Understanding street photography

Any great landscape photograph has more in common with any great street photograph than you’d think.

I'd like to know what you think are some of the great (or even good) street photographs. Can you post a few links?

i don’t know that landscape photography is connected to street photography but, imho, and as mentioned earlier, wildlife photography is. here’s a great site with stacks of examples of “wildlife street”

Adult awards | 2017 | Wildlife Photographer of the Year

With a few exceptions, I'm not going to argue that WPoTY doesn't contain "good images" - I've gone to the exhibition every year for the last decade or so, and generally I understand what they're doing, and why they make an interesting photo. I'm actually thinking of entering the next one, although with little hope of winning. (I could give an exception from a few years back where someone had taken what, to me, looked like a bland abstract photo of some trees taken with a LensBaby Composer; with my "a photo should be of things you don't often see" philosophy, to me it looked like every other out of focus LensBaby Composer image, but presumably it appeared more novel to the judges.)

My problem isn't that I sometimes can't see what makes a "good street photo" - it's that there are "good street photos" (or at least, well-lauded) that I don't understand. And that's not really true, I believe, of other genres. That's not supposed to be critical, or to indicate that I don't like street photography. This usually applies to photos of people, because people are what I see every day, but could equally apply to anything else. In a wildlife context, pretty much any photo of a bird of paradise is going to be interesting, because most of us don't see them every day, and they're striking. (There was a trap photo of a snow leopard which won a category in WPoTY a few years ago; I think it was a terrible photo of the animal - not very well posed, not showing distinctive behaviour or the environment, not showing features of the animal. And the photographer wasn't actually there, it being a trap photo. But there are few enough photos of this animal, and enough effort went into getting it despite the trap setup, that I vaguely see why it was liked by the judges.) For a photo of, say, a pigeon to be a "good photo", on the other hand, I think it has to be framed interestingly, and show at least vaguely interesting behaviour. (Here's one of mine, showing pigeons going frantic over bread. Outstanding photo? Absolutely not. More than just an arbitrary picture of a pigeon? I think so. Pigeons eating bread isn't rare, but maybe seeing this view up close and frozen is more unusual.) An animal that everyone sees every day doing something everyone sees it doing every day, from a perspective that everyone sees every day - that's not a photo which contributes anything.

I get the same impression from some street photos, but the fact that they're seen as good examples suggests that I'm missing what makes the photo interesting. I'm hoping that if I understand some, I'll understand most of them, and that will improve both my enjoyment and understanding of the genre.

In the interest of dragging us back to specifics, I'm going back to Erwitt. I now understand that LON21998 is Arthur Miller; Arthur Miller is a celebrity, therefore a photo of him constitutes a photo of someone that we don't see every day, and who might be of interest to some people. I still don't think I see why it's a good photo of Arthur Miller (maybe the slightly hard to identify background of what might be the Brooklyn Bridge, but might not be because I don't know it well enough to identify from this image, is an indication of his abode?) but I at least acknowledge that merely containing Arthur Miller gives it some meaning. But I still don't really get what's special about NYC21204. Any suggestions?

Andrew, I think you looking at this too analytically and ignoring your feelings. The reason I equate SP with WP is they are both emotive and engage the viewer and if you have faith in your ability to spot a great WP photo you are almost certainly going to be able to do the same with SP. But you ain’t going to be able to appreciate all “great” photos of all genres

Asking what makes a specific photo (that you don’t rate) great sounds more like you are interested in being able to critique photos rather than appreciate(feel) them.

Thanks, Norman. I think my problem is that there are some photos for which I feel nothing. Don't get me wrong, there are many photos I instinctively like, and I can then look at them and decide what it is about them that I like (which I've tried to quantise here, perhaps excessively). There are photos I don't like - but I can usually justify that to myself as either there being something I dislike about the subject (such as some of the more exploitative images that have been taken over the years), or merely as feeling that the photo was unsuccessful (in my judgement) in meeting what I perceive to be its goals. I don't have to analyse a photo to reach these conclusions - and I'm in no position to be a photo critic, I'm just resorting to analysis to try to explain myself.

Still, the photos for which I feel nothing are those for which I can't find a way to determine the success or failure of the photo analytically either. "It doesn't look like anything to me", as they say in WestWorld. I was just hoping that some pointers to what others are taking from the images might allow something to click in my brain - and that's an easier thing to achieve by an explanation of a critical analysis than by trying to share an emotion.

"feeling of being bombarded by this unrelenting commitment to a singular vision." Phil.

To my mind you have to look at a body of work to understand the photographers vision...the speak. However, some photos stand alone, almost as if, they have taken a life and journey of their own.

Landscape photography, in a sense walks together with street photography, containing similar elements of composition that pleases the eye.. But they part in a dramatic way as street photography does not allow time....time to compose, time to be thoughtful....a world of fast moving chaos for the landscape photographer.

Any photograph, in every way, works through feelings, emotions, and imagination. Not, through some a magical, mathematical formulae....if a photo, does not give instant gratification for some, then it is not worth a second look ...a second ,and third ,and thousand looks/thoughts is what the art of photography is all about.

Just have to add a photo...just because this is photo site..

Walker Evans | American photographer

You have a thing about kittens, Phil. Kittens For Sale in Belgium

Powerful documentary photography, right up my street. However, the body of work....gives a clearer insight into the photographer.

street photography is just being in the right place at the right time.

I don’t think it’s particularly great (as an environmental portrait). But it’s effective in the portrayal of its subject. One of Miller’s works and plays is A View from the Bridge and the bridge in the title is the Brooklyn Bridge seen in the background of the picture. Other parts of the image like the wall of the building in the foreground, the street light, and the street signs (the ‘one way’ sign pointing down is a nice touch) look like a stage background (there's a flattening of the whole background the way the portrait is set up). The prominent placement of the NO from the NO PARKING sign behind the subject. There’s a mise en scène about the whole setting which fits in well with what the viewer knows or may subsequently learn about the subject.

Thanks, Phil. That helps a lot; in that context (perhaps thought of as an advertising shot for A View from the Bridge), I get the logic. A generic background with a fairly generic bit of bridge makes a lot more sense knowing that the background is representative of the same kind of generic background that might be used in a play, and the segment of the bridge is also representative of how it might be represented on stage. What seems boringly non-specific in a photo works as a representation of a deliberately boringly non-specific stage representation - an imaginative real-world rendering of an unimaginative stage dressing. Now I understand what it's trying to do, I like it more; this one was my lack of education, since I'm mostly aware of Miller from Death of a Salesman and the connection to Monroe. Unfortunately, I don't think most of the images I'm failing to understand have such an explicit context to them.

The only thing new under the sun is your experience......

That’s what keeps photography alive.

In the old days of "Photokistan" under Josh as "leader", Street Photography Forum was always, well, "touchy". Many people had very firm, not to say rigid, opinions about what it was and wasn't. Many of us, certainly at least the younger me, came to avoid the forum because of the frequency of trolling and sniping.

It probably won't be welcome if I say that for me "street" photography is simply "urban" photography.

Instead of canyons, you have buildings. Pigeons, being perhaps wiser, seem to make no such distinction.

Instead of canyons, you have buildings

Creatures in their most densely populated habitat!;)

I've got to say that I don't really consider WPoTY to be "street" (even when there are streets in it) - at least for the purposes of my concern here. Almost every recent Nikon Wednesday shot I've submitted has been made on the streets near my office, in a vague attempt to be encouraged to go out and shoot; I'd call most of them "nature" or "landscape", or maybe "architecture".

The genre that I struggle with (which isn't to say this should be the sole subject of this forum) is mostly that incorporating people, acting naturally, in a relatively generic public setting. To me:

• If there are no people, it's "landscape" (general arrangement of the environment), "architecture" (specific views of features designed by architects) or "nature" (where the subject is not human or directly under human control, and the creature or flora is the subject).
  
• If people aren't acting naturally, that's portraiture - environmental or otherwise. I've done very little of this, but I at least understand the principles.
  
• If people are acting naturally but not in a public setting, that's generally event photography (or occasionally sport). I've done my share of this kind of stuff, and it's the circumstances that make the photo. Doing this "on the street" is different, for me.
  

It may be that I just don't like people enough to find every photo in this genre interesting, though as I've reported, some I do.

The genre that I struggle with (which isn't to say this should be the sole subject of this forum) is mostly that incorporating people, acting naturally, in a relatively generic public setting.

Maybe seek out environments and situations that are a bit outside of the relatively generic?

I've got to say that I don't really consider WPoTY to be "street”

who said it is. i mentioned WP because i thought it would help you appreciate SP.

It may be that I just don't like people enough to find every photo in this genre interesting, though as I've reported, some I do.

this is completely asinine.

andrew, i am beginning to think this thread is all about you being in love with the sight of your own words.

Maybe seek out environments and situations that are a bit outside of the relatively generic?

 

http://citysnaps.net/2015%20Photos/Umbrella%20dark.jpg

San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2018

 

Sorry, Brad. There’s nothing outside of anything there. Some heavy handed processing maybe.

Brad: A good idea for my own photography. :-) Nonetheless, there are many photos that seem to be well-regarded without meeting the "interesting background" criterion (as far as I can tell), and my hope is to understand what I'm missing.

For what it's worth (and to counter Norman), I quite like your image. To go into analysis mode, there's a symmetry driven by both the person and the face above the window, the white glow of the umbrella provides a focus point in the otherwise gloomy image and emphasises the isolation of the person (combined with their small size in the frame, emphasised by the relatively large architecture), and the leaning trees provide a sense of motion (like rolling shutter) which complement the walker. Whether that's what you were going for I've no idea, but I can both intuitively and analytically take something from this shot. However, I'm trying not to analyse images by forum members, because this isn't about me critiquing what someone else has produced - it's about my ability to critique anything. My problem even with some apparently well-lauded images is that I don't get what I should be enjoying.

(On wildlife vs street.)

who said it is. i mentioned WP because i thought it would help you appreciate SP.

Indeed, and it's an interesting way to think about it. I was responding to JDM's comments about categorising street photography, and trying to narrow down my own area of concern.

this is completely asinine.

 

andrew, i am beginning to think this thread is all about you being in love with the sight of your own words.

I'm sorry you think that way, Norman. Honestly, I'm just trying to learn something that I currently don't understand. There's something I'm not seeing that apparently others do. In at least one example, it's been explained to me - but that seems to be specific to that example. I appreciate the pointers to more examples of street photography, but in my browsing so far (yes, I'm still looking) I've yet to see something which helps me to understand what's remarkable about some photo. If I keep writing, it's because I'm hoping to indicate to those who have been kind enough to respond, yourself included, why I may still struggle despite their efforts. I do apologise for being a bit verbose, though.

One more try. Back to Cartier-Bresson's image of a man jumping into a puddle - the classic "decisive moment" shot. This appears time and again in articles and documentaries about the history of photography. It's widely lauded as a great example. I've seen attempts to analyse it and talk about why it's interesting, but I don't really buy why any of those arguments could not be made for thousands of "lesser" photos. I just don't see what's special about it, what makes it a photo worth exhibiting or sharing. I don't dislike it, I just don't feel anything about it, and can't really justify why I should feel anything about it analytically either. So many people approve of this image that I'm clearly in the minority, and there's clearly a failure in my understanding. I hope that once I understand this, I might be able to understand and get enjoyment from other images that fall in the same category. But for now I'm stuck, and asking for help.

Norman: Maybe (I'm certainly technically-minded), but honestly I'm resorting to analysis here because I don't expect anyone to "explain a feeling" to me! Or maybe I don't have the vocabulary to think otherwise. Thank you for the support, nonetheless.

Sanford: Understood. I guess I get that the decisive moment is a concept, I just don't relate "when form and content, vision and composition merged into a transcendent whole" to that particular image (though I do "get it" for others). Maybe my level of knowledge is insufficient to identify goals when they are not necessarily clearly refined, which I guess is more likely to be the case in images which are inherently novel (and therefore likely to be lauded). There's certainly an argument for novelty, though; I can't criticise the first images of a person in front of a bill board any more than I can criticise Tolkien for being "clichéd" when his books are the origin of the cliché. The first example of something is rarely the best, except in the context of novelty.

There's something I'm not seeing that apparently others do.

This might be a good start. Why should you have to see what others do? Just go out and show us that YOU see what YOU do and, preferably, do it with conviction.

Thanks, Norma. I guess I can, it just feels like I'm admitting defeat. I don't like not knowing things, at least after I've tried to understand them!

At a certain point, if you genuinely feel you’ve tried and been open and willing, you’re not defeated. You’re being true to your own vision and taste. It’s worth sometimes expanding your taste and vision, but it’s not something you have to do in all cases or with all genres. Go out and do your own street work if the genre intrigues you enough, and then return to some of these photographers some time later. Your view of their work may or may not change.

You’re not admitting defeat. You looked and asked and still don’t understand or like something. So what? If you liked everything a bunch of other people like, you’d probably be somewhat boring. It’s ok to embrace a difference in understanding and taste. To me, doing that after sincere attempts to accept something is a sign of a winner, not a loser.