Candid Street Photography / Discussions

Latest discussions
[german laws] Rechtliche Situation
Updated 2 months ago
5 replies
Kriterien für Straßenfotograf ie
Updated 3 months ago
My favourite street photograph
Updated 11 months ago
2 replies
FINALLY!
Updated 23 months ago
Hello!
Updated 2 years ago
17 replies
Demando - question
Updated 2 years ago
4 replies
Street photography, My little show
Updated 2 years ago
1 reply
Pool Content - Input please
Street Resources
Updated 2 years ago
4 replies
Admins? Moderators? What would you like to see here?
Updated 2 years ago
9 replies

Pool Content - Input please

posted by A picsbymac
Posted on Thursday September 27, 2007 at 12:22. 817 visits. ( permalink )
Hello all,

Thank you to everyone who has had time to contribute to and visit the pool. The first week of this group's pool has been great - we have lots of contributions.

In another discussion I asked what people want to see in this pool - essentially what says and is 'street photography' to them. The content is straying a bit from the classic definitions of street photography which typically involves people in the image.

I'd like input from members rather than this being my call alone (this is a public group). In the absence of input it's difficult for me and others to administer a public pool. It's time to say what you enjoy seeing here.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

For reference...

Some definitions and information about the genre is on Wikipedia It starts off with "Street photography is a type of documentary photography that usually features people in candid situations in public places such as streets, parks, beaches, malls, political conventions, and other settings."

One view davebeckerman.com

Another interpretation posted on Luminous Landscape

15 Replies

A Paŭl Peeraerts pro says:
And what about changing the name of the group to "candid street photography"? I know, in theory "street photography" is enough, but how many people know that? If you just analyse the words, you cannot blame those people who post a picture of an empty street ...
Posted 2 years ago. ( permalink )
A picsbymac replies:
I like your suggestion for the name....I don't have time right now to moderate the group in terms of reviewing all submissions, so clarity in terms of 'candid' may help.
Posted 2 years ago. ( permalink )
frasersfotos says:
I quite like Nick Turpin's view www.in-public.com/information/what_is particularly where he says

"For the Street Photographer there is no specific subject matter and only the issue of ‘life’ in general, he does not leave the house in the morning with an agenda and he doesn’t visualise his photographs in advance of taking them. Street Photography is about seeing and reacting, almost by-passing thought altogether."
Posted 2 years ago. ( permalink )
A Paŭl Peeraerts pro replies:
I'm not so sure about this definition. If I see a beautiful building, and react by making a picture, but that same building was there the day before and the week before and probably will still be there for years to come, this is no "street photography" to me. In the picture should be one important element that is gone few seconds later.
Posted 2 years ago. ( permalink )
ِِِ replies:
I agree with you !!!!
Posted 2 years ago. ( permalink )
frasersfotos replies:
Hi Paul, I agree with you, a photograph of just a static building in my opinion is not street photography, there would have to be something else in the picture depicting "life in general".

However I don't think that Turpin is saying that a building by itself is street photography.

I don't think there necessarily have to be people in the image, it might be something just depicting life today. Would something like this
www.joesnyc.streetnine.com/archives/bowery-september_04_2007_33.html
not be a street photograph? It doesn't pass your few seconds rule yet to me it captures "life in general".
Posted 2 years ago. ( permalink )
John Grey pro says:
I agree with Paul - for me adding candid to the title would make things clearer. But it is very difficult to pin down - for me lots of pictures that include people are not "street", they are just street scenes that happen to have people in them - there needs to be something more - some sort of interaction or interesting juxtaposition.
I wouldn't really agree that, on its own, the image linked above was street photography but I could see it as part of a wider body of work that overall was street photography in which people and their environments and the interactions between these might be explored. But that would really have to be an individual view rather than a collaborative photo pool.
Posted 2 years ago. ( permalink )
John Grey edited this reply 2 years ago.
frasersfotos says:
I'm not sure this will help but I came across:
www.nonphotography.com/streetphotography.html

Simply put street photography includes any photograph made anywhere in public places. Some people narrow it down to urban settings and some people think there must be people present in these kinds of photos. But the bottom line is that each street photographer will find their own meaning and approach therefore whatever definition they might arrive at will work just as well.

Perhaps a little more helpful is this:

www.auspiciousdragon.net/photowords/?page_id=316

Under the What? paragraph

The bit that catchs my eye

What do I take from that? Well, photos in a public place. Yes. With people. Yes. With an artistic intent. Yes. However, like all definitions this struggles to get across the “no rules” aspect of street photography. There are good street photographs that do not fit this categorisation.

I guess the question for picsbymac and the group comes back to - Is this group a 'people only' street photography group or more of a 'no rules' street photography group?
Posted 2 years ago. ( permalink )
A picsbymac replies:
For me capturing 'life' is integral to what I like to see in street photography. And I did have in mind that this group would present images depicting life and emotion (or lack of it), which in most cases would therefore include people, vs. urban fragments. BTW, the example you linked to above is very striking for me and presents both life and emotion, without people shown in the image.
Posted 2 years ago. ( permalink )
John Grey pro says:
The trouble is that a lot of this is personal interpretation - it seems to me that some of the most interesting groups in the other place are those where the admin(s) have a clear vision of what they want and are pretty ruthless about removing anything else. And people just have to accept that that is what the group is like
Posted 2 years ago. ( permalink )
A picsbymac says:
Thank you everyone, for taking the time to pipe up and discuss this.

I see some consensus on 'candid street photography'...I will make the change to the description and will clarify the description to refer to an emphasis on the inclusion of people caught in moment vs. urban fragments.

Definitions are a tough thing to come to....it's a terribly busy time for me right now but over the next week or so I'll put some thought towards one for the group and then float it here.

Reviewing new submissions one-by-one is not something that I can do, at least not alone (volunteers for admin or moderator duties are welcome!). For now I will add a note that the pool will be edited on an as needed basis for contributions that are not 'candid street photography'. And for images that are removed I'll email the group member so that they know why.
Posted 2 years ago. ( permalink )
Waxy says:
I like the idea about finding a definition for the masses, but I do feel it will be nearly impossible to construct such a definition. Street Photography is a misnomer in my opinion and it always will be. It is terribly difficult to develop an all-inclusive reference, especially since art evolves. Nevertheless, I appreciate all of you trying to put some boundaries on what is and is not acceptable for the pool. It will make the viewing quality better and that's cool by me. :-)

Also, if I may add my 2 cents, using the word candid means including people. But to be clear, there are many examples of great street photography that do not include people. That's something to consider. In fact, there is some impressive examples that show the human condition but do not show people. In-Public has some of these.

I respect whatever definition y'all choose, but Street Photography does not, by definition, need to include people. Here are some examples:

www.in-public.com/ChristopheAgou/image/992
www.in-public.com/ChristopheAgou/image/986
www.in-public.com/ChristopheAgou/image/991
www.in-public.com/BlakeAndrews/image/1321
www.in-public.com/BlakeAndrews/image/1323
www.in-public.com/BlakeAndrews/image/1330
www.in-public.com/BlakeAndrews/image/1331
www.in-public.com/BlakeAndrews/image/1333
www.in-public.com/BlakeAndrews/image/1334
www.in-public.com/BlakeAndrews/image/1883
www.in-public.com/AdrianFisk/image/2268
www.in-public.com/AdrianFisk/image/869
www.in-public.com/AdrianFisk/image/867
www.in-public.com/DavidGibson/image/1030
www.in-public.com/DavidGibson/image/1037
www.in-public.com/DavidGibson/image/1038
www.in-public.com/DavidGibson/image/1981
www.in-public.com/NilsJorgensen/image/2160
www.in-public.com/NilsJorgensen/image/2162
www.in-public.com/NilsJorgensen/image/2163
www.in-public.com/NilsJorgensen/image/2164
www.in-public.com/NilsJorgensen/image/2165
www.in-public.com/JesseMarlow/image/1178
www.in-public.com/JesseMarlow/image/1675
www.in-public.com/JesseMarlow/image/1676
www.in-public.com/JesseMarlow/image/1672
www.in-public.com/MattStuart/image/1653
Posted 2 years ago. ( permalink )
A Paŭl Peeraerts pro replies:
They are all very nice pictures, but IMHO they are not "candid street photography" but "street photography". I would add to the definition of CSP that you cannot make the same photograph 5 seconds after you've made the first one.
www.in-public.com/BlakeAndrews/image/1321 e.g. is static street photography, not at all candid. Here you could stay and make many tests shoots. In candid photography you can not make test shoots. It's hit and go!
Posted 2 years ago. ( permalink )
frasersfotos says:
For the sake of a group I guess there's got to be some guide and I respect the decision thats been made.

Personally I think Waxy's list of examples demonstrate that the candidness factor and a 5 second rule is very limiting and would rule out all of these respected street photographers images being in this group.

I think rules limit creativity so the more general they are the better. In my view the only criteria should be that images should depict todays life on the street.

At the end of the day it is up to groups founder/administrators what they want to see.
Posted 2 years ago. ( permalink )
Waxy says:
Well said frasers. Furthermore, I don't understand the time 5 second rule. Who cares if it is a short time later. It can still be candid whether it is the first shot or now, or whether the person realizes they are the subject or not.

The rules are terribly confining at this point and I'm afraid that many great examples of Street Photography will be left out. I know lots of people want clear guidelines about submitting, such as with Flickr's HCSP group, but the quality of the pool speaks for itself and I'd rather have an executive decision by the admins. That way, great Street photos can still make it into the pool.
Posted 2 years ago. ( permalink )

You must be logged on to post a reply. Sign in now?

rss Latest comments – Subscribe to the comment feed for this topic.

 

Català | Čeština nové | 中文 | Deutsch | English | Español | Esperanto | Ελληνικά | Français | Galego | Italiano | Nederlands | Português | More...