Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

I saw this months ago when it was first put up on the web. It was interesting. Now it seems much more interesting in the context of this forum.

http://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/assignments/street-photography/

A lot of good photography. A lot of strange photography. A lot of different photography!

It's all Street.
I really like that "frame the cacophony of modern life" concept.

See also

http://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/stories/street-photography/

jederick Loc: Northern Utah

Seems fair enough...won't please some that visit and post at this site.:mrgreen:

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

I'd like to get portraits of a couple of folks that post here. That would be the way "to frame the cacophony", eh? It would be really good Street Photography to compile a composite of what some say can't be Street and others say is exactly Street. That's Street at it's essence!

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

The quote you have posted here is excellent, Apaflo! I feel that most recurring arguments as to whether some photos do or do not belong in the UHH Street Photography section are entirely fallacious. Anything posted according to the Nat. Geo. definition works spot on for me. Thanks to you for digging this out.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

And thank you for your comment!

Despite the cacophony of modern life as we read about it on UHH, I do think most people read past it. It's nice to see authoritative voices spell it out so well!

blackest Loc: Ireland

I don't see why not? Some very interesting images that hold your attention. I note the fella said there were a lot of entries which were commuters and beggars.

Which may be a lack of imagination, as commuters and beggars have been done to death over and over. Not that it can't make a good image but we have seen it before and it is getting a little worn.

How can i put this. A bad photograph doesn't become a good photograph just by pinning a label on it and calling it street. I think there are a lot of interesting images that are not stereotypical street images and that is fine. But lets try and avoid making excuses for terrible photo's.

Well worth a look those images on that site although the layout stinks at times with the too brief snippets which force you to load another page and then hit the back button to continue the article.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Here's mine - shot by my wife whilst on our 2008 vacation.

Me

(Download)

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

Quoting UHH member, Blackest "A bad photograph doesn't become a good photograph just by pinning a label on it and calling it street."

I completely agree with that statement.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

I also agree.

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

Richard Taylor, hope you enjoyed your smoothie (with hops?). You look as tho you deserved it.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

It was good beer, and the rabbit was good also - and even better it was our first night in Paris (France)

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Sure fellas, who doesn't agree with that in principle?

But put it into practice and watch the fireworks. Just as a nice useful example lets select some not so random images that can definitely be measured in terms of just how good they are at some level, by people who are willing to put their money where their mouth is...

Lets pick a print called Rhein II, by Andreas Gursky. Somebody (who had the deep pockets to back up their belief) figured that print has an artistic value of more than $4 million. Others (who have never actually seen the print and have only looked at 1024x768 digital thumbnails on their computers) say it isn't worth a plugged nickel.

The label in this case isn't Street Photography, it's Fine Art. But the point is the same: good art has nothing to do with whether you or I like the picture!

Personally I wouldn't spend any money on a very good reproduction of Rhein II, have no interest in making a photograph similar to that, and can't say that I "like" it. But it absolutely is one fantastic bit of Fine Art!

So just who is going to decide which image posted here as Street Photography does or does not deserve that classification, and who is qualified to decide which are good Street and which are not good? Clearly some people think they are qualified. My observation is they are not even close.

Lets face it, about half of Henri Cartier-Bresson's most famous photographs would be drummed out of town on a rail on UHH!

blackest Loc: Ireland

I won't go in to rhineII other than to perhaps suggest the value is more to do with being the most expensive photograph in the world rather than the image itself.

However the lesser half of Henri Cartier-Bresson's most famous photographs. could you cite an example that is a bad photograph? I guess there should be a few.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Yes, proven value!


There are none! But if presented here unknown they would not be judged as acceptable.

UHH is only slightly worse than any other collection of photographers on the Web. I've come up with proofs more than once, and doing so really annoys people! The proof makes people look really really foolish.

For example once in a discussion that had started with the question of how to get good shots of the moon and had broken down into nasty insults about who's moon pictures were the most terrible, I pulled off a good one time stunt... I posted half a dozen moon pictures and let everyone just assume I took them, and I insisted these were good! After I was beat up and insulted in an emotional fury, I let the cat (really a tiger in this case) out of the bag: I had not taken one of those shots, but rather had downloaded them from NASA, where they were modestly labeled as the best moon shots that NASA had! They really were good.

blackest Loc: Ireland

The thing about rhineII isn't the image it is all about the wealth of the owner, it is hard to comprehend that quantity of money for most of us.
Buying rhineII was purely a demonstration of wealth. It can sit in a safe deposit box now it really doesn't matter. The owner has the most expensive photograph in the world and that is the value in that image.
you could almost call it worthless. who would buy it from him?

when money becomes abstract, it has no value to him he can spend as he pleases and will go short of nothing. It is a statement that says I can.

On the positive at least nobody misses rhineII :)