Define street photography vs photojournalism

Street photography is a new term to me since I am new to Photonet.

This is the first time I've heard it labeled, however I have seen

examples of it for years. My question is how does it differ from what

I shoot on a regular basis for the newspaper. I think what is adding

to the confusion are the discussions I've seen about how to be

inconspicious or shoot without a person's permission. I never hide my

camera. Most people assume I don't want a photograph of them and

ignor me. I almost always get their names and info AFTER the image

has been created. After all 30,000 people are going to see it with

their coffee the next morning. I run into very little resistance but

that may be because I'm in a small town environment. So there are

some examples at http://www.rwphoto.com/street I'd like to get some

opinions as to what qualifies and what doesn't. Thanks

A couple of recent, relavent threads:<P>

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008kMN">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008kMN</a><P>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0095w6">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0095w6</a>

Good idea, Ralph. You draw the fire and it'll give me a chance to escape. ;-)

 

OK...I'm going to be brave. I'm going to risk getting rotten tomatoes thrown at me when I answer your question because I'll inevitably get the answer wrong.

 

Like you, my only experience with the term "street photography" is what I've seen on Photo.net. I'd never heard of the subject before visiting this forum.

 

How does it differ from photojournalism? (this is where I'm going to get blasted) . . .

From what I've gathered from this forum, I'd say that street shots are usually taken on the sidewalk, parking lot or other public place. They are either grab shots or planned shots. (so far, the description is much the same as some photojournalism pics, right?)

 

But the difference is that the street shots taken because the scene either moves, excites, angers or otherwise causes emotion in the photographer--or because the object is there and the finger is one the camera button. Street shots may or may not tell a story, have a theme or have a reason for being shot other than the photographer wanted to shoot them.

 

Photojournalism shots, however, are the visual equivalent of telling a story or are a visual supplement to a written story. Or, sometimes, they're just those blocks of design and/or color that are used to break up all that boring gray text on a page. ;-)

<i>But the difference is that the street shots taken because the scene either moves, excites, angers or otherwise causes emotion in the photographer--or because the object is there and the finger is one the camera button. Street shots may or may not tell a story, have a theme or have a reason for being shot other than the photographer wanted to shoot them.</i>

<p>

Sounds like you are describing all forms of photography.

Whenever terms such a <i>street, photojournalism, documentary</i> photography start

being used as labels to denote well defined boundaries on these activity, the wheel just fall

off. Award winning <i>photojournalism</i> ofen tends to be documentary in nature. Is

<i>street photography</i> shot in a <i>documentary style</i> actually

<i>photojournalism</i>?

<p>

Furthermore, <i>photojournalism</i> tends to subconsciously place the activity as an

"act of employment" the outcome of which tends to be targeted for the press but can tend

to evolve and define a style of shooting that is associated with someone having a

<i>photojounlistic style</i>. Because of the commercial nature implied in

photojournalism, images seen within this category need to offer the publisher an angle (a

news/topic worthy story). You never see images in this category where you say, "hmmm,

thats a really good photo!" if it isnt tied to a story of interest.

<p>

"Documentation" suggests a body of work, which sufficiently captures and portrays a

identifiable topic/concept. Again, depending on how tightly or loosely you define these

topics or concepts doesnt detract from something being documented or documentary in

nature. As people we have been conditioned to think <i>documentary</i> is something

National Geographic throws at us - <i>tightly defined topics, multi faceted views on the

topic, attempts to make a social statement</i> - but isnt <i>street photography</i>

doing the same thing just that the topic is more broad like "modern life", "life in my town",

"the world as I see it", ... rather than a narrow objective such as "The plight of Artic Seals".

<p>

To me <i>street photography</i> is/can be none of the above, all of the above, it can be

all at the same time or one at a time. But more importantly, it doesnt need to any more

than capturing life as you see it without restrictive labels.

<p>

In the end <i>street photography</i> becomes how you see the world...

<i>In the end street photography becomes how you see the world...</i><p>that is the

best definiton I have ever heard

Great PJs write coherent substantial stories/essays with a

narrative while great SPs write beautiful but often senseless

abstract poetry/proverbs.

They are arbitrary labels. If you look at a picture and think "street

photography," then it is street photography. If you think

"photojournalism," then it is that.

I think Ralph has posed a useful question, and that he has also pointed to a useful answer in regard to contrasting street photography to small town journalistic photography. While both undertakings may often share the same venue, one of the essential differences involves anonymity and the maintenance of anonymity, both of the subject and the photographer. While street photographers are sometimes seen as intrusive, their objective is not to establish identity or even usually to place events in context. Rather, they are usually looking for unique juxtapositions of line, color, form and emotional content that seek to explore issues of esthetics. Street photographers may also seek to illuminate social issues, but in a way that is universal rather than specific. By contrast, the expectation of the small town journalist will be that his/her pictures will emphasize objectivity and specificity. A picture of a man biting a dog will be expected to to reveal the identities and circumstances surrounding the event.<br>    At the same time, much of what constitutes small town photojournalism is clearly the product of tradition and editorial inertia. As was mentioned by another poster, editors with a bit more flexibility will sometimes just insert a picture to break up a monotonous page of text, and the expectations in that case are much looser and might even include some pure street. Some photojournalists like those working for Magnum have gone a step further in developing styles which are primarily impressionistic and much closer to the values of street photography. However, the people buying the Magnum pictures are not publishing for a small town audience.

Hi Ralph,

 

To me I find five and six to be most photoj in nature. The others to me feel more like street work. You bring up an interesting point though about shooting in small towns. I live in a town with a population of 554. Very small, but when I go out to photograph I get litte resistance and everyone is great about it. In contrast when I go photograph on the streets of Minneapolis people seem more distant. I'm not sure if it's just cause people in a big enviroment become more leery of those in surrounding? Or is it just that I'm more comfortable working in my own enviroment? I'm not sure myself, but come to believe it's a little of both.

Another thing that differentiates most street photography from most of what appears in newspapers is who gets to do the editing. Most street photographers edit their own work, while most photojournalists have to submit theirs to the whims, values and expectations of someone else. One result of that is that street photography exhibits a lot of tolerance for ambiguity while small town editors tend to shun it like the plague. As you go further up the the photojournalistic food chain to where the photographers can lay claim to much of the editorial process again, the potential of ambiguity reasserts itself. I'm thinking, for instance, about the work of people like Gilles Peress whose work in Iraq depicts the conflict in nuanced shades of gray rather than the stark black and white preferred by small town editors.

BTW, Ralph, if those shots you linked to are typical of what your paper actually publishes, I'd say your editor is quite a bit more sophisticated than the average for small town publications.

<p>Craig, </p>

<p><i>You never see images in this category where you say,

"hmmm, thats a really good photo!" if it isnt tied to a story of interest.</i></p>

<p>This may depend on the publication. As photographers we are always trying to

slip something past the editors. Sometimes it works. So I can probably agree

with the statement if you change the word "never" to "seldom". From time to time

people stop me in the street or at the store to tell me how much they enjoyed a

particular image. Usually they are the shots that we refer to as "features" or

"stand alones".</p>

<p><i>In the end street photography becomes how you see the

world..</i>.</p>

<p>I like that.</p>

<p>I have to agree too, that sub-conscientiously we know we are ultimately

shooting for someone else. Because we are a small paper, we don't have a lot of

editors to deal with and we represent our own photos. That means we can pitch a

photo the same as a writer pitches a story. Slow news days give us a chance to

exercise our skills and styles because, as Melissa pointed out, gray pages don't

sell papers.</p>

<p>Mike</p>

<p>The discussion has made me think that I take my job for granted some days.

All the photos I linked to ran in our paper except number six. But, yes, they

ran because they illustrated a story. I guess I'm lucky that I can use a street

style in my work. Here's a link that highlights other photojournalists who

successfully blend the two. <a href="http://www.photocolumn.org">

http://www.photocolumn.org</a> </p>

<p>I'll add an image to this post that ran by itself and was one that earned a

"furry five" from a number of our readers.</p><div></div>

I've probably gotten a bit too cynical about the prospects for photographers at home town newspapers. I live near Las Cruces, the home of the <i>Sun-News</i>, which is arguably a contender for worst daily in the country. I've lost count of how many editors they have gone through, or how many times the ownership has changed -- each time to a larger media conglomerate ever more determined to turn out generic news. The paper actually employs a couple of reasonably talented photographers, but I can't imagine that they get much enjoyment from their jobs.

Mike - I just looked at the Sun-News photo gallery. I feel your pain. We looked like that 5 years ago. Too bad, there have to be a lot of missed opportunities.

Much of Norman Rockwell's work if it were photography could be considered street photography e.g. his "Problem We All Live With".

"editors with a bit more flexibility will sometimes just insert a picture to break up a monotonous page of text,"

 

I've seen this from both sides of the fence, both as a photographer and as an editor. It's true that lazy editors may take that approach but most editors know that pictures are vital to their newspaper's success. The problem is that few of them have any understanding of graphics and often don't have a layout person who does to guide them. To get the reader's attention layout, image and copy all have to work together. I was lucky enough on my last paper to have a wizard layout man and a proprietor who didn't mind my grabing a camera to get the image I wanted for a story. On a previous paper I worked with an editor who gave me two or three pages an issue to do with as I wanted and we got a lot of positive comments from readers about the result.

 

This isn't to say that I'm clever, 'cause I'm not, but simply to point out that what matters is that you please the reader and make them want to buy the next issue to see what will be there. Unfortunately, a lot of people who work for local newspapers have lost sight of that simple truth.<div></div>

Craig's definition of street photography says it best.

 

If I could paraphrase him as succinctly, photojournalism tends to be how the editors and publishers see the world.

 

Photojournalists can bring some of their style to the table but in the end it's the editors who choose what's shown to viewers. After awhile photojournalists tend to shoot whatever they believe will be published rather than whatever strikes them as interesting or essential.

 

And documentary photography tends to be whatever the photojournalist would have shot if he or she were given free rein to tell a story.

If you do editorial newspaper work, you can put some effort into a nice compositon, only to have some sub editor butcher your pic by cropping it to fit the available space,and then publishing it with your photo credit attached. With street photography at least the photographer has full control of how the image is presented.

Yeah, with street photography the photographer has the option to show the image full frame, as he wanted to present it, and have four other people look at it. ;-)

<p><i>After awhile photojournalists tend to shoot whatever they believe will be

published rather than whatever strikes them as interesting or essential. </i>

</p>

<p><i>And documentary photography tends to be whatever the photojournalist would

have shot if he or she were given free rein to tell a story</i></p>

<p>This has offered an interesting view on how people perceive photojournalists.

Because of my position in the department, I am given a lot of freedom. An easy

trap to fall into is shooting what the editors want to see. I know that if I am

given a story it will be published with the art I provide. I am given a story

and a deadline. If it's an event I'm told when and where and who the principles

are. Sometimes the stories are ones that I have found and gotten enough info to

get a reporter assigned to it. I typically shoot between 75 and 200 frames and

give the editors roughly six cropped images to work with. I shoot for the local

paper and AP. Neither have told me how to shoot or what to come back with.

Obviously, if its a story about apples I don't come back with images of oranges.</p>

<p>Now this may not be the case at many newspapers but I hope it happens more

often than this thread would have you believe. </p>

<p>That said, yes there are days that deadlines and space constraints have

forced a photo to run that I wish didn't have my name under it. S*** happens.</p>

To me Street Photography is about the sensations I live when I'm outside...does photojournalism fit into this too?

 

Maybe, sometimes it can be really intense and personal, too..

 

Ciao!