I'm starting this as a new thread, since I think it involves a greater subject scope than just the recent post I'm using as an example.

Grant invited us to see his images, (see his post) but they frankly don't do too much for me. I see images of people walking away from the camera, I see images shot from the hip of people passing the camera, I see shots taken looking down at feet and lower legs...

At first I thought Grant was trying to make a statement about the isolation, or lonelyness of city life, or about the individual swimming in a sea of humanity. He says not.

So, I'm left wondering, what is it that makes street photography work, and do these, and other images fit that paradigm, and what makes a great street image and why.

BTW, Grant... you're only being singled out here because you're the man of the moment. I've seen lots of other "street images" that similarly leave me wondering "why?", and yet others that really speak through the imagery. I appologize in advance.

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), May 11, 2002

Answers

first all, whats so wrong with being left to wonder why..... i find images that leave you wondering far more interesting than images that answer everything for you.

a theme is not necessary in order to make photographs. i dont know where you got that preconceived idea about what 'street' photography is or should be, but it seems that might be hindering your ability to experience things outside your tightly gripped mindset....

-- grant (lotusphotography@yahoo.com), May 12, 2002.

Well, I dunno... surely there must be more to a photograph, some input from the photographer, that make the images more what could be gotten by strapping a camera to the head of a large dog, and remotely triggering it random. Thats the way some "street" photography makes me feel, even some of (and not all of) your shots Grant.

I'm trying to figure out what makes truely worthy street photography, and what makes images just a bunch of mediocre tilted, out of focus, motion blurred photographs, taken at odd angles with poor exposure and printing.

I don't think I'm being tightly gripped here, but neither will I accept an item as art, just because the artist says it is so.

So, again... what makes some street photographs great, and others just mediocre or worse, worthless?

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), May 12, 2002.

This is an image that is in the museum of modern art. its by daido moriyama. this image leaves me wondering.....

-- grant (lotusphotography@yahoo.com), May 12, 2002.

something that is worthy is a relative term, so much so that it becomes irrelevant to attempt such concepts. you do what you feel, shoot what you feel. some people will respond to it whereas some wont. its not about being the best. its about doing what needs to be done...

-- grant (lotusphotography@yahoo.com), May 12, 2002.

This is an image that is in the museum of modern art. its by daido moriyama. this image leaves me wondering

(Sigh) Me too. It's a spectacularly poor image - should have gone straight into the garbage bin rather than onto a museum wall.

For me, candid photography requires an ability to capture people front-on without interfering in the sponteneity of whatever they are doing. Along with artistic creativity I also aim for some straight documentary or anthropological content - the idea being that when someone in (say) 50 years time comes to look at the image, then they'll be able to say "a-hah, so that's what they looked like and lived like back then".

I also insist on doing my work in colour (after all my eyesight is in colour), although I've come to realise that I'm in the extreme minority over this.

-- Andrew Nemeth (azn@nemeng.com), May 12, 2002.

thats walker evans (minus the color) youre talking about....straight documentary..

theres a lotta different ways to see....keep an open mind..

-- grant (lotusphotography@yahoo.com), May 12, 2002.

Are we to consider 'street' photography different from 'documentary' photography? Has the former become a genre unto itself, i.e. truly street work in a city, fast and furious, with the result being unframed, unfocussed, and unsharp? Is 'documentary' too rigid, too composed, and too contemplative a term? And what happens when 'street' photographers go indoors?

-- Ian MacEachern (iwmac@sympatico.ca), May 12, 2002.

Making a good photograph involves much more than walking around the city taking pictures of people's feet. I think a photograph can be good for many reasons.

A picture can be good graphically, i.e., well designed. It can evoke some strong emotion in the viewer. It can be good because of interesting, beautiful or unusual subject matter. It can be good because of technical quality and the quality of light. And yes, it can be good because it has a sense of mystery. Obviously there are infinite things that can make a good photograph. Great photographs usually have many of these characteristics.

A very wise photographer once told me that it isn't the lack of "bad" elements that makes a great photograph, it is the presence of something special, and often intangible, that pulls the whole thing together. It can be as subtle as the slant of a head or a fleeting expression.

Grant, There is a huge difference between a photograph with a sense of mystery and a photographer who apparently has no specific motivation for making a body of work.

Photographs that don't answer everything tend to be the most powerful. Good pictures raise questions and make the viewer think. But it is important for photographers to be able to talk about their work in order to learn. Whether you're in school, or pitching your work to a curator or editor, you need to talk eloquently about what you're doing and why. That doesn't mean you need to explain the meaning of every photograph, but it helps to talk about it in a general sense.

There's certainly nothing wrong with walking around the city with a camera. It can be a fun photographic excercise. But ask yourself, why do you photograph? To capture beauty? To record history or the human condition? Photography is like writing in a way; if you don't have a point of view or something to communicate,(and it doesn't have to be literal or obvious) the resulting work won't be very interesting to others. The more you share and talk about your work, the easier it will be to find your voice.

Frankly, the Moriyama image doesn't do a whole lot for me. It has a certain nostalgic feeling. Visually, I'd like it more without the terrible burn on the left. But if you see an image that really leaves you scratching your head, why not try to find out a little more about the photographer and his intentions? Perhaps in context the image works better. Grant, I think Charles and others were asking you about your work in order to understand it better. The images weren't strong in their eyes, so they wanted to understand what you were trying to do.

There's also nothing wrong with photographing purely for fun. Grant, if you had a good time making these photographs and they make you happy, then it was time and film well spent. But in that case, don't take critique from people on this forum too seriously. Just go out and have fun.

As far as the street photography vs. documentary, it's a very fine line and there's a ton of overlap, but I think the difference is intent. Most documentary photographers are trying to tell stories primarily about social issues. Many are hoping to raise awareness of certain issues. While "street" photographs very often contain social and historical content, they tend to be more about formal qualities. Compare Peter Turnley's "Parisians" book to any of Salgado's books.

And I don't think you have to be on a street to do "street photography". I would still consider Turnley's paris cafe stuff street photography.

-- Noah Addis (naddis@mindspring.com), May 12, 2002.

What works is not making the subject draw attention to the camera..Flash; loud shutters, noisy focusing lenses, fumbling with ones camera settings and meter helps ruin a classic photo..>>> If the person changes their current doings amd focus on you; the bumbling photographer...the photo event is lost....The act of aiming a camera at someone will bring up their guard...A 70 year old Rolleiflex will rarely spook your prey compared to the latest in your face like a gun SLR zoom camera with a pop up flash that goes off at the wrong time...

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 12, 2002.

Some 'documentary/street' work. A proper website is in the works.

The link

-- Ian MacEachern (iwmac@sympatico.ca), May 12, 2002.

Dear Charles,

You are opening a serious can of worms these days… I am found of street photography but as I see things, most of the pictures Grant presented to us doesn’t pertain to what I consider to be representative of that “genre” …

For me, street photography doesn’t mean out of focus, blurred haphazard framed images… It means a kind of sociological image of the time (past or present) and the place they are taken in. They might also be a testimony of all the things our eyes are no more seeing for the sake of habitude. They might be humorous too…

I have the same feeling you express when you tell: “I don't think I'm being tightly gripped here, but neither will I accept an item as art, just because the artist says it is so”.

Somewhere this theme reminds me of the question asked some times ago by Allen about HCB’s street pictures quality… Does the technical quality matters?

A question I translate by another question: does the image triggers any emotion and (or) any kind of message ?

HCB’s photos are not always top notch in technical qualities but they trigger something, they are obviously telling something to the viewer ABOUT THE SUBJECT…

To generalize a bit, I think a technically bad image can trigger emotion and (or) transmit a message if the subject is strong enough. Conversely, a very meagre subject can do the same when the technique of the Photographer is powerful enough to inspire the viewer. The best images combine the power of the subject to the technique of the photographer.

I don’t want to appear conservative or even reactionary, but street photography at its best is certainly not the kind of subject which benefits of a lot of unusual formal research, I think humility of the photographer in front of the subject, it’s ability to become a subjective witness without being obviously subjective is a better way to proceed. So to say the so called “modern art” approach to this particular activity doesn’t seem to me so fit.

Most of Grant’s pictures are better related to is personal vision of the city, the humanity around than what I consider to be street photography… It doesn’t seem to me his approach can be related to that genre just because they are taken in the streets. I can see HIS mood more than I can see the mood of the people he shoots… The fact I don’t like very much most of his pictures is irrelevant to my opinion here… He is simply more witnessing himself than what is around him…

Friendly.

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), May 12, 2002.

aLL yOU hEP cATS mISS tHE pOINT, iT'S tHE sWINGING bLANKS bABY, dO yOUR tHING! cELEBRATE tHE fREEDOM oF iNDIVIUAL eXPRESSION! cAN yOU dIG iT, mAN! Leitz M6, Elmar-M 50mm 1:2.8, B+W KR1.5 MRC, Fuji Sensia II 200, Polaroid SprintScan 4000:

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), May 12, 2002.

Okay, Glen, you win! I'm ordering that damned 50/2.8 today.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), May 12, 2002.

Opps, sorry for leaving off the second "n" in Glenn.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), May 12, 2002.

It's interesting that Grant chose to use a Daido Moriyama image to illustrate his point. Moriyama was part of a group of Japanese photographers (PROVOKE) active in the 60's whose goal was to undo preconceived notions of how a photograph should look or be made. Moriyama often worked by running through the streets of Tokyo, photographing without looking through the viewfinder. Thanks, Grant.

-- Steve Wiley (wiley@accesshub.net), May 12, 2002.

I find that Grant is on the right track, though more work needs to be done (and even he states it is a rough edit). I wonder how the series will look in, say 5 years if he keeps it up. I too try to avoid preconceived ideas when I look at photography today. Some things work for me, some don't. But I've been in disagreement with people before over these sorts of things and there have been too many instances when, given the test of time, things I thought not very good have proven to be otherwise. For example, having always had the preconceived notion to alway strive for the best quality print, when Polaroid Transfer first hit the streets, (with its missing parts of emulsion, torn edges, etc) I felt it would die a fairly quick death. I've given up really commenting on how a person sees - it is far too individual, and Charles images say as much about him as they do his subject, which is one of the places where street and documentary photography diverge (in documentary you are documenting others, you don't need to do this in street photography). Keep it up Charles.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), May 12, 2002.

Too early in the morning - I of course meant Charles, not Grant in the first sentence of my previous post.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), May 12, 2002.

heres my other site i did a while ago....i need to rescan the pix but i think you'll get the idea....

http://members.tripod.com/g4lamos/

there might be stuff there that some of you like more....

-- grant (lotusphotography@yahoo.com), May 12, 2002.

click here if you are lazy... :)

-- grant (lotusphotography@yahoo.com), May 12, 2002.

Nice stuff Ian.

I think I'm beginning to see some things about street photography, and what seems to make it work better in some instances than others.

It seems to me, that there must be some story, some message, some engagement of the people. Street photography must inevitably include people, or at least one person. The shot of the farmer with a front end loader full of beer... that tells a story, or at least invokes me to think of a story and situation. Most of the others also urge my imagination in a similar manner. I think what makes it work, is that the focus of the image(s) is based upon some broad appeal, rather than a narrow one (ie, pictures of the back of womens feet).

I think the analogy is sort of like a still life. If we photograph what was on my dining room table and called it still life... oh my! Some might find it interesting, some might find it (and me) a complete mess, but I dont think it would be considered some worthy artistic piece. Similarly, one might find a great bowl of fruit sitting in the afternoons light from a north window, and decide it was a great still life, and indeed it could be, and might be considered more than just a picture of a bowl of fruit. Therefore, the vision, the art, is in what we see as artists, and as viewers of art. The artist and viewer must "connect" somehow thru the artwork, I think, in order for it to have some meaning that is more than just very superficial.

Sorry for getting too philosophical....

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), May 12, 2002.

No need for Grant to get defensive about his preference for making the types of images he's presented here recently. That's just the way photography is--not everyone is going to appreciate all the different types of photography people do. Why I like one image or another isn't always something you easily explain to myself, let alone another person. When someone tries to explain why an image they made is good to someone who doesn't really care for it, a defensive position is usually taken.

Whether an image is "good" or not, that's left for each individual to interpret by whatever standards they go by-and yes, you can drive yourself crazy with this stuff. Some people think all photography should be athestically pleasing, some thing it should evoke a feeling of unease. These two people are not likely to agree that the same image is "good".

Just because it got published in a a magazine or hangs in a museum or was taken by someone considerd to be an artist doesn't automatically mean its an excellent photograph and that anyone who doesn't "get it" is an ingnorant, close minded person either.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), May 12, 2002.

For me, the most common (not necessarily inevitable) defect of street photography is that people are used as simple props in a composition which says absolutely nothing about them as individuals (since they're not known as individuals, this is almost inevitable), and because it's essentially a form independent of events, or news, or anything else contextual, it doesn't often end up saying anything interesting or worthwhile about the situation, either. Even HCB takes this approach of people as props, and consequently I much prefer his portraits to his street work.

I used to do a lot of street photography, and then, looking through pix in books one day I wondered who should care about all of this, anyway, beyond the exercise it gives the photographer? Or to put it another way, I find all still life photos boring, but especially so, and even slightly offensive (objectivization--isn't this the exact same reason some women complain about porn?), when the props are human.

That was the point that I decided that since I do like people pictures, I was only going to do people I knew or was somehow actually involved with, so that the individuals in my pictures wouldn't be simply interchangable objects of no personal importance to the photo.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), May 12, 2002.

Good points Mike. I disagree somewhat about the "props" part (not totally however). Let me explain. In some of the more engaging examples of street photography I think the photograph invites us to enjoin the people in their personal situation. I remember, and I'm at a loss for the exact image so excuse me, but I remember a photo in Life of a black man close up, crying as he was looking at the scene before him. A very engaging photograph indeed. Or how about the image of the naked Vietnamese girl running down the path? Also very engaging. Also showing there is a blur between the photography-journalist, the paparazzi, the war correspondant, social artist that make up a street photographer.

On another point - portrait work/people pictures. I might have a person for about two hours in front of my camera when they ask to be photographed. During that two hour period, I've sliced on the average 24 sections of time, ranging from 1/30 to 1/500 of a second. So I may have actually captured about 3/4 of a second of them on film. The rest of the time - we talk about them. I agree, you cannot take a good portrait without first knowing your subject beyond a mere customer/client relationship. Inevitably, some of the last images I expose are usually the best. Sometimes I wish I could say, come on over and we'll chat for two hours, and at the last second, I'll make a portrait of you, but it doesn't work that way!

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), May 12, 2002.

Here's a face... :)



-- grant (lotusphotography@yahoo.com), May 12, 2002.

One more...



-- grant (lotusphotography@yahoo.com), May 12, 2002.

Charles, perhaps a more concrete definition of street photography is needed? Is it really just any photography that happens on the street? Both of the photos you mention would be, for me, straight journalism, which is, for me, something different.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), May 12, 2002.

And in the same vein:

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0205/nutsandbolts.htm

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), May 12, 2002.

As I read all these responses, I'm convinced that you're all goal orientated. You all seem to want the journey to end before it's really began. Is that the only reason to photograph? Doesn't the Journey also have validity? One thing struck me about Ian's portfolio, they're all thirty year old photo's. Doesn't he have anything recent? It's as if Ian reached his destination thirty years ago and stopped. HCB reached his destination twenty years ago, put the camera away, and turned to sketching. I hope the journey never ends for me. So Grant, keep on truck'ng Man! And I will look at your photos as the Journey they respresent. Right now, I see your in "Legsville." Hey Man, I can dig it.

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), May 12, 2002.

I see shots taken looking down at feet and lower legs...

Manuel Alvarez Bravo:

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), May 12, 2002.

Whoops.

Manuel Alvarez Bravo:

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), May 12, 2002.

for me street photography is just like any other kind of photography, it has to do with feelings, but out in the street, and here is Don Manuel, but he´s not out in the street, but in the presentation of his book "Mucho Sol", in Bellas Artes in Mexico City, 1989 I guess.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), May 12, 2002.

I agree with r. He makes a good point there.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), May 12, 2002.

Often, I feel too self-conscious to phtograph people I don't know from the front. I'll use a 28mm, though, and work them in on one side, so it doesn't look like the camera is pointing at them. I actually have gotten two or three decent shots from behind.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), May 12, 2002.

One or more people have raised the question; is a photograph considered "street photography" merely because it was shot in a street. Of course not. Maybe the very term "street photography" is flawed, but I'm sure it's here to stay.

If I had to define it, I'd say street photography is an unposed way of working. It often, but certainly not always, takes place in public areas such as sidewalks, cafes, metros, etc. Glenn mentioned the "journey" of photography. That was a great point. For me, street photography involves a different journey than straight journalism or documentary work.

When I work on a documentary project, there is a great amount of work and research done before I shoot the first frame. If I have a story idea, I try to learn as much about it as possible. I then make contacts and begin the process of gaining access to the people involved in the story. I get to know my subjects and most likely, work with them for some time.

Often the street photographer's technique is to simply wander around an area with no specific goals in mind. That does not, however,mean that he or she is only interested in capturing moments without interacting with the subject in some real way. When I'm doing what I consider street photography, I'll often see a situation and work it for a while, waiting for nice light or a nice moment. Street photography can be intimate. It doesn't have to be the kind of blurry, frenetic, randomly-framed work that is often classified as street photography these days. Good street photography can be extremely difficult. Getting over your self-consciousness is probably the biggest hurdle for most people. Once you do that, you can move beyond the quick grab shots.

I also agree with François, I wouldn't consider Grant's work to be street photography. I find this work to be more about the process than content. Of course that isn't why I don't like the body of work. I'm drawn to work that straddles the line between interpretive art and documentary photography. The Manuel Alvarez Bravo photograph is a great example. It certainly has mystery, which only adds another layer of interest.

Grant, your portraits are very telling. They are honest and quite beautiful. Again, I agree with Glenn that you shouldn't let critiques of your work stop you. Learn from the critiques if you want, or ignore them. You have to do work that you care about and that lets you express yourself in your own way.

One other point. Something I learned in school and from countless editors, is to ONLY show your best work. Grant, I bet if you went through your work and picked out 5-10 images, it would be a much stronger body of work. If you have trouble editing your own work, get help from people you trust and whose work you admire. Putting someting on the web is showing it to the world. I don't know about you, but I only want the world to see my best work.

-- Noah Addis (naddis@mindspring.com), May 12, 2002.

A lot I to learn from you this morning Noah, hope you could see my street photography.

Found your words very apropiate and apreciative, thank´s

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), May 13, 2002.

I found this thread after looking at the current photo net "Photo of the Week" photographers work.

I think Paulo's stuff is a great example of street/documentary/photojournalism style. Little if any black & white, but wonderful nevertheless.

Go Here to see it.

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), May 13, 2002.

Firstly, I thin k that Glenn tarvisis one of the best street photographers we have on this forum, so his advice and pictures are always first rate. Secondly I believe that good street photography comes in two forms.

Firstly, you need to be able to get the shot exactly how you want in naturally, without interuption. HCB and Eugene Smith did this extremly well.

Secondly, you need to be able to build repore with subjects you wish to photograph for portraits. Mary Ellen Mark and Steve Mc Curry come to mind.

Anything in between, including some hip shooting is neither here or there. I can usually spot these sorts of pictures a mile away because they are not interesting and usually come from my camera!!! I need a lot of practise myself. Sowmthing I am working on, when I find time to get off the net and take some pics.

good luck and great post

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), May 13, 2002.

nobody 'needs' to do anything.....

-- grant (lotusphotgoraphy@yahoo.com), May 13, 2002.

ultimately i think the answer to the question "what's a good street photo" is the same as the answer to the question "what is a good photograph".

people will give you different answers to this question, depending on what they like.

-- Pete Su (psu@kvdpsu.org), May 13, 2002.

WHo are you shooting for? For yourself or for others? Who gives a rat's ass what others think if what you think is right for you esthetically?

How do you convey your moods and feelings via pictures and please everyone at the same time? IMPOSSIBLE!

-- Lux (leica@sumicron.com), May 14, 2002.

"Who gives a rat's ass what others think if what you think is right for you esthetically? "

Well, if you don't care whether what you do is any good, then obviously that's a coherent attitude. If you're trying to do good photography, then what other people think is important. Obviously we all have our abilities and interests, but there is such a thing as good and bad in photography.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 14, 2002.

"Those who are swayed by the diluting passions, are bound to the duality of opposites, and chained to comparison and criticism forever." Release your mind from bondage, and let go.

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), May 14, 2002.