Understanding street photography

Underrated?! Ed van der Elsken has always been considered an influential and essential photographer in the stream of consciousness subjective documentary genre, most notably his book Love on the Left Bank which - together with William Klein's work - was very influential to the street and documentary scene in Japan which he visited many times. Sure he's not as famous as a Robert Frank, but that doesn't make him underrated.

 

I only said that because I dont know anyone who ever heard of him. And so many others as well.

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.

 

OP...have things improved for you on the street?

 

Ya'know street work is not for everyone. Nothing wrong with that. We should all try for what we can do best.

 

For myself I am nothing special with fashion or studio work. But I excel with street and candid work. I don't have patience for landscape or star trails. Luckily I figured it out and didn't have any regrets.

I had never heard of Ed van der Elsken before the posts above, to my loss. That was just beautiful photography and I can see how he would have influenced present day "street" photographers. Phil mentioned Klein and he was so in the vein of an immediacy of interaction sometimes brought about by confrontation plus really inventive and evocative manner of printing, where to me EVDE is the like the other side of the coin, dreamy, yet really deep currents and just elegant framing and I could go on. I'm really so glad I decided to look in to the back-end of this thread. Thanks!