I have often wondered why PN has grouped street and documentary into the one forum. There are obviously some cross overs but it is clear that not all street photography is documentary and vice versa and I'm sure this wasn't the intent to imply differently. As can be seen by my posts in this forum my focus is on street 'type' photography. I have always had ambitions to be a 'documentor' but life (work) circumstances haven't allowed me the time to do more than one off or superficial studies of subjects/places. I'm interested in others thoughts - what do you understand as the difference between documentary and street photography? Does a series of images over a period of time taken in the same 'street' constitute a documentation of that palce. Or does a documentary have to have a more cohesive story? Can you document with just one image? The Tate Gallery descibes Documentary Photography as "a style of photography that provides a straightforward and accurate representation of people, places, objects and events, and is often used in reportage" https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/d/documentary-photography. There is also an interesting section on the aethetics of documentary: https://www.tate.org.uk/context-comment/articles/aesthetics-documentary. This raises the question about the purpose of the documentary - to report or to please artistically (or both - not mutually exclusive) I have been going through my collection - many of what I call street and travel images but there is not a lot I can pull together to really do an in depth story. It would be great to see more documentary photograhy on this forum. Paris Market collection 1 - street or documentary?