Is everyone a street photographer now?

[Brad_]

On the subject of the de Young, as an aside, I wonder how effective their timed entry strategy really is

managing special exhibit traffic. Sometimes I think it produces higher concentrations of viewers compared

to the old random entry policy.

[MarieH]

<p>Crowds irk me, people in my way irk me, guys with nicer cameras who look better in their skinny jeans irk me. I live with it, generally in a good mood :) But crowds are where the people usually are is where the shots are. They often get in the way, and I get in their way, we are even. Its all part of the game.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"It seems as though every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a DSLR or a EVF camera out there snapping strangers"</p>

<p>Not in my part of the world. Rarely do I come across another street photographer...sort of feel lonely sometimes.</p>

<p>Among the Tom, Dick, and Harry will emerge talent which we can all enjoy....the more the merrier.</p>

<p>"and the folks with cameras bugged me no end, not because they were simply doing something which I had the option of ignoring but because they were rude, obtrusive, and clueless about the space of the other" Fred.</p>

<p>I was asked recently to take candid photos at a wedding. What a challenge the couple were mobbed by folks with cell phones/ps cameras....the shoulder barging would have done credit to a rugby team. Hey, the fairer sex were the main culprits and had the sharpest elbows.</p>

<p>So, I take Fred's point.</p>

<p>.</p>

[Wayne Melia]

<p>Lex: May30, 2014;01:12 -- that link is true treasure!</p>

[Uhooru]

<blockquote>

<p>Many people now have at least heard of "street photography" and have a handle on what it is we're doing wandering around with cameras and that hungry look in our eyes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm glad someone has a clue of what "we're" doing.<br>

<br>

I tend to believe that the trend to mass image making is irreversible, and affords a lot of potential, not the least being that the production and distribution of images is no longer dependent on a relatively small base of content distributors and the ability now exists to take control of the whole process of creating and sharing work. Of course its also now easier to get lost in an ever growing crowd. Finally I realized that if I worry about about the "keeping up" with the latest "trends" or worrying about recognition, I will need to add a very soft pillow to the wall where I would be banging my head against. I agree that you have to just do your thing and go where it takes you. Unless you are a total professional in the business and its your job to sell yourself and your work. But the great world of the "citizen photographer" is my world. Every time I start to get too pretentious I go look at great work including photographs. Not all of it by "famous" people. </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>you might understand what I'm talking about which has specifically to do with people who had cameras and the screens lighting up all over the rooms and the people with cameras being oblivious of others sharing the space with them. </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Fred, I am very aware of that. I see it all the time. However, it has nothing to do with how people are dressed and what camera they are carrying. Knocking them for their clothing and their cameras is about as petty as it can get and has nothing to do with photography and who is in whose way.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"Photographer Pedro Meyer of Zone Zero in a past essay asked (highly paraphrased) if something similar had happened causing more people to get into creative writing, would there have been similar pushback from “serious writers” feeling that their field of expression has been sullied? That's a good question to ponder."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's already been going on for awhile. "Real" journalists and freelance writers who actually studied their craft in school, workshops or both have been complaining about bloggers who can barely write their way out of an analogy, but are happy to do so for the joy of seeing their byline in lieu of a paycheck.</p>

<p><a href="http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/canklecat/Fuck-your-blog.jpg"><strong>This note</strong></a> sums up the opinions of many serious writers toward most bloggers (reportedly posted on the window of an Austin nightclub during the 2010 SXSW).</p>

<p>While I'm a bit annoyed that there's little market for professional freelancer writers now, the pragmatist in me realizes that if the market actually demanded good writers for online publication we wouldn't see so much mediocre writing. But the market simply isn't there. Web publishers don't give a damn about good writing, nor do most readers. It isn't about content so much as web traffic. Poorly researched but highly opinionated and divisive blogging often attracts comments from readers who are much better writers. Ironically, those readers often unwittingly do the research and fact checking for the bloggers and publishers. A blogger can deliberately post a divisive opinion piece without any solid references, and rest assured that a reader who suffers from "someone is wrong on the internet" syndrome will post a 2,000 word rebuttal with carefully researched facts and references. And the web publisher gets the best of everything: unpaid bloggers whose outrageous hyperbole drives web traffic *and* unwitting crowdsourced fact checkers.</p>

<p>As for all the hype surrounding street photography as a trendy lifestyle, driven by sites like PettyPixels and 121Cliches, and the gazillion "We R Serious Street Photographers" Flickr groups... meh. Don't care. Doesn't affect me. I'm the only "street photographer" in my scruffy west Foat Wuth neighborhood, and I see very few downtown.</p>

<p>I see lots of folks taking happy snaps downtown, but the only guy I'm aware of who makes photographing downtown Fort Worth his passion probably doesn't consider himself a "street photographer". He's just a cheerful guy who loves snapping pix of the downtown area because he lives there. In an earlier era he might have been the local newspaper's primary features and lifestyle photographer. By profession he's an accountant and just takes candid snaps downtown for the love of the hobby and to promote the downtown lifestyle. He's not taking anyone's job away. If the newspaper had a viable business model for this sort of thing, they'd be doing it and paying for it.</p>

<p>In other words, that fellow is doing it for the same reason I do: Because we enjoy it and have found a creative outlet in that passion. Our styles couldn't be more different. He uses big honkin' Canon dSLR gear and L glass. I use mostly lightweight compact cameras because I have the shrimpback and can't lug much weight. He snags bright smiles, pretty faces, happy kidlets, and helps promote some local support groups and causes - which I admire. I enjoy seeing his photos. And mine are totally different. I'm more likely to chat with a down and out fellow at the bus stop, or a street evangelist, or snap pix of whatever weird stuff I see abandoned on the curbside. I enjoy his photos. I enjoy my photos. It's all good.</p>

[Two23]

<blockquote>

<p>Has street photography become a fad?<br /> In the past three weeks, I have caught at least eight people snapping my photo on the street, in train stations....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh, was that you? :-) I don't see this sort of thing in small city where I live, but I did see some in Chicago when I was there a couple of weeks ago. In fact, one of my favorite photos was of a woman who stopped to take a photo of two women discussing a painting one was working on. I was using a classic Leica IIIc with b&w film. No one noticed me. I am discreet and look pretty "generic," I guess. I've also noticed that any more, most people seem to only be staring at the little rectangle they hold in their hands, while life is passing them by. I mostly like trains and photo freight trains at home. The commuter trains are pretty exotic for me! I'm mostly interested in the way the trains and the people interact. I did make a slide show of what I got and posted on YouTube. I think most of the people you've been seeing out there lately are just riding an internet fad, and the fad will pass. Meanwhile, I'll still be hanging around with my classic Leica.<br />

<p>Kent in SD</p><div></div>

[spanky]

<p>I hate to be a cynic (I really do) but anyone who expects others to be mindful and considerate of other people around them are expecting too much. That's the trouble with people - they are only human.</p>

[Uhooru]

<blockquote>

<p>While I'm a bit annoyed that there's little market for professional freelancer writers now, the pragmatist in me realizes that if the market actually demanded good writers for online publication we wouldn't see so much mediocre writing. But the market simply isn't there.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Neither are the editors:)<br>

</p>

[spanky]

<p>Those who are not street photographers are wedding photographers.</p>

[billangel]

If one criteria of street photography is that of photographing people you are not personally aquainted with, I see

more people on the street engaged in photographing friends and other family members than in photographing

strangers.

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>anyone who expects others to be mindful and considerate of other people around them are expecting too much</em></p>

<p>Thankfully, I live in San Francisco where, for the most part, we afford each other a lot of mindfulness and consideration. I find the same is true of my regular visits to New York City. San Francisco is a very liberating and neighborly place to live. The reason I was so annoyed at the behavior at the de Young museum on that particular night is that the rude behavior stood out as an anomaly, not as typical behavior at all. I do expect, and am glad I do, much from the community I'm part of. And I'm glad they expect kind and neighborly behavior from me. It makes for a great place to live, a sense of shared space and appreciation of each other, and generally very positive vibes in public. I feel badly that others experience or perceive more hostile environments or ones where less consideration is afforded by those around them. I wouldn't want to live that way and am glad I have a choice both in terms of where to live and in the tone of voice of my perception of others.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Fred--</p>

<p>I think you're being a bit over optimistic about SF. Last time I was there, I was continually accosted by pan handlers wanting money to buy dope. Was also treated to the sight of several people (not dogs) defecating in stairwells and the sidewalk. Not sure I find such behavior "liberating," but there are different standards in different places, I suppose.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Kent, and for sure there are different emphases and different perceptions by different people. Most people I run into don't defecate in the streets though, like you, I've seen it happen. It's an anomaly, not the norm. Most people I run into don't panhandle and, unless I asked them, I'd have no idea what the few who do panhandle plan to do with the money. I was talking about the average crowd in public. I think you're talking about something completely different. And I don't mean to minimize these problems by any means. The problems you mention are a societal problem, one we're all responsible for as we allow the wealth disparity in this country to grow more and more extreme. I tend to prefer optimism to cynicism, yes!</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Anyone who thinks panhandling in San Francisco is a problem needs to spend about twenty minutes in any city in India.</p>

[chansonbleu]

<p>Have not noticed an increase of street photographers in my neck of the woods. There are more photog's around events, street performers etc. Not so many as to adversely effect my photography. Maybe it's like when you buy a certain car. Suddenly you see more of them on the road than before.</p>

<p>Have not seen much public defecation on my trips to the city. Could see how that might be a problem. Having to watch where one steps takes your eye off photo ops.</p>

<p>Been to San Fran a couple of times. Reminds me of a softer, slower Boston. Seems like a walking, photography friendly city. Never been bothered by panhandlers. You have the choice to give or not. No more troubling then someone asking directions, why I took their picture etc.</p>

[spanky]

<p>San Francisco is great city to shoot in; I wish I could get up that way more often. <br>

As to panhandlers, well, what major city does not have any? It's never been a issue with me in SF either and there seems to be far less of them then in LA. <br>

Last summer I was walking up Broadway, a major street in downtown LA. Ahead of me was a man lying on the sidewalk. He was on his side and appeared to be asleep but then I noticed he moved his top arm and put his hands down his pants. I stopped to see what he was about to do. He pulled out his equipment and proceeded to piss onto the side walk. He did this while still keeping his eyes closed and not moving at all. I noticed with irony that he was wearing a LA Dodgers cap. For a brief second I thought of getting a picture of this but ultimately decided not to. Sometimes though I do think that I should have because while some people may object to a photographer taking such a picture, the act of doing so doesn't mean the picture has to be shared.</p>

 

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>Good street photographers are a treasure. Most people with cameras taking pics on the street (or in public places) are NOT street photographers and can't be confused with them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

That was my point in a round about way. Some street photographers set out to shoot something interesting, intriguing, moving, special, memorable, meaningful, unusual, unique, etc. Other street photographers seem to shoot anything that walks by. <br>

<br>

I understand the objectives of the first group. They want to create interesting images. To those who shoot anything that walks down the street or has a tattoo or talks on a cell phone, I simply ask: Why? What do you hope to accomplish?</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>but because they were rude, obtrusive, and clueless about the space of the other people around them</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Slightly off topic, but I visited a historic chapel recently. A graphic near the entrance showed a camera with the circle and slash, the international symbol for please don't take photos here.<br>

<br>

In ten minutes, I saw dozens of tourists walk into the chapel and snap photos. The only person working in the church was a little old lady selling candles. She looked sad, but she wasn't able to confront the overzealous snappers.<br>

<br>

Photographers get a bad reputation when people take photos insensitively. So, yes, what other people do does matter. Because our freedom to shoot is what comes under attack when people get fed up with bad behavior by our peers.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"Some street photographers set out to shoot something interesting, intriguing, moving, special, memorable, meaningful, unusual, unique, etc. Other street photographers seem to shoot anything that walks by. <br /><br />"I understand the objectives of the first group. They want to create interesting images. To those who shoot anything that walks down the street or has a tattoo or talks on a cell phone, I simply ask: Why? What do you hope to accomplish?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why would you worry about how often other folks mash the shutter release button on their cameras?<br>

<br>

Why would you assume the second group is less interested in making photographs that appeal to them, simply based on the frequency of contact between their fingers and shutter release button?<br>

<br>

I've never seen any evidence of a correlation between shutter actuation counts and quality of photographs. It isn't a ratio or zero sum game, in which the guy with the fewest shutter clicks wins, or the insensitive bastard with the most shutter clicks is somehow stealing opportunities from other photographers.<br>

<br>

Extra clicks only costs a little more time in selection and editing for the photographer, or his/her assistant. Maybe that photographer and/or his/her editor prefers having more to choose from. Unless you happen to be an underpaid assistant or unpaid intern working for said prolific, shutter-mashing insensitive bastard, why worry about it?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Photographers get a bad reputation when people take photos insensitively. So, yes, what other people do does matter. Because our freedom to shoot is what comes under attack when people get fed up with bad behavior by our peers."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's one of the oldest gripes about photography, dating back to the 1800s. The only thing that's changed is now we hear that gripe more often from fellow photographers telling the rest of us we're doing it wrong.<br>

<br>

Quoting mice elf from another thread:</p>

<hr />

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=LAH18990807.2.99" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><strong>Nuisance of the Kodak Fiend</strong></a><br />One of the nuisances of our civilization is the man or the woman who goes about armed with a kodak and snapping at everybody who passes or who can be espied. There seems to be something in the kodak which destroys all sense of propriety in its average possessor. As soon as he owns or hires one of these instruments the ordinary individual often becomes oblivious to the canons of decency, sticks his nose into matters with which he properly has no busines and tries the patience of polite persons almost beyond endurance.<br /><em>—Atlanta Journal, reprinted in the Los Angeles Herald, August 7, 1899</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>And the <a href="http://calumet412.com/post/60081216285/the-ever-present-kodak-fiend-at-the-columbian" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">"Ever-Present Kodak Fiend"</a> was reviled at the 1893 Columbian Exposition (Chicago World's Fair), represented at that time by a woman photographer. Kodak was ahead of its time in marketing their cameras toward women.</p>

<p>An aging former outlaw Frank James can be seen in a photograph, posed in front of his gate, charging 50 cents to see the James home. <a href="http://deadbutdreamin.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/frank_james_at_farm_at_age_70.jpg">A sign on the gate reads "Kodaks Bared"</a>. Presumably, for visitors bearing Kodaks, their baring of said Kodak was barred. Frank had probably learned from his mother, Zerelda, a valuable lesson in photography marketing: She would charge fees to pose for photos by visitors, then ask visitors to send her a copy, which she would subsequently sell to the next batch of visitors, repeating the process with each.</p>

</blockquote>

[MarieH]

<p>As a new street photographer I was guilty of smashing the shutter so often to get a shot, so at least one of the bunch might be better composed or focused. I guess its a learning process, now I think more and compose more and click less. I walk past people on cellphones, shots of people sitting in cafe's or standing on the corner or ordinary things. I see the street critique form daily littered with average shots of average people doing average things. So what? I think now, I want to see a story, an idea, an interesting juxtaposition, lighting or something unusual. Its an evolution, and I think people evolve technically and aesthetically at different paces. Some people take to it right away and others like myself, progress in a slow evolution. Meanwhile, the heavy annoying clickers carry on and some people will be annoyed, especially in the digital arena, as cameras get better and cheaper. If we were all shooting expensive film, it would be a much smaller arena, I think,maybe a bit less annoying to the ones being annoyed. Blame it on the camera manufacturers if the blame needs to go somewhere lol.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Lex, we live in a shared space and we connect in many ways. I choose not to isolate, to get out there and mingle with lots of people, friends and strangers, and I have many opportunities living in a thriving, big city. I think that means I'm going to annoy some people just by taking up space but also because my own actions won't always comport with what they're doing or wanting at the time. I admit to being annoyed (sometimes even needlessly and to my own detriment since there's nothing I can do about it and I ought to be able to ignore it) by the behavior of others at times. It's part of life when you share space. Every couple I know, even the most in love, gets annoyed at some of the small, very ignorable things each does. Such is life. And I'm happy to share in all its ups and downs.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Also, I think there's nothing wrong with being critical of what photos people are coming up with and what's being done in photography. That's different from simply being annoyed at behavior. That's assessing results, and there's plenty to be critical of. I'm a typesetter by trade and am still critical of a lot of badly kerned headlines I see and bad graphics populating the web. Sure, I shouldn't be annoyed by it. And maybe I should stop even noticing it. But I'm a visual guy. And when my visual sensibility is offended, I react, whether it be to photos or to newspapers and advertisements and brochures.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I suppose I'm not particularly concerned about photographers snapping pix in public because we're under almost constant surveillance anyway. Cameras on ATMs, traffic signals, shops, police vehicles and others are disinterestedly, dispassionately recording everything. At least the human holding the camera or phone-cam is showing some sort of human interest, even if it's occasionally borderline prurient or otherwise doesn't meet our personal standards for ethics or good photography.</p>

<p>Sure, maybe I do think it's in somewhat poor taste to take certain kinds of photos of vulnerable folks, at least without getting some sort of connection. Maybe I choose not to take those kinds of photos. But what's that in the grand scheme of things when the government knows what kind of porn we like or whatever stupid, careless remark we made in an email and isn't afraid to exploit that information to manipulate the cogs of power? Why do we care about what other photographers do more than we care about what some faceless bureaubot is doing? Is it because we tend to invest more of ourselves in choices made by other individuals, and in personal, individual intention? Maybe we need affirmation that our position is morally, ethically or aesthetically superior. Or perhaps we prefer to side with the free-buttoning shutter slinger because their actions happen to agree with our views.</p>

<p>And I'm not particularly concerned about how many times a photographer mashes the shutter release button. But I may shrug and wonder with the mildest of curiosity why someone might request a critique on the 9,999th photo of passing bicyclists in his/her portfolio. Taking more photos in the same theme, sure, why not. There's always an opportunity to do it a little better. But at some point - roughly around the 3,000 mark, give or take the price of inflation and proliferation of non-motorized two-wheeled vehicles - I'd think you'd have a pretty fair notion of what is or isn't an interesting photo of someone on a bicycle, and wouldn't need to ask other folks for critiques, unless it's to choose the perky redhead, silky blonde or voluptuous brunette on the bicycle. Or, heck, put 'em together and call it a triptych.</p>

<p>But who am I to criticize? I have dozens of photos of the same bare trees in a nearby vacant field.</p>

<p>Okay, I lied. I have hundreds of those photos. Hun-dreds. Not kidding. Huuunnn... dreadz. Because, hey, a passing bird might flap its wings just the right way this time. Even I dreadz the keywording chores. What, me obsessed? Nahhhyeah, maybe. Be thankful you don't have to edit my photos or maintain my Lightroom catalog.</p>