why is street photography so hated?

I think many of the street shots I see in the gallery are pretty ordinary and are being taken by people who would be better served finding a photographic genre that suits them better instead of banging away at something they are obviously not that comfortable with.

RFF tends to value 'street' above most other styles (for whatever reason) ... and I actually find that a little tedious because it tends to push people into an area of image making that is not really benefiting them photographically IMO.
 
airfrogusmc said:
People tend to hate all kinds of things they don't understand. They hate other people because they don't understand them. They hate some types of literature because they don't understand it. They hate some types of music because they don't understand it and they hate some types of art because they don't understand. Not every one but there certainly are those that do and I think I have history on my side.
Click to expand...

I'd suggest that most people don't actually hate the things they don't understand be they quantum mechanics, street photography, modernist art or Russell Brand's popularity. What they hate is the way that lack, and often obvious lack, of understanding makes them feel. No-one wants to feel stupid or unintelligent, not that lacking a full understanding of everything actually makes you so, but merely feeling so can be enough to lash out, belittle and dismiss. Personally I feel this is often, not always but often, the case.
 
OurManInTangier said:
just like you can't please everyone, or you'll always have people who loathe you, some people simply don't see how you see.
Click to expand...

Well said. It's good that we all don't see the world through the same vision. It would be a very boring place if we all saw the world and captured it the same way. You will never please everyone and thats OK.
 
Keith said:
I think many of the street shots I see in the gallery are pretty ordinary and are being taken by people who would be better served finding a photographic genre that suits them better instead of banging away at something they are obviously not that comfortable with.

RFF tends to value 'street' above most other styles (for whatever reason) ... and I actually find that a little tedious because it tends to push people into an area of image making that is not really benefiting them photographically IMO.
Click to expand...

I've always thought RFF, including the gallery, has a pretty good mix of subjects, genres and so on. I can think of plenty of people who seem to concentrate on landscapes, portraits, abstracts and even Lynn's seascapes appear to have been taken up by a few others. Essentially I suppose you have to be right in so much as Rf cameras are/have been long associated with the genre and many people come to RFF because of that relationship.

As for conversation/discussion rather than imagery, I wonder whether RFF does actually value 'street' above most styles. We've only just got a street forum, many people who say they are not interested in street seem to spend a lot of time in street threads disparaging it and the diversity of the rest of the forum regularly astonishes me - how many other photography sites range so regularly from wet plate work discussions, drum scanning techniques to Joe's latest bag;) In terms of what appears, to me, to be held in highest regard here I'd suggest Documentary and/or Photojournalism is the one that is given highest 'value.' I don't suppose even the hairiest bridge dwelling troll would be daft enough to suggest that lacks value.

Of course despite not considering myself to be anything more than 'photographer' I am still probably a little too invested to speak entirely without prejudice:angel::)
 
First: Sturgeon's Law: 90% of anything is crud.

Second, "hate" is a wild overstatement. "View with indifference" would be much nearer the mark.

Third: People who like cats and flowers can go "Aaaah! Pretty! But I'd have..." People who like street (among whom I count myself) tend to be slightly more active -- street is harder than cats and flowers -- and probably slightly more discerning. Which takes us back to Sturgeon's Law.

Cheers,

R.
 
OurManInTangier said:
I'd suggest that most people don't actually hate the things they don't understand be they quantum mechanics, street photography, modernist art or Russell Brand's popularity. What they hate is the way that lack, and often obvious lack, of understanding makes them feel. No-one wants to feel stupid or unintelligent, not that lacking a full understanding of everything actually makes you so, but merely feeling so can be enough to lash out, belittle and dismiss. Personally I feel this is often, not always but often, the case.
Click to expand...

Maybe dislike would have been a better word.:D
 
OurManInTangier said:
I've always thought RFF, including the gallery, has a pretty good mix of subjects, genres and so on. I can think of plenty of people who seem to concentrate on landscapes, portraits, abstracts and even Lynn's seascapes appear to have been taken up by a few others. Essentially I suppose you have to be right in so much as Rf cameras are/have been long associated with the genre and many people come to RFF because of that relationship.

As for conversation/discussion rather than imagery, I wonder whether RFF does actually value 'street' above most styles. We've only just got a street forum, many people who say they are not interested in street seem to spend a lot of time in street threads disparaging it and the diversity of the rest of the forum regularly astonishes me - how many other photography sites range so regularly from wet plate work discussions, drum scanning techniques to Joe's latest bag;) In terms of what appears, to me, to be held in highest regard here I'd suggest Documentary and/or Photojournalism is the one that is given highest 'value.' I don't suppose even the hairiest bridge dwelling troll would be daft enough to suggest that lacks value.

Of course despite not considering myself to be anything more than 'photographer' I am still probably a little too invested to speak entirely without prejudice:angel::)
Click to expand...

Very well put Simon.
 
back alley said:
i know we all can't be masters at it but i see pics of cats and flowers and kids that get positive comments...calendar pics at best...
Click to expand...

Do you mean here at RFF, other places or in general?

If street get hated its a reaction, and can be a positive thing. Its worse if its ignored.

I try to watch a few street photos, and even post a few (Flickr) that I call street. I surely don't hate street, but believe there is a room for improvement:
  • Publish in colors and avoid dreadful noisy low-contrast BW unsharp photos. The technology has moved forward, so should we.
  • Improve composition and other in post. If you don't spend time on post work such as framing (cropping and adjusting horizontal) don't publish
  • Do not publish photos that seem like they've been taken without consent
  • Have a goal, a story behind the photo.
Other might agree or disagree, that's fine by me. The question was why street is hated, and this is the closest I can think of as reasoning resembling hate.
 
FrankS said:
It is more important to some than to others, but external validation is nice to get. I understand that. Here's the big question: are you willing to change your shooting style from what pleases you now to something that may be more popular?

How happy are you with your images yourself, Joe?

Another question: Does changing your shooting style mean compromise or growth?
Click to expand...

This posting well deserves its own thread ;)
 
flyalf said:
  • Publish in colors and avoid dreadful noisy low-contrast BW unsharp photos. The technology has moved forward, so should we.
  • Improve composition and other in post. If you don't spend time on post work such as framing (cropping and adjusting horizontal) don't publish
  • Do not publish photos that seem like they've been taken without consent
  • Have a goal, a story behind the photo.
Click to expand...

Sorry Alf but that's missing the point.
 
I guess that with age I`ve stopped caring ...not sure if that`s good or bad.

I freely admit that I find it difficult to understand the depth of the angst which is often expressed.
 
Michael Markey said:
I guess that with age I`ve stopped caring ...not sure if that`s good or bad.

I freely admit that I find it difficult to understand the depth of the angst which is often expressed.
Click to expand...

I don't get it either Michael and my work is what it is. This should be fun but I can certainly understand why some don't want to post their work. And that is a real shame. I enjoy photography so much and I love to lok at all kinds of different work. I do have a solid preference for what I shoot, why I shoot what I do, and why I shoot it that way but I enjoy seeing the others do it. NO right or wrong way and I've said this before every time I have gotten rigid on what I think something should be I see something that changes that opinion. Stay open and this should be fun damnit LoL....
 
ok here's one of mine, very deep with layers and meanings and significance :)
feel free to love it or hate it!

U526I1188145749.SEQ.0.jpg
 
For my taste (I wanted to say MY) it seems a bit flat (needs a bit more contrast maybe) could be ok if the rest of the images in this project if indeed it is part of a body of work all have a consistency. I like the two trash containers on each side. They act like book ends but on the very far right low to mid frame there is something there that I don't think is helping.

I really like the pattern of the pavers and the one girl sitting in dark and the girl standing looking back with a light top and they are going against the crowd which seem to be focused on something in the opposite direction. I like that the girl sitting is on the line and that keeps the frame from dividing there. These two seem to be not following the crowd. Then it asks a few questions like why is she sitting and why are they not following the crowd and why are the looking back?

Another thing and because I am not seeing this in the large context of other work I think the pattern is really interesting but I think there is a line formed by the crowd dividing the frame almost directly in half which without other context might be more interesting to see a bit more of the pattern but that is personal preference on my part. This is still an interesting image that has a lot going on but handled well.

It might be nice to know if there is something to the two looking at the photographer but without some background we don't know that which could become very clear in a body of work. Don't fear words to help clear confusion. Duane Michals at times would write on prints and mats to make sure his work was fully understood.

Thanks for posting and I think there could an interesting body of work here.
 
A strong image that doesn't fit with a body of work can bring that entire body of work down if there is no visual flow or it doesn't work in the larger context. There is more than one way to see the world than Neds way Sorry Ned I know that is hard for you to get head around.

Pictures almost always lie.

There isn't a body of work to speak of? How do you know? We haven't heard form the creator.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top