Am I the only one who doesn't understand the appeal of street photography?

TMaG82 wrote in post #16236861
But am I the only one who doesn't understand the appeal of street photography?
Surely I'm not the only one right?

...maybe you don't understand it because you know very little about it. there is more to "street photography" than snapping pictures of people in the street, which I'm starting to learn as I browse through photography books and street photography videos of the "pros" from the past!

have you actually tried it? do some research on YouTube then try it for yourself! it takes a little bit of imagination and creativity from the person behind the lens to make a scene jump out and make it amazing.

a "good" street photographer will see an opportunity unfold and will have to capture the decisive moment as it happens, once it passes, it gone! it cannot be duplicated unlike the people who do studio or portrait work.

here are some videos to watch if you have some time waste!

steve mccurry

joel myerowitz

this a sample video of street photography no no!!!
this not street photography

I love what Winogrand has to say about the label Street Photographer in this piece.
http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=3RM9KcYEYXs

^^^wow, I grew up in that area! Venice beach, that guy in the white in roller blades with the guitar is still alive and still singing for the tourist with his guitar!!!!

Of course I can see the creepiness of a voyeur trying to take pictures of hot young girls all day.

But street photography is different.

Landscape captures the beauty of nature and the artist rending and POV.
Portrait has a purpose of freezing the moment in time of that person in the portrait.
Sporting event is just that.

But unlike above genre, street photos evoke a different response.

It triggers questions.

Who is that... what's going on....why is that person happy/sad? what's the story...why is that person doing that...

Some people appreciate that.

If you were to tell me the "Kiss" photo doesn't trigger some sort of a response from you, then I'll say you're a liar.

meeko031 wrote in post #16237208
^^^wow, I grew up in that area! Venice beach, that guy in the white in roller blades with the guitar is still alive and still singing for the tourist with his guitar!!!!

Thats wild. He's gotta be pretty old now.

that guy should have been kissing his girlfriend who is in the frame too lol

Food photography, product photography, portrait photography, and god forbid,. WEDDING photography.

None of this appeals to me, but damn if some people don't do a fantastic job of it.
On the other hand, I can understand why others could find it appealing.


I don't except most people to like what I shoot either.

So what?

A couple of quotes by Bresson.
"'Manufactured' or staged photography does not concern me. And if I make a judgment, it can only be on a psychological or sociological level. There are those who take photographs arranged beforehand and those who go out to discover the image and seize it. For me, the camera is a sketch book, an instrument of intuition and spontaneity, the master of the instant which - in visual terms - questions and decides simultaneously. In order to "give a meaning" to the world, one has to feel oneself involved in what he frames through the viewfinder. This attitude requires concentration, a discipline of mind, sensitivity, and a sense of geometry."-Henri Cartier-Bresson

"For a subject to be strong enough to be worth photographing, the relationship of its forms must be rigorously established. Composition starts when you situate your camera in space in relation to the object. For me, photography is the exploration in reality of the rhythm of surfaces, lines, or values; the eye carves out its subject, and the camera has only to do its work. That work is simply to print the eye’s decision on film." - Henri Cartier-Bresson

These are things that are true in all areas of photography.

Also Adams about labels, which we are all guilty (myself included) of putting on different areas of photography:

"Lets hope that categories will be less rigid in the future; there has been too much of placing photography in little niches-commercial. pictorial, documentary, and creative( a dismal term). Definitions of this kind are inessential and stupid; good photography remains good photography no matter what we name it. I would like to think of it as just “photography” ; of each and every photograph containing the best qualities in proper degree to achieve its purpose. We have been slaves to categories, and each has served as a kind of concentration camp for the spirit.”-Ansel Adams

Unfortunately it has only become more prevalent.

At the heart of the pursuit, for most, are social and cultural interests. A desire to record life. Great street photography is documentary photography, it preserves our past, our history, and gives us a better understanding of the world we live in. It can show us the world, from someones shoes other then ours.

Yes, in street photography there is always the chance of confrontation, more often then not, excellent street photography and documentary photography requires great risk and commitment. I think that's part of the draw for some people, throwing yourself out there, seeing what happens and where it takes you, living on the edge. If you cant understand that... sorry.

Crappy street photography is no different then crappy _________ photography... you cant judge one genre by its weakest link. Look at the stuff that matters and then make your judgment.

I don't know... I think if you're carrying a 1Dx and have 70-200mm mounted and snapping pictures of people at 10fps...they may feel intruded upon.

Take a small m43 with a pancake lens with a EVF looking down vertically, people will hardly notice.

I think.

Noth'n like a Leica rangefinder for the street. It's absolutely the perfect tool.

The reality is... when you walk down the street in any urban area (population one thousand or one million) your image is going to be captured. A lot. Street light cameras, store security cameras, ATM cameras, Google street view cars, satellite imagery, etc. etc. etc... So as far as intrusive? A guy with a camera is no more intrusive to me than a government or corporation with him.

I have tried a little bit of street photography, but I end up with stuff falling into the meh, street snapshot stuff so I end up leaving it at home. I love good street photography though. It's actually one of my favorite types of photography. It allows me to see the every day, the mundane, in a different light. It feeds my curiosity about people, how they interact with the environment, a flash of a persons day. A great street shot to me has me not only thinking about the subject(s) in that slice of time, but about the location they are in and what it might be like to be a fly on the wall there. To me street photography is just an urban landscape.

Oh, and for the epitome of obnoxious behavior in a street photographer, look to Bruce Gilden. He's a real champ.

Tedder wrote in post #16237345
Oh, and for the epitome of obnoxious behavior in a street photographer, look to Bruce Gilden. He's a real champ.

Mmkay...as to whether there are "obnoxious" street photographers, well, of course there are! It's like saying there are "obnoxious" law enforcement officers or "obnoxious" business managers and supervisors, well, duh, sure there are!

But it seems to me that the topic of this thread is not "obnoxious people", but it's about street photography in and of itself, and whether there is value in it that can be "appreciated"!

I think there are a lot of people claiming to do street photography who just take snapshots of people in the streets. That's not what street photography is. The masters really capture a piece of the soul of the people they photograph, the place and the time they're in, and more often than not wrap that in an exquisitely pleasing composition. That's street photography, but to be honest you see precious little of it online...