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

I don't see the appeal of shooting it. But I have seen wonderful examples of it. And I am never going to judge anyone for what they do, with what I do.

armis wrote in post #16237743
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...

This I totally agree with. So much of what you see are shots taken with a long lens real tight shot with no rhythm or regard to any elements that make a strong photograph. These elements are the things Bresson talks about and are seen in the work of the greats.

Read what Meyerowitz had to say about Gildens work. He called him a bully. I wouldn't go that far but I do prefer the work of Mary Ellen Mark, Davidson, Meyerowitz, Erwitt, Bresson, Evans, to that of Gilden but thats personal.

But again as Adams said a good photograph is a good photograph so I think anything that stands up to that, no matter what the label we want to put on in it, is good. In my opinion we should be putting more into trying to understand that than we do into f/stops and shutter speeds and what lens did you use because image content is rarely discussed in depth and is the most important part of it all.

I 'get' street photography.
My wife doesn't.
I see personalities. questions, stories. and diversities in street photography.
She sees people.
I see stories.
She sees people doing the mundane
I see diversity.
She sees more people she doesn't know.
I see stories.
She sees pictures.

Like said above, every genre isn't for every person. Street photography (IMO) takes gumption. I don't shoot street, but I really enjoy the art of it, and what it shows about people.

The shots are very real, 99% of the subjects are unposed, unaware, and just being themselves doing their thing. When you look at any other genre of photography involving people as a subject, only sports has the realism that street has. Every other genre with people is posed to some degree. But even then, the person/people isn't the real subject, the act of what they are engaged in is the subject.

I can always find a picture of a person nicely dressed, sitting on a posing stool, smiling nicely, or of a sports player doing something specific, a pretty girl posing in a bathing suit, or a bride with her bouquet.

But every image in street is unique. You hard pressed to find 2 images in street that are nearly identical.

I think that's what I 'get' about street photography.

Thanks OP for this thread. It made me think about what it is I like/enjoy about Street Photography.

To add - Would Night Club shooting be a form of street?

I'm personally not an avid street shooter. But I have done a lot of it in my youth, in capturing other students for the high school or college yearbook. I can certainly understand some of the appeal...

• Just as landscapes attempt to capture some of the inherent beauty of a locale, street shooting captures the character of a locale.
  
• It permits one to portray the local denizons which make up that locale, in natural and unaware moments...environmenta​l portraiture
  
• There are visually very strikingly distinctive people (even not factoring in the locale) and interesting in their own right...portraiture studies in their own right
  

KirkS518 wrote in post #16238221
To add - Would Night Club shooting be a form of street?

A good photograph is a good photograph. If it's a good photograph does it matter whether it's A or B or even C?

Wilt wrote in post #16238256
I'm personally not an avid street shooter. But I have done a lot of it in my youth, in capturing other students for the high school or college yearbook. I can certainly understand some of the appeal...

• Just as landscapes attempt to capture some of the inherent beauty of a locale, street shooting captures the character of a locale.
  
• It permits one to portray the local denizons which make up that locale, in natural and unaware moments...environmenta​l portraiture
  
• There are visually very strikingly distinctive people (even not factoring in the locale) and interesting in their own right...portraiture studies in their own right
  

So even though I now ordinarily do not shoot people on the street as portrait studies of individuals, sometimes I am very strong pulled to take such a photo. OTOH, unlike shooting decades ago in high school, I feel less comfortable now simply because all sorts of folks think 'pervert' and 'child molester' even when the photography is totally innocent. Times have unfortunately changed.

I just really don't care what the uniformed think. I'm hopelessly addicted.

I love it, but where I live there is no street life let alone aide walks.

But I do find a spot I am shy so I use my 70-300. That's one of the reasons why I want to get a x100s, to remove the wall.


I like the spring of the moment kind of photography.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16238265
I just really don't care what the uniformed think. I'm hopelessly addicted.

I guess they've called you 'pervert' and 'child molester' so much, that it no longer bothers you?! Go to the UK, and let some passing lady accuse you of 'photographing my bum!' while you shoot flower shots in one of the wonder English gardens!

It's always in the more affluent areas I get harassed most. Who'd a thunk it?

I was shooting last winter on the Mag Mile here in Chicago. Folks had on parka's and I had some moron come up to me and start calling me every name that Drill Instructor S/Sgt Banks called me in boot camp. I mean it was almost zero F outside and thats not including the wind chill and in Chicago there is usually always a wind chill. The only exposed skin on folks where their red noses. Seriously. And this guys calling me a pervert and a lot worse. I just kept on working and walking around and I couldn't shake this guy. So he said I was nothing but scum and he was going to get a cop. I said, "scum, huh, and pervert, huh? Those are some of my finer qualities and sure lets find a cop and I'll explain to him how you are harassing me." He said "you can't just take picture like that?" I said, "the laws and the freedoms that I so proudly served my country to defend says if I'm in a public space and last time I looked this is clearly a public space I have that right and if you don't quit harassing me the cops are clearly your best option" He followed me a bit more but quit the name calling and gave up once we turned into the wind (LoL).

I just find it funny that in the really so called bad neighborhoods most people are asking me to take their pictures.

Harassement just comes with the territory. Bruce Davidson did his Subway work in the early 1980s when the New York Subway was a very dangerous place. He got mugged several times. This type of work is not for the faint of heart. Like I said earlier it takes a pair of em to do it. See Jill Freedman on one of the trailers I posted and Mary Ellen Mark. Both small women with real courage.

One more trailer from the movie and the best trailer of the bunch in my opinion at explaining why.
http://www.traileraddi​ct.com …/everybody-street/trailer

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16238320
It's always in the more affluent areas I get harassed most. Who'd a thunk it?

I just find it funny that in the really so called bad neighborhoods most people are asking me to take their pictures.

(Edited for brevity)

That's a really interesting social observation. My theory is that those less affluent/fortunate may feel ignored by society as a whole, and this gives them a feeling of being recognized?

KirkS518 wrote in post #16238514
(Edited for brevity)

That's a really interesting social observation. My theory is that those less affluent/fortunate may feel ignored by society as a whole, and this gives them a feeling of being recognized?

There is probably a lot of truth in that statement.

It's because dem rich folks are out and about doing things they're not supposed to and afraid of leaving a trace or get caught!

tonylong wrote in post #16237419
Mmkay...

Thank you for chiming in again, Tony, but I wasn't soliciting a post critique. If street photography can be "invasive" and "confrontational," to quote descriptions above, then I'm at liberty to mention that the invasive, confrontational street photographer Bruce Gilden is obnoxious, just as another poster is free to provide a list of street photographers and another to mention that Meyerowitz referred to Gilden as a bully.