PDA

View Full Version : Opinion on different rules of street photography.



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

GregPhoto
11-11-2010, 08:45 AM
I've found this forum by accident. Opinions expressed here are extremely interesting.
Iíve just started blog (Candid Street Photo) that is almost solely dedicated to this topic.

Greg Yarmit
www.candidstreetphoto.com

benjiboy
11-19-2010, 08:36 AM
To talk about "Rules" of street photography as like talking about the "Rules" for pickpockets, the only rule is don't get caught, because once your subject is aware of your presence and start posing you've blown it.

frotog
11-19-2010, 10:15 AM
I quite like Streuli's photos. They lie somewhere between the typological (think bechers) and the iconic. To compare Streuli to a "street" photographer like Frank, Winogrand, Friedlander etc. could be an interesting exercise in understanding how differences in artistic strategies shape not only the individual's work but that aspect of "modernity" or timeliness intrinsic to it. But to judge Streuli's work solely on the tenets of a mode of photography whose period of relevance ended thirty years ago is an exercise in futility.

Taslim Abdani
11-23-2010, 09:41 AM
Struelli's photos all look as if they were shot from far off, using a tele lens. Everything looks kind of flat.

bvy
11-25-2010, 11:56 PM
On Streuli:
http://www.sevensevennine.com/?p=1060

Bateleur
01-04-2011, 07:25 AM
As a matter of interest the work of Struelli is included in an exhibition "The Adventure of Reality" at the Kunsthall in Rotterdam (Netherlands)!

oneANT
01-11-2011, 01:49 AM
These are not street photography just as shooting a cat off your back fence is not hunting and 2minute noodles is not cooking. What saddened me were the portraits, a terrific opportunity wasted, they conveyed nothing of the subject and even in terms of a style, none was evident. I can still love images that can be regarded as clinical but these were not even that. I searched the site for any reference to street and I'm pleased to report that the site made no such reference.

But its all OK, panic is over ...they are not street photographs. OP you said you don't do street photography I believe you ...

johnnywalker
01-11-2011, 03:53 AM
This 'ball' your talking about, can I purchase them online?:p

They are found in the drug and alcohol departments. :D

lensworker
10-09-2011, 02:02 PM
This person puts as many things between himself and his subject, as she/he can.... Both distance and physical barriers. Needs to come out of closet. Probably too threatened and as a result, threatening to others stalking them... If possible, a warm smile and relaxed attitude will break the ice and open up a whole world of possibility, perhaps begin with a med. tele., then normal, yes, then even wide angle. Direct experience mixed with a compassionate attitude. The child in the "big truck" is cute. Bill

Early on, I would shy away from getting "too close" to people. Now if I have a main subject(s) in my frame, my goal is to get close enough to them so that they occupy 1/3 to 1/2 of the frame (with a 28mm lens).

The more you make yourself move out of your comfort zone and get closer to people when doing street photography, the sooner you will get past your nerves and become comfortable getting close to your subjects - and the sooner you will start to create rewarding images.

Anyone can make street photos from a "safe" distance - and they will end up with mundane images with no clear subject and no visual impact. Commit to getting close and overcoming your nerves - the rewards are well worth the effort.

Bateleur
10-11-2011, 04:36 AM
Early on, I would shy away from getting "too close" to people. Now if I have a main subject(s) in my frame, my goal is to get close enough to them so that they occupy 1/3 to 1/2 of the frame (with a 28mm lens).

The more you make yourself move out of your comfort zone and get closer to people when doing street photography, the sooner you will get past your nerves and become comfortable getting close to your subjects - and the sooner you will start to create rewarding images.

Anyone can make street photos from a "safe" distance - and they will end up with mundane images with no clear subject and no visual impact. Commit to getting close and overcoming your nerves - the rewards are well worth the effort.

I agree to getting up close and personal, generally people are open to interaction even in public spaces and barriers are often of our own making, though naturally there are boundaries and respect for "our subject".

lensworker
10-13-2011, 06:06 PM
Don't get any other Camera just grow some balls!

Here's Eric Kim's take on it -
If I could define street photography, I would define it as the act of taking photos of people in public urban areas in a candid manner. This means that when it comes to street photography, you don’t ask your subjects to pose for you. Instead of asking people to take their photo, you simply go up to them and take their photo. In addition, street photography integrates the people and their environment. To use an analogy, I think of street photography as a play, with the actors interacting with their stage in an interesting way.

Street photography also relies heavily on capturing “the decisive moment“. This means that the timing of the images is what typically makes it special–whether you got catch a person having a certain expression on their face or having a person doing something uncanny at a certain moment.

When I think of street portraiture, I would say that it is included under the general category of street photography–but it is its own sub-sect. Therefore the two are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore, I would further categorize street portraiture in two sections as well: posed vs candid. Although capturing posed street portraiture can capture strong images (think of The Satorialist), the truly exceptional images are those which are captured candidly (think Thomas Leuthard).

Now what makes capturing candid street portraits inherently better than capturing posed street portraits? Well to start off, it takes guts to take photos of people in public (without asking their permission). Frankly speaking, I think that street photography is 80% having the balls to go out in public and shoot strangers while only 20% is skill.

Link: http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2011/03/street-portraits-vs-street-photography-whats-the-difference/

I think he's on the right track.

eddie
10-13-2011, 06:27 PM
Anyone can make street photos from a "safe" distance - and they will end up with mundane images with no clear subject and no visual impact.
I'd have to disagree with this statement. I'm not a big fan of "street", but think Paul Strand created an amazing image, which certainly isn't mundane, although shot from a "safe" distance:
http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/wall-street-by-paul-strand/

lensworker
10-23-2011, 09:31 PM
I'd have to disagree with this statement. I'm not a big fan of "street", but think Paul Strand created an amazing image, which certainly isn't mundane, although shot from a "safe" distance:
http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/wall-street-by-paul-strand/You are right about Strand's Wall Street image - it is a great image with visual impact - and it was indeed made at a "safe" distance, although there is no commentary on the lens used or his distance from the subject matter when he made the image..

This image just goes to show that there are no rules in street photography.

sdotkling
10-24-2011, 06:09 PM
I think the whole genre is nonsensical. In my mind there is no such thing as 'street photography'. It is simply photography Out In The World, and if you live with people, they will naturally appear in your photographs of your world. Is it 'street' to photograph a farmer on his tractor? Or is it only 'street' when the same farmer goes to the feed store in town? What if the store is in the city? These are all artificial categories where none need exist at all.

CGW
10-24-2011, 08:29 PM
I think the whole genre is nonsensical. In my mind there is no such thing as 'street photography'. It is simply photography Out In The World, and if you live with people, they will naturally appear in your photographs of your world. Is it 'street' to photograph a farmer on his tractor? Or is it only 'street' when the same farmer goes to the feed store in town? What if the store is in the city? These are all artificial categories where none need exist at all.

What would you prefer? "Public?" "Civic?" "Environmental?" "Candid?" "Urban?" Your "out in the world" doesn't exactly bring clarity or specificity to street photography. Not liking it is cool but don't trash it in the process. Try checking out the recently-discovered work of Vivian Maier and see what you think:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWEDOnBfDUI

lensworker
11-01-2011, 12:57 PM
I think the whole genre is nonsensical. In my mind there is no such thing as 'street photography'. It is simply photography Out In The World, and if you live with people, they will naturally appear in your photographs of your world. Is it 'street' to photograph a farmer on his tractor? Or is it only 'street' when the same farmer goes to the feed store in town? What if the store is in the city? These are all artificial categories where none need exist at all.

If the photographs are made on a street or sidewalk, it's "street photography."
If the hypothetical farmer is on his tractor on his farm, it's "documentary photography."
If the hypothetical farmer is at the feed store, it's also "documentary photography."
If the hypothetical farmer is driving his tractor down the street, it's "street photography."
That's how I think of it.

The name tag you put on this type of photography is not that important; what is important is that we get out there with our cameras and make those street/documentary/sidewalk/parking lot/city park/farmer's market/county fair/whatever photographs and not sit in front of our computers for hours/days/weeks/months arguing about the name of it
(hence my low post count). :laugh:

Moral of the story: Call it whatever you want - just get out and do it.

BrianShaw
11-01-2011, 01:32 PM
I would like to see what do you guys think of him.

I like two things about his work:

1. He's not taking pictrues of the back of peoples heads like many street photographers seem to do
2. He dares to not use wide-angle and include everything under the sun in his imagery... his images clearly have a subject.

I didn't find too much interesting, however, and gave it a glance but wouldn't go back for more. Most of the images have a totally "detached" and lifeless appearance.

rolleiman
11-02-2011, 12:23 PM
If the photographs are made on a street or sidewalk, it's "street photography."
If the hypothetical farmer is on his tractor on his farm, it's "documentary photography."
If the hypothetical farmer is at the feed store, it's also "documentary photography."
If the hypothetical farmer is driving his tractor down the street, it's "street photography."
That's how I think of it.

just get out and do it.



And if the hypothetical farmer driving his tractor down the street knocks someone over.....is it Press photography?

Agree with the general drift, it's a bit silly trying to categorise every form of photography...I'm sure the greatest "street photographer" of them all. HCB, would have slated the term as being nonsensical.

keithwms
11-02-2011, 12:28 PM
I am glad to see someone who doesnt adher to specific rule and make photo according to personal technique. I would like to see what do you guys think of him.

As I am sure has already been said somewhere above, the most important rule is that there are no rules.

And the next thing to bear in mind is that if there were rules/formulas then everybody would follow then in an attempt to be successful. The results would then become so predictable that those rules would quickly be replaced by "anti-rules" - people deliberately violating the rules just to stand out.

Carry on, have fun, do what you think pushes your creative limits :)

benjiboy
11-13-2011, 03:29 PM
What are the rules for pickpockets ? :)