Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Street?  (Read 2102 times)

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1850
Re: Street?
« Reply #20 on: May 14, 2018, 10:30:23 am »

If there is such a thing, this is it: Bystander: A History of Street Photography, Colin Westerbrook and Joel Meyerowitz, 1994

But if you really want to see the rules, study Henri Cartier-Bresson, Andre Kertesz, David Seymour (Chim), Robert Doisneau (though Doisneau set up too many of his "street" shots), Willy Ronis, Brassai, Walker Evans, Elliott Erwitt, Helen Levitt, Robert Frank, Garry Winogrand, and Lee Friedlander, to name a few of the genre's founders.

Russ, I was joshing, I do know the work of most of them and very fine they are.
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13219
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Street?
« Reply #21 on: May 14, 2018, 10:42:17 am »

Kind of thought that might be the case, Keith, but I couldn't be sure and I didn't want to be insulting.

It strikes me that we get all wrapped around the axle trying to define street, but try to define "landscape." Oh, everybody knows what that means, right? Well, folks, take a look at the landscape section on LuLa and tell me if everything on there fits your definition of landscape.

Bottom line is that there's good landscape and bad landscape, just as there's good street and bad street. If you shoot a person standing on a street there's no reason not to call it a street shot. But unless there's a story there, other than the obvious fact that there's a guy standing on a street, it's not what I'd call good street, any more than I'd call a picture of an empty field good landscape (except for Bob's nostalgia-inducing shot "Field" over on User Critiques.)

So I'm no longer going to try to identify what is and what isn't street. But I am going to talk about good and bad street.

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1850
Re: Street?
« Reply #22 on: May 14, 2018, 10:47:39 am »

Kind of thought that might be the case, Keith, but I couldn't be sure and I didn't want to be insulting.

It strikes me that we get all wrapped around the axle trying to define street, but try to define "landscape." Oh, everybody knows what that means, right? Well, folks, take a look at the landscape section on LuLa and tell me if everything on there fits your definition of landscape.

Bottom line is that there's good landscape and bad landscape, just as there's good street and bad street. If you shoot a person standing on a street there's no reason not to call it a street shot. But unless there's a story there, other than the obvious fact that there's a guy standing on a street, it's not what I'd call good street, any more than I'd call a picture of an empty field good landscape (except for Bob's nostalgia-inducing shot "Field" over on User Critiques.)

So I'm no longer going to try to identify what is and what isn't street. But I am going to talk about good and bad street.

Russ, very wise.

As an aside, I've always thought that rules and creativity make bad bedfellows.
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13219
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Street?
« Reply #23 on: May 14, 2018, 11:12:05 am »

I'd agree with that -- up to the point where not following any rules leads to unintelligibility. I see way too much of that nowadays in visual art and in poetry.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22753
Re: Street?
« Reply #24 on: May 14, 2018, 12:44:06 pm »

Rob, that's what I was referring to, one needs to be there to make the shot.

I also had in mind second guessing, or how the person who's not there, not doing it would have done it had they been there.

;-)

Keith, as we both know, there was not a snowball's chance that I was going to take your image and presume to work on it; it's a large part of the reason for the existence of our two WPs which, I hope, continue to prosper, though as Chuck said, you never can tell.

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1850
Re: Street?
« Reply #25 on: May 14, 2018, 12:52:01 pm »

Keith, as we both know, there was not a snowball's chance that I was going to take your image and presume to work on it; it's a large part of the reason for the existence of our two WPs which, I hope, continue to prosper, though as Chuck said, you never can tell.

WPs? Sorry Rob, I've racked my brain but you've lost me there.

Really, I didn't think for a moment that you'd work on my image without an OK and I thank you for that consideration.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22753
Re: Street?
« Reply #26 on: May 14, 2018, 12:55:13 pm »

WPs? Sorry Rob, I've racked my brain but you've lost me there.

Really, I didn't think for a moment that you'd work on my image without an OK and I thank you for that consideration.


WPs = Without Prejudices.

:-)

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1850
Re: Street?
« Reply #27 on: May 14, 2018, 01:09:04 pm »


WPs = Without Prejudices.

:-)

Duh!

;-)
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15300
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Street?
« Reply #28 on: May 15, 2018, 06:59:42 am »

It is all much simpler: all four shots are National Geographic-style documentaries. Of course, one can always try to sniff out some deeper meaning.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22753
Re: Street?
« Reply #29 on: May 15, 2018, 07:02:44 am »

It is all much simpler: all four shots are National Geographic-style documentaries. Of course, one can always try to sniff out some deeper meaning.


I could live with that! The datum line is high enough to please moi, at the very least.

Rob

Martin Kristiansen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1295
    • Martin Kristiansen
Re: Street?
« Reply #30 on: May 15, 2018, 07:46:16 am »

Interesting chat. I have heard some critics having a go at the whole ‘Street Photography’ catagory saying social documentary was always good enough and remains so. It certainly is easier to adjudicate.

I have some questions myself regarding definitions of street. Is it still street when shot in a public space such as a bar but not on an actual street? A lot of us shoot street when traveling, does that then make it travel photography or is it in both categories, I would think so.

Lastly what if it’s in an area where people don’t have streets as we would normally define them. I post a picture below to illustrate. To me this is still street but perhaps I think that way because of where I live. Any ideas.
Logged
Commercial photography is 10% inspiration and 90% moving furniture around.

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1850
Re: Street?
« Reply #31 on: May 15, 2018, 08:25:59 am »

Let's face it, Street just doesn't describe the contents in the tin.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22753
Re: Street?
« Reply #32 on: May 15, 2018, 08:54:30 am »

Interesting chat. I have heard some critics having a go at the whole ‘Street Photography’ catagory saying social documentary was always good enough and remains so. It certainly is easier to adjudicate.

I have some questions myself regarding definitions of street. Is it still street when shot in a public space such as a bar but not on an actual street? A lot of us shoot street when traveling, does that then make it travel photography or is it in both categories, I would think so.

Lastly what if it’s in an area where people don’t have streets as we would normally define them. I post a picture below to illustrate. To me this is still street but perhaps I think that way because of where I live. Any ideas.


Some definitions according to my own photographic adventure through life, and the lessons learned:

Street:  William Klein; Daido Moriyama; stamper, Russ, GrahamBy (where the hell are you?).

Street Art:  Saul Leiter; Ernst Haas; Keith Laban; Peter Fiore; Rob C (in my Glimpsed Parallels galleries).

Streetscape (Cityscape): Ernst Haas; Slobodan.

This little list includes definitive world-names as well as some of our own shooters whose work is probably known to us on this forum.

None of the above is to exclude others, or even those who shoot several genres as a matter of routine. What it does - or attempts to do - is provide a subjective explanation of what different terms signify to me.

Regarding shooing off the street, as in hotels and bars, if of people who don't know what's going down, I'd call it candid; if they are aware and tacitly consent, then informal portraiture.

I suppose that, from the above; I take street (in general) to suggest as sense of intrusion/danger/possible violence/risk towards the photographer. Street art, on the other hand, signifies more a sense of interest in beauty, of the random art created quite accidently, mostly by man.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2018, 09:09:59 am by Rob C »
Logged

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1850
Re: Street?
« Reply #33 on: May 15, 2018, 09:18:05 am »

I'm as sure as can be that we'll never come up with an all encompassing name that will satisfy all.

Personally I intend to post images that I feel meet my very loose, sketchy interpretation of the many alternative genre names listed here and elsewhere and worry not if they fail to fit in with other contributor's interpretations.



So there!
« Last Edit: May 15, 2018, 09:24:08 am by KLaban »
Logged

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5835
Re: Street?
« Reply #34 on: May 15, 2018, 09:41:32 am »

On Facebook I see images shot on a beach under the heading of Street. It seems to be acceptable

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22753
Re: Street?
« Reply #35 on: May 15, 2018, 09:47:09 am »

On Facebook I see images shot on a beach under the heading of Street. It seems to be acceptable

So does, in some circles, calling a fat person bovine. Funny old world.

Rob

Two23

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 793
Re: Street?
« Reply #36 on: May 15, 2018, 05:43:13 pm »

So does, in some circles, calling a fat person bovine. Funny old world.

Rob


I guess that's still a notch better than calling them "porcine."


Kent in SD
Logged
Qui sedes ad dexteram Patris,
miserere nobis.
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up