Yep, there is a difference in approach. Tell a story in one picture, street style, or telling a story over multiple pictures, adding other media, etc. I prefer the second, it is less ‘cramped’ to consume.
Do you understand what you are really indicating here?
The thing you have just described is not street, not is it documentary. And here is why: HC-B, Ronis, Doisneau, Klein, Winogrand - all of those people shot
what has become the de facto visual definition of street and/or documentary; on top of that, the first three people also made their pennies by working for the magazines, doing documentary or reportage - much of it so-called social, with the focus on the living conditions of the city poor and country bumpkin. In addition, HC-B also had access to the opposite end of Parisian society and covered events in that world, too.
Klein made a massive part of his reputation from his street books on New York and Rome; he did others, too. He made an enviable reputation for himself in the world of fashion photography and also produced films, both documentary and entertainment. He was not stuck in any mould. And when you look at the work in the city books, you also learn that every image stands tall as a unique, great still. It is said that you can take any frame from his movies and the visual content in it, too, makes a wonderful still shot.
As ever, the magic is in the eye, the imagination of the man with the camera.
And the thing about the above work, and why it differs in every respect from what you are describing is this: today, we do not see those left-wing magazines that provided the serial publishing space for the documentary photography of those guys, but, we do get to see the work in book form, in gallery collections or on the web; and guess what: whether as single, isolated image within the covers of a book, on a wall in a bar, those pictures have the power to grab you, tell you something and all without supporting bumff or additional images.
The images are strong enough to stand alone.