Dogmatic about Street Photography - at least for myself

<p>I hold very strongly to the belief that good street photography actually shows something or some moment that the photographer sees and wants to capture. I believe in the 3 Ms - Meaning, Mood and Mystery. I can't help being almost repelled by images that rely only beating up mundane nothing-is-happening images with processing to make them 'street'. <br>

(I came across someone selling LR presets to make any image look 'street.)<br>

I believe that the processing should support the meaning not stand instead of it.</p>

 

<p>Huh? how would a LR street tweak alter the average image? And whats the difference if your are loading BW film? - Is it about exagurated contrast?<br>

Sorry for my lack of understanding. - Unfortunately I can't try the real thing (understood as "standing like a rock in pedestrian traffic and snapping away with a 35mm") around here due to legal limitations. </p>

<p>The closest I get to being dogmatic about street photography is that it isn't literally just a photo of the street. And nothing else. Unless it's a really good photo of just a street and nothing else, although Brassai pretty much owned that subject decades ago. And unless the photographer is being ironic. In which case it still sucks because irony is passe and killing any thoughtful discourse in culture. David Foster Wallace said so, before killing himself to underscore the irony.</p>

<p>As for post processing, a single damn I do not give as long as it suits the photo and meets my admittedly vague, nebulous and mutable sense of good taste.</p>

<p>What's the difference between actually using gritty, grainy b&w film pushed into soot-and-chalk contrast, and a digital filter to emulate that effect? Or shooting through a scratched, filthy bus or train window, vs. applying the grunge overlay in post? Or using a lens with a lot of light falloff vs. applying vignetting in post? Or using real glass plates vs. the digital effect? And, yup, I've seen samples of actual street photography including candids of people in action taken with handheld glass plate cameras using those nifty little circular glass plates. They looked remarkably contemporary.</p>

<p>When we pare away the B.S., most of the arguments over authenticity are about personal preferences for materials and process, based on a personal history of use of those materials/processes, or nostalgia by proxy, a longing for an imaginary era we never actually experienced but somehow believe was better. It isn't the image itself we're reacting to, but the materials, process and imposition of a notion of integrity based on following a set of rules.</p>

<p>But our rules about "real" street photography were developed artificially, our philosophical equivalent to digital post-processing and faux-nostalgia filters. Brassai's photos look like that because (a) he was constrained by the technology available at the time, and (b) because he indulged in a lot of post-processing. Study his photos carefully and you'll see evidence of pencil work or other retouching to fill out details in signs, posters, newsstands and architecture that could not have been captured "naturally" given the limitations of the emulsions available to him.</p>

<p>Similarly, some Winogrand prints show clear evidence of dodging/burning, and the technique was rather lacking in finesse (notably the anonymous outstretched arm giving money to a panhandler in NYC). Some might call it hamfisted. Others might call it appropriate for the image, to underscore the artifice of the genre, the very nature of observing and photographing a moment while pretending we're invisible.</p>

<p>Most photographers of the eras we revere as somehow part of a holy history probably would gladly have used better technology if it had been available - faster films, digital rather than film.</p>

<p>What about the use of harsh, direct flash by Weegee, Larry Fink, Terry Richardson, and some Mary Ellen Mark and Winogrand photos? Life doesn't look like that. While I find most HDR applied to street photography objectionable because it's too often used to fix a photo that wasn't worth fixing, the "look" isn't necessarily objectionable, any more so than direct flash. But there again we're talking about the nebulous concept of taste, not content, intent or process.</p>

<p>I follow several street photography groups on Facebook and elsewhere. It's a well worn genre with some good and unique photos now and then. Mostly I see competent execution of familiar stuff, reminiscent of a technically proficient cover band doing a technically "better" version of someone else's song, while not surpassing the original in taste and feel. And that's okay too because street photography is communication at its core, an ongoing conversation, and just because we all use the same words and phrases doesn't mean we stop conversing.</p>

<p>And hardly a day goes by without someone posting "This isn't 'street'," or "Is this 'street'?", without adding to the conversation by describing what they mean, or whatever they think they mean. Their concept of street photography is limited to the 5-7-5 haiku convention, an artificially imposed set of rules that completely miss the nuances of the original art form because something was lost in translation.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What's the difference between actually using gritty, grainy b&w film pushed into soot-and-chalk contrast, and a digital filter to emulate that effect?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In at least some cases, time, a sense of craft, and nuance or shading.</p>

<p>I took Lewis to be emphasizing trite and ready-made post processing that would be comparable to a kind of paint-by-numbers approach in the other arts. I didn't take Lewis to mean any use of Photoshop or digital post processing.</p>

<p>Lewis, I kind of like your dogmatic approach. Whether I agree with it is not so much the issue, and I do agree with you to a large extent (with some of my own additions which I'll post later when I have time), because it shows passion and commitment, which I admire both in one's writing about photography and in their work. By the way, do you have any work on display on the web? I generally love to see such dogmatism and commitment reflected in or supported by a writer's photos because it adds dimension to these kinds of thoughts. Also understand many people don't like posting to the web for various reasons, so you may not have anything on the Internet.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>I believe that the processing should support the meaning not stand instead of it.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

 

Processing can be meaning. Daido Moriyama's street photography clearly shows this at times. Worth taking a look, maybe it would make you less dogmatic and enjoy a wider range of photography.

 

<p>I'm not quite facile with the interface here so forgive me if my reply looks ragged.<br /> I tried Daido Moriyama's site and only the home page showed any photos, the rest just had whirling arrows.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Huh? how would a LR street tweak alter the average image? And whats the difference if your are loading BW film? - Is it about exagurated contrast?<br /> Sorry for my lack of understanding. - Unfortunately I can't try the real thing (understood as "standing like a rock in pedestrian traffic and snapping away with a 35mm") around here due to legal limitations.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To be honest, I'm not at all certain what you mean here, Jochem, although I am certain there are street photographers in Germany.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When we pare away the B.S.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm fairly certain you aren't accusing me of B.S. (let me know if I'm incorrect), my preferences are based on personal experiences. I am not against processing of any sort that supports the meaning but I have seen too many photos that are truly unexceptional and meaningless just beaten to death with post-processing and presented as 'street photos.' I refer you to <a href="http://www.theinspiredeye.net/street-photography-presets/">http://www.theinspiredeye.net/street-photography-presets/</a> for good examples. Actually 95% of pictures posted on Flcikr as street photos are good examples of that.<br /> One can be full of crap with film also. I know two photographers who broadcast their love for their Leicas, short focal lengths and film - and then show meaningless crap but up close and in B&W, so their photos must be 'street photos.'<br /> I don't think that the photographer should be part of the scene; I try to take what I see without affecting it thus I don't take candids of people who pose for the camera and rarely ask to take a photo. I don't take pictures of street people unless there is something to say beyond 'here's a gritty, poor bastard, aren't you lucky you're not him.'<br /> I think, at least for myself, that good street photography is damn hard work. My failures outnumber my successes 1000 to 1 (at least). A good street photo makes me feel something, tells me something more than what I just see in the frame.<br /> I have a good amount of photos at my web site (Isn't there a rule against self promotion? but in any case the url to my site should be in my profile).<br>

It seems that I don't have a profile with a link so here is my web site http://www.lewlortonphoto.com</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I tried Daido Moriyama's site and only the home page showed any photos, the rest just had whirling arrows.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

His site has never worked properly. Instead, try <a href="http://www.artnet.com/artists/daido-moriyama/">this page</a>, keep on hitting "Load more" at the bottom because it includes a lot of his non-street stuff. He is known primarily for his street photography - the museum shows I've seen have either all street or some nudes mixed in.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Will do, thanks.<br>

Let me clear up something. I don't think of myself as a great street photographer, just as one who is committed to that part of the art.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"I'm fairly certain you aren't accusing me of B.S. (let me know if I'm incorrect)"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nah, nothing personal, just debating some ideas. It was a general observation about one of the two most common factors in street photography: (1) most are cliches (including my own); (2) most complaints and criticisms about cliches in street photography are themselves cliches (including my own).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I have seen too many photos that are truly unexceptional and meaningless just beaten to death with post-processing and presented as 'street photos.' I refer you to<a href="http://www.theinspiredeye.net/street-photography-presets/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.theinspiredeye.net/street-photography-presets/</a> for good examples."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So have I, but the post processing choices have little or nothing to do with it. Those are merely tools. Choosing between b&w and color is no different in any way from post processing choices and the subjective, interpretive perceptions of what makes good street photography.<br /> <br /> Sometimes a photo that seems to present nothing interesting can indeed be transformed through creative interpretation in the choice of media and tools: whether to choose color or b&w; sharp or soft focus lenses; the use and modeling of light and shadow; and a dozen other factors. Choosing post processing styles is not significantly different from choosing to photograph the very same scene on a different day or time when the light seems "better".<br /> <br /> As Jeff observed, processing can be meaning. We bias our photos and possible interpretations with every choice we make. Years ago I mostly pushed b&w film, even when it wasn't necessary, specifically to get that gritty, grainy, contrasty look. The processing was foremost in mind. The rest was forcing the image to fit the predetermined process. In retrospect, that was the ultimate in artifice.<br /> <br /> In the 1970s dozens of skilled, experienced reporters covered news from the Middle East. Richard Ben Cramer won a Pulitzer for his reporting because of his unique point of view and interpretive narrative - it was more akin to the "you are here, at my side" style of spoken narrative used by some radio reporters. His writing changed my view of journalism in the same way photographers like Peter Turnley have cited Robert Frank's <em>"The Americans"</em> as milestones or standards that influenced their perceptions of what is possible with candid photography of people and life. At the same time, I've never heard Turnley declare anything dogmatic about what is or isn't street photography. He does what he does. We do what we do.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Actually 95% of pictures posted on Flcikr as street photos are good examples of that."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sturgeon's law says 90 percent of everything created by humans as entertainment is crap. Why should Flickr be any different? Stephen Shore visited Flickr several years ago and said "it was just thousands of pieces of shit." Oh, well. I like Shore's work, enough to emulate it for some stuff as an exercise, like a musician practicing scales. But I can see why some viewers consider Shore's exploration of the mundane to be pointless, boring, and, given his rather ironic dogmatism about what is or isn't "good" photography, incomprehensible in any conventional context.<br /> <br /> Why not flip it around? So 5% of it is actually good? That's not bad at all, considering the virtually uncurated nature of the internet.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I don't think that the photographer should be part of the scene; I try to take what I see without affecting it thus I don't take candids of people who pose for the camera and rarely ask to take a photo."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's a more recent evolution in the cliches about street photography: the whole notion of "not affecting/disturbing the scene." I can't figure out where that notion came from.<br /> <br /> I discarded my own misapprehensions about that aspect of street photography years ago for a couple of reasons. For one thing, I'd already done the "I'm an invisible fly on the wall" thing for so long it didn't seem like a challenge anymore. For another, I had an epiphany while trying to explain the concept of the observer effect in physics to a junior high schooler. He liked some of my photography but was baffled by my street photos - why would I want to take pictures of strangers like that? And he wondered whether my act of observing and photographing a scene didn't affect it.<br /> <br /> I realized he was correct. The very presence of the photographer, the act of observation, changes things. After decades of immersion in the celebrity culture - movie stars, television, pop stars, people who are famous for being famous - most people in public are always posing, always on stage, always playing roles in their own movies, complete with soundtrack. Cameras are ubiquitous. You can't walk a block in a city without being recorded by a surveillance camera.<br /> <br /> The notion that we're not part of the scene, not affecting or disturbing the scene by our mere presence, by our choice to observe and record, is a fallacy. If people seem not to notice us, it's because they've made a choice to disregard us. The street photographer collecting visual trophies on an urban safari is such a cliche that it's almost laughable. We've taken the Kodak Fiend of the 1890s to the nth degree.<br /> <br /> If my own documentary photographies give the illusion that I'm invisible, it's only because my family and friends have learned to ignore me. And I only show the photos that reinforce the "fly on the wall" illusion. I don't show every third photo, in which my family members and friends are mugging for the camera, sticking out their tongues, gurning and flipping me off. After all, we have an illusion of integrity to maintain.<br /> <br /> While I don't personally disparage any photographer who chooses to pursue that style, I do reserve the right to be snarky about the assertions that it's somehow purer.<br /> <br /> Also, it's kinda fun to get caught in the act. Usually it presents a great opportunity to chatter with someone, share some stories and learn their interests. And it's more of a challenge for me. There may be times when I'd rather not get into a conversation... or at least I thought so until the opportunity arose. And then I realized how much I'd been missing by pretending I was invisible, a fly on the wall, not affecting or disturbing the scene. It's easy to remain isolated, even alienated. It's more of a challenge to be reminded that we're not meatpuppets grasping surveillance equipment, but members of an ever-evolving community, like schooling fish and murmurations of birds.</p>

<p>But I still enjoying seeing good examples of all kinds of street photography by other folks. I may be skeptical about some stuff, but I'm not cynical. My views and approaches are continually evolving.</p>

<p>Thanks for getting back. - I wondered what the plugin you mentioned does. <br>

I also tried to ask what we define as street photography . - My rough sketch of "standing like a rock in pedestrian traffic" refered to some "Winogrand in action" footage I watched.<br>

From my limited understanding: Its not recommended to shoot recognizable people as the main subject of a picture in Germany without their consent. There are a few exceptions but things can easily get messy. I believe subjects' faces inside give a picture life while doing a nice composition of backs and OOF to honor everybody's privacy rights looks comparably lame.</p>

<p>Jochen:<br>

Whatever other people define for themselves is ok; for me it is what an Internet friend of mine said:<br>

"Street shooting is perhaps the hardest niche of all in photography both to explain and to do successfully. The photographer haunts his chosen environment where, perhaps, nothing is happening - people may be just quietly going about their business - and yet he/she to select tiny moments when an image can be snatched which is more than the sum of its parts - where some fleeting coincidence of expression, gesture, positioning, and movement come together to create an instant which holds some undefinable meaning."<br>

I've always liked that and take it as my mantra.</p>

<p>@Lex Jenkins<br>

I think I won't engage in this discussion with you. You've attempted to foreclose any discussion - and win - by taking a position implying deep experience, proclaiming deep cynicism, being insulting to any other opinion or position in advance by calling them cliches, being faux-humble and then declaring your intent to be snarky.<br>

There is no room in there for me to say anything, any opinion I might have having been dismissed already as a cliche, so I won't, except that your allusion to Heisenberg doesn't wash at all.</p>

<p>Lew</p>

 

<p>Sorry you feel that way, Lewis, but you've mistaken my own strong personal opinions about what is right for my own photography for a negation and dismissal of what is right for your personal photography. My opinion does not negate yours, unless you choose to believe so.</p>

<p>However you opened up the subject with dogmatic declarations of your personal preferences couched as universal truths. This is a discussion forum, not a blog or manifesto page, so we assumed that you were inviting an open ended discussion, including a debate about ideas. Did you actually want a discussion, even if it means challenging some of your assertions? Or did you want only agreement and affirmation from those who believe as you do?</p>

<p>And regarding the fact that I find many street photographs to be cliches, I'd say the same of most rock and pop songs, movies, TV shows and books. Most good street photos are tropes, rather than cliches - continually evolving explorations of common visual themes. And even when they are cliches, I still love some of those cliches anyway, for the same reason I'm a sucker for Eddie Cochran songs and for the ironic juxtaposition street photo - camping out near a store display, billboard or sign and waiting for just the right person to walk by. Even though I also take frequent pokes at the ironic juxtaposition street photo, I also shoot 'em myself, and enjoy good examples done by others. Like the 3 minute rock song, there's always a fine line between just another cliche and the perfect pop culture stew. It's a matter of timing, nuance, luck, and the right key.</p>

<p>And I'd still rather spend a half hour over coffee perusing the latest street photo offerings on Facebook than looking at landscapes, bikini/glamour pix of pouty chix, or other cliches. Well, I might make an exception for <a href="http://www.lightinframe.com/">Steve Coleman's landscapes</a>. He consistently has a fresh take on the genre, a sort of street photographer's sensibility brought to the landscape and seascape subject matter.</p>

<p> </p>

Lex, regarding those chix, how pouty?

<p>@brad,</p>

<p>Sorry, I must be too sleepy or dense this AM.<br>

What chix?</p>

<p>Hmm... like, at least Hope Sandoval pouty. Anything less than Chrissy Amphlett pouty is just pretending. Her mouth was nuclear pouty. Gawd, I miss that woman. She's one of the very few rockers I'd have wanted to spend time photographing for a documentary project.</p>

<p><strong>I believe that the processing should support the meaning not stand instead of it.</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

Assuming that I may agree with your assertion, Lewis, doesn't it apply to all genres of photography and not just street work?</p>

<p>Totally agree, Michael.<br>

Too often I see pictures where the processing totally overshadows the content.<br>

That makes my skin crawl.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Too often I see pictures where the processing totally overshadows the content.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Processing can be the content. Once again, see Daido. </p>

<p>So, Lewis, what would you say about abstract photographs? The abstracts I create are the result primarily of processing. In fact, processing is the key element in making such images. I guess you harbor disdain for them. </p>

<p>Michael, what if he did? Would it harm you in some way? Harm your photos?</p>

<p>People are passionate about photography and about their tastes. Thick-skinned artists know that. Most serious artists don't expect everyone to appreciate, like, or care about their work.</p>

<p>I'd rather see a photographer take a stand, especially in his or her work, than expand their horizons according to what their audience or fellow photographers think is liberal and open enough. Expand your taste too much and you just might be a generic hack so busy trying to be open to everything that you focus on nothing. Not that one can't narrow their tastes too much. In any case, what makes for polite conversation on the Internet doesn't necessarily make for individualized and passionate art, though they're not mutually exclusive either, of course.</p>

<p>Michael, something from Alfred Stieglitz:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"It is high time that the stupidity and sham in pictorial photography be struck a solarplexus blow... Claims of art won't do. Let the photographer make a perfect photograph. And if he happens to be a lover of perfection and a seer, the resulting photograph will be straight and beautiful - a true photograph."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Such disdain!</p>

<p>[i'm not saying I'd adopt his position or even that of Lewis (who has said something close to what I've said when looking at over-the-top processing that seems non-integrated—Moriyama's seems integrated to me, which is why I like his stuff a lot.) I'm saying I have no problem with Stieglitz's or Lewis's point of view, especially because those strong and focused points of view are backed up by their work. I feel no pull to be open to everything and would find it debilitating to try to be all things for all people.]</p>

<p>Speaking of Moriyama and what qualifies as a street photo, here's one I did awhile back. I'm not too concerned with categorization, though it can have its place especially in academic and art historical settings. I put this in the street category on PN, mostly for lack of a better category. Maybe it exists at the fringes of street. Mission Creek is a small creek with houseboats running through a very urban portion of San Francisco. There are freeways nearby, kids playing on a basketball court, passersby, and the downtown ballpark right next door. The location and the two people in the small boat, for me, suggest elements of street. It could have been more of a landscape shot. And here's where the post processing comes in. I wouldn't have taken this shot, which otherwise could be a postcard shot of water and boats, if I didn't envision it graphically and with a tribute to Moriyama in mind and if part of my vision didn't include the city feel I felt at the time and wanted in the photo. So the loose street sensibility I had about it integrates with the post processing I did. Interestingly, "integrate" may be a bad word here because, as Jeff says, in this case the processing helps give it meaning, the meaning I saw in it from the start, though I took several unexpected turns along the way when I was post processing. In some ways, it <em>integrates</em> with the content by <em>flouting</em> the content. Now, whether anyone looking considers this a street shot would be interesting to me, as a discussion like that could lend itself to sharing some good ideas. I would not be offended if some folks resisted its being placed in the street category, since it certainly lacks in some elements of a street sensibility. And I would also not be offended or feel disdained by some who would say the processing is too much or feels like it goes against the content. Because, as I said, I think it does go against the content to some extent, by design. And I think the processing is a lot here. It's how I saw the image. In this case, I like the "alotness" and I imagine others won't like the "alotness" or other things about it. <em>C'est la vie.</em></p><div></div>

With respect to "street photography," I have found the longer I've been shooting on the street, the less

need I have for "rules" limiting how I go about that. It seems many times these rules are set by others

(some very vocal), for various reasons, including the need to justify their own approach as "the proper

approach," sometimes based on personal limitations, and in the end often to the exclusion of other street shooting

approaches.<P>

 

If someone wants or needs to limit how they go about their street shooting photography, either to tighten

their vision/focus or to accommodate personal comfort limitations, that's fine and does not bother me at

all. But, like Lex, I take exception when people go further and proclaim their manner of street shooting is

somehow better or more pure, especially when it is couched under the guise of trying to protect the genre (as if it is under attack).<P>

 

<center>

.<P>

<img src= "http://www.citysnaps.net/2014%20Photos/Through-Window.jpg"><BR>

<i>

Market Street, San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2014

</i>

<P>

.<P>

</center>

<blockquote>

<p>If someone wants or needs to limit how they go about their street shooting photography, either to tighten their vision/focus or to accommodate personal comfort limitations, that's fine and does not bother me at all. <strong>But, like Lex, I take exception when people go further and proclaim their manner of street shooting is somehow better or more pure, especially when it is couched under the guise of trying to protect the genre</strong> (as if it is under attack).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Since this quote above is in the thread I started, I assume that 'people' above refers to me.<br>

This below is the entirety of what I wrote about what I thought and hold to in street photography. Perhaps you can point out where I said that others should do any different than what they do currently?</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I hold very strongly to the belief that good street photography actually shows something or some moment that the photographer sees and wants to capture. I believe in the 3 Ms - Meaning, Mood and Mystery. I can't help being almost repelled by images that rely only beating up mundane nothing-is-happening images with processing to make them 'street'. </em><br /><em> (I came across someone selling LR presets to make any image look 'street.)</em><br /><em> I believe that the processing should support the meaning not stand instead of it.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can say that my beliefs inform how I respond to other photographers' images. On photo.net, although there seems to be a fairly high quality of images, when there are 'critiques' they are usually of the attaboy genre and rather than be the obnoxious new guy, I have chosen most of the time just to ignore pictures where I would say anything negative, unless it is of a strictly technical nature.<em><br /></em></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em> </em></p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p> Perhaps you can point out where I said that others should do any different than what they do currently?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

You told us what you think qualifies as "good street photography." Of course nobody goes out to do "bad street photography" but rather than tell us what types of street photos you <em>prefer</em>, you choose to dictate what is "<em>good</em>."<br /></p>