Can someone please define Street Photography? (Page 3): Where does it say Urban. That would be called-Urban, street photography. I happen to live in a rural area. However my address is...

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

foathog wrote:

Street photography is URBAN and mostly with the interaction of people. Although the gaffitti shots MAY be urban I personally wouldn't consider them Street Photography.

Where does it say Urban. That would be called-Urban, street photography. I happen to live in a rural area. However my address is XYZ Street. Why is that not street photography. As far as people are concerned, would a picture of the Empire State Building, from Side walk to tower without any pedestrians, not be street photography? If your definitions are to restrictive you may miss many opportunities. Just my opinion

krl48 Loc: NY, PA now SC

boberic wrote:

Where does it say Urban. That would be called-Urban, street photography. I happen to live in a rural area. However my address is XYZ Street. Why is that not street photography. As far as people are concerned, would a picture of the Empire State Building, from Side walk to tower without any pedestrians, not be street photography? If your definitions are to restrictive you may miss many opportunities. Just my opinion

Your address is XYZ Street, so your pictures become "street photography"?

By that logic, anyone who uses a car to get to where they take pictures becomes an automotive photographer.

Perhaps you'd care to explain to us why the four pictures you posted wouldn't more honestly be considered landscapes.

Hershel Loc: New York City

cthahn wrote:

It is exactly what it implies. Walking along a street with you camera and taking pictures of anything you deem interesting.

Simply stated and I agree completely.

HERSHEL

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

steve DeMott wrote:

I have a book by James Maher called "The Ultimate Guide to Street Photography". .....People do not need to be present ....It can be taken anywhere .....as long as it isn't posed or manipulated."

Everyone seems to be comfortable with the consensus definition when people are present.

It's when you remove the people (maybe even the street) that everything becomes vague and contentious. It's a slippery slope. Pretty soon you end up with architectural and landscape photography being called street photography.

About the only thing that isn't street is anything that can be clearly labeled as something else - still life, sports, birds in flight, cars, macro, astronomical, portrait ... the list goes on.

Opinions may differ. It comes down to a question of how tolerant you are of the opinions of others.

dieseldave Loc: Davenport,IA

selmslie wrote:

See the original discussion under url=http://www.... (show quote)

Street photography is always photos of ordinary people on the 'street'. Photos can be taken of people candidly, without their knowledge or as a impromptu portrait. French photographer ROBERT Doisneau is considered one of the first street photographers. I have posted couple of his shots. In any case i don't see why any of the photos at the beginning of this should be considered street.

"The Kiss" Probly Doisneau most famous pic

(Download)

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

Want to see a definition of street photography by example? Take a look at Vivian Maier's work. You can find her on the internet.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

dieseldave wrote:

Street photography is always photos of ordinary people on the 'street'. Photos can be taken of people candidly, without their knowledge or as a impromptu portrait. French photographer ROBERT Doisneau is considered one of the first street photographers. I have posted couple of his shots. In any case i don't see why any of the photos at the beginning of this should be considered street.

In my mind, street photography is about people, and I think that is the majority consensus. But there is no official arbiter of defining genres of photography, so everyone gets to define it in their own minds.

whitehall Loc: Canada

Check out: Travel and Street Photography by John Bardorff. Good practicla book with lots of suggestions.

IGW

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

JohnSwanda wrote:

In my mind, street photography is about people, and I think that is the majority consensus. But there is no official arbiter of defining genres of photography, so everyone gets to define it in their own minds.

Apparently almost everyone agrees with us. At least it, "candid photos of people the photographer doesn't know in a public setting" is a clearer definition than, "anything that isn't something else."

Too bad the street photography section did not start with such a clear concept. If it had, the moderator would not be asking an OP, "Can you tell us what makes those Street Photography?" after the section has been around for more than 19 months.

travelwp Loc: New Jersey

[quote=selmslie]With reference to the image of the truck parked on the tundra:
Apaflo wrote:
Lets stay on topic, okay? That image has already been analyzed and is very clearly not related to the images here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't see the analysis of Apaflo's image of the truck, so I did some research and he was right it was analyzed on another website and here was the comment:

"Here's an interesting bit of Street Photography. No
people, no pavement, no city. An empty truck parked on
an unmaintained gravel "road". The nearest concrete
sidewalk is 500 miles south. A paradise to some, while
others say it is desolation.

http://apaflo.com/street/d8a_2303.s.jpg

I know of no street photographer who would not call this statement delusional.

Your saying Ansel Adams moonrise photo is street photography

I know of no street photographer who would not also call this statement delusional.

Your very strange inability to hear what anyone else is saying to you in any forum.

Being called out as the pathological liar of your hometown, Barrow, Alaska

Others can do as they wish, but I've put you on my ignore list.

Good bye."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's no wonder Apaflo doesn't want to discuss his photo on here.

vermis Loc: Atlanta, GA

maybe what she means is what I am trying to say.. it is only a problem when it is a problem for the people in it or supposed to be in it and they complain.

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

Just Fred wrote:

Well, I know Wikipedia isn't the authoritative source on any subject, but this is their definition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_photography

I like Wikipedia because they require reliable sources. Scroll all the way to the bottom of any Wikipedia page and you'll see all the cited sources. They also have editors, such as me, who check those sources. What's stated in a sourced sentence has to be found in the source or measures will be taken. So if you have any issue with a specific page or sentence, let me know and I'll check it out.

Someone once said, "The best thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. The worst thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it." That was many years ago, and while it's still true, there are editors, such as me, who check on edits. Yes, you can edit it to say that President Twitler resigned today, but there will be an editor who will check that edit within 24 hours. If the edit is of a political page (or any controversial subject), an editor often will be by within the hour to check. And, if the topic is really controversial, editors can do three things: they can lock the page so that any edits must be approved by an editor, they can lock the page so that edits cannot be done by anyone other than an editor, or they can lock the page so that edits cannot be done by anyone other than a senior editor.

travelwp Loc: New Jersey

selmslie wrote:

Can anyone come up with a definition of Street Photography that will satisfy Apaflo and everyone else?

I don't think that is possible. That being said, three years ago I made a video that describes my definition of Street Photography and perhaps folks could comment on it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hClWW0mIfmY&feature=youtu.be

(If your system doesn't like the https, change it to http and try again)

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

travelwp wrote:

Apaflo wrote:
Lets stay on topic, okay? That image has already been analyzed and is very clearly not related to the images here. ....

Or maybe that's just Apaflo's tacit admission after all of this time that it's really not street photography.

Tacit may be the best we can hope for because he considers himself to be omniscient and infallible.

travelwp Loc: New Jersey

selmslie wrote:

Or maybe that's just Apaflo's tacit admission after all of this time that it's really not street photography.

Tacit may be the best we can hope for because he considers himself to be omniscient and infallible.

I think you nailed it selmslie !