# Photographers who don't shoot street are missing something. c/c welcome



## The_Traveler (Jul 4, 2012)

Photographers who don't shoot street are missing something.
Shot today at the July 4th parade in Washington, DC.

IMO, there is no way to shoot a landscape that has this kind of interest and view into the human condition.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 4, 2012)

And by the same token, I don't see a lot that interests me in this image...


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 4, 2012)

tirediron said:


> And by the same token, I don't see a lot that interests me in this image...



I was gonna say that you live in Vancouver, what do you know but.... all tastes vary.

Thanks for looking and commenting honestly.

Lew


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 4, 2012)

I have to agree with Tirediron on this one.. no interest for me at all. 

I prefer being out in the middle of nowhere, where there are NO people... that is when I am happiest, shooting or not shooting!  lol!


----------



## chuasam (Jul 4, 2012)

Photographers who don't shoot street are missing....Street
There are many phenomenal photographers out there who've never shot street.
Irving Penn comes to mind.
So does Helmut Newton, Rankin, David Bailey, Cecil Beaton, Ellen von Unwerth.
Leibovitz and Ansel Adams don't shoot street either but their greatness is arguable.


----------



## chuasam (Jul 4, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > And by the same token, I don't see a lot that interests me in this image...
> ...


He doesn't live in Vancouver. He lives in Sooke.


----------



## SCraig (Jul 4, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> I have to agree with Tirediron on this one.. no interest for me at all.
> 
> I prefer being out in the middle of nowhere, where there are NO people... that is when I am happiest, shooting or not shooting!  lol!


I have to agree as well.  Sorry, Lew, but except for the girl in the background wiping her hands on her butt a similar shot could be taken at any makeup department of any department store.  To me it's just a girl putting on eye makeup.

I'm also more content in areas where there are no people.  The paths in the woods are my streets and the animals and birds are my people.  That's where I'm the most content.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jul 4, 2012)

I like the image, it's not outstanding, but it's nice.  I don't shoot street people and really don't feel like I'm missing anything, just like I don't feel like I'm 
missing anything if I dont shoot pretty flowers, bugs or sunsets.  I could say that people who don't shoot sports are missing something, but for the most part, lots that try and shoot sports end up missing anyway.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 4, 2012)

chuasam said:


> Photographers who don't shoot street are missing....Street
> There are many phenomenal photographers out there who've never shot street.
> Irving Penn comes to mind.
> So does Helmut Newton, Rankin, David Bailey, Cecil Beaton, Ellen von Unwerth.
> Leibovitz and Ansel Adams don't shoot street either but their greatness is arguable.



I didn't mean that they were incomplete - or un-great so to speak - as photographers but that it is a great thrill to see and capture in an instant a moment in time that will not be repeated and that 'means' something. Like seeing a trout rise to a dry fly. And people who don't shoot that way, miss that thrill. 


Although it seems like I may be the only person to which this particular moment appeals,


----------



## charlie76 (Jul 4, 2012)

I think to be interested in street photography...u have to interested in humans....where I fall short


----------



## slackercruster (Jul 4, 2012)

Well, they got some dramatic landscapes. But in gen I agree with street pix and working your way into the house as well.


----------



## pgriz (Jul 5, 2012)

Looking at the image, my eye gets drawn first to the neon green shirt the woman on the right is wearing.  My gaze then goes to her eyes, and shee seems to be looking at the logo on the shirtsleeve of the woman on the left.  My eyes then go up to the woman eye, which I cannot really see , and the arc of the makeup brush(?) kinda points to the man's head standing behind her.  He seems to be holding a similar coloured shirt as the woman on the right.  The logo colors on the woman on the left seem to be the Mexican colours, and the writing on the back appears to be spanish.

Looking past the makeup brush, I also see a woman out of focus, with her hands on her bum.  The background does not tell me what the event is, nor do I see any connection between the people in the foreground and the background.  The fact that none of the three people are looking at each other (the man is looking left, out of the frame, the woman on left is looking at her reflection, and the woman on the right seems to have an averted gaze) again does not signal a connection to me.  

If I were to make a narrative to describe the photo, I'd be somewhat lost.

Perhaps this is why the image is not getting lots of positive feedback - we're really not sure what is going on and what the significance of the elements is/are.


----------



## ZapoTeX (Jul 5, 2012)

Am I the only one who thinks the OP's photo does not, strictly speaking, belong to the street photography type? I have a feeling this is a show of some sort, not random people in their everyday life. I don't see HCB shooting anything like this.

Or maybe I'm just ignorant and I don't know what street photography is? 

Ciao!


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Jul 5, 2012)

That chick is totally grabbing her butt in the bokeh. How did I miss that the first time!


----------



## rexbobcat (Jul 5, 2012)

I didn't notice the butt thing either at first lol.

I have to agree with the others though. I don't see how this exhibits the true human condition beyond two Middle-Eastern women putting on makeup at the fair.
They just aren't doing anything...interesting...

And besides, the woman holding the mirror appears to be wearing temporary Midler-Eastern (I don't know?) garb of some sort judging from the fact that the man on the left is holding a a piece of clothe that is very similar to what the woman in the right is wearing, which shatters the illusion of East meets West.

The analogy about the trout is different from this particular image. Not many people get to see a trout do that, and even less get to see one frozen in a split moment of action. But...this scene can be, and was viewed by probably several people. I don't understand what message about the human condition you are trying to communicate.


----------



## Steve5D (Jul 6, 2012)

I don't see anything in that photo which tells me I'm missing anything, really. It's a snapshot.

I also don't think it's "street". It looks like it was shot at event somewhere. The woman holding the mirror has a laminated pass around her neck. That suggests to me that it's not something that the photographer just happened to come across while walking downtown which, to me, would be considered "street"...


----------



## sm4him (Jul 6, 2012)

charlie76 said:


> I think to be interested in street photography...u have to interested in humans....where I fall short




Yeah, see, this is the real problem for me. People tend to annoy me.  The best bday card I ever received was one that said on the cover: "Good news! People are living longer than ever before." and on the inside: "Bad news: We don't get to pick which ones." 

When I do try "street photography," it just ends up looking like the same kind of poorly composed, random photos I used to take when I got my first camera as a teenager and shot everything in sight.  I've tried it; I really have. I just don't really get into it.

WARNING: HONEST *PERSONAL* CONFESSION about to happen--it seems about 98% of the folks on TPF have ZERO interest in yet another flower or bug photo. Well, that's the way *I* tend to feel about even relatively good street photography. There are occasional exceptions, but mostly they just hold no real interest for me.

I keep TRYING to appreciate street photography, but it just seems like a term we've created for "taking random shots of complete strangers on poorly lit streets."   
DISCLAIMER: I GET that, done right, it really can be an art, and tell a powerful story. Well, done right, florals can be captivating.  But they just ain't for everyone.

I am TRYING to gain at least an appreciation for good street photography; maybe one day it'll grow on me. Abstracts didn't always do a lot for me either, but now I love them and often "see" them when I go out to shoot. So maybe there's hope.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 6, 2012)

ZapoTeX said:


> Am I the only one who thinks the OP's photo does not, strictly speaking, belong to the street photography type? I have a feeling this is a show of some sort, not random people in their everyday life. I don't see HCB shooting anything like this.
> 
> Or maybe I'm just ignorant and I don't know what street photography is?
> 
> Ciao!





rexbobcat said:


> I didn't notice the butt thing either at first lol.
> 
> I have to agree with the others though. I don't see how this exhibits the true human condition beyond two Middle-Eastern women putting on makeup at the fair.
> They just aren't doing anything...interesting...
> ...





Steve5D said:


> I don't see anything in that photo which tells me I'm missing anything, really. It's a snapshot.
> 
> I also don't think it's "street". It looks like it was shot at event somewhere. The woman holding the mirror has a laminated pass around her neck. That suggests to me that it's not something that the photographer just happened to come across while walking downtown which, to me, would be considered "street"...





sm4him said:


> When I do try "street photography," it just ends up looking like the same kind of poorly composed, random photos I used to take when I got my first camera as a teenager and shot everything in sight.  I've tried it; I really have. I just don't really get into it.
> 
> WARNING: HONEST *PERSONAL* CONFESSION about to happen--it seems about 98% of the folks on TPF have ZERO interest in yet another flower or bug photo. Well, that's the way *I* tend to feel about even relatively good street photography. There are occasional exceptions, but mostly they just hold no real interest for me.
> 
> ...




Sorry to be so long responding.  I had some unexpected minor surgery and painful sequelae kept me foggy from the anti-pain meds.

I don't mind when people don't like my shots. It certainly may be that I have internalized something about the scene so much that doesn't come through in the photo - and that's OK.  I post stuff to get this kind of response so I can judge if I am actually communicating or just making myself happy.

I am surprised that people try to disqualify a shot because it doesn't fit some pre-determined category boundaries that they've set up.
I like pictures that show me some aspect into life that I wasn't aware of, that brings something interesting into focus for me. It doesn't have to be big or have great meaning, it just has to be something new to me.  

Instead of 'street photography', which seemed handy, I could call it 'what Lew likes to shoot' but then I'd have a hard time finding a place to put it. 

I like to shoot life - as minor and trivial as it can be but interesting - to me.

_*[rant]*_
And it is certainly more interesting that the thousands of repetitive  pictures of flowers, bugs, 'my son/daughter' at 5 months, 6 months, 7  months - who gives a crap?
Or senior shots or artsy photos of someone staring at the  camera with their camera face on or glamor shots that objectify woman  with pretty faces and large boobs or shots of the poor and homeless that  purport to tell us something but that are really as exploitative as  shots of girls with big boobs pointed at the camera. 
Or buildings at  odd angles, or fireworks, or abstracts of mechanical constructs that are  formed that way -  all of which are so totally damned boring._*[/rant]*_

So I will keep on shooting exactly what I like, whatever category it fits in.
And thanks for looking and commenting.

Lew

Here are two others - taken in the street not 2 minutes nor 30 feet from the first above at the 4th of July parade in Washington, DC - unposed, caught


----------



## SCraig (Jul 6, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> _*[rant]*_
> And it is certainly more interesting that the thousands of repetitive   pictures of flowers, bugs, 'my son/daughter' at 5 months, 6 months, 7   months - who gives a crap?
> Or senior shots or artsy photos of someone staring at the  camera with  their camera face on or glamor shots that objectify woman  with pretty  faces and large boobs or shots of the poor and homeless that  purport to  tell us something but that are really as exploitative as  shots of  girls with big boobs pointed at the camera.
> Or buildings at  odd angles, or fireworks, or abstracts of mechanical  constructs that are  formed that way -  all of which are so totally  damned boring._*[/rant]*_




Lew, I think it's wonderful that you enjoy your chosen style of photography.  To me the enjoyment of photography is the only reason to pursue it.  To provide a glimpse of something to others that they may never have seen is a wonderful thing.

But to be perfectly honest I don't see that a photograph of a woman repairing her makeup is "a moment in time that will not be repeated and that 'means' something".  To be honest it will most likely be repeated in a couple of hours, and is just a boring photograph of a woman repairing her makeup.  I personally prefer the flowers and fireworks and women and mechanical constructs.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jul 6, 2012)

I don't mean to be antagonistic (maybe a little bit?) or anything but...the people in this forum are in a round-about way suggesting that...

Personal/sentimental meaning &#8800; Good photography.

There is such thing as technical consideration in photography. Interest in an image is only one part of the equation. Yes, technical prowess isn't everything, but it IS something. 

Mini-Rant: Slice-of-life photos are boring as well, because if you've noticed there are a ton of family snapshot type images one here. They're unposed, candid, but a candid of the cutest pinch-his-cheeks kid in a crappy composition, lighting, and background makes a poor photograph.

You see....the LAST photograph you posted is a GOOD photograph in my opinion. I would process it differently but it's still good. It has intrigue, mystery, adorability. What is she looking at? Why does she have that inquisitive look? She's so cute! That's what street photography is in my opinion. It's not "oh wow someone in a hijab! Random snapshot, art!"

The second photograph, for example, could be on anybody's desk at they're home. I have hundred's of documentary type images that are interesting to ME for various reasons, but I don't go around touting them as the epitomy of something spectacular because they don't serve that purpose. They are documentary.

And I don't know if this is just a situation of misinterpreted internet communication, but it sounds to me like you are implying that your vision might be a little superior to others because you notice the small things, and you are so out there compared to all those boring portrait photographers. That's just the vibe I'm getting. I could be wrong, though. At least 70% of meaning is lost over the internet because of lack of paralinguistics.

I'm also not sure why you're announcing that you're going to keep shooting whatever you want. I mean, it's not like our opinions have any bearing on that. Do you want a cookie or something?


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 6, 2012)

SCraig said:


> But to be perfectly honest I don't see that a photograph of a woman repairing her makeup is "a moment in time that will not be repeated and that 'means' something".  To be honest it will most likely be repeated in a couple of hours, and is just a boring photograph of a woman repairing her makeup.  I personally prefer the flowers and fireworks and women and mechanical constructs.



OK, no problem.
You see this as boring - as I do virtually all flowers, etc.



rexbobcat said:


> I don't mean to be antagonistic (maybe a little bit?) or anything but...the people in this forum are in a round-about way suggesting that...
> 
> Personal/sentimental meaning &#8800; Good photography.
> 
> ...



Yes, a cookie would be nice
Yes, you are wrong about my thinking that the stuff the others do is somehow less, it's just not of interest to me.
I don't do the other stuff because I think it is boring and, in my mind, I am doing something that is more interesting and more challenging to me.

I was responding to the comments that said what I was doing was not 'street' photography or didn't match up to something that CB would have shot.
What I do, no matter what category it falls into or doesn't, is what I want to do and to dismiss it because it doesn't fit some category is .... contrary to the meaning of art.

I have found that there is no better way to rouse other photographers' ire than to say that you don't care for the area of work they do; it's the same as indirectly criticizing their choice of camera. 

I have some errands to do and there doesn't seem to be any more  to say in this thread.
Thanks again for taking the time


----------



## sm4him (Jul 6, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> sm4him said:
> 
> 
> > WARNING: HONEST *PERSONAL* CONFESSION about to happen--it seems about  98% of the folks on TPF have ZERO interest in yet another flower or bug  photo. Well, that's the way *I* tend to feel about even relatively good  street photography. There are occasional exceptions, but mostly they  just hold no real interest for me.
> ...



1. Hope you are feeling better.
2. Like that last photo of the little kid!
3. *[rant about rant]*  See, this is why I tried to word mine very carefully as MY personal preference.  Because to call ANY broad category of photography totally boring and  pointless, and basically suggest that NOBODY gives a rat's behind about  THOSE topics, really does strike me as pretty narrow-minded. Personally,  I think it ALL has a value and a place, and I think ALL of it, done  well, can be quite intriguing, whether it is what truly interests ME, or  not.  *[/rant about rant]*



The_Traveler said:


> I am surprised that people try to disqualify a shot because it doesn't  fit some pre-determined category boundaries that they've set up.
> I like pictures that show me some aspect into life that I wasn't aware  of, that brings something interesting into focus for me. It doesn't have  to be big or have great meaning, it just has to be something new to me.


This statement strikes me as pretty hilarious, given your  rant. Because, honestly, it sounds to me like you do exactly  that--immediately disqualify any shot that doesn't fit your  pre-determined boundaries, which means no portraits, bugs, flowers,  abstracts, buildings at odd angles, fireworks, or boobs. ;-)




rexbobcat said:


> And I don't know if this is just a situation of misinterpreted internet communication, but it sounds to me like you are implying that your vision might be a little superior to others because you notice the small things, and you are so out there compared to all those boring portrait photographers. That's just the vibe I'm getting. I could be wrong, though. At least 70% of meaning is lost over the internet because of lack of paralinguistics.
> 
> I'm also not sure why you're announcing that you're going to keep shooting whatever you want. I mean, it's not like our opinions have any bearing on that. Do you want a cookie or something?



^THIS.

Finally: Seriously, I like that last photo!


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 6, 2012)

Hey guys


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 6, 2012)

I do like the last shot you posted... THAT is cute, and interesting! Is she bored, frustrated, being coy, or what? The outfit is nice... traditional dress one doesn't see much of normally.

I like almost all types of photography, IF WELL DONE. The photographers that are best known for street... manage to communicate something to a large portion of their audience. Most street shots leave me cold.. some I love! The difference for me is the subject.. what are they doing, what are they thinking? Expressions are paramount, as is location, attire and attitude. They need to POP!

I obviously love macro.. but it has to be well done, or I don't care for it. Same for Landscapes... many are blah.. boring. But some... wow! The plethora of baby shots we see here.. most are Ho-Hum, but a really nicely lit shot, with a photogenic brat... I can appreciate it (but they are rare!)


----------



## rexbobcat (Jul 6, 2012)

Dude, you're the one who got all mad because we said we don't care for the area of work that you're clearly interested in (street photography? DWAC? idk)
So don't be telling us about rousing ire lol.

I just don't understand...

WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY do people post something for discussion/critique/whatever on the largest public exchange of ideas IN THE WORLD (the internet), and then complain and cry all passive-aggressively because other people gave their opinions? And then they say that they really don't care...Well obviously you do to some extent otherwise you would not be posting them with pride in an online forum.

All you had to do was say "I don't agree, but thanks for the input." But no, you would rather play the seemingly innocent guy who doesn't care about others' opinions, who just does his own thing and has absolutely NO feelings of condescension towards other photographs, but he's still willing to go get angry or go sob in the corner over it. I'm sorry, but you are not a misunderstood artist. 

This isn't directed at you as much as it's directed at human behaviour in general. Posting something on a forum is kind of like asking "what do y'all think?" Then when people answer negatively the OP says "Well, guess what? I don't care." *folds arms, sticks nose in air*

I mean, what do people want from others on forums? Do we need to blow smoke up everyones' asses?

/rant over


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 6, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > Hey guys
> ...



Oh, nothing. Just passing through. Figured I'd say hi.


----------



## gsgary (Jul 6, 2012)

For me there is too much color ( very distracting)all the greats of street photograpy Garry Winogrand,Joel Myerowicz, Bruce Gilden all shot black and white


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 6, 2012)

gsgary said:


> Bruce Gilden



LOL


----------



## gsgary (Jul 6, 2012)

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> LOL



There is no LOL about Bruce Gilden


----------



## Jaemie (Jul 6, 2012)

#1: I "see" goats.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jul 6, 2012)

gsgary said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I Google Imaged him and the first thing that popped up are what appear to be Russian Middle-aged Woman boobs. It's a good image, just a little bit of a "whaaat?" moment. lol XD


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 6, 2012)

gsgary said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I find Bruce Gilden's work to be pretty uninspired. All he does is run around NY and harass the elderly. His subjects all subjects look like deer in headlights. 

But, you are entitled to enjoy his work, and I respect that.


----------



## gsgary (Jul 6, 2012)

Not many people get invited to join Magnum so he must be doing something right


----------



## jake337 (Jul 6, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> I do like the last shot you posted... THAT is cute, and interesting! Is she bored, frustrated, being coy, or what? The outfit is nice... traditional dress one doesn't see much of normally.
> 
> I like almost all types of photography, IF WELL DONE. The photographers that are best known for street... manage to communicate something to a large portion of their audience. Most street shots leave me cold.. some I love! The difference for me is the subject.. what are they doing, what are they thinking? Expressions are paramount, as is location, attire and attitude. They need to POP!
> 
> I obviously love macro.. but it has to be well done, or I don't care for it. Same for Landscapes... many are blah.. boring. But some... wow! The plethora of baby shots we see here.. most are Ho-Hum, but a really nicely lit shot, with a photogenic brat... I can appreciate it (but they are rare!)



In order for me to like a street photography there needs to be good light.


I love the little girl shot.  Just not too fond of the light in the others.  But events like these happen on certain days so you can't wait for the right light which sucks :cry:


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 6, 2012)

I think those other categories are boring for me to take and mostly to look at.
If other people are happy with it, that's up to them.
It's rare that I see a landscape, bug or flower picture that I really, really like and sort of wish I had taken.

I didn't say I don't care what people said (and my arms aren't folded. 
I post to get reactions of any sort and I thank the people for writing them.
And I'm not passive-aggressive, I'm aggressive.

My total response was to the people who told me it didn't fit into their  conception of what street photography should be and therefore it wasn't  OK.


----------



## sm4him (Jul 6, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> I think those other categories are boring for me to take and mostly to look at.
> If other people are happy with it, that's up to them.
> It's rare that I see a landscape, bug or flower picture that I really, really like and sort of wish I had taken.
> 
> ...



Well, since MY post was included in your response, I just take a bit of umbrage with it. I don't see where I said, or even implied that:
a) your photo didn't FIT my conception of street photography, and/or
b) it therefore wasn't OK.

If you somehow read that in to what I said, then I apologize because it was not even the tiniest bit close to what I was trying to convey.


----------



## ZapoTeX (Jul 6, 2012)

> a) your photo didn't FIT my conception of street photography, and/or
> b) it therefore wasn't OK.


I think he was referring to my post...
Just to clarify: it's not that I don't like the Ford Mustang just because it is not an S.U.V.... it's just that if someone tells me "you miss something if you don't drive an S.U.V." and then shows me his Mustang as an example, I can't help remark that I don't think the Mustang is a fitting example of his claim!

No offense taken, I hope! I'm totally ignorant in history of photography and I'm well aware that my conception of "street" might be wrong.

Ciao!


----------

