Street in the suburbs

<p>It seems that urban settings are the most common for street shooting, as there are plenty of streets and generally an abundance of people providing more opportunities for interesting shots. This holds true for me, living approximately equidistant between NYC and Philly, I usually save my street shooting for when I visit those cities. I like shooting street. I'm not particularly good at it, I don't think, but with my rather infrequent trips to the cities, I don't get a lot of opportunity to practice. I find it challenging to take pictures of strangers with confidence, and that's part of the appeal...it forces me to do something in a different way. Rather than breaking down the barriers of others, I'm breaking down my own.</p>

<p>Princeton isn't too far, has a nice downtown, and lots of people carry cameras and shoot a lot. The problem there is that 99% of people are taking pictures of buildings, so people tend to be fairly aware of cameras and duck out of the way when they see someone shooting. Quite courteous, but problematic for street shooting.</p>

<p>In an attempt to expand my opportunities, I'm wondering what kinds of possibilities are available in the suburbs, where people rarely congregate in numbers, and sidewalks are somewhat rare. Shooting outside of a mall or at a strip mall seems inadequate, and as private property, may not be permitted. But what about taking pictures of people or things while walking down the street anyway, such as someone mowing the lawn, or people working on a car in the driveway, etc? Does that fit the criteria of "street" or is that too homey for the category? To my mind, it's not really different than taking a shot of a street vendor, or a shop owner washing a window in an urban setting, except that the setting isn't urban.</p>

<p>I'm not trying to stir up controversy about what is/isn't street...I'm just looking for suburban opportunities to shoot more frequently. If it isn't possible in my local surroundings, I'll just have to settle for my infrequent trips...I'm ok with that. And while I suppose that definitions don't necessarily matter if what I'm doing amounts to practice, but if I take a shot I find particularly compelling, and post it here, I don't want to be scolded for posting a non-street photo.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

 

<p>Suburban settings are absolutely valid as far as I am concerned, have a look at Martin Parr, William Eggelstone, Stephen Shore and Robert Frank. Not all their work is suburban, but they've all done quite a bit of it. They all give a sense of time and place, which is what I think street is all about. </p>

<p>There's nothing that says you won't find something interesting, street-wise, in the suburbs. However, it's a lot less common - people always seem to be in their cars or in the mall - and people may be somewhat more resistant to being photographed in the burbs.</p>

<p>There are some suburbs that are more interesting and easier to shoot in. There are some that are more dangerous to shoot in than the city. I rarely leave the boundaries of the city I live in, so I don't see it much, but I used to be out there...</p>

<p><center><img src="http://spirer.com/images/cowmask.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="456" /><br>

<em>Cowman in the Suburbs, Copyright 2006 Jeff Spirer</em></center></p>

<p>Wherever you happen to be, there will always be interesting pictures to take. This is the main reason why I picked up a mechanical 35mm camera to compliment my usual medium format kit; with a fast lens and 400 speed film I can take it anyplace and take shots if the mood strikes me. I've taken pictures in malls, bookstores, restaurants, libraries and so on. It doesn't always have to be in the street.</p>

<p>Jay,</p>

<p>There's nothing in my own idea of 'street' that says it must either be 'urban' or taken 'on the street'. There are some who fancy themselves purists but and make 'rules' but disregard such people; they have their noses in the air for no reason.</p>

<p>I adhere to the idea that 'if it doesn't fit into any other category, then it's street', whether candid or not.</p>

<p>Have a look at what I've posted as street, contemplate the vast variety, and note that I've never been scolded for marking something as 'street' as opposed to some other category.</p>

<p>Don't worry about some 'street' 'Big Brother' out there waiting to scold you -- just go out there and take great photos, or try to, and post them. </p>

<p>In the forums, people may be more picky about what is 'street' and what is not' but I tend to shy away from the forums -- I'm my own guy in shooting, almost completely independent, and tend to steer away from conventions. </p>

<p>You have a chance to set your own parameters about what you think is your own style -- don't worry about convention. The photographic world is full of trendsetters who broke the molds and made their own style. The name Eggleston was noted above, and is a very good example, and there are many others. Think Nann Goldin for instance, who might call her work 'scrapbooking' but some of it is stunning. I might call it 'street' though it predominantly was taken indoors.</p>

<p>Think less about what category and more about just taking photos, trying to take the best photos you can, and pleasing yourself rather than the raters.</p>

<p>I've a great number of photos rated '3' and '4' in my huge portfolio as well as the '6s', and I don't take them down; a few of those low-rated photos have had critical acclaim and others I'm very proud of (not all), and I'd some I'd publish them an/or exhibit a few along with my more popular and higher/rated works (depending on the work of course.) </p>

<p>Ratings here are pretty good about defining popularity, but sometimes raters simply miss the mark by a huge margin - not often but sometimes it just happens. </p>

<p>Someone, a long time ago, as a test, (which almost got them kicked off this service) posted some photos of Henri Cartieri-Bresson, and got fair to mediocre ratings, then posted his results. He got a severe scolding by the service's then Administration, since he broke the rule that says you can only post your own work, and we all were told that if any of us did that we'd be kicked off the service, but he made his point.</p>

<p>Now, taking any kind of photos with people in Princeton or any suburb is more challenging. </p>

<p>I lived in Silicon Valley for many years, and it was 'dull' but with my new-found vision, if I were to re-live those many years, I could make many interesting photos of those backyard barbecues, those pool parties, those mall parking lots, and even those inside the malls (though at considerable risk from mall security) -- outdoor mall are better.</p>

<p>I hope to see some great photos from you, no matter how you label them.</p>

<p>john</p>

<p>John (Crosley)</p>

<p>I agree with all of the above. Really, it's just about keeping your eyes and your mind open about what is possible and of course a little luck. The more you get out there, the better chance for that lucky shot:). Here's one from my local town of Costa Mesa, CA where I live. <img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/78/180448794_64b31f11ca_o.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<center>

 

<img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2011%20photos/Dude.jpg">

 

</center>

<P>

 

>>> But what about taking pictures of people or things while walking down the street anyway, such as

someone mowing the lawn, or people working on a car in the driveway, etc? Does that fit the criteria of

"street" or is that too homey for the category? To my mind, it's not really different than taking a shot of a

street vendor, or a shop owner washing a window in an urban setting, except that the setting isn't urban.<P>

 

As Marc said above, there will always be interesting pictures to take, and street photos can be found in

suburban as well as urban environments. <P>

 

For me though, what elevates elevates a photo taken in an

urban/suburban environment to a "street photograph" isn't where it was taken, but more about what it

communicates and the response it evokes from a viewer. Does the photo pose questions (rather than being

literal and supplying answers), does it release narrative, project a certain attitude or gravitas, is it well-

considered and well-composed, have a hook to pull a viewer in, suggest mystery/irony/humor, cause wonder, etc, etc.

That's why some photos of people in urban environments that are no more than a subject on a sidewalk with

no other qualities, while photographed on a street, for me don't rise to the level of "street photography." It's not about

the location...<P>

<blockquote>

<p>...I picked up a mechanical 35mm camera to compliment my usual medium format kit; with a fast lens and 400 speed film I can take it anyplace and take shots if the mood strikes me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Marc, you are one of the few who can claim a Nikon F2 as their "pocket" camera.<br>

.<br>

.<br>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2462/3624117064_56304b769c_o.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="420" /><br>

Suburban Van Nuys, California</p>

<p>Too funny Damon; I never thought of it like that before, but you are spot on. I guess after all these years of using the massive Mamiya in the street, everything else is small and light by comparison. Even the Pentax 67 I shot a few rolls with this week seemed almost like a toy.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the input. My concern with labels isn't so much that I want to only take pictures that fit into certain categories all the time, but rather how to determine if a certain picture does actually fit into one. You've all helped a lot, and I appreciate it!</p>

<p>Jay - I live semi-rurally and rarely get into big cities but there's a good enough range of 'stuff' to chew on I think, and I've taken liberties with my own interpretation of 'street & documentary' and not had too many slaps on the wrist! As Brad says, content counts more than concrete. A few of my rural 'streets' and scenes close by:</p>

<p><img src="http://multimedia.streamlinenettrial.co.uk/ricoh/Resources/hbova.jpeg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://multimedia.streamlinenettrial.co.uk/Assorted_Images/NatV4m1.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="550" /><br>

<img src="http://multimedia.streamlinenettrial.co.uk/ricoh/Resources/hbovn.jpeg" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>I am a street photographer, BUT the last thing I ever think about while out shooting is questioning whether what I am shooting is a street photograph. Simply shoot anything and everything that interests you wherever you are. I take alot of abstracts when I am on the street as well as photos of people. A good book on the history , definition , and origins of street photography is: "Bystander". I highly recommend the book. Query: Does a human being have to be in a photograph in order to be a street photograph? Answer: NO! Source of answer is Bystander's first chapter dedicated to Atget.</p>

<p>Thanks, John. I tend to do the same thing when I'm out shooting street. Something that's a little different for me is that I typically shoot B&W film when shooting street (or other things that interest me at the time), so the equipment I take with me to some extent is determined by my shooting intentions. I have to focus my eye for interesting subject matter to things that will work in that format.</p>

<p>Jay, Check out "Grim Street" by Mark Cohen. He shot in his home town of Wilkes-Barre Pennsylvania. It's an old mining town, maybe not straight suburbia that most of us are familiar with, but certainly not a city.<br>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Grim-Street-Mark-Cohen/dp/1576872300">http://www.amazon.com/Grim-Street-Mark-Cohen/dp/1576872300</a></p>

<p>All we can do is shoot what we see. I think a shot of a barn on a country road is as valid a "street " shot as an urban sidewalk. Suburb? oh hell yeah! Street "rules" are for those taking a class or someone "trying" to get it right, poor souls never will. Those that get it right are recognized by the work they produce. Not by the tests they took or the rules that were followed.</p>

<p>The suburbs can be cool for photography but I confess that it is a more difficult environment in some ways, or more precisely, it presents different difficulties than shooting in the big, central city. Walking around in the land of beige houses with a camera, you're going to stand out a little more and maybe attract more fear. Obviously, nobody cares if you're taking pictures in Times Square, but people in the burbs are often there to "get away from it all," and feel "invaded" very easily. I like the suburban deal, though, and if I had a car to get way the hell out there, might do more of it. Posting something that falls between urban and suburban. best to everyone. <img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LetGe3uZghY/Tl1Ns0WJsAI/AAAAAAAACg0/-r6xrYE2fbU/s1600/somali-minneapolis-sevigny.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="527" /></p>