File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Street photography is dead. It's a figment in the imagination of rich fourtysomething white men who invested in expensive rangefinder equipment while caressing the hope of being the next HCB or Doisneau, or whatnont. It's also a figment in the imagination of enthusiast twentysomethings who got their first K1000. It's also a figment in the imagination of the thirtysomething who got his first DSLR and is looking for a quick way to make it useful, because he bought the tool before thinking about the applications. His résumé usually contains pictures of kids, flowers, and previous girlfriends.

It's about people who think that a sneaky shot, whether it's from the front or from the back, still reveals something new about reality.

The problem is that "street photo" never existed. People took pictures of things for various reasons: documentary, commercial, editorial, war reporting, etc. But in the realm of hobby, you need taglines for style and content, so when you're aping the particular style and content of Doisneau and HCB, you're a "street photographer."

But Doisneau and HCB were not "street photographers." They were photographers. HCB stopped taking pictures in the last few years of his life because he couldn't stand, among other things, seeing his approach everywhere in the hands of everyone.

So yes, yes, someone will say "But what about the work of XYZ! He is young, brilliant, original, and street-savvy as well!" Well exactly. He's who he is and you're not. The fact that he does "street" is irrelevant.

In my opinion, William Eggleston is as much a "street photographer" than any of the usual darlings because it so happens that most of his photos were taken in a street. Yet he looks nothing like Winogrand, nothing like HCB, nothing like Doisneau. That's because he's a photographer, not a guy with too much time and no ideas about his hobby.

Sorry for all the bitterness, it's just easier to articulate a point by cranking the amp at 11...
>> Bass
     File :-(, x)
Sir, I have no idea what you are talking about...

But here is a picture I took on a street.. And though it isn't true, I'd like to say, I took it for you.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
I actually agree with you to a point, but it's erroneous to say it's dead if you say it never existed in the first place isn't it?

to me, 'street' is an umbrella term for anything that captures the essence of a community or a group of people. candid snapshots can do this, but a lot don't, because a lot of people pretty much rely on street as a gimmick and expect the composition to just naturally happen and it doesn't work like that.
>> street photography artatlarge
     File :-(, x)
Street photography is not dead. It actually does require talent, and sometimes it yields great stuff.
Just because you don't like it, and are willing to make yourself so unpleasant about it, doesn't mean that you even know what you're raving about.
You deal in generalization, narrow-mindedness, and facetiousness.
You don't even have the nerve to identify yourself.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>227808
I think he was saying more that the spirit of it is dead to a lot of people and the elements that made stuff like HCBs work impressive are absent. you have people who want to shoot street but don't necessarily shoot good pictures.
>> Anonymous
this whole thread is tl;dr
>> Anonymous
I get where you're coming from, but though poorly named and often abused there is a specific style of photography we call "street." It's photographs of strangers, with emphasis on daily life, often with visual wit, and with a compositional emphasis on flow through the scene. Bad name? Yes. Is the concept often abused? Yes. Is it usually poorly executed by fuckups? Hell yes, like every other type of photography. Those guys who go to the exact place Ansel was at, at the time some meteorologists say the light and weather will be identical to when he was there, and whip out their Digital Rebels and kit lenses, and hold down the shutter in continuous mode? Same plague, different host.

>>227767
>captures the essence of a community or a group of people

Winogrand doesn't really do that. Allard does it but he's not street. That's just plain cultural documentary.
>> Anonymous
>>227822
Quote comes from

>>227791.

Used the wrong post.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>227822
I was defining what I identify street photography as, not what it necessarily means to anyone else. I disagree though, Winogrand's work usually says something to me about not only the actual subject but their surroundings and the situation, which is kind of what I was talking about.
>> Anonymous
>>227830
Winogrand's about the visual aesthetics of the situation ("what it looks like photographed) and usually the emotion in the situation as well. This pic could've come from any community.

http://www.fraenkelgallery.com/index.php#mi=2&pt=1&pi=10000&s=2&a=29&p=1&at=
1
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>227835
I didn't say it had to communicate what community it was taken in, or where it was taken or anything like that...you're reading my comment the wrong way. When I look at Winogrands pictures, I look first at the faces of the people in the picture, and I try to imagine what the conversation might have been if they were talking, then I'll look at how they're dressed, how they move, and where they're at. I look to see if they're unique and stick out among the people in the background.

and again, Im just commenting on what I feel from looking at certain pictures and what a pretty vaguely defined genre is represented by to me. We're entitled to different opinions.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I somewhat agree with you.

I think that street photography, really, never did exist - it's always a photo of more than just defining the lifestyle of a certain community. In order for it to be considered good photography, it had to have some sort of element in it that is original, and in that way generally street photography is not - although there is always an exception.

When someone decides a tree is pretty and hey, they have their camera strapped around their neck, may as well take a photo of it, it's generally taken in a way that's been taken before. Sometimes, however, when one takes a photo at 2pm on a cloudy day of a tree that's just too yellow for mosts' liking, the photographer is always able to push the envelope by taking it, say, in a perspective that is generally not used - but it still looks good.

tldr; I consider a photo taken in an innovative, new way photography - not necessarily a photo of an innovative, new thing. Photography can exist on the street, to me, as long as the style hasn't been captured already.

Although yeah, it's definitely rare, it's possible.

Photo unrelated, I just think it's cute. :3.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePanasonicCamera ModelDMC-FZ20Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)36 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:07:25 03:51:42Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating80Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeSpotLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length6.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1920Image Height1080RenderingCustomExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>> Anonymous
>>227767
Old flickr pasta is old