Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Being "on the street" has no connection to Street Photography.

The lady is not isolated from her surroundings! The image does an extremely good job of focusing attention on the relationship of the surroundings to the lady. Look at the discussion in that thread... it is almost all about the relationship! Nobody discusses the shape of her clothing, the curves of her body, the style of hair, or anything about her other than that her attractiveness is the center of everything that surrounds her.

Graham does great Street, and it takes a lot of depth to understand what makes it great.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Might be so, but your photography doesn't indicate confusion!

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

OK. I don't like the shoes or the dress, her hair's a mess and she could lose some weight. So there! :XD:

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

I'll admit that my first reaction to that image was also that it really wasn't intended to be Street Photography. And it may not have been, but only Graham can tell us what he intended and what he thinks it is. It doesn't have to be Street, but I wouldn't say that it is not Street.

The woman is the center of attention, but that, as an intangible "thing", seems also to be the primary subject of the photograph! It isn't classic urban Street Photography perhaps, at least in the sense of Meyerowitz though there is no question that Winogrand (a "dirty old man" that photographed women because they are women) would have loved it!

It's just a different style than for example your most recent set of images. Again, those are wonderful Street images. They emphasize the relationships between humans and our surrounding, in those cases all in a urban setting and usually with humans and all of the context available.

I suppose that to play the devil's advocate I should post an image that is handy to bandy about on occasions such as this. It is not a "pretty picture". Nobody raves over it. It has no street. It has no people. It's 500 miles from a sidewalk. But this certainly is an example of Street Photography!

http://apaflo.com/misc/d8a_2303ss.jpg

jim hill Loc: Springfield, IL

Regardless of what others say or think they may know, street photography encompasses a rather wide range. Eric Kim has some pretty sensible remarks about the topic at hand. You may want to Google him.

Don't let anyone tell you what any area of photography is. It's too broad a field and there are billions of photographs being made each and every day around the world. To make something that stands out is exceedingly difficult. In fact, neigh impossible. If you definition fits into any of these categories it might just be street photography. A very broad term, to say the least. I maintain that it can not be pinned down as some would have us believe.

I have taken the liberty of copping his diagram to post here.

.

Categories of Street Photography

Billyspad Loc: The Philippines

I believe you are correct Jim. Pushing photographs into neat little boxes that suits an INDIVIDUALS definition of what a genre should embrace will stifle creativity.
Believe this new forum can flourish but already see the signs of fractiousness over definitions.
Apaflo either define it as you want it to be, its your forum fella, or just say street is a photo taken on a street path etc.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Thanks for posting this Jim, and the reference to Eric Kim.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

There are many nuances to valid definitions. I am trying to makes sure we accept the broadest and most inclusive but yet viable definitions. Not everything is Street. And Street is not defined by location, ever. A photo take on "a street path etc." may be Street, but may not be. That just doesn't define it as Street.

Portraits, for example, taken on a street are not Street, but there is a very wide fuzzy line of distinction between what is or is not Street Photography and Street Portraiture.

Please do read the "Welcome" message to this Section. It outlines how the definitions will be considered here.

Billyspad Loc: The Philippines

I did read the welcome message Floyd and its not over clear my man.
Are you really saying the definition is up to the member?

"and will not exclude any discussion or image if a member feels it is appropriate to Street Photography."

I am asking as I feel your truck in a seascape is not street but street portraiture is which opposes your views entirely.
So are you saying both would be allowed as the people behind the images have different views but this forum is happy to showcase those different opinions and let each individuals creativity flourish? I sincerely hope that is the case.
My views on "street" I would say are perfectly outlined by Jim Hill.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

That is a statement of what will be allowed here for discussion. That is not referencing what is or is not an acceptable definition of Street Photography.


I've been vociferous, and very clear. No need to be argumentative just for fun. Creative Street Photography is acceptable.

jim hill Loc: Springfield, IL

I want to see them, Billy. Please post ASAP.

For the most part I have not been impressed with submissions. A few are really quite excellent, i.e. Saxophone Man??? The others for the most part are boring as all get out.

Nothing in comparison to Graham Smith and/or Steve Worland. If they are not considered the pinnacle of Street then I don't know who or what is. Together, both you and Graham can account for all the subcategories of the chart I posted earlier. And that you do it with loving care and purpose is impressive. There is no happenstance to it. It is meticulous work worthy of the name "Photographer."

I don't know where this anti good photograph idea comes from but it isn't my manner of consideration of decent work. It's as though a new genre of iconoclast is being brought to the fore who absolutely detest beautiful photography. I hope this is in error. But I fear that it isn't. Let's pray that I am dead wrong.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

I decided to respond to this article because Billyspad mentioned it. But the first thing I want made clear is that it is absolutely necessary to give proper attribution when quoting works of others, whether that is text or images. The chart below is lifted directly from Eric Kim's webpage at this URL,

http://erickimphotography.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/street-photography-diagram1.png


We are specifically citing one article by Eric Kim, lets be specific:

Eric Kim on "What is Street Photography"

And the first thing to note in the article is this statement,

"I don’t have all the answers to defining what street photography is (or isn’t) but I will attempt to come to some sort of logical conclusion on what street photography means to me. Consider this article as part of a self-reflective essay for me to better understand my own personal views."

He is specifically saying that he cannot, or at least won't, define Street Photography, but instead is going to discuss what his own particular style of Street Photography is.


We know that any thing shot in a studio cannot be Street Photography. So we can rest assured that some things about what you may be told "any area of photography is" are exactly correct. Making sweeping broad statements does not help in this discussion!


I agree with the above, totally. Those who think that anything shot on a street necessarily is Street Photography are missing out on what it means. Those who think it has to be shot on an urban street to be Street Photography are equally not catching the significance of Street Photography.

Eric Kim, while not exactly the icon that Winogrand or Meyrowitz are, is certainly provocatively interesting in his many ramblings about Street Photography! He makes for a fun read almost every time. (But he is young, and writes with sloppy statements too...)

For example, in the article above he lists items that are, for him, excluded from Street Photography (as a simple and reasonable way to narrow it down). And his first one is that if it is Landscape, it can't be Street. But even if his definition of Landscape might be questionable at best, we can let that slide. The trouble is the logic in a following statement that therefore Street must have an urban setting. There is no connection, and historically that has never been the case! HCB didn't only do urban Street, Walker Evans and Dorothea Lange did a lot of rural Street, and so have many others. Just because Robert Frank set Meyerowitz and Winogrand on fire with what 5th Avenue is, doesn't means Street only happens on something that looks like 5th Avenue.

The biggest catch to that mistake though is that Eric contradicted it with certainty farther down in his article. It's a great article, with lots of very good perspective. With the exception as noted above, just about any part of that article can be cited in this Section and be credible. But don't just say Eric Kim agrees with me, cite the article and quote exactly what he said that you think is in agreement. Others may read it differently...

blackest Loc: Ireland

He didn't say that. Lets pull the section out.


============
1. Landscape photography

If I see a photo of a tree, water, and a sunset– I don’t consider it street photography.

Why not? I would not consider landscape photography street photography as nature is the primary subject.

Therefore I feel there needs to be an “urban” element that ties into street photography.

============

You appear to have translated "urban" element into urban setting and then said his argument is flawed. I cannot find anything on that page that says an urban setting is necessary to be "street photography"

You are putting words into his mouth and then attempting to discredit him using those words.

So what does he mean by "urban" element. I think you can reasonably say an element that typically can be found in an urban environment but doesn't have to be there. His explanation of why landscape isn't street photography - "I would not consider landscape photography street photography as nature is the primary subject." .

If we take your photo of a car it most certainly is in a nature setting but the focus of the image is it nature or is it the car "the urban element"

The scene has the classic horizon at a third level, not sure if it is the right third since the sky is fairly featureless and accounts for 2/3rds of the scene. The car is pretty much central to the bottom 1/3rd pretty much the bulls eye. So I'd say it is the car which is the focus of the image not nature so not a landscape. (It could have been a landscape and still included the car to give scale but the car would have been a minor feature in a different location).

Is it street? maybe. I think the rock analogy is quite appropriate many different sub genres exist. It's interesting to note that many street photographers really didn't like the term at all. Recently deceased Lemmy's music would have been classed as heavy metal by most people but he would have said it was rock 'n' roll. It seems a valid analogy.

I think perhaps the only way to sum up Eric Kims view point is to take his bolded text and see what is the result.
-------

I feel there needs to be an “urban” element.
street photography needs an element of spontaneity and uncertainty
street photography can really be shot anywhere as long as it is open to the public to enter and leave as they please.
proof of humanity
street photographs don’t necessarily have to have people in them.
making memorable photographs


"I think in street photography there are now lots of sub-gernres as well. I feel that we have candid street photography (what I might classify as “classic street photography”- think Henri Cartier-Bresson), street portraits (focused mostly on portraits of people on the street, instead of the environment– either with or without permission like Diane Arbus or Bruce Gilden), urban landscapes with or without people in them (think Stephen Shore, Lee Friedlander, Joel Sternfeld, etc), still life street photography (think Martin Parr or William Eggleston), or socio-documentary street photography (think Bruce Davidson)."

-------

My opinion I think Eric Kim has written his post well, I think making memorable photo's is maybe his most important point, if the image draws you in, makes you think about the place the people how they live their lives. The humanity shown in the image.

Of the photo's posted on this section which do you remember best? The sax player , the old man in india, the little boy in cambridge and more.
Just to mention a few.

If a photo manages to get inside your brain and rattle around there for some time then that to me is a good photo. If it is imprinted forever it is a great photo.

It's the image which matters , the box it sits in not so much.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Which demonstrates that is exactly what he said!


Other than an urban element means something in an urban setting. Urban means related to a city. There are no urban elements in a rural setting. The two are polar opposites.


Where is the connection between Landscape being nature and either urban or rural? There is nothing about Landscape that excludes either rural or urban, and nothing that necessarily includes either of them. On the other hand if something is "typically" found in an urban environment but does not have to be there, it is not an urban element, nor is it a rural element.


First it is not a "nature setting" and second there is nothing about that image that has any relationship to this mystic "urban element". Did I mention it is 500 miles from the nearest sidewalk? It's just simply rural. The same is true of many hundreds of photographs taken by Dorothea Lange and Walker Evans.


So there is a truck (not a car) in the middle of what urban dewellers see as "nowhere", without the slightest hint of anything urban. Because the truck is front and center, and all the unknown rest (including something black and unidentifiable over on the right side) is context, it is very strongly showing a relationship between people and a vast surrounding that is nothing like the normal urban environment. Bingo, it is Street!


Wouldn't you say that "can really be shot anywhere as long as it is open to the public" would include vast rural spaces too? It was actually stated in context of being indoor or outdoor activities, and while outdoor may well be urban or rural, many indoor locations are not specific to either. For example I do some Street at local gyms. They are exactly the same as gyms in urban locations, but these are very rural schools.


The box is not important on a grand scale; but in this forum there are various sections devoted to different boxes with the intention that the conflicts between different boxes need not be an absolute distraction to prevent learning discussion.

blackest Loc: Ireland

You are being very obtuse here. I would have thought you could identify an element which is typically "urban" can exist also as part of a rural scene. E.g most people associate houses shops roads telegraph poles cars people markets garbage disrepair as typically urban elements.

All of which on a smaller scale can exist in a rural scene. If you take a picture with 10 people within a city of 10 million is it less street if you take a picture of 10 people in an area with say 30 people in 20 square miles.

Of course it doesn't.

For a landscape photographer tourists just get in the way of a scene of natural beauty for a street photographer those same tourists can be the subject of his image.

Key to street photography is people seen or unseen and intent of the photographer. The stage can be almost anything.

Street photography is a large umbrella covering many smaller boxes, does it matter which box an image falls into when it's within the remit of street photography. Who cares about these intangible little boxes it's the images which matter. Go out take pictures that interest you, forget the boxes.