It's not always true, but in most cases if the subjects are aware you're shooting it's not good street. Which is not to say you should be sneaky, but it is to say you need to become a cipher who's so unobtrusive as to be effectively invisible. If it's properly done, the resulting pictures make it look easy, but it's a long way from easy as most people who try it soon find out.Absolutely right!
I personally agree with what Adams said many decades ago.
"Let us hope that categories will be less rigid in the future: there has been to much of pacing photography into little niches-commercial, pictorial, documentary, and creative (a dismal term). Definitions of this kind are inessential and stupid; good photography remains good photography no matter what we name it. I would like to think of just "photography"; of each and every photograph containing the best qualities in proper degree to achieve its purpose. We have been slaves to categories and each has served as a kind of concentration camp for the spirit. The function of a photograph may be of the simplest practical nature, or it may relate to a most personal and abstract emotion; the sincerity of the intention and honesty of spirit of the photographer can make any expression, no matter how "practical", valid and beautiful." Ansel Adams 1943
With all the categorizing today it looks like his hopes did not happen. ;)
Ansel was a great photographer but he was anything but a street photographer.
Ansel was a great photographer but he was anything but a street photographer.
I was in NYC last week. There weren't too many people to include in the street shots I took. But I think the shots qualify for "Street" anyway.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50094956821_2aa1eb2988_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jjHKo6)
Don't crowd me (https://flic.kr/p/2jjHKo6) by Alan Klein (https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50094956801_1951188563_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jjHKnK)
This Side Up - Park bench to Park Avenue (https://flic.kr/p/2jjHKnK) by Alan Klein (https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/), on Flickr
Russ, neither Adams nor anyone here is claiming he was.
Yes he was but his point is the label doesn't and shouldn't matter. A good photograph is a good photograph. And he loved good photography period. HE was even a fan of Arbus. I think as Wonigrand stated it is a stupid label (street photography).
I'm not sure "street" photography needs people. But whether there are people or no people, the shot should say something, tell a story either about relationships or human behavior. Otherwise, it's just a snapshot record of a scene, more of a historical representation. At least add some interesting lighting.
I see that, Keith, and I'm sure Ansel would be the first to admit it, though my favorite Ansel picture is the woman he shot behind the screen door. But I guess my question is: why are we bringing Ansel into a discussion about street photography?
Years ago I put together a series of photographs of road tar patches on pavement, that I sometimes refer to as "Real Street."I lke them!
They have no people in any of them, but some certainly can be read as commenting on the "human condition." Here are three of them.
Years ago I put together a series of photographs of road tar patches on pavement, that I sometimes refer to as "Real Street."
They have no people in any of them, but some certainly can be read as commenting on the "human condition." Here are three of them.
Years ago I put together a series of photographs of road tar patches on pavement, that I sometimes refer to as "Real Street."
They have no people in any of them, but some certainly can be read as commenting on the "human condition." Here are three of them.