Ellis ruffled a few feathers when he said "Street Photography" was meaningless jargon for candid photography. He might have ruffled a few more when he equated street photography with urban snapshots. To some degree, however, I think he made an interesting point. Some people see street photography as an outlet for people that can't shoot "art". But then, there are people who love Thomas Kincade's paintings and there are those who thinks he's simply a cheap commercial artist. Everyone has their own tastes. And it seems like street photography is an acquired taste...sort of like good wine and cheap beer. Many times, when I look at a street photo, all I see is a snapshop taken in an urban setting. There is no theme, no message and no emotion. Every now and then, however, I see a shot that speaks to me. Those are either wonderfully visual shots like Tom Meyer's shot of the boy in red walking in front of a very interesting wall, Kris H's chairs and woman under umbrella pic or Brad's shoe shine man portrait. When I'm out and about, I sometimes snap pictures of people that I think are interesting or, in some way, different. But they're usually pretty bad pictures. They are boring, what a professional (and very artistic) photographer friend refers to as "pedestrian". Five paragraphs into my post, I'm finally getting to the reason for my post. I'm curious. How do you distinguish "Street Photography" from "Urban Snapshots" in yours and others work? What makes a good street photographer stand out from a "pedestrian" photographer? We talked about what you look for, but what do you avoid?