Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Not "street art." Street Photography.  (Read 374 times)

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 11429
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Not "street art." Street Photography.
« on: June 04, 2018, 09:35:22 AM »

Okay. Time for me to switch back to Street Showcase for this kind of thing.

Here's a question: As far as I'm concerned, this picture is real street. But I posted the Eureka Springs troubadour as "Street?" with a question mark. What do you think is the difference between these two pictures, each of which focuses on a single person, neither one interacting with another person or with the environment? Why would I make a positive statement that this picture is street photography, and question whether the other picture is street, or maybe informal portraiture?
« Last Edit: June 04, 2018, 09:42:44 AM by RSL »
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12303
  • Following the masses? Be careful of the silent "m"
    • My website
Re: Not "street art." Real street.
« Reply #1 on: June 04, 2018, 09:46:32 AM »

Since this one could have been taken with a view camera, it is not a real street ;)

Oh, by the way, this wold be typically classified as "environmental portrait."

Ivo_B

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 324
Re: Not "street art." Real street.
« Reply #2 on: June 04, 2018, 12:28:16 PM »

Since this one could have been taken with a view camera, it is not a real street ;)

Oh, by the way, this wold be typically classified as "environmental portrait."

Well there is one thing we can say about 'landscape peoples': they have sense of humor.

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I think we need to Confuse the Cat
« Last Edit: June 04, 2018, 12:35:56 PM by Ivo_B »
Logged

BobDavid

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3256
Re: Not "street art." Street Photography.
« Reply #3 on: June 05, 2018, 04:12:02 AM »

Regardless of classification, it's a neat picture!
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up