Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Street defined (sort of)  (Read 226 times)

MattBurt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1811
  • Looking for that other shot
    • Matt Burt Photography
Logged
-MattB

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3151
Re: Street defined (sort of)
« Reply #1 on: July 06, 2018, 11:40:40 PM »

Street photography: candid photos of people in public places.

 :)

-Dave-
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18779
Re: Street defined (sort of)
« Reply #2 on: July 07, 2018, 07:13:05 AM »

Street photography: candid photos of people in public places.

 :)

-Dave-


Glad to see I got to you!

Candid was a wonderful word within a photographic context.

:-)

opgr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2006
Re: Street defined (sort of)
« Reply #3 on: July 07, 2018, 08:29:28 AM »

Quote
You see tons of [imagery] on the internet labeled street photography, but when I look at it, it looks mostly like portraits of people on the street, usually in the center of the frame, and a lot of that work doesn’t seem to have much invention or intelligence or spirit or spontaneity. It just seems like, oh, I’m out on the street so the picture’s what I find out there.   

I suppose this is the paragraph of interest.

The trick is probably to first and foremost create an easthetically pleasing image, in the sense that it wil engage the average viewer long enough to detect the twist, message, story, or recognisable situation.

Most images manage to be easthetically pleasing, but then lack the twist. Which is what i believe is the cause of some of our discussions here.
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10880
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Street defined (sort of)
« Reply #4 on: July 07, 2018, 09:10:11 AM »

Exactly!!!

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 11402
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Street defined (sort of)
« Reply #5 on: July 07, 2018, 09:23:00 AM »

Street photography: candid photos of people in public places.

Just that, and the end result would be, and often is, a ton of banalities.

The same with landscape scenes.

Oscar is onto something, however.

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10880
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Street defined (sort of)
« Reply #6 on: July 07, 2018, 10:31:56 AM »

If you're here for Street Photography 101, sit down and open your books to Cartier-Bresson's "The Locks at Bougival." Yes, Henri's composition is fabulous, as usual. But you might also notice that this picture slaps you across the head with a message about the human condition (tragic how that phrase has become a cliché). It's the human condition part that makes it an effective street photograph, not the magnificent composition. The composition is simply expected, just as the floor in your house is expected.

But Rob's got an important point. Every really good street photograph I've seen is a (candid) snapshot, meaning it's not something you can set up. Yes, Doisneau used to set up some of his "street" shots. But once you internalize street photography, Robert's fakes begin to come across as fakes, even his famous "Le baiser de l’hôtel de ville," though he had some good actors to carry out the action for that one. In the end it all comes down to HCB's dictum: "Photographing is nothing. Looking is everything." And being ready to grab a snapshot that tells you something about the human condition is the rest of it.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2018, 11:03:19 AM by RSL »
Logged

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3151
Re: Street defined (sort of)
« Reply #7 on: July 07, 2018, 04:17:40 PM »

Glad to see I got to you!

Candid was a wonderful word within a photographic context.

Yes. Ibarionex is fond of it too.

-Dave-
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up