Blend in, be anonymous...

[Brad_]

>>> Doctrinaire views of types of photography matter to few people.

 

Not true. It matters to those who engage in specific types of photography (product, street, portrait,

commercial, fashion, war, product, wedding, people, photojournalism, etc). It informs with respect to communication

and discussion. It has nothing to do with romantic ideals.

 

>>> How does contrasting portrait and street or what is candid (photography)...

 

Because they are very different types of photography. Descriptors are useful in describing what's being

photographed and produced, and fosters communication about the process where very different methods and

skill sets are employed. Why not call "sports photography" simply event or documentary photography. Or

just be sloppy and call it all photography? Certainly you can if you want...

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Brad, the doctrinaire view that I find objectionable is one that declares street photographers have to be anonymous, blend in, and shoot candidly. That informs me of nothing useful. It's misguided and quite simply false. It may not be a romantic ideal but it's a myth that it's the only way a true street photographer can shoot, the only way to create a document, and the only way to achieve something that tells truths about people or situations. It's nonsense. This is the main thrust of Ilkka's first posts. A distinction between street photography and street portraits, to me, is a relatively minor point, given all the other things Ilkka has proposed. I'd be surprised if you disagree with me, knowing your work and having heard some of your well-formulated thoughts on the subject.</p>

<p>__________________________</p>

<p>Wikipedia can be a decent generic beginners' starting point. It can also be completely off base and misleading. It is incumbent on no serious photographer to update a facile Wikipedia entry. It's incumbent on a researcher with any degree of sophistication to understand what Wikipedia is and to move quickly on to other sources for a more in-depth and savvy view of any subject.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Brad, the doctrinaire view that I find objectionable is one that declares street photographers have to be

anonymous, blend in, and shoot candidly.

 

Fred, maybe it's due to my not careful reading, but I missed the declaration that sp must be done in that manner.

 

I still separate street photography and street portraiture (as I do wedding photography and event photography,

fashion and portraiture, etc,). Mostly because the approach is very different, as are results. For

example, although I know a lot of people who shoot sp, I know few who are comfortable in approaching a stranger on the

street in a random neighborhood or environment, engage in chit-chat, apply some direction, and take a portrait.

Not that that's the only way to take a portrait on the street; ie, for me, I engage strangers because it's what I like

to do. Resulting photographs are (usually) very different, though they don't necessarily have to be, depending on

one's photographic objectives/goals.

 

Heh, I'm not sure about my well-formulated thoughts you're referring to, but that's pretty much been my view.

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>I still separate street photography and street portraiture</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The line is blurry for me. I much prefer blurry lines to fine ones. Jeff Spirer has talked about elaborate setups in his street work and many great street portraits have no setup and there is no direct engagement between photographer and subject. Street work doesn't have to be done with "strangers." Many people who are familiar with those on the street and even consider themselves part of the life of the street are photographers taking street photos. They are interacting with their subjects and environment, not necessarily visiting it as a stranger. One can take a great street portrait anonymously and candidly just as one can take a great street photo with forethought, engagement, and interaction between photographer and subject. I guess when it comes to categorization, though I understand its usefulness in some respects, I'm usually skeptical when the divisions don't allow for a lot of overlap and inter-mixing. The minute a category or genre is presumed to be set in stone or even reasonably defined, a creative person will come along and re-define or un-define it, often by bringing in something from another genre or by doing what the genre or category supposedly does not allow. Those occurrences, to me, are of great significance.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Fred,</p>

<p>I think the gist of the problem is that you assume that <em>street photography <</em>=> <em>street + photography <=> photography on the street</em>. This is not so. Combinations of words often have specific meanings different from what a literal translation would suggest. If I'm not mistaken they're called <em>idioms </em>in English and they're very common.</p>

<p>I don't believe anyone has suggested that <em>you </em>must work in a certain way when photographing (people) on the street. I gave some of <em>my reasons</em> for why I do not go talk to strangers on the street for the purposes of making portraits (just a one person's point of view). I didn't suggest that other people should have a similar way of thinking. Or at least I didn't <em>mean to</em> suggest that.</p>

[john_robison3]

<p>Wiki has it wrong from the get go.</p>

<p>It's a Leica M and a bag of Tri-X. (Not roll of Tri-X.)</p>

<p>Actually, although I have an M4-2 my favorite 'street' camera is a 35mm half frame Pen S 3.5 viewfinder camera. Seventy two shots! Woo-hoo!</p>

[luis_g]

<p> I find the doctrinaire views as expressed in Wiki, the OP, and Ilkka's pay-for-play system severely lacking to describe the range of ways SPers use. They hamstring more than they inform. I don't care about the restrictions others place on themselves regarding their work. That kind of thing can sometimes lead to positive outcomes, but imposing them over the entire field, and others, ends up at the very least being restricting.</p>

<p>I think the Wiki description is much too 50's, facile and fundamentalist. I do not think SP is documentary in nature, though the term is often used to justify its existence by those who feel the need to.</p>

<p>I'm with Jeff Spirer on the Wiki SP def.</p>

<p>While I agree with the late Garry Winogrand that it's "all still photography", like Brad and countless others I also use generalized categories to discuss different areas or kinds of work in the medium. There's a lot of crossover between these categories, and some people seem to walk on water between them, but the terms are eminently <em>useful </em>in talking about these things.</p>

<p>I seriously doubt Fred limits his description of street photography to requiring a physical street (or avenue).</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Luis, I shoot mostly on boulevards!</p>

<p>__________________________</p>

<p>Ilkka, let me assure you that I know the difference between street photography and shooting on the street. It's your definition of street photography I have a quarrel with. Like Luis, I would advocate you shoot however you want and am glad to listen to you talk about the way you shoot. But when you, the OP, and Wikipedia define street photography in general (not just the way you personally shoot) as narrowly as has been done here, it bears challenging.</p>

[john_robison3]

<p>I have a serious question.<br>

When did the label 'street photography' enter the vernacular? I don't remember seeing it as late as the mid to late 70's.</p>

[Brad_]

Blurry lines are great if they are used to foster the breaking of new ground, expanding the genre, etc. But too many

times blurriness is invoked by some to simply expand and open up the "definition" so that one can say they "shoot

street," or "street portraiture." Usually because shooting to create photos to what others might call traditional definitions is pretty

damn tough. That's easy to see when viewing sets of photos over time.

 

This topic gets kicked around on the S&D forum yearly. Sometimes more often.

 

Many will say that simply capturing a person on a street is street photography.The result is you see a lot of "street"

photos posted of a person walking down the sidewalk, usually at an angle, with absolutely nothing else going on or

evoked. They're almost always poorly considered/framed, with no other qualities (mystery, attitude, gravitas, humor,

irony, symbology, nice light, juxtaposition, ambiguity, controlling what's revealed, etc, to name a few) that would

cause a viewer to care or look for more than 1/2 second.

 

Or there will be a posted "street portrait" of a random person captured without even the intent of creating a portrait

(let alone engagement) when the shutter is released, poorly considered and framed, lots of clutter. And snagged with a long lens a quarter block down because the photographer is afraid of being seen taking pictures of a person.

But there's a person on the street in the frame, so therefore it's "street portraiture," even though that declaration is

made after the fact!

 

Blurry lines in these situations simply makes taking street or street portraits easy, rather than breaking new ground and fostering the creation

of good/compelling photography.

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Anything else is exploitation IMO.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Guess you think Avedon was an exploiter. He frequently took people out of their work situations just to photograph them.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>portrait photography (which typically involves engaging with the subject) </p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you read Avedon at Work in the American West, you will find that he didn't often engage much with his subjects. He photographed them the way he wanted to photograph them. And he is regarded as one of the greatest portrait photographers ever. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>However, to do that well I have to know the subject well - how else could I know that the final photograph reflects their personality? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why does the photograph have to reflect their personality? People who do street portraits, and many famous portrait photographers (including, once again, Avedon) don't know their subjects well, yet their portraits are well-known, hanging in museums, published in books. Maybe you should stretch your boundaries and get outside the box a little.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>The result is you see a lot of "street" photos posted of a person walking down the sidewalk, usually at an angle, with absolutely nothing else going on or evoked. They're almost always poorly considered/framed, with no other qualities (mystery, attitude, gravitas, humor, irony, symbology, nice light, juxtaposition, ambiguity, controlling what's revealed, etc, to name a few) that would cause a viewer to care or look for more than 1/2 second.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Brad, you're describing a bad street photo. I don't see what the problem is. Because a portrait is bad doesn't mean it's not a portrait. Because a landscape photo is poorly considered, badly lit, nothing significant going on doesn't mean it's not a landscape photo. It means it's a bad landscape photo. Street photos are no exception. There are good ones and bad ones. You're simply describing bad ones.</p>

[Brad_]

Fred, no I'm simply describing photos that don't rise to the level of portraiture or street photography. Not

what is good or bad.

 

If your position is any photo of a person (which is optional) on a street is street photography, and it's just a matter of the image falling on spectrum from good to bad (and also portraiture because

there's a person in the frame), it is then not about fine lines vs blurry lines. There are no lines.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>If a category is really a category and not a value judgment, photos wouldn't "rise to the level" of these so-called categories. It sounds more like you're creating classes (in a sort of caste system) of photos rather than categories of them.</p>

[Brad_]

No Fred, categories. Similar to actual forums here on photonet (S&D, Travel, Sports, Wedding, Portrait, etc).

[alan_zinn]

<p>Given a gob of images one should be able to easily sort through them and find the certified, genuine street stuff:<br>

"…nope, wedding, nope, wedding, nope, wedding, nope, sport, nope, sport, nope, nature, aha! has to be street alright: gritty stuff, possible urban alienation going on, guy caught unawares looking awkward, 35mm, TX printed with black frame borders plugin. But wait! Take that back, guy saw shooter - has to be street <em>portrait</em>. Almost made it out of the shot too. Damn!</p><div></div>

[luis_g]

<p>Still laughing here, Alan. Than you for saying what a lot of us are thinking.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>No Fred, categories. Similar to actual forums here on photonet (S&D, Travel, Sports, Wedding, Portrait, etc).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Brad, where would the photo you're describing below be placed?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The result is you see a lot of "street" photos posted of a person walking down the sidewalk, usually at an angle, with absolutely nothing else going on or evoked. They're almost always poorly considered/framed, with no other qualities (mystery, attitude, gravitas, humor, irony, symbology, nice light, juxtaposition, ambiguity, controlling what's revealed, etc, to name a few) that would cause a viewer to care or look for more than 1/2 second.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>_________________________</p>

<p>Alan, thumbs up.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Brad, where would the photo you're describing below be placed?

 

Don't know...

[tonmestrom]

<p>non-issue!</p>

<ul>

<li>I know a lot of interesting people who shoot boring work</li>

<li>I know a lot of boring people who shoot extremely interesting work</li>

</ul>

<p>I also know a lot of boring people who shoot extremely boring work. I'm sure anybody knows what advice they should get.<br /> Discussion for discussions sake or putting up unanswerable questions without any relevance is also boring so let me enter.</p>

<p>Categorisation has its upsides but it has even more limitations. So has projection. Personally I don't care about that. I know the work of a lot of people here above and whether they are street, documentary or whatever kind of photographer is actually the last thing on my mind when looking at their work. I'm interested in whether it's good and interesting photography that appeals to me or not.</p>

<p>As for me, I'm extremely boring. On the upside however that also means that I'm quite comfortable spending time with myself when alone shooting out there or spending hour after hour going through books.</p>

<p>Hey, one has to keep a positive outlook!</p>

[Sanford]

<p>I don't think we all get the same photos at the bottom of this page, they seem to change randomly on each refresh.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Could be wedding.</p>

[Brad_]

Fred, right now, looking out my window, about a hundred feet away, I see a guy in a tree along the side of

the road, with a saw in his hand. If I were to take a photo from here, what category would you put the

photograph in?

 

Ton, smells like a portrait to me...

[tonmestrom]

<p>yes it could be Luis, except I don't do weddings (anymore). Talk about boring ;-))) The only interesting thing about weddings is the money that's in it. Well, at least for me it was. For some time anyway.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>if it smells like one Brad then surely it must be.</p>

<p>As for your question that would have to be medical since it's most likely a tree surgeon ;-)</p>