zzzynick Loc: Colorado

Taking a look through the plethora of street photography available to view online, you would be forgiven for believing that truly great street photography must be produced in black & white. This is perhaps a hangover from the influence of the masters of the genre: Henri Cartier-Bresson, Walker Evans, Weegee, Bruce Gilden, et al. There iss a benefit to producing your street images in this way, of course. Black & white can emphasise light, shadow and form. It can reduce the elements of a busy scene down to its most vital shapes and narrative.
However, this thinking bypasses the influence and impact of such photographers as Joel Meyerowitz, Stephen Shore, Fred Herzog and William Eggleston. Would their images have had as much influence if they were in black & white? Probably not. Those figures were pioneers of colour photography and they did it largely through the genre of street photography. Today we find their teachings permeating the work of such figures as Nick Turpin, Alex Webb, Steve McCurry, Eric Kim and Harry Gruyaert.
There is perhaps a fear of producing street photography in colour. With so much going on, with so much to think about when faced with such ephemeral and chaotic scenes, colour is another distraction, another visual element to contend with. But with a little time and patience, you can easily adapt to this added layer of narrative. All it takes is practice.
It's worth bearing in mind Nick Turpin has thoughts concerning colour in street photography, if street photography is an attempt to show the world as it truly is and as it unfolds in front of you, then surely you have an obligation to represent that scene in colour. After all, it's a more honest reflection of how we see the world.

I am not a pro street photographer. Although, I did sell two of these. But I do know what a in focus shot looks like. I know how to compose a shot.

So here's some shots I took for all my fans.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

Charlie'smom

Love the two of the solo older women. Wonderful captures.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

I prefer the "Weegee Look" in Greyscale for street photography. Lets you concentrate on textures rather than the distraction of colors.

Different Strokes.

zzzynick Loc: Colorado

I was challenged to post some of my "street" shots, after the comments I made on the ummm post. Here they are. It seems my antagonist's don't have much to say. For me that's just hilarious.

Voss

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Your defense of color versus black and white is fine. There's nothing wrong with color. But it's a two-edged sword. While it can definitely improve a photo, as it has done in your second one, it can also add nothing, as in the first, third, and fifth photos, and it can distract, as it does with the fourth one.

Compositionally speaking, the second and third one are good. In the other four, the center of interest is right in the center, a generally boring, static position. And the Rule of Thirds, while not really a rule, is a useful guide to keep in mind. Also, I hate to see a person cut off at the bottom when there is much empty, wasted space at the top of the photo. As a general rule, it's not good to crop someone at a joint, as it looks too much like an amputation.

In terms of general subject interest, I find the first one to be somewhat boring. Its only redeeming feature is that the subject's arms are bent. Also, I suspect this would look better in black and white. The third and fifth are interesting photos of elderly women. I'm not sure what to think of the fourth one. As mentioned, her position is static, her bright blue dress is distracting, she's cut off at the crotch, and I have no idea what she's doing, or why she's grinning while she does it. Furthermore, her right hand and the hat ARE NOT IN GOOD FOCUS. Regarding number six, the thing in the middle is in good focus. Not so, the rest of it. And I have no idea what that photo is about.

Number two is another story. I think it's a great photo, one that I would be proud to have taken. I have no criticism whatsoever regarding it. The composition is spot-on. The color in the man's outfit presents him much better than would black and white. A great job.

And this is my opinion.

zzzynick Loc: Colorado

Your the only one with the balls to answer back. The lady in the blue dress works in the hat store behind her. She was brushing off a hat. I thought it was cool. The welding hood, I just tossed in there because I was a Union Pipefitter [welder] for 35 years. And I liked it. These are really about the only street shoots I have. I have a new G2,Tamron 45 mm lens, that as soon as the 95 degree heat abates, I want to take out to the streets. Who knows what I will see.
I never claimed to be a street photographer. I take pictures of anything and everything that catches my eye. Some are good, some aren't. I don't care, I take pictures for me, no one else.
I am tired of anyone, who tries to pigeon hole any aspect of photography. It's a art form, nothing in art should remain static. Rules are made to be broken. There is no progress with out that kind of attitude.

As for critiquing my photos that's fine. Everyone see things differently.
I have been away from this site for over 6 months. I became weary of pictures of birds, bugs and flowers.
I came back and saw your posts again. They did not inspire me then, nor now. But that's the beauty of art. Art doesn't care what I think. And you shouldn't either. Your opinion, will not change the way I take a picture, and honestly I don't care what you think of mine.

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

Ooook! What Voss said--he beat me to it; no sense in repeating.

Stephan G

Speaking of pigeon-holing. Your presentation just about falls over into that category. The creator of the artwork determines as to what his Art is. The viewer redefines it to their own POV. At the very least, Art is story telling. And it does take two, the maker and the reader for effective Art.

I do disagree with you. Despite your protest to the contrary, you do want responses because you DO care what others think of your work. If we do not care, then why be any kind of artist?

By the way, I, for one, do refuse to be a muse to anyone.

Voss

Much of what you say is true. We should all take photos of what interests us. That's why most of us do it. And because of this, we shouldn't care what others think. If they like our work, that's a bonus.

In terms of pigeonholing photography, that's simply a way of bringing like-minded people together. The Hog is divided into numerous subject groups. Thus, those who like flowers have a place to show their work to other lovers of flowers. (Remember, "Birds of a feather flock together."). But this doesn't mean they can't have other interests. They can belong to 10 such groups. In our case, we like photos of people going about their lives in public places.

Critiquing, to me, means commenting on the photos of others with the intent of improving their photographic skills. I have read of photographers in the old days getting together in the evening and critiquing each others' works. I like to think of our group as a modern-day get-together. I have learned much from comments made about my photos and those of others. It's how we progress.

This whole brouhaha started with a gratuitous comment. Surely, of the thousand or so photos posted in this group, one of them is worthy of being printed.

So, I have an offer. Take that new G2 Tamron and go out and shoot some street with it. Post them here for critiquing. And become one of our best street photographers.

Stephan G

Second the motion.

zzzynick Loc: Colorado

As I have stated, more than once, I am not a street picture taking kinda guy. I live in the country. The town nearest me has 3 stoplights and no main street. When I moved here it only had one stoplight. I am thinking, that it has become to urbanized for me, and its time to find a smaller town.
I drive a old 97 Mercury Mountaineer, named Eddie, after the famed mountaineer, Sir Edmund Hillary. I would rather rattle down a dirt road looking for something to take a picture of, than go to any town.
I really do not care for the traffic, crowds, or attitudes of cities. The only reason I got the street shots I have, is, because relative's came out for a visit, and the Boulder Pearl Street Mall is a tourists dream.
I left Boulder 15 years ago, and I don't care if I ever go back.
Plus the fact, right now it is in the 90 degree range, and just to damn hot to sit on any city street corner, waiting for a photographic opportunity.
I live about a hour and a half from Rocky Mountain National Park. A much nicer setting than any town. If and when, I leave my surrounding area thats the direction I head.
So Voss thanks for the challange, but I do believe I will pass.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

You misunderstand what Street Photography is. It is not urban photography and no roadway is required.


The "street" in Street Photography is a community, not a road.

We can do Street Photography in a dense forest, at a barren desert location, under the ocean's surface, or virtually any other place where humanity interfaces with the surroundings. Granted that 5th Ave in NYC provides more numerous and more obvious opportunity, but it is not exclusive and the results are not necessarily superior.

zzzynick Loc: Colorado

Way back, when I used to frequent this site more often, and one of the reason I left for awhile. Is, I got into a pissing contest on what is street and what is not. I posted some pretty cool shots of a guy standing on top of a bass guitar, rocking out with 2 other musicians. Hell, I even turned them into Black and white. According to some self styled experts...musicians, buskers, and events were not considered street. After googling the definition of street photography. I begged to differ.

Apaflo,I do prefer your definition.

That is where my statement of pigeonholing originated. It seemed to me, that if you didn't conform to their preconceived ideals, you were not street. If I am anything, I am a non-conformist. I haver never been a follower. I read, I study, [google] I think for myself. I read every word, review, printed on the net, before I bought the 3 cameras and 6 lenses I now own, I choose to make my own mistakes, and form my own opinions based on the experiences, I have lived through.
Not what someone else thinks, are the rules, guidelines, and, this is no shit, it's set in stone, I ain't joking, way it has to be, to be any genre of photography, or really life in general.
For me, that kind of attitude and mindset, is completely tiresome.
That will never change.
I am not, a complete drooling idiot, I realize there are different styles of photography. Portrait, Landscape, Marco, and there are guidelines, in each that define the category. And that's fine. All I am saying, is be open to a new outlook, new ideas, a new view on a old subject.
Live, experiment have fun. If taking a picture, has to define some preconceived idea, that's not spontaneous. For me, that would be tedious, joyless, and mechanical. Where is the art, the very soul in that?
And honestly, does it really matter what category it falls into? Or, if it can be categorized at all?

I do want to thank everyone, who has taken their time to respond to my post. It has been semi enlightening.

It is nice to see passion in any form, and I have felt it in these posts. So again, thank you.
Tom Clemens

Tom G Loc: Atlanta, GA

Do It "My Way" !

NO !!

Tom G Loc: Atlanta, GA

Aw Shucks...