Soapbox Rant: What Do You Hate About Street Photography?

<p>Folks, I got my panties in a wad today; and, I’m going to tell y’all about it. There’s a couple or three things that I really, really dislike….actually, HATE about this so-called ‘street photography’ thing that so many of us spend so much time, and vital energy doing. Granted, I don’t get out much due to the nature of my work, but rest assured I read up on it; and study this forum and other forums/websites. I also think about and practice ways to<em> improve</em> my photography.</p>

<p>And, in the course of all this search and research, I have just gotten sick of a few often repeated, and to me, extremely tiresome abuses. I’ll start with what is the most obnoxious offense….It’s the bizarre, voyeuristic, juvenile, and in some cases perverted use of the telephoto lens to capture women in public, most often provocatively dressed. This is presented as street photography!!! It’s just garbage with no social or artistic merit whatsoever. I really feel like that type of behavior is marking me as some kind of <strong>Pervert</strong> because I’m out on the street with a camera. I’m actually so self-conscious about it, that I don’t even consider women as subject material out of fear they will react negatively. I’m missing out on some great photo opportunities because of that, and I really need to progress past the negativity. I just don’t like being associated with jack-asses.</p>

<p>Less offensive, but equally tiresome is the ‘back shot’…yes, I’m sure we all have them. Some are really good photographs, but those are the exception rather than the rule. Long strings of back shots, no matter how glamorously presented just suck. Plain and simple.</p>

<p>I’m nearly at the end of my little diatribe. The last thing that ticks me off is Pomposity…if your last name ain’t Capa, Hoepker, Bresson, Levitt, Evans or some such…If you don’t work for Getty, Magnum, Nat’l Geographic, or Time….if you don’t pull down significant wages from the sale of your photographic work….that means it’s just a hobby. Don’t act like you have some incredible skills that the world needs just to survive. Go out on the street, take the best pics you can, post ‘em if you want to. That isn’t allowed to happen so much on this forum, but other websites the arrogance can be disgusting.</p>

<p>So, with the large number of hyper-opinionated, very experienced photographers here; there must be some strong views on what is not liked about SP…When there is a discussion thread on the SP forum it tends to focus on positives (at least when it starts). I’d like to hear the negatives.</p>

<p><em>What do YOU hate about Street Photography?</em></p>

<p>The people who think it is the be all, do all, and epitome of photography...especially when their work is plain and simply poor photography, with nothing of significance. OTOH, really good street photography shines. I went to the local Vivian Maier exhibit and felt that she had developed that knack over the years...but perhaps I'm jumping the gun, there are still several thousand rolls of her shots which haven't yet been developed......</p>

<p>Rain.</p>

<p>I kind'a agree with the OP. I would add my own pet peeves.</p>

<p>Poor, homeless and minority people in a frame do not automatically qualify it as a good street photo. </p>

<p>Bad photos do not look better in black and white.</p>

 

<blockquote>The last thing that ticks me off is Pomposity…if your last name ain’t Capa, Hoepker, Bresson, Levitt, Evans or some such…If you don’t work for Getty, Magnum, Nat’l Geographic, or Time….if you don’t pull down significant wages from the sale of your photographic work….that means it’s just a hobby.</blockquote>

<p>This statement itself sounds awfully pompous to me. National Geographic or Time street photographers? The "1,001 tack sharp ospreys with fish in their beaks" and "No photo that wasn't taken at dusk or dawn" National Geographic? Really? And money is the determining factor? Shall we run down the list of great photographers who didn't, or don't, make much, or any, money? I find that those who bother worrying about terms like "hobby", "amateur", or "pro" ("<em>I want to turn pro</em>!", "<em>Am I good enough to turn pro</em>!?", "<em>I'm a pro</em>!") tend to display rather mediocre images at best. "...<em>take the best pics you can.." </em> Yes, exactly. To which I would only add "<em>and don't waste your time worrying over what others do, say, or think about." </em>I doubt that any one of us can recognize work being produced today that will be considered significant in 20, 50, or 100 years. So call yourself anything you damn well please and be about your business. </p>

<p>I'm curious as to where you come across photographers who think so highly of their skills that the world needs them to survive? I take that has hyberpole, not literal, but even so I have not come across anyone that arrogant. I have come across some strong opinions and veiled passive-aggressive opinions on this board, but overall I know most posters here to be fairly generous and level-headed. I also have not come across photographers here (specifically the street and doc forum) who use telephoto lenses on the street, and certainly not for the purpose of clandestinely photographing attractive women.</p>

<p>I don't really hate anything about street photography (or any other photographic genre). There are just some opinions, attitudes, and orthodoxies I dislike. <br>

</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<p>And I suppose all of your work is super. Geeze let other people photograph what they want to photograph and worry more about what you are doing. Why is it any of your business anyway? End of my rant.</p>

<p>People who blather on and on about street photography ...<br>

especially the ones who insist that only dreary black and white photographs can be street photography (the world I live in has colours, thankyou)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I don't really hate anything abouIt street photography (or any other photographic genre). There are just some opinions, attitudes, and orthodoxies I dislike.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for answering my question, Steve. The rest of what you said is your well-earned opinion, and you'll get no argument from me. I won't mention any specific names, I don't think that would be a good idea.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And I suppose all of your work is super. Geeze let other people photograph what they want to photograph and worry more about what you are doing. Why is it any of your business anyway? End of my rant.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Gary, reading is fundamental. Are you going to stay off-topic and comment about my comments; or will you answer the proposed question and get off my back?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The typical male mindset: competitiveness, cliquishness, fascination with "gear," narrow-mindedness, need for approval. <br /><br />Men dominate street photography. You can count of one finger the number of women posting (occasionally) in this forum. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>.....the bizarre, voyeuristic, juvenile, and in some cases perverted use of the telephoto lens to capture women in public, most often provocatively dressed. This is presented as street photography!!! It’s just garbage with no social or artistic merit whatsoever.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This has nothing to do with street photography. These people are just perverts/creeps and will be the same anywhere.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Less offensive, but equally tiresome is the ‘back shot’…</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just bad photography, plain and simple. I think a large part of the reason is that the photographer is shy/embarrassed about taking photos of people in public. They are worried about how the person will react so they take the photo when people aren't facing them. </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>What do YOU hate about Street Photography?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Photographs of streets. Literally. Streets. Unless it's Brassai's glossy Parisian cobblestones. Or done ironically. Or includes roadkill.</p>

<p>E. Short, maybe you need to take a break from S.P. I shoot every chance I get which doesn't amount to much since like most of us here I work 40 hours a week and as a film shooter I have to spend considerable time in the darkroom just to bring my shots to life, yet I've never had the same thoughts cross my mind that you mention. It sounds like there are underlying issues going on with how your work is going, or how it's perceived or something along those lines.</p>

<p><em>Hate? </em>Nothing.</p>

<p>I hate Henri. He stole my sandwich in the 19th and I've never been able to forgive him for that.</p>

<p>I don't think your question has enough merit to answer.</p>

<p>I'm not fond of Lyekka either. Last time I took Lyekka on a photo walk <a href=" ate Tokyo</a>. You'll never convince me Lyekkas are best for street photography.</p>

<p>Two of my dislikes are MOST (not all) pictures of homeless people who I think are terribly exploited by photographers wanting to capture easy pathos (even when said photographers think they are doing a service by bringing something to light that hardly needs more bringing to light in the way they do it) and the many "irony" photos of guys smoking in front of no smoking signs or an old woman walking past a billboard of a hot, young woman, etc., etc. Those really are not terribly ironic, or terribly interesting for the most part. They are not often a notch above cute.</p>

<p>Just to be an equal opportunity employer, something I dislike about landscape photography is the tendency to over saturate. Something I dislike about portrait photography is thinking that an old person with wrinkles is automatically transformed into a portrait of feeling. Something I dislike about nudes is the thought that two naked women together reads as any more than a phony and false sexual setup, for the titillating of the male viewer and not with any care given to the subject matter (in many, not all, cases). Hey, this is fun. I could go on . . .</p>

<p>E. gets to this in his OP, but I was thinking a little about it myself. If the question were posed the other way, "What do you love about street photography" I tend to doubt he'd be accused of hyperbole or raising a question without merit. Negative passions seem to rub people the wrong way. Perhaps some don't have such severe dislikes. I guess E and I do. I have no problem with E airing them and with joining in.</p>

<p>Marc, why should E take a break just when he's pondering his genre, his work, the work of others, asking questions, soul searching, and getting passionate about some stuff. Seems to me it's just the time to get out there and photograph, with all this in mind. "Underlying issues" you say? But of course. Who doesn't have them?</p>

<p>I think the question has merit, although I think we're talking more about the practices and attitudes of some self-professed street photographers rather than street photography per se. Or such is my interpretation.</p>

<p>As I said, E, I have no true hates. But minor annoyances? Sure. Reverential use of <em>HCB. </em>Screw him, the damn sandwich thief. Add to that the frequently encountered misunderstanding of the term "decisive moment".</p>

<p>Sorry, but that's all I can muster at the moment.</p>

<p>[EDIT: Damn it, Fred. You beat me to the punch while I was posting. Now I have to go work up some more annoyances...]</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Anything shot with more than a 35mm focal length.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What Do You Hate About Street Photography?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Having to explain what SP is to a non photography friend or associate without sounding like a weirdo or pervert...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Actually, I quite like this posting.... I hardly ever post on this forum (though I do follow most discussions here) because of one simple single pet peeve. I get tired of people trying to define what is and is not street photography, like there are specific technical requirements (including decisions on focal length, colour and so on) or content-requirements (must contain people as primary object, must not be shot from rear or maybe they should whe the angle of the sun is 70 to 110 degrees SW or when you dance with a headless chicken, or ....), it can absolutely not be candid, unless bla bla bla.....</p>

<p>It's not that I do not recognise it as a genre, let alone dislike it. I just won't see it as a walled garden, and that's an attitude I see a bit too frequent. Funny enough, also in this thread there is a trace of such sentiments.<br>

So, I'll simply admit to not being a street photographer and be done with it. My doubt is whether I'm the only one who would feel like this, and whether that's making the genre and its scene richer or poorer for it. But since I'm no street photographer, that's not really my worry, I guess.</p>

<p>I can understand the OP's sentiment. There are some people out there who truly do write like they think they are the last word in cool and can react with quite disgusting arrogance and vitriol when they are in the least way challenged. It seems to me that SP is the genre which suffers/brings out the most adolescent. I also agree that it is rather repetitive, but that could be said about any genre (potraiture?). If I could actually be called any kind of photographer, it would be a street photographer. I have several hundred shots kept from the last (my first) year 'on the streets' and I could easily cull 80% of them. We all get better, we all get lucky. It is important to keep it all in perspective.<br>

But I'll tell you something, if you spend several hours a week trawling through photography forums you are bound to get bored with things. This is inevitable when you try to get good. You get immersed in things until you 'can't see the shot for the pp'</p>

Once you start looking at any number of photos in any number of genres all you begin to see are the endlessly repeated cliches that begin to annoy. My personal irritation is people talking about their "work" (why not their "hobby", or my "photography") as if they are some high and mighty artist engaged in a great artistic endeavor, when all they are doing is just taking a few snaps.

<p>Fred, I suggested that maybe E.Short should take a break from SP because while he makes points that are getting under his skin, it's really about him and why he's letting this happen. The rants he makes are those that he has no control over so why let it bother him? Sure there are perverts with telephoto lenses. Yes, there are many who shoot street shots from behind people. And yes, there are plenty of SP forums with pompous know-it-all's. So what? What else is new? Why let it bother you? E.Short did not provide any examples of how his rants are affecting his own work so I'm at a lost as to what this is about. As I get older I find that the things that we let get to us and affect us in a negative way often have more to do with ourselves then what the external happenings are. We experience life between our ears. Therefore there is nothing "out there" to rant about. So my suggestion to E. Short to take a break is simply for him to take time to re-asses how his work is progressing and what steps he will take if it's not meeting his standards. My suggestion to everyone shooting street is to just do that: Shoot and enjoy the ride. Ranting about what others are doing or how the work is received by others just seems pointless to me.</p>

<center>

.

<P>

<img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2013%20photos/2009%20Inaug.jpg"><BR>

<i>

Frydoon • Downtown, San Francisco • ©2009 Brad Evans

</i>

<P>

.

<P> </center> <P>

 

 

 

I feel that I'm the luckiest guy around with a camera. In the last ten years I have explored many neighborhoods, made many photos, have engaged in many projects, helped homeless youth through my project proceeds, met probably close to a thousand people on the street who have graced me with their time and respect in exchange for the respect I have shown them, shot with a good number of photonet and other photographers visiting SF, have a large network of local photographer friends who share similar values, and celebrated a birthday in my favorite dive bar in the

Tenderloin with fellow photobuds last Friday.<P>

 

I made the portrait up above four years ago and it is one that means a lot to me. That's Frydoon, a street newspaper vendor who had immigrated to the US. He was so proud to be holding the SF Chronicle showing the inauguration of the first African American president. I gave him my card, he contacted me via email a few days later and I sent him the image file. He liked it so much that he asked about getting a couple of prints, one which he could send his mother living in the Middle East, showing him holding the paper marking the historic event. That really moved me.<P>

 

In consideration of the above, there is no hating here.