What is, and is not, street photography?

luis_g · August 1, 2011

Brad makes the mistake of thinking that everyone who meets his criteria of "mastery" thinks like him and the people he knows. Thankfully, the world is much bigger than that. There's other legitimate ways to think. It is obvious that the people who assume the definition will get to choose who belongs in SP and who does not. If one makes it too provincial and reactionary, one ends up losing the new blood and it will eventually cause a splinter to form in SP, and that might not be a bad thing. Too loose and who knows what impostors and riff raff will get in. What is it that the normal definitions lack?

I am not saying that everything is SP, but the answer to Martin's question is not as clear-cut as he or Brad seem to want it to be. There's no litmus test, cookie-cutter definition, or exclusionary rule. SP has steadily evolved since day one, and so has the definition.

I do not show on, or link pictures to, PN for personal reasons. Make of that what you will.

Brad, I am interested in these ideas. Who would you exclude? Can you link to one photographer's work you think is just outside your definition of SP and why?

Brad_ · August 1, 2011

>>> Brad makes the mistake of thinking that everyone who meets his criteria of "mastery" thinks like him and the people he

knows.

I was waiting for the personal insults.

Luis, my view on what SP, ie what you call my "criteria of mastery," is what was stated up above and pretty broad:

"For myself, I'll stick with: candids (ie, where permission is not asked) of people, or the evidence of people, in urban

environments."

I'm not shocked you have trouble with that. I'll continue with what I'm doing. You, OTOH, may continue to pioneer and break

new ground, broadening the genre. I was really hoping you could show some examples of your work.

>>> I do not show on, or link pictures to, PN for personal reasons. Make of that what you will.

I have. That's funny. One who has such strong views. Especially considering this is a *photography* forum, where

actual photographs are (should be) a key part of discussion. Continue on...

<img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2011%20photos/YadaYada.jpg"

luis_g · August 1, 2011

Kevin Omura - "I suppose another aspect of the question is 'How has 'street' photography changed in the past decade."

SP of children has become touchier and is often socially interpreted as borderline criminal activity. Since 9/11, photographing a lot of things has become suspect, but by some people's definition, it wasn't SP anyway. As public spaces continue to be commercialized and corporatized, this affects where SPers can photograph without being approached and their work interrupted. I also agree that in many places expectations of privacy have increased somewhat. Few SP practitioners realize how fast and unobtrusively some photographers can work, and how adept they are at not arousing anxiety in others.

Kevin Omura- "For example the works of Doisneau, Ronis, Bresson et al. How might they have been affected by the way people view photographers today or do you think they would still be able to work unfettered by the public and the police?"

For the most part, yes, though the work in private buildings and property would probably suffer. The commercialization of public spaces and control of private ones has gone through the roof. Of course, Doisneau paid models for his most famous street shot, which by the conservative definition we would now have to throw out of SP.

Kevin Omura - "Did Garry Winogrand fret about what is and what is not considered 'street photography' each morning when he set out with his camera?"

Of course not. He wasn't worried about disrespect for the genre, or exclusion, unlike the current "Masters". He just went to work. He even heaped lavish praise on Frank's picture of the gas stations (an unpopulated architectural and/or landscape!).

______________________________________

John McPherson - "Why do we see so few (relatively speaking) business men or women with briefcases and smart coats? Do they say less about our society than a bunch of bums?"

Because there are considerable subtextual class, power and political issues at work in SP -- and water flows easiest downhill. Ever notice how many more women than men are photographed in SP?

There's more than a little irony regarding a guy walking around with a $4,000 camera and lens ($10,000+ if using an M9) photographing a penniless homeless man, people on welfare, or minimum wage slaves on the street. And the photographer insists that they're selflessly and nobly helping the poor -- while not giving them a cent. Please. They're helping themselves to Flickr/PN recognition, of course, and using their subjects to do so. Business men are of a different class/power, which is why they're much rarer.

This wasn't always so. Many of the classic SP Masters photographed all classes of people, not just unfortunates or demimondaines.

____________________________________________

One other thing. What HCB termed candid in this quote: "The mere presence of the photographer and his camera affects the behavior of the “victim”".

It has nothing to do with having asked permission.

If you gain access to a gang, family, strippers, addicts, elite, ethnic or other group, is that really candid anymore? I mean, you've asked permission, and they're aware of the camera being there, so it would not be candid for HCB or Martin.

luis_g · August 1, 2011

Brad Evans - "I and others who who like the challenges will continue to impose limits..."

The above clearly states that people like you do think alike on this topic. Skepticism, yes, but no insult intended.

john_macpherson · August 1, 2011

I agree with most of your comments Christine. And I think you've simpy underlined my contention that the homeless etc are 'easier' to photograph (in general) with your final paragraph:

Perhaps that's because they don't live their lives on the street. They are on the street in passing and not as available as subjects in many areas. Where I live, business people park in underground garages, take the elevators up to work, then reverse that at the end of the day. They don't mingle with the locals. Some place like NYC would be a good place to photograph business people walking to and from work, or maybe having lunch outside on a nice day. When you do street photography, you shoot what's there.

</blockquote>

But, having said that, I'm sure neither of us would fall into the trap of believing that business people "in passing" and going "to and from work" and "having lunch outside on a nice day" are so grey, dull, uninteresting and anodyne as to be worthless of attention.

In fact I'd suggest the opposite might be the case - they represent a 'foil' or an 'edge' against which other stuff abuts and subtly contrasts (or maybe in some cases not so subtly). THATS the real challenge in this I think, to create something that resonates in some way, where a disparate set of circumstances, expressions, shapes, styles, attitudes, genders, or whatever else, all conspire to create a little piece of visual magic, to take the viewer somewhere they didn't expect to go. I think to try to pin that down too tightly will be to lose the elements that truly good, and really great, images will suprise us with.

To quote Brad - because his description of what its NOT about says quite a lot about what it actually is all about:

Much suffers from not being well-composed, and/or having nothing to stimulate a response from the viewer; such as irony, humor, mystery, ambiguity, releasing narrative, form, drama, juxtaposition, shadow/lightness, timing, gravitas, etc. Photos with all the answers supplied, rather than posing questions are not interesting. Without a hook to draw a viewer in and keep their attention for more than a second, it's just a person on the street. Why would a viewer care about that?

</blockquote>

john_macpherson · August 1, 2011

Luis:

John McPherson - "Why do we see so few (relatively speaking) business men or women with briefcases and smart coats? Do they say less about our society than a bunch of bums?"

Because there are considerable subtextual class, power and political issues at work in SP -- and water flows easiest downhill. Ever notice how many more women than men are photographed in SP?

There's more than a little irony regarding a guy walking around with a $4,000 camera and lens ($10,000+ if using an M9) photographing a penniless homeless man, people on welfare, or minimum wage slaves on the street. And the photographer insists that they're selflessly and nobly helping the poor -- while not giving them a cent. Please. They're helping themselves to Flickr/PN recognition, of course, and using their subjects to do so. Business men are of a different class/power, which is why they're much rarer.

</blockquote>

Absolutely my point. I was speaking rhetorically (but thanks for expanding because some readers may need it clarified). Sometimes the nuances of speech and expression fail abjectly online!

Wouter Willemse · August 1, 2011

7 pages later, having followed discussion and I cannot help repeating the question: How important is the label?

Why "must" a true street photo adhere to this or that? Sure I get Brad's point that widening the scope might be a way to make it things easier. But is it true? With or without the 'requirements' met, a photo still has to be good and grabbing the viewer somehow - isn't that the hard part anyway? Doesn't that always seperate the wannabe's from those who can? The things Alan mentioned to get the viewer to look a second time more intently to your photo, that's where mastery is (in my view). If that means there is accidentally no person in the photo, or it's shot with something tele, or something like it, but the result works and intrigues - then so be it. Well, at least, that's how I approach most photos myself, so that leaves me wondering about this thread.

No worries, I am not a good streetphotographer in any definition, so I am not going to tell what I think it is - but yeah, still wondering why you need a definition. Does it make a change for you, as a (street) photographer, to fit the definition, and if yes, how? As a viewer, does it help to exclude photos or include photos because the definition, and if yes, how? Does it change how you'd rate a photo?

P.S. I mean these questions in all honesty, not in sarcasm; I am aware that it sounds sceptical but I am really wondering what you are after in this dicussion, and what the gain would be of a conclusion to it.

alan_zinn · August 1, 2011

It is wise but hard not to assume that someone will come to our same opinions depending upon which books they have or have not read. The same applies to viewer sophistication regarding pictures. Part of the pleasure of looking at pictures is learning how to look. I learned that from the beginning and now it is reflexive. It is a life-long process.

I mentioned the value of contextualizing pictures as a body of work, or minimally as a pair of mutually supporting images, for classification and understanding them. I suspect all that is reasonable to do is assume the classification list is open ended. Those photographers who fall into one niche can't claim more authority than those who fall into another.

SP has its protectors who are feeling the pressure from everybody with a cell phone getting into the act. I am always astonished at the numbers of people at any given time and place on "my" streets firing away. I see them shooting the same little sketchy, whimsical things that catch my eye. But no,no - not to the depth I explore them! I want to see it as an affirmation of photography rather than a diffusion and dilution of a more purposeful and sophisticated passion. <div></div>

alan_zinn · August 1, 2011

I can't hold this back: An indisputably candid, archetypal, down on the streets photo.

john_macpherson · August 1, 2011

And I'll respond Alan with a suggestion as to where this thread is headed.......

Brad_ · August 1, 2011

>>> Brad Evans - "I and others who who like the challenges will continue to impose limits..."

>>>> The above clearly states that people like you do think alike on this topic.

Yes I impose limits on myself (btw not quoting my sentence fully is just another cheap shot). As an example,

because of personal ethics, I don't snap people in helpless situations, out of it on the sidewalk (commonly referred to as homeless).

People like me? That's rich. You mean photographers who are actually shooting on the street, with work to show, who

don't take the view that *any* photo is "street photography?" Guilty.

>>> Skepticism, yes, but no insult intended.

Please, Luis. Your behavior up above renders that "no insult intended" as disingenuous in the extreme.

kevin_omura · August 1, 2011

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=153336">Brad -</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jul 31, 2011; 11:39 p.m.

Of course he didn't. But this thread is about a question posed by the OP. What is, and is not, street photography? A reference was offered as a baseline, a place to *start* from.

Yes I did read the OP, of course the discussion seemed to devolve to something more on personal matter since it seems some comments are based more on past interactions than present discussion.

My point is, why is it even important to come up with a set in stone definition, why do you need to quantify your work for that seems to be the big stumbling block or perhaps stone you are hanging around your neck or others? Based on the photos I just saw I would say you have all the tools you need to be a good street photographer the kids with the baby is a neat frame leaving in the parking sign shows me that you know what you want and how to frame so why then is is important to quantify these qualities?

John, I think you make some excellent points. Compassion certainly, wonderment perhaps as well? It is interesting how street people factor into the 'street photography equation when the roots of 'street photography' don't seem to support this unless one adds in the FSA photographers who were doing a form of 'street documentation'.....

I tossed in the question of public/police being a 'street' photojournalist and how I read in the forums how there seems to be this insidious wave of privacy being tossed in the face of photographers. I wonder if it's to do with people thinking they have the right to do this or that, for example those who feel the need to be trouble makers within online forums because they know they can cowardly hide behind the veil of the internet? Perhaps not, or perhaps an over generalization that so often happens online...

If someone didn't want their photo taken I would respect that granted if it was to do with a story I was working on such as a suspect in a criminal act or news event that would change things. Normally though I find the public quite accepting granted it depends a lot on how the public perceives me as well, if I'm working a news event I probably look more the part. Eg big cameras and lenses, though when I shoot for me I like to work unnoticed because the moment someone sees a camera they are no longer going to act natural and will start to 'act' for the camera. So that means working with a point and shoot or my new small friend a MFT camera because I don't want folks 'acting' for me.

I think I come from a different side of the street perhaps? For me street photographers were the likes of Bresson but more so Robert Doisneau, Willy Ronis, Robert Frank. Then perhaps the transition to documentary or photojournalists such as Mary Ellen Mark, Eugene Richards, W Eugene Smith, Don McCullen and Salgado. At which point the 'art' factor comes into play within the scope of documentary or street....

I'm glad that Wouter reaffirmed his original post for I too feel the same way. Is it the academics who feel this need to put things into nice tidy little pigeon holes? I don't know, I remember in university there was this need to explain the 'why' but somethings may transcend the why....

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5767925">Alan Zinn</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 01, 2011; 10:50 a.m.

It is wise but hard not to assume that someone will come to our same opinions depending upon which books they have or have not read. The same applies to viewer sophistication regarding pictures. Part of the pleasure of looking at pictures is learning how to look. I learned that from the beginning and now it is reflexive. It is a life-long process. I mentioned the value of contextualizing pictures as a body of work, or minimally as a pair of mutually supporting images, for classification and understanding them. I suspect all that is reasonable to do is assume the classification list is open ended. Those photographers who fall into one niche can't claim more authority than those who fall into another. SP has its protectors who are feeling the pressure from everybody with a cell phone getting into the act. I am always astonished at the numbers of people at any given time and place on "my" streets firing away. I see them shooting the same little sketchy, whimsical things that catch my eye. But no,no - not to the depth I explore them! I want to see it as an affirmation of photography rather than a diffusion and dilution of a more purposeful and sophisticated passion.

Nicely put Alan, photography isn't just about taking a picture, it's about your interpretation of what you are viewing and what you have added to that scene through your past experiences and sometimes I think that could be what separates those that 'get it' and those that don't.

So really photography is probably a lot less about what you are seeing as much as it is how you are seeing it......

In closing I'd just like to link these quotes from a photographer who has influenced my work. ;^)

http://www.photoquotes.com/ShowQuotes.aspx?id=225&name=Doisneau,Robert

luis_g · August 1, 2011

Thank you, Brad. Believe it or not, I wasn't talking about you or any other single photographer, but about the cliche'd majority of SP'ers. For the record, I've never said -- or thought -- that "*any* photo" is SP. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. SP does not need defending -- or defenders. It's not under attack. I have zero quarrel with what you do, Brad or where you draw the line for yourself. When you talk about others' disrespect for the genre, that's different.

______________________________________

I see this need to impose dogmatic limits on what is/isn't SP as a kind of fundamentalism/nostalgia for the past, and that's a great thing, because it usually happens just before an evolutionary leap.

_________________________________

Alan Zinn - "SP has its protectors who are feeling the pressure from everybody with a cell phone getting into the act. I am always astonished at the numbers of people at any given time and place on "my" streets firing away. I see them shooting the same little sketchy, whimsical things that catch my eye. But no,no - not to the depth I explore them!"

It's.....alarming. Maybe we should circle the wagons?

Loved the "bum mummy" (was that a mini-me beside him?)...a bit of Herbert List's wrapped monuments in there and a touch of Cristo.

_________________________________

Wouter - ": How important is the label?"

As we can see here, very important to those that do the labeling, or want to be the Gatekeepers.

WW- "Does it make a change for you, as a (street) photographer, to fit the definition, and if yes, how? As a viewer, does it help to exclude photos or include photos because the definition, and if yes, how? Does it change how you'd rate a photo?"

Excellent (and still unanswered) questions, Wouter.

________________________________

Brad_ · August 1, 2011

>>> Believe it or not, I wasn't talking about you or any other single photographer, but about the cliche'd

majority of SP'ers.

Odd, when you were speaking to me in your 9:41am post and said: "The above clearly states that people

like you do think alike on this topic," it sure looks like when you were referring to "you," your were talking

about... me. Someone else, maybe?

And who are these "cliche'd" majority of SP'ers? And what is it about what they produce is cliché?

>>> I see this need to impose dogmatic limits on what is/isn't SP as a kind of fundamentalism/nostalgia for the past, and that's a great thing, because it usually happens just before an evolutionary leap.

It's getting deep now... So, are you out there pioneering, bringing about this change to SP, and to the people that are stuck in the past? Please show some examples of how you're helping with this leap.

luis_g · August 1, 2011

BE- ""And who are these "cliche'd" majority of SP'ers? And what is it about what they produce is cliché?"

The great majority, over 90%. The same applies to portraiture, landscape, still life, sports, PJ, etc. Truly individuated, stand-out work is rare. What is it that is cliche'? That it's imitative, conformist, and worst of all, boring. Now, don't get me wrong: I'm glad they (and I) are out there doing it. SP/creativity/art is good and good for you, no matter what level you're at.

Allen Herbert · August 1, 2011

"Only decades of personal experience". Luis

"I do not show on, or link pictures to, PN for personal reasons".Luis

Luis, I read all sort of things on PN... many claim to be master street photographers, but they rarely have any work to prove it. However, they are very verbose on their soap boxes, and can tell more than a story or two. Usually, when challenged they resort to personal attacks particulary against those who have a body of work to view. Their follows tend to be non street photographers who cheer them along and then start claiming they are master street photographers too. Sort of sad, really.

Feez up, mate. Share your photos so we can all relate them to those decades of experience.

Can't wait for your photographic feast!

Brad_ · August 1, 2011

>>> I see this need to impose dogmatic limits on what is/isn't SP as a kind of

fundamentalism/nostalgia for the past, and that's a great thing, because it usually happens just before

an evolutionary leap.

Well, in my decades of personal experience, I would have to say that your referencing

dogma/fundamentalism/nostalgia, as if SP has been in some kind of stasis, seems to support the notion that you haven't been aware of what's been happening over more than 50 years. With certainly the last 10-15

being the most dramatic.

Disclaimer: OK, I lied. I don't have decades of personal experience and am therefore not entitled to pontificate at the master level.

However, in lieu of that I gladly post up real photos for others to see, whether judged as good,

bad, or ho-hum, it's all fine. When I have decades of personal experience under my belt I may elect not to. In that case I'll invoke Master's

prerogative...

alan_zinn · August 1, 2011

Brad, keep on postin' The pics are goood!

Kevin O

if I'm working a news event I probably look more the part. Eg big cameras and lenses, though when I shoot for me I like to work unnoticed because the moment someone sees a camera they are no longer going to act natural and will start to 'act' for the camera

</blockquote>

The separation of journalism and SP brings up another, no doubt, much discussed subject. I missed a lot of that back-and-forth. I need to ask anyone perhaps redundantly: what ethical advantage RE privacy, in particular, does editorial/reportage have over artistic shooting ethics?

dan_south · August 1, 2011

This is just my two cents, but Brad meets MY definition of mastery. His images are all finished works. There's never a

sense of "he could have cropped a bit for a better result," or "if only he had been standing a little to the left." I don't

know how much work Brad puts into his images before he posts them, but the versions that he shares exhibit that

primal sense of being "just right." it would be very difficult to improve on any of them even slightly. That's one of the

earmarks of mastery and extremely rare in street scenes which often tend to look more chaotic than composed.

Brad_ · August 1, 2011

Dan, thank you very much for the kind words - I really appreciate it!

>>> I don't know how much work Brad puts into his images before he posts them, ...

On the average somewhere between 2-3 minutes in Lightroom, I'm guessing. It's pretty much a routine I do over and over again, so it's like being on auto-pilot. Trying to get it right in-camera, and especially avoiding bad light, makes it a lot easier.

cmitchell · August 2, 2011

But, having said that, I'm sure neither of us would fall into the trap of believing that business people "in passing" and going "to and from work" and "having lunch outside on a nice day" are so grey, dull, uninteresting and anodyne as to be worthless of attention.

</blockquote>

Absolutely not. I was just describing what's in my neck of the woods...er...streets. I think any subject is valuable.

kevin_omura · August 2, 2011

<a href="https://webmail.torstar.com/exchange/komura/Inbox/photo.net.EML?Cmd=open">Alan Zinn</a> <a href="https://webmail.torstar.com/exchange/komura/Inbox/photo.net.EML?Cmd=open"><img title="Frequent poster" src="https://webmail.torstar.com/exchange/komura/Inbox/photo.net.EML?Cmd=open" alt="" /></a>, Aug 01, 2011; 04:45 p.m.

The separation of journalism and SP brings up another, no doubt, much discussed subject. I missed a lot of that back-and-forth. I need to ask anyone perhaps redundantly: what ethical advantage RE privacy, in particular, does editorial/reportage have over artistic shooting ethics?

I must admit that I've never heard of a separation between journalism and street photography granted my 'spider sense' is tingling now. I would think they are mutually connected to some degree sorry I don't follow the forums on here, granted from the way this discussion seems to be headed I'm not so sure I'd find it very enlightening. Perhaps it's more about the particular photographer? At work I can't say I've come across this differentiation either though frankly we don't typically have deep philosophical discussions about photography that often though I have in the past with a couple of other photographers. Is this something non working photographers ponder perhaps but perhaps not those actually out there doing the job?

The big cameras and lenses are a prop in some ways, they give some photographers that feeling of security because they think the equipment verifies their intent as a photographer. I suspect this forum like pretty much every other photography forum on the planet have the equipment junkies who feel that it's more about the equipment than about the eye.... I confess that in some situations I use these 'props' in order to gain access to situations that might otherwise keep me out, er well no but anyhow I do find that the public sees the gear and assumes I'm doing something 'important'. Most of the time people are just curious, or want their pictures taken so I indulge them.

Now in terms of what you are saying about ethical advantage, in my case it has nothing to do with ethics trust me if I needed to get the shot I would get the shot but when it comes to photographing for myself eg street reportage/street photography I just prefer to pack lightly. It doesn't draw a lot of gawkers, folks wanting to be in the paper, nutcases, even photographer want to be's to some extent as I've picked up 'tails' in the past.

Ok it took me some time to figure out what you meant about the ethical advantage of being an editorial/reportage photographer in terms of privacy. From a purely technical standpoint at least here in Canada I don't have to have permission to take a photograph of someone in order to run it in the paper if it is considered spot news as opposed to a commercial photographer who took a photo of a street scene and later sold it for use in an ad campaign. I did think of the notoriety surrounding Doisneau's photo 'The Kiss' where things seem to have gone sideways.

So is your question leading to the question, shoot first and ask questions later? I'm old school in that asking first will in almost all cases change the feel of the moment, I'm no longer just a casual observer who has stumbled upon a special moment in time but I've now contaminated the purity of that situation with my presence but then that is my shooting style and part of the photographic puzzle in my case which is to find that decisive moment. There are however many photojournalists who will step in and set up a shot and because of this they probably make a more 'salable' product much like a studio photographer does. For me that takes some of the spontaneousness away from the photograph and that isn't my style.

Brad_ · August 2, 2011

<img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2011%20photos/Mavericks.jpg"

>>> Perhaps it's more about the particular photographer?

Me: For street photography, I don't ask. Although I have certain rights to shoot anything I want,

within limits of law, I don't necessarily feel compelled or obligated to exercise them in all situations (where

a PJ will to get a story). Further, personal ethics trump my right shoot in some situations.

Although I don't ask for permission, many times subjects are aware of my presence. But that's

because I shoot close, in the open and in plain sight.

luis_g · August 2, 2011

Kevin Omura - "I must admit that I've never heard of a separation between journalism and street photography granted my 'spider sense' is tingling now. I would think they are mutually connected to some degree sorry I don't follow the forums on here, granted from the way this discussion seems to be headed I'm not so sure I'd find it very enlightening."

Kevin, you're right about the connection, which dates back to when a lot of SP'ers were also PJs, and many of the pictures that became famous later as SP were also taken to sell to papers and magazines as features and sold/ published as such. The difference is that PJ pictures are pinned to a specific time/place, meant for publication, and often illustrate accompanying text, and SP generally (but not always) doesn't do that.

I think most of us have thought about the "purity" thing. Sometimes it's more significant than others. People like Jeff Spirer have written at length about gaining access, having permission, then as his subjects go about their business, and he about his, the situation regains its natural status. People can only sustain their masks for so long. Many renowned SPers, like Eggleston, ask permission. They shake hands, introduce themselves and ask people whether they'd like to be photographed, as do many others. The people we photograph react to who we are, how we present ouselves, and mostly to our body language, vocal intonation, pacing, etc., not so much what we say.

For me, I don't have a prescribed formula. What I do depends on the way I want the picture to look. With things that are ephemeral, thin-slices, or very sensitive, I'll just start making exposures. Other times, I ask, and even that has an affective spectrum. I may introduce myself and talk about the pictures, or be much briefer, sometimes via miming, with just a "may I" nod (and there's a spectrum of variants on that) and a tilt of the camera elicits approval -- and less intrusive effects. For me, the degree of intrusiveness is another variable to manipulate, and I use it.

kevin_omura · August 2, 2011

<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>, Aug 02, 2011; 11:39 a.m.

Kevin, you're right about the connection, which dates back to when a lot of SP'ers were also PJs, and many of the pictures that became famous later as SP were also taken to sell to papers and magazines as features and sold/ published as such. The difference is that PJ pictures are pinned to a specific time/place, meant for publication, and often illustrate accompanying text, and SP generally (but not always) doesn't do that.

Why don't street photographs pin themselves to a specific time and place? Seems rather illogical considering there will be time and place clues in most photographs be it hair style, clothing, signs etc. My gut feeling is, does it matter at all or is this just some limitation someone puts on the subject because they don't fully understand it?

Sorry Jeff Spirer isn't a name I'm familiar with but I did a fast google and from his website he seems more into documentary than street as defined here. He seems to shoot as if perhaps influenced by Larry Clark.

In terms of gaining access, I think one of the real masters of this is Gene Richards who spent a lot of time working with different groups of people in order to produce exceptionally strong bodies of work. For example the Knife and Gun Club, and Below the Line or Mary Ellen Mark's Falkland Road or Gene Smith's Minimata but do they fall easily into what it seems others are defining here as 'street photography'?

Perhaps as I wondered in the very beginning was there a need to zero in on who are street photographers and would this lead us to a better understanding of the genre......

In terms of what works for you, I think developing a personal style is probably one of the hardest things a photographer can do since there is so much influence out there. I still flit about working with new ideas but always seem to gravitate back to particular subjects and methods. And yet I spend a lot of time looking at other photographers work and always have because we can always learn and grow....... I think that is what I find disappointing about some of this discussion, that the ability to grow, expand, learn is being stifled by the need to limit or compartmentalize......

Sign In

What is, and is not, street photography?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in