What is, and is not, street photography?

<p>Recently, I have been a part of some conversation about "street photography". Since someone has given the subject a title...or even a category, it follows that there are things that fall into that category and things that don't. Perhaps boundaries even - though I hate to throw limitations on subjects of art.</p>

<p>I have never heard a definition per se'. I (like most of us) have made assumptions. In my case it is the very public quirks and curiosities, the sad and the happy, joyful and tragic, beautiful and repulsive characteristics that occur within the culture of the "street". Urban, suburban and more...the effects and aftermath of man's impact on our indispensable transportation arteries - from back alleys to the boulevards.</p>

<p>There is a great deal of good and bad happening in and around our streets. Opportunities to increase awareness or even just to appreciate our own respective situations are everywhere. Examples that illustrate the extremes of the human existance abound to delight and torment us.</p>

<p>I think the street is very important - although I am not sure I am strong enough to look it straight in the eye and tell it to "say cheese"... </p>

<p>I am curious as to what boundaries you have assumed when categorizing something as "street photography"?</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>For what it's worth (as someone who doesn't shoot much of <i>anything</i> that could be called street photography), I've always thought of "street photography" as the non-intrusive capture of scenes that one might see on the street - whether that's the behaviour of a group of people, people going about their lives, or some specific and unusual behaviour, in the style of HCB. I've always thought of the knowing involvement of the subject (e.g. asking strangers you meet on a street to pose for a photograph) as being something different - just as valid, but not what I would have called street photography.<br />

<br />

Hence my dilemma in the threads to which Martin alludes: I might be happy to ask as stranger whether I can take their photograph (with practice), but when the style of the photograph dictates that you have to shoot first and ask forgiveness later, the issue of permission is less clear-cut. (My conclusions are that I'd ask someone retrospectively if it was okay that I took a snap if I thought my asking was less intrusive than the taking of the image, unless it's an image of a crowd of unassociated people in which the individuals play only a minor contribution, and I'm unlikely to keep any such image that the subject could reasonably object to.)<br />

<br />

It would be nice if I had a clear term that I could use to distinguish between the reportage style of candid street photography and environmental portraits of strangers. There may be one that I'm just failing to use. For what it's worth, to me, Matrin's image falls in the former category: it's an image of a street with a man in it (and what you can read into the posture of the man for me reflects on the environment of the street); if the man's face was visible I would say it was more clearly a picture of a man, in a street, and as such a portrait of him in his environment. But this is a distinction that I acknowledge is woolly.</p>

<p>"Arty" 'snaps' taken while walking the streets, or interiors (e.g., a bar) straight off of the street. Subject matter of course varies quite a bit: the good, the bad, and all-too-often the ugly.</p>

Any outdoor, urban photo that wasn't taken on a Boulevard or an Avenue or an Alley or a Way.

<p>Another aspect of street "snaps" is the capture itself. I am more drawn to pictures that were a moment in time that may never be repeated. The time consumed metering and focusing and framing that occurs in the studio is just not available in the street. I am far more tolerant of blurry, shaky and other photographic crimes when it comes to the street, particulalry if the subject is compelling.</p>

<p>The technical aspects of a good picture take a back seat to the immediate content I think. The attached grainy and slightly shaky under exposed picture was taken through THREE panes of TINTED glass as I slowed for a stop sign. This couple was waiting for a bus and I caught them thru the corner of my eye. I reached for the nikon, took the shot through the passenger side back window and through both tinted window panes of the bus shelter. I am glad I made the effort despite the imperfections.</p><div></div>

<p>What is the significance of the fact that this is posted on "Casual Conversations" rather than on "Street and Documentary"?</p>

<p>Is "Street" here considered too insider or "clubby"?</p>

<p>Just curious.</p>

>>> I am curious as to what boundaries you have assumed when categorizing something as "street

photography"?

 

As one who shoots a ton of street photography, there seems to be a lot misconceptions of what street photography

is.

 

One I see a lot, from photos posted online, is that if there's a street/sidewalk with a person in the frame, with

absolutely nothing else going on, then it's automatically "street photography."

<blockquote>

<p>...using a 35mm lens meant that the only way Jensen and Evans could get good visual compositions was to approach their subjects. <strong>They had to shake hands, introduce themselves and ask people whether they'd like to be photographed. </strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Read more: <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/07/22/DD1D1KC31A.DTL#ixzz1TLeDYyPb">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/07/22/DD1D1KC31A.DTL#ixzz1TLeDYyPb</a></p>

<p>Edit, Brad I'm off Aug 10. I might come by if there's room.</p>

Richard, thank you for the reference to my project. But as a project, I would not characterize that as

"street photography," though there are few individual photos within the journal that fall into that category.

>>> Edit, Brad I'm off Aug 10. I might come by if there's room.

 

Please do, Richard - that would be great! We're expecting a few hundred people. Will be a good time for all, and we

hope to raise even more money for SF at-risk youth at the event.

<p>I am sure that every town and city has it's homeless, unfortunate, underemployed, unemployed, or mentally ill walking(sleeping) the streets. Making easy voyeuristic fodder for any "street photographer" to exploit.</p>

<p>I've even been tempted myself, but an upwelling creepy feeling overcomes me, and stops me.</p>

<p>Who's story am I telling? Theirs or mine? If I'm telling only my story I would feel parasitic, like a societal/social vampire.</p>

<p>While you say that it's not street photography that you do, it appears to me that you're telling your subjects' stories. That, to me, has a greater value than just taking anonymous shots of random unknown(unfortunate appearing) people on the street, whatever you may call it. And whatever you may call it, it appears to be a good model for aspiring street photographers to emulate.</p>

<p>Well, the street itself never has any complaint about being photographed and my conscience is clear.</p><div></div>

<p>Well, JDM, since we're going to do that. I will join.</p>

<p>No consent needed, either.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/13584318-lg.jpg" alt="" width="643" height="643" /><br>

Window Washer</p>

<p>If you want to see and understand what the voting populace of photo.net thinks about 'Street' photography just visit and query the 'top rated photos/folders/photographers' search function available. I just did that. Yes, plenty of images taken 'on the street', but, but, but..... Yes, indeed!</p>

<p>And in case you start thinking what I am thinking (if you have done that search), I don't think another re-organisation of the 'categories' is in the offing soon.</p>

<p>Great observation, Mike. So, it's the usual tug-of-war between whether experts and practitioners of a subject get to define a term, or does it get defined by how the public (reasonably informed, in this case) use the term? I would bet that going beyond photo.net participants, the general, non-photographer / enthusiast public's use of the term would be even broader.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p>Street photography has always covered a lot of ground, and been relentlessly shifting. Like anything alive, it is bigger than any of its definitions.</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_photography</p>

<p>http://www.nonphotography.com/streetphotography.html</p>

<p>http://www.in-public.com/information/what_is</p>

<p>http://londonstreetphotographyfestival.org/what-is-street-photography</p>

<p>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/street.shtml</p>

<p>http://www.markushartel.com/blog/about-me/street-photography-faq</p>

<p>I see a lot of slavishness to the earlier definitions/forms on PN and elsewhere, but it has evolved. To me, it's a constellation of things, but primarily an attitude or approach. Not a rigid one, either.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As one who shoots a ton of street photography, there seems to be a lot misconceptions of what street photography is.<br>

One I see a lot, from photos posted online, is that if there's a street/sidewalk with a person in the frame, with absolutely nothing else going on, then it's automatically "street photography."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good point. I wouldn't avoid calling such photos "street photography." I'd just call them "bad street photography." A good photograph has something special - a precious moment, an intriguing perspective, an interesting lighting effect, a moving subject. This is a genre-independent qualification.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>So, is it a consensus that street photography has to be good, nice, happy, sweet and all fully consented? I love the aroma of fresh-baked apple pie with cinnamon and melting ice cream! But sometimes in that same kitchen someone toots up a nasty and that is reality too! Isn't it a bit of reality-avoidance to focus on anything less than a balance of the good and not good...?</p>

<p>Maybe it's me, but there seems to be more obsession with defining what is and what is not streetphotography than with any other type of photography. How important is the label? Having read some discussions, it seems to get narrowed down to such a specific list of requirements that it almost seems stiffling to me: shoot like this, or it's no street.<br>

The remark above that the wider audience will have a wider conception of the genre is very valid. But maybe an additional to consider there: the experts are constantly checking the details and specifics.... maybe the somewhat wider look is not that bad a thing at all.</p>

<p>Martin,</p>

<p>We have already discussed your On The Street 1 in the other thread. And your motives, and background to taking the photo. Since you chose to revisit the subject, I repeat my objections.</p>

<p>I personally view your motives and actions in that photo, and your discussion of the photo as taken, as socially parasitic. Some will agree with me, others disagree. And as I mentioned in that other thread, if you did that with me, your camera would be in pieces on the ground(and we would just have to see each other in court a few times)...if you pulled that stunt in Brad's neighborhood of choice, you might just be yourself left on the ground, bleeding in the gutter, gasping like a guppy out of water. </p>

<p>More power to ya, if you can pull it off. I don't care. I'm not buying your book.</p>

<p>I like Brad's and Travis' way a lot better than yours. I don't see any apple pie and ice cream in Brad's and Travis's work. What I do see is a respect and empathy for their subjects. They tell the story of their subjects, and do not intentionally exploit them. I don't see that with you.</p>

<p>Your drive-by street-photography methodology and rationaliztions just reaks of parasitism, Martin. That's my honest opinion. Some will agree, others disagree.//shrug</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How important is the label?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's only important insofar as "experts and practitioners" limit acceptance to those who follow their definitions of the genre.</p>

<p><strong>Martin - "</strong>So, is it a consensus that street photography has to be good, nice, happy, sweet and all fully consented?"</p>

<p>Who said that?</p>

<p>I find myself straddling a fence between telling a compelling story w/ street shots and Richard's obvious disdain for the art form. I can see both sides to be honest.</p>

<p>I don't do people on the street shots because I feel it is an invasion of privacy; just because the subject cannot tell me so, does not make it so, IMHO.</p>

<p>Martin's shot that Richard addresses strikes me as a particular unenviable intrusion. I can not tell if she is angry about catching you taking a picture or if she is truly distressed about some unimaginable pain she is dealing with; in either event, the picture is an affront in my estimation.</p>

<p>Other street shooters who pursue environmental damage, industrial decay, urban blight, etc seem valuable and these stories should be told. Capturing human misery for sport; well, that is another kettle of fish...</p>

<p>I guess I just don't understand the draw in watching misery from afar without a back story, so I can't understand the genre and the way some folks address it as an art form. With that said; not all art is appreciated by all people, so I am just voicing my opinion and you may give it the merit it deserves as a personal opinion. ;-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is "Street" here considered too insider or "clubby"?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> Yes. Why is there a "street photography" forum if not to beat this topic to death?</p>