# If you don't shoot street photography why not?



## The_Traveler (Jan 15, 2014)

I'm giving a presentation and wanted to get a cross section of responses.

TIA,

Lew


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 15, 2014)

Not interested in shooting it, but enjoy viewing it.


----------



## SnappingShark (Jan 15, 2014)

Need to work on my "barging in on other people's business skills"


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 15, 2014)

I don't mostly because it doesn't pay very well.


----------



## vipgraphx (Jan 15, 2014)

I don't because I feel awkward. When I use to have a 70-200 on a DX body I did a few times since I was able to get more at a distance without them knowing. Even then I felt like I was violating someones privacy. I know that if you are out on a street wondering around you don't have any rights when it comes to getting your picture taken. I guess thats why paparazzi can do what they do.

I also enjoying seeing it and think still would like to eventually like to give it a go again. There is something about capturing life as it is that is fascinating to look at. Some people do a real good job at capturing the moment. The moment of pain and happiness. 

I really like those old people shots that I see people taking in other countries in the slums.


----------



## limr (Jan 15, 2014)

I do shoot some street photography, but I voted for "Nervous and too shy to confront people" because that's the reason that I miss a lot of shots or that I don't do a certain type of interactive street photography. That subset of street photography - one in which the photographer influences the shot, interacts with people - feels more like portraiture in a way, and that's a different animal in my mind. I prefer taking shots of scenes that I had nothing to do with. Yes, yes, there's the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and all, but at least I like to maintain the illusion that my presence has not influenced the scene I'm about to shoot. I'm simply happier and more interested in people when I'm just an observer.


----------



## Designer (Jan 15, 2014)

There doesn't seem to be a response that says; "I need to be in the mood, which I'm not very often".


----------



## ronlane (Jan 15, 2014)

Lew, I answered. But I am trying to do street, but haven't had much success and I am nervous about doing it and getting in the middle of it all.


----------



## LakeFX (Jan 15, 2014)

I voted "just plain not interested," but that's not really the truth.  The city where I live doesn't have much of a reason for me to go downtown and the weather is pretty crappy during the winter so nobody is out and about anyway.  On top of that, I would need to set out specifically to shoot street photography because my D90 is too clunky to keep on me all the time.  Maybe when the new P&S arrives this week I'll start.


----------



## weepete (Jan 15, 2014)

I've tried to shoot street a couple of times and what's come of that is I need more experience. I am trying to improve in a number of ways And seeing a photo is one of them so I think I need to refine my compositional and photo taking skills first before I can successfully do it as I think that street in particular requires a skill set of quickly being able to see a shot and having the knowledge and technical ability to pull that off. I also tend to take photos of where I am and that lately has been the countryside as that's where my job takes me. In order to do street stuff I'd need to make a spesific effort to go and shoot street stuff, where as nature and landscapes fit more with where I am with my life right now.


----------



## runnah (Jan 15, 2014)

I live in a town with less than a thousand people!

But seriously I have a hard time identifying what I want to get out if it. I don't want to just snap candids of strangers without making it about something more.


----------



## KelSS90 (Jan 15, 2014)

I'm too scared! I don't want to bother anyone/intrude on their privacy/have someone get upset. I would like to try it later on down the road when my skill and gear set up will allow. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tirediron (Jan 15, 2014)

Because I rarely have the time!


----------



## oldhippy (Jan 15, 2014)

There are some serious ahole's around here. I feel more than timid about trying to photo them.


----------



## SCraig (Jan 15, 2014)

I just find the vast majority of it to be sooooo boring.


----------



## 412 Burgh (Jan 15, 2014)

For a personal project I wish I could shoot street every day. For my own personal projects and pleasure. The people that you encounter could be so entertaining to chat with. However, Pittsburgh is about a 30 min-40min drive from me. I live a little bit outside of Pittsburgh making the drive not worthwhile.


----------



## manicmike (Jan 15, 2014)

I tried it. Wasn't really that interested in trying it again.


----------



## wyogirl (Jan 15, 2014)

I voted for "not experienced enough" but its more that I don't have an eye for it.  I'm not sure if that comes with experience or if you have to be born with that.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jan 15, 2014)

It's too unpredictable (as in, "Am I going to see a scene that I find interesting and is worth photographing?), and I find so much street photography to be pretentiously labelled snapshots that I have a hard time determining if a certain photo is a keeper or not.


----------



## runnah (Jan 15, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> I find so much street photography to be pretentiously labelled snapshots



Could not have said it better myself.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 15, 2014)

runnah said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > I find so much street photography to be pretentiously labelled snapshots
> ...



Since that kind of photography is pretty much all I do, it seems to me more than a bit rude that both of you go out of your way to insult what I do, and by extension insult me and all the others here who enjoy that kind of work.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 15, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> Since that kind of photography is pretty much all I do, it seems to me more than a bit rude that both of you go out of your way to insult what I do, and by extension insult me and all the others here who enjoy that kind of work.



Just because he expressed his opinion doesn't mean it was meant as an insult.  It's his _opinion_, after all, not the 11th Commandment.


----------



## limr (Jan 15, 2014)

It was likely not intended as an insult, though one surely can see how the words "pretentiously labelled snapshots" could be insult_*ing*_, intended or not. It was poorly-worded.

And the fact that something is an "just" an opinion does not preclude its being insulting.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jan 15, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> Since that kind of photography is pretty much all I do, it seems to me more than a bit rude that both of you go out of your way to insult what I do, and by extension insult me and all the others here who enjoy that kind of work.



Don't extrapolate my statement to be a personal attack on you, please.   

 Saying "so much" is not the same as saying something as hyperbolic as "ALL."   I've fallen into that trap before both on the internet and during my time working for my college newspaper, and I try to avoid it as much as possible.      

Apparently I'm not very good at it.    

And I stand by my words, because I really don't know why stating the same opinion with a different choice of words would make a difference, without changing the message. 

 I could have said "Most street photography is not I my liking and I don't get it, so..." But that is not he extent to which I feel a certain way about a lot of street photography. This is why I chose the words I did.  

 You're projecting my opinion onto yourself


----------



## rexbobcat (Jan 15, 2014)

By the way, I like your photos Traveler, so I don't understand why you feel the need to defend the entire street photography genre against my opinion, because you're not going to change my mind about those images (none specifically) that I feel are glorified snapshots.

Now I'm going to bed. I hope I wake up to find that I'm not banned or burned at the stake. 

Goodnight all.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Jan 16, 2014)

OK, now for something completely different...

I have done street photography and haven't had much in terms of results. That being said, I go back to it here and there, but always with film and not digital. Why? I really don't know. I think part of it has to do with the cameras available. I think I'll be trying some tomorrow with a Rolleicord I just restored to test it out. Results probably won't be anything worth posting, but you never know.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jan 16, 2014)

Because it is extraordinarily difficult to frame a shot artfully + get natural reactions / not beaten up + focus spot on under split second conditions + not get horrible photo ruining clutter in the background (wide aperture to blur it out is directly in contradiction with the focusing problem...)



> Since that kind of photography is pretty much all I do, it seems to me more than a bit rude that both of you go out of your way to insult what I do, and by extension insult me and all the others here who enjoy that kind of work.


Also, yes, it often comes off as pretentious snapshots.  Maybe yours doesn't, but most street photography does, to me.
It is probably a consequence of the aforementioned difficulty of controlling framing and shots on the fly, and them being strangers, makes it too easy to get a rushed, shallow impression.
If you are skilled enough to surpass that tendency, then great, but the question being "why don't you shoot street photography?" one of my answers is "most people myself included can't do it without it looking like a pretentious snapshot"


----------



## mmaria (Jan 16, 2014)

I don't know what to check on the poll.

I like street photography but I just don't have enough time and opportunity for doing it nowadays. But the real issue is that I live in a small town, everybody knows me (well they think they do) and I'm pretty much obsessed with knowing that somebody is looking what am I doing and asking themselves why I'm photographing this guy or whatever.

When I am in a different town, I occasionally shoot street, when I'm in a mood to think about the people and observe them.

When I was in Japan I did shoot street. I found Japanese people extraordinary interesting. Oh, I should go trough some of those photos...


----------



## runnah (Jan 16, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> Since that kind of photography is pretty much all I do, it seems to me more than a bit rude that both of you go out of your way to insult what I do, and by extension insult me and all the others here who enjoy that kind of work.



Well it's a statement about some, not all street photography. Not to blow smoke but you have good stuff Lew that reads street and tells a story. Some out there think that a haphazard shot of people walking by counts as street photography as long as you add a pretentious description.


----------



## EIngerson (Jan 16, 2014)

I love street photography and I always go out and shoot it. The problem is, my attention span is so short that I end up


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 16, 2014)

Runnah and Rexbobcat,

I apologize, I was wrong to take offense.

I think that successful street photography is so hard and failure is so almost certain that it distorts the judgement of the photographer. He/she really wants so much that the photograph to be meaningful, to express what he sees that there is sometimes a lack of a really critical eye, a failure of judgement.  So where the slightest nuance reminds him/her of some deeply felt idea, that same little hint is completely unseen by most eyes.  
We see that here in pictures of a photographer's spouse or children; the photographer sees them as the most beautiful faces in the world and, for the most part, we indulge them in their delusion because each of us understands what causes that lack of ability to be objective. 
So, when you see street photography that is a miss or goes flat or seems pretentious, give the maker a break. He/she may not be purposefully pretentious or pompous but may be really unable to see that, what to him/her is an important message, is to everyone else only an arrangement of tones in a frame.

Speaking as someone who fails to get a good shot 999 times out of a 1000, I know exactly how that desire to say something feels, and how painful it is either to fail in the execution or the critical judgement of my own shots.

So, again, I apologize.


----------



## mmaria (Jan 16, 2014)

I logged in just to click on like


----------



## Designer (Jan 16, 2014)

This thread has got me to thinking about street photography more than I had ever thought before.  As a result, I have been logging some information to remind me of what makes it successful.  

Thanks for the spur, Lew.


----------



## AlanKlein (Jan 16, 2014)

Lew:  Getting a great, even good, shot once out of a 100 is not restricted to street photography.  It's the same with landscape photography as well.  Trust me.  I looked at your street photos and they are good.  It would be helpful for all of us to hear what you do and what you look for that makes a street picture stand out.  I think everyone here would appreciate learning from you.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 16, 2014)

Street is probably 50% of what i shoot, i never ask people if i can shoot them, dogs and owners are a popular subject for me and i cant believe 35% of the poll are nervous about shooting street


----------



## runnah (Jan 16, 2014)

So does asking to take a photo of someone change the dynamic of a "street" photo?


----------



## limr (Jan 16, 2014)

runnah said:


> So does asking to take a photo of someone change the dynamic of a "street" photo?



Absolutely. "Is it okay if I take your photograph? Yes? Thank you. Now could you please continue to act naturally and do the same things you would have done before you became aware of my presence so that I could capture a spontaneous slice of life image? Please don't be self-conscious or pay any attention to my camera." 

Of course, some people do want the kind of shot that requires interaction - eye contact with the camera, for example. That shot isn't possible without making the person aware of the camera. But that too changes the dynamic of the photo, just in an intended or desired way.


----------



## pgriz (Jan 16, 2014)

In my photo club we have some very good street photographers.  By no coincidence they are also very good photographers, period.  As I have noted in other posts, I was quite surprised at how much preparation they undergo to get the images they do get.  At least the ones I know take the time to get to know their "subjects" to the point that the camera ends up fading away.  It's no longer "hit-and-run", or "sneak-a-shot", but a record of a person in their native environment, usually quite aware of the photograph being taken, but not being affected by that.  Personally, I don't have the patience to do this well.  I also do not have the skills to determine the correct focus placement, and the correct framing without looking through the viewfinder.  And finally, I have a personal dislike of taking pictures of people who don't want to have their picture taken.  Even if I may have a legal right to do so, it doesn't square with my personal ethics.  I won't tell you that you are a bad person if that aspect doesn't bother you, but it does bother me, and I therefore won't do it.  Other people will have to make their own decisions about what they are comfortable doing.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jan 16, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> Runnah and Rexbobcat,
> 
> I apologize, I was wrong to take offense.
> 
> ...




It's fine. I understand where you're coming from saying that sometimes we, the viewers, don't always take into consideration the perspective of the photographer. Sometimes our own experiences while taking the picture, and our connection to the subject matter, makes us see an image one way, while others might view it differently. 

I was not trying to put anyone in particular down, because I don't think anyone on this forum produces the kinds of images I'm referring to. I view some street photos in the same way that I view fine art, especially if the photographer is well known or popular (*cough* Eric Kim *cough*). It's kind of a "THAT is considered good?" view. While I understand that there are reasons why it is considered a relevant or nice photo in its respective area, much of it does not appeal to me. I can't relate to a lot of it, because I see aesthetics in a different way. 

HOWEVER, there are also street photographs that I can really appreciate the beauty, because they appeal both to my taste and to my emotions. It's kind of enigmatic...It's hard to explain. 

This is the kind of street photography I like. Man on Earth

I think part of it comes from my opinion that documentation and street photography are two different things. I like to view street photography in an "art among the chaos" sort of way as opposed to a "go out and take pictures of odd people and situations" way, which is the approach that I think some people take...


----------



## sashbar (Jan 16, 2014)

I have a great respect for good street photography because it can not hide behind Photoshop, a carefully read textbook or meticulously executed skill.  I think any good street shooter will say that out of 1000 of his shots 999 failed. One needs to either be a pure genius, get unbelievably lucky or really lower his standarts to claim otherwice. I do not remember who said that four good street shots in a year was a great return, but it was a big name. 
The only reason why I do not do street stuff is because I have no time. It is time consuming like no other genre I know. Well, probably wild life takes more, never tried outside some deer in the park.


----------



## sashbar (Jan 16, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Runnah and Rexbobcat,
> ...




You will probably like this street artist: 

MissCoolpics - Joanna Lemanska, photographer


----------



## shaylou (Jan 16, 2014)

vipgraphx said:


> I don't because I feel awkward. When I use to have a 70-200 on a DX body I did a few times since I was able to get more at a distance without them knowing. Even then I felt like I was violating someones privacy. I know that if you are out on a street wondering around you don't have any rights when it comes to getting your picture taken. I guess thats why paparazzi can do what they do.  I also enjoying seeing it and think still would like to eventually like to give it a go again. There is something about capturing life as it is that is fascinating to look at. Some people do a real good job at capturing the moment. The moment of pain and happiness.  I really like those old people shots that I see people taking in other countries in the slums.



You should give a go again. I love it. I recently went to Bangkok and Cambodia. Wow there was a place called the floating village in Cambodia that was a neighborhood on the water. Their streets were water and I have never been so excited to shoot. I also go to San Francisco one a year to street shoot. There are so many great place to shoot there. I always use a long lens and I go to places where there are a lot of people. That way it is easier to blend end. To me it has to be candid. Anyway you should give it a go.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 16, 2014)

There were a couple of things brought up and I got 2 PMs with questions that I thought I would try and wrap it all up here.
Since this is all only my opinion, feel free to ignore.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
I think that all street photography can be described as falling into 1 of 4 general categories.
*
Patterns*: the structures within the image are pleasing and enjoyable, whether black or white there is one or more patterns or a subject fits within a pattern and that structure is the subject. Think of doors, windows, etc. This is clearly the easiest kind of street work to do. Easy to see, easy to do, eventually boring.  Like cotton candy, quick flash of enjoyment and then easily forgotten.  
There is often not the pressure of time to get the work done and most of the time, you can come back to shoot again.

example: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Then of course there is *People
*Just a reasonably well-exposed images of people, not necessarily doing anything substantive or memorable but generally caught as a candid. 
More difficult to find and catch - and of course it is shooting people.
Often times, lots of mood but generally the meaning is supplied by emotional response to the image. 
More difficult because there may be time pressure to get the shot before it dissolves. 

Photograhers will often think that just getting decently exposed or focused shots of people is enough.  
Then turn it into B&W (beat the crap out of it to make it look interesting) and _voila_ it is a good street shot. 
It isn't, not more than dumping ingredients at random into a bowl and heating it makes a good cake.

There must be construction, with elements placed well - enough that the viewer can get into the shot easily.
The meaning or emotion may be ambiguous but it must engage the viewer so that they want to form an opinion or feel some resonance with the shot.






And there is the hardest category *Polemic *or *Perspective *where the photographer is trying to make a point or even to rant about it. 
Not only are people and time but the meaning comes from the content; there is a definite point posed.
Clearly the most difficult because the photographer has to see the situation, then decide on a point and make it - all before the instant dissolves.






 or 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




or 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




(There is one last category,*Puzzles**, * where this impact is supposedly composed with many images, where each image may not be so important but the overall impact of the aggregate of work goes to form a style or meaning; I am very leery of strings of images constructs like that. 
Too often, weak images individually are undeservedly given credit just because they form part of a body of work that has some supposed 'meaning.'  Almost every renowned street photographer has work falls into this category. 
Even Peter Turnley, in his book 'French Kiss' which is as lovely a set of pictures as I've ever seen has many images that are just spacers between the good ones.
Every time I've tried this, to work on a 'project', I end up dropping it because the pictures vary in quality or tone so much that the sense of unity disappears.)


For me, going out to shoot pictures is like trying to illustrate a story but a story I must make up from what I see as I go along. 
Many times I put myself in situations where I have some sense of what the story might be, as the three above, but if I am just wandering around the streets, as I see things that engage me, I try and unite what I into some coherent idea and then shoot that idea before it disappears.

That's when luck happens - and the more attentive I am, the luckier I get. For me, shooting in a group, even just with another person is a waste of time because my concentration is gone.
It's like trying to play a video game and read a newspaper at the same time.

Sometimes the pictures I get are obvious and sometimes ambiguous, but the important thing is that the information be accessible, that the viewer sees what I am looking at.
I do everything I can in composition and post-processing to make that happen. 
I emphasize the important things, put them where they will do the most good and minimize the impact of any elements that distract.






 or 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




And while the actual final processing isn't nailed down, on my better shots, I generally know how I want to treat them - what is important and what must be made unimportant.

Often I would rather convert to B&W than deal with the colors affecting the viewer's perception, that is, if the colors aren't important to make the point or pull the viewer's eye.

To me, no focal length or sensor size or any technical issue is important unless it harms the viewer's experience.

I have taken out many people in small group work shots to shoot - and the results have been disappointing.
Not one of the people I've taken has really progressed into a good street shooter. 
Many of them produce mechanically OK pictures but they seem to be missing the ability to recognize and capture really good shots.

I have come to think that without that tiny extra bit of innate ability, no amount of learning the mechanical skills and experience will suffice. 
The great street photographers have it, and us not nearly as good ones can only be satisfied with what we have.

However, there is no feeling as satisfying as getting that great shot, that instant of meaning that hadn't disappeared because you've caught it.
Compared to that, not much else is as interesting or involving.


----------



## limr (Jan 16, 2014)

This seems like a good place to share this link: London Underground in the 1970s/80s - Telegraph


----------



## apaflo (Jan 16, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> There were a couple of things brought up and I got 2 PMs with questions that I thought I would try and wrap it all up here.
> Since this is all only my opinion, feel free to ignore.
> _______________________________________________________________________________________________
> I think that all street photography can be described as falling into 1 of 4 general categories.



  Lew I very much enjoy your webpage, and have read about half of your blog (right down to where you defined "Street Photography", and I also enjoy the way you write (nice attitude!).  In particular, I like the great Street Photography in you're post.

   However, your definitions of "Street" are not defining Street.  You are defining specific styles of Street, but missing the specific definition of Street itself.  In your blog you wander all around it, and never do nail it.

I don't think that is uncommon, and I do think that because so many people do the same thing it causes those who look at Street, and maybe try it, to be vastly confused about it.

 Here is a definition from the London Festival of Photography which I think does nail it better than any other.  I'll note that if you dig deep enough into "Bystander: A History of Street Photography" by Colin Westerbeck and Joel Meyerowitz they actually see it as almost exactly the same (but Meyerowitz is as guilty as anyone of describing his personal style when asked what Street  Photography is).

"[...] un-posed, un-staged photography which captures, explores or questions contemporary society and the *relationships between individuals and their surroundings.*" (Emphasis added.)

 They go on to give added discussion:

"Street Photography does not need to include people although it usually does. [...] the key elements of spontaneity, careful observation and an open mind ready to capture whatever appears in the viewfinder are essential."   Fotoura | London Festival of Photography - Fotoura

  To that I would add that "Street Photography" is a misnomer because it need not be on an urban street, and need not even be on any street!  It can be indoors or outside.  There need not be shop windows, need not be some ironic conection between a window display and a person.  The people pictured can be well aware of the photographer, with or without permission.  It isn't people that are the subject, and it isn't their surroundings.  Absent an image that effectively demonstrates the relationship between them, it just isn't Street.

All of these extra conditions might be the style of any given Street photog, but they need not be and they should never be ascribed to the definition of Street itself.

In your blog you state:

"I believe that a street photographer is there to capture the scene, as much as possible, without affecting it or being part of it. The practice of confronting people, ambushing them, startling them to get an image is wrong, I think, and certainly not useful. Photographers who do that aren't photographing a scene, capturing an instant, they are inventing it and their work is as false as if it were staged."

That is a terrific description of one style of Street Photography.  But it doesn't define Street, as many very successful Street Photographers break one or more of those rules with regularity.  Cartier-Bresson typically ambushed people with a staged circumstance set up before hand.  Meyerowitz interacted as much as possible with many subjects.  You and I perhaps don't do that, but it's hard to argue that doing so isn't ever useful!

The simplest and shortest and most accurate definition of Street Photography is that the subject of the  photgraph is the *relationship* between people and their environment.  And when the significance of that definition becomes clear, then any given person's style will be easier to encompass and more productive in practice.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 17, 2014)

apaflo said:


> The simplest and shortest and most accurate definition of Street Photography is that the subject of the  photograph is the *relationship* between people and their environment.  And when the significance of that definition becomes clear, then any given person's style will be easier to encompass and more productive in practice.



I imagine you realize that when you say something is 'the simplest and shortest and most accurate definition of' anything, that is only your opinion.

Without disagreeing with you but only as explanation, my feeling is that defining a subject as amorphous as street photography is never satisfactory. 
In order to fit everything in, the definition becomes a statement that exists on so many levels of abstraction from the actual execution that it doesn't add anything to any discussion.
A definition of street photography is to the real thing like a textbook definition of sex is to making love.

Whether my beliefs are my 'style' or 'my definition', I give them only to explain what I value, how I take pictures and how I see others' work.

I'm not trying to define or sell or convince, at least not now on this thread; I only started it to get some ideas about how others react to the thought of doing street photography in preparation for a presentation I have to give this coming week.
I got to those firmly held beliefs by an unknowable path that is probably different from anyone else's just because no two people share exactly the same set of experiences and other developed ideas.
If you (the generic 'you') believes that sitting down with your subject and getting to know them is the right way or jumping up in their face with a short focus lens and a flash is the thing to do, I can only react to that from what I see and what I get out of it with a perspective viewed from my own position.


----------



## MGRPhoto (Jan 17, 2014)

I voted for not experienced enough. I've been shooting for about 10 years now and I consider myself a very good technical photographer. As in... I'm good at getting a great image but not a great photograph... if that makes sense. I lack in the artsy part of the brain so framing an interesting composition is difficult for me to visualize. In wildlife and sports I feel I have a pretty wide "margin of error" that I can deal with in terms of composition. The subject is typically an animal or something specific happening in an event and I can focus on that. Even if I just center the focus point and hit what I'm aiming it will still be an interesting shot due to the subject alone as long as the technical aspects are spot on. In street photography it's all about creative composition and less about getting it technically correct. Not only is it all about creative composition but it's about creative composition on the fly and being able to capture a specific moment that will never happen again. I admire those who are good at street photography and I want to do more of it since it focuses on my biggest weakness.

Does anyone watch DigitalRev on YouTube? I'm not sure what you guys think of them but the main host is Kai, who I think is a fantastic street photographer.




412 Burgh said:


> For a personal project I wish I could shoot  street every day. For my own personal projects and pleasure. The people  that you encounter could be so entertaining to chat with. However,  Pittsburgh is about a 30 min-40min drive from me. I live a little bit  outside of Pittsburgh making the drive not worthwhile.



I live in Green Tree so I'm about 2 minutes from the city and I still don't make it down there as often as I'd like. I worked right downtown on 7th for about 5 years and just felt awkward trying to take pictures on my lunch break. Especially with so many co-workers out and about as well....


----------



## JustJazzie (Jan 17, 2014)

Why was there not an option for
"If I pay attention to my camera out and about , my children will probably run away without me noticing"


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 17, 2014)

JustJazzie said:


> Why was there not an option for
> "If I pay attention to my camera out and about , my children will probably run away without me noticing"



Just an added little bonus for concentrating on photography.


----------



## Stevepwns (Jan 17, 2014)

I take my camera with me when I am walking about town.  Ive tried it a few times, didnt really trip my trigger.  I enjoy shooting buildings and things of that nature, protests when they take place but I personally I find it rude to just take pictures of people without consent.  Mainly because I dont want people taking random pictures of me.  Just my opinion.  I do however enjoy looking at the street photos others take.


----------



## apaflo (Jan 17, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> apaflo said:
> 
> 
> > The simplest and shortest and most accurate definition of Street Photography is that the subject of the  photograph is the *relationship* between people and their environment.  And when the significance of that definition becomes clear, then any given person's style will be easier to encompass and more productive in practice.
> ...



No it is not only my opinion.  I quoted it, with a cite, from the web page of the London Festival of Photography.  And I also indicated how their definition is in agreement with what is said by Colin Westerbeck and Joel Meyerowitz in "Bystander:  A History of Street Photography".  Those authoritative sources are the premises on which I then based my opinion...

What was "only" my opinion was the effect of using an appropriate definition as opposed to an inappropriate definition.  It is very misleading to define something incorrectly, and that is clearly what happens when people define Street Photography in a way that says the very founders of the genre did it wrong.  As noted, Cartier-Bresson, Meyerowitz, WeeGee, Klein, Gilden, and Winogrand all did exactly the things that some definitions exclude!  Clearly their work defined what Street Photography is, and a definition today that specifically excludes what they did cannot be correct.  That is my opinion. You are free to disagree, but I'd like to see the logic that shows otherwise.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 17, 2014)

Sorry, you said this at the very end of your post, after what seemed like a lot of your own words and without any quotes, so it wasn't clear that it was a quote.

To be honest, arguing about what street photography is or isn't doesn't seem very useful or interesting to me.
I shoot the way I want, like or don't like what I want and my opinions are unswayed by anyone else's.
I try to be really clear that everything I say is my own opinion and how I feel is not derived from any logical progression from any authorities but from my own preferences.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 17, 2014)

Manaheim's corollary: Any time a thread slips into "definitions", or "what people believe", it will turn into a slug fest.

Please everyone... prove me wrong.


----------



## apaflo (Jan 17, 2014)

Stevepwns said:


> I take my camera with me when I am walking about town.  Ive tried it a few times, didnt really trip my trigger.  I enjoy shooting buildings and things of that nature, protests when they take place but I personally I find it rude to just take pictures of people without consent.  Mainly because I dont want people taking random pictures of me.  Just my opinion.  I do however enjoy looking at the street photos others take.



 That is a very reasonable view of a certain style of Street Photography.  Go to YouTube.com and watch videos of Joel Meyerowitz or Garry Winogrand (never mind Bruce Gilden), and unless you are seriously extroverted the whole idea of duplicating their style is unnerving! Meyerowitz used to simply glow with energy when he could interact with other people and photograph the effect.

 But not all Street is done that way.  Look at Dorothea Lange, or Andre Kertesz, Diane Arbus, or Walker Evens.  Their work was done with a great deal more sensitivity to the privacy and the person of their subjects.  They tried (not always successfully) to protect the feelings of people.  And there is Cartier-Bresson, who sort of lands in between.

In almost any discussion of and by Street Photographers there eventually is a dichotomy, often with significant controversy, over getting very close with a wide angle lens and being a cause of what is photographed, and the opposite methodology of using a long lens and thus invading the privacy of those who are photographed.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 17, 2014)

There is a middle ground between startling people and talking them into posing.

If you look at my pictures, I try not to either intrude and cajole.
If one's technique is unobtrusive, most of the time the picture can be taken without disturbing or alering the subject(s).


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 17, 2014)

JacaRanda said:


> Not interested in shooting it, but enjoy viewing it.


Same for me.

It seems weird - but I do like SEEING street photography, it just doesn't really seem like something I'd want to DO.  Maybe if I lived somewhere with more interesting street life.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 17, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> Maybe if I lived somewhere with more interesting street life.



or any.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 17, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> Josh66 said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe if I lived somewhere with more interesting street life.
> ...


Well, there is a "downtown" area, if you can call it that - a few cafes, bistros, and shopping - but it's a pretty small town compared to what I'm used to.  Not much activity down there, lol.

The tallest building here is the hospital - 4 or 5 floors, I think.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Jan 18, 2014)

I tried some with my Blad 1600 this past week. Film's out for development since I don't do my own yet, so we'll see what came out of it. I voted that I've tried it with no results, but let's hope that changes.


----------



## apaflo (Jan 18, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Josh66 said:
> ...



 But since the subject matter for Street Photography is not "street life", nor is it tall buidings and does not require a "down town" much less a large one, what's the point of all that?

If there is "not much activity", then that is what determines the relationship between people and their surroundings, and the advantage you have is a less often seen and therefore more interesting view of what Street Photography is all about!


----------



## Solarflare (Jan 18, 2014)

I do it if I see something worth photographing but its rare.



Designer said:


> There doesn't seem to be a response that says; "I need to be in the mood, which I'm not very often".


 Thats because the poll is for people who DONT do street ... ?



EIngerson said:


> I love street photography and I always go out and shoot it. The problem is, my attention span is so short that I end up


 ROTFL


----------



## bribrius (Jan 19, 2014)

I dunno. just doing light trails last week I got some funny looks by passers by.....


----------



## kanuski (Mar 9, 2015)

While I have seen some interesting shots I just don't have any reason to fill space on my hard drive with shots like this. I guess it would take an incredible amount of experience and patience to get something that would be appreciated by others.


----------



## sashbar (Mar 9, 2015)

Should be an option "No streets around".

Seriously, it is often very difficult to shoot street in a rural area. You just go out and nothing happens. Nothing. And do not tell this guy he is not looking.  Because he is. But a photographer is only as good as the scene he can find. I am lucky in that respect, I live in London ( if we put aside horrible weather and unfortunate lighting conditions 300 days a year) .

I personally find street by far the most exiting, intellectually stimulating and probably most challenging genre in photography, and the question "Why don't you shoot street?" sounds natural indeed. 

But one can not shoot street in the middle of a cornfield.


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 9, 2015)

I just don't have the spare time for it anymore.


----------



## goooner (Mar 9, 2015)

It's illegal in Germany


----------



## jake337 (Mar 9, 2015)

No time to walk around the streets.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 9, 2015)

Not much around here to shoot for street anyway.  But i wouldn't go further in the sticks . Take a photo of the wrong persons methlab you bound to be in some chit. Gotta watch those woodland landscape pics. Some crazy hillbillys out in those there woods.


----------



## Fred Berg (Mar 9, 2015)

goooner said:


> It's illegal in Germany



I don't think it's actually illegal here, but it is a rather complicated and grey area and you need to be sure and informed about what you can and can't do. Camera magazine (4/2014) contains a helpful and informative article pertaining to street photography in Germany.


----------



## Designer (Mar 9, 2015)

Fred Berg said:


> goooner said:
> 
> 
> > It's illegal in Germany
> ...


I'm planing to go there in three year's time to trace my family's history.  I plan to take photographs of any interesting grave markers that have a family connection.  Also streets themselves, but probably without recognizable people in the shots.


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 9, 2015)

I used to not shoot street very much.  I just felt it was always pretty awkward with a big dSLR.  I did a little bit here and there, but what I did was mostly with my iPhone.  Then I got a Lumix LX7 and started doing some and had started to get hooked.  Then I killed that thing trying to take pictures in a torrential downpour at Shaky Knees Music Fest.  Again, didn't do much.  Now that I've gotten back into the "photographer's point and shoot" game with the Fuji X100T, I'm backed to being hooked again.

It's really freaking hard though.  

I take a few approaches:

1) shoot from the hip.  Like have the camera hanging from the strap by my side and covertly tap the shutter release without looking through the viewfinder at all

2) shoot the scene at a distance.  Don't get much in the way of faces, but you can get some big picture atmosphere.

3) talk to the people.act naturally and shoot through the viewfinder.

4) Set up camp in front of what I think is a nice background, get my frame setup, wait for something interesting to walk into the background and then use the wifi remote control app on my iphone to focus and capture anybody who walks into the frame of the X100T.


----------



## Fred Berg (Mar 9, 2015)

Designer said:


> Fred Berg said:
> 
> 
> > goooner said:
> ...



If you can speak/read German, I'll scan the article for you, otherwise I can translate the main points (might take a day or two) and PM you the info.


----------



## Bebulamar (Mar 9, 2015)

In my younger days I did a lot of street photography and I loved it. I don't do it any more because I am now have more respect for people privacy and I don't want to upset anyone. Also today people are much more paranoid when photographed than years ago.


----------



## goooner (Mar 10, 2015)

Fred Berg said:


> goooner said:
> 
> 
> > It's illegal in Germany
> ...


Thanks, I'll see if I can find it. As far as I know the person may not be the main subject of the scene. So even if you photograph someone in a public place, and hey are recognizable, and are the 'main subject' you won't be able to use the photo without their permission. Of course nothing stops you from taking the photo and having it on your computer, but publishing/uploading it could get you in trouble.


----------



## astroNikon (Mar 10, 2015)

I can't do "street" shooting because there are no Streets in my City

Just Roads, Boulevards and stuff


----------



## qleak (Mar 10, 2015)

astroNikon said:


> I can't do "street" shooting because there are no Streets in my City
> 
> Just Roads, Boulevards and stuff



Yes that ^^^

If there aren't many people walking around it's a little more challenging to shoot street. Perhaps even more dangerous for the photographer if they are the only one walking around.


----------

