Great Urban Geometry but not good Street Photography
Jan 17, 2016 00:57:30 #
In the thread titled "Always Smooth" member anotherview cited a link that is really interesting.
Is the Definition of Street Photography Changing?"
I've discussed the interpretation of anotherview in the other thread, at http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-362228-1.html#6108586 but there is a much larger topic that it raises. I'll discuss that here.
Chris Gampat in his article is stating that Urban Photography, or more specifically Urban Geometry as a subject, is not Street Photography. Or, at the best it is not good Street Photography.
SP requires a relation or interaction between the surroundings and the life of people or a person. No "city" necessary. In fact he is saying the city part of it often obfuscates Street Photography and causes would be SP photographers to take pictures that really are not Street at all. They shoot Urban Photography, or more specifically Urban Geometry.
I haven't commented on that previously because so far I'm confusing a lot of people by even suggesting that anything not urban can even be Street. Now I'm going to let Chris Gampat show why most of the Urban Photography being posted here isn't actually Street Photography at all!
Urban Geometry
Urban Geometry is concerned with shapes and lines running "up, down, across, an all around". Street Photography is about the relationships of life rather than the objects in a scene.
Hence, the typical image (even most of those being posted here in the past week) showing an urban street scene with people in it is simply not enough to make it good Street Photography. Here are three images from the above cited articles that were used to illustrate Urban Geometry as opposed to Street Photography.
Think about the similarity between the first and last of these images and most of what has been posted in this section to date! Ouch... it's a lot of not so very good Street that people are thrilled to say is great Street!
http://3zgehi1uaxi23dphbrgqa50r6z.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Chris-Gampat-The-Phoblographer-Canon-35mm-f1.4-L-II-review-samples-23-of-28ISO-4001-250-sec-at-f-5.0-680x453.jpg
The text in the cited article says that image is not Street, but Urban Geometry. Here is a Street Photograph:
http://3zgehi1uaxi23dphbrgqa50r6z.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Chris-Gampat-The-Phoblographer-Sony-A7s-review-images-street-photography-3-of-8ISO-25001-100-sec-at-f-5.01-680x454.jpg
That image was specifically compared to the following image which is not a good example of Street.
http://3zgehi1uaxi23dphbrgqa50r6z.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Chris-Gampat-The-Phoblographer-Sony-28mm-f2-review-extra-image-samples-2-of-17ISO-3201-3200-sec-at-f-2.8-680x453.jpg
Is the Definition of Street Photography Changing?"
I've discussed the interpretation of anotherview in the other thread, at http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-362228-1.html#6108586 but there is a much larger topic that it raises. I'll discuss that here.
Chris Gampat in his article is stating that Urban Photography, or more specifically Urban Geometry as a subject, is not Street Photography. Or, at the best it is not good Street Photography.
SP requires a relation or interaction between the surroundings and the life of people or a person. No "city" necessary. In fact he is saying the city part of it often obfuscates Street Photography and causes would be SP photographers to take pictures that really are not Street at all. They shoot Urban Photography, or more specifically Urban Geometry.
I haven't commented on that previously because so far I'm confusing a lot of people by even suggesting that anything not urban can even be Street. Now I'm going to let Chris Gampat show why most of the Urban Photography being posted here isn't actually Street Photography at all!
Urban Geometry
Urban Geometry is concerned with shapes and lines running "up, down, across, an all around". Street Photography is about the relationships of life rather than the objects in a scene.
Hence, the typical image (even most of those being posted here in the past week) showing an urban street scene with people in it is simply not enough to make it good Street Photography. Here are three images from the above cited articles that were used to illustrate Urban Geometry as opposed to Street Photography.
Think about the similarity between the first and last of these images and most of what has been posted in this section to date! Ouch... it's a lot of not so very good Street that people are thrilled to say is great Street!
http://3zgehi1uaxi23dphbrgqa50r6z.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Chris-Gampat-The-Phoblographer-Canon-35mm-f1.4-L-II-review-samples-23-of-28ISO-4001-250-sec-at-f-5.0-680x453.jpg
The text in the cited article says that image is not Street, but Urban Geometry. Here is a Street Photograph:
http://3zgehi1uaxi23dphbrgqa50r6z.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Chris-Gampat-The-Phoblographer-Sony-A7s-review-images-street-photography-3-of-8ISO-25001-100-sec-at-f-5.01-680x454.jpg
That image was specifically compared to the following image which is not a good example of Street.
http://3zgehi1uaxi23dphbrgqa50r6z.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Chris-Gampat-The-Phoblographer-Sony-28mm-f2-review-extra-image-samples-2-of-17ISO-3201-3200-sec-at-f-2.8-680x453.jpg
Jan 17, 2016 01:27:31 #
Ok, just when I thought I was getting things sorted out, I read this. If some of these images are not "street", How can a truck in the middle of a field be considered "street? I would think that the "Urban" shots are closer to street than a truck in the field.
Jan 17, 2016 01:41:38 #
Macronaut wrote:
Ok, just when I thought I was getting things sorted out, I read this. If some of these images are not "street", How can a truck in the middle of a field be considered "street? I would think that the "Urban" shots are closer to street than a truck in the field.
Indeed perplexing, eh?
I agree.
Dave
Jan 17, 2016 01:45:05 #
Uuglypher wrote:
Perplexing is one word, but other words come to mind:|Indeed perplexing, eh?
I agree.
Dave
I agree.
Dave
Jan 17, 2016 02:17:02 #
Macronaut wrote:
Perplexing is one word, but other words come to mind:|
Reading the article by Chris Gampat might help. You may need to go through it more than once. You may need to ask questions too.
The difference between the three images I posted is actually clear as a bell once it sinks in what is being discussed. You have to get past the words "Street" and "Urban" though.
If it helps, I've never said the truck on the tundra photo was great Street, just that it clearly is Street Photography.
The other thing is that of those three images in the other article, linked from the Chris Gampat blog page, the difference between the middle one (which is Street) and the third one (that is not good Street Photography) is just exactly the difference you'd see between a couple dozen of Garry Winogrand's published photos that have been exhibited at the MoMA in NYC, and the average photo that is being posted here. Street stands out very distinctly when the key is something other than city streets and a person in evidence.
Jan 17, 2016 02:37:13 #
Apaflo wrote:
I have been doing some reading concerning these opinions/views. I just don't see it as gospel. I might compare it to someone like Mike Moat's version of "macro". Much of his stuff barely even qualifies as close up, let alone macro. Of course, his motivation is getting more unknowing folks to give him their money.Reading the article by Chris Gampat might help. Y... (show quote)
It's starting to seem that we are going to have to agree to differing views of what we consider "street", technical (by some definitions) or more classic. Lumping it all together doesn't seem to be beneficial to either.
I am still remain open to all possibilities but, will not follow blindly just because a few say so.
Jan 17, 2016 02:37:16 #
If it helps, I've never said the truck on the tundra photo was great Street, just that it clearly is Street Photography.
xxxxxxxxx
Please, remind us...on the basis of what criteria...or even just one criterion...how does your truck on tundra qualify as "Street" better than simply a documentary snapshot of " ...you'll never guess what I came across in the way-the-Hell-out-and-beyond in Alaska.
Seriously.
Help us out here.
Dave
xxxxxxxxx
Please, remind us...on the basis of what criteria...or even just one criterion...how does your truck on tundra qualify as "Street" better than simply a documentary snapshot of " ...you'll never guess what I came across in the way-the-Hell-out-and-beyond in Alaska.
Seriously.
Help us out here.
Dave
Jan 17, 2016 02:50:18 #
Uuglypher wrote:
If it helps, I've never said the truck on the tundra photo was great Street, just that it clearly is Street Photography.
xxxxxxxxx
Please, remind us...on the basis of what criteria...or even just one criterion...how does your truck on tundra qualify as "Street" better than simply a documentary snapshot of " ...you'll never guess what I came across in the way-the-Hell-out-and-beyond in Alaska.
Seriously.
Help us out here.
Dave
xxxxxxxxx
Please, remind us...on the basis of what criteria...or even just one criterion...how does your truck on tundra qualify as "Street" better than simply a documentary snapshot of " ...you'll never guess what I came across in the way-the-Hell-out-and-beyond in Alaska.
Seriously.
Help us out here.
Dave
It's a slice of life. Simple as that.
It's this "way-the-Hell-out-and-beyond in Alaska" that is beyond reach, I suspect. And that is exactly what the photograph was meant to parody. People with a broad enough exposure to life have been known to literally break out laughing when they see it.
In your defense though, most folks who were born and raised here don't see it either.
Jan 17, 2016 02:57:56 #
Macronaut wrote:
It's starting to seem that we are going to have to agree to differing views of what we consider "street", technical (by some definitions) or more classic. Lumping it all together doesn't seem to be beneficial to either.
What we'll all have to get used to is that they are all going to be accepted here. Any reasonable facsimile is good enough to post and discuss.
Jan 17, 2016 03:00:16 #
So, out of curiosity, where would you say that this image falls.
Jan 17, 2016 03:11:52 #
Apaflo wrote:
It's a slice of life. Simple as that.
It's this "way-the-Hell-out-and-beyond in Alaska" that is beyond reach, I suspect. And that is exactly what the photograph was meant to parody. People with a broad enough exposure to life have been known to literally break out laughing when they see it.
In your defense though, most folks who were born and raised here don't see it either.
It's this "way-the-Hell-out-and-beyond in Alaska" that is beyond reach, I suspect. And that is exactly what the photograph was meant to parody. People with a broad enough exposure to life have been known to literally break out laughing when they see it.
In your defense though, most folks who were born and raised here don't see it either.
Just by way of clarification, though not raised there, I've experienced Alaska, hiking and backpacking, through every season, breadth and length...(other than the Aleutians)
Aside from that, I find it ludicrous to suggest, or even think ...that given an audience of a hundred experienced street photographers and aficionados of the genre that sight of that image of "truck on tundra" would cause any of them to even think, for a hemi-demi-semi scintilla of a moment...that it could be considered an example of "Street" photography!
"A slice of life" ?
Really?
This discussion has truly plumbed the depths of inanity.
What can possibly be anyone's motivation for proclaiming that image of a truck on the tundra anything but an inconsequential snapshot?
It is truly a pity that this section is encouraging the posting such images as representative of Street Photography! Let's get real. Were such images posted in any other section, no one ( but one...) would encourage the poster to re-post in the Street Photography Section.
Please give these words some serious thought, and let's see some good "street" images!
Dave
Jan 17, 2016 03:27:34 #
Uuglypher wrote:
I've experienced Alaska through every season, breadth and length...(other than the Aleutians)
Yeah, sure. That is pretty funny.
But it just isn't true either.
Jan 17, 2016 04:03:12 #
Macronaut wrote:
So, out of curiosity, where would you say that this image falls.
Hi, Macronaut,
I'd say we're that my image it would be filled under:
Travel,
General pictorial,
boats/nautical,
the State where made
Date
....and I would not even think about posting it in the Street Photography Section.
Dave
Jan 17, 2016 04:26:57 #
Uuglypher wrote:
Thanks! That pretty much confirms my suspicion. I just wondered if it may even be included in "Bystander" or would this particular image need a person in it? I seem to recall another boat on water that some considered "Bystander" or "street" but, it had people.......?Hi, Macronaut,
I'd say we're that my image it would be filled under:
Travel,
General pictorial,
boats/nautical,
the State where made
Date
....and I would not even think about posting it in the Street Photography Section.
Dave
I'd say we're that my image it would be filled under:
Travel,
General pictorial,
boats/nautical,
the State where made
Date
....and I would not even think about posting it in the Street Photography Section.
Dave
Jan 17, 2016 07:58:13 #
Black-and-white > seascape > boats.
Or seascape > boats > black-and-white
It implies a human relation to the environment but contains none explicit as such.
It captures the interaction, although static, between land and water as a human experience.
It does not present a city street environment by any means or even an urban environment, strictly speaking.
Personally, I cannot classify this photograph as falling within the concept of street photography. But I do like such photographs.
This discussion may offer some direction for describing street photography:
http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2013/08/07/what-is-street-photography-2/
Or seascape > boats > black-and-white
It implies a human relation to the environment but contains none explicit as such.
It captures the interaction, although static, between land and water as a human experience.
It does not present a city street environment by any means or even an urban environment, strictly speaking.
Personally, I cannot classify this photograph as falling within the concept of street photography. But I do like such photographs.
This discussion may offer some direction for describing street photography:
http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2013/08/07/what-is-street-photography-2/
Macronaut wrote:
So, out of curiosity, where would you say that this image falls.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.