Street Photography -- the genre (10)

I think Willem's pictures illustrate perfectly just how much thought goes into a good Street Photo, they are great. So much more than snapping strangers who just happen to be there!

OOH! Unrelated Photography pet hate!

Someone brought up This Guy a long while ago.

This was how I felt at the time,

Dodge wrote: Hmm, I'm probably going to get slated for this, but his images really do nothing for me personally. A good street photographer is able to spot and isolate a subject or environment and is able to catch the viewers interest with that subject. (Glassofwater in the 50mm challenge last xmas blows these out of the water in my opinion Here This shot, just this week, a stunning example of street photography Here Compare those to this : here And this : here just two quick examples. Really? Where's the interest?, where's the context? Where's the emotion? Heck, where's the subject? Any of us could attach a 35 or 50mm lens to a body and walk around town shooting at f16/f22 randomly and get similar pics. I just don't get it.......That or I have a hard drive full of street photograpy that I considered unfit for use which is actually bordering on genius There is an art to street photography, something that is so often missing these days. It invites you to exercise your imagination, or it shows you something interesting or thought provoking. I appreciate that it's personal preference, but to me a good street photograph comes along very seldom and takes a lot of luck. You can't just call yourself a street photographer by wandering around snapping everything that catches your attention......... well, you can, but it doesn't make it true. Nor does it make every shot interesting. The best and most important thing though is that he inspired you. If you can go out and pick subjects and put them into the context of their environment, then selectively choose and process the best, you are already better than he is. Research the styles and don't fall into the trap that street photography has no rules as is akin to freeform. It most certainly has it's rules. Good Street photography captures detailed snapshots of the lives of individuals, the viewer is invited into their world...... Sorry for the rant I don't usually criticize, but, really! C'mon. I could roll my camera down a hill with the timer set and get more interesting shots............. Oops, I'm off again.... better go lie down in a darkened room. I just know I'll regret this post later so I'll apologize now in advance

Sorry for the lazy quote, it sums up how I feel about the whole thing though

And just once more for good measure, for anyone who may feel I'm being harsh, THIS

A street photograph really at the very least should provoke a reaction other than "So what?"

Edited by Dodge - 16 September 2015 at 00:57

My definition of street photography: I don't know what it is, but I'll tell you when I see it!

I think Willem's is an interesting case because it doesn't have the classic trappings of the successful street photo: semi-wide angle to give a sense of location, most everything in focus, b&w... but it does have the one thing it needs to have: a story, one that is easy to relate to in a well-composed photo. And that's it!

I'm enjoying your sets, KoBra, for me they fit the genre of true street shots. Sometimes they are more documentary in nature, as if to say: "I saw something that caught my eye, let me document that through a photo." Nothing wrong with that. For instance the last shot, while not necessarily telling a story per se, is still an interesting shot, well composed, and you look at the guy in that window and wonder quite what the heck he is doing.

Sony A900 | Minolta 17-35G | 35mm | f/5.6 | 1/800s | 160iso

Along the White River near the central part of Indianapolis.
1
DSC08303 w by Mike Richart, on Flickr

Along the Canal
2
Window Talk 8287 w by Mike Richart, on Flickr

Both: A77II with Mino 24-70

leading eye

RichardT wrote: @Dodge I actually quite like Dave Mason's style, but contrarywise understand why you don't & at first I assumed it was a cultural thing, thinking you were American (because of the name, sorry !) but clearly you're not, but I do think the English/British (usually) like the slightly odd in life & Mr Mason's pics are just that. On the other hand & here I'm confused I think the examples you have chosen are excellent so what next ?? Willem's pics hit the nail on the head for me. Does that help ? I think "street photos" are very much a matter of personal taste, maybe ?? Yours confusedly RT

Hey Richard!

Naa, Dodge is a lifelong nickname that started when I was 11 (Roger the Dodger from the Beano).

My problem with Dave Mason's pics is that he seems incapeable of sorting the keepers from the rubbish like the rest of us inevitably have to. I agree, it is very much personal taste but I've really tried to find a redeeming feature in his work and I just can't.

Willem's pics on the other hand are fantastic. They portray a meaning or message about society around us. If he had been using a model to do it they couldn't have been any more striking or thought provoking or suggestive. He's found drama in the world around him and portrayed it in a way that isn't obvious, adding yet more interest. Most importantly (Please excuse the caps, but I think this is the key to street photography): THE VIEWER FEELS SOMETHING: IS MOVED IN SOME WAY, FOR HAVING SEEN THE PICTURE!

I imagine that Dave Mason on the other hand, if he had been faced with the same scene would have produced a snap that just happened to have a beggar in it as well as everything else. It's so easy, as someone else said (not about Dave Mason directly, but he is a perfect example), just pictures of any strangers that happen to be around at the time. If they happen to be dressed as clowns or leather bikers with their arses hanging out of their chaps, all the better! Even less need to be creative or think!

You do like it though, so it has to be subjective. To me though, anything that he finds that is eclectic or unusual, he manages to make it look boring and amateurish. There are photographic rules and yes, of course they are made to be broken, but randomly shooting like you are completely oblivious of them really isn't a style. It's just walking around going "Ooh that's mildly interesting" *Snap* "Ooh that's a bit random" *Snap* "Ooh, nothing interesting here" *Snap* I'm sure there are some great pictures on his site and flickr, but to me, he has more often than not missed them.

This to me is a perfect example HERE What an amazing, thought provoking, street picture that could have been (Needing no explaination, to make us wonder about the subject). The guy was even posing for him and it still looks like an average snap at best. I dunno, maybe that's the point I'm missing.

What worries me the most is that this is becoming acceptable as street photography because they have a talent for marketing themselves, whilst other, actually talented street photographers go by unnoticed.

I'm ranting again aren't I?

Maybe a Dave Mason Dyxum Challenge one month! We could even invite him to join in! Maybe have a special Oops, pressed the shutter release by accident again! trophy! Or aTiny 3rd arm growing out of my back !Trophy.

Edited by Dodge - 28 September 2015 at 23:00