Street Photography - what does it mean to you?

So I subscribe to a so called street photography group on Facebook. It is actually one of my favorite genre of photography. But like everything it seems that what is classified as street photography is now the back of someone walking away down some street. Use, I am way over generalizing here.... but one of the main things I have always had drilled into me is a good photograph has a face...for the most part the back of someones head isn't that interesting. Its rather hard to make a connection with the back of someone in a photograph. And yes, there are exceptions.

But what I am curious from you all, particularly those that also like the genre, what makes a great street photo versus something that to me looks like just a random snap shot. What do you like to see?

I personally don't like to see the backs of people unless it is intentionally done to explain an event. But I find taking the backs of people sort of voyeuristic. If your going to shoot someone... they should know you did it. And yes, I have been asked by subjects to please not take their photo, I have strived to do that and honor their wishes. Most don't mind. Anyway.... let me know what you think.

Getting tired of seeing peoples backs of heads... but it could just be me.

Croasdail wrote in post #19226895
So I subscribe to a so called street photography group on Facebook. It is actually one of my favorite genre of photography. But like everything it seems that what is classified as street photography is now the back of someone walking away down some street.

Here's your problem:

In a more selective group, members would know that a good street photo has a point. Backs of walking people are easy to get while avoiding confrontations that might be awkward, unpleasant, or even dangerous. Photos of walkers from behind can be interesting, but there's more to it than that.

True..... it is wide open... and the bar is rather low or none at all. And thats ok with me. But honestly I see it here a lot too. I guess I don't want to get wrapped around the axle of purist sight or not. Rather I am seeking to what street photography means today. Back ini the day when HBC brought the genre to the forefront of the general populations conscience, it meant something... and today it seems to mean something slightly different.

To really be clear, I don't shoot what I do to nicely fit into any category. On the sight the category is referred to as urban photography. Other contest I have entered it required "people" in the shot. What ever. I guess what got me off track the the vast number of shots that include the back of people. In very general terms, backs of people has been not ideal. People's facial expressions get great clues to what is going on. Today, they seem to be far more less important.

I've had some decenly good sports action shots rejected by editors because you can see the athletes face. Same from performing arts and events... faces were required.

Now in the instagram era, someones back, arms stretched, looking out over some vista is typical. And the body positioning does give you a clue to the persons reaction to what they are seeing. So that may be the new norm. Just wondering.

Ah, the semantical joys of discussing “street photography”, a label that is easy to hate (and understandably so) but too convenient to abandon.

Straight off, street photography does not need to include a human let alone the face of a human. At least in my book, but there are many other books just as valid, which is why such derision exists for the term street photography. Moreover, for me, street is not a contest to see who can be most machismos by shooting straight on (Bruce Gilden wins if that’s the game, and he’s not exactly applauded for being more ethically considerate than those who shoot on the sly).

This topic was brought up many years ago on this site, and since then, I started to mentally inventory back shots taken by the generally recognized masters of street. Among these photographers, you’ll find not only a good number of ‘back shots’, but also ones that prove to be excellent, at least I think so. Does this mean everyone is obligated to like back shots? Of course not. Even so, just be careful about projecting personal preference on to others, especially when trying to establish what are already elusive definitions.

People are forms and forms can be interesting from any angle, particularly if incorporated into a broader scheme that includes a compelling use of lighting, contrast, timing (the decisive moment), geometry, lines, movement, action, color, and, of course, composition. And if they suggest a story (a photo of firefighters’ backs as they rush towards a burning building in the background), that’s all good, too.

In any event, photography does not require a statement to succeed; abstract anyone, a luscious black & white photo of a flower? And faces don’t reveal truths but merely an expression caught within a fraction of a second that are oft-prone to misinterpretation given photography’s inherent lack of context and narrative. But have a field day with fabricating your own story, I do it all the time! Ain’t art fun?

This said, if you’re still guided by a storytelling agenda, a back is no less vague than a front within the confines of photography, so go with it from here. Besides, vagueness can sometimes add alluring mystery or tension.

Now, is there a lot of bad street photography that use back shots? Absolutely. I’ve taken an exhausting amount myself. And there is some truth, particularly with beginners, that shooting from behind is less intimidating than shooting the front, and the photo can appear a lazy way to include a human for the sake of including a human.

And because a staggering number of photographs are circulated by the minute, an immeasurable amount of bad ‘back shot’ photos, like any other type of bad photo, are easily available for scrutiny, leaving a broad bitter taste in the eyeball. But this consequence is a disproportionate one, since exceptional (or maybe even just “very good”) photos are, by nature, limited (subjectivity acknowledged).

Is there a stalker element to shooting from behind…well, street photography has a stalking element irrespective of the photographer’s position, although I get that someone photographing in close proximity is seemingly more commendable than some guy with a 400mm stooping behind the bushes (or a car for this discussion). This said, a back shot actually upholds more privacy than does one that includes the face. In the end, you have to respect your work enough to justify its inexorable evasiveness.

What street photography is definitely NOT are ONLY photos of people who are aware of being photographed or who have interacted with the photographer. Again, I stress only! Yeah, call me a hypocrite, maybe I deserve it, but I'm putting my absolutist foot down on this. Good lord, if this were a prerequisite, do you realize how many excellent photos would have to be extracted from the street photography libraries of Henri Cartier-Bresson, Garry Winogrand, Vivian Maier, Robert Frank, Alex Webb, Bruce Davidson, Daido Moriyama, William Eggleston, Lee Friedlander, Joel Meyerowitz, Helen Levitt, Fred Herzog, Elliot Erwitt, Fan Ho, and Saul Leiter, just to name a very few. You would be better off telling me that wildlife photos are ONLY photos of animals in zoos.

After all, when defining street photography, if there is just one thing on which most (if not all) photographers agree it is that candid photos of people play a key role. Some argue the only role; not me.

Ultimately, the ambiguity of street photography (hard to define but I know it when I see it type thing) makes the term subject to criticism, but the ambiguity also militates against restrictive parameters, which is a positive thing. That is, a good photograph is a good photograph, and just because it might not meet someone’s arbitrary (and thus disputable) standard of a photographic genre doesn’t suddenly render that good photograph bad. Good photography is hard enough. No need to make it harder by trying to placate the dubious impediments of self-appointed Facebook lawmakers.

Yeah.... not sure anyone wants have any form of purity police on any sight. I mistakenly a couple of years ago suggested "panning" is done at low shutter speeds... boy did I lean my lesson. Years ago I joined this forum, and mainly participated in the sports forum. A very well intended sports photographer openly gave me suggestions how I might do a better job of it. I learned so much from this chap even though I though I had done a pretty good job for the preceding 20 years of shooting. But he actually was trying to help based off of his learnings.

Today not that much is wanted. Even this forums self labelled critique area is mostly a barren land. I'm not sure how you get better not wanting to hear where an image might be made better. Not all advice is equal, of course.

But so called street photography is an interesting area. Its photography from the hip. Its spontaneous. Its free form. Rules are meant to be broken... but some still do apply in making an ordinary shot into something a bit more. Shooting shots from the back is part of the natural evolution. And yes, there are some shots from the back that look very intentional, and just work, while other look like hey, look at that shot that looks like the other 100 I saw today.

And again, thats not necessarily bad... imitation is a great way to learn. Not sure there is a whole lot net new out there. Just some are executed a lot better than others. A lot of this is just my own personal journey of how do I make a shot my own, regardless of the shot. How do I uniquely see something that hundreds of others are also seeing every day....

Croasdail wrote in post #19227090
A lot of this is just my own personal journey of how do I make a shot my own, regardless of the shot. How do I uniquely see something that hundreds of others are also seeing every day....

That's a tough question. I'm not sure it ever gets easier. For myself, I've come up with only two answers, and both of them are partial. (1) I'm a composition freak. (2) My photos that have the most of what might be called human interest, whether or not they include human figures, are the ones that imply the passage of time.

Other people will have different answers in explaining their own work.

Not many takers.... thats fine. Been doing a lot of thinking about this. And it is a really broad topic. Just do a search in Pinterest on "Street Photography" and you come up with a wide variety of images there. A few things quickly jump out in common is they seem to be focused on urban settings - mostly from larger cities.

They may or may not include people. Some of the best I've seen have been from either camps. If they do have people, there seems to be little as far as rules. In my mind the subject or image should be spontaneous. Not posed. But as far as Pinterest is concerned, it is easy to make an argument that some look very posed. Conversely on Facebooks site, most if not all are unposed. Facebook's group is moderated, pretty sure Pinterest isn't.

Some other things that stand out is it bucks the wide open trend. Environment matters. Therefor shallow depth of field is rarely leveraged. Its more an environmental portraiture when people are included. On the other hand, panning is leveraged.

Majority of B/W.... color is represented far less. I personally like the B/W aspect to most.. its what I grew up with. And yet I can really appreciate a color image when done right. Evening shots under lights.... very compelling. Really like this chaps work in London

https://designyoutrust​.com …er-dark-by-luke-holbrook/

At the end of the day though, it really is free form photography. I like to believe it is not staged, but may have been planned. I really love urban settings, but one of my favorite spots to shoot is rural small town Texas... they just seem so rich to me. I prefer people.. but not required. If there are people... I like them interacting with them image, not just passers by, but that can work as well.

What bothers me most is there is a quote that "street photography captures real life on film".... and yet as you learn more about some of the most famous shots - they were staged. They are dishonest shots, but capture a mood of feeling of a time. So really not dishonest. The sailor kissing the nurse in Times Square at the end of WWII. Was it staged.... my view... likely. Does it matter.... probably not.

Shoot what you like.... and like the shot that you've created. Its about all that is important. Guess I'll go shoot more than I will talk about this mess. See if I can come up with something compelling... at least to me.

What does street photogarphy mean to me? Not getting punched in the face by an outraged subject or her boyfriend.

All joking aside, street photography strikes me as a little creepy. Sure people are out in public and there's no law against it, except in some European and Asian countries. But people generally don't like having cameras pointed at them uninvited. I recall a situation on a crowded Manhattan street many years ago where I witnessed a guy in a hat taking pictures of the thighs of ladies wearing short skirts. And he wasn't using a telephoto. I didn't see his face, but I wondered if he had two black eyes.

Croasdail wrote in post #19228835
At the end of the day though, it really is free form photography. I like to believe it is not staged, but may have been planned. ...The sailor kissing the nurse in Times Square at the end of WWII. Was it staged.... my view... likely.

From article https://www.nbcnewyork​.com …%20celebrate%20​the%20news.

"Several people later claimed to be the kissing couple. It was years before Mendonsa and Friedman were confirmed to be the couple.

Mendonsa served on a destroyer during the war and was on leave when the end of the war was announced.
When he was honored at the Rhode Island State House in 2015, Mendonsa spoke about the kiss. He said Friedman reminded him of nurses on a hospital ship that he saw care for wounded sailors.
"I saw what those nurses did that day and now back in Times Square the war ends, a few drinks, so I grabbed the nurse," Mendonsa said, WPRI-TV reported .

Friedman said in a 2005 interview with the Veterans History Project that it wasn't her choice to be kissed.
"The guy just came over and kissed or grabbed," she told the Library of Congress.
She added, "It was just somebody really celebrating. But it wasn't a romantic event."

Spontaneous, per both parties involved.

The evolution of 'street photography'...

I was born in 1950, the 1960s and 1970s were filled with far fewer squirrely folks and the mentally unbalanced. There was far less paranoia in general...kids could walk home without fear of molestation or kidnap, far fewer women looked at a photographer with as much suspicion about him being a pervert or other creep. Photographers at kids sporting events did not need to get league approvale in order to be allowed to shoot.

None of the above is applicable today.

Hi,

Street foto to me is basically seeing composition in a changing environment. Has nothing to do with a person directly. Finding an image in chaos though, although organized chaos really as you know where things are likely to go, you can predict and plan a shot. There's literally nothing useful about a human walking by in a photo, or anything else for that matter, it's the context or composition that you create with those pieces that forms an image with something interesting to it. Street can be an abstract, literally, or it can be something like a scene from cinema.

Very best,

Wit... nice to know. I read somewhere... not any idea anymore where... that the photographer had asked them to do it. Like the idea of it being a real... authentic. Thanks for the correction.

Croasdail wrote in post #19229228
Wit... nice to know. I read somewhere... not any idea anymore where... that the photographer had asked them to do it. Like the idea of it being a real... authentic. Thanks for the correction.

The photographer was Alfred Eisenstadt. Eisenstaedt said that he did not have an opportunity to get the names and details, because he was photographing rapidly changing events during the celebrations. So the kiss was not spontaneous response between two strangers to a photographer's request, either.

Eisenstadt later explained:

"In Times Square on V.J. Day I saw a sailor running along the street grabbing any and every girl in sight. Whether she was a grandmother, stout, thin, old, didn't make a difference. I was running ahead of him with my Leica looking back over my shoulder but none of the pictures that were possible pleased me. Then suddenly, in a flash, I saw something white being grabbed. I turned around and clicked the moment the sailor kissed the nurse. If she had been dressed in a dark dress I would never have taken the picture. If the sailor had worn a white uniform, the same. I took exactly four pictures. It was done within a few seconds. Only one is right, on account of the balance."

I also prefer faces, not backs. Street or not.
But even HCB has backs photos as well awarded photos.

To me street photography means walking and looking around just as usual.
I do look around with curiosity. It just in my nature. Every place on Earth I visited, I always liked to walk and see.
Places and people.
At some point I realized it is worth to photograph. At least for me. I have seen many places been changed dramatically. And I regret not to take photos of it much earlier. My mother country doesn't exist at its form from time of my beginning of existence. Streets changed and changing. To diffrent directions.
Where I live now, most of the time cities landscapes are getting entirely changed.

I don't think. Well, actually I know enough about GW. He was not staging it. He was studying America, according to his own words.
And for me his work is worth of it as documentary of America. Not just artsy play of shadows.

I like so called street photography videos on YouTube. Those with combination of walking around videos and taken photos.
Those are raw, no narrative documentary.

BW separates life and else on street photos. It is easy.
Color is very unforgiving. Get something red and it is often cliche. Get something colorful and it takes out the rest.
Where are very gifted color street photography who are able to avoid this. As usual not so many.

Some of the photographs on Facebooks "street photography" group are actually very good. I've been impressed. But they have also been very formulaic. Back of person, walking down street, at night, light by street light. Problem is, it does work. And I have learned a ton by trying to emulate others work. So don't feel really right criticizing it either.

When I went to Iceland, to prep, I looked at literally thousands of images, and from those decided on where I wanted to go. And then did my best to capture my own image of what I had liked what others did. My images weren't going to win any awards, but I liked that I got to see live and capture other content I had liked.

So I guess in a way, street photography is the same. The unique thing is with my example, I could recreate pretty much exactly what I had seen.... where as in street photography you can visit a same local, the "subjects" will be entirely unique.

My goal is to create a new look on something everyone has seen hundreds of times before. Still not there. But its fun to work on it....

.

Croasdail wrote in post #19226895
.
But what I am curious from you all, particularly those that also like the genre, what makes a great street photo versus something that to me looks like just a random snap shot. What do you like to see?
.

.
I like street photography for the aesthetics themselves.

The "human experience" that is often expressed in the genre is not something that I care about. . When the main objective of a photo is to show what people are experiencing and feeling, I have little to zero interest in that.

But if the main objective of a street photo is to show things such as the interplay of light and shadow, or diversity within a pattern, or repetition of form, or a juxtaposition of textures, then I really love it!

When it comes to photography and other artistic mediums, I like so-called "eye candy", and really don't care for images that are about social issues, life-changing events, tremendous accomplishments, human oppression, etc.


.