Does good street photography involve people?

[juergenf]

When it comes to street photography we usually think 'people'. But

does a good 'street' photo always have to include people in it? One

of my favourite photographers is Raymond Depardon, many of his

best 'street' photos, like the one below, do not include people at

all. I am just curious about your opinions.

 

Juergen<div></div>

[jamesb]

I'm not sure. I don't see why shots of sculptures, buildings and other aspects of 'the street' and 'life on the street' shouldn't be included. BTW, this question usually raises ire on this forum if memory serves.

<p>

<center>

City of Style and Humo(u)r<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3957598-md.jpg"><p>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3897083-md.jpg"><p>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3922551-lg.jpg">

</center>

[arond a.]

Eugene Atget. His work shows there is room for good street photography without people. The definition of 'street photography' is certainly loose enough. Depending on the eye, anything can be good, people or no. It's perhaps easier to relate to an image if there are people somewhere featured, however. The subject matter/ message is usually more clear and unambiguous. The work of photographers like Depardon & Atget is less easy to pin down. The work of Peter Marlow also comes to mind. It makes one appreciate more the possiblility of composition. Good question.

[andreatau]

I guess photos like some above are fine examples of street photography as long as one doesn't want to draw a sharp line between street- and architecture-photography. Generally I like it better to see what happens in the street, not only what the street looks like. However, a recent post on this forum gave a link to pictures of the same places taken a century apart: many shots showed totally empty streets and yet they were amazing...

[hughes]

Juergen

 

the picture by Depardon is a picture of a street but it is not street photography. Surely street photography even without people must have some narrative or whimsy or social comment. If not then it is just an urban landscape or a still life.

I'm not trying to be contentious just my two penneth

 

regards Steve<div></div>

[juergenf]

Steve,

 

I appreciate your input, in my opinion the Depardon picture is as much 'street' photography as your own Venice Beach photo (which I like very much by the way). This ofcourse depends totally on where you draw the line, I guess my definition is a bit looser than yours. To me, the Depardon picture is 'street photography' because, in a broad sense and even with the absence of people, it shows 'life' in that particular place, it is more than just a visual representation of the scene. When I look at the Depardon picture, in a way, it makes me 'feel' what living in that place would be like, it is more than just a clean representation of some asphalt and a some wires. The same thing goes for your Venice Beach photo but in this case it are the folks in the photo that make me 'feel' the place and its residents. It is easy for me imagine what sort of a place Venice Beach is, even though I've never been there. To me, that is what good street photography is about.

[janne1]

City is a jungle.

[spanky]

It's a tough call but yeah I think it should include some people but it can work just as well in some cases with elements that point to peoples behaviour like a heavily littered street perhaps. Like many of you I also occasionaly shoot on the subway and in resturants and stores and none of these places are actually the street. This might be why I like the term "social landscape" as it seems a little broader then the term street photography.

[todd frederick]

I enjoy photographing both street people (and the signs they leave behind) and buildings (the geometry of the structures themselves).

 

I do have some problems capturing the peak moment of a human interaction, however.

 

The photo below pictures is a minor family debate while the grandson enjoys his popcicle.

 

I am still trying to discover the difference between Street Photography and Urban Lansdcape Photography.<div></div>

[fjords]

I think "good street" is synonymous with the narrative question, but at times it's about

power, which tends to exclude the participation of "people".<center><img src="http://

static.flickr.com/42/81424365_7af12fba8a_o.jpg"></center>

[over exposure]

No, I don't think people are a "must"..

 

I've seen posted a lot of shots even in this forum (Now i remember some EDmo's shots" where human figure was nowhere...but they had a strong force anyway.. It's just expression of the feeling, so it can work anyway.

[bljkasfdljkasfdljskfa]

There are no general rules or etiquette. That's why it's better to think of photography as just photography. The field is just too complex. The labels are given for places like this forum or for critics, exhibitions, books, etc. so that people know what sort of pictures to expect. The photographers don't care or think about labels when they strive to make a good picture, they care about the work they produce, the results. What and how they photograph is only for them to decide, it's very personal, and no general rules or labels should force them into a certain constraint. Otherwise, it's a creative disaster.

[sprouty]

The Depardon shot you posted is a landscape shot. Or more strictly speaking an urban landscape. At least to me...

[sprouty]

I know it's bad form to quote yourself, but to be clear, my comment of <I>"at least to me."</I> means exactly what Dan said:

<P>

That <I>"...labels are given for places like this forum or for critics, exhibitions, books, etc. so that people know what sort of pictures to expect."</I>

<P>

And that if you were to announce to people that you were a "street photographer" and then present a body of work devoid of the human form, I would expect a bit of confusion from your audience.

[ber1]

"I am still trying to discover the difference between Street

Photography and Urban Lansdcape Photography."

 

The way I see it, Street Photography is more about urban/street

life and culture, it's not only the formal outside shape of things

and creatures, but a portrait, an insight. You don't have to show

people in your picture, even not a street but you may still be

doing SP. Just a thought.

[pmind]

Urban Landscape.

[2yellowdogs]

What Paul said. No reason people are prerequisite.<div></div>

[mike_scott2]

Good example Dan. I see thousands of footsteps in the wear on those stairs - hundreds of hands causing the patina on the railing. Sure it is also architecture or an urban landscape, but I can see humanity here.

[thomas_sullivan]

Bystander describes Street Photography (somewhat loosely) as "a candid picture of everyday life in the street"....and judging by the photographs that are in the book, they have no problem with street photography being without people. As someone above stated "you can see the humanity" in some of those pics.<br><br>Now, again according to Bystander, street photography has changed since the HCBs, Atgets, etc.........<a href="http://www.twbookmark.com/books/48/0821227262/chapter_excerpt13605.html"><u>the afterword</u></a> in the paperback edition of the book gives Westerbeck's & Meyerowitz's synopsis of this change. If you google search on the names they mention you will see some marked difference in what street was, and what they indicate it is heading towards.

[kmgibbs]

I am going to go out on a limb here. Street photography to my thinking does not require people but typically it does include an element of humanity. What I mean by this is that the evidence of humanity in the scene may not be explicit but is almost always implicit even in the absence of people through how the scene is composed and portrayed as well as the 'sign', ie. tracks that people leave in their wake.

 

 

The Hell's Kitchen photograph is a perfect example of what I am trying to convey.

 

Just my opinion.

 

Kent

[0z]

I just joined but I have an opinion. In most cases people are a part but no more important than a street Background that is in focus, more or less. (No shallow DOF) Many artist post a Cityscape and call it a Street Photo or a portait taken in the street devoid of an interesting BG. What a person shows is Animation, a Dynamic and there can be a substitute... I have seen an animal such as a chicken, Dog, Pidgeon.. I have seen shots where a passing vehicle shows the needed animation. (Bus, Motorcycle, Trolley, Taxi) Of course, parts of people can suffice... heads cropped, feet only, etc. The 2 features are a person in a public place, IMHO.. One or the other feature can dominate.... but both should contribute. And... in most cases an animated shot is more interesting than people in static poses but there are strong conmpositions with a sleeping figure etc... In essence, we all know there are no rules. I always look for an interesting BG first and set up to wait for Humanity to ebb and flow..<div></div>