Soapbox Rant: What Do You Hate About Street Photography?

[cyanatic]

<p>I understand, Jeff. I wasn't really talking about being serious about the hating part, more about photographic discussions in general.<br>

Okay, Lex:</p>

<p>How do you get the street photographer off your front porch?<br>

.<br>

.<br>

.<br>

.<br>

.<br>

.<br>

.<br>

.<br>

Pay them for the pizza.</p>

 

[Spearhead]

<p>That's similar to an old actor joke.<br>

<br />An actor runs into an actor friend on Broadway. The friend says "I just got a job!"<br /> The first actor says, "Great, what restaurant?"</p>

[cyanatic]

<blockquote>

<p>That's similar to an old actor joke.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I adapted from an artist friend who told it to me as an "artist" joke. It probably originated as an actor joke.</p>

[Gup]

<p>Did you hear the one about the street photographer who walked into a bar?<br>

You'd think he would have seen it coming.</p>

 

[Uhooru]

<p>Did you hear about the actor, the dancer, the poet, the painter and the street photographer that went into a bar? the bartender turned around and said........<br>

What is this? some kind of joke?</p>

[spanky]

<p>Jeff Spier 7:43 pm - Exactly what I've been trying to say. I also don't hate anything about SP because I don't care what other people are doing or saying which is why I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this thread. I'm too busy with managing my own results to expend the same energy elsewhere. Ultimately, the work we produce has to meet with our own approval first and foremost. For some people, though that's not enough. They need some sort of validation from others. I've seen some pretty mediocre SP on flickr that have been given glowing praise by many simply due to the fact that the photographer has built up a following of admirers who are impressed with mediocre work. I have no problem with this because I understand that the need for approval is very strong in many people; it's a human trait. </p>

<p>I've been a regular here on this forum for many years. I enjoy looking at other peoples work, but I rarely make comments simply because I'm certainly no expert on SP, I can only discuss what I've found works for me. Who wants to read that? What works for E.Short, or for Brad or for me is arrived at through trial and error. What works for us on an individual basis is in a large part due to our own individual idiosyncrasies. We are the sum parts of our culture, background, influences and so on. What works for Brad and gets him the results he is after will not work for me, even if we are both out shooting together and we both shoot the same scene.</p>

<p>So again, I'm at a loss as to why E.Short has started this thread when he has not provided examples of how his rants are affecting his own work. I mean I hate LA traffic but what is my displeasure at crawling along the 405 going to change about it? Not a single thing; and if I'm late to work is it the fault of traffic or is it because I'm often lazy and sluggish in the morning when getting ready to start my day? To recap: Whatever anyone else does and wishes to call SP, it should be of no concern. Likewise whatever anyone says about anothers work should also be of no concern. If I ever got to the point where such things that are out of my control started getting under my skin like they seem to be doing to others, then that would be the time for me to hang up my cameras for good because that would be the time that SP stopped being fun for me.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>I don't care what other people are doing or saying</em>>>></p>

<p>You obviously DO care. You care enough to have just written 3 substantial paragraphs about what E Short has said. That's exactly what he's doing about OTHER street photographers. For the same reason you cared to post what you just posted, E cared to post what he originally posted and others cared to respond.</p>

[shutterbud]

<p>It is worth noting at this point that what you see when you select the Street menu in the gallery browser for this forum is really not what you get when you google Street Photography and manage to track down the really good stuff that's out there.<br>

On PN it's deeply misunderstood/misrepresented.<br>

And yes, taking hundreds of almost identical pictures of women from behind and a long way off is pretty pointless.</p>

[saintelmo21]

<blockquote>

<p>So again, I'm at a loss as to why E.Short has started this thread when he has not provided examples of how his rants are affecting his own work....Marc</p>

<p>I really feel like that type of behavior is marking me as some kind of <strong>Pervert</strong> because I’m out on the street with a camera. I’m actually so self-conscious about it, that I don’t even consider women as subject material out of fear they will react negatively. I’m missing out on some great photo opportunities because of that, and I really need to progress past the negativity. I just don’t like being associated with jack-asses......E.Short</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is one example from my first post. Another is that, while I still take the occasional back shot. I rarely post it as an example of my photography. Here is one notable (for me) exception:<br /> <img src="/general-comments/attachment/24606216/16636855.jpg" alt="" width="630" height="587" /><br /> I like this photo, "Wistful", because the subjects are the man and the children, fence, etc. as a whole; and not just the man's back. My distaste for the back shot is something I learned on this forum, from the same people posting on this thread. I'm glad I learned it here, it is generally speaking poor technique.<br>

I started the thread with view towards meaningful discussion...what I've got from most of the Californians here is the typical Laissez-faire attitude towards life and everything which has gotten your state morally and financially bankrupt.....</p>

<p> </p>

[saintelmo21]

<p>Steve Conkie, that is what I was talking about. But, I didn't want to say it. There are also some really fine examples of SP to be found in the same place. I'm not mentioning any names, but there is a young lady from Eastern Europe who's SP really impresses me. I take every opportunity to comment on her photos.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>I think we all have our own opinions and standards in photography, especially street photography because it's mostly an aesthetic thingy. Rating only go as far as weeding out obvious bad photos. And sometimes, it doesn't even do that for me... </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>On PN it's deeply misunderstood/misrepresented.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Are you going to help all of us poor peasants out here or just make profound statements?</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>SP is the ugly misunderstood sister of documentary photography. She has gotten so popular these days that she's been made over and put on a pedestal, yet still grossly misunderstood by its loudest, most adoring fans...</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"On PN it's deeply misunderstood/misrepresented."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Try YouTube or 4chan /p/ where the bro force is strong. You might find more compatible notions of good street photography.</p>

[shutterbud]

<p>Thanks for the advice, though I cannot get a reliable connection to youtube due to my location.<br />It's really disappointing to see so many pissy posts. If no-one is allowed to criticise anyone or anything, even in the most abstract terms, I struggle to see the point of a forum dedicated to this genre. I welcome constructive feedback and was gratified by the responses to my thread requesting such a while back. I feel I got better as a result. For some reason the files uploaded to my Gallery page look terrible, even when they look fine elsewhere, so I have not been updating for some time. I am no more than an enthusiastic amatuer at the start of his journey but this does not mean I can't recognise a great shot, or more importantly, a portfolio of great shots taken by a talented photographer. But if we are all to pretend that PN is the last word in SP or that there is no such thing as a bad photograph or that no-one ever gets into a rut, because we're all precious little souls with our own truths to tell, we are wasting the opportunity get better.</p>

 

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>If no-one is allowed to criticise anyone or anything</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

You didn't post a criticism. You posted a swipe at a bunch of people with no justification of your opinion. Just another casual drive-by non-criticism.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But if we are all to pretend that PN is the last word in SP</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

<br />Please show me where this pretending is happening.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Are you going to help all of us poor peasants out here or just make profound statements?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

You forgot to answer this. You just gave us more drive-by attacks.</p>

[shutterbud]

<p>I don't need you to tell me my opinion is justified Jeff. It's my opinion.<br />"Attacks"?<br />I think it's time for your cocoa now. And maybe a wee lie down.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't need you to tell me my opinion is justified</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Who said you did?</p>

 

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>I think it's time for your cocoa now. And maybe a wee lie down.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

 

Speaking as the moderator, cause for removal.

 

<p> </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"It's really disappointing to see so many pissy posts."<br>

"I think it's time for your cocoa now. And maybe a wee lie down."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Strong in this one, the dark irony force is.</p>

[cyanatic]

<blockquote>

<p><a name="00bGdm"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=7179352">Stephen Conkie</a> "...when you select the Street menu in the gallery browser...On PN it's deeply misunderstood/misrepresented."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If I choose "Browse Gallery" and select "Street", "Past 3 Days", and "Recent Ratings (average)", then I think I understand Stephen's statement. The initial majority of photos that come up are probably not of the sort that would come first to mind when most of us think of "street photography". Street, perhaps, but of a primarily picturesque nature. What one poster here once referred to as "twee". That may be because they are rated photos with a "street" category designation and are being voted on by people who are attracted more by initially compelling eye candy than substantive examples of SP. Just my conjecture, not a criticism. I've often been disappointed using that feature when looking for, well, work that is more to my taste, street or otherwise. </p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<p>The Top Rated Photos and similar gallery displays are useless for most niche genres like street and documentary photography, for two primary reasons:</p>

<ul>

<li>Most folks rate photos without regard to genre, based on eye candy appeal, as Steve noted.</li>

<li>Some folks game the system to get higher ratings. A few years ago I noted a clique of mate raters putting all of their photos in the News genre because it was used so little. The mate rating clique could easily find each others photos and high rate them via the anonymous rating system. Then they'd confirm the deed by writing "Well seen, my friend! 7/7 anon by me!"</li>

</ul>

<p>If you want to rant, it's easy. Fire up the keyboard. Slam your forehead against it. Stop when it feels good. Press Enter.</p>

<p>If you want to find good photography, it takes a little digging.</p>

<p>Even more difficult it opening ourselves up to differing viewpoints and aesthetics that aren't easy to like, "Like" or +1.</p>

<p> </p>

[shutterbud]

<p>I personally have never ranted on PN. I have only ever been honest about how I think about the matter at hand and never malicious, having only "pushed back" at times when I thought it necessary. I think a lot more good would come of these exchanges if it were accepted that, while it is highly unusual to change opinions, it is vital that they are shared, both good and bad. It amazes me how easily acrimony comes up on certain threads.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>"Hating" photos and even worse hating photographers, would be far from me. But I'm surely very little impressed by most, that is presented as "street photography", because I see it as having very little to do with "photography" and much more to do with voyeurism and hunt for the extreme and, it seems, for some, tentatively chocking images. <br>

I'm not a "street photographer", nor indeed a "photographer" at all, I just happen to shoot tons of photos in streets, because I see <em>the street</em> as an ever changing theatre of human and social interaction, that I find passionating to be in and photograph in the context of its physical frames, the streets, and buildings. The "street" is even more passionating when you travel a lot and discover the national cultures and customs exhibited in what people do in streets.<br>

Where I get seriously worried, is when I see "street photographers", professionals or amateurs alike, gimmicking each other in a hopefully friendly competition of shooting and sharing, what they expect others to expect of photos from "streets" - and even worse, mutually celebrating the most conform shots.</p>

[jonathan_reynolds]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't understand why people would want a picture of someone they don't know.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My Granny used to say that, when I was in my teens. "Who's that?" she would ask, about my latest photographic effort. "I don't know," I would say, "just someone I saw." "Why did you take a picture of him if you don't know him?"</p>

<p>The answer, if I could have articulated it at the time, is that people can be funny, noble, beautiful, heroic, pitiable, graceful, darn' ugly, strange, or simply a characteristic part of their time. I like funny and beautiful best, but all these things are worth capturing, if you want to be able to see them again and again. If the photo doesn't bear repeated viewing, either the subject matter was mundane or the technique was poor.</p>

<p> </p>

[spanky]

<p>I like E.Shorts example of a effective back shot. It works because with back shots it's even more important to establish a strong figure-ground relationship. For those who may not be familiar with the term, figure-ground is a academic term that is used to describe a composition. All images including paintings, even abstract ones, have figure-ground to varying degrees of effectiveness. It is about how the subject of an image resides in the overall composition. In E Shorts picture, the figure (the main subject) in this case the man in the foreground, and the ground, the soccer field each work equally to describe to others what the picture is about.</p>

<p>Now as to what the picture means, that is a whole other thing and that is going to vary greatly among people based on many different factors, but as far as back shots go, this is a good example of one that was executed with some thought. We see many back shots that are just that - pictures of peoples backs with nothing else to tie it to. When I see pictures like these, I just presume the photographer is new at SP and they are simply trying to get used to the dynamics of it all. Nothing wrong this, we all have to start somewhere and find out through lots of trial and error our own way of shooting. Last year I had dinner with a group of photographer friends and one young lady told me she wanted to start shooting more street but she found it very difficult. I nodded and told her "Just keep at. It never gets easy, but it will get easier."</p>