What is the point....?

<p>I am very frustrated. I continually fail to "see" the point, the message, what the photographer is trying to convey, in so many of the street photography shots posted on this forum and elsewhere. I wish I would get it. I wish someone would switch on the light inside my head. Honestly, I am not trying to be controversial or whatever. I live in one of the world's truly great cities, and this is not said lightly, a city which has existed for over 2000 years - London. It teems with street photography opportunities which I just canot take advantage of. It feels like I am trapped inside a room and can't find the key to get out. The key would be the ability to spot and take shots that have some more meaning to them rather than what I see as very often meaningless shots such as a random crowd with nothing going on, a fat man walking past, a lady sitting inside a coffee shop with a neutral expression, a person riding a bicyle down the road. There are numerous examples of this in a post a few places down from this one, W/NW -Street Photography. I dare not say anything there as I will be accused of being mean. There are some very good shots in there but the majority I just don't get. Let's not assume they are all good, I am sure there are some very average and below average shots thrown in. If its a case of documenting our current style of living then fair enough, but its really not very gripping at all! Maybe I am not cut out for street photography and should stick to what I do best.</p>

<p>A veritable cri de coeur, but what do you want from us?</p>

<p>Have you looked at work like Robert Frank's? Done any reading on street and documentary photography? Some historical background might help you understand what some of the folks here are all about.</p>

<p>Go to a site like In-public.com to see what real street photography is suppose to convey.</p>

<p>Also, watch the YouTube video: "Joel Meyerowitz-Street Photography".</p>

<p>It's a mixed bag, David, to be sure. I'd try my hand at more street stuff, but I keep getting shots of the emperor, without any clothes.</p>

<p>Pointing a camera at a stranger doesn't necessarily make a photograph. There is much more to street photography than that. I wish people would start taking their own photos and forget about what other photographers do. Especially overrated photographers like Meyorowitz.</p>

<p>As the poster of the shot of "a lady sitting inside a coffee shop with a neutral expression" I can only say... well never mind. I don't want to be mean either.</p>

<p>What's the point of any of this crap anyway? Why is it worth your time to make yet another pretty flower picture? I personally shoot photos on the street because I don't have any choice but to do it. It is my obsession. If you think they suck, that's certainly not my goal but it isn't my concern either. What you think of me and my pictures is none of my business.</p>

<p>Truth is, we're both being hypocrites. What you said was mean (to several contributers) and deep down I want to be mean in return.</p>

<p>And thanks to the other responses who gave more constructive advice.</p>

<p><img src="file:///C:/Users/admin/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpg" alt="" /> --ward</p>

<p>I suggest you seriously look at the work of the following photographers to get a great review of street photography: Henri Cartier- Bresson. Andre Kertesz, Gianni Berengo Gardin, Willy Ronis,Louis Stettner, Roy DeCarava, Ray Metzker, Martine Franck, Helen Levitt, Dennis Stock, and Elliot Erwitt. After looking at those photographers, look at the more visually challanging Gary Winogrand, and Lee Friedlander. For 2 great on-line photographers who have posted on photonet, look at Orville Robertson's web site and Ed Leveckis. If after doing the above, you don't get street photography, then street photography isn't for you. I would bet my Leica, that if you look at the work of the above photographers you will understand why people like street photography and will also understand where the photographers posting here are comin from, whether or not they are succesful. Also on Orville Robertson's web site, he has a list of street photographers. Of those, check first Jeffrey Ladd, then Fan Ho.</p>

<p>I second John but let's not forget that it's a perfectly reasonably and valid question and one which we should keep asking ourselves if for no other reason than that editing is a very important and extremely hard part of what we do.<br /> <em><br /> </em> <br /> <em>"I dare not say anything there as I will be accused of being mean"</em></p>

<p>As far as I'm concerned you or anybody else can say anything you like if it reflects your personal opinion. On the other hand you shouldn't confuse quality or the lack of it of any photo with your own personal taste. The question if street photography is something for you can only be answered by yourself.</p>

<p>Ward and David, there is an understanding between the two of you if you would try. Or maybe there is.</p>

<p>I thought Picasso totally, totally sucked. Cubism was the most irrelevant side branch to art, a dead end, lacking in any story, inferior to even bad pop art such as the fatties by Botero. (IMHO.)</p>

<p>An artist explained it to me, and I listened with an open mind. I gained an appreciation for it, but didn't really like it more, but I understood it, I could appreciate it but I still don't really like it.</p>

<p>I'd say next time, respectfully ask the photog what he was trying to convey, that you didn't get it. If he flips you off, that is pretty easy to understand.</p>

<p>David, sorry to disappoint. <br /> <br /> <a title="flickr Los Angeles Contest Day-1 by NoHoDamon, on Flickr" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/nohodamon/3303337318/" title="flickr Los Angeles Contest Day-1 by NoHoDamon, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3465/3303337318_527b4f96ae.jpg" alt="flickr Los Angeles Contest Day-1" width="650" height="520" /> </a></p>

<p>I know kind of where you are coming from. I don't seem to 'get' the majority of street photography I see around either and it does nothing for me. I think that it is because street photography is highly personal: when we take a picture we are sort of saying "this moment was important enough to me to put a frame around it and capture" and it may be totally unimportant to another given that the street is not in itself a photogenic subject compared to coasts and mountain in landscape photography which almost anyone can appreciate. In many ways this is a positive since it is all too easy with some technical skill to just take pretty pictures of landscapes that make other people say 'wow', with street photography you are forced to find what is important to you in what is pretty ordinary which is never going to be easy. <br /> <br /> What meaning are you looking for? Do you have examples or examples in your other work? I don't see my photographs as having any message or meaning beyond being reflective of how I see the world and the moments I notice around me and stand out. For me, this is enough.<br /> <br /> Though you may not be able to appreciate much of other peoples' work doesn't mean you can't take your own or create something that has meaning for you. The very fact you are frustrated and say London teems with opportunities I think you do on some level get it, perhaps that recognising and capturing these opportunities is the difficulty.<br /> <br /> How much street photography have you done? As someone who also shoots in London, go to oxford street, zone focus and walk up and down shooting anything that catches you eye. Keep doing this and I'm sure you will find the key.</p>

<p>The photo still has to be interesting in some fashion, whether it's street, documentary, commercial, landscape..the genre has a nothing to do with it. Yep there is a mixed bag David, but that's what public forums have. You need to look at the photos and you decide what is interesting or not. Look at a photo long enough to see if there's any story in there, or if the comp is interseting, the tonality. It's true, random photos of people walking aren't always interesting, or then again they can be very interesting. Look around, sample and taste. You know what you like or what catches your eye. Don't think you need too much explanation, but if you want a good historical survey on street photography up to a certain time, let me suggest a book called "Bystander" from there you will see other people that may interest you. Photo Net is not the end all be all of street or any other kind of photography, it's just the beginning.</p>

<p>Michael D--</p>

<p>There is certainly some common ground between David and I. I share his frustration with how difficult real street photography is. The city that I now live in (recently moved to Portland, Oregon) also "teems with street photography opportunities" and I too very often feel what he described, that "It feels like I am trapped inside a room and can't find the key to get out." There are so many days that I go out and return home at the end of a day with zero exposed frames, nada, zippo. Wanted to feel it but did not.</p>

<p>The difference between David and I is in our response to the unsuccessful attempts of others. When I view the unsuccessful images that my peers have posted here, I identify with the struggle and I look for the image that was sought, if not captured, to imagine how I might have made my lunge. The point of this forum for me is not to look at a room full of perfect images and to toss myself up into that bright light. I am no pro and very few of my shots succeed at anything at all.</p>

<p>But I'm not sitting at home complaining about it either. If you are interested enough in street to complain about it, David, why don't you take a risk, move beyond shooting stationary objects under controlled circumstances, go make some unsuccessful images and then post them, let yourself start to evolve.</p>

<p>david,<br>

i agree with you, much of the street photography here is really rather uninteresting. i look through the street submissions almost every day. it is rare for me to come across something that really has something to say. street photography needs an element of vibrancy, motion and a touch of reality about it. so seldom all three are found in a single photograph.</p>

<p>I don't have an idea how to capture what I want in the street. It's just frigging hard. The last time I tried, I didn't come up with very many interesting photos. How can you photograph in Lagos Nigeria streets and not get some great shots? I did, and didn't get very many keepers.</p>

<p>I like Starvy's definition of vibrancy, motion and a touch of reality, though maybe taht should be a touch of unreality.</p>

<p>I don't think that one can go look at all of the referenced greats and say, "Aha! Now I understand!", any more then I could go to a musuem and look at painings and learn to paint.</p>

<p>The attached is from the front of my hotel last year. I posted it in Leica Adventures. I hope we can start a discussion with this a a reference, what works and what doesn't. Any takers?</p><div></div>

<p>Didn't get very many keepers? I would say one percent would be a very good average for this type of photography.</p>

<p>>>> I suggest you seriously look at the work of the following photographers to get a great review of street photography: Henri Cartier- Bresson. Andre Kertesz, Gianni Berengo Gardin, Willy Ronis,Louis Stettner, Roy DeCarava, Ray Metzker, Martine Franck, Helen Levitt, Dennis Stock, and Elliot Erwitt</p>

<p>But the OP isn't speaking with respect to the work of well-known and talented practitioners or well-done street photography in general. But to images he sees posted on this forum.</p>

<p>For the most part, I agree. I don't see the point of a photo of a random person walking down the sidewalk with nothing else going on. Yes, it's a photo of a person near a street. But that's about it. Nothing that pulls you in, or that's memorable, or compositionally interesting, or revealing of anything interesting with respect to character, emotion, humor, odd/interesting juxtaposition with other elements, or even great light, or ..., etc, etc. </p>

<p>What is the point indeed?</p>

<p><br /></p>

<p>Michael-- what catches my eye in your shot is the rather sweet smile on the fellow on the left. My instinct is to move to my right, getting closer to the smiling fellow and focusing on his face, making the standing fellow (with the more menacing posture) out-of-focus. Still visible and recognizable but out of focus.You could have tightened up the frame that way too, cut out some of the empty space at the top.</p>

<p>But that's from the safety of my living room. In the presence of the guns, I might have gone looking for some pretty flowers to shoot.</p>

<p>I value the work of street photographers because they provide us with a uniquely honest view of everyday life. Those brave souls who go out in public and record life as it happens around us are doing us, and our children a favour. They're providing a historical record of the world that we walk past and ignore everyday. The world changes, and the major events are well covered by the media. The changes in our families are covered by the photo enthusiasts within each family. Who records the changes in our neighbourhoods and our societies? I believe that a major contribution is made by the street photographers. I admire them, and I feel their contribution to our historical record will be invaluable.</p>

<p>Brad, critiques?</p>

<p>Ward, notice where the guy on the left has his trigger finger?</p>

<p>For me, a first glance at any street photo has to provide that hook, is there room for subtlety?</p>

<p>Check this one out. A couple of guys making ka-bobs, showing of the work, or is that a friendly threat? (Guy on left.) Too subtle?</p><div></div>

<p><em>Maybe I am not cut out for street photography and should stick to what I do best.</em></p>

<p>What's the connection between other photographers posting boring shots and you not being cut out for street photography? Each person is going to shoot what he shoots, to the best of his abilities (how ever limited they may be).</p>

<p>You don't get better by <strong>not</strong> doing the work. Seeing the difference between interesting and uninteresting shots is an important step. Maybe the light bulb will go on for some folks when they see their shots contrasted to much-more interesting work in the same thread.</p>

<p>How can you not get <a href="../photo/8945666">THIS</a>?</p>

 

<p>Sigh. Really thought I had left flamers when I stopped reading high end audio boards. But the boards were useful and my music system is the better for reading them.<br>

If you feel that vinyl is dumb, don't buy a turntable. If you feel street photographs are meaningless, then neither take them nor look at them.<br>

Photos stop things within the shutter speed. The flower you shoot looks that way only in that 1/200 of a second. But it varies signifacantly only over hours, or days. Same for buildings, but even slower. Yosemite slower still.<br>

But humans. That fraction of a second captures a way they are, and will never be again. The moment is in the blankest face. Don't get me wrong, I other's photos, some faces grab me, some don't. In my own, all do. I was there. I saw them at that moment.<br>

David - thanks for the post. While a flame, it motivated me to think enough to write this response. Thus helping me crystallize what draws me to taking pictures.<br>

-k</p>

 

<p>I don't think street photography is the easiest to "get", but if you see enough of it, it starts to make sense. It's, as HCB said, the decisive moment - the moment when both the composition of the scene works as a photograph, yet also holds some significance as an illumination of the human condition. That doesn't mean it has to be terribly profound - but just a good example of something interesting about the human experience.</p>

<p>But that's what makes it so difficult - its unplanned, and even if you are in a situation with great opportunities, the photo may still not work. It's the moment and the way the elements juxtapose that make it a success.</p>

<p>Think about walking down a city street. If you look around, there will be things that stimulate you, that you find interesting, if for a moment. Maybe its just the expression on somebody's face. It could be two people meeting up on the sidewalk, a mother bending down a making a face to her child in the stroller. There's a lot of little prosaic events, which taken in a frozen moment, have a certain photographic appeal. You can't always tell.</p>