p>I mean, there are the obvious...........WOW.....I out did myself this time. And pat myself on the back for something I took, and almost everybody agrees. So, i'm not talking about those. I'm talking about the...HMMMM...looks kinda good......or is it? And that's where I lose it. Can't even get myself to judge constructively about it anymore.</p>

<p>So, how do the rest of you street photographers do this? And, of course, what are your takes on Blake Edwards and Nick Turpin's comments?</p>

<h1>99.98% of Street Photography pictures are c#$p</h1>

<p>yes, but</p>

<h1>99.98% of <em>Everything</em> is c#$p</h1>

<p>well.....EVERYTHING......that's quite a statement. But, I guess you might be right. Take sports. They say a 400 batting average is great. So, you could look at that as 60% is garbage......yeah, for that one person. But taking ALL the batters in the Major leagues, Minor leagues, little league, pop warner, etc....even that, across the entire spectrum of batters might be 99.98% garbage hits also.</p>

<p>Sort of a negative positive way of saying Street Photography actually ain't doing all that bad.....heh</p>

<p>....but, then again, it's only the 400 batting averages that get remembered.</p>

<p>Thomas, I remember reading a comment by Stieglitz that went something like, "The worst thing that ever happened to photography was the proliferation of the camera." Now cameras are everywhere, everyone's a photographer, and a limited supply of "space" on a card inspires too many people to adopt a sloppy attitude toward street shooting. This isn't to say there's a superiority in film shooting because 99.98% of my own stuff is questionable. But, as McLuhan says, the medium is the message and to shoot digital well requires even more discipline than shooting film. (I'm not debating the quality of either/or, just commenting on the tendencies that the medium inspires).</p>

<p>As for editing our own work... that's more tricky because that's so particular to the individual. New work is usually met with too much enthusiasm, so make prints, have the pictures around you and the ones that stick after a week stand a better chance at making the cut. Some of them, as you mentioned, are dead certain keepers... while most are trashed almost immediately. It's those in-between ones that are tough...</p>

<p>What makes it more difficult is that the nature of photography is associative, so I might lose my sense of aesthetics because the subject matter speaks to me.</p>

<p>make that "unlimited supply"...</p>

<p>In baseball you're considered a good hitter if you fail 7 out of 10 times. What's the batting average for a street photographer? .002?</p>

<p>"...so make prints, have the pictures around you and the ones that stick after a week stand a better chance at making the cut..."</p>

<p>yeah, that's kinda what David Alan Harvey said to do. shoot a bunch of stuff....take the best 10.....make prints......stick them in a drawer and forget about them.....go shoot some more. after awhile take them out of the drawer and edit again. Or something like that....I'm very much paraphrasing what he said, cause I ain't read it in awhile</p>

<p>I must say, though, that I far prefer his work with Peter Sellers in his Pink Panther series of films.</p>

<p>I may sound idealistic but isn't one of the purposes of a forum like this to get help from the fellow photographers to better understand which of your pictures are c#$p and why? I produce lots of it but am reluctant to post stuff I think might be good because of very little feedback.</p>

<p>Over 99% of all photography is junk. That is true for all art forms.Street, being the most difficult genre to do well, has even a higher failure rate. Part of the problem is for the photographer to decide what is street photography. Is it any picture done on the street? Does it require a human presence? Must something significant be happening in human and/or compositional terms or both?</p>

<p>Viktor.....one would think that forums like this could do just that......help a fellow photographer understand which pics are good and which are bad. Unfortunately, having been posting pics on various forums for years, this ain't so. First you find the clics that rate each others stuff and give everybody a good pic remark. Then you get the total opposite. Then you get people that just hate street photography. Then out of the ones that do give an honest review.....most of them don't know what they're talking about. Then you get to the ones that actually do appreciate Street, know how to judge a good pic when they see it..........but don't know how to give a good constructive review. So, out of 100 people, you get one that actually knows what he is saying and knows how to say it.</p>

<p>Of course......YOU have no idea who that one person is, because of all the clutter from the other 99.</p>

<p>It would be better if you just posted to the W/NW threads as much as you can. you may not get any explanations, but when your pic hits home, when its a winner..........you will get told.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, the best suggestion from Nick Turpin's sevensevennine site is....".....You know it when you see it, if it doesn’t make your heart leap, move on, it won’t get better the longer you stare at it......"......when I wait for that to happen.....when i wait for the nerves in my body to start tingling from looking at it.............I have never been wrong.</p>

<p>"99.98% of Street Photography pictures are c#$p"<br>

Actually, I don't think I'm even that good yet. And, I'm still trying to learn how to figure out which ones to keep. There are obvious ones to trash, of course. But the range of decent is pretty wide for me yet. And, that one in a few thousand that I think is outstanding won't get posted. The last thing I want to do is put out what I think is my best shot ever and have it go down in flames in a forum. While we're on that topic - does anyone here actually post their very best work in any forum? I see a lot of stuff posted that is good. I see a lot of stuff posted that works even though I can't figure out why it works. But, does anybody actually post stuff here that could hang in a gallery or go up for sale?<br>

Editing was mentioned and there are two sides to editing. One side is deciding what doesn't go in the trash bin. The other side is post processing - editing. That's where I probably have the hardest time. If I had better post processing skills some of those decent shots might actually be much better shots.<br>

Anyway, some thoughts - a stream of consciousness response, I guess.<br>

DS Meador</p>

<p>Thomas thanks, very helpful.</p>

<p><em><< ... So, out of 100 people, you get one that actually knows what he is saying and knows how to say it.</em><br>

<em>Of course......YOU have no idea who that one person is, because of all the clutter from the other 99. ... >></em></p>

<p>Well, Tom, I've always taken comfort in my assumption that the one person is ... <strong>you</strong> . This has saved me untold hours and spared me great self-doubt over the few years I've been shooting on the street. :-)</p>

<p>Having worked for a paper I can tell you that 99.8 of all photojournalism is also C%$P. Where else would you use yesterday's picture to wrap smelly fish in to throw in the garbage. Exceptions to shooting C&*P are Boston Globe sports photographers who shoot c&&P less than 1 per cent of the time but their pictures also go out with the dead fish. All my street photography is crap but much as I condemn it and feel a little sqeamish about invading others privacy I still sneak out and do it once in a while anyway. I think it might be slightly addictive. I need to be careful. Do they have Street Shooters Anonymous. If I have a camera in my hand I can't stop myself. LOL. BTW I hate the word photojournalism. I just took pictures for a newspaper. Journalism implies that you can write and have some intelligence. My intelligence is questionable based upon my obsession with taking pictures and not getting paid for it any more. </p>

<p>what we need around here is something like this. </p>

<p>http://www.museumofbadart.org/about/index.php</p>

<p>anyone care to offer their curatorial skills?</p>

<p>As I am a very idealistic person and i shoot street and it is a torture to me....I can't understand why i chose this type of photography but somehow it works for me. <br>

And now bout the keepers..well i have... 3 or 4 out of almost 700 shots.... thats = 0,5% :DDD <br>

And still the worst thing is when you think that you really got the shot..and when you load it one the computer it looks rubbish. And when you start to hesitate: am i doing something wrong? Did i loose the "sense"? And the worst thing when you're in this state is to look at photos of those pro street photographers...and when you see yours...and it is $h!t. <br>

People around say "wow, did you take this?? It is amazing!" But i myself don't feel that way. <br>

And here goes the question of what is "street photography for me"? A reflection of life? People? The Street? Or something more? I came to a line where i have to choose. And now i understand this photography for me is reflection of life and the only thing for me to do now is to make it work in my photos. Easier said than done. <br>

(PS: i started shooting street just a few months ago, inspired by some shot i found here and by war photographers)</p>

<p>Its made worse by the ease of digital. Too many are out there taking happy snaps because they can delete the crap easily. With film, wasting shots like that costs you real money, so you tend to be more discerning.</p>

<p>Its like the plethora of newby wedding photographers moaning that their principals don't like their photos. When asked how many they took, the answer comes back in the hundreds. A first rate, fine art, wedding photographer might take 10% of that, but they will all be keepers.</p>

<p>I think people who aspire to the art of true street photography, need to be as discerning as if they were still using film. Then we would see less crap and more quality.</p>

<p>I also took pictures for a newspaper. The hardest judges were the folks in the lightroom. You'd drop off your cassettes and you sweated for the phone call saying "hey, just thought you would like to know that we got some good keepers." You also dreaded no phone call because it ,meant you had no keepers. You were being judged severely as lots of crap meant lots of their wasted time. Gradually the photo editors would discover if you were any good, and if you were, you got the best jobs, because you helped sell newspapers.<br>

Their task is made harder now with digital. Sure, there is no processing and handling, but they have to deal with thousands of shots each day now, instead of hundreds. I've seen how it works now. 30" Apple iMac's on desks replace the light wall. And I've watched a 20 yo trainee paging through screenfulls of thumbnails and deleting 100 at a time as they go, but looking for that elusive publishable photo.</p>

<p>There are still a few who send in their film cassettes. They still get developed in the automatic machine and they still get put up on the lightwall. And you know, all the trainees in the office get up and go and look. Like it was magic or something.</p>

<p>So the lesson, whether one is an aspiring PJ or street photographer, is always to be picky about what you shoot.</p>

<p>Hello JDM,</p>

<p>"yes, but</p>

<h1>99.98% of <em>Everything</em> is c#$p"</h1>

<p>Actually, "ninety percent of <em>everything</em> is <strong>crud</strong>" (Sturgeon's Law coined by author Theodore Sturgeon in 1951). I couldn't find "c#$p" in my dictionary but I did find the word "crap". I do wish people would not try to disguise "rude" words with silly symbols.<br>

End of rant:)</p>

<p>"99.98% of Street Photography pictures are c#$p"<br>

<br>

 

<p >The journey we travel is the true adventure. </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Who cares a monkeys left testicle what some bloated minds thinks……jeeze, by their own criteria they are telling the world 99.98% of their work is crap also.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Let them speak for their own work which is probably true.</p>

 

<p > </p>

 

<p > </p>

</p>

<p > </p>

<p>"...I couldn't find "c#$p" in my dictionary but I did find the word "crap". .."....Well John, normally I would, but Photo net has put all these "bad word" spotting routines in so anything I think I might have to re-word I just put in the silly symbols</p>

<p>thanks Michael S.....but, actually I'm one of the ones that actually do appreciate Street, know how to judge a good pic when they see it..........but don't know how to give a good constructive review.</p>

<p>"...Do they have Street Shooters Anonymous. If I have a camera in my hand I can't stop myself. LOL..."...Dick, if they do, I'd be sitting right next to ya. Although, with me it's not IF I have a camera with me.....bought a pocketable p&s digital (and film, come to think of it) cam just so I'd always be able to shoot. I really need an SSA</p>

<p>Great story attached to the quote one guy has in his signature on Rangefinder Forum. The old press cameras allowed you two shots. You made them count. It determined a way of working that proved hard to beat and one old pro was slow to move away from. When his paper shifted to 35mm and rolls of 20, Cancellare returned from one presidential campaign, got off the plane and threw the 35mm cassette from his new Nikon to the UPI courier and said "Print 'em both, kid."</p>

<p>I'm like you Tom, I think I know a good one when I see it, but am not good at constructive critique. Editing now is the big issue of my life. I've been using flickr like a bulliten board with pics up for many reasons, but no good editing on the stream or the sets. Now it's something I have to learn to do or I can't progress, simple as that. It's not just about finding a good photo, I can do that, it's about how to sequence and the thought process behind that. At least for me:) Good and timely topic. Thanks for starting it. I must think more....</p>

<p>Good story Richard....and although it's not exactly the same thing....right now my two favorite street shooting cameras are my Canon 5D, and my Mamiya 7. One is digital and shoots hundreds of pics on a 4 GB card, even in RAW. and the other shoots 10 pics per roll of 120 film. I have noticed that shooting at those extremes, i tend to shoot a lot less in digital these days. Guess the 10 pics at a clip from the 7 is spilling over into the 5D shooting habits. And I know it's not a digital to film thing. When all i shot was 35mm B&W and processed the film myself...........it was not unheard of for me to shoot 15 rolls of 36 exposure in one night.....that's 540 frames. Not really that much different than most people's digital shooting habits. Now, with the Mamiya 7, if i shoot 3 rolls of 10 frames each...it's a lot.</p>

<p>but I googled the comment above re Sturgeon's Law, and read about it. I guess this concept is nothing new then. So I really doubt first of all that digital has anything at all to do with it. It's just digital is easier to get onto the web, than 50 yrs ago when film to print was it. digital has put more crap out there for everyone to see.....but the per centage rate ain't change in the arts....and maybe everything else as indicated....in 60 years.</p>

<p>yeah barry.....a sequence of shots is something I have to start getting into also. Maybe that is what all my editting concern is really all about....I've hit the threshhold of single shots and need to move onto sequences to tell a story. don't really know....but something to think about.</p>

<p>To answer one question, yes, I have posted images here that were later sold to a collector and one image won three first prizes in a local contest las Feb. and another image was selected as the featured picture for the month of Feb. (Feb was a good year for me lol).</p>

<p>The contest which is a yearly thing put on by The Friends of the Burbank Library received close to 500 entries. The judges were a panel of five local professional photographers and/or photography teachers. So does that mean the other pictures submitted were c#*p? Of course not. It just means that out of the thousands of pictures I've taken over the years, this one of mine happened to be one of the good ones, at least in the eyes of the judges. I was lucky too that since submissions had to be mounted, that this particular happened to be (it was a work print on RC paper) since most of my 16x20 fiber prints are still loose. So what did I do afterwards? I took my prize money and bought more film and went out to take 98.98 % more crappy pictures. This is really my point right here. Now some of you may be trying to get into your local art museums or into a gallery to sell your work and that's OK, it's very admirable in fact. For me though I'm just a weekend warrior. For me and those like me, the most important thing is to keep creating work because this is how we learn. We have to make 99.98 crap in order to make the .02 of our work soar. Then, perhaps by chance when a contest or art fair happens to roll around and you decide on a whim to submit a couple prints, then at least you know you stand a fair chance of having your work appreciated by those who recognize good work. Afterward, it's back to work and learning from your work for the seeds of your next work are always in the previous work.</p>

<p>Now then if I may, I'd like to share a recent item. Back in June I went up to Sacramento to visit my older sister and her family. As usual, I put about 30 recent pictures in a portfolio to show her and my brother in law. One day we were at the local pool for an all day swim meet for the kids. My sister wanted to look at the portfolio then. While she did, one of her friends Jill asked if she could look at it afterwards. After looking it over Jill complimented me on them. However, just recently while on the phone with my sister she mentioned that Jill told her she still thinks about my pictures. This has to be the best compliment I've ever received; for someone to have been moved by my pictures so that they are still thinking about them three months later. So what's the point? Same as above. Were there some crappy pictures in that portfolio? Perhaps but at least one person saw them as something more. While it's nice that these thing occur, they cannot be the end all of our work. We have to keep chugging along, making mistakes, making crappy pictures and occasionally making the real keepers regardless of what others say be it positive or negative.</p>