2008 RFF Street Photography Contest: What is Street? [Archive]

Stephanie Brim

03-11-2008, 16:57

Keep in mind that we've had countless "what is street photography" discussions over the years. That isn't really what this is about.

We can't really define street photography. It's an undefinable subject with many variations. It's a very broad theme.

What we can do here is decide how broad we want to be.

I say that we allow an open interpretation of the term 'street photography'. It's mostly a mindset anyway. Everyday people doing everyday things on the street. Everyday people doing amazing things on the street. Amazing people doing amazing things on the street.

So...what do we want it to be for this?

MickH

03-11-2008, 17:04

My interpretation would be "Everyday people doing everyday, or extraordinary things in a public place." Could be the street, could be indoors, could be in the countryside.

I don't mind. I'll abide by the rules, whatever they turn out to be.

Just tell us, girl!

Stephanie Brim

03-11-2008, 17:07

I don't really want it to be rules as such...more like guidelines that can be broken if a good opportunity comes along.

photogdave

03-11-2008, 17:16

MickH

03-11-2008, 17:19

Keep in mind that we've had countless "what is street photography" discussions over the years. That isn't really what this is about.

We can't really define street photography. It's an undefinable subject with many variations. It's a very broad theme.
...

So...what do we want it to be for this?

OK it's past my bed time, so I'll offer this last thought as a guideline before I turn in: perhaps street photography can be defined as "Candid photographs taken in public spaces".

That'll do for me. I know how argumentative folk can be here, so I'll stick to that as a theme.

Thanks for coming up with the idea and putting up with us blokes getting all het-up about the minutiae.

Good night, and God bless.

jayjee

03-11-2008, 17:22

Yeah, I agree. Street photography is about special moments in public places which are captured in a photograph.

Bingley

03-11-2008, 17:27

I agree w/ photogdave and MickH above. There was an interesting comment over on RayPa's Urban Landscape Group on Flickr: urban landscape photography and street photography share certain similarities, but the former focuses on buildings and other structures or forms, while the latter focuses on people.

gb hill

03-11-2008, 17:43

Street photography is not photos of the dude sucking down a Rolling Rock inside the bar, but the wino who's passed out around the corner of the bar. Nor is it the band playing on stage at the club, but it's the bloke playing the saxophone at the intersection downtown. Keep the theme outside.

RML

03-12-2008, 03:23

photogdave

03-12-2008, 07:18

OK. Bye bye. I'm out.
What is it about my suggestion that puts you out? Do you think it's okay to pose street shots? Do you think photos of your friends count as street? I'm just curious so can you explain your decision please?

RML

03-12-2008, 12:35

What is it about my suggestion that puts you out? Do you think it's okay to pose street shots? Do you think photos of your friends count as street? I'm just curious so can you explain your decision please?

Doisneau's photos were posed. Capa's arguably were. So did HCB. They took photos of their friends and people they knew. So why all of a sudden this is out? If it was good enough for the best street photogs it should be good enough for us. But people seem adamant that these things aren't street, and I can't live with such a limited, short-sighted notion of street photography.

Gabriel M.A.

03-12-2008, 12:48

Doisneau's photos were posed.
They were not posed. People will cry "pedantry!" when I state that some of his shots were staged.

Saying that he "posed" his street photography is uninformed, at best.

Just like saying that waiting for some bicycle to run over some water puddle is "posing" a photo...I'd say that's inaccurate.

Gabriel M.A.

03-12-2008, 12:53

As long as it's a candid photo of someone you don't know personally and it's in a public area or gathering place. So...
No shots of your buddies at the bar. No shots of performers on stage etc. Nothing posed or set up.
I agree that a bar is not a street, and a stage is not a street; there could be an open bar on a street, or a stage on a street, so that would be "street photography". But disqualifying as something "set up" is very broad. Anybody walking around with a camera with the intent of taking a photo is a "set up".

Broad generalizations never led to anything good. Never. Ever ever ever. Ever. Forever and ever. ;)

Gabriel M.A.

03-12-2008, 12:55

I don't mind. I'll abide by the rules, whatever they turn out to be.

Just tell us, girl!
Now, you've got the right attitude. You will get far, and your life be merry :D

RML

03-12-2008, 12:57

They were not posed. People will cry "pedantry!" when I state that some of his shots were staged.

Saying that he "posed" his street photography is uninformed, at best.

Just like saying that waiting for some bicycle to run over some water puddle is "posing" a photo...I'd say that's inaccurate.

Sounds like we're squabbling over semantics.

If you ask a couple to walk up to a point, stop there and kiss... I call they posing. Asking a fighter to run down a hill and pretend to be shot and drop... I call that posing.
Asking a little girl to run up a flight of stairs somewhere in Greece... I call that posing.

Now, simply waiting for an anonymous, random cyclist to pass through a rain puddle that happened to be there entirely outside my doing... I call that waiting for the decisive moment.

Wait... I heard that term before somewhere. Must have someone famous who said something like that. Can't remember who that was though. Probably wasn't someone who asked a small girl to run up a flight of stairs in Greece somewhere.

BillP

03-12-2008, 13:01

Let me turn this on it's head. Bear with me. Please read this carefully, and if you disagree, as you may, please be specific about which point you disagree with and why. What we have left, is then a common agreement on what IS "Street photography".

Right.

Street Photography is NOT:

a) Macrophotography
b) Microphotography
c) Astrophotography
d) Anything using fixed, or studio flash
e) Anything depicting animals in their natural habitat
f) Anything depicting natural landscape features as the primary motif - fields, trees, flora, cliffs, sea, mountains or rivers
g) Anything where a specific consumer product is the primary subject ("product photography"
h) Anything where food or drink is the primary subject
i) Portraiture, where the primary subject occupies more than 75% of the final image area. This applies to human and animal subjects (cats, dogs, other domestic animals and family pets)
j) Sunsets
k) Architectural details; door furniture, streetlamps, signage
l) Anything depicting a sport being played in a dedicated area (court, field, course) by individuals or organised teams
m) Anything depicting a mode of transport, either in isolation (aircraft in flight) or occupying more than 75% of the final image area (cars, boats, bicycles, motorbikes)
n) Any form of motorsport
o) Anything where the primary subject is nude or partially clothed and occupies more than 75% of the final image area
p) Anything taken within a domestic dwelling or the garden or yard thereof

That's all I can think of off the top of my head. I think if we do it this way, we can "define by elimination"

Thoughts?

Regards,

Bill

Gabriel M.A.

03-12-2008, 13:06

Sounds like we're squabbling over semantics.
It is not dead: it is simply lacking in blood flow. I'm sure we all know what "it" is :D Wouldn't want to squabble over that.

RML

03-12-2008, 13:06

I'd disagree with points e, f, h, i, j, k, l, , k-2, l-2, m and n.

Martin Parr would turn in his grave if he had one, and quite a few others would too if they weren't long turned to dust already, when seeing this list of what's out.

Let me turn this on it's head. Bear with me. Please read this carefully, and if you disagree, as you may, please be specific about which point you disagree with and why. What we have left, is then a common agreement on what IS "Street photography".

Right.

Street Photography is NOT:

a) Macrophotography
b) Microphotography
c) Astrophotography
d) Anything using fixed, or studio flash
e) Anything depicting animals in their natural habitat
f) Anything depicting natural landscape features as the primary motif - fields, trees, flora, cliffs, sea, mountains or rivers
g) Anything where a specific consumer product is the primary subject ("product photography"
h) Anything where food or drink is the primary subject
i) Portraiture, where the primary subject occupies more than 75% of the final image area. This applies to human and animal subjects (cats, dogs, other domestic animals and family pets)
j) Sunsets
k) Architectural details; door furniture, streetlamps, signage
l) Anything depicting a sport being played in a dedicated area (court, field, course) by individuals or organised teams
k) Anything depicting a mode of transport, either in isolation (aircraft in flight) or occupying more than 75% of the final image area (cars, boats, bicycles, motorbikes)
l) Any form of motorsport
m) Anything where the primary subject is nude or partially clothed and occupies more than 75% of the final image area
n) Anything taken within a domestic dwelling or the garden or yard thereof

That's all I can think of off the top of my head. I think if we do it this way, we can "define by elimination"

Thoughts?

Regards,

Bill

RML

03-12-2008, 13:08

It is not dead: it is simply lacking in blood flow.

Your remark makes no sense to me. Must be an American thing I don't "get".

Gabriel M.A.

03-12-2008, 13:09

Street Photography is NOT:

e) Anything depicting animals in their natural habitat

D@mn! My "chatting in front of Starbucks" series quashed! ;)

Gabriel M.A.

03-12-2008, 13:10

Your remark makes no sense to me. Must be an American thing I don't "get".
I don't recall horses being an American thing.

My point is: if you don't clarify, people complain. If you do, it's "semantical squabbling".

RML

03-12-2008, 13:18

I don't recall horses being an American thing.

My point is: if you don't clarify, people complain. If you do, it's "semantical squabbling".

The matter was that posed shots shouldn't be in. I disagree with that notion. I explained my reasons.
You, however started a discourse on staging vs posing where IMO you missed the nail's head by a mile, posing posing as staging. So, I eliminated the semantic squabbling, returned to the matter at hand, and explained why I think posing should be in.
The fact you haven't commented on those reasons is for me enough indication you either agree with them or can't find fault with them. Either way suits me fine.

I'll leave it up to Stephanie to decide what's street (I recall she did so in the first posting) and just leave you to your own.

icebear

03-12-2008, 13:20

Holy cow ....what an earth shattering problem ?!
Does anyone need to be told to go out, be on the street and take a photo - that's street photography. Breathe, ease, relax and grow up ;). You decide which street and what makes your shutter click. Just get out there. I assume Stephanie was already touching her forehead a couple times and raising her arms in upward direction for help...

Gabriel M.A.

03-12-2008, 13:29

Does anyone need to be told to go out, be on the street and take a photo - that's street photography.
It's a perennial problem, and one that Stephanie anticipated, I'm sure. Everybody has an idea of what something that is should be.

Usually it's just easier to spell out the rules rather than put them together via a committee for a community contest.

Don't get discouraged, Stephanie. Just set your foot down! Or both.

BillP

03-12-2008, 13:32

I'd disagree with points e, f, h, i, j, k, l, , k-2, l-2, m and n.

Martin Parr would turn in his grave if he had one, and quite a few others would too if they weren't long turned to dust already, when seeing this list of what's out.

Are you really serious? So a shot of a Formula 1 car at a Grand Prix, a golfer taking his swing, the cat on top of the telly, is what you would call "street"?

I am honestly amazed.

BTW, don't bother to "quote" Martin Parr - nothing could leave me colder :D

Regards,

Bill

RML

03-12-2008, 13:43

Are you really serious? So a shot of a Formula 1 car at a Grand Prix, a golfer taking his swing, the cat on top of the telly, is what you would call "street"?

I am honestly amazed.

BTW, don't bother to "quote" Martin Parr - nothing could leave me colder :D

Regards,

Bill

Lartigue took photos of race monsters and I'd call them street. Or how about the VIP taking a side glance at the pits girls while his old lady at his side is ogling the racing driver?

How about the golfer taking his swing while a dog runs of with his golf ball?

How about the cat sliding off the telly at the deciding moment of the UEFA cup final and people's reaction to that situation?

I'm amazed people have such a limited definition of street.

And Parr... well, I'm no fan but he did take a heap of photos on the beaches showing partially clad people in ways I'd call street (though not my street).

BillP

03-12-2008, 13:51

Ok, I'll play.

Lartigue took photos of race monsters and I'd call them street. [I wouldn't - I'd call it photos of racing cars]

Or how about the VIP taking a side glance at the pits girls while his old lady at his side is ogling the racing driver? [Nope - nice candid though]

How about the golfer taking his swing while a dog runs of with his golf ball? [Nope - as above]

How about the cat sliding off the telly at the deciding moment of the UEFA cup final and people's reaction to that situation? [Nope - domestic scene/family snap]

I really don't want to get into a pissing contest on this, and I hope you take this in the right way, but I think all we are doing is demonstrating - once again - how ill-defined a term "street" is.

Okay, I tried. I can only think of one remaining solution. Whatever Stephanie says, goes - the originator's definition is final.

Regards,

Bill

RML

03-12-2008, 13:55

I really don't want to get into a pissing contest on this, and I hope you take this in the right way, but I think all we are doing is demonstrating - once again - how ill-defined a term "street" is.

Yup, one of the most used terms here on RFF but at the same the illest defined term. :eek: For me that keeps street so interesting. :)

BillP

03-12-2008, 14:12

Yup, one of the most used terms here on RFF but at the same the illest defined term. :eek: For me that keeps street so interesting. :)

Think I'll go upmarket. From now on I'm only doing "Avenue" photography ;)

Regards,

Bill

photogdave

03-12-2008, 14:18

I agree that a bar is not a street, and a stage is not a street; there could be an open bar on a street, or a stage on a street, so that would be "street photography". But disqualifying as something "set up" is very broad. Anybody walking around with a camera with the intent of taking a photo is a "set up".

Broad generalizations never led to anything good. Never. Ever ever ever. Ever. Forever and ever. ;)
I don't know why RML blew up at me, personally in the way he did. All I did was offer my suggestions, I didn't carve any hard and fast rules into stone. I don't make the rules here.
Anyway, to set up means to me creating an image by doing something such as asking the subject to stand in a certain area, maybe place a prop or to within the frame, ask the passerbys to stop for a moment while you shoot etc... I think you get the drift and I'm sure we can agree that this wouldn't be 'street".

RML

03-12-2008, 14:29

I don't know why RML blew up at me, personally in the way he did. All I did was offer my suggestions, I didn't carve any hard and fast rules into stone. I don't make the rules here.
Anyway, to set up means to me creating an image by doing something such as asking the subject to stand in a certain area, maybe place a prop or to within the frame, ask the passerbys to stop for a moment while you shoot etc... I think you get the drift and I'm sure we can agree that this wouldn't be 'street".

Not at you personally, Dave. Just at the air of exclusiveness your posting showed more clearly than the rest. And this posting does the same again.

"I didn't carve any hard and fast rules into stone. I don't make the rules here."

and then...

"and I'm sure we can agree that this wouldn't be 'street""

Well, I'm sure I would call it street and thus disagree with you.

Anyway, I feel this whole debate/argument/discussion is getting out of hand. It would only take little to turn this thread into a mud slinging contest. I didn't mean anything personal, so I hope you won't take it as such. I'm just here to defend myself and all those others here that don't voice in but hold different opinions and views about what street constitutes.

I'm with Stephanie: a free definition of street.

Stephanie Brim

03-12-2008, 14:38

See the post. I've set the rules. RML will like the outcome. I like the outcome. I think a broad spectrum of images is better than a narrow field of them. Also, the fact that everyone can then write what street photography is to them will make others better understand their views and perhaps stop squabbling among friends...temporarily, anyway. :D

yanidel

03-12-2008, 14:46

My own definition would be :

- if there is at least a human
- in an environment created by humans
- and his behaviour is not altered/programmed by the photographer ...

than it is street photography. Just an opinion.

Rick Waldroup

03-12-2008, 14:49

This is too funny.

In the last 24 hours or so, I received a PM from a mod telling me to knock off the "negative" posting, but at the same time, I've been told by other members on this forum to grow up, shut up, and not to post any more on these threads. Dissent seems to upset some people.

Good luck to all involved in this fiasco. All of you are going to need it.

photogdave

03-12-2008, 14:57

Not at you personally, Dave. Just at the air of exclusiveness your posting showed more clearly than the rest. And this posting does the same again.

"I didn't carve any hard and fast rules into stone. I don't make the rules here."

and then...

"and I'm sure we can agree that this wouldn't be 'street""

Well, I'm sure I would call it street and thus disagree with you.

I'm not trying to be exclusive. I was just voicing my opinion as you are. But to use my example, if you really think that creating a photo by posing the subject, placing props within the frame and controlling the outside environment to not disrupt your shooting, qualifies as "street" then we are really living in two different worlds.
No hard feelings.