Jump to content

What makes a good street photograph?


paul_cohn

Recommended Posts

<p>This question may open a big can of worms ... I like street photography, I (sometimes) enjoy trying to do it, and some of my shots work and some don't. A lot of Garry Winogrand's photos captivate me, a few leave me scratching my head.<br>

So what makes a good street photograph?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>If you like the photograph, then to you it's a good photograph regardless of the subject matter. Why care what anyone else says or thinks? I also suggest that if you shoot street, avoid comparisons of your work to the work of others. Nothing good ever comes from this. It's ok to admire the work of others and to be inspired by it, but if you go out with the mindset that your work has to look like someone elses to be considered "good", then your work will not be your own and you will be disappointed. Just go out and have fun with it. After awhile, you'll discover where your sensibilities lean.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If photography is indeed the art of not pushing the button, a good streetphotograph especially may be all and simply about <em>knowing</em><em> when not to push the button</em>. At the end of his life as a streetphotographer Winogrand was known that he just <em>had to</em> push that button, to release & rewind that addictive build up tension of anticipation, but which not always makes for a good ( street ) photograph if it's released <em>just because</em>.</p>

<p>" Photography is the art of not pushing the button" Frank Horvat</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Depends on the mood, there are so many good photographs. At times, I prefer the impact of Klein. Sometimes, I like Erwitt's humor. I can identify with Parr's sarcasm. Like many, I too, enjoy HCB's decisive moments. Eugene Richards photos are heavy, poignant and D'agata's dark visions I dig. Lastly, for all those inbetween moods, I love Robert Frank's frank sensibility, inbetween moments and his personal, cohesive style.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>hard to tell because once you attempt to define "good" you'll get in trouble. It's kind of subjective. Commitment, personal involvement, curiosity and a deep human interest however I think are some of the prerequisites.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>NOT SNAPSHOTS</p>

</blockquote>

<p>if that is right we should indeed rewrite photographic history as we know it.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I agree with Jeff here. Snapshots are all it really takes. Although not a street photographer (and not even a photographer by his own admission), Richard Billingham's snapshots of his home life, compiled in the book <em>Ray's a Laugh</em> , are remarkable.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Street photographers are distinguished by their subject matter and, to a lesser extent, how they are taken, not by what makes them good. The criteria are the same as for any other kind of photograph: composition, lighting, technique, and, most of all, that they communicate something.

 

--Marc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The approach to what is "good", as many have already said, is highly personal. For me, it is not so much a matter of prints or calendars that I might hang (I'd need either a rotating personal gallery depending on mood, or a living room the size of a barn) but more a matter of what grabs me viscerally, brings me back for repeated viewings, and then causes me to think. </p>

<p>Despite the matter of subjectivity and personal taste, however, I think there is something to be said for looking at the work of those who are considered accomplished in the genre of street photography and trying to understand why their work is considered good. The trick, for me, has been to walk the line between discernment and keeping an open mind. I dislike dismissive, snap judgements in others....and yet I have been guilty more than I'd like to admit of having done the same thing. "Why do these people like X? His work is crap!" Only to look more closely at X, or have someone explicate the work of X, and realize that there was more there than I had originally thought. </p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I agree with Jeff here. Snapshots are all it really takes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think it's exactly what Jeff said or implied Clive. Anyway, I think it takes a lot more than just snapshots. Sure, some snapshots will result in very good streetphotos but for the most part snapshots are either easy or just a matter of luck and looking at Erwitt's work (to continue the analogy) and that of a lot of other succesfull/admired photographers it's obvious they are a lot more than just snapshooters.</p>

<p>Looking at maybe the best known "snapshooter" of all, Winogrand, many of his photos may appear to be snapshots (and to a lot of people they are) but there's a lot more to it. Funny that one of his best known quotes tells us that photos don't tell stories and yet, so many of his actually do.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"Snapshots" is just semantics...and some "snapshots" taken by an expert or master is most likely going to be more interesting than some of ours, no doubt! I think Jeff meant we can not disregard *all* snapshots as average or poor because there are excellent "snapshots" as well. For all we know, Les Americain is just a collection of intimate "snapshots" at the time by Frank.</p>

<p>Hey Clive! HNY (lunar as well) to you as well! </p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>For a street photograph to work, it must be subversive. The manner is which this "subversion" is presented or perceived depends solely on the individual photographer and viewer.</p>

<p>By "subversive," I do not mean in the political sense, although such images are not excluded, but more in the discomfort that the viewer experiences, the unsettled feeling he or she is left with, the inkling that something remains unresolved that draws that person again and again to the image in an attempt to find resolution. Such photographs are the very ones you would NOT "hang a 16x20 of" on your living room wall.</p>

<p>There are some regular posters here whose work invariably hits these buttons, and there are others whose work cannot be faulted technically and compositionally but leave me thinking "and, so what?" It's like the Hallmark cards of street photography.</p>

<p>I feel the same towards the street photographs of Nick Turpin, among others. Witty, clever, well-executed, but in the end reedy, superficial, facile. Give me, say, Trent Parke any day of the week.</p>

<p>In my book, there's no room for twee in street photography, such as an immaculate black and white evening shot of a couple walking arm-in-arm on the cobblestone street of an historical European city. Such a passive, easy-to-digest, inoffensive, conformist image should be left to the makers of Valentine's cards.</p>

<p>A very personal opinion</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>"Snapshots" is just semantics</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't subscribe to this theory. To a great extent, most street photos are snapshots. The French title of The Decisive Moment could have been translated to Snapshots instead of DM. Most street photos don't come from arranging people, props and lights on the street. They come from seeing something and quickly taking a shot. That's what a snapshot is.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>What makes a good street?<br>

1. Motif is the most important subject in the picture. It is (almost) everything. Blurry photo with great motif is much better than technically excellent photo with ordinary motif.<br>

2. Then is composition.<br>

3. And then is technical quality.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I think it was Winogrand who said that some of his best photos were the ones that were closest to being failures...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>OK, and what does such "wisdom" tell us? Frankly, it doesn't me tell anything.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>For a street photograph to work, it must be subversive. The manner is which this "subversion" is presented or perceived depends solely on the individual photographer and viewer.<br>

By "subversive," I do not mean in the political sense, although such images are not excluded, but more in the discomfort that the viewer experiences, the unsettled feeling he or she is left with, the inkling that something remains unresolved that draws that person again and again to the image in an attempt to find resolution. Such photographs are the very ones you would NOT "hang a 16x20 of" on your living room wall.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I hope you realise you've just binned a major part of photographic history ;-)</p>

<p>Taking into account that you expressed a personal opinion "must" I think is an absolute without any room for compromise. Why should anyone by definition have to feel unsettled by a streetphoto? Bollocks! Wouldn't it leave a bit more room for interpretation if you would exchange <em>subversive</em> for <em>interesting</em> because after all you pointed to the perception of the viewer as being important with which I agree btw. But by using a word like "must" you create a paradox. Also I think technical and compositional prowess isn't exactly at odds with <em>interesting</em> street photography. Quite the contrary in fact. I for one see too often crappy exposed, developed, printed or software-raped results that are "sold" as to be beyond all that and are supposed to live off their all overriding content which they often don't, that is if you can find it (some exempt), the point being there are no absolutes (see also the above post).</p>

<p><em>The Hallmark cards of street photography:</em><br>

nice phrase and a apt one at that. We all shoot them, even the best do. That's why editing is so important (and difficult).</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em><strong>I don't subscribe to this theory. To a great extent, most street photos are snapshots. The French title of The Decisive Moment could have been translated to Snapshots instead of DM. Most street photos don't come from arranging people, props and lights on the street. They come from seeing something and quickly taking a shot. That's what a snapshot is.</strong></em></p>

<p>I think beginners's snapshots are diiferent than experienced street photographers' snapshots and a big part of the difference is the process of recognizing, seeing things in a scene then how the pic is taken. </p>

<p>Furthermore, I personally associate "snapshots" with light heartedness but some might not. Some may think deeper about a picture than others depending where they are at skill/talent levelwise . Vantage point, for example, I don't care for much if I'm just taking a "snapshot". To others, it might matter.</p>

<p><strong><em></em></strong><br>

<strong><em>Most street photos don't come from arranging people, props and lights on the street. They come from seeing something and quickly taking a shot. That's what a snapshot is.</em></strong></p>

<p>Ask ten photogs what their version of "snapshot" exactly entails and I think you will get at least 6 or 7 similar but different answers. Jeff, your deifinition of snapshot, regarding against props, setting lights etc... maybe technically correct. But for practical purposes, I still say snapshot is semantics and highly variable among people and among photogs.</p>

<p> How about asking the subject to inch to their left or fix their wind blown hair? How about moving up a staircase to elevate your vantage point? How about waiting 10 or so minutes for the right light for a portrait? Finding a large white wall to bounce your flash. Snapshot or not? I agree with you for the most part but seems like lots of gray area to me...what exactly is "<strong><em>quickly</em></strong>" to you? Is it 5 seconds or 35 seconds or say 3 minutes 50 seconds? After X seconds, it's no longer a "snapshot", huh??!! what??!!</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...