# "When Will Street Photography Grow Up?"



## Write Lighting (Apr 8, 2015)

So I recently read an article by a street photographer named Marius Vieth titled "When will street photography grow up?". It's an interesting read about what makes street photography, street photography. To sum it up, Marius thinks that pigeonholing street photography into only using a subset of rules and conditions which were used by some of the photographic greats to create their art is too creatively stifling. He mentions how people get stuck on abiding by certain principles, like never using a long zoom or heavy-handed photoshop, which he thinks takes away from the possibilities that street photography has to be "anything it wants to be".

   I'm not much of a street shooter myself, but I'm curious as to what you guys think about this. Does street photography have to abide by certain principles and rulesets otherwise it won't be "real" street photography? I've heard so many differing opinions and guidelines in the past. For example, you can't shoot with a DSLR in the streets, only use wide angle lenses, keep your photos candid or else they become "street portraits", cloning out objects and manipulating the scene destroys the integrity of the photo and so on. I'm not saying I necessarily agree or disagree with those statements, just that these are things I've heard passed down the grapevine.


----------



## fjrabon (Apr 8, 2015)

I think street photography needs some sort of guidelines, otherwise it's not a genre, and is simply photography. And it's fine to mix and blend genres, but I think you should be honest if you're going to make use of labels. 

Create the art you want to create and worry about what genre it gets lumped into later. 

But the "can't use a DSLR" thing is silly. Personally I don't like doing street with a dSLR, but that's just a workflow preference thing, nothing to do with the nature of the genre. 

Now what I definitely don't agree with is presenting a photograph as something it is not. That is, wanting to be thought of as traditional street while staging or using heavy cloning. There's nothing wrong with using those techniques per se, but if you want your art to be evaluated as a certain genre, that has certain expectations, then deviating from that is simply dishonest. 

In my mind that isn't any different than an author who writes a fictitious memoir. The genre of memoir has certain implications of how the story was put together. Street photography has certain implications of how the photo was put together. If you buck those conventions, that's great, but you can't call it street. It's staged street, street portraiture or just plain old photography.


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 8, 2015)

so...yea. 
I think the "teenager" isn't street photography, but the writer of that article. sheesh. 
a guy thats been doing street photography for <2 years is going to tell people what "true" street is?
the whole article read like he was trying to justify street photography as an art form to someone, or  himself. 
instead of railing against the municipality of photography rule-makers he should just go and take some pictures.


----------



## Write Lighting (Apr 8, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> I think street photography needs some sort of guidelines, otherwise it's not a genre, and is simply photography. And it's fine to mix and blend genres, but I think you should be honest if you're going to make use of labels.
> 
> Create the art you want to create and worry about what genre it gets lumped into later.
> 
> ...



I agree with you for the most part and that's mainly what I took away from it as well. So do you think it's more of a perception issue with using a certain label for your work when there are much more appropriate genres that they could apply to. Like the example of calling the staged portraits on the streets "street photography" when they'd be better suited as "street portraiture" instead.

Also though, are the guidelines that define street photography so restrictive that it becomes near impossible to create a new and inventive take on your stylistic choices without copying the work of those that have come before you?

I can't say whether or not they do since I've never really concerned myself with labeling any of my street stuff as being traditional street photography.


----------



## Write Lighting (Apr 8, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> so...yea.
> I think the "teenager" isn't street photography, but the writer of that article. sheesh.
> a guy thats been doing street photography for <2 years is going to tell people what "true" street is?
> the whole article read like he was trying to justify street photography as an art form to someone, or  himself.
> instead of railing against the municipality of photography rule-makers he should just go and take some pictures.


It did kind of seem like he was taking the tact that street photography is an art form and art forms aren't meant to be defined maaannn. Although I guess he was trying to say that you should just do what you want and not worry about whether it's right or wrong...maybe?


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 8, 2015)

Write Lighting said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > so...yea.
> ...



he could have summed up that entire article in less than a paragraph, and sounded a lot less pompous about it. 
photography is like every other creative outlet genre.  Art is, and always has been, simply what people make of it. no more, no less.


----------



## runnah (Apr 8, 2015)

I've seen very few "street" photos that I would call good.


----------



## limr (Apr 8, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> I think street photography needs some sort of guidelines, otherwise it's not a genre, and is simply photography. And it's fine to mix and blend genres, but I think you should be honest if you're going to make use of labels.
> 
> Create the art you want to create and worry about what genre it gets lumped into later.
> 
> ...



I agree. I think people use the cameras they feel comfortable with that can help them get the pictures they want. Supposedly, dSLRs are too big and conspicuous but that's only if you accept the premise that you have to be close to the subject, and I don't think that's true. What's important is the _seeing_, not the proximity to what you are seeing.

As for post, I also agree that too much feels disingenuous. It means (to me) that the street photographer didn't really see a moment, but saw something "close enough" and then "fixed" it in post. It dilutes the integrity of the photo. No, not all genres are about capturing reality exactly as it is (or as close as possible), but street photography _is_ about reality and making a comment on reality. Don't distort the message by altering reality.


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 8, 2015)

limr said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > I think street photography needs some sort of guidelines, otherwise it's not a genre, and is simply photography. And it's fine to mix and blend genres, but I think you should be honest if you're going to make use of labels.
> ...



is cropping or fixing color and WB "altering reality"?
sometimes the  post work IS making the picture as close as possible to reality.


----------



## fjrabon (Apr 8, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > fjrabon said:
> ...


I think the article the OP was talking about was about using heavy PS, like cloning, composites, etc. 

I don't think anybody questions the validity of things like white balance, contrast, black and white conversion, dodging, burning, sharpness, etc. in street.


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 8, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...



well, and there's another issue. 
why is heavily modified pictures _*not*_ street?
what is the processing maximum allowance to be considered street?
some people say anything staged at all is not street. 
who makes the rules? who decides? 

i say photography is photography...
call it whatever you want and let whoever sees it decide for themselves.


----------



## fjrabon (Apr 8, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...


I agree with you, just like I agree that literature is literature. However, if you decide to label your photography street photography, then you are **choosing** to apply such labels. If you divert from the conventions that those labels imply, then you're simply being dishonest. People who buck those conventions without being straightforward about it are using the beliefs people have about street (not staged, not cloned or composited) so their work will be viewed under those assumptions without actually having to adhere to those assumptions. 

What do you think of an author who writes a brilliant memoir that turns out to mostly be fiction?  Isn't literature just literature?  

Don't want to adhere to the commonly held conventions of street? That's great. Then just call it photography. 

I don't insist that people refer to my chili as apple pie.


----------



## Overread (Apr 8, 2015)

The author needs to go try a few more genres because what he describes is in no way unique to street photography. Heck its not even unique to photography as an artistic medium. Convention and conformity as much a part of art as "creative chaos". Indeed much conformity is simply repetition of what was once chaos; and these things go in cycles == esp for those heavily invested into a genre who quickly grow bored of the current "trends" and branch out more so. They try new things and get new ideas and thus end up potentially creating or at least laying the foundations of the new conformity and style(s) that will dominate for a while. 

Indeed we are in a totally free artist age at present - gone are the days when you HAD to go to the right uni to get recognised as an artist. GONE are the days when you had to use only certain mediums - styles- methods to be recognised as an artist.

At is free and it seems that in this freedom its got a large number who not only wish to keep it free, but bathe in the chaos of being so free as to have no boundaries at all. That, of course, ends up with some truly inspiring and awesome works; and a heckload of trash


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 8, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > fjrabon said:
> ...



sure, but...
who makes these rules? 
literature has fairly well defined rules. fiction, non-fiction, etc etc...
the publishing companies decide the genre if they publish it. if  you do it on your own you can call it whatever you want. what category does the Bible fall under? I think some people might disagree on that as well. 
who decides what is street and what is not? who makes the rules? what are the rules?
who decided that staged shots werent street", and to what degree does it have to be staged to fall out of the street category? how much processing is allowed? who makes that call? and who picks apart every photo to figure out exactly what was done?  
theres just too much subjectivity involved with something like that. might as well define art and be done with it.


----------



## fjrabon (Apr 8, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...



The community makes the rules.  Some aspects are difficult to define, but what the article in the OP is talking about isn't.  Most everybody who does street does adhere to the idea that it shouldn't be staged, it shouldn't have lots of cloning and it shouldn't be composited without being very upfront about that.  

In my experience the problem with artists like the one linked in the OP is that they very much want those conventions applied to their work by viewers.  They want viewers to think their work didn't involve cloning, staging and compositing. They're super reluctant to admit that they used any of those techniques.  Viewers judge art differently based upon certain notions of how it was produced.  They give artists some leeway if they know if the artist limited themselves to certain restrictions.  What would be judged as mediocre fiction is often judged as fantastic memoir.  

Again, I totally agree that artists should be free to do whatever they want in creating their art.  

The problem lies in the only reason you'd ever use a label like "street photography" is that you want people to believe that it conforms to the general standards of the genre (whoever decides them).  

It seems like you want to destroy the term "street photography."  That's a reasonable position.  The artist in the OP doesn't.  The artist in the OP wants to keep the term, and all the assumptions viewers make about it, whether they realize it or not, but not actually be limited by those conventions.  

There's a lot of leeway in what constitutes chili.  Does that mean that I can make an apple pie and call it chili?


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 8, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > fjrabon said:
> ...



no no no...
i dont want to destroy any term..
I dont shoot street, so i have no idea what "street" really is. 
but my problem is... well,  lets say that i wanted to shoot some street photography. 
I see a great shot of a girl and just as im going to take the shot, she sees me with the camera and smiles for me. then click.  great shot? maybe. staged? eh,  maaaaybe. so is it not street now? doesn't count? 
who gets to decide? if i call it a street shot, am i wrong? 

its just such a complex genre with so many little "rules" you are supposed to know, yet all I ever hear around here is how artists arent supposed to follow the rules, as it stifles creativity. 
so if I follow the rules, is it street but not art? and if I break the rules to get creative, is it art but not street?

this is why i dislike labels, unavoidable as they are. too much subjectivity. 
really, im not trying to do anything with the "street" label except maybe try to understand the parameters a little better 'cause its got me confuzzeled as hell.


----------



## fjrabon (Apr 8, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...


The scenario you described is usually called street portraiture.  Yes, it's silly that it sub-divides and gets so complicated.

I don't think anybody is claiming that if you don't "stick to the rules" of street photography that your photograph is no longer art. It just becomes "photography" or maybe some other genre like "street portraiture" instead of "street."  

It's like if I'm making vegetable stew and add in some beef, it becomes beef stew instead of vegetable stew.  It doesn't cease to be food, or even stew, just a different kind of stew.


----------



## Write Lighting (Apr 8, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > fjrabon said:
> ...



Adding on to that, what if the artist freely admits to using some of the more unconventional methods that wouldn't be associated with the genre, like cloning and compositing? Can they then still use the term street photography if they're being upfront about it or can they no longer be allowed to use the term and have to describe it as something else entirely?


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 8, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > fjrabon said:
> ...



this is why i stick to formal portraits. 
crap...
i guess that's just a subcategory of portraiture?
$^@*#&$^ damn it...
I cant escape.


----------



## fjrabon (Apr 8, 2015)

Write Lighting said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...


I'd say sure, if they're very upfront, but the artist should realize that the majority of people in the field, both as viewers and practicing artists will disagree.  At that point the artist is essentially making an argument for changing the definition of the genre, whether they're successful or not, who knows?  At that point the artist is also probably making it more about genre definitions than it is about his or her art, which I find distasteful, but w/e.  I tend to prefer when definitions fluidly, naturally, change over time, not when some individual with a "vision" sets out to intentionally change it


----------



## Write Lighting (Apr 8, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> Write Lighting said:
> 
> 
> > fjrabon said:
> ...


I agree with you on that one. It's similar to when an artist creates a genre label just to describe their art instead of focusing on just making art. The focus then gets pulled into, "I'm a visionary genius" so it becomes more about them than their work.


----------



## Overread (Apr 8, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> sure, but...
> who makes these rules?.



And there is another element. Art in itself used to have rules. They were very strictly defined; indeed that is part of the reason why some (oft considered childish) artworks of the past by great masters of their day are so highly prized today. Because they went against the established flow; which wasn't just as it is today; but actually going against the "gatekeepers" who defined art.

In today's world there are no universal gate-keepers  (one can argue that in the real world there are nearly no universal ones for anything; but there are degrees of laxity and strictness) for art. As such what you have instead is a vast multitude of sub-gate-keepers each operating within their own niche. 

So its as much for the photographer to choose.


----------



## runnah (Apr 8, 2015)

All I know is the greatest density of pretentious dicks are found in the "street" photography group.

"Oh my shot of a guy siting on a bench drinking coffee is profound art!"


----------



## sashbar (Apr 8, 2015)

runnah said:


> I've seen very few "street" photos that I would call good.



The "problem" is exactly the opposite:  Street Photography as a genre is oversaturated with great, great recent work of thousands and thousands of good street shooters.
There are thousands of excellent street photos here:

http://www.urbanpicnic-streetphotography.com/street-photography/#!prettyphoto [gallery]/16/
... and these are just uknown shooters.

And if you want to explore the pinnacle of the genre, the true masters,  Alex Webb books is not a bad place to start
Alex Webb Rebecca Norris Webb Photographs


----------



## fjrabon (Apr 8, 2015)

runnah said:


> All I know is the greatest density of pretentious dicks are found in the "street" photography group.
> 
> "Oh my shot of a guy siting on a bench drinking coffee is profound art!"


Street photographers are by and large people pointing their cameras at certain types of things and processing their photos in certain types of ways.

Not sure why there is a need to belittle people's character based on what they point their cameras at and what buttons they push in Photoshop.


----------



## sashbar (Apr 8, 2015)

To me personally street photography is anything that depicts people living in the environment that they themselves have created.
People have created a lot of weird stuff on this planet: square houses, trousers, concrete cities, pipes, glasses, airplanes, tables, cigarettes and chairs, never mind cars, garbage, electricity, posters, casual sex and toothbrushes.
Anyone who would be brought here from the happy days of Mother Nature, clean rivers and dynosaurs would be shell shocked. So there is a lot to explore and it would be silly to strangle this genre with strict rules and principles.
So my advice to anyone who wants to be a good street shooter - keep your dynosaur mentality intact. Forget all that pseudo-clever stuff, this is for teenagers. This way street shooting will give you a lot of intellectual pleasure.
I hope I was clear enough. He he.

Yes, and to the OP - street photography is a VERY mature genre these days with many aestetic schools within it. If someone does not know or undertand it, he/she may educate him/herself a little. It is easy, everything is on the net.


----------



## runnah (Apr 8, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > All I know is the greatest density of pretentious dicks are found in the "street" photography group.
> ...



We've had a few examples here of boring shots that were nothing more than snapshots only to have the photography go on and on about how their photo was a masterpiece and us non "street" people didn't "get" it.

That is what bothers me about the genre.


----------



## runnah (Apr 8, 2015)

sashbar said:


> And if you want to explore the pinnacle of the genre, the true masters,  Alex Webb books is not a bad place to start
> Alex Webb Rebecca Norris Webb Photographs



Some really great ones in there that were very well composed. Some not so much. Like this one: Alex Webb Rebecca Norris Webb Photographs  (image 5) I see nothing about this that is remarkable. Poor composition, no real subject. blurry people.


----------



## limr (Apr 8, 2015)

First of all, I logged back in to find 13 notifications that my post was quoted. Yikes, what's going on?? 

I think basic post processing is fine, but more than that, as fjrabon has been arguing, then brings the photo into the realm of Something Else. 

Personally, I consider street photography to be the _sub_genre, not the genre. I would consider it a subgenre of photojournalism. There are a lot of photographs that capture humans in their environment with an intent of capturing not just an image but some sort of commentary or truth about our existence. When these images are taken in an urban setting, that's when it becomes "street."

It should go without saying that this is just a personal definition that I work with, and don't expect that others need to follow it. It's just how I look at things.


----------



## limr (Apr 8, 2015)

runnah said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> > And if you want to explore the pinnacle of the genre, the true masters,  Alex Webb books is not a bad place to start
> ...



I'm surprised that Andre Kertesz doesn't get mentioned more often (and who, incidentally, often shot with a longer lens.)
andre kertesz street photographs - Google Search

10 Lessons Andre Kertesz Has Taught Me About Street Photography
Of course, in this article, Kim chooses some of Kertesz's photographs that aren't street photography at all.


----------



## runnah (Apr 8, 2015)

limr said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > sashbar said:
> ...



Well see all of those have interesting subjects and compositions.


----------



## sashbar (Apr 8, 2015)

runnah said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> > And if you want to explore the pinnacle of the genre, the true masters,  Alex Webb books is not a bad place to start
> ...



I like this image, not his very best, but still it is very, very good, otherwise it simply would not be there. His own standarts are very high. Webb is a master of complicated not-so-obvious compositions where he bends the rules and shifts the accents to create certain moods. He has such an eye for a composition, I want to cry. Here he creates some sort of organised dynamic chaos with people moving in various directions at various speeds in their separate spaces that gives you an immediate feel of this aimless life of people locked in their boxes. It is very difficult to pull this shot in a constrained space with so many moving people. And on top of that he gives us a great white/blue/orange colour scheme with diagonals and two pieces of sky. There is lots going on in this image, it has great, great leading lines to a tree on the walls, it has frames inside a frame. It has a great subject in the lower part of the image, that guy in a white hat who is asking us questions...  Believe me it is very good.   Forget about the rule of thirds, his stuff is on a completely different level.


----------



## runnah (Apr 8, 2015)

sashbar said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > sashbar said:
> ...



You kind of just proved my point about making a sub-standard shot seem like more than it is by using special pleading. 

I am very well versed about alternative forms of composition and still I struggle to find anything remarkable about that shot.


----------



## sashbar (Apr 8, 2015)

limr said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > sashbar said:
> ...



I do not rate Kim himself, he is a good blogger but as a street photographer he is a mere mortal like soo many with nothing extra special really.  As for Kertesz images, and whether it is street photography or not, if you read my definition above, it is. There are no clear borders between genres, it all depends on how you look at the scene. If there are no people in the frame, but feel thier presence in aorse that someone just put on a table it is still "people and the environment they create", it can be a street ptotography to me.  Or you can shoot it differently and all od a sudden there is not a trace of human beings and all what is left is still life. It is open to interpretations.


----------



## fjrabon (Apr 8, 2015)

runnah said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...


How is this different from any other genre? I've seen plenty of wannabe commercial photographers do the same, and attack the credentials of anybody who suggests their work isn't perfect.


----------



## sashbar (Apr 8, 2015)

runnah said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...



 there is no need for a special pleading for someone to like Alex Webb work   If you do not see anything remarkable here, it is not his problem  

I really want to buy this image and put it on the wall, but being a real Scrooge just can not part with several hundreds of bucks for a picture 
I hope you like  this:
Alex Webb Rebecca Norris Webb Photographs


----------



## limr (Apr 8, 2015)

sashbar said:


> I do not rate Kim himself, he is a good blogger but as a street photographer he is a mere mortal like soo many with nothing extra special really.  *As for Kertesz images, whether is is street photography or not, if you read my definition above, it is*. There are no clear borders between genres, it all depends on how you look at the scene. If tehre are no people in the frame, but feel thier presence in aorse that someone just put on a table it is still "people and the environment they create", it can be a street ptotography to me.  Or you can shoot it differently and all od a sudden there is not a trace of human beings and all what is left is still life. It is open to interpretations.



I never said Kertesz's images weren't street photography. I just thought it funny that someone (anyone - it wasn't a comment on Kim specifically) would write a blog post specifically about street photography but then try to illustrate some of his points with images that were clearly still life, not street. I don't consider the picture of the staircase or the fork to be 'street' but certainly some of the other pictures used in that post were.

If you see *my* definition above, an indoor scene without any people can absolutely make a commentary, but for me, that's part of the wider genre, not part of the smaller street photography subgenre.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 8, 2015)

i like weeding them out. IN any genre. Anyone can pull out a visa and buy a camera. And photography is so prevalent now it is full of wannabees. I am a huge bias against much photoshop for example (not all). I have actually gone back and unliked things on multiple websites if i found out the photoshopped a certain photo (mostly in doc type work). IN street, yuppie buys a 5k camera and suddenly thinks between that and photo shop he will go slum it for a day and maybe find some great street shots. Stuff like that, i put right in the mental trash bin. I am totally, biased, in some ways. I will admit that. Just like i favor people that shoot film. I think film "weeded" a lot of them out.  NOT that i can't "like "certain things. But just because someone comes up with a certain photo "oh wow, that is neat" doesn't mean it holds any value for me. Yep, okay it is "neat". It is also mostly b.s.. Trashbin. Next. I wanna see something REAL.


----------



## sashbar (Apr 8, 2015)

limr said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> > I do not rate Kim himself, he is a good blogger but as a street photographer he is a mere mortal like soo many with nothing extra special really.  *As for Kertesz images, whether is is street photography or not, if you read my definition above, it is*. There are no clear borders between genres, it all depends on how you look at the scene. If tehre are no people in the frame, but feel thier presence in aorse that someone just put on a table it is still "people and the environment they create", it can be a street ptotography to me.  Or you can shoot it differently and all od a sudden there is not a trace of human beings and all what is left is still life. It is open to interpretations.
> ...



I think it is very contextual. If you include this photo into a body of his more obvious street work, it will nevertheless look organic. As i said, ther are no strict borders and sometimes we see how a new thriving genre or a particularly ifluential artist "privatises" bordering genres imposing its own aestetic principles. I think this is all very fluid.


----------



## sashbar (Apr 8, 2015)

bribrius said:


> i like weeding them out. IN any genre. Anyone can pull out a visa and buy a camera. And photography is so prevalent now it is full of wannabees. I am a huge bias against much photoshop for example (not all). I have actually gone back and unliked things on multiple websites if i found out the photoshopped a certain photo (mostly in doc type work). IN street, yuppie buys a 5k camera and suddenly thinks between that and photo shop he will go slum it for a day and maybe find some great street shots. Stuff like that, i put right in the mental trash bin. I am totally, biased, in some ways. I will admit that. Just like i favor people that shoot film. I think film "weeded" a lot of them out.  NOT that i can't "like "certain things. But just because someone comes up with a certain photo "oh wow, that is neat" doesn't mean it holds any value for me. Yep, okay it is "neat". It is also mostly b.s.. Trashbin. Next. I wanna see something REAL.



You are not biased, because what you are describing is a FACT. There are lots and lots of people who have learned to use a camera and can not shoot. Same way there are (fewer) many people who have put a lot of effort and learned how to paint but can not paint. That is not their fault at all, they want to create something but they are just not creative. You can not learn a talent. You can not buy it in a camera shop.  And it is perfectly OK, talent is not compulsory. Lots of people do photography, they enjoy it, they do it for themselves first of all, and I think it is great. You do not have to pay for their images and pictures, why worry. Hey, after all it is better to take pictures than do drugs and steal. I think we all need to learn to be more tolerant and positive in this respect. And if you want to see something REAL, what is the problem? There is a lot of real photography on the net.


----------



## Write Lighting (Apr 8, 2015)

limr said:


> First of all, I logged back in to find 13 notifications that my post was quoted. Yikes, what's going on??
> 
> I think basic post processing is fine, but more than that, as fjrabon has been arguing, then brings the photo into the realm of Something Else.
> 
> ...


I was thinking this as well. It seems that most people hold street photography to similar standards as photojournalism. It definitely feels like a subgenre of photojournalism at least. The only time I hear street photography not talked about in this way is when someone like the photographer in the article tries to break down the idea of what street is all about.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 8, 2015)

sashbar said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > i like weeding them out. IN any genre. Anyone can pull out a visa and buy a camera. And photography is so prevalent now it is full of wannabees. I am a huge bias against much photoshop for example (not all). I have actually gone back and unliked things on multiple websites if i found out the photoshopped a certain photo (mostly in doc type work). IN street, yuppie buys a 5k camera and suddenly thinks between that and photo shop he will go slum it for a day and maybe find some great street shots. Stuff like that, i put right in the mental trash bin. I am totally, biased, in some ways. I will admit that. Just like i favor people that shoot film. I think film "weeded" a lot of them out.  NOT that i can't "like "certain things. But just because someone comes up with a certain photo "oh wow, that is neat" doesn't mean it holds any value for me. Yep, okay it is "neat". It is also mostly b.s.. Trashbin. Next. I wanna see something REAL.
> ...


suppose it just annoys me looking through some of them. "this is street". Uhh. I don't think so. Street is doc photography in my mind. Street is for shooters.


----------



## AlanKlein (Apr 8, 2015)

I thought the photographer the OP referenced to be actually pretty good even though he has less than two years experience.  He's got a good eye for street photography.   I enjoyed looking at all his photos.  I also understood his piece about promoting each photographer's creativity - that we didn't have to copy the past masters "rules" or "styles" although there's nothing wrong with showing them respect.    But what he said was to let your creativity soar.  I don;t think many of the people who commented here even read it.  There's nothing controversial in what he said.


----------



## sashbar (Apr 8, 2015)

bribrius said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



Half a century ago Henry Cartier Bresson drew a very clear line between street photography and documentary. Documentary is about facts. Facts are boring. Street photography has nothing to do with facts. It has no obligation to explain anything, to tell the truth or to even interpret it.  For HCB it was a pure intellectual exercise in creating lines and spaces and movements. I think it is worth to bear in mind even if you do not follow his school of thought.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 8, 2015)

sashbar said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > sashbar said:
> ...


i prefer a mix. Otherwise you end up with a greatly composed neat photo that isn't worth much.  This is where i  believe street photography really started. Just since then we added better composition and more interest.   (1800's photo).


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 8, 2015)

The thing that I've noticed about some street photography is that people break rules for the sake of breaking rules. Or maybe it's laziness.

"My photo is out of focus, has poor composition, and is underexposed because I was in the moment. Who are you to make judgments about my art."

I like somewhat specific kinds of street photography: good composition, geometric, ironic, sarcastic, well balanced, making the mundane interesting. I'm not a big fan of the _look at how weird/fat/homeless/dirty/crazy/sad/creepy/downtrodden this person is_ type of street photography.

Bruce Gilden should be the only Bruce Gilden in photography.


----------



## sashbar (Apr 8, 2015)

bribrius said:


> i prefer a mix. Otherwise you end up with a greatly composed neat photo that isn't worth much.  This is where i  believe street photography really started. Just since then we added better composition and more interest.   (1800's photo). View attachment 98453



Then you can say that Picasso isn't worth much because it is a pure excercise in lines and forms. HCB isn't worth much because it has no factual narrative. Poetry has no value, because it documents nothing.
I am not even trying to compare good street shots with Picasso &Co, but I see pure aestetic value in many street images that is worth enough to look at it more than once. 
And I work with documentary images on a daily basis, editing it and very rarely want to look at it again after the job is done.  Most of the time a documentary shot that is even brilliantly done by a top pro has very little lasting value precisely because it depicts facts. Facts are dying quickly because they are replaced by other facts.  Street photography that has risen to an art form has a much much more lasting value in me eyes. But I am talking about, in your words, the  REAL stuff.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 8, 2015)

sashbar said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > i prefer a mix. Otherwise you end up with a greatly composed neat photo that isn't worth much.  This is where i  believe street photography really started. Just since then we added better composition and more interest.   (1800's photo). View attachment 98453
> ...


where did you even get this from what i typed? It appears you missed the "better composition and more interest". The roots of street photography are in doc. There is no way around that. They went from taking a photo, literally, of a street. To narrowing that down to finding something of interest within that larger photo. Party because the cameras became more portable they could move them easier. street "portraits" were being taken over a hundred years ago. None of this is new or some huge revelation.


----------



## Write Lighting (Apr 8, 2015)

AlanKlein said:


> I thought the photographer the OP referenced to be actually pretty good even though he has less than two years experience.  He's got a good eye for street photography.   I enjoyed looking at all his photos.  I also understood his piece about promoting each photographer's creativity - that we didn't have to copy the past masters "rules" or "styles" although there's nothing wrong with showing them respect.    But what he said was to let your creativity soar.  I don;t think many of the people who commented here even read it.  There's nothing controversial in what he said.


I did actually like some of his photos which is what drew me to the article in the first place. Regardless of whether or not it's lumped in with the street photography subgenre or another genre entirely.


----------



## sashbar (Apr 8, 2015)

rexbobcat said:


> The thing that I've noticed about some street photography is that people break rules for the sake of breaking rules. Or maybe it's laziness.
> 
> "My photo is out of focus, has poor composition, and is underexposed because I was in the moment. Who are you to make judgments about my art."
> 
> ...



I can not agree more. People break the rules before they have learned to implement them properly. That is not the laziness though, that is the lack of understanding of what they are doing and why these rules are there in the first place. I, for instance can not even pretend that I know how to break the rules, because I do not have an eye that the likes of Alex Webb have.  
And btw this is not a coincident that the potentially best photographers start following these rules not even knowing it, because for them it is just natural. They just see it. They see the balance of the picture, they associate it with feelings and emotions. In other word they can talk this language. Probably it is what we call talent.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 8, 2015)

Write Lighting said:
			
		

> Adding on to that, _what if the artist freely admits to using some of the more unconventional methods that wouldn't be associated with the genre, like *cloning and compositing?*_ Can they then still use the term street photography if they're being upfront about it or can they no longer be allowed to use the term and have to describe it as something else entirely?



Cloning and compositing? If you're talking about cloning out a few sensor dust spots, that's one thing. But I am pretty sure you mean cloning and compositing in the sense of cloning out (or "in"!) elements that one wants to remove from the scene or significantly alter, and of course compositing means combining elements and or parts of two or more images into one image...

Sorry, but performing either of those post-capture acts immediately moves the resulting image away from the veracity of street, and shifts the origins of the image and its impact to the software. So, let's give credit where credit is due, and we shall henceforth proclaim that type of work _*keyboard*_, to show where the magic comes from.

"Hey Paul, wassup? Whaddaya' say we head downtown today at lunch and shoot some keyboard? Click off a few hundred frames, hopefully maybe find a good, clean background with some homeless guys standing around in front of a plain wall, begging for change, then I have some awesome street shots of Paris with the Eiffel Tower in the distance that we could drop in behind them, make it look super-bitchin'! Man, I love shootin'_* keyboard!*_"

And the article the OP referred to thinks that street needs to "grow up" and welcome the above kind of it-shay? Sorry....no.


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 8, 2015)

I think it's a weird line in terms of photo manipulation. In photojournalism there is a code of ethics that can guide PJs. Tell the story as comprehensively and effectively as possible.

You won't see as many silhouettes in photojournalism unless the focus of the focus of the photo is something other than the people or the scene is too much for the camera's DR, because it can sometimes give a false representation of the scene. Recently there has been somewhat of an uproar because photojournalists are beginning to worry more about making a  photo with powerful aesthetics than telling a powerful story. The abuse of post-processing is, I think, a statement on the mentality of many photographers today.

However, in street photography there are street photographers converting to black and white and applying heavy contrast. Crushed blacks are common. There is no code and there is no established goal, so how much manipulation really is too much?

What's the difference between cloning out that pole and just bringing the shadows down so far it melts into blackness?


----------



## bribrius (Apr 8, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Write Lighting said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


bingo. Street is rooted in doc. Different standards. street is for shooters. (but i think i already said that). jmo


----------



## sashbar (Apr 8, 2015)

bribrius said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...


 
I got it from your very first line. Correct me if I am wrong but you say you prefer the mix, i.e. a street photography that has a documentary side in it.  All I am saying is it does not have to have any factual side to be of some lasting value.  As for the new stuff and revelation, I think there were many, as with any fast developing genre. The way modern street photographers started to use color, the space, the objects, the way they start cutting the frame - I think the language is evolving, and some recent stuff was a revelatuon to me personally, especially composition wise. I would say there some true innovators there. It may seem something small and insignificant to you, because it is all street and square pictures of stuff by  the end of the day, but those who work in this genre, I guess, know that small steps are often difficult to make.


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 8, 2015)

Derrel said:


> "Hey Paul, wassup? Whaddaya' say we head downtown today at lunch and shoot some keyboard? Click off a few hundred frames, hopefully maybe find a good, clean background with some homeless guys standing around in front of a plain wall, begging for change, then I have some awesome street shots of Paris with the Eiffel Tower in the distance that we could drop in behind them, make it look super-bitchin'! Man, I love shootin'_* keyboard!*_"



That's rather hyperbolic.


----------



## runnah (Apr 8, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> How is this different from any other genre? I've seen plenty of wannabe commercial photographers do the same, and attack the credentials of anybody who suggests their work isn't perfect.



Because for most of the other genres a bad photo is much more apparent and less easily defended. I could go to a crowded city, spin around and shoot at random and make a case for 99.9% of the photo taken being masterful street photography.

This isn't to say there isn't good example of the genre, several have been posted here so far, it's just to say that there is a lot more BS in the street world.


----------



## sashbar (Apr 8, 2015)

rexbobcat said:


> Recently there has been somewhat of an uproar because photojournalists are beginning to worry more about making a  photo with powerful aesthetics than telling a powerful story.



There is definitely a trend in this direction, even war photographers are trying to shoot aestetically powerful shots these days, and the reason is not street photography, but just a pure competiton, which is increasing. I look at the image and instantly see it is a AFP/Getty reporter, even if i do not know the name.  They are a bit ahead in this game. And guess which image I will choose? Pure competiton.


----------



## Write Lighting (Apr 8, 2015)

rexbobcat said:


> I think it's a weird line in terms of photo manipulation. In photojournalism there is a code of ethics that can guide PJs. Tell the story as comprehensively and effectively as possible.
> 
> You won't see as many silhouettes in photojournalism unless the focus of the focus of the photo is something other than the people or the scene is too much for the camera's DR, because it can sometimes give a false representation of the scene. Recently there has been somewhat of an uproar because photojournalists are beginning to worry more about making a  photo with powerful aesthetics than telling a powerful story. The abuse of post-processing is, I think, a statement on the mentality of many photographers today.
> 
> ...


Ah-ha! That's another thing I was curious about. Wouldn't such heavy contrast or dodging and burning create too unrealistic of a scene if you're losing key elements in the frame in the shadows? Or is what was lost not an important part of documenting the scene so then it wouldn't matter? Then if that's the case, I wouldn't see much of a difference between cloning it out and losing an unimportant aspect of the photo through burning or contrast.


----------



## runnah (Apr 8, 2015)

If I see another shot of someone walking in front of some ad, sign or graffiti I am going to go crazy.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 8, 2015)

I thought the photo runnah referenced to, this shot at the start of a gallery Alex Webb Rebecca Norris Webb Photographs

was VERY much reminiscent of a couple of famous HCB photos...what runnah referred to as "blurry" was motion blur, designed to make the boy appear, well, moving. The scene-as-seen-through-doorways, another famous HCB trope...the figures across the frame, in motion yet stopped due to distance from the camera, simple camera work basics...I thought they lead off with this, specific photo simply because it has sooooooooo much of the HCB ethos in it...it almost feels like an homage. Go to some &hi+hole third-world place, like Haiti, and walk around snapping the locals...when things align, click! The rest of that portfolio is all ultra-traditional  street stuff...what I think of as the 28mm school of street that developed in the 1950's among a wide group of street shooters. And in that organic, authentic type of street, there is absolutely no place for compositing things.


----------



## fjrabon (Apr 8, 2015)

runnah said:


> If I see another shot of someone walking in front of some ad, sign or graffiti I am going to go crazy.


I feel the same way about wildlife photography. To me it's just a picture of an eagle.  I just take this as me not being into the genre, outside of a few exceptions.  I don't repeatedly bombard those threads with "this is trash, you're a dick" statements.

It's just like how I only like a few dub step songs, I could rail against the whole genre, call people names or I could simply enjoy the little I do of the genre, and otherwise leave the genre in peace.  Plenty of people enjoy both taking the pictures and viewing them, I don't understand making blanket belittling statements because, in general, you don't enjoy the genre as a whole.


----------



## sashbar (Apr 8, 2015)

runnah said:


> Because for most of the other genres a bad photo is much more apparent and less easily defended. I could go to a crowded city, spin around and shoot at random and make a case for 99.9% of the photo taken being masterful street photography.



Try. You will not fool me  

It is fascinating how differently we see street phogography. In my view 99.9% of it is pure, absolute or relative garbage. It is very, very difficult to pull a great street shot, you need time, luck, technical ability and vision. You can not read the book, set the light according to instruction, put a person in the chair and tell him to smile patiently untill you are done, take 100 shots and - voila - here we have a decent portrait. Street photography is a real challenge, and that is why I like it so much. You see the scene and the moment you see it is gone. Forever. You anticipate one and pull the trigger, but someone steps into and ruins. You see a wonderful, beautifully lit character and the moment you raise your camera, he steps into the shadow.  You are experienced  it over and over again. Some people manage to pull probably one or two great street shots in their lives. But luckily there are so many enthusiasts these days on the street that he have a flow of great images.


----------



## runnah (Apr 8, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > If I see another shot of someone walking in front of some ad, sign or graffiti I am going to go crazy.
> ...



I never railed against the whole genre just specific tropes. More specifically the "I have to write 6 paragraphs to explain why this photo is good" and the "person walking in front of things". To me its about effort, vision and story telling. Most of which a lot of "street" photos are lacking.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 8, 2015)

Here's an interesting video with one of the so-called "great" street shooters, Bruce Gilden.

What Makes a Good Street Photograph - Take it or Leave it with Bruce Gilden - YouTube


----------



## runnah (Apr 8, 2015)

sashbar said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Because for most of the other genres a bad photo is much more apparent and less easily defended. I could go to a crowded city, spin around and shoot at random and make a case for 99.9% of the photo taken being masterful street photography.
> ...



Maybe that is part of my reason for rejecting a lot of street, because there is a ton of crap of crap that gets passed off as art. For every alex webb or HCB there are 10,000 people trying to pass off snap shots as gold.

p.s. challenge accepted.


----------



## limr (Apr 8, 2015)

Write Lighting said:


> Ah-ha! That's another thing I was curious about. Wouldn't such heavy contrast or dodging and burning create too unrealistic of a scene if you're losing key elements in the frame in the shadows? Or is what was lost not an important part of documenting the scene so then it wouldn't matter? Then if that's the case, I wouldn't see much of a difference between cloning it out and losing an unimportant aspect of the photo through burning or contrast.



I think it's a fine line between eliminating the unnecessary and "reverse staging" the scene. One could say the same about cropping.

This image started out as a square (I took it with a TLR) and I cropped some of the dead space from the top. I have another version with more cropped. (Edit: And I like it better with more cropped but just don't have access to it right now.) Was I altering too much or only including what was necessary for the image to be complete and eliminating the rest?

It's a very difficult thing to say where that line is. Maybe it's like porn - I'll know it when I see it 




Hamlet by limrodrigues, on Flickr


----------



## runnah (Apr 8, 2015)

Derrel said:


> I thought the photo runnah referenced to, this shot at the start of a gallery Alex Webb Rebecca Norris Webb Photographs
> 
> was VERY much reminiscent of a couple of famous HCB photos...what runnah referred to as "blurry" was motion blur, designed to make the boy appear, well, moving. The scene-as-seen-through-doorways, another famous HCB trope...the figures across the frame, in motion yet stopped due to distance from the camera, simple camera work basics...I thought they lead off with this, specific photo simply because it has sooooooooo much of the HCB ethos in it...it almost feels like an homage. Go to some &hi+hole third-world place, like Haiti, and walk around snapping the locals...when things align, click! The rest of that portfolio is all ultra-traditional  street stuff...what I think of as the 28mm school of street that developed in the 1950's among a wide group of street shooters. And in that organic, authentic type of street, there is absolutely no place for compositing things.



Not sure if sarcasm or serious. 

Right, but set apart those elements are very strong, all mashed together and it's a bit of a mess.


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 8, 2015)

I will also say that I found the original article hella annoying. For a little backstory, this dude became "Flickr Famous" after he did a photo-a-day project back in like 2012 or 2013. I'm not trying to knock his photography, because a lot of is good, but at the same time, it sounds like he didn't get the response he wanted from the club he wants to join, so he's now trying to justify his place in the club by giving a definition that encompasses his photography.

Why do you need your photos to be accepted as street photography? Why does it matter? 

There's some truth to the statement that I think many street photographers have inflated views of themselves, however, this article is rather vapid and unhelpful in making a good case for its premise.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 8, 2015)

sashbar said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > Recently there has been somewhat of an uproar because photojournalists are beginning to worry more about making a  photo with powerful aesthetics than telling a powerful story.
> ...


be nice if there was more photos that made you think out there and less trying to entertain. Just sayn. You can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig. Suppose you can still think though "wow, what a pretty pig that is!" Suppose it is all how you see it.


----------



## sashbar (Apr 8, 2015)

Derrel said:


> I thought the photo runnah referenced to, this shot at the start of a gallery Alex Webb Rebecca Norris Webb Photographs
> 
> was VERY much reminiscent of a couple of famous HCB photos...what runnah referred to as "blurry" was motion blur, designed to make the boy appear, well, moving. The scene-as-seen-through-doorways, another famous HCB trope...the figures across the frame, in motion yet stopped due to distance from the camera, simple camera work basics...I thought they lead off with this, specific photo simply because it has sooooooooo much of the HCB ethos in it...it almost feels like an homage. Go to some &hi+hole third-world place, like Haiti, and walk around snapping the locals...when things align, click! The rest of that portfolio is all ultra-traditional  street stuff...what I think of as the 28mm school of street that developed in the 1950's among a wide group of street shooters. And in that organic, authentic type of street, there is absolutely no place for compositing things.



They do not lead off with this, they lead with another image. 
And yes we see a clear HCB influence and I like it. Webb refers to HCB in his books and often tells how influencial some of his images were, especially that iconic Valencia shot  Henry Cartier-Bresson 1933 Knockout
But I do not agree with the "ultra-traditional" argument, as Webb started to use colours as means of expression like noone did in the 50-s even though we can see some of it in Leiter images and others as well. As for compositions - this is exactly what I admire about his work.  the strength and complexity of his composition, it gives almost physical pleasure. He does it brilliantly.  The organic authentic street is a big challenge for composing things and he does it so well. Most photographers would fail here because they would not even see where to start, because basic rules cannot be applied easily, one has to see though it, so to speak.   
BTW I think the blurred figure was not intentional.


----------



## sashbar (Apr 8, 2015)

bribrius said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> > rexbobcat said:
> ...



I talk about a purely practical situation that I encounter daily at work. I have a choice of normally 12-15 good images from Reuters, AFP/Getty, AP, EPA (and sometime PA, which is a dog, to be honest) for every story.  And yes Getty guys put a lipstick on a pig more often than others, and yes I choose it most of the time. You know why? Because public like some makeup on a pig. Or a corpse. As I said, pure competition, nothing personal.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 8, 2015)

sashbar said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > sashbar said:
> ...


awwww man.. you are part of the "system".


----------



## Overread (Apr 8, 2015)

runnah said:


> Maybe that is part of my reason for rejecting a lot of street, because there is a ton of crap of crap that gets passed off as art. For every alex webb or HCB there are 10,000 people trying to pass off snap shots as gold.
> .



You do realise that there are legions of bad photos in every discipline. This is nothing unique to street photography save that its a more easily accessed and thus slightly more common genre than, say, diving photography. 

Heck there are legions of bad zoo, macro, wildlife, aviation, abstract, waterfall, landscape etc... photos out there - each one will have rubbish; niche communities defending lower standards etc...

Honestly I don't worry about it one jot. I think to worry about it is to drive ones self insane. In the end you can't change the world by ranting or raving at it. You can maybe found a school of visual arts and promote better eduction; promote higher standards within your niche communities; travel and do the tours are various photography clubs etc....


----------



## runnah (Apr 8, 2015)

Overread said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe that is part of my reason for rejecting a lot of street, because there is a ton of crap of crap that gets passed off as art. For every alex webb or HCB there are 10,000 people trying to pass off snap shots as gold.
> ...



Right but I can't take a blurry photo of a bird and still say it'a great wildlife photo. I can't take a photo of a parking lot and say it's a beautiful mountain landscape.

I am not as worked up as people think about it, I frankly don't care that much.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 8, 2015)

runnah said:
			
		

> I am not as worked up as people think about it, I frankly don't care that much.



It's just that when you start shooting peoples' sacred cows, they get a bit irate about it...


----------



## tirediron (Apr 8, 2015)

Derrel said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Yeah, but have you ever tried a sacred T-bone?  Deeeeeeeeeeee-lish!


----------



## runnah (Apr 8, 2015)

Derrel said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's the problem with sacred cows, too damn big and easy to hit.


----------



## fjrabon (Apr 8, 2015)

runnah said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...


I guess I took the "dick" comment earlier more seriously than you meant it then, so w/e, no worries.


----------



## Overread (Apr 8, 2015)

runnah said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...



Ohhhhhh yes you can 
you just need to be more creative! 

I mean take the bird, its a fantastic real life action shot that displays the energy that these avians have by the blur that the photo displays! The out of-focus - the blur - it all adds to show just how majestic and expect these animals are in the natural world; so fast and swift that they defeat even the best of photographers and equipment! Indeed were you there you could not have gotten a better shot - it is most indeed an excellent photo!


----------



## bribrius (Apr 8, 2015)

runnah said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...


I just take photos. Buildings, cars, people, whatever. I take photos of streets and stand on them. I never leave my house thinking "i am going to shoot street".  I leave my house thinking i will end up on a street and shoot whatever i feel like. LOL


----------



## vintagesnaps (Apr 8, 2015)

Scroll down to the bottom of the article, he's offering a free e-book. And seems to have himself in plenty of places online so I'm guessing the freebie and the blogging might be about promoting himself as much as anything.

If someone wants to learn more about street photography it might be better to look up known street photographers who have done it well and look at their work. Anybody and 'everybody' can do a blog, a website, etc., it doesn't mean they necessarily have much expertise or are good at what they're doing.

I've done sports and events and I agree that street photography is related to photojournalism. If you photoshop a pole out of the picture you're basically lying about what was there. If you adjust the contrast you're de-emphasizing it, maybe because it's a distraction and not adding to the picture but circumstances were such that you couldn't keep it out of the frame.

A good photographer would move around and change the vantage point or adjust the framing to keep distractions out of the frame as much as possible. A capable photographer would know it involves timing, and a certain amount of waiting and watching as people move in and out of the scene/your viewfinder. 

In sports/photojournalism most adjustments done would be minimal and basically comparable to what would be done in a darkroom or with film images - adjust brightness/contrast, maybe slight cropping, etc. Street photography seems similar in that usually a moment is being captured as it happens and a lot of editing wouldn't usually be needed or done.


----------



## Write Lighting (Apr 8, 2015)

vintagesnaps said:


> Scroll down to the bottom of the article, he's offering a free e-book. And seems to have himself in plenty of places online so I'm guessing the freebie and the blogging might be about promoting himself as much as anything.
> 
> If someone wants to learn more about street photography it might be better to look up known street photographers who have done it well and look at their work. Anybody and 'everybody' can do a blog, a website, etc., it doesn't mean they necessarily have much expertise or are good at what they're doing.
> 
> ...



I agree, it does kind of seem more like a promotion mixed with a justification of his definition of street photography. But the last part you mentioned made me think of something else. What about multiple exposures in street photography? Are they disqualified? It's something that can be done in camera without the need for any post processing necessarily.


----------



## Gary A. (Apr 8, 2015)

Coming in late here ... against the article ... Without definitions we wouldn't have any genres at all. But I do agree with the article that many even argue on equipment. Outside of an equipment defined genre, (i.e. infra red photography), equipment has nothing to do with the genre. As a sub-category of photojournalism, Street should not be overly manipulated in post to create an image not representative of the actual scene. Alex Webb is a master.


----------



## Amber Vira (Apr 11, 2015)

Street photography has been around for very long but doesn't come across that often. People are more focused on marketing there work online so much, that street shots has falled quite far in search engines. try and search more and you will see the responses alot....!!

Amber Vira


----------



## sashbar (Apr 11, 2015)

runnah said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...



Yes, it is definitely easier than to take just one decent street shot.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 11, 2015)

runnah said:


> Because for most of the other genres a bad photo is much more apparent and less easily defended.
> I could go to a crowded city, spin around and shoot at random and make a case for 99.9% of the photo taken being masterful street photography.



Te first sentence is true.
The second sentence is incomplete; you could make the case but how many people would accept it?



runnah said:


> Maybe that is part of my reason for rejecting a lot of street, because there is a ton of crap of crap that gets passed off as art. For every alex webb or HCB there are 10,000 people trying to pass off snap shots as gold.



For every good landscape person (or wildlife person) there are indeed 10,000, perhaps 100,000 essentially just copying and showing nothing new or original.



vintagesnaps said:


> I've done sports and events and I agree that street photography is related to photojournalism. If you photoshop a pole out of the picture you're basically lying about what was there.





vintagesnaps said:


> If you adjust the contrast you're de-emphasizing it, maybe because it's a distraction and not adding to the picture but circumstances were such that you couldn't keep it out of the frame.





vintagesnaps said:


> A good photographer would move around and change the vantage point or adjust the framing to keep distractions out of the frame as much as possible. A capable photographer would know it involves timing, and a certain amount of waiting and watching as people move in and out of the scene/your viewfinder.





vintagesnaps said:


> In sports/photojournalism most adjustments done would be minimal and basically comparable to what would be done in a darkroom or with film images - adjust brightness/contrast, maybe slight cropping, etc.* Street photography seems similar in that usually a moment is being captured as it happens and a lot of editing wouldn't usually be needed or done*.



That in bold above is your definition.
Who cares what is there, this isn't evidence.
I think that whatever edit is needed to emphasize what is in one's mind's eye is OK. I don't see myself as a more mobile version of a traffic camera


----------



## sashbar (Apr 11, 2015)

runnah said:


> If I see another shot of someone walking in front of some ad, sign or graffiti I am going to go crazy.



Surely I could not resist.


----------



## Gary A. (Apr 11, 2015)

I've been shooting Street for decades and I have yet to see or capture one of those ^^^ ... I am envious.


----------



## ronitbajaj (Apr 14, 2015)

I think, if Street Photography have talent so no one can stop him/her.


----------

