Street style or just strutting?

Though it does add weight to the old saying that images say more about the photographer than the subject. (y).
Excellent. That means I am a series of bleak landscapes interspersed with damp impenetrable tangles. :D
LOL

It also means I am usually out of focus and slightly off center. Sounds about right.

Well, fellas, I'm just saying
If it makes you feel any better, then this means I'm a self-satisfied overweight cow chewing cud and....oh who am I kidding this is spot on! :blush:

BTW, I find this an interesting and refreshingly civil discussion about a potentially emotional topic. That this forum can support such an exchange is one of my reasons for liking it so much.
Agreed 100% mate. I would not have raised this topic elsewhere. Just imagine where we would be now on DPR? :dash2: Looking forward to more commentary.

Kristin - that was a great post - where'd it go?!?!? I read it and liked it and came back looking for it and POOF!! Bummer - very useful input for sure...

-Ray
Mate normally I was responsible for these random vanishings...a charm of my Mod powers...but not this time.
Kristen?
 
Kristin - that was a great post - where'd it go?!?!? I read it and liked it and came back looking for it and POOF!! Bummer - very useful input for sure...

-Ray

Thank you Ray I am glad you liked it. As to where it went, you read the last line.. so you know. I was uncertain about leaving it regardless of how well it was worded. Mark, I respect your choice to voice your negative feelings over Leuthard's technique/work on another post rather than gumming up Sue's link post-- but I also feel that ruminating on negativity creates indigestion. I prefer to concentrate on the positive. My post essentially said that and was probably a lot better worded than this little quip now.

Anyway I thought I would share this link I had saved some time ago, about what one photographer feels street photography is. One photographer-- but I thought it was summed up fairly well What Is Street Photography (again)

Also, he speaks of technique towards the bottom of the post. At the top of his page there is a tab for techniques. I have read a few of them so far. Street Photography Techniques (Summary) , Street Focusing Techniques I , The Stutter Step and Street Photography

The sausage analogy was a good one. If you knew the techniques behind getting certain shots you might find them unpalatable. Particularly with war journalists. There is a war going on and they are out there photographing destroyed homes and dying civilians, it's a lot like raping the rape victims a second time before their last breath-- and yet you are compelled by their work. They reveal the worst of us and the best. Kevin Carter: The Consequences of Photojournalism -*I read elsewhere that Kevin Carter while told not to touch the victims, did follow the girl to the camp keeping the vulture away from her after he finished getting his photo. Napalm Girl photographer Nick Ut releases other work from Vietnam war .

Some street photography isn't much different. I recall a street photographer who managed to capture a woman wearing disheveled clothing carrying a suitcase with agony written all over her face in tears. I thought how horrible to step up in front of her and capture such a fragile, personal moment, and I didn't even need to see his technique. And yet he captured the pain of heartbreak and one can not help but to feel compassion for the poor woman. Particularly if they've been there. One has to look. Just like one looks at countless homeless people photographed as they beg on the streets. It's not the kind of topic matter I like but it is necessary sometimes because only if there is proof can the proverbial feet be held to the fire of accountability.

I'll probably leave this one Ray. :)
 
I have followed both threads but refrained from commenting till now.
I find really good Street/War/Journalistic work impossible to look away from.
It shows us a place we would not dare go ourselves.
Whatever we feel about the methods used to get here, we are complicit as viewers/consumers/whatever...
 
Well in my defence, some of us simpler folks define and refine what we do like in light of what we don't. Just like we define or refine who we are by what we are not.
I am not a red neck, I am not a Christian, etc.

I make no apologies for approaching a 'problem' from the negative position, as it often proves useful and often delivers you to the positive quicker than you might at first think. With everyone's input I have identified what truly resonates with me about street photography by focusing on what I despise about it. OK it mightn't be orthodox but it often works for me. Apologies for bringing the unwilling along for the ride, but thanks to those who helped refine my thinking...and better appreciate the genre.

Now I tell you what else I hate, it's them.....BUUUUUURRRRRRP. Excuse me... well no indigestion here. :blush:
Nice one Kristen ;)
 
The Dave Beckerman article that Kristen posted above is very good. It caught my attention when he compared street photography to hunting or fishing, two analogies that often come to my mind when I think about the subject. He did not dwell on those analogies, and people who do neither may not identify with them, but they work for me. When one goes fishing there is no guarantee of coming back with anything, but there are things that can be done to improve the odds, and in my experience street photography is very much like that, as I believe Ray showed us with his NYC work. Do you fish, Ray?
 
Do you fish, Ray?

I recently saw an interview with someone (can't remember who), who was asked the same question. He replied, "No, I don't like myself enough to fish". I can't top that answer so I'll go with it too. But I agree there are similarities.

There are a lot of questions relating to street photography and how to do it, but I think this particular thread mostly revolves around the question of whether you're trying to spot a moment (and be in position to shoot it without interfering) or trying to make the moment happen in order to shoot it. There's no right answer or wrong answer - plenty of good and bad shots have been done both ways. But each shooter needs to figure out what works best for them and where their comfort level is. I know from trial and error what works best for me. Everyone needs to figure that out for themselves and experience is probably the only way to get there.

-Ray
 
I enjoy viewing street photos. I like what many contributers here post especially in more urban areas. I also have some idea of the process that some use, such as Ray and Don's process. I don't do street photography. Locally there isn't much that ever would interest me in doing it. I also have my own reservations about taking photos of people who might not want their picture taken.

The thread I think, however, touches on two issues, at least for me.

The first is about subject interaction. I've seen some good shots and bad shots where the subject knew that there photo was being taken. From what I've seen over the last few years, this is a mixed bag. I think this really depends on the photographer and the subject on how well it works.

The second issue is, at least from watching the two videos, is at how close the photographer is to the subject. When I look at this, I think to myself, "would I mind if I were the subject?" For me, I could care less if someone is 5 or 10 feet away and taking my picture. I could be in the worse possible situation and if I didn't know and found out later, I wouldn't probably care. If I did know that my photo was being taken, and depending on the situation, I might ask the person to delete the picture, but this situation for me would be rare. In all honesty, most times, I could care less about my photo.

On the other hand, I see these photographers almost shoving the camera into the subjects faces. Just looking at this, it appears almost like "paparazzi" like. I believe on some level, we all have our own personal space, be it on public or private property. This to me is just wrong and unethical.
 
I must have completely missed the last... damn time zone differences... but whatever... I just LOVE this comment. Can I use it? It made me laugh out loud :)

And, thanks for the links, yet more reading to be done!

LOL yeah you can.

Well in my defence, some of us simpler folks define and refine what we do like in light of what we don't. Just like we define or refine who we are by what we are not.
I am not a red neck, I am not a Christian, etc.

I make no apologies for approaching a 'problem' from the negative position, as it often proves useful and often delivers you to the positive quicker than you might at first think. With everyone's input I have identified what truly resonates with me about street photography by focusing on what I despise about it. OK it mightn't be orthodox but it often works for me. Apologies for bringing the unwilling along for the ride, but thanks to those who helped refine my thinking...and better appreciate the genre.

Now I tell you what else I hate, it's them.....BUUUUUURRRRRRP. Excuse me... well no indigestion here. :blush:
Nice one Kristen ;)

Actually what I said wasn't offensive Mark, and as I stated when you asked, my summary of it didn't nearly put it as eloquently. What it came down to was that people like what they like and don't like what they don't like and tossing in the sausage analogy, many of us would not like if we saw what went behind a lot of these shots. BUT.. while as I stated before I am neutral on Leuthard's work, some good, some ehh.. I do appreciate that he is sharing how he achieves what he does. I have a passion for photography and when there is an open-source photographer [what I call those who share] I give them credit for sharing, palatable or not, how they got to the end results because it helps me and others like me to learn. Even you in the case of your not liking his technique or results. Sometimes it's learning what NOT to do.. like the Gilden flash in the face thing. I do not like that. Sometimes it's learning a new technique like shooting from the hip like Zeno and others or pretending to examine your camera like Wigfall while taking a shot. Even Beckerman's 180 turn, snapping and just keep turning like you are looking for something to shoot. So while I can dislike some methods, I can still appreciate that the inside story is being shared and that I can benefit from what I take from it. I don't think Thomas is bragging, I think he's just sharing, and as english isn't his first language he is trying to be a clear and concise as possible. I always give a little room there because face it all I can speak is english. No need to defend yourself it was not an attack, not at all, but when I hear "I don't like" I also want to hear "I do like". :)
 
On the other hand, I see these photographers almost shoving the camera into the subjects faces. Just looking at this, it appears almost like "paparazzi" like. I believe on some level, we all have our own personal space, be it on public or private property. This to me is just wrong and unethical.

I'm saying a negative [not ruminating Sue!] in agreeing. Paparazzi is exactly what I think and with a flash, invasive paparazzi deserving a punch in the nose. And then if asked not to do that or please delete the photographer ignores the request and walks away or worse gets on a podium and proclaims it's their right because it is in public, that just angers me. Wrong and unethical as you said. I believe in treating people like human beings. Maybe I will never become pro because of this but I shoot because I like to and if one day others really like what I do, great, if not, it will still be my hobby.

I've been doing the street thing on and off for a couple years now. While I am still learning [my first love is macro, both are intimate] I have already had arguments with some of these photographers over what they are doing-- so for me it's old news which is why I want to move beyond it. I have to remind myself sometimes that for others they are just hearing of certain people or techniques and I should give them the time that I had to digest it and if necessary spit before it goes down the pipe.

All this stomach talk, I think I am hungry lol.
 
Just thought I would add a few thoughts on the subject.

As a casual shooter I am very conscious of not offending and getting in people's faces to get a good photo. Especially since I am not getting money, why bother people and risk a confrontation. Even around family I am selective when I take a picture. I don't want to be so focused on getting a good shot that I miss the fun, or get in the way.

That being said when I go to an event such as a carnival or a renaissance fair I am a little less shy when taking a picture. If you dress up, don't be shocked when I snap a picture.

Similarly a simple heads up is appreciated. By simply uttering the word, "Smile," people tend to not get upset.
 
I think we also need to realize that people are more afraid of photographers than before. An awkward moment can suddenly go viral and really embarrass someone in the larger community.
 
I would agree that the discussion at hand is: "are you observing, or creating, a moment". But the issue I have is when you "make a moment" by being Papparazi-like, as Djarum puts it. Also, getting a camera, and especially with flash, right into a person's face is CLEARLY designed to illicit a reaction. You can't ignore it. You are challenging the subject. You are making something, not just recording something.

Asking (only) how the photographer feels about this is, in some ways, depersonalizing the subject. How does the subject feel about it? And btw, grabbing a flash shot in someone's face, then moving on into the crowd (as in Leuthard's videos), requires the subject to break out of their shock and chase you down to ask to delete the picture. That's hard for some folks to do. My wife is a strong introvert, and I can promise you, she would feel violated and upset, but would not chase down the photog to ask them to delete the pic. Is that just "tough nuts" to her? Why?

"Look at this character" (one of Gilden's perspectives) is depersonalizing and even stereotyping in some way (isn't it fun to gawk at photos of "others").Though the pictures are interesting, the lack of humanity in Leuthard's apparent approach doesn't interest me.

It might be public space, but public space is defined by the community, by the law of the community. If this kind of shooting spreads, it could lead to movements in law to ban street photography. In other words, that kind of "make a moment" photography could lead to a larger clamp down on photography, which would not be welcome, IMO.
 
As a US citizen, I am not conversant in UK law, but there are many, many posts on UK photogs being harassed in public spaces. It seems to me often by police with an incorrect reading of the law, as I understand it. But this is a side issue to my main point. I've deleted the reference from my post, so as not to cloud the point.
 
I would agree that the discussion at hand is are you observing, or creating, a moment. But the issue I have is when you "make a moment," as Djarum puts it, by being Papparazi-like. Also, getting a camera, and especially with flash, right into a person's face is CLEARLY designed to illicit a reaction. You can't ignore it. You are challenging the subject. You are making something, not just recording something.

Asking (only) how the photographer feels about this is, in some ways, depersonalizing the subject. How does the subject feel about it? And btw, grabbing a flash shot in someone's face, then moving on into the crowd (as in Leuthard's videos), requires the subject to break out of their shock and chase you down to ask to delete the picture. That's hard for some folks to do. My wife is a strong introvert, and I can promise you, she would feel violated and upset, but would not chase down the photog to ask them to delete the pic. Is that just "tough nuts" to her? Why?

"Look at this character" (one of Gilden's perspectives) is depersonalizing and even stereotyping in some way (isn't it fun to gawk at photos of "others").Though the pictures are interesting, the lack of humanity in Leuthard's apparent approach doesn't interest me.

It might be public space, but public space is defined by the community, by the law of the community. If this kind of shooting spreads, it could lead to movements in law to ban street photography. In other words, that kind of "make a moment" photography could lead to a larger clamp down on photography, which would not be welcome, IMO.

You have a very valid point. I was going to say, think about it from the opposite direction. How would you feel if you were strolling down the road and some random guy turns around and takes several pictures? You have no idea the intention of the photographer, nor the intent of the picture.

Now I get the whole street photography thing, and sneaking in a few shots of some unsuspecting individual. There is a bit of a thrill there, but let's not be invasive and give photographers a bad name.
 
wt21 said:
As a US citizen, I am not conversant in UK law, but there are many, many posts on UK photogs being harassed in public spaces. It seems to me often by police with an incorrect reading of the law, as I understand it. But this is a side issue to my main point. I've deleted the reference from my post, so as not to cloud the point

Ah. Unfortunately removing the reference makes our posts look rather obtuse.
Well, for completeness, there are no general restrictions on photography in public places or of places of business (so long as the photographer is not illegally trespassing) in the UK

To return to your point, I have read this debate over and over in different forums (which is not to say that it is not worth repeating). One sticking point often seems to be an obstinate insistence on the part of some photographers that "It's my right to take your photo in a public place and it's your problem if you don't like it, not mine".

I detest having my photograph taken under any circumstances, let alone by a stranger without permission. At the same time, when it has happened, I would have felt such an arse in going up to him or her to complain (this has nothing to do with the mythical "English reticence" by the way) that I have chosen not to do so.

One difficulty perhaps that does pertain particularly in the UK is the ubiquity of CCTV monitoring of public places. Such intense and constant scrutiny may well give rise to a heightened sensitivity to having one's soul stolen in public ...
 
Back
Top