ebrunner Loc: New Jersey Shore

I posted a set of street photos in this section about a month ago. Your comments encouraged me to pursue this type of photography. Since that time, I have not come up with much that I really like. Today in Philadelphia I came across a fellow sitting on a sidewalk who was quite interesting. I talked to him for a while and then another person started talking to him. I kept shooting and came up with a photo that I liked; but it had lots of irrelevant "stuff" in it. I isolated the man's face and I think this is an interesting photo. My question is: "Does this constitute street photography or is it something else." I would also be interested if you think this is a photo that is in any way captivating or has impact.
Erich

Making a Point

(Download)

Voss

I think it's a very expressive photo, and I like it. It is, though, a portrait rather than a "street" photograph. Street photographs are more than just a face. A good thumbnail explanation (in my mind) is that of Colin Westerbeck describing street photographers: "They have made candid pictures of everyday life in the street. That, at its core, is what street photography is." In my mind, it's candid photos of people doing the things people do. (This is hardly a complete explanation, but it helps me to focus on it.) Why not submit one of your photos of the man in his situation there? Let us see all of him.

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

Also note: To Interact or not by ebrunner

ebrunner Loc: New Jersey Shore

For this photo I was very much interested to hear opinions and explanations about if this photo is actually street photography. Steve has posted a link to some other photos that I posted of this man in For Your Consideration. If you think it is helpful and not redundant, I would be happy to post my other photos in this thread. Thank you for your comment. I'm still trying to get a handle on this genre; and any information I can get is very helpful.

Snap Shot Loc: California

Erich, it's street photography by anyone's definition and a good one at that! Well done!

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

What a fascinating ride you are taking! Eh? I'll admit that your articles are just very interesting because it's a trip back in time and a chance to relive some of my own such rides along these paths.

Your image is more Portrait that Street, but it is also true that it does just barely retain enough to be Street more or less. Perhaps it would have been a lot nicer as a Street shot with all that "irrelevant" stuff that he is interacting with. His just different enough looking face, and clearly a wall behind him, give us only a hint. Why is he scruffy looking? Is he a construction worker dirty from a day's work? Is he sleeping in an alley? Does he look like that because it allows him to interact with what is to his left, or is it a result of interacting with what is to his right? Without that detail all we can do is imagine. Imagining the relationships he lives with is not what Street is about, it's photographing those relationships.

Of course in this case we do have multiple images, so we have an actual story. We know he is a street beggar. We know he is looking up with a pensive look because he is perhaps not as respectable as the next guy? And processing with a grunge look, and dark vignetting, is not helpful.

As I've commented in your FYC thread, I would highly suggest avoiding pictures of homeless or socially/mentally/physically disadvantaged people working the streets. That is a very very difficult type of photography to accomplish with your own self respect intact. Skip it until you are much much more aware and sensitive about what Street Photography is.

As Voss says, Street is "candid photos of people doing the things people do." A picture of someone sweeping the street! People stealing hubcaps! Whatever it is about life that you find fascinating... go photograph it! But have respect for people, even if they are whacky! Take a look at
the "The Merry-Go-Round" thread Voss started, with two adults and one kid on a 3 seater merry go round. What a hooooooot. The kid is having a kid's blast, the adults are having a kid's blast. That is good Street. A few days ago I was looking at some Street somewhere and there were 10 or 20 shots with not one person in them. It was great Street because even without a person the viewer could literally feel the people that had been there. That's hard to shoot, but wow is that Street.

One concept you might try thinking about and engaging with, though it might not be for you, is how Garry Winogrand flat said his practice of being months behind on processing was on purpose. He waited until the memory of why he shot an image was gone, and all he had to go on was exactly what he wanted: What does that subject look like when photographed.

And maybe another of Winogrand's ideas is good too. I find this very hard to do, because I'm interested in thinking about what makes good composition. Guys like Winogrand and even more so for Henri Cartier-Bresson were such naturals at composition that they didn't even really think about. While shooting, they didn't need to worry at all about "photographs" to get perfect composition. Just shoot faces, people, or whatever. Shoot what is there just so you can later see what it actually looks like photographed. At that later time you can worry about whether you've made a good photograph or not. And film is cheap, shoot everything from every angle.

ebrunner Loc: New Jersey Shore

Wow, what a thoughtful response. Thank you. You brought up several points that I can use and focus on as I develop my own skills and style for street photography. Foremost, I think, is keeping in mind that street is not always people photography. While I was shooting, I was thinking more about the people than the surroundings and that might not be the best approach. I also am struggling with what kind of pp works with these photos. As you pointed out, the grunge look might not help my compositions. I think by using that type of pp, the shooter is adding his own commentary to the scene or the person. It might be more compelling to let the scenes and the people speak for themselves. Several of the photos I posted have minimal pp. Some changes in exposure and contrast. Maybe some clarity or sharpening. These, as I look back through the shots, are becoming the ones I really like. I've spent a fair amount of time looking at Winogrand shots and I like what he did. You gave me a lot to think about and I am very honored that you thought my "ride" into this realm was worth so much of your time and though. Very much appreciated.

ebrunner Loc: New Jersey Shore

Ok, thank you for that. I'm starting to learn that the definitions of what people consider "street" vary quite a bit and maybe those definitions are not as important as the images themselves. If we end up with a good image, do we really need to have a category to place the image in? I don't know the answer to that question yet, and might never know. I do know that hearing what other like-minded individuals have to say is helping me in my photography. Thank you .

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Those two thoughts go together. Street is always about people, but never only about people. It's about the relationship between people and their surroundings. It takes both to be Street. Other kinds of people pictures don't necessarily need any kind of a relationship to something else. A portrait is specifically about the characteristics of the person, not the characteristics of a relationship.

I think that for some photographers, who are explicitly dedicated to one genre, it makes no difference at all how images are categorized. Winogrand would be an example. Maybe not HCB. Lots of others would be much in need of a distinction (Alfred Eisenstadt as an example), because they do a wide variety of genres. They may or may not care one wit about it at the time they are shooting, but I do expect some are very conscious of which category they are shooting.

In the end it makes no difference to viewers. The photograph communicates emotions to the viewer, and the emotions are not labeled by the genre of photography. Only a photographer ever can see that.

Shoot what you want to shoot! Categorize them differently or not, as you choose!

You've nailed it. Street for most people is one form of documentary. They don't want to see artistic abstractions, just "straight photography". None of the pictorialism or other abstraction as opposed to the concept of a "mirror" of society.

However... (ain't there always a freaking hitch to Street Photography?) Shoot what you want to shoot! Who is anyone else to say your photograph is too abstract? The only one who can say whether your photography adds to much of you and obscures too much of "real" life, is you. Your neighbors won't have to move out if they don't like your pictures! There is no reason at all that you can't cop an attitude and be in some way another Bruce Gilden. That guy knows what he wants, and knows how to get it, and doesn't care who says what about it! Apparently it pays well and he does get his name in the marquee lights and is talked about on the Internet, so it can't be all wrong.

Develop your style to make you happy. Fear not, somebody will call you names for it, and somebody else will tell you your work is the best thing since slice bread...

ebrunner Loc: New Jersey Shore

I think you and I are, again, in agreement. I'm more interested in developing my own style be that landscapes, street, portraits or what have you. If I don't like the results or the process or both, then why am I bothering. Still, the people we listen to and images we pay attention to along the way, are also important considerations to developing a personal style. Thanks, again.

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

Exactly what Voss said.

ebrunner Loc: New Jersey Shore

Seems to be the consensus. I agree. Thank you for taking a look.

Voss

Just to add a different slant, here's a definition I came across by one Evangelo Costademas (that's all I know of him). "Its [street photography] intent is not journalistic or documentary and it does not represent the truth in any way shape or form. The photographer lines up the elements in the shot so as to suggest a narration or, better yet, to create an enigmatic situation. The author of the image is expressing his artistic vision and is completely disinterested in the subjects." He makes street photographers to be artists rather than documentarians. Any thoughts on this one?

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Evangelo Costadimas is extremely interesting as a photography philosopher! His stark observations are often very astute. They cut reality to the bone! But sometimes his perspective is lacking in breadth or substance. It is essential to look at the context for each specific statement he makes.

For example the very narrow statement that Street intent is "not journalistic or documentary" is correct only if it is understood that what he means is that all Street is not totally and exactly the same as journalism or documentary. He goes into minute detail on what he means, and his statements are that the Street does not meet every criteria in every way for documentary. There is much that is documentary that is not Street. The catch is that virtually all Street is documentary! Much, though not even near all, of Street can be journalism too.

His argument that Street does not represent "the truth" is near to silly. He is distinquishing between "the" truth and "a" truth! He likes to quote Picasso, "Art is a lie that makes us realize the truth", so the Street Photograph is not the truth itself, but the intent of Street is that we understand what the truth is... got that?

Costadimas is splitting hairs, and often accurately though not always, that are far above the level of discussion here on UHH. Cutting his comments out of context is almost certain to cause discussion filled with senseless conflict that isn't actually related to what Costadimas means to express and instead is centered around just how unlikely we are here as a group to understand him.

Here is an example:

Most importantly it is candid! Yet we have many people suggesting that it is essential to first talk to people we photograph.

Costadimas also says,
Whoa! Street Photography portraiture is an oxymoron!

But in fact he is only splitting that hair just very slightly too fine. For example, street performers such as actors or musicians, are collaborating with anyone photographing them. Their entire activity is meant to be seen, in person or in a photograph. Technically such photography cannot be called Street Photography.

Discussing the philosophy of Costadimas requires very good perspective on history and on the idea that Street Photography captures life rather than people.

Voss

Thanks, Apaflo. Guess I'll have to spend (much?) time digesting all this. It's been difficult trying to determine what is, and what is not, street photography.