Street Photography clichés, no no's and taboos.

People walking in front of a sign...it's just a person walking in front of a sign.

The backs of peoples' heads. Few things make you look like a creeper more than sneaking a shot behind someone's back.

There are exceptions to these, of course - but generally I find these types of street images really weak.
 
And as far as photography of homeless/down on their luck people goes...quick grab shots are voyeurism and cowardly, not to mention demeaning to the person's humanity -- in general.

Why not take the extra step and just engage the person in a conversation? Then it can be a portrait of an individual, instead of reducing the person to a caricature or a meme.
 
airfrogusmc said:
I feed the beast with my professional work so I can shoot whatever I want how ever I want to shoot it with no pressure to make $$$ with personal work though I have had some success with my personal work. Just not enough to give the family the life they so deserve.

As far as telling others how and what they should photograph, I believe as Ansel Adams believed:
"No man has the right to dictate what other men should perceive, create or produce, but all should be encouraged to reveal themselves, their perceptions and emotions, and to build confidence in the creative spirit."-Ansel Adams
Click to expand...

... that's not what he said about the pictorialists
 
Ko.Fe. said:
:rolleyes:
Do it quick. But start to work slowly on it :)
First, start to take if from the side:


Beautiful ... morning. by Ko.Fe., on Flickr

Then start to take it in front, but while they are on "not aware mode" a.k.a. talking on the mobile.


Princess... St. by Ko.Fe., on Flickr

I'm on the second stage right now, can't take it from the hip level in front. :)
Click to expand...

... yes, hip shots are wrong, be honest and look through the finder
 
Colin Corneau said:
And as far as photography of homeless/down on their luck people goes...quick grab shots are voyeurism and cowardly, not to mention demeaning to the person's humanity -- in general.

Why not take the extra step and just engage the person in a conversation? Then it can be a portrait of an individual, instead of reducing the person to a caricature or a meme.
Click to expand...

Or you could look at it as documenting the very essence of street life, in its rawest form? If you engage with the subject (no matter the background) is it then really street, or does it morph into some sort of sub-genre? It certainly stops being candid.

How is it any less fair to photograph a homeless person than it is to photograph a salary man?

I don't know the actual answer - I'm just posing questions...
 
Sparrow said:
... that's not what he said about the pictorialists
Click to expand...

LoL no he, Brandt, Weston, Cunningham and later Besson, Frank and Winogrand (many, many others to) just moved the art form beyond the pictorial. I don't think he told anyone what they should or shouldn't shoot he just believed, and he was correct, that for photography to become a legitimate art form it had to quit imitating another art form, painting.

I don't shoot for the hip either...

I can't dictate what other should or shouldn't shoot. Every time I say that shouldn't be the way you shoot something I see an amazing photograph shot the way I was starting to think it shouldn't be shot. I do have ways I shoot and that's good for me and the way i see. Ya like fine. Don't that's fine to. The way I work is in line and probably a mixture of Bresson, Frank, Callahan, DeCarava, Sauders (my street portraits) Winogrand. THose are also probably my biggest influences with Bresson and his philosophies being a huge influence for sure. And those are things that a re good for me. That doesn't mean I don't think there is real value in the way that others see the world which may or may not be in line with my philosophies.

Heres a great quote by Evans that I don't necessarily believe but I do find rather humorous.
"Photography is not cute cats, nor nudes, motherhood or arrangements of manufactured products. Under no circumstances it is anything ever anywhere near a beach." - Walker Evans
 
Yes ...but all this is the same old rehash.
Some like it ...some think its boring ...some start worrying about categories and authenticity.

Sooner or later someone raise questions about shots of the homeless.

For the record I can`t remember ever taking a picture of a homeless person ... have I .
 
Ned Bojic said:
I won't engage in this conversation because I'll quickly make a lot of enemies.

I'll simply say that I'm amazed at the high count of blind photographers out there. Photographers that don't understand what they're seeing ... It's scary.

I agree completely with Mikhail. No, an interesting poster or a weird punk does not make a good photo just because the poster is appealing (another person's work of art) or the punk is a punk.
Click to expand...

Thing is Ned, by saying that ^ you have just engaged in the conversation. And anyone with half a brain will be able to work out what you are saying. Especially when you've pretty much said it with the proceeding sentences ;)
 
Ned Bojic said:
I won't engage in this conversation because I'll quickly make a lot of enemies.

I'll simply say that I'm amazed at the high count of blind photographers out there. Photographers that don't understand what they're seeing ... It's scary.

I agree completely with Mikhail. No, an interesting poster or a weird punk does not make a good photo just because the poster is appealing (another person's work of art) or the punk is a punk.
Click to expand...

But if you can use a background as part of a larger visual whole like a subject is repeating the shapes then it takes a photograph to another level like Bresson's jumping man. ;)
 
Black said:
Feel free to contribute and steer it in the right direction then :)
Click to expand...

Well we're trying to define good street photography by the negative, that'll always be lengthier than the opposite, but even by doing that we'd go back to laying down "rules" about the genre which is also meaningless because even a photo that adheres to those rules could still be uninteresting to some.

I feel like I'm chasing my own tail :rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Sparrow said:
... do you think you possibly came to the wrong place then?
Click to expand...

Well, I do like the 0.1%!

@ Michael Markey: Very true that life is also 99.9% boring, but photography surely must be about editing.

I feel that street has becoming a bit of a fad that has been fed by internet communities, blogs, youtube channels, and probably marketing over the past few years. I don't remember street photography being such a hot topic even just a few years ago, now nearly every time I visit a big city there's class of street photographers on a "street" workshop taking pictures of park benches, close ups of discarded empty coffee cups, and getting up in everyone's grill.

It generally just seems entirely aimless, mechanical - as if somehow people feel obliged to take irrelevant pictures just because they have free time they ought to occupy with some sort of repetitive labour. Are they incapable of dealing with free time?

I don't mean to seem angry, I'm not, I just find it a bit strange.
 
Lauffray said:
Well we're trying to define good street photography by the negative, that'll always be lengthier than the opposite, but even by doing that we'd go back to laying down "rules" about the genre which is also meaningless because even a photo that adheres to those rules could still be uninteresting to some.
Click to expand...

That about sums up my my concern too.
It appears that the glass is always half empty though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top