Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6   Go Down

Author Topic: Am I getting this 'street' thing?  (Read 33655 times)

Otto Phocus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 655
Re: Am I getting this 'street' thing?
« Reply #20 on: August 14, 2015, 07:49:36 am »

I think Russ' article is a good guide for one element that makes a good street photo - whether you should use that to define what street photography is is a different matter. 

I think that is the cogent point.  There are more elements in Street Photography to be considered.

Trying to finitely define street photography is like trying to define art -- you can't and you shouldn't.   ;)
Logged
I shoot with a Camera Obscura with an optical device attached that refracts and transmits light.

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Am I getting this 'street' thing?
« Reply #21 on: August 14, 2015, 07:57:25 am »

So I'm guessing HCB is not a great street photographer given that he titled his book 'The Decisive Moment'.
Or am I missing something?

What you and most other people who read that title are missing is the fact that to HCB the decisive moment had to do with the photographer, not the scene.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Am I getting this 'street' thing?
« Reply #22 on: August 14, 2015, 08:02:06 am »

I think that is the cogent point.  There are more elements in Street Photography to be considered.

Trying to finitely define street photography is like trying to define art -- you can't and you shouldn't.   ;)

Right, Otto. Those articles don't really try to define it. They do have some things to say about what street isn't. I said, "Often there's an element of mystery in the story, and unless the picture makes you think, it's not much of a street photograph." I stand by that statement.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Am I getting this 'street' thing?
« Reply #23 on: August 14, 2015, 08:06:41 am »

"In-Public was set up in 2000 to provide a home for Street Photographers.

Our aim is to promote Street Photography and to continue to explore its possibilities, we are a non commercial collective. All the photographers featured here have been invited to show their work because they have the ability to see the unusual in the everyday and to capture the moment. The pictures remind us that, if we let it, over-familiarity can make us blind to what’s really going on in the world around us."

This isn't my statement, it is a quote from the in-Public home page. Obviously most of our leading street photographers are idiots.

Cheers,

If you do successful street photography you'll realize that street photographers don't need a "home." There's nothing more independent than a street photographer. There are several "homes" for street photographers out there, and most of them wouldn't recognize a street photographer if he walked through the door (which he wouldn't).

You still didn't answer my question about the picture I posted, or about the "Gare."
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

spidermike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 535
Re: Am I getting this 'street' thing?
« Reply #24 on: August 14, 2015, 08:39:52 am »

unless the picture makes you think, it's not much of a street photograph." I stand by that statement.

I agree completely. I find that a good street photo gives me a flavour of what life is like in the context of a scene and to get the most of that you have to be an 'active viewer' and engage with the picture.
Logged

tom b

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1471
    • http://tombrown.id.au
Re: Am I getting this 'street' thing?
« Reply #25 on: August 14, 2015, 08:45:10 am »

"You still didn't answer my question about the picture I posted".

Russ, you have posted this picture before and if you think that it represents good street photography then… It's indoors, it's a boring image and ambiguity, what has pointing got to do with ambiguity? This image is a good a good example of what "capturing the moment is what photojournalism is all about".

"If you do successful street photography you'll realize that street photographers don't need a home."

Obviously some of the best contemporary street photographers disagree with you!

Cheers,
« Last Edit: August 14, 2015, 08:55:19 am by tom b »
Logged
Tom Brown

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Am I getting this 'street' thing?
« Reply #26 on: August 14, 2015, 09:44:52 am »

"It's indoors. . .

If the picture doesn't involve a street it's not street photography? Wow!

Quote
Obviously some of the best contemporary street photographers disagree with you!

"Best" by whose standards? Name some of these "best" contemporary street photographers.

And Tom, you still haven't answered my question about  "Behind the Gare St. Lazare." Do you think this is good street? If so, why? If not, why?
« Last Edit: August 14, 2015, 09:53:20 am by RSL »
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

tom b

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1471
    • http://tombrown.id.au
Re: Am I getting this 'street' thing?
« Reply #27 on: August 14, 2015, 10:47:27 am »

Qué , behind the Gare St. Lazare is a great image, by your definition it is not a street  photograph but it is photojournalism. HCB was a great photojournalist and a great street photographer, it is hard to to split the two.

Looking on your website around 50% of your street photographs are taken indoors, I much prefer In-Public's images and definition of street photography than your narrow definition of it.

Cheers,
Logged
Tom Brown

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Am I getting this 'street' thing?
« Reply #28 on: August 14, 2015, 11:26:50 am »

Hi Tom,

What, in my definition of street excludes "Gare?" I can't wait to hear your answer.

Regarding the difference between street and journalism: sometimes it's hard to split the two, but as far as I'm concerned the difference is closure. A really good photojournalistic shot gives you answers -- closure. Answers at least pretend to be the objectives of journalism (whether or not the answers are correct, which often they aren't). But a really good street shot leaves you with unanswered questions. That's where ambiguity comes into the picture (to coin a phrase). That's also why the grab shot in a photojournalistic spread often can qualify as street. The objective is to get your attention and make you ask enough questions to read the article and look at the supporting, qualifying pictures.

From what you're saying I gather that according to In-Public's definition of street photography, as long as the picture includes a street and doesn't include Half Dome it's a street shot.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: Am I getting this 'street' thing?
« Reply #29 on: August 14, 2015, 12:33:13 pm »

Hey Bill, Russ has such a narrow view of what is street photography that two of the greatest street photographers would not be included. I prefer the In-Public definition of street photography.

Although it is helpful to be reminded that - It ain't what Russ call's Street Photography - has no significance beyond the LuLa User Critiques forum, please remember that Russ is right because Russ says he's right - reason is futile.

"Hardening of the categories leads to Art disease." Harry Holtzman
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Am I getting this 'street' thing?
« Reply #30 on: August 14, 2015, 12:59:16 pm »

Hi Isaac,

Considering that you've never posted a street shot it probably will be hard for people reading this thread to believe you have the background to make a valid analysis. Shouts from the bleachers aren't really as effective as the deliberations of the players.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Am I getting this 'street' thing?
« Reply #31 on: August 14, 2015, 01:04:01 pm »

Here's another one for Tom. Is this a street shot, Tom? There's a street back there.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: Am I getting this 'street' thing?
« Reply #32 on: August 14, 2015, 01:39:23 pm »

What you and most other people who read that title are missing is the fact that to HCB the decisive moment had to do with the photographer, not the scene.

When did Cartier-Bresson tell you?
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Am I getting this 'street' thing?
« Reply #33 on: August 14, 2015, 03:34:52 pm »

I think It was about 1948. I was eighteen. He came up to me at an exhibition and told me that.

BS aside, Isaac, I know you've done a lot of reading about HCB but I suspect you've missed Henri Cartier-Bresson and the Artless Art by Jean-Pierre Montier. I think that was where he made the point clear. You gotta remember that the book didn't start out as The Decisive Moment. It was Images a la Sauvette, which translates roughly as "images on the run." What Henri meant by the decisive moment was the moment when the photographer made his decision -- when he was ready.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: Am I getting this 'street' thing?
« Reply #34 on: August 14, 2015, 07:26:24 pm »

… but I suspect you've missed Henri Cartier-Bresson and the Artless Art by Jean-Pierre Montier. I think that was where he made the point clear.

Unfortunately you don't seem to actually know why you believe - "What Henri meant by the decisive moment was the moment when the photographer made his decision".

Maybe you saw something in Montier's book which gave you that impression, maybe it was something else, maybe you're just wrong.

You suspect I missed Henri Cartier-Bresson and the Artless Art and you're just wrong.
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Am I getting this 'street' thing?
« Reply #35 on: August 14, 2015, 09:38:23 pm »

Oh, golly.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

brandtb

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 972
    • http://www.brandtbolding.com
Re: Am I getting this 'street' thing?
« Reply #37 on: August 15, 2015, 08:02:03 am »

From Garry Winogrand to Saul Leiter...the art of street photography is highly diverse...as diverse and varied as the people it depicts. As a result it is almost impossible to give a strict street photography definition. Instead the common elements we all recognise help define it. Street photography is about showing us in two ways. It shows us as human in a collective. It shows us as individual, unique. The tension between these is the interest. Lastly, they are drawn together by the environment, the man-made context.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2015, 08:51:35 am by brandtb »
Logged
Brandt Bolding
www.brandtbolding.com

Chairman Bill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3352
    • flickr page
Re: Am I getting this 'street' thing?
« Reply #38 on: August 15, 2015, 02:05:45 pm »

So, number one is a street (of sorts), but isn't street

Number two is a street, and a gay street at that, but not really street

Numbers three & four might count as street, but might be just photojournalism or tourist

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Am I getting this 'street' thing?
« Reply #39 on: August 15, 2015, 05:52:10 pm »

Bill, I like the first three. Don't think much of #4. If the two guys camera left were interacting with the vendor, camera right, it might be something. As it is there's not enough of the building to make it interesting, like #3, and it's just some people on a street. A tourist shot.

#3, is a damn good street shot. The woman's presence is mysterious (ambiguity!). The massive cathedral behind her overwhelms her, and the way her legs are splayed makes her seem vulnerable; even pathetic. You can't look at this picture without questions popping up in your mind. Why is she there? Why is she hunkered down in front of the cathedral? What's she doing with her hands? Is she okay? . . .

#2 is interesting architectural stuff, but the people on the street are swallowed up and insignificant. Another tourist shot, but a good one because of the architecture.

#1 needs a hobo and a cat to become a street shot. If you're familiar with Cartier-Bresson's work you'll understand my reference. I'm sure Isaac will pick up on it right away.

You're taking an interesting approach. Most street shooters move in close. It's hard to do until you get used to it, but it can pay off big time. I'm sure Seamus would agree. You're doing some interesting stuff. It's a lot more scary than flowers or birds or landscape or still life, but it's what the small camera really is for.

I don't think most people starting to do street realize how few of their shots are going to be worth keeping. There's no way around it. Even with the camera in your hand, zone-focussed for the area you know you're going to work in, far too often when you raise the camera, the scene in front of you dissolves before you can trip the shutter. Then there are just plain bloopers where you thought you had something but it turns out to be crap. People look at the work of a street shooter and think that the guy just walks down the street shooting one keeper after another. If there's one exposure in a thousand you'd be willing to hang your reputation on, you're doing really well.

Keep shooting.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6   Go Up