What is, and is not, street photography?

[Brad_]

>>> Is "Street" here considered too insider or "clubby"?

 

Probably true, by people who don't actually shoot street photography. I suppose I'd find the Film or

Minox forums clubby.

 

 

>>> Yes. Why is there a "street photography" forum if not to beat this topic to death?

 

Similarly, there are Leica, Canon, Film, etc forums... With all sorts of topics beaten to death. "I'm

looking for a portrait lens, what should I buy?", "I just bought a 50mm lens, what country should I visit?" ...

[luis_g]

<p><strong>-</strong>>>> Is "Street" here considered too insider or "clubby"?</p>

<p><strong>Alan- "Yes"<br /></strong></p>

<p><strong>Brad - "</strong>Probably true, by people who don't actually shoot street photography."</p>

<p>...and if one was saying that about Alan Zinn, he'd be wrong.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> ...and if one was saying that about Alan Zinn, he'd be wrong.

 

Luis, and "one" wasn't. But thank you very much for speaking on Alan's behalf.

[luis_g]

<p>I was speaking from first-hand experience.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Street photography is like something akin to "Ur" photography. It contains most of the other photo-categories, like Portraiture, still-life, landscape, conceptual, macro, (semi) nude, dance, social, food, etc., and sometimes it seems like one can run into and make street photographs in all those categories -- in one day. Categories are good for discussions, archiving, etc., but in this case, I find them most useful when used on the loose side.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>""I just bought a 50mm lens, what country should I visit?" ...</p>

<p>France, specifically the cities. The sidewalks are bigger. :-)</p>

[cyanatic]

<p>One can always go to the "Philosophy of Photography" forum. Topics there are never "beaten to death" -- only meticulously and lovingly parsed to a fine degree of granularity. ;-)</p>

<p> </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Steve, I trust you were speaking humorously, but I broke out into a huge 'guffaw' when I read your comment on the Philosophy forum.</p>

<p>I had to ban myself from "Philosophy" before I got myself banned by someone else. I fear I am insufficiently serious for that forum. ;)</p>

[martinangus]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6310086">Richard Sperry</a><a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub1.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jul 28, 2011; 04:05 a.m.<br>

Martin, We have already discussed your On The Street 1 in the other thread. And your motives, and background to taking the photo. Since you chose to revisit the subject, I repeat my objections. I personally view your motives and actions in that photo, and your discussion of the photo as taken, as socially parasitic.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Geez Richard...did I ask you for an opinion of my philosophy or approach to the street? Who the heck asked you? My question was very specific. - "I am curious as to what boundaries you have assumed when categorizing something as "street photography"?"<br>

You are starting to sound like a crybaby child who isn't getting his own way. Please refrain from the personal attacks despite the shallow gratification you get at my expense.<br>

Have you been told today?</p>

<p>... I bet you have!</p>

 

[martinangus]

<p>Topics beaten to death...? To those of you who are obviously bored with duplication of subject matter...why are you even participating in the forum if you are not getting anything from it.</p>

<p>Please go away and take your negativity with you.</p>

[cyanatic]

<blockquote>

<p>Steve, I trust you were speaking humorously, but I broke out into a huge 'guffaw' when I read your comment on the Philosophy forum.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>JDM -- Yes, I was definitely speaking humorously and also including myself in that ribbing. Personally, I think you would be a welcome addition to that forum. Discussions can become convoluted and wander far afield at times, but one could say that about any discussion board. I have been exposed to a number of different ideas, aesthetic theories, and photographers that have been beneficial to me...if for no other reason than for having broadened my horizons, my understanding, and my ability to keep an open mind and learn. I am much more into aesthetics, theories, and exposure to interesting photographic work than I am into "which lens..." or "how do I get this effect". (Nor do I mean to belittle those sorts of concerns, I just don't gravitate toward them as much).</p>

<p>Martin -- Certain topics are frequently repeated on PN...and sometimes they are remarked upon in a negative way (probably by me at some point as well). In such discussions new ways of looking at "old" things may come up. All to the good. Judging by the old "Topic Clock" on the PNet wall, I think a "Is Photoshop cheating?" or "Film pwns Digital" thread should be showing up here any day now. </p>

[dan_south]

> So, is it a consensus that street photography has to be good, nice, happy, sweet and all fully consented?

 

No, but there's a famous saying that eighty percent of everything is crap. If we consider the set of all street

photography(or all of any type of photography), that heuristic would probably apply. How do we determine what's crap

and what's not? Opinions vary widely. Art is art because its value cannot be determined by a set of rules. That said,

"meaning", a "sense of purpose", a "compelling back story" and a "fresh perspective" never hurt a photo's chances for

recognition and distinguished merit.

[martinangus]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2071900">Dan South</a><a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jul 28, 2011; 07:55 p.m ..."meaning", a "sense of purpose", a "compelling back story" and a "fresh perspective" never hurt a photo's chances for recognition and distinguished merit.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well put! I could not agree more... Now, the question is begged about the scope of "meaning" "purpose" and "compelling". Look at the first image I posted in this thread. In my opinion, it is an eyebrow raiser to some of the sheltered and priviledged people who see it. Creating any awareness (of the realities on the street) at all is a "sense of purpose" in my books. Did I change his/her life? In a microscopic way, perhaps... if I have influenced the way someone reacts to that person in future.</p>

[spanky]

<p>The problem with definitions is that they pigeon hole one into a M.O. that may be vastly at odds with what their instinct guide them toward. Why bother? People who view ones work will define it anyway. I post in the Street forum here because that's the only forum that were my work most easily fits, although I don't consider myself a "street photographer". Just go out and take the pictures your gut tells you to take. For example, I went out shooting yesterday. I turned down an alley and was instantly amazed ant what I saw. Graffiti, old mattresses strewn about, piles of trash (right underneath a posted "No Dumping" sign) barbed wire, shopping carts, TVs and so on. I shot over a 100 pictures of this alley that stretched about 3 blocks. If I had thought of myself as a street photographer, I probably wouldn't have taken these as most people do not consider such shots as "street". There are some people in these pictures; a guy with a black eye who let me take a close up of his face, a woman with three kids who looked lost, a lady with a stuffed animal. Street? Perhaps, but I don't care.<br>

PS - To Richard Sperry - you're right, you will be in court...criminal court as a defendant. In case you were not aware, causing bodily injury to another person and/or damaging someone else's property is a criminal offence. Think about that if you decide to go all John Wayne on someone who took (or you think took) a picture of you in public.</p>

[studio460]

<p>I believe that one particular Flickr "street photography" group specifically stated, "no shots without people." I tend to agree that most probably define this genre as one which includes people. Apparently that's the rule here, too, since I ruffled at least one member's feathers for publishing images of <em>only</em> streets in the street photography forum. While I agree that having different genres means making some delineations between them, I'm not the kind of person who tends to color within the lines anyway.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Marc T: <em>"...PS - To Richard Sperry - you're right, you will be in court...criminal court as a defendant..."</em></p>

<p>I haven't been keeping up with this thread, but I would bet that the point he was trying to get across is that in many quarters, and even among the normally civilized guys on photo.net, behavior that is perceived of as disrespectful can engender such strong feelings that it will likely be met with hostility and possibly even violence, quite apart from whether (a) *you* think your behavior was respectful, (b) whether your behavior was technically legal, or © that a violent response is definitely illegal. </p>

<p>I can tell you with 100% certainty that if you took a picture of someone who didn't want their picture taken and was physically capable, in the part of the Bronx where I grew up, you would find yourself in a fight.</p>

<p>If even just a description of what you do triggers that sort of response in another photographer, that should tell you two things: (a) You are probably treading on very thin ice w.r.t. the feelings of many other people, and (b) Be mindful of your own safety. Hopefully, the reason for such a strong response is simply that your written description of what you do on the street does not match up with the sensitivity towards people that you actually show in the real world.</p>

<p>Finally, from my limited experience serving as a juror, if such a hypothetical case ever did show up in front of a jury, and you were perceived by the jury as clearly triggering the incident and not using common sense and backing down, while the jury might legally be forced to find in your favor, many jurors would do everything they could to minimize the penalty to the person you incited.</p>

<p>Just my $0.02,</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

 

[alan_zinn]

<p><br /><br />Yea thanks Luis! You can speak for me any time. We're beating "what is art" to death again over at philosophy forum now. I may have mentioned this but the other day the cops told me I'd make their jobs easier if I didn't photograph people around the Harvard square transit terminus, a veritable three-ring circus. They were exceedingly polite and almost had me convinced. RE privacy, there are many undocumented people. Aiming a camera at them causes serious discomfort.</p>

[martinangus]

<p>Henri Cartier-Bresson</p>

<p>"The difference between a portrait and a snap is in the former, one has asked for permission"</p>

<p>"It seems dangerous to be a portrait artist... because everyone wants to be flattered, so they pose in such a way that there’s nothing left of truth."</p>

<p>"We must respect the atmosphere which surrounds the human being." "We must respect the surroundings which provide the subject’s true setting, while avoiding all artifice which destroys the authentic image. The mere presence of the photographer and his camera affects the behavior of the “victim”. Massive apparatus and flash bulbs prevent the subject from being himself."</p>

<p>"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."<br>

<br>

"The camera, now as ever, empowers the individual to engage with others from the other side of town or the other side of the world."</p>

<div></div>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Good one, Martin. Hey, it looks like the Tommyknockers are chasing you :-)</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Martin, is the picture <em>that </em>woman again? What's with all the HCB quotes? What on earth are you getting at? </p>

 

[martinangus]

<p>Hey Luis G...<br>

"that woman"? Monica Lewinsky? ;-)<br>

Whats with all the questions? LOL</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"Martin, is the picture <em>that </em>woman again? What's with all the HCB quotes? What on earth are you getting at?"</p>

<p>I've never seen it before, Louis. Why that women? Perhaps a smiling posed photo with nice bunch of flowers would rock your boat. Jeez, the real world can be such an ugly place best sweep it under the carpet and have a burger and a nice nude to look at instead. Louis, if you don't like quotes best keep away from the Philosophy Forum..... I've read so many I'm starting to quote them in the real world;)</p>

<p>"One can always go to the "Philosophy of Photography" forum. Topics there are never "beaten to death" -- only meticulously and lovingly parsed to a fine degree of granularity. ;-)"</p>

<p>And we have the meaning of a word which we disect with singular care over a hundred posts. The poor little words get so confused they usually end up wearing white jackets and going for a ride in a nice van with smiling people.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Allen, I was directly asking Martin. You are beyond clueless as to what might or might not rock my boat, and so far, 100% off base. Until you become PN staff, don't bother telling me or anyone else which forums we should or should not be in. I didn't say I disliked the quotes, so don't project your words my way. In fact, I know them all quite well. Had you actually participated in the philosophy forum for any length of time, you'd know I'm no stranger to quotes.</p>

<p>_________________________________</p>

<p>Martin, questions because you haven't commented on the responses you have gotten so far, only pointedly steered the halting conversation in peculiar directions, which gave the illusion that you might have been going somewhere with all this. Guess not.</p>

<p>________________________________</p>

<p>To Richard Sperry, "social parasitism" is a brilliant description.</p>

<p> </p>

[martinangus]

<p>Yo Allen,<br />I sure wish this thing had a "high-five" symbol! We are on the same page.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=977570">Luis G</a><a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jul 29, 2011; 03:48 p.m Martin, questions because you haven't commented on the responses you have gotten so far, only pointedly steered the halting conversation in peculiar directions, which gave the illusion that you might have been going somewhere with all this. Guess not.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can one "unpointedly" steer?<br />Peculiar directions?... I truly do not follow.<br />I generally respond to intelligent contributions...but Luis, I will make an exception for you.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"You are beyond clueless as to what might or might not rock my boat, and so far, 100% off base"</p>

<p>So much anger, Louis. "Why that women?" An implication there, Louis. Hence my response.</p>

<p>"Until you become PN staff, don't bother telling me or anyone else which forums we should or should not be in"</p>

<p>I was talking to you not anyone else, Louis. And was I telling you ,what? I was just pointing out that there is nothing wrong with quotes and gave you an example.</p>

<p>"Had you actually participated in the philosophy forum for any length of time",</p>

<p>I've parcipated a lot in the past and recently started posting.</p>

<p>"To Richard Sperry, "social parasitism" is a brilliant description."<br>

<br /><br />You have never posted any photographs so I can only go on your words. I believe you have agreed with the above nasty statement out of anger and no doubt you will stick with it out of anger. Calm down my friend.</p>