Understanding street photography

I admit that I haven't read all of the responses here . . . and I expect that I will not. I'm going to try to go back and address your original post from my point of view although I also admit that I'm not sure why I'm jumping in at this point. It might be because 25 or 30 years ago, I viewed it pretty much the same way that you do now. I'm still not good at what we generally call "street photography" either but I have a better understanding of the whole thing than I did back then.

 

First, street photography is a form of documentary photography. Most of the recognized photographers in the genre didn't set out to do "street photography" but set out to document some issue with the human condition. The photographs that we know today, that show a man jumping over a puddle (I was just discussing this image with my girlfriend the other night) or a couple kissing in Times Square or at a café in Paris, were the result of larger documentary projects. These are images that stand out from the rest and stand alone, aside from the project.

 

If you want to get a better feel for the process, go out and shoot some homeless people in a city near you. But, don't just photograph them from across the street. Sit down with them and talk to them. Get some idea of their story. Share some of yours. Then, with their permission, start photographing. Even if you start out treating as more of portrait session, see if you can get some of what you learned, about them and about yourself, into the images that you create. Go back days or a week or later with some prints and look for the same people.

 

What I am trying to say is that you to put something of yourself into your street photography and in the process you can reveal something about someone else . . . Or, is it the other way around?

If you want to get a better feel for the process, go out and shoot some homeless people in a city near you. But, don't justphotograph them from across the street. Sit down with them and talk to them.

yes, by all means do this if you want to be just another photographer cliche, exploiting homeless folk to become a better photographer or you could be a little more daring and choose a street photo path a little less popular, a little less obvious, and a little more unusual.

Way to miss the point entirely . . .

"I’m not exactly sure either what photographing and interacting with homeless people, or any other social category for that matter would achieve in terms of understanding street photography." Phillip.

 

Me to are left to wonder.

Jeez, understand, by getting out there and taking some photos.

 

Too much talk....little action.

 

Harsh, Allen. I understand my own photos (what I'm trying to capture, how I balance the image, etc.) just fine, it's some photos taken by others that confuse me. I'm even not all that restricted when it comes to ideas for projects. Cliche or not, sitting down and talking to people would be outside my comfort zone and probably good for me - but as mentioned, wouldn't exactly result in novel images. On the other hand, if you're going to try to talk to a stranger, I'm inclined to think that someone sitting on the street is less likely to be busy and in the middle of doing something else, exploitative or not.

In the words of Yoda "No! Try not! Do or do not, there is no try."

Andrew, your thing seems to be about understanding some well known street photos you don’t get. Developing your taste is important, even if it means coming to the conclusion you still don’t like or get something after seriously considering some good reasons for liking or understanding it. Though becoming a street photographer would give you some insights you might not otherwise have, it’s not necessary to appreciating street photography just as every jazz lover doesn’t play it. Thanks for asking these questions and being willing to change your mind. That’s more important than actually changing it.

Though becoming a street photographer would give you some insights you might not otherwise have, it’s not necessary to appreciating street photography just as every jazz lover doesn’t play it.

..nor does every jazz lover love or understand all jazz. For me, much of the appeal of street photography lies in the irony I see in a scene. But many of our friends (and my wife, truth be told...) don't find this interesting at all. They simply can't figure out why I take pictures like this one:

 

 

Not every photographer appreciates every kind of photography. It's OK - there's room in the world for all our likes and dislikes.

Won’t guess why you took it. Will just say I’ve taken pictures like that to remember a brand name or price later on. Always have my cell phone at hand when shopping.

Won’t guess why you took it. Will just say I’ve taken pictures like that to remember a brand name or price later on. Always have my cell phone at hand when shopping.

“50% more free”....................... for an extra $2

Edited September 4, 2018 by otislynch

Check your math.....

Isn’t the middle tub 100% (16 oz.on white tag below?) larger than the one on the right (8oz.).....

Or does the middle say 12oz.?

I have had those type of things ring up less than the white tag below.

Edited September 4, 2018 by Moving On

Check your math.....

Isn’t the middle tub 100% (16 oz.on white tag below?) larger than the one on the right (8oz.).....

Or does the middle say 12oz.?

I have had those type of things ring up less than the white tag below.

It’s just an amusing observation, not a math lesson. This was exactly my point about street photography - we each see something different in the same image, and it’s OK either way. I thought it was funny, and you didn’t. I took the shot and you wouldn’t have done so. I enjoy looking at it and you don’t. We’re both OK.

 

I understand Eggleston’s take on this now more than ever: “Whatever it is about pictures, photographs, it’s just about impossible to follow up with words. They don’t have anything to do with each other.”

Edited September 5, 2018 by otislynch

No, that’s not it.

I simply questioned the premise.

Couldn’t really make out the details, prices and quantities, of what you say is the basis for your taking the photo,

so the intent was lost on me.

 

The first thing I noticed was the top right turned backwards.

Huh. And I'd interpreted it as an ironic take on "filler", since the stacks of product are very densely packed. (Though I'd have got that more strongly if they were filling the gap between wooden shelves.) As you say, I guess I'm learning that we all bring our own interpretation to these things.

For me it's about 'the hunt' not 'the kill'. By that I mean like fly fishing for Salmon .... not so great to eat but great fun to try and catch. If you really don't like the process there is little point. I agree with your comment about the 'puddle jump' shot but it was novel than and with the tools available at the time, quite an achievement.

Cartier-Bresson's shot

Please, read this

To the venerable names above I would add Rodchenko, Sutkus, Koudelka and Syomin.

Please, read this

the importance of the portrait was now its photographer, not his subject.

I don't necessarily think this is true of Bresson, but it if were to be true of any portrait photographer, it would be a sad commentary on ego taking over. Portraits may be about the photographer, of course, but rarely to the neglect of the subject.

 

I do, however, like the idea of a duel. There's no rule that says any genre of photography has to be based on conversation with subjects or feel good moments. A lot of great photos emanate from tension and alienation and photographers are free to explore those, even in public and even if it means generating some alienation or counterbalance at times themselves.

Hey @Andrew Garrard, I'm very late to this party but I see that the thread has been re-awakened. I've browsed through the previous posts and @kmac's reply seems the most sensible to me. With your sensitivity and abilities for self-reflection, I've no doubt that you'll figure it out. I'd just add that photo 'categories' are usually applied retrospectively. Photographers just take photos of people, situations and things that interest them.

 

 

j

Hi all. This thread is intended to inform me, so I must apologise in advance if this sounds at all confrontational - that will be my error in wording, not intent.

 

After a few years of pootling around with a camera, I feel I can probably take passable landscapes, wildlife photos, sports, architecture, portraits (with a sympathetic subject), events, I've shot a wedding... I don't claim to be especially good at any of these areas, but generally I know what I'm doing wrong and have some thought about what to do.

 

With street photography, however, I don't really have a feel for what I might be trying to achieve - after a small number of attempts. I vaguely sense that I should be looking for a happy coincidence that tells a story, makes a visual joke, or captures a feeling. Some of these things I could identify when I saw them (although whether I had the reactions to shoot them is another matter). But in other cases, when I see the shots that others (whether on this forum, or the classical experts) have taken in this genre, I really don't see anything that I'd photograph. I don't really get what was special, what's being said, what's creative about the shot. Lest anyone feel I'm criticising their photos and to offer a concrete example, I feel this about Cartier-Bresson's shot of a man jumping into a puddle. To me, a man jumping into a puddle isn't an interesting thing to photograph - and I don't particularly buy the geometric analysis of the composition to be convincing either.

 

I consider the point of a photograph to be to show someone a thing that they might not normally see. I have an understanding that we all have different experiences and what's boring to me might be interesting to another - if I'm recording a distinctive behaviour, even if it's one I see every day, that may have some merit. Even doing so, I can still hope to incorporate a touch of humanity, tell a story (even if it's a familiar one) or find a twist. Sometimes there's an unusual event (such as a march or parade) where the options to do more than record are limited and the event itself makes for the subject - but even then it's all too easy to capture yet another bunch of generic people walking.

 

With most (not all) street photographs, I don't get this sense - I just get "oh, here are some people", "oh, here's a person", "these people are doing the kind of thing I see people doing every day", "here is yet another shot of a person walking by a poster that is someone else's photograph of a person, which makes it look like there are two people there except there aren't and a chunk of the image is someone else's photo", or sometimes "here is an unstaged photo of an attractive person who wouldn't necessarily appreciate the attention".

 

That's not to say that I never see a street photo I like (or that this is supposed to be easy), and I'm happy with the idea of "here's a person doing something unusual, or an unusual person, or a person who's story you can see in the shot, or a coincidental combination of people or objects that are collectively interesting in some way, or something that elicits an emotional response, or something presented in an unusual way". But looking at a classically appreciated street photo, which I can categories as none of these things, often does nothing for me.

 

Okay, so far, so "I hate street photography and I shouldn't do it". But I presume I feel like this because I don't really understand the subject, and I might appreciate it more if I could get my head into the right space (you know, like how people start out liking really simple pop music, and it takes some exposure to appreciate the layers in Welcome to the Black Parade or Bohemian Rhapsody). Hence this plea for help.

 

As for taking photos myself, I get that leaving one's comfort zone is healthy, and if I'm uncomfortable taking street photos, it's probably something I should get better at. To that end I recently acquired a Coolpix A in a leather carry case, which has the twin benefit of not making it obvious when I'm taking a photo (especially if I look like I'm shooting a video) and convincing some unobservant people that it's a Leica. On two recent occasions I've been using an enormous and obvious telephoto lens to shoot squirrels (from a car park that had CCTV surveillance, although to be fair I was trying to hide my profile from the wildlife) and had to fend off members of the public convinced I was trying to take photographs of small children for the dark web - so I'm keen not to spook people. The curse of being an unfit mid-forties bloke with a camera (and no offspring), especially shooting outside my comfort zone (though not so much with the squirrels) and therefore looking a bit furtive, is that people have been trained to assume the worst - and I'm going to have to practise a lot if I'm going to get to the stage of confidently looking like should be there.

 

So if I'm going to take street photos, it would help if they were good ones - and I'd rather avoid the "whole street shot" that might include kids, or the "attractive woman shot", which from me will be creepy, not flattering, unless it's of someone I know who wants to be recorded as such.

 

I've tried reading books on photography. I've watched documentaries on the history of photography. I've read articles on street photography. I've browsed the POTW threads on this forum. I could stand on the street and take a passable photo of something, but not what I'd call a "street photo". Currently, "what makes a good street photo" is failing to click with me.

 

Which is a long way of asking a question which will either trigger a very long answer, or people brusquely telling me to go away and read something.

 

So: What, to you, makes a good street photo?

 

Particularly, what makes a good street photo when it can't be categorised as I did above as showing something particularly unusual, or telling a story, or triggering an emotion, or including a visual joke (unless these apply to all the street photos I "don't understand" and I'm just missing it)? There are many times I see a photo and think "that's a scene, but it's not an image" - but others clearly think otherwise. What am I missing?

 

Fingers crossed for mental realignment, and thanks for any thoughts.

For me it is interesting first and then I photograph it. It may not be interesting to others and that is always nice. Art is subjective when it comes to everyone's opinion. Not all of my photographs mean anything to some people and some may even find it distasteful, but my decision is based on what I find interesting or pleasant. Photograph what you consider pleasant and enjoy it. and perhaps others will too. It is nice when others like your work, but IMHO it shouldn't be the driving force behind what you photograph.

For me it is interesting first and then I photograph it.

Overall, your post makes a lot of sense. Others’ opinions of our work can only take us so far and can, as often as not, stifle us or prevent us from achieving an individual vision. Most strong visions DON’T appeal to everyone so I often tell myself if I get universal acclaim, even in my own small world, I may be doing something wrong.

 

On your sentence I quoted above ... just to turn it around for a minute ... I’ve relished the times it wasn’t all that interesting and my photographing it made it so! :)

Overall, your post makes a lot of sense. Others’ opinions of our work can only take us so far and can, as often as not, stifle us or prevent us from achieving an individual vision. Most strong visions DON’T appeal to everyone so I often tell myself if I get universal acclaim, even in my own small world, I may be doing something wrong.

 

On your sentence I quoted above ... just to turn it around for a minute ... I’ve relished the times it wasn’t all that interesting and my photographing it made it so! :)

:)

Check out Ed Van Der Elskin .... He is one of my favorite under rated photographers

 

 

I have a copy of his film that he created while he was dying of cancer. Very moving and artistically done. I'll have to see if I can find it in my stash and get the name of it.

Check out Ed Van Der Elskin .... He is one of my favorite under rated photographers

 

Thanks, don’t remember seeing his name before. I liked the series in the video. Have to look into him some more. First reaction is that they’re intimate often with an edge of alienation, an interesting combination.