Street or not street

froyd

froyd

Mentor
Local time
12:08 AM
Joined
Aug 14, 2006
Messages
2,313
Friends, I copied the post below from the original thread (Street: a theory and practice of curiosity) because it got buried and did not generate the feedback I was hoping for. I hope I'm not upsetting anybody by riposting the message here and trying to start a conversation about what qualifies as "Street Photography"


---------------------
[...]

Several [...] have written that they know street photography when they see it. I would like to ask the group if the following image qualifies as street photography.

U6408I1423436297.SEQ.0.jpg


I recently made a print of this image for a show at a local gallery and it was interesting hearing how many people classified as street, whereas I'm not sure exactly what it is. The image started as a pin-up"ish" environmental portrait. Something staged. Very much anti-street. But then, after a few frames, the busboy started walking in and out of the nearby restaurant and in the frame above he stopped to look toward the curious scene on the sidewalk, and in doing so, he made the picture come together. His reaction is genuine and spontaneous. a bit of street theater as Richard wrote...but it's only half the story.

Curious to hear everyone's thoughts about the street/not street question, though I'll admit I'm not overly concerned about how to classify the image, which I like regardless.
 
Interesting thought.... It was a staged photo, but the waiter was not and that was the third element which made the shot. Street or not street.... I don't know.
 
It looks like street candid to me.
I asked very similar question not so long time ago and get all of the answers.
Wishing to get yours.
Cheers, Ko.
 
Lord, save me from pidgeonholers. This is what I figured would come from a Street forum. Let's not debate the photo, let's just appreciate it. And by the way, it's a really good shot.
 
I tend to not like labels. I think we paint ourselves into corners when we use them and limit ourselves when we try to stay in the lines they build.

The shot is killer it doesn't matter what label you put on it good is good and this is good. The guy in the background is priceless.
 
Street style and street setting, if not street approach.

I agree that it is an effective photo, regardless of classification.

- Murray
 
Thanks for the comments so far. I can assure everyone I'm not spending sleepless nights wondering how to classify this (or any other shot).

I'm curious however in which way the idea of candid capture enters street photography. While I like the image above, I think I would like it better if I knew the model was not posing. On he other hand, I don't think the chances of capturing a scene like this happening spontaneously are very high, and certainly not from this angle.

I thought it was interesting that people at the show kept referring to this image as an example of street work, almost as if they assumed I just happened by the whole scene and captured it with a click.
 
I like this photo a lot, nothing seems out of place.

At first glance, it almost seemed like the girl is standing on the front fender of the motorcycle :D
 
Not sure if it is a street photograph or not, as I am not fully aware of what defines street photography, but I like it a lot.
 
I think the photo is nice, but I don't think it is street.

Its ultimately an orchestrated shot and the busboy in the background doesn't make that much of an impact in changing that. He's looking at the subject, (like most people would, not unexpected) yet be doesn't himself become part of the subject.


JMO.
 
I don't like it as street - as it is too 'setup' - posed ... which is what I thought before reading the details that it was indeed a posed shoot ...
 
MikeAUS said:
I don't like it as street - as it is too 'setup' - posed ... which is what I thought before reading the details that it was indeed a posed shoot ...
Click to expand...

I'm curious, and always have been, about this kind of situation.

You say you felt it was "too set-up" and "posed" before you actually read that the lady and motorbikes part was indeed a set-up and the only element beyond the photographers control being the man in the background. Would this still apply had Froyd infact simply 'stumbled' upon the scene and shot it as is?

I suppose I'm trying to discover if some people believe an image can't work successfully within this street genre if its too 'perfect' in its composition, if the 'putting a frame around the world' approach is too contrived, controlled...too fake? Perhaps the 'cut-off head,' 24mm-in- your-face style offers an aesthetic that at the very least appears more believable?

I'm not trying to denigrate any one style, approach and certainly not any individual photographers. I'm simply curious to know whether people think that something that looks too well controlled simply can't be a success within 'street photography' because it puts doubt in some peoples minds as to its validity. Documentary photographers may dislike any attempt to draw parallels with their work but I'd suggest street work must also have that same honesty and truth otherwise it simply doesn't work.

I've had a long night working and I need to go to bed so I'm not sure how much sense this makes, apologies if it doesn't. Hopefully it makes some:)
 
froyd said:
While I like the image above, I think I would like it better if I knew the model was not posing. On he other hand, I don't think the chances of capturing a scene like this happening spontaneously are very high, and certainly not from this angle.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is pretty close to how I see it. I generally value a spontaneous, candid photo over a posed or staged one. What is important to understand is that this builds on first-hand knowledge and a desire to improve in an aspect of the art that interests me. I don't really apply the same thinking when looking at other peoples' photos, one often can't tell too much about them for certain. Yours is a very good one.
 
My take: it's a poorly executed pinup photo that turned into a great street photo. Harry sees the woman as the subject, but I don't. There's so much going on around the frame, the motorcycles, the busboy, the grocery in the background, reflections of cars, etc. One motorcycle, no background and a tighter composition and I can see pinup, but with everything else going on, no.

Staged or not, I really like the shot.
 
[email protected] said:
Interesting thought.... It was a staged photo, but the waiter was not and that was the third element which made the shot. Street or not street.... I don't know.
Click to expand...

If no 3rd person and it is staged then that is what is is...staged. With person injected more of a street shot.

Posed people on the street are street portraits. A few injected in no big deal. but if all your photos are posed portraits then don't call your work street photography, list is as street portraits as a courtesy to those looking for candid street work.

Those are my views.
 
The man in the background is an essential part of the composition. You cannot look at this photo without your eye moving to him at some point (actually he is probably the first thing the eye goes too, before moving to the lady's face then down to the motorcycle headlamps). He was not under the photographer's direction, yet the photographer did not wait for him to leave the frame before snapping the photo.

We should all know this photo:
hcb.jpg


H.C. Bresson found an interesting scene and then waited for something to happen in the background to add interest. In this case a bicyclist. This was not a spontaneous photo. The cyclist may have been beyond his control, but he still decided he needed him in the picture. How much set up is a photographer allowed before a street photo is no longer "street"?

Interestingly the uncontrollable man in both of these photos occupies about the same spot in the composition!
 
If it was staged, then for me it does not meet the criteria of a "street photo" - it is just a portrait shot with the street as background. Real street photography in my opinion, should be entirely spontaneous, ideally the "fly on the wall" photography.
But then the "french kiss" by Doisenau was staged, and some street photos made with flash by Bruce Gilden, where he looks for a reaction before clicking are also not completely spontaneous, yet they have such impact.
 
tunalegs said:
The man in the background is an essential part of the composition. You cannot look at this photo without your eye moving to him at some point (actually he is probably the first thing the eye goes too, before moving to the lady's face then down to the motorcycle headlamps). He was not under the photographer's direction, yet the photographer did not wait for him to leave the frame before snapping the photo.

We should all know this photo:
hcb.jpg


H.C. Bresson found an interesting scene and then waited for something to happen in the background to add interest. In this case a bicyclist. This was not a spontaneous photo. The cyclist may have been beyond his control, but he still decided he needed him in the picture. How much set up is a photographer allowed before a street photo is no longer "street"?

Interestingly the uncontrollable man in both of these photos occupies about the same spot in the composition!
Click to expand...

... I heard Henri made Marcel ride his bike round and round until he got it right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top