More New Yorkers

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I don't think this qualifies as good "Street," but I found the expressions and hands interesting.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

And two more.
The second is on the High Line. The almost naked guy is a sculpture.

[RSL]

Both pretty fair street, especially the gal with the dogs.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Both pretty fair street, especially the gal with the dogs.

Thanks, Russ. That's my personal pick, too.

[stamper]

Number two is especially good.The woman and the lower dog look identical. The other two images are fine as well.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Number two is especially good.The woman and the lower dog look identical. The other two images are fine as well.

Thanks, Stamper.

[John R]

The gestures in the first image is what struck me right away. My eye went from gesture to the next. The dogs and owner is good. But I like the third image best because it is comical.

JR

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Thanks, John.

[Rajan Parrikar]

Eric - I don't think I have seen this genre from you before. Loved all 3 with #2 being a standout.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Eric - I don't think I have seen this genre from you before. Loved all 3 with #2 being a standout.

Thank you, Rajan.
I find "Street" (or "Streetish") photography quite difficult, and my failure rate is very high. I've had better luck on trips to New York than anywhere else.

[RSL]

Thank you, Rajan.
I find "Street" (or "Streetish") photography quite difficult, and my failure rate is very high. I've had better luck on trips to New York than anywhere else.

The failure rate is always high, Eric. Even HCB's failure rate was high. Frank's failure rate was extremely high. Real street ain't easy. It's only easy if you think if there's a street in it it's street. The problem's always been the name of the genre.

[faberryman]

The problem's always been the name of the genre.

The problem is not the name of the genre; the problem is the scarcity of meaningful images.

[RSL]

That too, Fab. But if you believe a picture with a street in it is street photography then there's a plethora of images.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

You are quite right, Russ, on both counts.

[faberryman]

That too, Fab. But if you believe a picture with a street in it is street photography then there's a plethora of images.

I don't know why you keep smugly flogging the premise that knowledgeable photographers think that it is street photography if it has a street in it. People aren't as ill informed as you would like to believe, particularly around here. Give people the limited choice of posting  in a landscape forum or a street forum and there are bound to be images members wish to share which fit neither category. Either expand the choice of forums or delete them all together. Most images on this site are posted in the equipment section anyway, usually under the title "Fun with [Camera Brand][Format]", so you could argue that the whole Art of Photography section is itself redundant.

[RSL]

And I don’t know why you keep using words like “smugly,” Fab, a word you obviously don’t understand. If you really think people aren’t ill-informed about what the street photography genre includes, look around you. I wish we could come up with a better name for the genre, something that would make clear the genre is about the significance of human interactions with each other, with their surroundings, and with their inner angels and demons.

[faberryman]

And I don’t know why you keep using words like “smugly,” Fab, a word you obviously don’t understand.

I understand perfectly what it means.

smug·ly - adverb: in a way that shows excessive satisfaction or pride in oneself.

If you really think people aren’t ill-informed about what the street photography genre includes, look around you.

The only thing I see is people putting non street photographs in the street forum, because they want to share them and they clearly don't belong in the landscape forum. That, and your ambiguous "I know it when I see it" approach. As you said, you can't even define it.

[RSL]

Nobody can define it in words, Frank, any more than someone can define what makes Puccini’s arias penetrate your soul. But you can learn to recognize the difference between good street and bad street by studying the work of people like HCB, Frank, etc., etc., etc. Problem is, that’s too much work. Right? So we’ll shoot something on the street and call it street photography, because, after all, it was on the street.

And I agree it’s past time to get rid of Street Showcase. The pictures now being put into Street Showcase can go into User Critiques and we can critique them on the basis of their appeal rather than on the basis of whether or not they fall into a genre with a very misleading name.

[faberryman]

Nobody can define it in words, Frank, any more than someone can define what makes Puccini’s arias penetrate your soul. But you can learn to recognize the difference between good street and bad street by studying the work of people like HCB, Frank, etc., etc., etc. Problem is, that’s too much work. Right? So we’ll shoot something on the street and call it street photography, because, after all, it was on the street.

How can you tell the difference between good street and bad street if, as you say, you can't even define what street is? We certainly know what an aria is. I happen to like Puccini arias, Bellini more so, R. Strauss less so. What I think doesn't make them any more or less arias. And studying the "masters" isn't going to help you very much coming to grips with the arias in John Adams's operas. That requires a fresh approach. Yet, arias they are.

And I agree it’s past time to get rid of Street Showcase. The pictures now being put into Street Showcase can go into User Critiques and we can critique them on the basis of their appeal rather than on the basis of whether or not they fall into a genre with a very misleading name.

While we are at it, and for the same reason, we should get rid of the landscape forum too. You've said you can't define landscape either. I've seen lots of images posted there that clearly weren't landscape (including your recent image of a sandhill crane), and many more which weren't very good. Just like the street forum. In fact, I'd do away with the whole Art of Photography section. Most of the images on this website are in the equipment section anyway because most people are more interested in what camera the image was taken with than the image itself. A significant portion of the images in the Art of Photography section have equipment information given so they can easily be relocated.

[RSL]

Sorry, Frank. I'm out of time to waste on this.