99.98% of Street Photography pictures are c#$p

dan_south · September 20, 2009

99.98% of Street Photography pictures are c#$p

Over 99% of all photography is junk. That is true for all art forms.

99.98% of Everything is c#$p

</blockquote>

I'd like to see the research and the statistical analysis that led to these conclusions. It's impressive that two of you worked out the answer to four significant figures. It's very difficult to take empirical measurements with that level of accuracy. Please post your research. I'm sure that it's quite thorough.

Street, being the most difficult genre to do well, has even a higher failure rate.

</blockquote>

The most difficult? More difficult than news, fashion, sports, event, travel, landscape, macro, wildlife, architectural, scientific, and forensic photography? We may have to conclude that this is a matter of opinion. Street photographs usually have a semi-random, dadaist quality to them. I don't see that randomness in Sports Illustrated or Vogue or Newsweek or Conde Nast's Traveler or Architecture Digest or Car and Driver. The criteria by which street photography is judged is a bit more loose and flexible than the criteria by which a nationally distributed magazine selects work to grace its pages. I'm not suggesting that street photography isn't difficult; I just don't see that it's any more difficult than any other genre.

stephen_asprey2 · September 20, 2009

Dan, I think he was generalising. And what he means is quality not crap street photography (to use his vernacular).

Some find the challenge of being in the right place at the right time and having the courage to shoot without asking, or shooting without being noticed, much harder to do. Its not a technique issue but a courage and confidence issue. And having the ability to see the shot in time to take it. Its the content of the scene and the story, not the quality of the picture.

If one goes to Borders and looks at the books of Pulitzer winning shots, very few are actually technically well executed...most are blurry or grainy...its the content that matters. If one wants quality then one looks at the Nat Geo landscape and portrait books etc. They are miles apart in terms of what we are looking for.

But we will get into endless discussion about all that, however it must be admitted that we are not seeing as much quality as we used to, because the good stuff is being submerged under all the crap and digital is certainly to blame for that.

ceesmaas · September 20, 2009

Making photographs and editing photographs are two entirely different arts/crafts and skills. Each at their own special level. There are a lot of excellent (pro) photographers who can't edit their own work, and there are a lot of brilliant editors who can't make a single decent photo.

In a sense it's plain journalism we're speaking of. Compare it with the newsdesk of an average newspaper. The reporters write and bring in the story, the editor approves it (or not) and rewrite the story.

The ideal situation is of course the combination of a good photographer and a good editor in one person. But if it's true that to master a skill requires 10,000 hours of practice (That's roughly 5 years working a 40-hour week) it is no miracle that there are so many badly shot and/or edited pictures.

BTW: In 99.98% of the discussions here, JDM sees it right.

tony_leinster · September 20, 2009

And 77.349% of all statistics are made up on the spot!

tonmestrom · September 20, 2009

it's a challenging statement in that link and one I feel rather sympathetic to. On the other hand it needs bit more context while some aspects are left out.

First of all there are people who shoot on the street and there are street photographers. Although it's not always obvious it's nevertheless an important distinction to make. Mediocrity is abundantly present all around us and frankly we live in a day and age where this is almost celebrated. We want it all and we want it now which for a large part lowers quality standards. There are many examples of this but as a for instance, how many photographers are able to produce a fine art print nowadays? Not all that many would be my guess. More often than not people have started to take shortcuts be it software induced or otherwise. Instead of mastering and using these techniques creatively on a firm basis of knowledge and experience more often than not it's used because of a lack of knowledge and understanding while pretending it's good photography. Lowering quality standards seems to go hand in hand with a lot of pretense.

Editing is exceedingly difficult, true. It's simply stating the obvious. But editing isn't just sorting your photos afterwards. Editing starts, or should start, with exposure. The notion that a different medium changes that is laughable. It makes no difference if it's written on a flashcard or exposed on a film nor does the fact if you are a prolific shooter or not. It's you and the amount of discipline you are able to exercise. That begs the question if street photography is indeed more difficult than other kinds of photography. I myself would answer that with a yes and no. Yes, because there no sense of direction as in having a predefined subject and most emphatically no because you grow into that. That's the whole point. Street photography isn't something you do on a lost afternoon but something you do all the time while it takes dedication and perseverance. That's the distinction between street shooters and people who shoot on the street.

It's not street photography that is difficult. It's good photography that is difficult, full stop.

One of the most important things that is left out I think is the factor time. Not too long ago the work of Robert Frank was discussed. Franks famous book "The Americans" is a case in point. When completed he found it didn't gather any interest and it took a lot of time and effort to find a publisher in the end. Nowadays it's considered to be an important part of American culture. Almost all of the street photographers we now celebrate and who's work is famous the world over have struggled to sell their work while most, if any, where never able to live of it. And almost all of their now famous work got published long after it was made. At the very least it means there is some hope left for us ;-)))

jedrek · September 20, 2009

Mediocrity is abundantly present all around us and frankly we live in a day and age where this is almost celebrated.

</blockquote>

I disagree with this, it's not that creativity in modern times is doing better or worse than in the past, it's that we have a strong selection bias looking at the past. People talk about the most incredible silver prints they've seen, forgetting that 99% of the stuff people would get in the days of home printing was flat grays with neither deep blacks nor true whites. The color prints from my 1980s childhood are awful, the colors and tones my sister-in-law gets with her sony p&s far exceed what my mom used to get with her p&s and drugstore film.

For every Old Master whose works adorn the walls of the Louvre, there were thousands who painted garbage nobody ever cared about.

ray . · September 20, 2009

A quick glance at some of the work coming from people like Blake Andrews and Matt Stuart tells me that they might want to examine their own work more carefully. Some of it is excellent, but in my view a good half of the pix they post are sub-par or too cute. Perfect juxtapositions and execution of a clear idea can still be a cliche'. That's the problem with street photography and photography in general- so much of it has been done that it's difficult for people to come through with a vision that is truly noteworthy and original. I don't see that much difference between Blake Andrews and HCSP. They're both a mixed bag. And 50% of Magnum can kiss my ass. Not that I'm claiming anything in particular for my own work in comparison, but so much of that stuff is cliched posturing. Where will some of that work be in 100 years? There are a lot of photographers I look up to, and some I don't- who are nonetheless considered 'art stars.'

"The subject of editting your pictures is slowly becoming the latest topic by many well known photographers." Thomas, I don't get this statement. Are you saying that these photographers are just now catching on to the idea that editing is an issue?

doug_santo · September 20, 2009

There is a lot of deep thinking going on here. Go take pictures. Post the good ones.

tonmestrom · September 20, 2009

The color prints from my 1980s childhood are awful, the colors and tones my sister-in-law gets with her sony p&s far exceed what my mom used to get with her p&s and drugstore film.

</blockquote>

Jedrzej, that's the point, or at least part of it. Is it your sister in law that is responsible for that or Sony and the in-camera software it provides? Few people invest the time and effort needed to master anything anymore but still pretend to be artists. Mediocrity prevails.

tonmestrom · September 20, 2009

And 50% of Magnum can kiss my ass

</blockquote>

now there's a statement. I agree with all that it implies btw ;-))) Personally I would say that editing has always been an issue and one that few photographers excel in.

joshloeser · September 20, 2009

I like the street photography I've been doing over the past couple months. I've gone from rarely getting anything decent to regularly getting good shots, and just about all the great shots I've taken in recent times have been taken on the street or in situations that are highly spontaneous.

I'm lousy with editing, but I grant myself the reality that I'm new at it and have not yet attempted to learn it or found someone I can learn it with.

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=285153">Jedrzej </a>: Great poiint. I've always believed that time is the great distiller, removing what we don't like from our memories and leaving us with only that which we want to remember about something.

If you want to do good street photography, I think you have to engage with your subjects and actually get to know them. I've sworn off sneaking shots (at least with anyone I'm physically close to), because I hardly ever get anything decent when doing so. When I actually talk with people, I often get something good out of it. Some would say that doing such a thing irrevocably alters what the shot is, and may not even be street photography, but I disagree. I think it's taking street photography to another level, getting to know the people around you and connecting with others on a level that you sometimes don't get even with those you know well. Sometimes, people just want to be talked with and seen, not just walked around and over.

peterq · September 20, 2009

Suppose that 99.98% of all the images created is bad edited crap

and 99.98% of the creators and viewers are happy with it

then what's the problem?

Don't get upset by the result of other people's photography and/or C#$P,

just ignore what you don't like and be happy with what you do like..... creating images.

an josef · September 20, 2009

Michael H. Reichmann described his success rate in much the same way.

Every five years he prints a book and has an art show of which only 30 or so images make the final cut. He is always shooting and estimates that in this five year period he will shoot roughly 10000 still life images.

His success rate is 0.003%.

I can only hope for such outstanding numbers!!!!

I think I am leveling out at around 0.0002 possibly even lower (I have 4 photos I think are !!!)......but, it is helpful to remember some photographer whom we greatly admire and to consider their success ratio. It really helps put own work into perspective.

luis_g · September 20, 2009

Let's take one well-documented case from one of the best Street Photographers that ever lived: Robert Frank. In shooting The Americans, Frank shot 800 (yes, eight hundred) 36 exp rolls of film. That's 28,800 frames. Out of which 83 made it into the book. That's a .0029 rate for one of the greatest SP'ers.

It should be said that compared to the greatest in any endeavor, it is natural that everything fall short by comparison. Street photography, like everything else, is not about perfection, but about the individual's exploration of experience and dialog with his universe.

Each of us is somewhere along the continuum, and that's where we are right now. There is neither shame nor glory in it, just being and becoming. The crappy pics are like notes written by a sonambulist to himself. They are our mentors and guides.

mjferron · September 20, 2009

I look at it from this perspective. How many masterpieces are the top classical composers known for? Sure they wrote many but folks like myself with short knowledge of such things can only name a few. Same with art. Most of us can name off a list of top painters but how many paintings of these folks can you name by title? 10? 20? That would be about it for me.

Only the best of the best in photography will be remembered. And most likely it will be a candid shot including people. I have a few favorite landscape photographers that, IMO are as good as any that came before them and several of them have attained a known, international status.Will even these fine photos be remembered 50 years from now? It's my bet that most all of them will be forgotten. Most all travel photos will be forgotten. Abstracts forgotten. Birds, bugs, flora and fauna forgotten.

I just recently viewed for the first time a photo of three young Russian sailors. I don't think they could have been much over 16-17 years of age. An attractive woman was trying on one of their hats. The beyond genuine smiles on their faces expressing joy that this woman would give them the time of day made for a one in a million shot. It looked like a collaboration between Norman Rockwell and HCB. All my stuff looks like junk in comparison. The point of my rant here is this. If you can put up ten photos on a gallery wall that will truly wow the masses, not your peers who know how hard it is but the masses you've done well. Very well.

jimmy_english · September 20, 2009

Mark:

"We have to keep chugging along, making mistakes, making crappy pictures and occasionally making the real keepers regardless of what others say be it positive or negative."

I'm not a street shooter. Just family & vacation photographs. But my take on this is that prints are probably the only way.

Future generations will be able to judge what is good or bad. Print what you think has a chance of being good & put them in the drawer until your heirs can go to the local art dealer. He/she will know what will sell. (history will tell)

johncrosley · September 20, 2009

Like everyone i take a lot of crap -- I have terabytes worth of crap which I keep -- it allows me some perspective when I get some good ones, and keeps my perspective clear.

But two years to a year and a half ago (and soon to continue) a Lucie Award winner who in addition to other photographic work also curates work -- on his own volition asked me for my captures (almost all digital on terabytes of hard drives) and went over them one by one. It took him six months at night at home, while I was mostly away.

He culled out many of the 'obvious' winners, disapproved of some I held in high regard, but absolutely astonished me by culling from the bunch a substantial number of photos that he thought (1) were 'fabulous' to use his term (2) would be accepted by 'highest level museums and galleries' (again to use his terms, and his work for others ends up in nearly all the highest level museums, printed and curated), and (3) some of the work he culled out he said also was 'fine art' which I wasn't particularly aware I was shooting.

Some of what he culled out (curated actually) I would then have categorized as 'crap' but over a long series of discussions and personal 'seminars' (just for me), he managed to show me why he thought they were transcendent.

Such photos do not do necessarily do well on Photo.net, but he has taken me to a gallery or two where he's curated work of great photographers (and I have reviewed since the work of the greats which I had not done then) and now I see the his point.)

He would say 'this is photography' and 'this is art' and 'they should go in different places.' 'This one should go to a photo gallery; this go to a 'fine art' gallery -- like the Gagosian' (and then he took me to the Beverly Hills Gagosian for an opening he helped prepare for one of America's pre-eminent photographers who exhibits her work as 'art' rather than 'photography' there, and I am assimilating the lesson that taught me.

It is NOT true in my experience that 'staring at a photo' does not make it better. In some cases, where a photo assuredly is 'crap' that will be so, but in some cases, I even have posted photos I thought were 'just for fun' only to have them compared to work of famous artists whom I never have heard of.

I just didn't know any better, and as my knowledge grew (helped by able critics here on PN -- and there are some very able critics who help me and keep me in line -- as well as this gentleman0, my knowledge and exposure to the photographic 'arts' and 'arts' world has expanded, as he has tried to lead me down the path which he knows well.

He's nearing the end of his career, which started with pursuing a doctorate in arts/photographic arts at the Sorbonne and has culminated with knowing almost 'everyone' in the photographic arts -- at least on the West Coast and many, many more worldwide knowing 'who' he is, and in his way, he is passing on the torch, I think (all gratis).

So, maybe I'm a contrarian.

Sometimes in estimation, bad shots (or shots perceived as being 'bad' or 'crap') turn out in an esteemed critics eyes' to have great worth - even to be 'fabulous'. Note emphasis on 'sometimes' and also 'rarely', but to delete those photos would have been a great loss, personally and maybe worse.

Who knew?

Long ago when I decided never to delete my 'street' work, I hoped for a critic like that to curate/and/or review my work, and my decision not to delete was vindicated.

I still shoot crap - tons of it -- but less and less crap for every good shot as I get better in tune with my equipment and my instincts as well as the ability to tap into what is a growing mental database that spans not only 'street' photography, but the great historical works and the works of 'art' that may or may not be photographically based.

I wish some of the better shooters here had a similar opportunity . . . . it turns out 'crap' is not always 'crap' when viewed by a skilled critic (though what he found was the 'good stuff that I had overlooked' still was an extremely small percentage of what I shot, but it represented the basis of almost a major collection that I would completely have overlooked, possibly forever, and thus I became the recipient of an enormous gift.

I have increasing respect for Garry Winogrand for his view that he would take the photos 'now' but often look at them months or years later to evaluate them.

I now am going over some of my early captures again and finding some wonderful stuff I never could have appreciated earlier.

(Winogrand also famously said 'I photograph to see what things will look like when photographed' [paraphased loosely] which sounds like gobbledygook, but really is quite profound, if one analyzes the statement closely).

I recommend keeping captures, and if not staring at them for long terms, going back after years to re-evaluate them - so long as you are growing in your exposure to the art and craft of photography in general (not just 'street photography) as well as its history.

You may be pleasantly surprised (as I was).

And, truth be told, this world famous critic/curator and I often had vigorous arguments, with me saying 'that photo is crap' and him saying 'no, it's fabulous, don't you see . . . . .' and me disbelieving and unconvinced. I think he may have experienced my naivete like fingernails on a chalboard -- grating.

But time has borne him and his judgment out, for me at least.

Don't assume all that you think is 'crap' truly is a discard and NEVER delete unless it's just a blurry mess - hard drives are cheap these days with a 1-1/2 terabyte drive yesterday selling for just over $100 at a local store and the 2 terabytes having broken the $200 mark, and extremely compact. Backups are obligatory of course and stored in more than one place.

I tilted some windmills, arguing how some of my work was 'crap' but ultimately and reluctantly I have given in and see my critic/curator's point, as do his many very famous and successful professional and famous acolytes and followers.

(I will not mention his name here (I don't presently have his permission) now, but if you write me, I'll try to reply in due time, personally.)

(and I personally thank member Dennis Aubrey for starting the chain of events that resulted in the introduction.)

John (Crosley)

johncrosley · September 20, 2009