Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Which have been pointed out already in this thread and others. But regardless I doubt that any definition from any knowledgeable source will say that images of a staged performance can be valid Street Photography. It is just so clearly not what Street is!

What many are lacking is not access to a valid definition of Street Photography but rather a decent general understanding of Street. Part of the purvue for this section is discussion of exactly that. Non-Street images are accepted as examples for discussion.

Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

Oh, I've read them. I just don't get why one photographer's definition of his/her vision has the right to limit someone else's vision of any given genre. I'm not trying to be argumentative, and I've learned that you started the Street Photography section, so I guess it's your right to set the parameters. But beyond the scope of this section, I respect someone's right to define their own vision in their own way.

Serious, not argumentative question: is a photo of buskers playing street photography? They have planned to perform in public, but I would call it street photography, whereas if the Philadelphia Orchestra set up a stage on Broad Street and performed, I would not call that street photography. No matter how you answer my busker question, I respect your answer.

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

I disagree with the reasoning behind this assessment. Everything that happens on the street is planned - even the walkers are there for some personal reason, therefore planned. I feel Street Photography is here to show things that happen on a street, regardless of why.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Your vision is strictly your vision, and has nothing to do with how anyone else will see their photography. But that also has nothing at all to do with defining a genre at large, be that genre Street or any other.

Street Photography is something specific and is not just what any individual happens to imagine. It is what Robert Frank, Garry Winogrand, and Vivian Maier (among many) were doing. If you define their photography out of the genre your definition cannot be considered valid no matter how fond of it you may be. Street is not just some arbitrary style of your choosing!!!

An individual street busker is no different in staging a performance than a full orchesta. Neither can be the subject of Street Photograpy, which needs be spontaneous if not entirely candid.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Your personal definition has virtually no connection to the genre known as.Street Photography.

This is not Alice In Wonderland, and words do not just mean anything you decide they should.

Street Photography is not "things that happen on a street", and the "why" is exactly what it is all about!!

Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

Thanks for your response. We'll have to agree to disagree. One can shoot an entirely candid shot of a busker. You do cite recognized masters of the genre, but some considered Robert Mapplethorpe a master and he considered his photography art, but I find nothing artistic in it. Again, I am not looking to be argumentative, but I do believe there is more than one way to define just about any genre of anything. Had Beethoven not pushed the envelope by opening his first symphony with a dominant seventh chord, which was considered unacceptably dissonant in his day, or using a chorus in his ninth, we would never have had Mahler.

Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

Whoops, don't know how this happened.

Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

Now you're talking nonsense. Voss posted a fabulous candid image of a woman breaking out in spontaneous laughter. We have no idea why she laughed. Are you saying that image was not street photography?

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

The Apaflo reply to my post and his other replies to other posts do not comport with what he has written in the firun description. It is:

"The "Street Photography Section" is for images and discussion about the philosophy and techniques of the genre called Street Photography, that records pictures where the subject is life.

We have at least two definitions of Street Photography to help guide what this section is about. Wikipedia of course is subject to random edits, and has gone through many changes in what it says Street is. At present (January 9, 2016) it says:

"Street photography is photography that features the chance
encounters and random accidents within public places. Street
photography does not necessitate the presence of a street or
even the urban environment. Though people usually feature
directly, street photography might be absent of people and
can be of an object or environment where the image projects a
decidedly human character in facsimile or aesthetic.

An opposing view, from a very authoritative source:

"There's no such thing as street photography and even if there
were, it isn't what I do...I photograph animals. That's it! If
you want to do a history of zoo photography, I'll participate."
Garry Winogrand (Only slightly tongue in cheek.)


The rules for the Street Photography Section are fairly simple. We accept almost any inclusive definition of Street Photography, and will not exclude any discussion or image if a member feels it is appropriate to Street Photography.

Heated exchanges are allowed, but gratuitous personal discussions, attacks or insults and/or name calling are not (and will be deleted). Otherwise the same basic rules that apply to the entire forum apply here.

Please have fun!

Apaflo (aka Floyd),
Section Manager"

Back to John_F. Some cogent parts of the forums definition are: "subject is life," "members feels it is appropriate," and "accept ..... any inclusive definition of Street Photography." What is an "inclusive definition?"

Apraflo says there are "two definitions," then gives only one. His authoritive expert does not give a definition. The longest definition is from WikiPedia which he implies is fungible.

In my first impression, it seemed Street Photography images had to be 'unplanned.' Some synonyms might be 'spontaneous,' 'accidental.' The very existence of any street, road, path, trail is planned by someone, therefore ineligible. Every person on the street is there for a reason, therefore planned and so ineligible. Picture a guitarist clothed in shorts and T-shirt at night on a financial district street in a raging sleet and snow storm. Eligible? Well, self-attempted suicide is certainly planned, therefore ineligible.

There is a Traditional Street Photography for those thinking of alternatives.

Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

You have a problem, Floyd. I found an example of Robert Frank's street photography: a uniformed tuba player, with another uniformed musician just barely in the left of the frame. Street photography or not? If it is, your definition doesn't work. If it's not, Frank wasn't a street photographer.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Are you purposely being argumentative, or does the above actually seem logical to you?

The unplanned or spontaneous description rather clearly is not referencing every object in an image. It is only about the subject, which is the set of intangible relationships between the tangible objects. It is about the relationships of life and the human condition. It is obviously absurd and highly inappropriate to suggest application of that significant criteria to the insignificant detail.

The intro article was not intended to teach what Street Photography is. For that you must (and if you want to discuss it here you absolutely must) research and study the topic on your own at least sufficiently to carry on a somewhat cognizant and informed conversation.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Or more reasonably the fact is that not every image Robert Frank recorded was Street Photography.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

The subject of the photo was not the laugh, it was the reason for the laugh and how that related to the surroundings. That is what Street Photography is!

Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

Then I missed the whole point of the photo, and I'm afraid I still do. What was the reason for the laugh?

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Which specific image?