Understanding street photography

Hi all. This thread is intended to inform me, so I must apologise in advance if this sounds at all confrontational - that will be my error in wording, not intent.

 

After a few years of pootling around with a camera, I feel I can probably take passable landscapes, wildlife photos, sports, architecture, portraits (with a sympathetic subject), events, I've shot a wedding... I don't claim to be especially good at any of these areas, but generally I know what I'm doing wrong and have some thought about what to do.

 

With street photography, however, I don't really have a feel for what I might be trying to achieve - after a small number of attempts. I vaguely sense that I should be looking for a happy coincidence that tells a story, makes a visual joke, or captures a feeling. Some of these things I could identify when I saw them (although whether I had the reactions to shoot them is another matter). But in other cases, when I see the shots that others (whether on this forum, or the classical experts) have taken in this genre, I really don't see anything that I'd photograph. I don't really get what was special, what's being said, what's creative about the shot. Lest anyone feel I'm criticising their photos and to offer a concrete example, I feel this about Cartier-Bresson's shot of a man jumping into a puddle. To me, a man jumping into a puddle isn't an interesting thing to photograph - and I don't particularly buy the geometric analysis of the composition to be convincing either.

 

I consider the point of a photograph to be to show someone a thing that they might not normally see. I have an understanding that we all have different experiences and what's boring to me might be interesting to another - if I'm recording a distinctive behaviour, even if it's one I see every day, that may have some merit. Even doing so, I can still hope to incorporate a touch of humanity, tell a story (even if it's a familiar one) or find a twist. Sometimes there's an unusual event (such as a march or parade) where the options to do more than record are limited and the event itself makes for the subject - but even then it's all too easy to capture yet another bunch of generic people walking.

 

With most (not all) street photographs, I don't get this sense - I just get "oh, here are some people", "oh, here's a person", "these people are doing the kind of thing I see people doing every day", "here is yet another shot of a person walking by a poster that is someone else's photograph of a person, which makes it look like there are two people there except there aren't and a chunk of the image is someone else's photo", or sometimes "here is an unstaged photo of an attractive person who wouldn't necessarily appreciate the attention".

 

That's not to say that I never see a street photo I like (or that this is supposed to be easy), and I'm happy with the idea of "here's a person doing something unusual, or an unusual person, or a person who's story you can see in the shot, or a coincidental combination of people or objects that are collectively interesting in some way, or something that elicits an emotional response, or something presented in an unusual way". But looking at a classically appreciated street photo, which I can categories as none of these things, often does nothing for me.

 

Okay, so far, so "I hate street photography and I shouldn't do it". But I presume I feel like this because I don't really understand the subject, and I might appreciate it more if I could get my head into the right space (you know, like how people start out liking really simple pop music, and it takes some exposure to appreciate the layers in Welcome to the Black Parade or Bohemian Rhapsody). Hence this plea for help.

 

As for taking photos myself, I get that leaving one's comfort zone is healthy, and if I'm uncomfortable taking street photos, it's probably something I should get better at. To that end I recently acquired a Coolpix A in a leather carry case, which has the twin benefit of not making it obvious when I'm taking a photo (especially if I look like I'm shooting a video) and convincing some unobservant people that it's a Leica. On two recent occasions I've been using an enormous and obvious telephoto lens to shoot squirrels (from a car park that had CCTV surveillance, although to be fair I was trying to hide my profile from the wildlife) and had to fend off members of the public convinced I was trying to take photographs of small children for the dark web - so I'm keen not to spook people. The curse of being an unfit mid-forties bloke with a camera (and no offspring), especially shooting outside my comfort zone (though not so much with the squirrels) and therefore looking a bit furtive, is that people have been trained to assume the worst - and I'm going to have to practise a lot if I'm going to get to the stage of confidently looking like should be there.

 

So if I'm going to take street photos, it would help if they were good ones - and I'd rather avoid the "whole street shot" that might include kids, or the "attractive woman shot", which from me will be creepy, not flattering, unless it's of someone I know who wants to be recorded as such.

 

I've tried reading books on photography. I've watched documentaries on the history of photography. I've read articles on street photography. I've browsed the POTW threads on this forum. I could stand on the street and take a passable photo of something, but not what I'd call a "street photo". Currently, "what makes a good street photo" is failing to click with me.

 

Which is a long way of asking a question which will either trigger a very long answer, or people brusquely telling me to go away and read something.

 

So: What, to you, makes a good street photo?

 

Particularly, what makes a good street photo when it can't be categorised as I did above as showing something particularly unusual, or telling a story, or triggering an emotion, or including a visual joke (unless these apply to all the street photos I "don't understand" and I'm just missing it)? There are many times I see a photo and think "that's a scene, but it's not an image" - but others clearly think otherwise. What am I missing?

 

Fingers crossed for mental realignment, and thanks for any thoughts.

Are there any well-known urban photographers whose work hits you, stirring your imagination and curiosity? Possibilities might include William Klein, Daido Moriyama, Garry Winogrand, Elliot Erwitt, Diane Arbus, Manuel Alvarez Bravo, HCB, Helen Levitt, Eugene Atget, Robert Frank, Harry Callahan, Jill Freedman, Fan Ho, and many more. If so, you might study their work a bit and go from there. Edited July 4, 2018 by Brad_

Thanks, Brad. From what I've seen so far (in documentaries and articles rather than artist-specific compilations, except possibly HCB), mostly "no" - at least when it comes to shots I can't categorise in some other way. But I'll run through your list and see whether something clicks.

imo, street photography is, really, environmental photography. you are photography humans, dogs, cats, pigeons, etc in their environment in the same way wildlife photography captures animals in their environment.

 

for example, a bloke jumping over a puddle is the same as a polar bear jumping over an ice hole; a couple kissing in paris is the same as a couple of pigeons getting smootchy; a girl on fire vs a elephant with its tusks severed

 

 

both genres are equally capable of being emotive, evocative, sad, funny, etc. and, the best photographers don’t just look to capture humans or animals in their environment. they make it special.

 

simple, really.

Edited July 4, 2018 by Norman 202

Thanks, Norman. I guess it comes back to my "showing something new" thing - if you see someone jumping over a puddle, or a couple kissing, often enough, it doesn't look like a photograph.

 

I agree about there being more to the image (in either genre). As an example, I have some recent photos of squirrels eating fast food out of a bin - this is a little disturbing for their health, but also amusing because squirrels are anthropomorphic (at least when eating chips), so within my limited photographic abilities I quite liked them. But I can also look at a nicely lit and posed picture of a squirrel, and just appreciate it as a picture of a squirrel - because I don't see a (close-up) view of a squirrel very often, even though they're fairly common. If there's an image that tells a story, I get it - but people I don't know doing things that I see every day (which seems to be at least some of the "street photography" I see) is failing to trigger anything in me that reads as "art". But I hope it's just something I need to be educated in, otherwise I'm just lurking here and ranting. :-)

 

I'll try to make my way through Brad's list, but I'm afraid you may get some "why is this art?" posts from me until either something changes in my brain, or I give up!

Alert individual with "eye" + Camera + Photographic skills + reflexes + action taking the shot. Tensions, relationships, whimsey, drama, peculiar.

Urban wildlife photography which includes the human animal, hopefully with some empathy, IMO sparing the unfortunate.

Obviously there are documentarians, political activists, social reformers who focus on the latter for good or ill.

I always thought Elliott Erwitt expressed most of those points in his photographs. Edited July 4, 2018 by Sanford

Thanks, Sanford and Sandy. I'll prioritise him out of Brad's list.

"With most (not all) street photographs, I don't get this sense - I just get "oh, here are some people", "oh, here's a person", "these people are doing the kind of thing I see people doing every day", "here is yet another shot of a person walking by a poster that is someone else's photograph of a person, which makes it look like there are two people there except there aren't and a chunk of the image is someone else's photo", or sometimes "here is an unstaged photo of an attractive person who wouldn't necessarily appreciate the attention". Andrew.

 

Another vote for Elliot Erwitt….a clever photographer who captures those little moments of humanity in often a humorous way. His words..

 

"I'm serious about not being serious"

 

Moving a way from western photographers have a look at the work of Fan Ho's Black and White Street photographs of the 1950's Hong Kong.

 

To my mind a street photograph should be interesting, something happening, whether in a arty way, or, capturing little moments which speak...

 

Citysnaps | Home

 

One of our own.

 

I have always believed that photography has its own language, particularly street photography. Like any language, it takes time and effort to understand.

 

It is not just about walking the streets and pressing the big button...it requires that time and study which will eventually lead to your own style and vision.

Edited July 4, 2018 by Allen Herbert

There are all kinds of Clues/Suggestions in your own OP....... :)

 

1. "With street photography, however, I don't really have a feel for what I might be trying to achieve"....... unless you are actually working on SOMETHING...angles, twins, reflections, lines, etc etc etc. There is no need to TRY to "Achieve" anything. I let "The street" dictate instructions to me, so to speak. Just look all over the place and take what comes your way.

 

2. ....."after a small number of attempts"...... Maybe do not start to "worry" until you have made a LARGE NUMBER of attempts.? :)

....."I vaguely sense that I should be looking for a happy coincidence that tells a story, makes a visual joke, or captures a feeling"..... Again, there is no need to look for anything. Ever look for a coffee cup with a Red Handle, and after 10 Minutes you realize you have been staring at it the while time...!! But you did not see it, because the handle was Blue, not Red..!!??

I suppose We ALL have preconceived notions, but do not let that bias your vision. Be open to anything.....it IS The Street.

 

3. "Bresson's shot of a man jumping into a puddle. To me, a man jumping into a puddle isn't an interesting thing to photograph - and I don't particularly buy the geometric analysis of the composition to be convincing either". Who The HELL are YOU To.......just kidding. :).

But keep in mind, when you see "Famous Photographs" think of the contact sheet. That famous photo MIGHT Have been one of 7-10-15-20 frames. You might prefer some of the others. Or maybe his photos simply do not wind your clock. NOTHING wrong with that at all.

I have Never Seen the genius of Picasso or Jackson Pollock. You are not obligated to Like/Admire photos, just because they were shot by a famous name.

 

4. I will try not to ramble on too much longer.....

Do not feel that Street Photography has to be "about" People or even have a person in the frame, or that there has to be a "story". Most of the time people are involved in some way, but it is not mandatory.

Some of my "Best" frames have been stuff that i almost did not print. It might be a frame that i looked at several times over the months or years. But Then, out of boredom or chance, i put this lousy frame in the enlarger, and Pow.!.....not only am i impressed, but Other People see it and say.....Cool photo...where was that shot, or who is that, or how did you get that neat angle.....or whatever, etc etc etc. You just Never Know.

Street Photography is unique. It is a Compilation/Culmination of Journalism, Commercial, Architectural, and even "Fine Art" Photography.

It is almost spiritual. each time you go out (or i go out) you are taking an unknown journey that is 100% personal and (for the most part) spontaneous.

If you Do Have interest.....just keep doing it. The Answers/Reasons will present themselves to you.

It is a journey. The going there is just as important as the getting there.

Good Luck :)

 

BTW, if it is any consolation to you......i have the same feeling about Street Photography. There is A LOT of it, and most of it seems mediocre. Especially the stuff shot in color. Just snap-shots. Somebody walking around with a camera and pointing at at whatever.

A hot-dog vendor in a funny hat, 9 people on cellphones, a pretty girl walking in front of a sign of an overweight woman, a guy in a red hat passing a girl in a red dress, a guy walking a big dog behind a girl walking a small dog, etc etc. I suppose It helps to not just Parrot what the masses have already done. :)

Edited July 5, 2018 by denny_rane

Perhaps joing the weekly challenge group would be a help as it gives you a theme to look for: Street Photography Challenge

Somebody walking around with a camera and pointing at at whatever.

A hot-dog vendor in a funny hat, 9 people on cellphones, a pretty girl walking in front of a sign of an overweight woman, a guy in a red hat passing a girl in a red dress, a guy walking a big dog behind a girl walking a small dog, etc etc. I suppose It helps to not just Parrot what the masses have already done. :)

 

Everyone seems to go through phases like you describe. Its natural, but over time if you are paying attention to your stuff, you hopefully develop something that goes beyond just point and shoot. I don't worry so much about labels anymore such as "street photography". There's really just photography and yes most all photos taken quickly in urban environments are snaps, that's not a bad thing at all.

(Sorry for the silence - busy day at work.)

 

Thank you all for the feedback. I'll try to respond without this turning into too much of a wall of text.

 

Like any language, it takes time and effort to understand.

 

Indeed - hence I'm not especially distraught that there are photos that I don't grasp immediately, and I do assume I need educating rather than assuming that they're innately worthless. (There are cases where I feel that the self-referential nature of art has exceeded its worth, and I've no desire to become sufficiently trained that some of Rothko's or Mondrian's abstract work start looking like genius to me. But I don't think I'm there yet with street photography.)

 

Another vote for Elliot Erwitt

 

Right, let me be concrete about my problem and pick on Erwitt (I realise I could go through the forum here and ask people directly what they were thinking in their shots, but that's a bit personal for me, and is dangerously close to sounding critical - plus it's more useful to me to know what others get from a photo than what the photographer gets). There are a lot of "street photos" that I do "get" in some sense. I can see what (I think) the photographer was trying to do. This applies to some photos from most of the big names - just not all of them. Here's what I think I'm seeing:

 

"PAR42295-6" - a chihuahua shot at eye level. I like it. The feet show the scale of the chihuahua, but it's looking down on us, and that's a viewpoint you don't normally get of a dog this size. Plus the dog coat is unusual (and, in black and white, not immediately obvious). The dog is, anthropomorphically, smiling. The slanting ground is slightly kooky, indicating that this is supposed to be informal. I get why this photo got taken and why someone might want to share it with others. I'm not thinking "wow that's an amazing shot", but that's okay - I see what it was doing.

 

"NYC21196" - a bunch of preoccupied kids, with one paying attention to the photographer. I believe I understand. Most of the children are shown engrossed in their own little world; the exception could be an outcast, could just be the first or only to notice the photographer, you can read several things into his expression. The contrast is (mildly) interesting, and possibly amusing (being nonconformant). I see why this was kept - without the kid in the foreground, it wouldn't be particularly interesting.

 

But.

 

"NYC21204" - a woman (apparently) passing a car in front of an apartment building. You can't see anything about the woman to feel anything about her situation. (You could argue that the anonymity is the point, but I see hundreds of people that I don't know every day, so that's not going to interest me.) The apartment block is just an apartment block - it's not interesting because it's a stereotypical example of its genre that might be unique to the time or place, but nor is it demonstrating anything exceptional. Likewise the car is generic. Unless something is happening in the windows at the background that I can't see in the web version of the shot, there's no surprise, no connection with the shot, and no novelty. Even the components of the scene seem to be disconnected - nothing ties the woman either to the car or the building, except the tenuous argument that the windows are "leaning" in the direction that both are travelling. It's not that I don't like the photo (which I would if I felt it was failing to achieve what it attempted or I disapproved of it) - it's that I just don't understand why it would be taken, or at least (once nothing spontaneous has happened) why it would be kept.

 

What makes this a classic street photo? I just don't get it.

 

"LON21998" - a man in front of a building, with a bridge in the background. The man is... a man? While I might just be bad at reading expressions, I don't see anything that makes either him or his behaviour stand out. The bridge and buildings could be pretty much anywhere, and don't seem to be particularly exotic, but nor are they particularly representative of something. I don't see why this is a photo - I don't see what's interesting about it. That's not a criticism (it's in a slide show, I assume someone likes it), just an admission of my own lack of understanding.

 

Can someone please explain what I'm missing in this shot?

 

I don't have to like street photography, or indulge in it - and I don't have to understand the photos that currently flummox me in order to take images that do say something to me. But that means I'm excluding myself from one portion of the art, and accepting my ignorance, and I'd prefer not to be.

 

I am, of course, still making my way through the works of the other artists mentioned; mostly so far I can categorise them into photos I understand (and often, but not always, like), and some that mean nothing to me. I'm hoping that once I understand some, I have a better chance with the rest.

Denny - thanks for the extensive feedback.

 

1. unless you are actually working on SOMETHING...angles, twins, reflections, lines, etc etc etc. There is no need to TRY to "Achieve" anything.

 

Oh, absolutely - I appreciate that, of all genres, street photography is often not premeditated. But at some point, you see something that's worthy of a photograph, and later decide that the photograph has some artistic or documentary merit. It's the latter which makes me struggle with some of the classics.

 

2. Maybe do not start to "worry" until you have made a LARGE NUMBER of attempts.? :)

 

I'm trying!

 

Again, there is no need to look for anything. [...] Be open to anything.....it IS The Street.

 

Yes, I perhaps misspoke. A good photo doesn't have to be a planned artwork, but it does have to have some merit on later review (and hopefully promise at the time, so you knew to take it). If I try to shoot a particular subject and fail, I either don't take or at least don't show the photo. But if I choose a photo to share, I should be able to see something in it - and hopefully others can, too.

 

3. Who The HELL are YOU To.......just kidding. :).

 

Well, yes. That's why I think it's me, not them!

 

You are not obligated to Like/Admire photos, just because they were shot by a famous name.

 

Oh, yes. But my problem isn't not liking the photos, it's not understanding them. I may feel that an image is a poor representation of its subject, or unoriginal, or unbalanced, or could be better framed, or I could just dislike the choice of subject. I usually feel that shots of a building or statue are unoriginal, because the artistry was with the architect (or stonemason, or whatever) who was responsible for the design and anticipated the view - the photographer is merely capturing it. I don't particularly like voyeuristic shots of attractive women, because I feel the woman should have some say in being viewed in this way. I see most shots of people in front of posters of people as being derivative and partly dependent on the skill of the person who shot the poster. I don't really like shots apparently of people wearing amusing T-shirts (which are a significant portion of some "classic" shots), since the skill belongs to the person who designed the T-shirt, and the expression to the person wearing it. There are many reasons I might not like something - but still understand what it was trying to do. I'm a miserable so and so, and am happy not to like many things, but I don't like ignorance.

 

4. If you Do Have interest.....just keep doing it. The Answers/Reasons will present themselves to you.

It is a journey. The going there is just as important as the getting there.

Good Luck :)

 

:-) Thank you. I don't think my ignorance is entirely stopping me from shooting street photos, although it may hamper me from seeing some interesting subjects. Nonetheless, I'd rather not embrace it. Maybe more ways to appreciate an image will present themselves to me with practice - but I'd still value a short-cut from people here!

 

There is A LOT of it, and most of it seems mediocre. Especially the stuff shot in color. Just snap-shots. Somebody walking around with a camera and pointing at at whatever.

 

That's reassuring! But I think there's a distinction between photos that everyone thinks are "meh", and those that I just don't understand - hence picking on the classics. I admit to having put my camera into monochrome (plus raw) mode for street photography, though - it may be a poor man's way to make an image look classy, but I'll take what I can get.

 

I suppose It helps to not just Parrot what the masses have already done. :)

 

Oh, for my own shots, I'll worry about "original" once I get past "bad"! Goodness knows my holiday photos are largely going to be the same as everyone else's. But I can try!

I understand (and often, but not always, like), and some that mean nothing to me.

To me, in the final analysis, an effective street photo makes the viewer tell themself a story. No more, no less. This is one of those potentially endless discussions. May you achieve equilibrium on the issue, or at least equanimity!

To me, in the final analysis, an effective street photo makes the viewer tell themself a story. No more, no less. This is one of those potentially endless discussions. May you achieve equilibrium on the issue, or at least equanimity!

 

Well, I was hoping to achieve education. :-) Interesting observation that I may simply be failing to turn a context into a story when presented with it, which says something about my creativity. Hopefully something that I can fix!

It's a matter of doing your own thing. This lonely woman took thousands of street shots and no one really knows why she took them, but she would have known I guess.

Hundreds of undeveloped films were found years later after she died belonging to her , they were developed and the photos were displayed for public viewing, they drew large crowds, ordinary folk looking at photos of ordinary folk of yesteryear, walking the same streets

It seems obvious to me she was just documenting people in the street, and probably for no other reason, except perhaps to fill in her time. A show about her on TV gave a good insight into her life

 

http://www.vivianmaier.com/gallery/street-1/#slide-1 - click on photos at bottom of page

I think that self-reflexive mirroring that Meyerowitz stated is very true for photography, and for that matter, life. It makes it a "cosmic" learning game. I think it takes different people different periods to start making the connections. One might call it a journey, but its not like there's beginning and end points. Its good to point it out as something that photographers might want to be aware of. And of course as serious as all this sounds, it doesn't mean it can't be fun and doesn't require deadly seriousness. But being serious I really like this summation from Phil: "Because if it’s not truly meaningful to you as the photographer you can’t expect it to be meaningful to the viewer."

(Sorry for the silence - busy day at work.)

 

Thank you all for the feedback. I'll try to respond without this turning into too much of a wall of text.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"LON21998" - a man in front of a building, with a bridge in the background. The man is... a man? While I might just be bad at reading expressions, I don't see anything that makes either him or his behaviour stand out. The bridge and buildings could be pretty much anywhere, and don't seem to be particularly exotic, but nor are they particularly representative of something. I don't see why this is a photo - I don't see what's interesting about it. That's not a criticism (it's in a slide show, I assume someone likes it), just an admission of my own lack of understanding.

 

Can someone please explain what I'm missing in this shot?

 

I don't have to like street photography, or indulge in it - and I don't have to understand the photos that currently flummox me in order to take images that do say something to me. But that means I'm excluding myself from one portion of the art, and accepting my ignorance, and I'd prefer not to be.

 

I am, of course, still making my way through the works of the other artists mentioned; mostly so far I can categorise them into photos I understand (and often, but not always, like), and some that mean nothing to me. I'm hoping that once I understand some, I have a better chance with the rest.

 

 

"The man" is Arthur Miller.

"The man" is Arthur Miller.

 

That'll teach me to look at the wrong place to start with, and not see the caption. Not that I see why this is necessarily a good shot of Arthur Miller, but I guess I see that it's of a person I'm supposed to have recognised (if I were a bit better educated) and therefore has some interest. That may speak to timeliness of a shot (and transience of fame) - if I took a photo of Geri Halliwell in 1998, everyone would know who she was; in 2018, there'd be a lot who didn't recognise her; in 2098 I suspect only a few would know.

'That'll teach me" Andrew.

.

Teach yourself....all stuff is there....that thing above your neck.

 

Great spiraling words of.....but in a dessert of words....yes, dessert....a photo in the desert of words.

Edited July 11, 2018 by Allen Herbert

This is no different than discussing any type of photography. What makes a “good,” “artistic,” or “creative,” etc. photograph? For me street photography has to stimulate my sense of design, for one thing. I like graphics. That’s just me. In street photography other typical elements are commonly seen and you’ve already alluded to some of them: visual coincidence, visual joke, interesting juxtaposition of things, pathos, beauty, sexiness, something evoking a feeling, etc. As in all photographic genres there are a lot of clichés and boring images. In the end we each have our own point of view and preferences. Some people are more educated in art and have an appreciation for the historical meaning and how a particular image relates to the larger body of the genre.

I have never understood the disparaging attitude that is often directed at "Street Photography".....but if somebody takes another 10 Million pictures of an Oak Tree next to a boulder, it is called "Fine Art" and the photographer gets a galley show...especially if it gets coated with Platinum/Palladium. . :) :rolleyes:

I have never understood the disparaging attitude that is often directed at "Street Photography".....but if somebody takes another 10 Million pictures of an Oak Tree next to a boulder, it is called "Fine Art" and the photographer gets a galley show...especially if it gets coated with Platinum/Palladium. . :) :rolleyes:

I think it’s probably a matter of most pics of trees next to boulders being pretty and relatively easily accessible and most street photography appealing to a different sensibility, one more narrative oriented and one that often deals more with realism than idealism. I find street photography requiring more of me, both as viewer and photographer, though I’m happy to view and shoot both genres to quench different thirsts.