Street Photography dumping ground

[htarragon]

Peter A's photo is the definition of "Street Photography" for me. This is photography and art. Question: would it be better if we knew what they were looking at?

[manuel barrera houston,]

is this street, actually beneath the freeways

[manuel barrera houston,]

let me try again<div></div>

[nathancraver]

I would think that street photography is taking pictures of what you see while going down the street. Would that not include

people (portraits), buildings (architecture), dogs (animals), landscapes, and even abstracts? Do you consider street

photography to be only pictures taken of the street itself. I would also think that street photography would be more of a

method of photography, rather than subject matter, just walking around downtown taking photos of whatever captures your

eye with no pre-planned notion of trying to achieve a particular shot.

[stoatsngroats]

What about 'Fine Art' too...?

[Brad_]

I agree with the dumping ground aspect.

 

There are so many shots of people walking down a street or against the wall that have no pull, narrative, mystery, interest,

or even care towards composition. Just a stranger on the street doesn't mean it's SP. There is an aesthetic.

[debraj]

This is quite a good definition (by Nathan Craver)...However I would say that the focus of street

photography should be to capture the life that revolves in and around the street. I have a problem about

clubbing street and documentary together - documentary can be anything from a village fair to a rock

concert.

[swankfoto]

I'd say Chris Weeks compiled a pretty damned good summation...<br>

<a

href=http://www.deviantart.com/download/38038974/street_photography_for_the_purist.pdf>street_photography_for_the_purist</a>

<p>

(hosted on DeviantArt.com)

[david j.lee]

i wouldn't mind to see more legs in this forum either...

[see_r]

"Peter A's photo is the definition of "Street Photography" for me. This is photography and art. Question: would it be

better if we knew what they were looking at?"

 

If you click on the image, you will find a blog on Flikcr that answers that question: the subjects were looking at the

work of a street painter, which is a very common scene in that area and in Paris in general. For example, at Place du

Tertre (up the hill and around to the left from the image I made), that square is full of them.

 

In the "string men" image above, you will see two fellows going through wallets (likely stolen ones, given what has

been told to me and what has been posted on the web) and others with espressions of longing as if they still need to

get theirs. Unfortunately, the "string men" of Sacre Coeur is also a common situation, but perhaps a little more

difficult (and dangerous) to capture 2 of them looking though wallets in a photograph?

[Uhooru]

I suppose what makes it street is, does it have an attitude? A view point? Just the normal concerns for any good photograph apply, Is it interresting, does is convey an aesthetic, does it suggest narrative, does it have interesting formal aspects. Does it make you want to look at it? Any or all of the above.

[philipward]

Nathen.portraits,architecture,animals pets,landscapes and abstracts have their own galleries for very good reasons.Why would you wish to display them in other galleries and recieve low ratings.You would never expect interior church wedding shots displayed in the architecture gallery.

[Matt Laur]

<i>You would never expect interior church wedding shots displayed in the architecture gallery</i>

<br><br>

Unless the image shows an unusual talent - on the part of the wedding photographer - for capturing the beauty or

majesty or romance or history of the <i>building</i> in which it was shot. Or unless the image is a showpiece that

proves how well suited the <i>architectural surroundings</i> are for a wedding. Perhaps the bride and groom will be

riding

away to their honeymoon on two bicycles, which are leaned up against a wall on the street, outside, too. Should

those bicycles be ruled out of the wedding forum, if they're just there waiting? There are some nuances here, Philip.

Things aren't always what they seem.

[peteradownunder]

I dont think that this snap defines anything - but I think it has a visual 'hook' - everyone looking at exactly

the same thing..begging a question - what is that thing..<p>Chip - I lied about the painter - actually it was

three dark dudes mugging a tourist with a telephoto zoom around his neck - everyone was fascinated. <p> Does it

matter <i>what</i> was going on ? - either a pic works or it doesn't..<p> If people focussed on pics that 'work'

- engage the viewer at some level - that is all the strict definiton they need and a whole bunch of verbal too

and fro can be consigned to the filing bin - where it all belongs.

[loic brohard]

I have to apology ;-) I have posted a photo of "legs only" recently..... and I have categorised it under SP. But Philip, in which Gallery would you suggest to be posted ? "Other forums do not have this problem" is probably because a portrait is a portrait, a child is a child, an animal is an animal, and a nude is a nude. SP is a bit more difficult to define. You may all have your "noble" definition of what SP is, but I think a bit of tolerance is also needed. If some of us were Henri Cartier-Bresson, Robert Frank, Alfred Eisenstaedt, W. Eugene Smith, William Eggleston, Brassaї, Willy Ronis, Robert Doisneau and Garry Winogrand, we probably would not be here on PN discussing those things.

If one accepts that SP is a type of documentary photography that features subjects in candid situations within public places such as streets, parks, beaches, malls, and other settings, that leaves margin for intepretation which we should all accept.

My best regards to all, Loic

[see_r]

"Does it matter what was going on ? - either a pic works or it doesn't.."

 

If your picture were of someone mugging another, or committing some other crime, then it wouldn't "work" in a court

of law because it illustrates no more than a group of people looking at the action, without showing the action itself.

Whether the subjects in your picture look interested or not becomes irrelevant (and IMNSHO, aesthetically quite

nominal)...so to answer your question, yes...it can absolutely matter what is going on. Your image fails to document

what is going on. It tells no real or specific story.

 

If either one of those wallets in my image, however, had belonged to a crime victim, my image could be useful in a

court of law--and for that matter--ultimately may be!

 

BTW--a child unlikely would have had the expression of the little girl if a tourist had been getting mugged...so your

comment, Peter, is really pretty silly.

 

And to respond to your earlier comment:

 

"I photographed extensively in Paris over a period of two weeks and was never once confronted or abused - I guess it

is all about how one carries oneself in any street..."

 

The "string men" and other con artists such as the ring people are strictly there to make money. It doesn't much

matter to them whether you are touring or not...just whether they are going to get payed...the bottom line. Perhaps

you just looked like a poor schmuck.

[joe_gallo]

Hey Folks,

 

Not quite a Model but I think it at least qualifies for SP...<div></div>

[tim a]

does street have to b on the street?

[tim a]

does street have to b on the street? under the street?

[photo_galleries]

<i>I got this shot at 200 mm only minutes after thwarting their onslaught, getting the finger, and being called a "bitch". And it smelled like urine right there where I got this shot. </i>

<p><p>

maybe because you were shooting with a not-so-discrete bazooka?

<p><p>

<i>btw--does anyone know what part of Africa these guys are from? Which country? They reminded me of the movie, Blood Diamond...set in South Africa.</i>

<p><p>

And you know for a fact that they are from the continent of Africa because???

[see_r]

<i>maybe because you were shooting with a not-so-discrete bazooka?</i>

<p>

Nope. Do your homework on what has been written so far, so that you won't ask such ignorant and irrelevant questions.

[clive1]

<i>I got this shot at 200 mm only minutes after thwarting their onslaught, getting the finger, and being called a "bitch". And it smelled like urine right there where I got this shot.</i><P>

 

Perhaps you just looked like a clueless schmuck.

[see_r]

BTW--the anti-long lens attitude here is suggestive of a profound ignorance of photography in general. Obviously a long lens lets you shoot from a distance, which is intrinsically more discrete and less intrusive than getting in their face with a wide angle. (personally, I think the best way to shoot in the street with a wide lens [11-19 mm] is 'from the hip') Those dudes wouldn't let me photograph them. But with them having such a narrow and short attention span, and myopic view, I only had to get a bit up the hill to catch them in their act...with the wallets out no less. And I did the same thing later that day in another part of Montmartre (people who never saw me because I never let then get close enough)...those people can't see outside of the bubble of their scams. Really, it's sort of like animal photography, for which we use long lenses.

 

Oh, ...."And you know for a fact that they are from the continent of Africa because???"

 

I know for a fact that you are a photographer because??? You know for a fact that my lens could be characterized as a "bazooka" because??? Obviously we make reasonable assumptions. And based on what I have read, and on their accents, and on the *well known* current, as well as historical situation in Paris, it is quite reasonable to assume that these guys are from Africa. I mean, if you want to be absolutely epistological about it, I couldn't even confirm that these guys weren't from Ireland, Iceland, Russia, etc. Not relevant.

[see_r]

"Perhaps you just looked like a clueless schmuck."

 

Well, the clueless schmucks were actually the ones who I photographed getting scammed, not me. I brought my wallet home.

[philipward]

Loic,was she really that ugly?why chop her head off or should I look for a deeper meaning.It looks like you took this shot and could not place it in any catagory and so dumped it into SP(:>).