What is, and is not, street photography?

[Brad_]

>>> Why don't street photographs pin themselves to a specific time and place?

 

Many do. For example, over the past year I (and a co-photographer/author) spent the majority of my time shooting and documenting one

specific San Francisco neighborhood. Meeting a wide variety of people, making connections, taking

photos, gathering stories, and producing a 52 page journal (where the proceeds go to a charity organization that helps

at-risk neighborhood youth).

 

I simply choose to not call it "street photography."

[john_macpherson]

<p>Kevin - re the recent comments you and Luis make regarding "advantages" and "ethics" and where thats taken this discussion.</p>

<p>I guess that adopting a 'journalistic' approach (perhaps as a proper pj and putting personal ethics aside) one is ultimately constrained by editorial controls, in the same situation in which the 'artist' can, and often does, have the ability to transcend those restrictions because 'art' (it could be argued legally) 'interprets', where documentary purports to be 'a truth'.</p>

<p>The photogs you mention, Richards, Mark, Smith, I think ALL purported to portray the truth. It was a 'truth' because they knew the story and explored it over time.</p>

<p>Street, does not (for the most part) explore 'truth', it might explore the reality of a moment, and reveal a huge amount about that moment, but its often a fly in aspic, whats there is there, and no more, the photographer does not know the story. Any 'meaning' is left to the viewer - thats the magic I think, to which I alluded earlier - we bring our preconceptions, misconceptions and prejudices to bear when viewing. Alan mentioned the visual literacy too - an often overlooked skill - which also comes into play.</p>

<p>Street photography is I guess freeform jazz. Its not a notated and rigid symphonic piece, with a start, middle and end, it just kind of flows and where it takes you, and what it reveals, is entirely down to you.</p>

<p> </p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>Kevin O,<br>

I probably used the term "ethics" too loosely to expect a useful comparison of SP and journalism. The reflexive popular sense of both is of aggression and disregard for civility. Your thoughts present a more nuanced difference. The point of individual "style" or MO reminds us to consider those factors when we view both kinds of pictures. Your more peripheral, style requires a refined sense of what is appropriate to the moment the same as SP does (or should). The set-up or documentary style places all the actors in a comfortable space. <br>

As you say, and I believe most of us have sensed, there are significant differences in the ways people respond to various equipment. The big, fast (white!) zoom lens screams <strong>media</strong>! The pervasiveness of cameras requires subjects and photographers to make constant adjustments to their public behavior street by street. I always like to comment on the way more people seem to duck away from my camera (whatever format) or pause before going past out of courtesy rather than shyness, ruining my candid moment. They've learned cell phone camera etiquette! </p><div></div>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Kevin - "</strong>Why don't street photographs pin themselves to a specific time and place?"</p>

<p>Because they are <em>generally</em> not news pictures, nor illustrating text (although there may be accompanying text) nor subject to editorial vetting. They are easily connectable to an era, sometimes to a specific year, but it's nothing like a news photo. In most cases, it doesn't matter what day or month it was, or even what year. They work the same. </p>

<p>Look at Brad's picture of four people standing by a storefront posted above at Aug 02, 2011; 10:31 a.m. By looking at it, can we tell whether it was made in SF, Newark, Denver, Seattle or? I seriously doubt it. Does it really matter? Can we tell what day/year (besides the cig prices)/month? Not easily. Nor is it crucial to the viewer's appreciation of this photograph. But if it was in a newspaper or magazine, we would expect to have that information readily available, and odds are it would be, probably even the names of those pictured.</p>

<p><strong>Kevin - </strong>"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. "</p>

<p>I mentioned Jeff because he is a regular and moderator here on PN. I agree with what you say to a point, though I think he does SP also, but I brought up Jeff specifically WRT the candid business, "purity", and the "contamination"of the moment, because he does get permission for a lot of his access pics and has commented on how this does/does not affect the cadid aspects as much as one might think. That is all. Not to define what SP is. It was an analog, not a literal, direct comparison.</p>

<p>Personally, I have what a lot here would consider a "loose" and open-ended interpretation of SP. Many might say that it is stifling, or leads to dissipation, etc. Or that eclectic equals generic. They're entitled to their opinion, which I may heartily disagree with, but I am not proselytizing, or telling others to do as I do because what I do is the one right and true thing. It's only where my life has led me, and theirs, them.</p>

<p>Several of us have contributed our varied ideas regarding our (or the idea of "a") definition of SP in this thread. Some are ironclad-tight, some far less so. For me, it is not disappointing to read about the more hermetic definitions. Everyone is entitled to work in their own way, and if it stifles growth, expansion, learning, etc., it is only their own personal work and no one else's that benefits or suffers by the consequences. In the end, I find it interesting, and, who knows? In art, some ridiculously straitjacketed approaches have led to great work.</p>

<p>[Just in case I didn't make myself clear, I never said that SP cannot cross over into PJ, or documentary, etc. and vice versa. That is what I meant by "the edges are fuzzy". There is crossover.<strong>]<br /></strong></p>

<p> </p>

[cyanatic]

<p>As much as chestnut topics like this one may be decried for their repetition, there is almost always something to be learned, particularly when it goes on for this many pages. If not about the topic itself, then certainly something about the participants, their aesthetic opinions, their work, and their interaction with others. </p>

<p>In the end, I don't know that it much matters whether one person agrees with another person's definition of Street Photography. There is no SP Board of Governors. It is convenient and often helpful to categorize and define, but a photograph is either significant, or it's not. (Substitute "good" for "significant" if you prefer.) </p>

<p> Definitions are like rules: there are always exceptions. And it is sometimes the exceptions which can delight and seem more significant because they expand boundaries that more orthodox adherents do not like to brush up against. (The flip side, of course, is that the exceptions can also be used to justify unintentional mistakes, the mediocre, or the outright bad) So, merely as food for thought, some examples of exceptions (or not -- some people may think some of these do not fall within the SP category). </p>

<p>Three oft repeated maxims of SP: People, Proximity, Face-On </p>

<p>People: "Street photography must have people"<br>

(Ishimoto, Jorgensen)</p>

<p><a href="http://florallittle.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/yasuhiro_ishimoto_untitled_steps_of_the_art_institute_of_chicago_1278_67.jpg">http://florallittle.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/yasuhiro_ishimoto_untitled_steps_of_the_art_institute_of_chicago_1278_67.jpg</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.stephendaitergallery.com/dynamic/images/display/Yasuhiro_Ishimoto_Chicago_car_in_snow_2750_102.jpg">http://www.stephendaitergallery.com/dynamic/images/display/Yasuhiro_Ishimoto_Chicago_car_in_snow_2750_102.jpg</a></p>

<p><a href="http://toomuchchocolate.org/interview/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/boatandshoes.jpg">http://toomuchchocolate.org/interview/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/boatandshoes.jpg</a></p>

<p><a href="http://streetreverbmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/26-Nils-Jorgensen-e1287326620147.jpg">http://streetreverbmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/26-Nils-Jorgensen-e1287326620147.jpg</a></p>

<p>Proximity: "A good street photograph must be taken up close":<br>

(Strand, Friedlander, Jorgensen, Callahan, Ishimoto)</p>

<p><a href="http://iconicphotos.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/wall-street-1915-paul-strand.jpg?w=700&h=542">http://iconicphotos.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/wall-street-1915-paul-strand.jpg?w=700&h=542</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.mediabistro.com/unbeige/files/original/(Lee%20Friedlander).jpg">http://www.mediabistro.com/unbeige/files/original/(Lee%20Friedlander).jpg</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.eriklunsford.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/nils340x510_1.jpg">http://www.eriklunsford.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/nils340x510_1.jpg</a></p>

<p><a href="http://mocp.org/collections/permanent/uploads/Callahan1986_33.jpg">http://mocp.org/collections/permanent/uploads/Callahan1986_33.jpg</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/reviews/cassidy/Images/cass05s.jpg">http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/reviews/cassidy/Images/cass05s.jpg</a></p>

<p>Face On: "Street photographs should show someone from the front, not the back":<br>

(Friedlander, Jorgensen, Posner, Ishimoto)</p>

<p><a href="http://www.sfmoma.org/view/assets/images/exhibitions/friedlander_newyork.jpg?w=366&h=230&scale=fit&smileaction=image">http://www.sfmoma.org/view/assets/images/exhibitions/friedlander_newyork.jpg?w=366&h=230&scale=fit&smileaction=image</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/dynamic/00558/C_Nils_Jorgensen__C_558349s.jpg">http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/dynamic/00558/C_Nils_Jorgensen__C_558349s.jpg</a></p>

<p><a href="http://static.blogo.it/clickblog/NotesfromUndergroundIgorPosner.jpg">http://static.blogo.it/clickblog/NotesfromUndergroundIgorPosner.jpg</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.escapeintolife.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Yasuhiro_Ishimoto_Untitled_Chicago_1285_67.jpg">http://www.escapeintolife.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Yasuhiro_Ishimoto_Untitled_Chicago_1285_67.jpg</a></p>

[luis_g]

<p> "I think that those kind of distinctions and lists of titles like "street photographer" are so stupid. I'm a photographer, a still photographer. That's it."<a href="http://www.photoquotes.com/showquotes.aspx?id=22&name=Winogrand%20,Garry"> </a><br>

--- Garry Winogrand</p>

<p> “<em>I only know how to approach a place by walking. For what does a street photographer do but walk and watch and wait and talk, and then watch and wait some more, trying to remain confident that the unexpected, the unknown, or the secret heart of the known awaits just around the corner</em>.”</p>

<p> --- Alex Webb</p>

<p> </p>

[john_macpherson]

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="976">

<tbody>

<tr valign="top">

<td height="5"><br /></td>

</tr>

<tr valign="top">

<td><br /></td>

<td>

<p><em>"To me, photography is an art of observation. It‘s about finding something interesting in an ordinary place... I've found it has little to do with the things you see and everything to do with the way you see them."</em></p>

<p><em>Elliot Erwitt<br /></em><br>

<em> </em></p>

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

[alan_zinn]

<p>I'm sensing here a more political difference among opinions regarding the SP tenants rather than choice of subject or formal difference. How the photographer imagines their personal motives or their degree of reciprocity can't be readily seen in the images. That confuses the issue for some. As a rule I don't depict down and out or marginal people as victims. I want to show some sense of coping and struggle by the subject. That political choice usually results in a better picture.</p>

<p>Luis,<br>

The caption you provide does just what I hope for in my pictures and why they don't often have titles. I would have never thought of "bum mummy". I like to believe I was seeing a coping strategy by a down and outer. He (?) worked out a clever tableau juxtaposing food books and an abstract - Henry Moore /Christo on wheels sculpture. How POMO is that?!</p><div></div>

[Brad_]

<center><img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2011%20photos/NoPeople1.jpg"></center><P>

 

People are not always necessary. Evidence of their existence in an urban environment works fine...<P>

 

 

 

<img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2011%20photos/NoPeople2.jpg">

[luis_g]

<p>Steve Gubin, thanks for the beautifully chosen selection of exceptions to the "close-range" rule. I would add several works by Roy de Carava and Beat Streuli.<br /> _________________________________________________________</p>

<p>Alan Z., in the "bum mummy" picture, for me, the wrap turns it from yet another image of an individual homeless person into an archetype for all homeless. As I mentioned, the figure becomes a monument of sorts. The invisibility of the homeless to passers-by, which is conventionally shown by portraying the disconnect between them, becomes a literal, visible barrier that works both ways. In the mummified version, the man below the blanket becomes a kind of Schrodinger's bum. Is he alive? More important to me is that he is also transformed, like a mummy, into a cultural artifact, and by default, a signifier of the culture and times.<br /> ______________________________________________________</p>

<p>I do not see it as a weakness that there is quite a range of definitions, even the seemingly contradictory ones, and those that are being seriously revised on the fly. The tensions in these paradoxes between definitions creates defines and expands the larger field that encompasses all of them.In other words, it's a healthy sign.<br /> _______________________________________________________</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Alan Z., in the "bum mummy" picture, for me, the wrap turns it from yet another image of an

individual homeless person into an archetype for all homeless. As I mentioned, the figure becomes a

monument of sorts. The invisibility of the homeless to passers-by, which is conventionally shown by

portraying the disconnect between them, becomes a literal, visible barrier that works both ways. In the

mummified version, the man below the blanket becomes a kind of Schrodinger's bum. Is he alive? More

important to me is that he is also transformed, like a mummy, into a cultural artifact, and by default, a

signifier of the culture and times.

 

Odd, I just see a tightly cropped exploitive drive by snap of a person in a helpless condition. Almost

identical to dozens/hundreds of others I see on flickr, where photographers are afraid to shoot an

otherwise aware person strait up, unencumbered by their condition. I've seen much better from Alan. Just

being honest...

[cyanatic]

<blockquote>

<p>Luis G: "I would add several works by Roy de Carava and Beat Streuli."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Only passingly familiar with de Carava, so first thing I had to do was find more examples of his and Streuli's work. (This really drifts far afield from the OP because I'm including these links on the sheer basis of having been being struck by some of them. Still, having been mentioned, I think they're worth a look for those who are interested)</p>

<p>I think de Carava's work strikes a more sympatico chord in me than does Streuli, at least initially. </p>

<p>3 by de Carava</p>

<p><a href="http://static.skynetblogs.be/media/151083/dyn009_original_474_722_pjpeg_2679661_db84d7182982b94cd2a3f22fdcf34367.jpg">http://static.skynetblogs.be/media/151083/dyn009_original_474_722_pjpeg_2679661_db84d7182982b94cd2a3f22fdcf34367.jpg</a></p>

<p><a href="http://28.media.tumblr.com/2m8BXUfrilveus0lBqTxSO0Ao1_r1_500.jpg">http://28.media.tumblr.com/2m8BXUfrilveus0lBqTxSO0Ao1_r1_500.jpg</a></p>

<p><a href="http://americanart.si.edu/eyelevel/images/decarava_lingerie.jpg">http://americanart.si.edu/eyelevel/images/decarava_lingerie.jpg</a></p>

<p>2 by Streuli (Streuli's isolated individuals remind me just a little of De Corcia minus the drama of the latter's light rig)</p>

<p><a href="http://www.sauer-thompson.com/junkforcode/archives/beatstreuli.Brusselsjpg.jpg">http://www.sauer-thompson.com/junkforcode/archives/beatstreuli.Brusselsjpg.jpg</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.elastic.org.uk/images/SOLD%20OUT%20Beat%20Steruli%2074_4494%20updated.jpg">http://www.elastic.org.uk/images/SOLD%20OUT%20Beat%20Steruli%2074_4494%20updated.jpg</a></p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Brad - "Odd, I just see a tightly cropped exploitive drive by snap of a person in a helpless condition. Almost identical to dozens/hundreds of others I see on flickr, where photographers are afraid to shoot an otherwise aware person strait up, unencumbered by their condition. I've seen much better from Alan. Just being honest..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A nice lead in to a different topic altogether: the malleability of aesthetic opinions depending on what tools you use to shape them, and what intent you credit the photographer with. I see your point, Brad, and would tend to agree with you. Yet there is validity to what Luis says as well. And does Luis' or Brad's analysis gain or lose strength based on Alan's intent? (And there's no accounting for taste, is there? Of the images you posted, Brad, I'm most fond of the dark street with the discarded cellophane in the foreground.) I've seen vernacular photos by unknown individuals that I find wonderful while I know full well that the sum of their parts had nothing to do with the photographer's intent. </p>

<p><a href="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_HBVKhiKXg8k/SubsIuKdOxI/AAAAAAAAEL4/QrlTpMNrGwA/Picture%2016.jpg">http://lh6.ggpht.com/_HBVKhiKXg8k/SubsIuKdOxI/AAAAAAAAEL4/QrlTpMNrGwA/Picture%2016.jpg</a></p>

<p><a href="http://kanardo.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/square_america.jpg?w=490">http://kanardo.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/square_america.jpg?w=490</a> </p>

<p> </p>

[luis_g]

<p>Steve, good post, but know I wasn't attributing intent to Alan in the comments I made on Alan's bum mummy pic. What I wrote is strictly what I saw in the image. I did not compare it to other pictures, either. I explicitly commented on that one image and my quick reading of it, nothing more.</p>

<p> </p>

[studio460]

<p>Michael said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I've seen vernacular photos by unknown individuals that I find wonderful while I know full well that the sum of their parts had nothing to do with the photographer's intent.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wow! Amazing! The "bad" composition in the first, and the "mis-frame" in the second--priceless. While this thread has generated some heat, there was plenty of enlightenment as well. Thank you, Michael, for your previously posted "definition" (complete with citations!). Nicely done, and a helpful guide for those learning to grasp the domain of the genre.</p>

[studio460]

<p>[double-post]</p>

[studio460]

<p>Brad said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>People are not always necessary. Evidence of their existence in an urban environment works fine . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well-said, and nicely captured! Thank you, Brad, for posting an example which "breaks the rules," yet still works within the genre. I especially like that shot of the sidewalk with the water. Kudos, on the San Francisco Chronicle coverage of your project as well--bravo!</p>

[richardsperry]

<p>Ralph,</p>

<p>I agree.</p>

<p>I remember a Sunday morning, almost two years ago. I and a friend got in line at Dottie's True Star in SF on Jones for breakfast, early. You have to get there early if you do want to eat breakfast. And across the street was someone's homestead, noticeable while we waited in line. But the person was no where around. Bit by bit, one article at a time, the jacket, the orange sleeping bag, the cart...all walked off with local passersby over a period of an hour or so.</p>

<p>By the time we went in to be served a seat, even the cardboard sheet on the sidewalk was gone.</p>

<p>I want to know that story. I want to know who those belongings belonged to. I want to know the people who took them. What once was somebody's makeshift home was now a clear sidewalk.</p>

<p>And no, I don't think Brad's and Travis' photos can answer those questions by themselves. But I do think that they might answer(or pose) other questions about the people who he/they photograph. There is a context that is explored. There is an interesting story to be told, some meaning there. And deserving of more exploration.</p>

<p>Honestly, and additionally, I think I am completely immune to the whole Bresson appeal. The Alicante, 1933 photo only leaves me with a question. Are these three women prostitutes or laundresses? The woman in the middle looks like Buster Keaton, so I suppose the laundress hypothesis is more correct. Anyway, I get no story or context from Bresson's work, and the photos he took, at least those available on Google images are not at all particularly interesting to me. /shrug.</p>

<p>But then again, I relish in the fact that I hold no higher degree in photography, nor was ever indoctrinated by someone holding a higher degree in photography to influence my opinion of what I like. I think that a sizable portion of people who like Bresson's stuff today, do so because they were told that they should like Bresson's stuff by somebody.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Ralph</strong>, I'd like to clarify that this quote,<br>

"I've seen vernacular photos by unknown individuals that I find wonderful while I know full well that the sum of their parts had nothing to do with the photographer's intent."<br>

...which you attributed to: "Michael said:"</p>

<p>Actually comes from Steve Gubin, posted on Aug 02, 2011; 11:22 p.m.</p>

<p>_______________________________________________</p>

<p><strong>Steve, </strong> I agree with that. I've mined that database in two ways, by looking at zillions of snapshots on the web and years before that, by working nights for months at a 1-hr photo. </p>

<p>________________________________________________</p>

<p> </p>

[cyanatic]

<p>Luis -- I know you weren't ascribing intent to Alan's "street mummy" pic, hope I didn't give that impression. Quick read or not, it diverged from my take and Brad's take and was -- to me -- an interesting example of how meaning or significance can sometimes be derived from a photo that others may dismiss and pass by. </p>

<p>Richard -- I hold no "higher degree in photography" either (possibly less so than you!). I like some of Bresson's work but am often puzzled by the seemingly high reverence in which he is held by some people (I feel the same way about Ansel Adams). Reminds me a little of Woody Allen's <em> Manhattan </em>and Diane Keaton's remark about the "Academy of the Overrated". Still, I wouldn't agree that Photography teachers or Fine Arts professors (if that's the type of higher degree you meant) "indoctrinate" their students to slavishly worship the work of this or that photographer so much as explicate the meanings and theories which are the underpinnings of historical or contemporary regard. </p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Brad E. - "</strong>People are not always necessary. Evidence of their existence in an urban environment works fine..."</p>

<p>I agree. That evidence covers a lot of territory.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>Brad, your "cultural artifact" comment is right on. We can strive for a visual syntax in the street environment that speaks to the general as well as particulars. A fancy lady coming out of a chic boutique fits the same rubric.<br>

Some people on the forum, including myself, have used the un-PC term "bum" ! Crazy thought: suppose the street person (SP) under the blanket was a street photographer (SP)?<br>

If you don't <em>get</em> something because you didn't study it in school you now have the pleasure of learning about it. Those who do get it shouldn't be dismissed as dupes of the academic cabal, however. We all get tired of the show curating and book publishing of "the usual suspects". </p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>Oh dern! I atributed Luis's remark about "cultural artifact to Brad. Sorry. <br>

Brad, <em>E</em><em>quivalence</em><em> </em>studies like yours place the viewer firmly in a larger context or mood.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Luis G. pointed out:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Ralph, I'd like to clarify [the quote] which you attributed to: "Michael said:" actually comes from Steve Gubin, posted on Aug 02, 2011; 11:22 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oops! Hate it when I do that! Apologies, all.</p>

<p><strong><em>Steve Gubin</em></strong>:<br>

<br /> Thank you, <strong><em>Steve Gubin</em></strong>, for your previously posted "definition" (complete with citations!). <em><strong>Nicely done</strong></em>, and a helpful guide for those learning to grasp the domain of the genre.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> I want to know that story. ... And no, I don't think Brad's and Travis' photos can answer those questions by themselves

 

I'd like to know that story too! And that's for sure, Richard, about not answering a lot of complex questions. What our project

was about is the process of engagement. Meeting lots of people, developing trust, making portraits trying to portray people in

a respectful and dignified manner, and making connections. It's kind of a first chapter that will hopefully enable future and much deeper

excursions. What's nice is that we are kind of being recognized and trusted as "the photographers" in the neighborhood. Even among those that

engage in certain activities where you wouldn't think that could happen. It's a start...

 

Hope to see you next Wednesday at the launch party, Richard. Will be great meeting you!

 

>>> Kudos, on the San Francisco Chronicle coverage of your project as well--bravo!

 

Thanks Ralph! It was a surprise and an honor...

[john_macpherson]

<blockquote>

<p>What's nice is that we are kind of being recognized and trusted as "the photographers" in the neighborhood. Even among those that engage in certain activities where you wouldn't think that could happen. It's a start...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That statement might slip through unremarked on, but let me draw readers attention to it.</p>

<p>This is a real testament to Brad and Travis approach to the work they are doing.</p>

<p>At a time when more and more restrictions are being placed on photographers, whether out of a misguided fear of terrorism, or whatever else, for someone to post that they are being trusted and welcomed as photographers is I believe something to celebrate.</p>

<p>About the story they're recording? My feeling - normal 'street snapshot' photography (and not to diminish it by using that term) simply captures a moment in time, a sentence in the 'writing' of the events of a place.</p>

<p>But in the work B & T are producing with this project, each image is more like a paragraph, and therefore by its very nature is becoming a part of something much larger and more informative. The great thing is that although its a 'story' that will have an ending for particular 'characters' , the wider narrative will simply continue and evolve, and in that unique way that photography can enable engagement, both B & T are now becoming characters within the story they're telling.</p>

<p>I just hope that other less 'careful' photographers dont view the work B & T are doing and think "I'll have some of that thank you very much" and wade in to the district less sensitively, thinking they 'know' the characters involved and therefore, like in the zoo, they're fair game for a long lens. But naw, none of the Pnet posters would be that crass and insensitive!</p>