What is "Street Photography" ?

Don't know if this ? has been posted before. If it has please excuse the repetition.

I posted this question on a different site and got a bunch of different answers and opinions.

The best one (I thought) was "random photography". Unplanned, un-setup, city street, country road, forest trail, etc.

Basically any kind of found image (don't know what else to call it) that the photographer thinks would make a good pic.....Izzy

I was originally taught the term "Street Portraiture" and when someone says "Street Photography" I usually expect it to usually have an human component.

Within that as a 'definition' - it is a broad scope: from hard core News Reportage to Fun Candids and Social Commentary : one could extend this umbrella to include (ground) War Reportage, and in some discussions, I have.

My view is that "Street Photography" does not necessarily have to occur on a Street, Road, or Trail, etc - but rather in place where people would and do frequent and go about their individual stuff: so it could be in a Mall, or on a Train, etc.

My view is, that a photo of a country track, sans people, is not "Street Photography".

By a similar token, Street Photography, is often well planned in its execution and is neither random nor happenstance.

Photographs made on a “street”, yet in my view NOT “Street Photography”

Photographs not made on a “Street” yet in my view both are “Street Photography”

WW

Street Photography is an open question answered in many different ways.

A lot of Street Photography is presented in book format or series format, in which case context more than definition will be the driving force behind what subject matters and stylistic approaches are present.

Perhaps one of the most classic examples of great Street Photography is Robert Frank’s The Americans, not limited to spontaneity, randomness, or the inclusion of people.

Covered Car, by Robert Frank

Basically then (or so it seems), "street photography" is really a matter of personal opinion.

All that aside. William those two pics you posted (the secret service guys with "secret service" emblazoned on their vest's, and "where'd you park the twins").

I definitely agree are good examples, even though the twins might've been a setup (as long as it was a spur of the moment setup).....Izzy

Don't know if this ? has been posted before. If it has please excuse the repetition.

I posted this question on a different site and got a bunch of different answers and opinions.

Excuse me while I get some popcorn. I think this is going to take a while....:)

even though the twins might've been a setup (as long as it was a spur of the moment setup).....Izzy

"Honey, where did you park the twins?", was not a staged shot.

The photograph was made at SOPAC (Sydney Olympic Park Aquatic Centre, AUS) during an Age Swimming meet: (assumed) Mum and/or Dad are sitting in the Grandstand, via the stairway to Camera Right (where the mat is located): there is no space for the stroller (pram) in the Grandstand and it is not allowed in the aisle of the Grandstand. The twins' stroller was a common sight at that stairway entrance, throughout the meet, it was just as I was going back down to pool deck, after the lunch break, that the Twins were occupants - perhaps they'd had lunch also and were having their afternoon nap.

The shot was as it appeared, with no outside staging.

The two Secret Service Officers were located inside the rear of the White House, USA. I suppose one could argue they're 'on the street' but I kind of think they are 'in the back yard': I suppose also one could argue that this image was more staged than the twins, because the two fellows obviously knew that I was there and my intention was to make an image of them accordingly they each made a pose for that image, which is much appreciated and for which I thanked them for that.

***

This photograph below was definitively made 'on the street' - similar to the two photo of the Secret Service Officers, I was very clear in my intention to make a photograph, but in contrast to the photo of the Secret Service Officers, the French Military fellow did not assume a "pose" for me nor do he change his gait.

***

A lot of Street Photography is presented in book format or series format, in which case context more than definition will be the driving force behind what subject matters and stylistic approaches are present.

Personally, I like both the Secret Service and the French Army images - in both I attempted to capture and convey a very similar contextual aspect of these professional men, displayed differently due to the circumstances that they were in at the time.

In my personal library of Street Portraiture, these two photos sit within my "book" of similar images which I have made.

WW

Personally, I like both the Secret Service and the French Army images - in both I attempted to capture and convey a very similar contextual aspect of these professional men, displayed differently due to the circumstances that they were in at the time.

 

In my personal library of Street Portraiture, these two photos sit within my "book" of similar images which I have made.

 

WW

Yes, I can see where context adds a dimension.

I agree that I would easily see both as street photographs. I also agree that a street photograph doesn't necessarily have to be taken on the street. And I agree that not all photos taken on the street are best classified as street photos.

Classification can be a movable target. Your first photo, for example, depending on how and where I encountered it, could be anything from architectural photography to a portrait of a home to a street photograph. For example, if I encountered it among other shots of the area, in a photo essay that included storefronts, people active on the street, homes, and other assorted photos, I could easily imagine considering it a street photo. If, on the other hand, I encountered it in an essay dedicated strictly to architecture, street photography wouldn't be the first thing to come to mind.

Let me add two photos to the mix. The first is a staged photo. It was staged to the extent that Scott and I were walking around town with the intent of my photographing him in different environments. Some I would say were more portraits (some environmental portraits), some I came up with were more fine art, and this felt more street to me. We stumbled upon this alleyway on a day in summer when San Francisco was surrounded by raging forest fires that impacted the color of daylight. I imposed a bit more of that on the image in what I thought of as a homage to Edward Hopper. I directed Scott along a path I wanted him to walk and asked him to hold his hat instead of wearing it. I more spontaneously snapped the shutter when I felt the moment was right.

The second is a shot I took at night in a small, country town in New England. Again, depending on where I encountered this, I think it could easily be considered a street shot or something else. [i haven't yet made a print of this and will likely do a bit of reworking before I do.]

"Honey, where did you park the twins?", was not a staged shot.

Didn't mean to imply that it was.

Here're a couple of images that I think of as "Street Photography". Actually "local color" is the term I prefer to use. Seems to me it covers a greater multitude of sins (so to speak). It's in two posts (last time I tried to put two images in one post it didn't work out to well). Both were captured in 2001 in Myanmar (Burma) and while they both have people, neither involved anything that even remotely resembled a street. I don't remember if the first one "A Tiskit, A Tasket, A Big Yellow Basket" was captured while we were walking along or riding. For the second "Mammy Yokum Of Myanmar", we were definitely walking.

I did a lot of that back in film days, 50 odd years ago. Call it what you will, here is what it looked like then. Nikon F Photomic Tn scans from Tri X,

Checking the oil - NYC by Alan Klein, on Flickr

Don't know if this ? has been posted before. If it has please excuse the repetition.

I posted this question on a different site and got a bunch of different answers and opinions.

The best one (I thought) was "random photography". Unplanned, un-setup, city street, country road, forest trail, etc.

Basically any kind of found image (don't know what else to call it) that the photographer thinks would make a good pic.....Izzy

You might get a book called "Bystander". It provides a history of the development of Street Photography. Not sure if it provides an answer, but it certainly will provide some background. I'd read that, and then come back and ask your question. Here you will get as many different answers as people.

William Michael said: ↑

"Honey, where did you park the twins?", was not a staged shot.

Didn't mean to imply that it was.

Relax. You didn't imply anything: I was merely clarifying what was what, nothing more nothing less.

Good discussion.

WW

You might get a book called "Bystander". It provides a history of the development of Street Photography.

Thanks for the heads up. Before the pandemic struck, I would regularly go down to New Orleans' French Quarter and take loads of pictures. Funny thing, though, there were virtually no people in any of my photos. I've been thinking about changing that once the pandemic subsides.

. . . Classification can be a movable target. Your first photo, for example, depending on how and where I encountered it, could be anything from architectural photography to a portrait of a home to a street photograph. For example, if I encountered it among other shots of the area, in a photo essay that included storefronts, people active on the street, homes, and other assorted photos, I could easily imagine considering it a street photo. If, on the other hand, I encountered it in an essay dedicated strictly to architecture, street photography wouldn't be the first thing to come to mind. . .

Yes. Good point - exploring that point: my understanding is that your point (as it is written) was predicated by the viewer seeing the image being in the context of 'a book', or at the least a pair or three photos or maybe a Title or some explanatory Commentary or Text accompanying the Photo written by the Photographer.

The Title of that photo is "House on the Corner, Salzburg, Austria".

I made the photo because (some) Architecture is of interest to me - and this particular house was yellow: and being that colour the house as a Subject was of greater interest to me.

What I am now pondering is: if we could forget all that is written above, on first sight, viewing image only, would we classify "House on the Corner, Salzburg, Austria" as Street Photography, or not?

WW

I did a lot of that back in film days, 50 odd years ago. Call it what you will, here is what it looked like then. Nikon F Photomic Tn scans from Tri X, . . .

I think that these Photographs indicate the value of "Street Photography" as being worthwhile also as historical documentation:

"Stage Door" - Sydney State Theatre (Stage Door) circa. 1973

(Minolta 101 / 135mm lens Kodachrome 25)

WW

Let's try my completing my response one more time ...

'Street Photography' is probably my favourite photography genre. There are crossovers between Street, Travel and Journalisme. There are (IMHO) also many subjects and styles of 'Street Photography. So I don't think you'll find one single overarching definition. My guess is that - at least for any project or series - the best street photographers have some kind of intention and/or style of street photography. This may be explicit or implicit. Of the currently active street photographers, Bruce Gilden, Martin Parr and Eric Kim are well known. Their subjects and styles per project/series are very different.

Rather than looking for definitions, I suggest looking at a lot of so-called street photos and deciding for yourself whether or not you find them interesting and if so, what is it about them that makes them interesting.

Rather than looking for definitions, I suggest looking at a lot of so-called street photos and deciding for yourself whether or not you find them interesting and if so, what is it about them that makes them interesting.

I reckon that's good advice addressing the Opening Post.

I think it's good to have balance: personally I don't lean in favour of definitions for items other than those which are defined Mathematically, therefore I am very comfortable with definitives such as 'Zoom Lens' and 'Prime Lens' but not so comfortable with 'Depth of Field' being a definitive; because although DoF can be explained by Mathematics, there are variables in which case I think of DoF as a Guide or a Rule of Thumb.

By the same token, of it being a guide, I think that definitions such as 'Street Photography' (and discussing same) serve a good purpose, even if that purpose is for the definition, to be defied.

WW

Yes. Good point - exploring that point: my understanding is that your point (as it is written) was predicated by the viewer seeing the image being in the context of 'a book', or at the least a pair or three photos or maybe a Title or some explanatory Commentary or Text accompanying the Photo written by the Photographer.

 

The Title of that photo is "House on the Corner, Salzburg, Austria".

 

I made the photo because (some) Architecture is of interest to me - and this particular house was yellow: and being that colour the house as a Subject was of greater interest to me.

 

What I am now pondering is: if we could forget all that is written above, on first sight, viewing image only, would we classify "House on the Corner, Salzburg, Austria" as Street Photography, or not?

 

WW

To be honest, even had it been titled, I would likely have missed the title. I find myself often not thinking to look at titles unless they’re unavoidable. That said, had I seen the title, It might have had some (limited) influence on me.

Were I to encounter your photo untitled, I likely wouldn’t have thought about classifying it unless prompted to do so. I’m prone to looking at photos with a pretty open mind and often from the standpoint of their open possibilities. I’m sure there are exceptions when photos strike me as more clear and fixed. And yet I do agree that discussions like this (as opposed to more strict definitions when it comes to genres and classifications) can be helpful in sorting out various approaches to photography.

Were someone to ask, and your photo stood alone, I likely would not have thought of Street Photography. Contrast that to Harry Callahan's photos in the book Color, which often focus on architecture and detail and lack people (though maybe half of the photos do have people), but which I do think of as Street work (and a lot more).

CALLAHAN 1

CALLAHAN 2

CALLAHAN 3

CALLAHAN 4

Street may be an attitude or sensibility, a suggestiveness in the work, as much as or more than a matter of actual subject.