The Street Photography Awards

<p>Everybody welcome. Deadline March 31.<br>

<a href="http://londonstreetphotographyfestival.org/competitions/street-photography-award/entry-information-open">The Street Photography Awards</a></p>

<p>Referring to a recent discussion here in this forum on whether you talked to people before shooting photos of them, I notice one rule on what is not accepted as Street Photography in the Award Clive refers to above:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Photographs where you have interacted with the subject (ie: asking them to pose for you) are not allowed</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is this normal or a very special rule for this specific award?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The London Street Photography Festival defines Street Photography as:<br /><strong><em>“candid, un-staged photography which captures, explores or questions contemporary society and the relationships between individuals and their surroundings.”</em></strong><br />Street photography is perhaps more easily defined as a method than a genre. The results can fit into documentary, portraiture and other genres, but the key elements of spontaneity, careful observation and an open mind ready to capture whatever appears in the viewfinder are essential.<strong> </strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's the promotors' rule. Are you asking if that's a valid definition? Hah hah. who knows, but if you want to participate in this contest it will be the working definition it seems.</p>

<p>I'm not asking if it is <em>valid</em>, Barry. I asked if it was "normal". </p>

>>> I'm not asking if it is valid, Barry. I asked if it was "normal".

 

 

As Barry said, who knows. I know of no other street photography contests. As a result, from my

perspective, how can normalcy be established?

<p>Anders, the answer you were looking for was just avoided I think<br>

I happened to look in Wickipedia for their discussion of Street Photography and found an interesting discussion.<br>

Cartier-Bresson wanted to call himself a 'surrealist photographer'<br>

Robert Capa wanted him to call himself a photojournalist, which he did, as no one wanted a 'surrealist photographer' then he went out and took his own sort of photos anyway.</p>

<p>I grew up viewing the greats and think I never heard the term 'street photography' before joining Photo.net seven years ago, though the term obviously predates my joining, but it wasn't important when the standards were set - the heyday of the great magazine and photojournalists.</p>

<p>Cartier-Bresson took over from Walker Evans who took over from Stieglitz who took over from . . . . .</p>

<p>He sometimes did interact, but most of the time did not interact.</p>

<p>I sometimes interact, and most of the time don't.</p>

<p>I don't post subjects in 'street' situations, though I often require express or implied permission to get 'in close' with the equivalent of a 10 to 12 mm lens but I don't tell people what to do or how to pose, with rare exceptions which I do not call street.</p>

<p>Cartier - Bresson took portraits which were permissive and interactive but were still spontaneous; sometimes with never a word spoken and sometimes with hours and no photos until 'the moment'.</p>

<p>When he was photographing the Soviet Union, as its first Western guest after World War I, her certainly had a KGB 'minder' or two, watching his every move (he wrote such).</p>

<p>Did that mean he had to have permission of subjects and interaction; we'll probably never know unless someone has memoirs not in his unauthorized biography. (I don't think it's in Assouline's book about C-B's life garnered from extensive conversations.)</p>

<p>Just take the photos and don't worry much about definitions; that's my guiding light.</p>

<p>If someone asks, I explain the circumstances and let them draw their own conclusions.</p>

<p>john<br>

John (Crosley)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I asked if it was "normal"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>yes. Generally speaking posed or set-up photos are frowned upon and not considered street photography in a strict sense. Frankly though I think this is hard to enforce because in a lot of photos it's hard to see if that's the case.</p>

I think it can be argued that in most cases you influence the flow of traffic or events just by your

presence, if even just a little, so is sounds like a pretty questionable rule. In the Arbus photo of the boy

with the toy grenade, she asked him to stand for her while she photographed, but the gesture he gave wasn't really

directly staged. In a way though the photograph ends up being somewhat deceptive, even if it conveys

some kind of truth. But photographs without consensual agreement between subject and photographer

can be deceptive too.

By the way, entry fee of 30 pounds? No thanks.

>>> yes. Generally speaking posed or set-up photos are frowned upon and not considered street

photography in a strict sense.

 

Ton, I think Anders was more asking about if having such a contest rule for the award was normal. I've never seen an SP contest, so who knows. I don't...

 

But with respect to what street photography is about, yes, for me it's about no set-up or engagement.

<blockquote>

<p>I think it can be argued that in most cases you influence the flow of traffic or events just by your presence, if even just a little, so is sounds like a pretty questionable rule.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>be that as it may he who organises a contest sets the rules, questionable or otherwise.</p>

<p>Brad, yes. I should have been more precise, this side of the pond it's quite normal. To date I've never entered such a contest but I always read the rules because some of them are merely looking for freebies having you sign over copyright or such. This as far as I can see is a straightforward and well organised contest. Not sure about entering myself but I'm definitely are going to go there.<br>

Personally I think this kind of rule is merely put up to create a framework for judging. Seeing how street photography has evolved it's become less strict where definitions are concerned. I for one welcome that.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is this normal or a very special rule for this specific award?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've seen this rule in two other competitions, both of them in the UK. This competition shares some common ground with a wider programme of street photography festivals and workshops in the UK this year, all of which are about observational photography rather than street portraiture.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>By the way, entry fee of 30 pounds? No thanks.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's 30 pounds to enter a series of eight pictures. Plus you get a 28.95 credit to spend on a Blurb book. I've entered a few competitions over the years, and this one is the most affordable / best value. I've seen other competitions where fees are 25 dollars upwards per image.</p>

<p>The "normality" of such a rule seems to be fairly relative after having read the input above.<br /> Another interesting aspect to the ward is their <a href="http://londonstreetphotographyfestival.org/about">definition of "street photography"</a>, where you find this general formulation :</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong><em>“un-posed, un-staged photography which captures, explores or questions contemporary society and the relationships between individuals and their surroundings.”</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, it looks very specific to this particular contest but the "relationships between individuals and their surroundings" seems to me to be a question that seldomly has been discussed in this forum - if I'm not wrong, being new around here. Sounds interesting !</p>

<p><strong>Ton</strong>, I think you should seriously consider investing the £30<em><em> </em></em><strong><em><strong><em>.</em></strong></em></strong></p>

<p>Personally I agree with that definition. If someone asked me what interested me about street phototgraphy that's pretty much how I'd explain it.</p>

<p>I fully agree <strong>Neil</strong>. It is actually the main aspect of street photography that makes me shoot.</p>

Good value if you want a Blurb book, agreed. Otherwise, no.

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Ton</strong>, I think you should seriously consider investing the £30<em><em> </em></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>that's what I'm doing Anders, considering it. It's one of the reasons I linked to it on my website. Thanks<em><em>. </em></em><em><em> </em></em></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Good value if you want a Blurb book, agreed. Otherwise, no.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>which is of course a valid opinion. Personally I agree with Neil. It's hardly a novelty that one has to pay to enter a contest let alone a high profile one. Given that this is hardly a huge amount, far from it in fact. What I'm more interested in myself when looking at these things is the small lettering in the conditions of any contest.</p>

 

<p>I think the description the contest gives is pretty much in line with what I would describe as "street photography" although I really dislike that term. The organizers probably had to be explicit and take a stand on their position in order to have guide lines to be able to give out and measure up too. <br /><br />Just throwing this out there: Could the description given been explicit in order to avoid what happened last year or a couple years ago with a wildlife / nature contest? Forget the details but read about it on multiple photo sites. A guy one the grand prize of a wolf jumping over a fence. I'm not a wildlife nature guy, but it was a beautiful shot and pretty damn impossible / lucky. Turns out the wolf was domesticated and rented for the shoot. <br /><br />Could be the organizers are trying to keep the spirit of street alive in the execution of the shots.</p>