Street Photography clichés, no no's and taboos.

airfrogusmc said:
Thought this worth a repost. I posted this early on in this thread.

What some of the greats had to say about rules:
"Photography is not a sport. It has no rules. Everything must be dared and tried!" - Bill Brandt

"There are no rules and regulations for perfect composition. If there were we would be able to put all the information into a computer and would come out with a masterpiece. We know that's impossible. You have to compose by the seat of your pants." - Arnold Newman

"When subject matter is forced to fit into preconceived patterns, there can be no freshness of vision. Following rules of composition can only lead to a tedious repetition of pictorial cliches." - Edward Weston

"Anything that excites me, for any reason, I will photograph: not searching for unusual subject matter but making the commonplace unusual, nor indulging in extraordinary technique to attract attention. Work only when desire to the point of necessity impels – then do it honestly. Then so called “composition” becomes a personal thing, to be developed along with technique, as a personal way of seeing." - Edward Weston

"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs." - Ansel Adams "

To compose a subject well means no more than to see and present it in the strongest manner possible." - Edward Weston

"And in not learning the rules, I was free. I always say, you're either defined by the medium or you redefine the medium in terms of your needs." - Duane Michals

"What I write here is a description of what I have come to understand about photography, from photographing and from looking at photographs. A work of art is that thing whose form and content are organic to the tools and materials that made it. Still photography is a chemical, mechanical process. Literal description or the illusion of literal description, is what the tools and materials of still photography do better than any other graphic medium. A still photograph is the illusion of a literal description of how a camera saw a piece of time and space. Understanding this, one can postulate the following theorem: Anything and all things are photographable. A photograph can only look like how the camera saw what was photographed. Or, how the camera saw the piece of time and space is responsible for how the photograph looks. Therefore, a photograph can look any way. Or, there's no way a photograph has to look (beyond being an illusion of a literal description). Or, there are no external or abstract or preconceived rules of design that can apply to still photographs. I like to think of photographing as a two-way act of respect. Respect for the medium, by letting it do what it does best, describe. And respect for the subject, by describing as it is. A photograph must be responsible to both." - Garry Winogrand


And this to your other point. BTW I agree with you as you can see.
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...

.... yep, they say that when they've become famous by following em ... then once they'er famous they trot out this stuff, Henri never cropped anything and the like ...
 
easyrider said:
Sorry to be disagreeable (well, maybe not :)) ) but the list is meaningless. Let me deal with just one item on the list: "People just walking." Surely it is still possible to come up with an original angle, original light source, an unusual person, an unusual composition, an unusual background, etc. to make such a shot original and eye catching? Or, am I out to lunch?
Click to expand...

Nope you're not out to lunch.

There's an old bird on this forum who does just that to great effect. I have commented in the past on how he seems to capture people dancing in the streets. For that reason I wouldn't call it 'just walking', so the photographs avoid that particular cliché/No-no.
 
Last edited:
easyrider said:
Sorry to be disagreeable (well, maybe not :)) ) but the list is meaningless. Let me deal with just one item on the list: "People just walking." Surely it is still possible to come up with an original angle, original light source, an unusual person, an unusual composition, an unusual background, etc. to make such a shot original and eye catching? Or, am I out to lunch?
Click to expand...

Being shown the same scenario shot after shot becomes tiresome real quick..yawn, shows a lack of invention/creativity
 
Street photography is by definition boring to me. As the world gets more and more populated, and most of the Billions of humans live in cities....on streets....what is so interesting? I understand we are attracted to each other, to the human condition. I'm much more interested in the vanishing solitude of wilderness and going extinct wildlife, than I am another human face. I can shoot those any second of any day. Boring.
 
lynnb said:
I guess that counts out us TLR users, then!
Click to expand...

... oh yes ... even though I count some of them among my friends
yes.gif






wink.gif
 
Sparrow said:
.... yep, they say that when they've become famous by following em ... then once they'er famous they trot out this stuff, Henri never cropped anything and the like ...
Click to expand...

Thats why it's important to hear what they had to say first hand from their writings. Not to follow anyone but to have a base to understand what you are doing by knowing what has been done. A big problem today is so many don't know history. In all art forms most of those that are great first love the art form therefore have a desire to know all about it thus learning the history. The sure cure for ignorance is knowledge and to know history is valuable. Too bad so many have such pride in ignorance and the lack of wanting to fully understand what they are participating in.
 
I'm just scratching the surface and that is enough to tell me that none of us should dictate to others what they should create, cliche or not.
 
easyrider said:
Sorry to be disagreeable (well, maybe not :)) ) but the list is meaningless. Let me deal with just one item on the list: "People just walking." Surely it is still possible to come up with an original angle, original light source, an unusual person, an unusual composition, an unusual background, etc. to make such a shot original and eye catching? Or, am I out to lunch?
Click to expand...

I'm another who whole heartedly agrees with this point of view. I think another overall problem with "street photography" in general can be summed up from an analysis of another field; With respect to people working in sales, there is a saying that goes... "Sales is some of the easiest lowest paying work out there, and some of the hardest highest paying work".

For many people who are attracted to this genre, its likely more of fulfilling a desire to shoot in a reportage or documentary style. Nothing wrong with that but if you aren't your own harshest critic, always thinking about what's going into an image, why you're taking that shot, why that shot did work, why that shot didn't work, working an individual subject with more than a single image, not just photographing what's in front of you, etc ...the results will never significantly improve. If you ever listen to some well regarded photographers talk about their approach; Costa Manos & David Alan Harvey for example, they often shoot 100s of frames around the same subject, sometimes only working 3 or 4 subjects over a day. Because most people don't approach street photography this way, most street photography is destined to be rather pedestrian and predictable...

Good street photography is, firstly knowing what represents "good" and why its considered good, then practice and more practice, objectively analysing your work, then editing heavily and start again with what you learnt in mind.
 
About posters in the shot's background vs the foreground:
HCB's (arguably) most famous behind-the-gare-st-lazare shot has a poster in it, which really, really makes the shot an order of magnitude better. Though many people won't even notice it and has to be pointed out to them :p
And who knows, maybe he even waited for someone in front of the poster, to jump into his frame :D
 
My argument is as photographers we should notice things like repeating shapes in images. I think really good photographs are images you don't always see everything in right away and because of that the work unfolds slowly with each return visit. That, to me, is staying power and is rarely about immediate gratification. Images you see and get right away you move on. No reason to go back. Yep it's obvious, ya I get it. The ones that are most compelling, in my opinion, are the ones that get you returning to because you might not have gotten it on the first visit. Obvious is easy. Posters with no relationship to anything that the subject is doing or has no relationship to anything in the frame could then be a distraction and maybe shouldn't be in the image. But to dismiss anything because of some preconceived prejudice is leaving out an entire world of things.
 
airfrogusmc said:
Thats why it's important to hear what they had to say first hand from their writings. Not to follow anyone but to have a base to understand what you are doing by knowing what has been done. A big problem today is so many don't know history. In all art forms most of those that are great first love the art form therefore have a desire to know all about it thus learning the history. The sure cure for ignorance is knowledge and to know history is valuable. To bad some many have such pride in ignorance and the lack of wanting to fully understand what they are participating in.
Click to expand...

airfrogusmc said:
I shoot street because it is such a departure from the fairly controlled environments I work in to make a living. Meyerowitz describes it so well here in this trailer for a very good movie. If you haven't seen it I would high recommend that you do.
Just push the play button by the S in poster not available.
http://www.traileraddict.com/everybody-street/trailer
Click to expand...

... I hardly ever pay any attention to the Greats, why would I want to take an old fashioned photo that looks like someone else took it? ... that would be a silly thing to do

I look at your work sometimes and listen to what my friends and acquaintances do say and think ... and one or two folk on here even ... no interest in bowing down to some sort of hierarchy of old or dead photographers, I think this thread is just a pointer to new photographers, just some advice on things that we have tried and failed at perhaps
 
You're totally missing the point. You shouldn't imitate. Like a great musician you are influenced. You take it all in and make it your own. To not know about the past and what has been done is to repeat it unknowingly. To understand what's been done is knowledge and knowledge is power and that power is a tool in a visual toolbox. But I guess like everything today ignorance is king and knowledge is the enemy LoL...
 
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

Adams should have been made to eat these words. I wish I had a nickel for every time Adams put down William Mortensen's right to exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top