Museum in Nimes, France

[Hans Kruse]

Maybe not street, but there is no folder for architecture or similar. Shooting this I was thinking of one of Slobodan's architecture pictures. Without that reference I might have shot it anyway, but that was in my mind nevertheless. Thanks Slobodan for the inspiration. It is that facade of Musée de la Romanité in Nimes, France.

Musée de la Romanité by Hans Kruse, on Flickr

[RSL]

Hi Hans, Another technically superb photograph, but why do you think it fits the street genre rather than the landscape genre? It's perfectly static. You could wait for the same light twenty years from now and shoot the same picture, just as you could do with St. Ansel's Half Dome, which most people associate with landscape rather than with street. One of the essences of street photography is catching the world in motion. This facade doesn't move. Looks like landscape to me.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Maybe not street, but there is no folder for architecture or similar...

Hi Hans,

We now have a thread: On the Streets: an open image sharing thread (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=127473.0) where a photo like this might fit. Keith Laban explained what the thread is about:

Title says it all, an open image sharing thread for work shot on, of and around the streets. This has little if anything to do with the contentious genre Street. No rules, anything goes including RobC's pet pooch peeing against a lamp post.

P.S. Thanks for thinking of me

[Hans Kruse]

Hi Hans, Another technically superb photograph, but why do you think it fits the street genre rather than the landscape genre? It's perfectly static. You could wait for the same light twenty years from now and shoot the same picture, just as you could do with St. Ansel's Half Dome, which most people associate with landscape rather than with street. One of the essences of street photography is catching the world in motion. This facade doesn't move. Looks like landscape to me.

Hi Russ,

But that was my point That this image is not street and not landscape, so no place to publish it. If there was an architecture folder, then i would fit in there.

Btw. it was not made to be a technically superb photo. That does not interest me. If it is not interesting as a photograph it has failed.

[Hans Kruse]

Hi Hans,

We now have a thread: On the Streets: an open image sharing thread (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=127473.0) where a photo like this might fit. Keith Laban explained what the thread is about:

P.S. Thanks for thinking of me

I think it would be better with an architecture showcase folder

[Ivophoto]

I think it would be better with an architecture showcase folder

Can we start to elaborate on the definition?
That’s part of the fun!

[Chris Kern]

Maybe not street, but there is no folder for architecture or similar. Shooting this I was thinking of one of Slobodan's architecture pictures. Without that reference I might have shot it anyway, but that was in my mind nevertheless. Thanks Slobodan for the inspiration. It is that facade of Musée de la Romanité in Nimes, France.

Very nice, whatever its genre.  And, while it does seem slightly reminiscent of the image Slobodan recently posted of the Aqua Building in Chicago, this clearly is not a derivative picture.  Well done.

Hi Hans, Another technically superb photograph, but why do you think it fits the street genre rather than the landscape genre? It's perfectly static. . . . One of the essences of street photography is catching the world in motion. This facade doesn't move. Looks like landscape to me.

I'm not a purist, and all artistic definitional boundaries are to some extent arbitrary, but I think this is a fair point.  "Street photography," by almost any definition of the genre, is about ephemera.

[faberryman]

"Street photography," by almost any definition of the genre, is about ephemera.

I really haven't seen a definition of "street photography" outside Wikipedia. People's definitions expressed here and elsewhere differ markedly, though they are usually illustrated by simile, e.g, "street photography is like a poem", or by examples, e.g. "this photo is street" and "that photo is not street". Can you point me to a definition of street photography in some reference source that you agree with. Perhaps we could all agree to some baseline, even if we can't agree around the edges.

[John R]

I think it would be better with an architecture showcase folder

Excellent Hans. That is my dilemma quite often. And I am sure for many others. Where to put images that don't quite fit into existing categories?

So an idea came to me, especially after Chris said LuLa is looking into reorganizing and/or streamlining the existing threads. How about creating one umbrella thread called Showcase to showcase any image that any one wants to post. Within that umbrella create sub categories where there is sufficient interest. Some we already have, such as nature, landscapes, abstracts, etc. Then there is Street, Urbanscapes, countryscapes, architecture, monochrome, black and white, People, and whatever else warrants a subthread. One if need be, for 'Others', that do not obviously fit any category, such as composites or created images. Critiques should only be for those wanting critiques. Once created it will hopefully obviate the need for hard 'definitions', notwithstanding the current disagreement on what is Street photography. Since street is already a recognized genre, there is no reason why the thread cannot simply be broadened to include Urban and/or anything related, similar to how Abstracts was broadened to include many kinds of alternate definitions of abstract.

Just some thoughts.

JR

[Chris Kern]

I really haven't seen a definition of "street photography" outside Wikipedia. People's definitions expressed here and elsewhere differ markedly, though they are usually illustrated by simile, e.g, "street photography is like a poem", or by examples, e.g. "this photo is street" and "that photo is not street". Can you point me to a definition of street photography in some reference source that you agree with.

Well, this was my attempt to define it explicitly a while back:

Street photography documents ephemeral, unposed interactions in public spaces between people, or between people and their surroundings, in a way that implies a narrative instead of simply depicting what was in front of the camera’s lens.  The narrative may be explicit or implicit, obvious or subtle, literal or ironic, and subject to varying interpretations by different viewers.  Animals or objects may take the place of people if their relationship with other elements in the photograph contributes to the narrative.  Similarly, the interaction need not take place in a street or an urban environment or even outdoors.

[faberryman]

Street photography documents ephemeral, unposed interactions in public spaces between people, or between people and their surroundings, in a way that implies a narrative instead of simply depicting what was in front of the camera’s lens.  The narrative may be explicit or implicit, obvious or subtle, literal or ironic, and subject to varying interpretations by different viewers.  Animals or objects may take the place of people if their relationship with other elements in the photograph contributes to the narrative.  Similarly, the interaction need not take place in a street or an urban environment or even outdoors.

I read the thread in which your definition was suggested and only one person expressed any opinion on whether it was accurate or not. That person generally agreed with some reservation. From the others, crickets, which is telling. Thanks for trying.

Edit. While I think your definition is a good try, I think it so overbroad as to be almost meaningless. Anybody can make up a narrative about what is in essence simply a depiction of what is in front of the camera's lens. I am also troubled by the inclusion of an animal in place of a person, as now virtually every cat photo on the web falls within the definition of street photography.

[RSL]

Well, this was my attempt to define it explicitly a while back:

Chris, Somehow I missed that one when you posted it. Too much in LuLa to read, I guess. In any case, it's the best definition I've seen in words. It describes the situation very well.

But I'll also say, again, that the way to learn what street photography is is to study the work of people like HCB who defined it -- not in words but by example.

[James Clark]

Chris, Somehow I missed that one when you posted it. Too much in LuLa to read, I guess. In any case, it's the best definition I've seen in words. It describes the situation very well.

But I'll also say, again, that the way to learn what street photography is is to study the work of people like HCB who defined it -- not in words but by example.

Ah.  So it's basically porn

[32BT]

Excellent Hans. That is my dilemma quite often. And I am sure for many others. Where to put images that don't quite fit into existing categories?

So an idea came to me, especially after Chris said LuLa is looking into reorganizing and/or streamlining the existing threads. How about creating one umbrella thread called Showcase to showcase any image that any one wants to post. Within that umbrella create sub categories where there is sufficient interest. Some we already have, such as nature, landscapes, abstracts, etc. Then there is Street, Urbanscapes, countryscapes, architecture, monochrome, black and white, People, and whatever else warrants a subthread. One if need be, for 'Others', that do not obviously fit any category, such as composites or created images. Critiques should only be for those wanting critiques. Once created it will hopefully obviate the need for hard 'definitions', notwithstanding the current disagreement on what is Street photography. Since street is already a recognized genre, there is no reason why the thread cannot simply be broadened to include Urban and/or anything related, similar to how Abstracts was broadened to include many kinds of alternate definitions of abstract.

Just some thoughts.

JR

I just hope they won't go overboard on the categories. We clearly need more categories than today, but i don't think it needs to be seperated into minute detail.

As single moniker for "street photography" we could perhaps use "narrative photography". That may be slightly broader, but at least it fits better with what people generally expect to see in such a category.

My preferred categories in a showcase section would go something like:
Nature
Urban
Human Interest
Narrative
Monochrome

I'm not too thrilled with that last one because of its overlap, but some people have mentioned their specific interest for it.

[32BT]

Oh, and we also need an additional subsection "Abstract" so i can more easily ignore JMR's pictures... ;-) ;-) ;-)

PS. Apologies to Hans for hijacking the thread.

[KLaban]

I just hope they won't go overboard on the categories. We clearly need more categories than today, but i don't think it needs to be seperated into minute detail.

As single moniker for "street photography" we could perhaps use "narrative photography". That may be slightly broader, but at least it fits better with what people generally expect to see in such a category.

My preferred categories in a showcase section would go something like:
Nature
Urban
Human Interest
Narrative
Monochrome

I'm not too thrilled with that last one because of its overlap, but some people have mentioned their specific interest for it.

Whot, no Travel Atmospherics!?

Where on earth am I going to post my images?

;-)

[32BT]

What, no Travel Atmospherics!?

Where on earth am I going to post my images?

;-)

Ah, yes, we have to consult Rob about that one, but i think Leica and blad productions will be banned entirely. What's that? You own a mobile phone? Instagram...

;-)

[Ivophoto]

What, no Travel Atmospherics!?

Where on earth am I going to post my images?

;-)

Why should you try to post your heavenly images on earth? The cloud is definitely a better location!

[KLaban]

Why should you try to post your heavenly images on earth? The cloud is definitely a better location!

Ah, yes, we have to consult Rob about that one, but i think Leica and blad productions will be banned entirely. What's that? You own a mobile phone? Instagram...

;-)

Hehe.

Seriously, whatever the choice of categories there'll always be some bright spark questioning the compartmentalisation and complaining about images posted within those compartments.

Dat's life.

[Ivophoto]

Hehe.

Seriously, whatever the choice of categories there'll always be some bright spark questioning the compartmentalisation and complaining about images posted within those compartments.

Dat's life.

Easy enough.