Blend in, be anonymous...

<p>Isn't a good street photographer the most boring of individuals?</p>

<p><br /><br /><br>

Boring! Elaborate please sir. </p>

<p>Shouldn't have to be. Why do you think street photographers "blend in" and are "anonymous"? Don't you think some engage people, interact with the street and what's going on, even make things happen sometime? What about street photographers who are more on the "in your face" side of things? Boring? I suppose some are. Are you?</p>

<p>Is street shooting only about the photographer being anonymous and taking candid shots? A strict view such as this can be a very limited one. </p>

<p>Maybe the ones Sanford has met/known. I've met quite a few very good and a few famous ones, and not one would I think of as boring. The Stealth/Anon thing is a stereotype.</p>

<p>The wikipedia article on street photography begins "Street photography is a type of documentary photography that features subjects in candid situations within public places such as streets, parks, beaches, malls, political conventions and other settings."</p>

<p>I thought this was also the common usage of the term. What Fred is describing is portrait photography (which typically involves engaging with the subject) or in the case of making something happen, well, it could be sports photography (if you ask the skateboarded to do a trick) ...</p>

<p>The thing is that if you start asking strangers to do stuff just for the benefit of your photos, then it would be appropriate to compensate them (by giving them money) since otherwise they will be working just for your benefit without pay. I can see the photographer liking such slave or free labour but I would be extremely uncomfortable requesting people to break from what they're doing unless you hire them. I can see the motivation behind documentary photography and candid images because they document life, which is intrinsically valuable for future generations, and does not distract the people from what they were doing in the first place, but if it's a made-up situation then I think there is no justification for it and you should compensate your models for their work. Anything else is exploitation IMO.</p>

<p>Thanks Ilkka, now we got a discussion going...</p>

<p>Ilkka, engaging with people doesn't have to be "making up" a situation, though street photographs can be made up and are made up by many good street photographers. One can be part of the street or make themselves part of the street as a photographer, and therefore not be anonymous. Maybe you've heard of street portraits. Many street photographers do them. One can engage with a stranger and then decide, with permission or not, to take their picture, even as they may go right on with what they'd been doing. Moving from that sort of situation to <em>slave labor</em> is a stretch only a wild imagination would come up with. Wow! Perhaps you might go out into the street sometime and interact with some of the people and experience the kinds of photographs that might come along . . . which can be genuine, documentary, and moving (all or some of these). Perhaps you don't want to. No problem. Do what you like. Just don't define away the parts of street photography you either don't understand or don't practice. There may be better sources for determining what is street photography than the first line of a Wikipedia article. </p>

I don't see how "blending in," either actively through engagement with subjects, or passively via being accepted in local

surroundings through behavior for taking candids, has anything to do with being "boring."

 

Most people I know who engage in SP have a quiet, low-key, unassuming demeanor. But that does not equate to boring...

<p>Do you think Dorothea Lange didn't engage her subjects? Shall Wikipedia or folks on PN ban her from being considered a documentary photographer?</p>

<blockquote><br /></blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>The thing is that if you start asking strangers to do stuff just for the benefit of your photos, then it would be appropriate to compensate them (by giving them money) since otherwise they will be working just for your benefit without pay.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote><br /></blockquote>

<p>Presumably you pay your friends when you photograph them?</p>

<p>Ilkka, your bio states:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>My favorite subject in photography is people. I prefer a candid, documentary style. To me, the most important ingredient to good people photography is showing respect towards the subjects in the way they're represented in the images</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So presumably you are writing cheques on a regular basis, or dishing out wads of notes?</p>

<p> </p>

<p> <br />The Wiki article you site is narrow and apparently your one source: <em>Street Photography for Purists</em>. that offers this sort of advice: "A true street photographer is armed with a Leica M body and a roll of tri-x". <em>Purest </em>anything should be a red flag that turns your skeptic meter to eleven. Don't you suppose that any other technique is possible for street photos besides candid? Saying that all shooting in public is exploitation is plainly absurd. Slaves! Read<em> Bystander</em>.</p>

<p>A CCD video camera on a pole is boringly anonymous. Street and documentary envelopes a broader category. Me, I always choose a red beret. Along with my gracious smile.</p>

<p>Wikipedia is hardly an authoritative source on street photography. Wikipedia is a lot better for bios, company histories, etc., although it has plenty of failings there also. Citing Wikipedia on street photography is about as useful as ... (pick your own).</p>

<p>One could just as easily say that nature photographers are boring because they sit in blinds in the middle of nowhere for hours on end. Now the activity seems boring to me, but I would hardly use that to define the person.</p>

<p>When street photographers endlessly talk about themselves they become boring just like anyone else would ;-)</p>

<p>I'm assuming you've rubbed shoulders with lots of street photographers. Nevertheless, I don't understand the gist of your question, I mean, street photography, to me, seems like a rather risky, vulnerable task. Putting one's self out there, wherever it may be, in a field of strangers, is what alot of us only wish we had the guts to do.</p>

<p>I pretend I'm invisible. When I see a pretty girl, I turn visible again.</p>

<p>DF said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>. . . I mean, street photography, to me, seems like a rather risky, vulnerable task. Putting one's self out there, wherever it may be, in a field of strangers, is what alot of us only wish we had the guts to do.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It certainly can be. Holding $1,000's worth of gear, alone, at night, in not the best parts of town, entails risk. The first time I went out alone, I found it very scary. I tried to become part of the scenery: invisible . . . boring. The less I stood out, the safer I felt. Moving with purpose, being aware of my surroundings--all of the things you normally do in a big city. But it's worth the effort. I think everyone should at least try it. I've never "seen" the city in the particular way I saw it on those first few nights out.</p>

<p>While I believe un-permissioned street candids are generally more provocative, interacting with your subjects introduces a whole new dimension. More than you would think, are completely amenable to being photographed. In fact, every young woman I asked to photograph, agreed. Few of the resulting photos were of any interest, but I liked doing it anyway. My best street portrait was my very first subject--a pretty, young tattoo artist. I've yet to produce anything close since.</p>

I didn't say the wikipedia definition is the only one, but it is what many understand the term to mean. If you disagree, why not change the article to be more accurate or suggest it to be changed. The quality of

wikipedia depends on volunteers to improve it. Why do it? Because that's what comes up in a google search. If you

want people to get accurate information then please do something about it.

 

When the photographer engages and makes contact with a stranger to

photograph them, at least in Finland many who practice that genre call it 'contact photography'. They do not usually

call it street photography. But if you prefer to call it street photography then I am not going to say it's wrong, it's just

not a meaning for the word I've encountered outside of photo.net.

 

I didn't say posed images cannot be used in a documentary context. Obviously they are needed in day-to-day journalism. However, the more you alter people's behaviour for the benefit of making your picture more interesting the more you increase the risk of the final result not reflecting true events and character of the subject. This in my mind makes the image less 'documentary'. Some people have always made up stuff and published it in the news media ... In fact every time there has been a newspaper article about me or our work, it has had errors and misrepresentations. But that doesn't make the practice acceptable or good. It's just bad work, either due to lack of competence, or lack of honesty.

 

John, no I don't pay my friends for photography. If you read my previous post again you will see that I

specifically used the word 'strangers'. If you want strangers to pose for you and they have nothing better to do then it's

obviously your right and theirs to do that but unless we're talking about teenagers hanging about at the bus station

smoking then people are usually busy doing what they're doing or going someplace else. I realize that in some places of the world people are idle but I don't live in such an environment.

 

I take portraits too. However, to do

that well I have to know the subject well - how else could I know that the final photograph reflects their personality? I photographmost people who work at my department and there is an

obvious correlation between quality of the photography and familiarity between the photographer and the subject. For strangers I prefer a candid approach

because 1) I feel I get more true expressions (without pretense) than I would in posing the subject after a brief

interaction, 2) I do not want to distract people from their business by stopping them for five minutes. I suppose

prefer to keep strangers as strangers friends as friends and photograph them with different methods.

 

I don't think street photographers are any different from other people. I am fascinated by life and how it can be

documented with a camera in an interesting way. I think most non-photographers only photograph people whom they're familiar

with, and many of them think photographing strangers is weird. I think it is important that people and life are documented also outside of the domain of the family albums and newspapers. How you do it doesn't matter- different styles and approaches can only make our contribution richer.

<p>Sanford, Now I get it. In my experience the more dumbed -down my camera looks the more boring I must appear and less notice I get. If I look like a serious photographer I have more enjoyment because people like to chat. I hear neighborhood stories and issues. People tell me about themselves. If I didn't get that dimension to doing street I wouldn't do it. Urban noon has always been the richest time and place for me. People are in a good mood and all sorts of things are happening at once. BTW My squawk RE Wiki source was meant for Illka. It was interesting to me that nobody has challenged in Wiki the bleak and narrow definition of SP presented there.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>"Isn't a good street photographer the most boring of individuals?"<br></blockquote><p>

Not necessarily. A good street photographer is someone who does their work in situations where they (as photographers) are not the center of attention. I've passed up taking what I thought would have been excellent shots because of the feeling that the people in the group I was observing would have been more concerned with who I was and why I was taking that picture than in their own activities and conversations. On the other hand there are plenty of events such as street fairs, political demonstrations such as Occupy Baltimore, New York, etc, where people expect to be observed (and even desire to be observed) and where doing street photography is not a problem.</p>

Famous street photographers?

>>> It was interesting to me that nobody has challenged in Wiki the bleak and narrow definition of SP

presented there.<P>

 

It's probably because those that practice SP regularly are fine with the definition. I am. Though both are

documentary in nature, there's a big difference between <a href= "http://www.citysnaps.net/blog/street/">street photography</a> and <a href= "http://www.citysnaps.net/blog/bw-gallery-1/">street portraiture</a>. I do

both. And agree with Ilkka on this point.

<p>Even with the smallest of cameras it is hard to be completely inconspicuous. There are aggressive street photographers and ones almost like ghosts. I think it depends on your attitude. And, maybe, the street you're on.</p><div></div>

<p>Doctrinaire views of types of photography matter to few people. Particularly in our <em>just do it </em>age. I go to Wiki to broaden my knowledge not uphold or dispute a romantic ideal. How does contrasting portrait and street or what is candid or isn't, or proper street shooter decorum inform the picture? I'm getting the "photography as truth teller" vibes from some of the responders here.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm getting the "photography as truth teller" vibes from some of the responders here.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Me too. Very much so, Alan.</p>

<p>I was struck with how differently I think about portraits than what Ilkka had to say about them. (<em>"I take portraits too. However, to do that well I have to know the subject well - how else could I know that the final photograph reflects their personality?"</em> --Ilkka)</p>

<p>I take portraits in a variety of ways. Sometimes, I know the person well. Sometimes, I have just met the person. I'm as guided by what I see and feel as I am by what I think I may know about the person. Often I am creating something new with a photo rather than reflecting something already there. I like showing people something new about themselves, or a different way of looking at them. Often, my subjects really appreciate that and are intrigued by unknown sides of themselves they see in my pictures. Photos are often illusions. We think we are seeing the personality of the subject of the portrait when we are really just seeing a photograph of them, a new animal, something created out of a fleeting expression or even a universal reaction to an aspect of humanity rather than a specific reaction to an individual. What we shoot takes on significance and meaning by being stilled and framed, not necessarily because of what it mirrors or represents. </p>

<p>I like this quote by Richard Avedon. It's yet another way, among so many varieties of ways, of thinking about portraits:</p>

<p><em>"My photographs don’t go below the surface. They don’t go below anything. They’re readings of the surface. I have great faith in surfaces. A good one is full of clues."</em> --Avedon</p>

<p>[Avedon's, of course, is only one way of looking at it. And the quote taken out of context shouldn't suggest limiting Avedon to this one way of thinking about photographs. He was bigger than this. But it's interesting to consider.]</p>

<p> </p>