minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Dave Chinn and I post a fair number of street photos for review here on FYC. We think some of the points raised in image-reviews would be interesting to discuss in more depth. We are not presenting ourselves as experts with answers, but want to facilitate an open conversation about this fascinating genre of photography. Please share your own thoughts, experiences, knowledge, and images.

A few possible themes for discussion:

Technical/composition
Are there particular focal lengths or settings you prefer?
How do you decide what to keep in or exclude from the frame?
How important is environmental context?
Black and white vs color?

Issues specific to the street genre
Do you engage the subject prior to shooting? Do you get their permission?
What about posing?
How important is eye contact with the subject?
What about difficult subjects? (Homeless, substance-affected, beggars, cultural differences)
How to deal with distractions? (passersby, trash, cars)
Street portraits vs person-in-situation

Please respond to any of these questions that interest you, or add your own! We hope you'll include one of your images to illustrate your point.

Dave Chinn

Since there has been in the past a debate about what one prefers candid or posed here is an example of both. A street portrait that I did last year on biker night at Quaker Steak & Lube. I saw this lady and decided to capture a shot of her, then got my nerve up to approach her. I showed her the image and asked for a posed shot. She was very willing and loved both shots as well as her husband. Its all about personal choice. I have another example I will post later.
Dave

(Download)

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

I like to shoot for this section when I can, so I have some thoughts, Minnie, for better or worse.

Tech and comp: I use various cameras, from a DSLR to a bridge camera to a pocket camera, so I really don't concern myself with focal lengths or settings, just whatever works at the time. I try to keep the photos full frame, but that isn't always possible, of course. I don't consider environmental context at all because of various subjects that I shoot, and I prefer black and white to color, unless the shot begs for color, such as Voss' hat photo today.

Genre issues: I have never engaged a subject before shooting or asked for permission or posed a subject because if I were to do that the spontaneity would be gone and the photo becomes fake for me. I generally don't concern myself with eye contact or the situation of the subject because, to me, the honesty of the subject can be lost when those thoughts enter into the equation. Distractions are what they are; sometimes they make the shot. And I'm not sure what you mean by "street portraits vs person-in-situation." Another point for me is that if I think I might be confronted because of a shot I take, I skip it. I can't run very fast anymore.

But that's just me. One other thing: I enjoy seeing what you and Dave are doing--keep up the good work.

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

A question: If it's posed, is it still a street shot? I have no answer, just curious.

Dave Chinn

Thanks for commenting John !!! I like your idea of various camera use. However, I only have a DSLR and so far I'm still comfortable with using it for street.

I agree, I too don't concern myself with settings as long as I have the proper exposure. Although there are times I prefer the Bokeh in most of my shots so therefor would shoot wide open which is in most cases is what I do. Every street shot (for me) is going to be shot different because of the environment so its all based on what is desired by the photographer. I feel there is no right or wrong way. Just personal preferences.

Street portraits are more so of nothing but your subject in the frame and captured in such a way as portrait. If its a candid shot it requires more patience so to acquire the desired expression. Person-in-situation (IMO) is more of the standard street shot where more of the surrounding environment with your main subject.
Dave

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Both shots are very nice portraits, but neither of them are Street Photography.

The subject of each image is the character of the person, and specifically the beauty and dynamic looks! That makes a really great portrait.

The subject of a Street shot is not the person or the person' character, but rather
the person's relationship to their surroundings. It's the person's life rather than their character that is depicted by Street.

Dave Chinn

I feel the answer would be yes. Thats the difference between street portraits and street photography, IMO, but I'm sure there will be others that may disagree. Which, the disagreement will not change my opinion.
Dave

Dave Chinn

Thats why in this case it is a street portrait which IS a form of street photography !!!

Also, when I shoot street photography its of people I don't know so therefor how would I know what there life is or their character? That statement makes no sense to me at all.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Street portraits can be Street Photography, but are not necessarily so.

We should not mistake just anything photographed while standing on or near a street as Street Photography. The physical association with a street is invalid, it is a very confusing misnomer.

As noted, a portrait by definition is a photograph that depicts the character of the person. Street Photography does not depict the character of a person. It depicts the character of their life, the relationship between people and their surroundings. Hence it is impossible to have a Street Photograph that shows only a person with no hint of surroundings! (But do note that it only takes a hint... for either the person or the surroundings!) It's just that if there is only a hint it can be very difficult too.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

A very good list of topics that pertain to Street Photography!

I would suggest though that a distinction be made with each topic as to whether it defines Street Photography or if it defines a style of Street Photography. For example, virtually everyone accepts that if a scene is staged by the photographer with subjects posed as directed, it cannot be called Street Photography; yet a lot of discussion is about candid or non-candid as if that defines Street. Non-candid Street Photography is relatively common if we define candid as the person did not know they were being photographed. Doing something so it can be photographed is posed photography, but knowing that a photograph is being taken while doing something is not. Neither is candid.

Many of the topics listed are very interesting when discussed as a particular style of photography. Lens focal length, camera techniques, camera types, locations, effects of color vs BW, and photographer actions such as getting permission, making eye contact, etc are all matters of style. None of them is a line that divides Street from non-Street. Yet much of what we can find on the Internet will state unequivocally that some set style defines Street, with a clear meaning that other styles are not Street.

In the list of topics there are only a couple that relate to a definition of Street. "How important is environmental context?" is one. No such context means it is not Street. Which type of context is a matter of style though. "What about posing?" As above, if it is posed it isn't Street.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

I'll leap right in without a life preserver:

ETHICS - I don't think images of homelessness, mental illness, drug addiction or other suffering have a place in photo forums such as FYC.

Here we are offering constructive feedback of a photo. So while the poignancy or emotion of the moment might be mentioned, we also talk about composition and pp.

Even though it's not intentional disrespect of the subject, to discuss such (relatively) mundane aspects as shutter speed and perspective seems insensitive to me. I believe this particular aspect of street photography should be the realm of photojournalism and other outlets that are documenting social issues and calling for citizen action.

Pierre H.J. Dumais Loc: Mississippi Mills, Ont.

This is how I personally define it. It is a simple and usable definition.
John's comments resonate with me as well. I'm most comfortable with what he says.

Perhaps we should also ask: What then is "People Photography"?

Like Dave, I sometimes personally engage the subject and they then know I am photographing them.
I mainly shoot full frame using a 28-200mm lens or a 300 mm prime. It depends on the reach I think will work best in the locale.

And, I recall a ludicrous criticism once maligning Lloyd of voyeurism, because he used a 150-600mm in an excellent street shot.
I still LOL at this absurdity. It goes to show how harping on fine nuances can be twisted into ridiculous criticisms. That's why I like what Dave has put forward above.
Pierre

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Thanks for joining in the discussion with some interesting points.

Our goal here is pretty simple. We are somewhat deliberate in NOT trying to define street photography but to keep the discussion open and accepting of all views. You are right that there is much internet discussion about defining it, and we wanted to avoid that argument by discussing various itmes of interest that sort of "accrue" when street images are reviewed.

Hope you'll share one of your own photos and discuss a point or two that is of interest to you.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

I do much as you do - I don't usually engage with the folks I'm photographing until after I've done the deed, because it changes everything, and my main interest is what they are doing when I spot the scene. Then, I may start a conversation, show them the pictures, offer to send them a copy.

By street portraits I was referring to photos that show little of the environment but are mostly of the person. Dave's posted images on this thread seem like street portraits to me. My images are usually person-in-situation, taken from more distance, including multiple people, the surroundings, the architechture, etc.

I like your comment about the distractions, sometimes that is so true!

Dave Chinn

If you say street portraits CAN be street photography how can you then turn around and say not necessarily so? Isn't that contradicting your own statement? How can it depict the character of their life when we do not know them? Where they are at the time the photo was taken is different several hours later, so again how do you know the character of their life when you don't even know them? Again, contradicting your own statement.

What you define as street photography is not fact. Its just your opinion. Just as what I say is not fact. Just my opinion and THAT is fact. You are not ever going to convince me otherwise in this thread or any other for that matter.

Street photography is a type of photography that features subjects in candid situations within public places. Street photographs are mirror images of society, displaying un-manipulated scenes, with usually unaware subjects.

Here are 3 examples of my definition of street photography. I have NOT seen anything of the sort from you ANYWHERE. Until you have physical evidence I can only assume yo either don't know what your talking about or you are gathering information from the internet and coming up with your own conclusion. I'm no expert and I don't know all the answers but I do know it is what it is. We are pretty well grounded here in the lower 48.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)