A Personal Street Photography Manifesto

[Nh3]

This post is a by-product of my struggle with "street photography burn-out" and the contents should not be taken seriously by those who’re not serious about street photography. This is my feeble attempt at creating a structure from where I can work instead of free flowing and in confusion.

The state of photography as an art is in jeopardy. I need not explain why and the reason is beyond the scope of this thread but in my humble opinion the only way to save photography from turning into digital imaging is by working under a strict discipline and adhering by strict self regulation so to differentiate the serious photographers from the masses and digital manipulators. We need to make photography and especially street photography ‘difficult’ so to allow decent work to come to the front and filter the visual garbage which is all around us these days. Why street photography and not other genres? Well, the answer is easy; street is where life is and where human condition unfolds.


What is a good street photograph? When I say a 'street photograph', I mean a photograph taken on the street of people or an interesting found object(s) or architecture.

A street photo is taken by a 'street photographer', someone who goes out on the street and tries to capture 'what he thinks is an interesting situation' or he shoots from the hip and later on decides which one of those shots he likes.

To be considered a true 'street photo' the photographer must be there with the intention of doing street photography. Someone with a P&S who happens to be upon an interesting situation and capture the event (with a lucky shot) is not a street photographer but simply a man/woman who got a lucky snapshot. There must be intention and deliberation before an image could be considered a true "street photo".

The medium used does not make any difference but generally a hand held camera film/digital is preferable because the street photographer should be part of the scene and not an observer from a distance with a view camera or a telephoto lens.


Those were purely subjective qualifications to getting a 'street photo', but once the photo is taken how could it be judged and what would make it a good street photo, bad or a mediocre one?

Here is my humble opinion of what makes a good street photo:

First of all just because its street photography it does not mean anything goes, but at the same time it does; however, there must be deliberation behind the breaking of rules and reason(s) as to why the photographer broke them... A good street photo must either be perfectly composed, make the viewer feel, or it must convey a message. The subject must not be the end and the means. For example an attractive woman on the street is not an interesting street photograph, but the same woman captured in an interesting composition or with an interesting expression on her face or juxtaposed with another subject to convey a message is good street photography.

Also a good street photograph must not be CROPPED, yes, this is contentious but that is the discipline. Cropping a street photographs is like taking a camcorder and then later on splitting the frames to get good photographs... To be a good street photographer one must be disciplined and not simply a shooter from the hip who later photoshops an image from his collection.

I repeat that a good street photograph must at least fall under three basic categories otherwise it’s a snapshot. The essential components are: composition, make the viewer feel or convey a message (an easily perceptible message/observation not some convenient narrative by the photograph after the photo was taken).

Also as a side note street photos should be captioned with only factual information, basically the place and the year (not day and month). Photographer should in no way try to manipulate the viewer with long captions or his thoughts and other fluff which has nothing to do with the image.

The only post processing that a street photographer can do with his images is what was possible in a darkroom. Cloning and any other post processing which adds or subtracts from the image is not allowed and if the photographer does so he compromises the integrity of his pictures... The photographer must also keep all the original images in a contact sheet or in the case of digital without post processing for the future verification of the integrity of the images.

Honest and committed street photographers should offer advice and critique their fellow street photographers and they should be honest with their opinion. Anyone who says 'nice picture' just for the sake of diplomacy is a dishonest individual who does not wish to help his fellow street photographers.


And finally, I have written all this for me so it’s self directed. Those who agree please help to refine/add these points those who don't point out the flaws.

Thank you,

:)

P.S. Sorry for the gramatical mistakes, typos etc...

[crawdiddy]

Those rules are a little restrictive. I won't get into the crop vs. no-crop argument, because it's a morass. I'm not so sure about the rule that the photographer must be on a deliberate street-photography mission, and that a lucky person with a p/s camera would not qualify. What if it's a lucky person who sometimes engages in bona fide street photography, who happens to encounter a worthy subject by chance? I don't think that should be excluded.

[lZr]

Good points. The lucky street shooter person is unknown. But Nh3 imposes this rule to himself. He is disciplinary tough

[le vrai rdu]

This post is a by-product of my struggle with "street photography burn-out" and the contents should not be taken seriously by those who’re not serious about street photography. This is my feeble attempt at creating a structure from where I can work instead of free flowing and in confusion.

The state of photography as an art is in jeopardy. I need not explain why and the reason is beyond the scope of this thread but in my humble opinion the only way to save photography from turning into digital imaging is by working under a strict discipline and adhering by strict self regulation so to differentiate the serious photographers from the masses and digital manipulators. We need to make photography and especially street photography ‘difficult’ so to allow decent work to come to the front and filter the visual garbage which is all around us these days. Why street photography and not other genres? Well, the answer is easy; street is where life is and where human condition unfolds.


What is a good street photograph? When I say a 'street photograph', I mean a photograph taken on the street of people or an interesting found object(s) or architecture.

A street photo is taken by a 'street photographer', someone who goes out on the street and tries to capture 'what he thinks is an interesting situation' or he shoots from the hip and later on decides which one of those shots he likes.

To be considered a true 'street photo' the photographer must be there with the intention of doing street photography. Someone with a P&S who happens to be upon an interesting situation and capture the event (with a lucky shot) is not a street photographer but simply a man/woman who got a lucky snapshot. There must be intention and deliberation before an image could be considered a true "street photo".

The medium used does not make any difference but generally a hand held camera film/digital is preferable because the street photographer should be part of the scene and not an observer from a distance with a view camera or a telephoto lens.


Those were purely subjective qualifications to getting a 'street photo', but once the photo is taken how could it be judged and what would make it a good street photo, bad or a mediocre one?

Here is my humble opinion of what makes a good street photo:

First of all just because its street photography it does not mean anything goes, but at the same time it does; however, there must be deliberation behind the breaking of rules and reason(s) as to why the photographer broke them... A good street photo must either be perfectly composed, make the viewer feel, or it must convey a message. The subject must not be the end and the means. For example an attractive woman on the street is not an interesting street photograph, but the same woman captured in an interesting composition or with an interesting expression on her face or juxtaposed with another subject to convey a message is good street photography.

Also a good street photograph must not be CROPPED, yes, this is contentious but that is the discipline. Cropping a street photographs is like taking a camcorder and then later on splitting the frames to get good photographs... To be a good street photographer one must be disciplined and not simply a shooter from the hip who later photoshops an image from his collection.

I repeat that a good street photograph must at least fall under three basic categories otherwise it’s a snapshot. The essential components are: composition, make the viewer feel or convey a message (an easily perceptible message/observation not some convenient narrative by the photograph after the photo was taken).

Also as a side note street photos should be captioned with only factual information, basically the place and the year (not day and month). Photographer should in no way try to manipulate the viewer with long captions or his thoughts and other fluff which has nothing to do with the image.

The only post processing that a street photographer can do with his images is what was possible in a darkroom. Cloning and any other post processing which adds or subtracts from the image is not allowed and if the photographer does so he compromises the integrity of his pictures... The photographer must also keep all the original images in a contact sheet or in the case of digital without post processing for the future verification of the integrity of the images.

Honest and committed street photographers should offer advice and critique their fellow street photographers and they should be honest with their opinion. Anyone who says 'nice picture' just for the sake of diplomacy is a dishonest individual who does not wish to help his fellow street photographers.


And finally, I have written all this for me so it’s self directed. Those who agree please help to refine/add these points those who don't point out the flaws.

Thank you,

:)

P.S. Sorry for the gramatical mistakes, typos etc...



a good picture is a good picture, no matter the photograph and the gear , that's my point of view

[sjw617]

he shoots from the hip and later on decides which one of those shots he likes.

To be considered a true 'street photo' the photographer must be there with the intention of doing street photography. Someone with a P&S who happens to be upon an interesting situation and capture the event (with a lucky shot)

A good street photo must either be perfectly composed, make the viewer feel, or it must convey a message.

Also a good street photograph must not be CROPPED, To be a good street photographer one must be disciplined and not simply a shooter from the hip who later photoshops an image from his collection.
The essential components are: composition, make the viewer feel or convey a message

The photographer must also keep all the original images in a contact sheet or in the case of digital without post processing for the future verification of the integrity of the images.

If you shoot from the hip, aren't you giving up composition - one of your 3 musts?
.
If I put a picture on the table can you tell me if it was intentional or I 'lucked into it'? I do not believe so.
.
Isn't cropping really just post-composition? If I put a photo on the table how can you tell if it is cropped?
.
Future verification of the integrity of the image???? What a arrogant idea.

Steve

[Pablito]

As a former painter, I would sometimes chop and re-strech a canvas after starting the painting . But I nevertheless print full-frame in my photography I DO shoot different formats for when 3:2 ain't right.

[ampguy]

Cropping edges from your your native format file size to a standard framing size can be OK, I do this often, though sometimes it is difficult.

Cropping for other reasons is OK, it's like training wheels. The better photographer or artist will do it less as they get better and can eventually remove the training wheels.

Once you can print all your photos uncropped, you have essentially snatched the pebble from the hand ...

your mileage may vary.

[NB23]

Anyone who shoots and prints B&W is ALWAYS cropping in the darkroom. Printing a 24x36 image on a 5x7, 8x10 and even 11x14 paper necessarily involves cropping.

But yeah, when I shoot, I compose the whole image, from corners to corners with no afterthought.

[varjag]

IMO it is good that you took your time to think about the subject. To me it sounds more like an attempt to define live language via dictionary than vice versa, but give it a try, you'll see if it works for you.

[BillP]

I take my hat off to you for the thought you have put into this. I have no issue whatsoever with your desire to bring discipline and hence structure into what you are doing. Where I struggle is with the concept of "rules". Rules are made to be broken. The end justifies the means. My fear is that you will unduly constrain yourself, and hence your vision and potential.

Guidelines are good, rules are restrictive.

Regards,

Bill

[Quinn Porter]

I think there's value in establishing an artistic and/or technical framework for your photography, as it causes you to focus your efforts. However, when you start judging others by your framework, things can get tricky. If you don't want to crop, that's cool; but when you say that someone else's photo is of lesser quality or import because it was cropped or shot digitally, you're just being a jerk.

[petronius]

After reading John Loengards book "Celebrating the Negative" I had to learn something new about cropping and the sense or nonsense not to crop.
I am a weak person and if a picture is composed imperfect I crop it until I like it.

[Rafael]

I too applaud you for the thought that you have put into your photography. If I could venture an observation though, you seem to be caught between setting guidelines for your own photography and for others' appreciation of it. For example, the following injunction is very much directed at yourself.

To be considered a true 'street photo' the photographer must be there with the intention of doing street photography. Someone with a P&S who happens to be upon an interesting situation and capture the event (with a lucky shot) is not a street photographer but simply a man/woman who got a lucky snapshot. There must be intention and deliberation before an image could be considered a true "street photo".

You will certainly know when your photographs were planned and when they were the product of happy accident. If you choose to aim only for those that are planned, all the power to you.

On the other hand, the following rule is directed at the appreciation that others will show for your photography:

The photographer must also keep all the original images in a contact sheet or in the case of digital without post processing for the future verification of the integrity of the images.

Obviously, you will know whether or not you have manipulated or cropped your photographs. So, the verification of which you write would invariably be done by others. Unfortunately though, you can't control how others will view your work.

So, my unsolicited advice would be to concentrate on your own approach to street photography. Don't worry about how others will receive it. That, I am afraid, is out of your hands.

Good luck.

[Roger Hicks]

One question: why is there any need for a manifesto?

Most artists I know have a simple rule of thumb: 'whatever it takes'.

If this means drawing on decades of study and practice, fine. If it means breaking every rule you can think of, plus some you've not heard of, that's fine too.

How does a 'manifesto' add to this?

I'm not trying to be derogatory or diminish you, but my question strikes me as part of your question; or even vice versa.

Cheers,

R.

[tomtodeath]

Anyone who shoots and prints B&W is ALWAYS cropping in the darkroom. Printing a 24x36 image on a 5x7, 8x10 and even 11x14 paper necessarily involves cropping.

But yeah, when I shoot, I compose the whole image, from corners to corners with no afterthought.

I definately "crop" when making prints, based on the paper size I am printing on. I do sometimes like to print 11x14 and 16x20 sized prints. Also, I keep in mind that I usually print on different paper formats when im shooting, and compose my images slightly wider so that they can be printed on 8x10 paper without cutting out an important part of the image. Also, Having freedom of cropping lessens the desire to bring more than one lens with me.

[gb hill]

Why manufacture rules? Rules were made to be broken. It's the final results that count and unless working for a client, the only one you really have to please is yourself. When I see a good street photo I don't ask if it was cropped, shot from the hip, or any thing else. I just like it for what I see.

[Leighgion]

While I believe it's everybody's right to follow whatever self-imposed rules they feel like, by actually writing this manifesto out and posting it, I think any value it might have had has been destroyed.

Any such batch of arbitrary personal rules are just that -- arbitrary and personal. They're not for anybody else but the individual who decided to abide by them. Placed in the light of day for peer review, I can't see this manifesto as anything but an absurd attempt to gentrify street photography by imposing an elitist and frankly baseless set of rules on it. Especially disgusting to me is opening it by declaring that street photography is in jeopardy and in need of salvation.

Again, I firmly believe that any artist has the absolute right to impose any rules they want upon themselves but given that this has been entered into open discussion, I must express unilateral disapproval. Even if it was never posted, I feel this "manifesto" is an exceedingly poor method of motivation and that posting it with the implication of looking for peer approval of such an essentially illogical set of rules is even worse.

[rbsinto]

It's about the image, not how it was taken.
Deliberate. Accident. Full-frame as shot. Cropped.
To me these things are immaterial. It's about telling stories with pictures, and the rest is just details.

[timmyd18]

i'm with all of the others here, i bet you learned a lot about yourself by writing this and i'd guess that all of us have a code of what we think is good photography.

i guess i have two issues with the manifesto. the first is that i don't really see a clear distinction between digital computer technology and physical optical technology. on any given day with any given camera, you might find a photo worth setting up that you just don't have the right lens to frame perfectly. it is no fault of your own and no lack of skill, but perhaps lack of funds. If one person shoots with a 50mm lens and has to crop his shot to make it perfect, is he really less than the richer photographer who could pull out an 85mm or a 135mm lens and get the same shot?

the other issue i have is trying to draw a distinction between a real artist and everyone else. this is something that the art world suffers from and something that i've never understood. these false distinctions mean that some paintings are worth millions and some i can buy in a junk store for $5 USD. i like my junk store paintings and wish i could let the artist know how much i do- they made something beautiful and deserve some respect. photography is the same way. i don't think someone should have to belong to some sort of elite group in order to be a real photographer.

i really don't mean any disrespect- i do impose rules on myself and when i'm using my vintage cameras i won't allow myself to crop or the like. but, i think the most important thing for you or anyone else is to take pictures that you like. then it will be ok

[chikne]

Thank you for taking the time for writing this. The following sentence is simply a joke and is meant to be taken "lightly".

Now I'm off to stick feather up my butt so I can become a chicken... :)

[Nh3]

Some of the painters who posted in this thread really touched on what I was getting at subconsciously.

The canvas. The painter is restricted to the canvas size and must organize everything in that space. He can chose before hand the size of canvas but that's not cropping.

With this post I have created a canvas for myself to work within... And by doing so I already feel mentally comfortable because now I can see my boundaries. Sometimes too many options can confuse and drain one's energy. And that's exactly what had happened to me, I had too many options, too many subjects and had to deal with too much information most of it useless. That eventually caused me to burn-out and, since photography is my only means of self expression it was quite hard on me.

I think the only way I can findout if I have the talent and aptitude to become a decent photographer is by putting myself through a rigrous regimn and see what happens.

[JoeV]

Anyone who shoots and prints B&W is ALWAYS cropping in the darkroom. Printing a 24x36 image on a 5x7, 8x10 and even 11x14 paper necessarily involves cropping.

But yeah, when I shoot, I compose the whole image, from corners to corners with no afterthought.

HCB had his images printed full-frame, with a thin, black border around them (perhaps from the printer's negative carrier machined a bit extra large?) at least the ones I've seen in person at Andrew Smith's in Santa Fe.

I think the decision to fill an 8"x10" print paper, by cropping the negative's image, is a conscious decision. Sure, premanufactured window mattes and frames make that decision seem temptingly affordable as compared to custom-cut mattes and frames; but then there is a price to be paid for self-discipline.

One could do worse than to emulate some of the decisions made by the masters of the medium.

Thanks for the interesting post, NH3.

~Joe

[two40]

Nh3, I'm sorry but this sounds elitist and restrictive. You would far better serve yourself if you opened up and took on Roger's advice; 'whatever it takes'. But if whatever it takes is a manifist such as this then by all means I wish you all the success in the world.

[NB23]

HCB had his images printed full-frame, with a thin, black border around them (perhaps from the printer's negative carrier machined a bit extra large?) at least the ones I've seen in person at Andrew Smith's in Santa Fe.


I don't care for him-at all.
I crop when I think it's better to crop, and I don't believe in the "Not cropping=better photographer" stupid mentality. More then 90% of my work is uncropped and very well composed but if a shot needs cropping, I'll do it. Who cares about HCB or whichever master you want to wake from the dead.

[Chris101]

The edges of the picture are part and parcel of what a photograph is. It is finite in it's two dimensions of width and height, outside of which the photographer has no control (but of course the viewer does!)

What you have done is created boundaries that are in addition to the physical edge of the picture, in an attempt of making it more of a photograph. This is similar to using black and white as opposed to color, using only a 50mm lens, or any number of other constraining techniques.

Good luck to you with this experiment. I will be interested to read your findings, hopefully with examples of the effect on actual photographs.

[Chris101]

I don't care for him-at all.
I crop when I think it's better to crop, and I don't believe in the "Not cropping=better photographer" stupid mentality. More then 90% of my work is uncropped and very well composed but if a shot needs cropping, I'll do it. Who cares about HCB or whichever master you want to wake from the dead.I think that sloppy black edge around a b&w print looks cool, so I love printing that way.

[RML]

NH3, good for you! Go with your manifesto. I disagree with every single letter in it, but it's not my personal manifesto. So, you keep at it. I hope it'll give you what you need. Really.

[ampguy]

With RF's, the cropping to fit a standard frame is likely what you saw in the viewfinder frame lines anyways. If you're printing RF full frames, they're probably including a lot of stuff that was outside your frame lines.

RF's and the cropping to fit a 4x6 frame is "self-correcting", 8x10 is a bit of a stretch.

[Todd.Hanz]

good thoughts, well written, here's a guy that has seen/taken some crappy street pics and these are his ideas on how to improve his photography.

Is street photography dying? Hardly, I think it is changing. Some how we went from quickly focusing, composing and shooting to throwing the camera up and pressing the shutter without much thought. Shooting people up close (less than 3 feet) has become the norm (my self included). Good thoughts by all, variety is the spice of life though.

Todd

[aad]

Well, if you don't want to crop, that's fine, though it seems an necessary restriction. If I have a 35mm lens and want a certain perspective, yet want to fill the frame, I have no real choice except to back off to get the perspective right and crop later.

Anyway, it's your choice. For the record, HCB's most famous picture was cropped.

[georgef]

NH3, I totally understand your motive to put together a strict personal rule system to achieve something. I apply that rule to many aspects of my life, including martial arts and architecture. Its a frame of mind more that anything else.
I do nto agree with any of the items you have described within, but you did not write that for me, or anyone else here, so good on you.

If I do comment though, your description of the dos and donts sounds a lot like a description of the limitations of film VS digital i terms of the format, the cropping resistance, the "work within the box" mentalilty. To me the rules are simple: Lift the camera........finalize the image (be it print or otherwise). Everthing in between is part of the creative process.

[Jason808]

"The medium used does not make any difference but generally a hand held camera film/digital is preferable because the street photographer should be part of the scene and not an observer from a distance with a view camera or a telephoto lens."

Two words that sum up why I respectfully disagree: Paul Strand

That said, you did qualify it as a personal manifesto so I won't begrudge your views

[edrodgers731]

I think photography is about the experience, creativity, and the end result for the photographer, and only the end result for everyone else.

Nothing else really matters. If you are a journalist for a news source, you have rules. If you are a paid photographer you usually have rules.

If you are an independent artist, you have no rules. Make your own rules for yourself, fine. But you can't suggest that they are rules for anyone but yourself. Well, of course you can suggest that your rules should apply to others, but you would be absolutely incorrect.

There is no right and wrong in art. It's all about the journey and the interpretation.

Street photography can never die. Even if everyone had only cell phone cameras and walked around blindfolded. It means nothing to the next great master who will entertain the masses.

[Pherdinand]

i think a good street photograph is based on a concept opposite to what your post is.
It should be spontaneous, quick, simple (i.e. not complicated), without many rules but with something peculiar to say to the viewer.

[Otter]

Re: the restriction on cropping.
It's a lot easier to not need to crop if you use a zoom lens. I don't see the difference between zooming in on a subject or cropping a negative taken with a wider angle prime lens (other than the issue of resolution/sharpness which can be argued either way). Should street photography use zoom lensas? I can only recall doing that once, scale focusing my old Soligor 80-230 with T mount and Miranda to LTM adaptors to my IIIf and don't plan to pack such an unweildy device again.

[paulfitz76]

FH3,

I appreciate that you are bold enough to write this manifesto explaining your structure for street photography. I too went the full frame route, refusing to print anything other than the image right out to the edge of the negs. Coming from RIT, this was a mandatory requirement, and it teaches a lot about framing and space, and that as a photog, your goal is to remove the elements that detract from the message. So I went about that for a long time, it was the way...

Then I studied more and more about Winograd, Friedlander and HCB. Some ascribed to the full frame rule, some just said "It looks good photographed". In the end, practical matters with the digital way sort of demolished the full frame. I could not afford the medium format scanners to give me such a good scan all the way out, and with a digital SLR, or RF, there's no frame line.

I used to always cut all my neg carriers to show the full frame, making special masks in the 120 holder, and using 80mm lens for 35mm film to print. But now, since the darkroom is digital for me, that's no longer there for me. I always demanded extreme corner sharpness just for this reason.

However, now I think it's more about just "What looks good photgraphed". It's intuitive for the masters, and the rest of us try to get there.

I would like to post three images, and I welcome comment about how they might fall into this manifesto.

As far as the other things about title, approach, dedication I'm behind you 100%. Give yourself structure to refine your vision and develop your style. Adams was rigorous about this, and it was his way.

[Nh3]

Paul, please do post your pictures.

[paulfitz76]

Took a sec to upload to my gallery. I have not done so in a while...

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=84827&ppuser=11128

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=84826&ppuser=11128

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=84825&ppuser=11128

These are not as sharp as should be. I don't have photoshop on this recently rebuilt PC to sharpen properly to reflect what's on the negs.

[paulfitz76]

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showfull.php?photo=84827

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showfull.php?photo=84826

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showfull.php?photo=84825

Think I did the first one wrong. :-(

[anoldsock]

I'm a hobbyist , and a total amateur and I don't pretend to know it all, but I have a few questions. Hopefully someone will be kind enough to reply or give me some insight to the following questions.

1) I understand that you want to compose your shot, and think about your subject in the viewfinder before you press the shutter release, but why is cropping viewed in such a negative way? What's the downside of it?

2) How do you compose when shooting from the hip?

3) Also, my two cents on the comment about how the medium doesn't matter. Maybe I'm a bit dense and don't understand completely, but why is film preferred? Also by virtue of having a camera don't you become an observer and separate yourself from the subject no matter what your focal length? In other words, you can't be part of the scene if you're trying to capture it, and the camera builds a wall between yourself and the subject does it not?

Again, hopefully I don't sound too dense but I'm trying to learn from the users on this thread :)

Thanks!

[M. Valdemar]

When I first moved to NYC, I got a job in the pulp magazine business, with a real old-time publisher who had been in business since the 1800's.

We had "morgues" with hundreds of thousands of photos, some going back a hundred years.

Each one was "slugged" with a description on the back.

Some had half a dozen crop marks, white-out retouching, some were just cut to fit.

We used images the way a computer artist manipulates images today, but it was all done manually, with paint, airbrush, scissors, and a "lucy" machine.

I saw images as fluid, to be altered, stretched and played with to suit one's purpose, not as a rigid work of "art".

I like the photos with the frame edge showing, some of them are a nice effect, but if they don't work, or if they never existed, off they go.....

Nothing like a real glass plate. Now those were REAL photographers, not 35mm fakers and sissies.

http://xs226.xs.to/xs226/08183/winsor_mccay_sketching_1908691.jpg (http://xs.to)

[jan normandale]

No one has discussed the fact you don't really know what is going onto your film if you use a rangefinder, you may know if you use an SLR. So cropping, it's done and has been done. Almost all "masters" have done some post production on images from cropping to burning to dodging. Not all paper sizes correspond to the film ratios so that is another issue related to cropping. I hate to think of all the excellent images that would be thrown out due to a small corner of a shot containing a distraction. That shot of a historic moment with the distraction of a bird flying through the top right frame it’s not perfect. Throw it away. I think it’s a tough set of rules to work with.

The discussion regarding constraints of a canvas or paper for painting are not compelling. Artists put whatever they want onto a canvas and in whatever perspective or proportion. Picasso and numerous artists regularly painted over canvases they wanted to re work.

Some people set targets for themselves , run a mile in 4 minutes, run it in 5 minutes. Golf without a handicap or golf with irons only. Photography is a highly personal form of expression so we set our style and work with that set of constraints until it needs to be changed.

Some people consider hip shots "unethical" or "not street" others do it. I will never be able to tell a cropped image unless it's extreme, nor a hip shot from one taken from a sidewalk cafe. There is an interesting thread on Henri Cartier Bresson's "Mario's bike" over at flickr. People not knowing Cartier Bresson dump all over the shot. Others who do know the photo explain and contextualize the photograph. Who's right there? Does knowing the circumstances around Adam’s “Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico” add or diminish the photograph for the viewer?

To the point , it's not religion it's only photography.

BTW Nh3, I'm sure we all would be interested in viewing your photography

[Dektol Dan]

There are as many ways to be a street photographer as there are photographers.

Here's how I do it. I select a compositional or poetic theme or something particularly newsworthy for that days shoot. That pretty much sets what gear I take out the door. Then I go shooting/fishing.

If I find something that happens along the way that is a pleasant surprise I shoot that too.

When I get home that night I count my catch.

Don't get me started on sidebars like cropping. Too many rules makes for overworking something that is supposed to be simple. I call this 'making finger paintings in one's own s**t'.

[JTK]

Talk and manifestos are easy, codes are easy, making challenging assignments -for oneself- is hard...actually following through on challenging assignments is harder.

Completion of challenging assignment is sweet...and by definition it's rare.