Dave Chinn

Taken while attending Cupids Undie Run

'The Caped Crusader'

(Download)

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

I very much like the mood of this.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Interesting, but I have my doubts that a consumed, posed subject qualifies as a traditional street photograph.

....and what the H... is "Cupid's Undie Run"????

Dave Chinn

Thank you Richard !!! Its greatly appreciated.

Dave Chinn

Thanks Dave !!! Yes, this may appear to be posed but I can assure you it is not. I saw him on the opposite side of the street from me by the lamp post which gave me the envision of another day to night image.

I am curious though, what or who determines what is or isn't traditional street photography? What are the qualifications if any? Please tell me because I have no idea at this point but do so in your own words. No links please, as I have seen all the links I care about. Everyones opinion is different and I am convinced (for the most part) there is no right or wrong on the subject. I just go on the streets to shoot and have fun while I'm at it.

What is a Cupid Undie Run? It is a charitable event held every year around Valentines Day. People run on the street in their undies for charity. It is held in various cities and by the way it was 18 degrees out that day.
http://www.cupidsundierun.com/info/about-the-run/
Dave

Yes, posed for someone else

(Download)

Not posed

(Download)

Not posed

(Download)

SnappyHappy Loc: Chapin, SC “The Capitol of Lake Murray”

These are amazing Dave, thanks for sharing. As much as I enjoy viewing this set, your shot of batman roaming the streets after dark confirms my reasoning for keeping a small pistol in my pocket when I'm surrounded by this much civilization.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Well, Dave,
since you asked.
...and I'll admit that I'm surprised you had to... the key, in my opinion, to,what constitutes "Traditional Street Photography" lies in the word "Traditional". You are right in saying that a specific definition of "Traditional Street Photography" is difficult to verbalized...but there is where the term "Traditional" gains such importance. ...And it is precisely why I compiled a number of collections of the works of photographers who contributed to the tradition of "Traditional Street Photography". Since you have an antipathy to links, I'll simply suggest that you have a more serious look at the locked threads at the top of the Section devoted to the works of such as Brassai, Stieglitz, Atget, Lartique, Cartier-Brasson, and Winogrand, and then, (it is hoped) stimulated to see more of the greats of Traditional Street Photography" Google the images made by Dorothea Lange, Robert Frank, Walker Evans, André Kertész, Harry Callahan, Wm. Eugene Smith, Lee Friedlander, and Weegee (and if you need more names of exemplars of "Traditional Street Photography", just ask.

As is the case with all traditions of various disciplines, the tradition is taught by example, not by verbiage. So it is with "Traditional Street Photography", the section we agreed, in good conscience I presumed, to monitor.

After studying the works of even just a few of the "greats" listed above, I think it obvious that none of them simply wanted to..."...just go on the streets to shoot and have fun while ... at it."
I can guarantee that none of them would have devoted a plate or film frame to an image of people costumed for the purpose of attracting attention. For those who are costumed, every moment is a "pose".

Just some food for thought....

I'll certainly be curious if any other participants in the section are in agreement or disagreement with my concern with images posted as supposedly representative of "Traditional Street Photography"

Billyspad Loc: The Philippines

One of the mainstays and regular exhibits of any "street" forum is the busker. Posing with his chosen instrument.
So why not the general public having fun. Loads cycle for fun many skateboard some roller skate. I am sure those three activities would not be frowned upon by the guardians of traditional street.
Bring on the caped crusader and all his nutty colleagues or would you rather a boat on a river and make a case for that as street?

And how does anyone know what reason our well known often quoted luminaries took to the streets to take pictures? At best educated guess work usually supplies the answers but that's all it is. If I said Bresson did it to satisfy his foot fetish can you prove I'm wrong?
Lets stop quoting and using as examples those who are peacefully pushing up daisies and quote our OWN opinions giving the reasons behind them.

Dave Chinn

Thanks Snappy !!! I think Batman was a distraction, Its Robin we have to worry about.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

xxxxxxxx
Billy,
The busker is on the street for monetary gain, and in the midst of playing, or interacting with his fellow buskers, is cetainly fair game for the street photographer...those are usually skillful, subtle candids or "environmental"portraits, and were (and are) captured by as such by Cartier-Bresson, Winogrand, Graham Smith, and other traditionalists.
But snapshots of costumed, made-up folks whose sole purpose is self-aggrandizement ...simply to be noticed? No subtlety there, my friend, nor particular skill or technique..and not the slightest nod to tradition.

The kindest suggestion about such images is that they be posted in the gallery section where no one would either seek traditional street photography nor find it.

The point about using the works of the traditional street photographers as a guide to the sense of the genre is that it is objective evidence of the principles, ethics, and visions of those who established the tradition. It is solid, substantive evidence of why nonce attempts to re-characterize "traditional street" into a more free-form please-anyone genre is nothing more than pseudo-intellectual...er...self-pleasuring. Remember, the word "Traditional" has practical and explicit meanings, as inspection of the works of those who established the Traditional a Street Photography will testify.

Supposedly, the reason for starting this new Section was to specifically promote, as its name explicitly states, "Traditional Street Photography", not simply to exercise a vendetta against the promoter of the other so-called "street" section and certainly not to continue egregiously re-characterizing the concept of "Traditional Street Photography".
Dave Graham

Billyspad Loc: The Philippines

Billy wrote:
So let me get this right candid of busker is OK. Candid of Batman not OK?
So how about candid of Batman playing a banjo on a street corner?
Come on Dave my question is as ridiculous as your statement.

The fellow in batman costume is simply one the mass of costumed folks whose sole purpose is to attract attention to themselves. I don't see any of them doing what they are doing as part of their daily effort to keep body and soul together...which is a common feeling engendered by trad. street photography about many of the people so pictured...and about a number of the subjects you, yourself, have posted as well, Billy. You have posted some exceptionally good "street". I wish you could bring yourself to post some of that quality in this new section. We could use more good examples!

I surprised you cannot see the difference. Photographing the for-fun costumed folks IS photography, and may be skilled photographic accomplishment, but it certainly isn't "Traditional Street Photography".

Have you a sense of the meaning of "Traditional" ? And why some of the images you've posted elsewhere fit that characterization very well?

Dave Chinn

Thanks for your response Dave !!! To start, this is from the Introduction to Traditional Street Photography
It is the view of most street photographers that their discipline should be practiced in an urban environment, which does not exclude less obviously urban scenes, such as rural roadsides. And what about people? That is up to the individual photographer. Most of us like people in street scenes. Most of us enjoy viewing the pictures of other photographers that show the human condition in it's many and varied forms.
There is always much discussion as to whether street photography has to be candid or captured with the subjects knowledge. Candid pictures and what are called "reaction" pictures are Traditional Street Photography. A reaction picture captures the subject instantly upon seeing the camera, which eliminates any posing. Sometimes a limited amount of "immediate" posing is fine, as long as it isn't a set-up shot, other than to ask the subject to adopt a stance in a natural way, in their normal surroundings. Some will say that portraits are not legitimate street photography. Others disagree strongly with this, provided that it is obvious that the portrait was made on the street with none or minimal posing, and certainly no studio nor contrived lighting.
The street photographer should strive to find subjects that will resonate with the viewer. The photographer, when he finds the subject, should have a vision for the finished work, before tripping the shutter. He can then use post processing to "develop" his vision. Often, random snapshots taken on a street do not work well. Most photographers believe that a street picture should be truthful, and some feel that the camera doesn't always provide what the eye/brain combination sees, so it is legitimate to redress the shortcomings of the camera. Since there is no clear definition of street photography, the photographer must be prepared to have his version of street photography, challenge by others with a differing view.

So Dave,
I really didn't need to ask. I just wanted to see what YOUR personal definition was and not that of someone else. That is the why for no links and why I stated it that way. I have read all of those and personally just get tired of it, especially when its presented to me in such a way as previously from the other section. I value your opinion while I also value my own, which is not to say I don't value anyone else. But for the most part I do think we are all guilty of holding our own value of opinions to the highest and above others, which also means I don't want this subject to turn into a big debate on who's right and who's wrong. We have been there and done that from the other section and I refuse to repeat a similar situation.

Someones attire is not going to determine what is or isn't traditional street photography. If I took a photo of someone on the street not wearing anything .... it would still be street photography. Maybe not traditional but still street.

Yes, you are right .... those you mentioned did not want to .... just go out on the streets to shoot and have fun while at it. I'm sure they WERE having fun. If we can not have fun doing something we love then what is the point in doing it at all in the first place? If I were doing this for my health I would be at the gym rather than the streets. But then again, it is good mental health therapy. Life is too short to have it any other way than having FUN !!! Times have changed Dave. Fred Flintstone used to be my neighbor. Some things aren't what they seem to be anymore. Digital verses film equals costs.

As you have suggested, I will take another serious look of those you have mentioned, which in any case with photography, I do take seriously. Although, I see some contradiction in the Brassaī- A master of Traditional Street Photography. The very first photo of the person lighting the lamp post. He's in uniform. Isn't that a costume? Then go further down. Picture #13, which is clearly not a candid shot as also in picture #14, and aren't the ladies in picture #16 in costume? How is that any different than my Batman photo? Which proves my point on OPINIONS. On one hand you say it isn't but clearly on the other hand it is. In one of the masters of traditional street photography it is. So which is it? The one that works today? Or is it the one that worked yesterday?

Since you seem to be so familiar with Google, I'm surprised you had to ask, "What the h... is cupids undie run" Do as I say ... not as I do?
Bottom line is ..... we can agree to disagree !!! Thats fine ... because its just an opinion and everyone has more than one.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

What you pick out as exceptions make my point well. The uniformed man lighting a street lamp (#1) and the dancers off-stage relaxing between sets (#16) are all in the garb of their employment, And please don't imply that I think non-candid, "reaction shots" are beyond the pale...I frequently make the point that they can be effective in Trad street.

I'm simply surprised that, having supported a new section for the promotion of Traditional Street Photography, you have come to post images more acceptable in the original Street section or in the gallery, than as truly representative of Traditional Street Photography. There certainly can be gray areas at the edges of any characterization or definition, but a number of images being posted in the "Traditional Street Photography" section, including some of your own, are well beyond the gray boundaries.

Dave Chinn

Sorry, difference of opinions !!!

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Very much so!