| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/10/2009 06:21:31 AM · #101 |
|
|
|
06/10/2009 06:21:45 AM · #102 |
|
|
|
06/10/2009 03:47:05 PM · #103 |
|
|
|
06/10/2009 04:03:54 PM · #104 |
This is Street Photography because I say it is...
  
They were all taken in the street. What the street has to do with these images, I have no idea. There is no dynamic connection BUT since they were taken in the street, they are Street Photography. |
|
|
|
06/10/2009 04:13:30 PM · #105 |
haha c'mon man!
so please do tell me what genre you think my images would fit in?!
yes, some of them were "posed", meaning that i asked the people right were they were standing when i asked them if i could take their photo. so what?
just because the people knew that they were being photographed doesn't mean it isn't considered street photography anymore is it? if that was the case then many other photos already posted here wouldn't qualify for street photography anymore...
eta: your examples clearly don't qualify as street photography because they lack the existence of human beings which is the actual determining factor for street photography (apart from other minor conditions)! ;)
Message edited by author 2009-06-10 16:25:46. |
|
|
|
06/10/2009 05:57:37 PM · #106 |
this is why the discussions of street photography are always so serious and hardcore. Because nobody ever does it well enough, or in the 'right' way. So many little boxes, so many rules or it doesn't 'count' or isn't serious/ hardcore/ real/ brave enough.
Can't be a long lens. Must be a long lens.
Subject must be unaware. Can't be aware.
Must be candid/ could be posed.
Must be spontaneous. Must be wide angle.
Has to be in a city. Could be anywhere.
Has to be closer than a few feet. Must be far away.
Has to be available light. Etc. Etc.
By many of the standards HCB doesn't count as a street photographer.
Nor does Bruce Gilden, or WeeGee or Winogrand.
Some day the madness has to stop.
Silly rules upon silly rules, mostly seeming to be used to define 'what I do' as good enough and 'what everyone else does' as superficial or not worthy.
It's easy to find great examples by well respected street photographers that break any and all of the tight little boxes people get themselves caught up in, when trying to put these rigid boundaries around what is 'serious street photography'
So again I'd ask, what's the big hangup about?
But while we are slinging around labels, I'd call the Goth pictures portraits. They might have been shot on a street, but they are portraits.
Winogrand 'I hate the term Street Photography. I think it is a stupid term. I don't think it tells you anything'
Along similar lines, the comments on this thread ramble on and on, with each person explaining how what they like is how it is supposed to be.
Message edited by author 2009-06-10 18:50:35. |
|
|
|
06/10/2009 10:15:24 PM · #107 |
|
|
|
06/10/2009 10:29:35 PM · #108 |
I have only one rule and that is that the street provides the energy that makes the shot special. At least, in a great street photograph the street isn't incidental. In a blah, average, dime-a-dozen street photograph the street is just something that happens to be there without any depth or exploration. Many of my own images are weak as SP but still good images...just not too strong as SP.
Christophs shots could have been taken anywhere, on a street, in a backyard, or a roof, at a pool party or in the studio and the location wouldn't have a made a bit of difference to the energy of those shots. People don't always have to be present in street shots although they work well together. There are lot's of subway car/grafitti/tenements shots etc w/out people that rock. SP images can also be posed...or the subject can be aware of the camera.
Look at this first image of HCB's taken in Marseille as great example of a subjects awareness of the camera, in a classic Street shot. One of my favorites, btw.
There are millions of street shots being taken every second. What makes the good ones stand out is the street BUT not simply because it's there, it has to play a pertinent role in the image. For example, if I took a photo of my cat but tossed some sexy underwear in the frame....could I call it a Lingerie Shot? In my opinion, the underwear/lingerie is incidental. If the street is merely incidental, it may very well be called a street shot BUT it doesn't rate very high compared to the ones that are magic.
As someone wrote to me a little while back "there's no shortage of dross when it comes to SP but when you come across an image where the elements work, it makes all the tedious sifting worth while." Personally...I'm not a big sifter these days.
I agree with Winogrand that the term Street Photography sucks because it's so misleading but that has nothing to do with the concept or whether the concept exists. It's NOT about rules or lenses, candidness or any of that crap BUT a marriage of elements on ANY level. The better the shot the better the marriage. There's a lot that qualifies but so much of it is weak. Personally, I would argue that what I believe it to be compared to what is out there, it's become so watered down at this point, it has almost no meaning.
Message edited by author 2009-06-14 09:19:02. |
|
|
|
06/10/2009 11:28:34 PM · #109 |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 02:29:00 AM · #110 |
thanks for your honest opinion steve! i see it the same way as you do and take it as constructive criticism that my photos posted earlier lack the interaction between the person being portrayed and their environment and thus rather qualify as a portrait (as pointed out by gordan) and not sp. then again i didn't take them specifically for this sc (and with the theme in mind) and thus didn't really think about that, just posted them because i *thought* they'd fit in here.
i actually do have a personal project going on that is under progrssion in which i portray ootb fashioned people in the street with the environment standing in contrast to the whole vibe of the person.
hey milos, that location looks familiar. i took my personal sp favorite to date there:
 |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 07:26:29 PM · #111 |
Right sorry I've been neglecting this SC - I've been trying to pass my Uni finals. Here are my first contributions, I hope they're up to par. These are all from a trip to York, UK - an old market town with an odd mix of medieval and 60s concrete chic architecture.
      
Message edited by author 2009-06-11 19:29:08. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 09:52:52 PM · #112 |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 10:19:23 PM · #113 |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 10:48:26 PM · #114 |
|
|
|
06/12/2009 07:49:25 AM · #115 |
|
|
|
06/12/2009 08:31:11 AM · #116 |
These may not qualify as "serious street photography" but I had lots of fun shooting them.
       |
|
|
|
06/12/2009 08:49:55 AM · #117 |
|
|
|
06/12/2009 01:44:50 PM · #118 |
|
|
|
06/12/2009 04:52:54 PM · #119 |
|
|
|
06/12/2009 07:15:46 PM · #120 |
 
more pigeons :) |
|
|
|
06/12/2009 10:58:40 PM · #121 |
Ok, all debates aside, I would love to know what people think. I've really been working on this genre lately and would like some feedback.
Thanks in advance.
Barry
 |
|
|
|
06/13/2009 04:55:58 AM · #122 |
some stuff i took today at the markets :)
  
  
  
  
Message edited by muckpond - added line breaks. |
|
|
|
06/13/2009 06:43:03 AM · #123 |
Two more from me, they sort of go together. I could almost see a full set of photos of people sitting on these traffic boulders in different locations. People are so different even when in a similar environment.
 
Message edited by author 2009-06-13 06:45:21. |
|
|
|
06/13/2009 08:47:21 AM · #124 |
|
|
|
06/13/2009 03:58:15 PM · #125 |
  
cannot do any careful editing on a laptop while traveling, so these (and others to follow) come almost straight from the camera
Message edited by author 2009-06-13 16:01:59. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 07:01:57 AM EDT.
