Call me stupid, but I’ve never been able to really understand what street photography means. Is it random pictures of strangers? Urban pictures? People living their daily lives? What defines a good photo in that category? For example, a good wildlife photo is one that shows an up close view of an animal in it’s environment, a good landscape photo brings out the beauty of a landscape with an attempt to make it look grand and dramatic. What sort of general criteria is there for street photography since it’s all the hype now
You must log in or register to comment.
I think of it as just unplanned, unobtrusive photography in an urban setting, capturing events unfolding naturally.
Great street photography requires ironic vintage gear and wardrobe. Both can sourced from a thrift store or from an Ebay seller in the former Soviet Union. Having a mechanical typewriter helps (for blogging), as does a Victorian-era bicycle. Grow a mustache. If you want to be truly misunderstood as an artist, create high contrast b&w images that are underexposed and out of focus.
It’s just outdoor photography in urban environments. I personally focus more on architecture and taking photos that one day might be a historical record of an area. The older I get, the less I care about people being in my urban photos - and I even go out of my way sometimes to make sure no one is in them. I feel like people should be able to exist in public unbothered, which is why I find the aggressive sorts of “street photography” to be something I’d rather not personally be about.
For me, there are two types. Street photography with unique moments and artistic (contentious I know) renderings of human life on the street (think Joel Meyerowitz, Alex Webb, Martin Parr, Saul Leiter) . Then there is bad Instagram street photography, or dare I say snapshots, of random people on the street making gestures or scenes that are just not interesting. All falls under street photography but some people are just better at it than most.
This. There aren’t any thoughts behind most of Instagram street photo.
Is it a question of evolution? The good photographers maybe initially were trying to be unplanned and somewhat random, but end up developing styles and themes that are theirs. This is due to introspective and attention to what they capture.
People set out on instagram with the goal of being cool and edgy which is not focused on the art. They never get to a point where the art is developed because they are not humble enough as the street photography is more about them than anything else.
Sure, but you just described everything ever. The NBA has incredible basketball players. Your local pickup game at true park, no so much.
Top tier professionals tend to be better at ___ than the average hobbyist.
I like this definition from iN-PUBLIC.
Instead of a landscape, it’s a cityscape. Just like a landscape could cover most anything in nature, like a forest, mountain, etc etc, a cityscape can cover anything set in an urban environment. Generally speaking, it covers more people centric subjects, as opposed to urban architecture, but there aren’t any hard and fast rules. No need to overthink it.
it only refers to photos of random people who look angrily at the camera
Well you walk down the street and take photographs.
The only way to develop a true understanding of and appreciation for the genre is to study some of the greats.
Is it random pictures of strangers?
Yep
Urban pictures?
Sure
People living their daily lives?
Definitely
What sort of general criteria is there for street photography
There’s no criteria. Just as “bringing out the beauty with an attempt to make it look grand and dramatic” isn’t a criteria for landscape photography either. You photography is what you want it to be.
I’ve shot street for several years now. Here is my portfolio if you really care.
To me, street photography is (usually) candid photos of humans being humans in their natural environment. It doesn’t always have to be literally on a “street”, but it usually is. Likewise, it doesn’t always have to be candid, but it usually is. I personally tend to separate photos without humans in them as a separate category from “street”, but not everyone agrees. For example, photos of city environments without people in them would be “urban” photography to me instead of “street” photography, but again, that’s just me.
Best I can figure is that it means candid natural light portraits of strangers. However, it’s so trendy that people use it to describe several other sub genre, and that they value compact/ inconspicuous gear.
For me that’s capturing special moments, interactions or views in urban environments to tell a story through the photo.
Is it random pictures of strangers?
It can be, but it needs to have a story, something special in the interaction or the environment, I don’t consider that guys taking photos of young women in the street without consent just because “they are beautiful” is street photography (but weirdly that’s one of the most popular photo style on social medias…)
It means taking pictures of people without their permission when they are doing menial shit, slapping a blue, moody filter on it and posting it on social media.
No?
Post a photo in a Facebook street photography group. You’ll get numerous replies telling you that it’s not street photography. Post another after taking on board your feedback from the first. You’ll get more comments saying it’s not street.
Repeat this process and eventually you’ll have eliminated all the things street isn’t, and be left with what street is.
I always looked at it as capturing something about society or humanity at a moment in time. Either a person or something a person made, settings that involve people in the past present or future.