RichardQ Loc: Colorado

One of the quiet joys after a heavy snowfall is to stroll in the middle of the street, as you show in your neat photo, rehess. It's the same in Europe. In Berchtesgaden, 70 years ago, I discovered the Bavarians kept the process of snow plowing super quiet, except for a whinny or two.

Sunday strollers on snowy Alpine streets - Bavaria 1962


Traditional Bavarian two-HP snow plow - 1946

Voss

I'd like to comment on this discussion. For what it's worth, I never heard of "Street photography before this group started, but have since been doing some reading. I've been with the group since the beginning, but had been away from photography for half a century before then.

One idea being tossed about is the thought that everyone can have his own definition of Street photography. This statement is true, of course, but can be taken to absurd lengths. As a comparison: Cousin Bob says his kid is a genius. His kid has an IQ of 97. Cousin Bob defines genius as anyone with an IQ over 80. Therefore, his kid is a genius. Q.E.D. Just because someone defines a term in a given way, that doesn't mean it will be universally accepted.

Some of the literal ideas of "street" have already been shown to be false. For example, the literal meaning of "street." The word is misleading because it has a different meaning in the expression "Street Photography." It means one's surrounding, immediate area, or locality, be it a road, a beach, or a wheat field. (Think of the term "Harvest Moon." Moons don't sow, reap, or harvest. It's just an expression not meant to be taken literally.)

Another misleading thought is that one can specifically define an area of photography. it's not so obvious. Photograph a close-up of a rose and you have nature photography. Pull back a little to include the hand holding it, and you have art photography. Back up a little more to include head and shoulders, and you have a portrait. Pull back more to show a doorway and steps, and you have street. A few more steps back, showing that the doorway is attached to a bombed-out house, and you have documentary. There's overlap, not clear-cut definitions.

In order to make Street a legitimate genre of photography, there have to be ways of differentiating it from all other genres. That is, there have to be limits as to what photos qualify. (E.g. does a photo of Aunt Gertrude munching on a drumstick at the picnic in her backyard qualify as Landscape Photography?) I believe Apaflo is trying to define "Street" so that it can stand as its own area of photography. (This is for purpose of the Ugly Hedgehog group, since Street is of course already a recognized genre.) Several times he has stated that you could post whatever you thought was Street. A quote from Apaflo on 8/31/17 in the post "along Royal Street": "Non-Street images are accepted as examples for discussion." It also leads to his questions of why particular photos are Street. They should be perfect opportunities to discuss why a particular photo is or is not street.

Well, for those of you who are still awake, I'll end this with the definition from National Geograpic: "Street Photography is...a way of seeing, a way of experiencing life. At its very essence, Street photography is capturing life without interrupting it. Witnessing and capturing a one-in-a-lifetime moment as it unfolds in front of you. A pursuit that intrinsically means photography without permission."

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

The problem with Street Photography is not the definition but the moderator himself who thinks he has the ultimate definition even though he is incapable of articulating it.

If you look back at some of his earlier posts you will see that his views were quite different from what he says today:

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-369321-1.html 15 snaps of an old man
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-375795-1.html portrait of mom and daughter
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-384727-1.html check out the images of performances, a series of images of performers that were clearly posed.
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-362268-1.html Includes his statement that, "There is no need to forge a definition, because that isn't something we could do if we wanted. The definitions that have evolved over many decades are what Street Photography is." So if he can't define it it all boils down to, "I'll know it when I see it."

In addition to his defense of the truck on the tundra, the graffiti on the dumpster and the claim that Moonrise, Hernandez are all examples of street photography.

Lots of this stuff would not pass his current tests. His opinions on street photography are capricious, arbitrary and variable.

It seems he only created the section to foster confrontations. He will find any excuse to argue and show that he knows more than everyone else. Once he starts to lose an argument he simply blocks or bans people.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Aah! He who shall not be named!

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

And you can back up enough to show a a nice travel image of a three boats on a river that the moderator praised without pointing out that it is not street photography.

If anyone else had posted it he would have made an issue of it. He didn't because you are his most prolific poster.

travelwp Loc: New Jersey

Several of us have found this statement to be absolutely true !

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

For those who missed the original pose in Street Photography, see Street Photography as only possible in Cuba.

So do we interpret this as meaning that the rules are different for Cuba? I don't think so.

It means that his opinion was different last year than it is now where he is saying that, "I doubt that any definition from any knowledgeable source will say that images of a staged performance can be valid Street Photography. It is just so clearly not what Street is!."

So he wasn't a knowledgeable source then. If he thinks he is now, he is mistaken.

Voss

I don't know. As I and others have mentioned in this thread, there are various definitions of Street. I would say that the photo in question reasonably fits Nat. Geo's definition of Street. That it was taken on a river is irrelevant to Street.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Based on your own description, backing up to reveal a broader view can easily transform a portrait into a street image and eventually into landscape. There are no clear boundaries.

The whole point of this thread was to illustrate the tenuous nature of any definition. If it can't be clearly defined then arguments over whether something is or is not street photography degenerate into a futile battle of opinions.