Of the last 20 shots in there, only a few are actually "street shots".

Carina, Kopi, Fabio, Roelant and Kaveh make the cut. The rest - while fine shots, are better off in EVERYDAY or PORTRAIT or MOOD.

No wonder real street work here gets such a poor showing - the few gems that highlight the style are so diluted with completely NON STREET work thrown in as well.

It seems that nuances are under fire from broad sides of DOF effects and photoshop blurs.

To make a wry comment here with a double entendre to another irk of mine in screening comments - the street category has too much "noise". :-(

/Rant.

Cheers,
RF.

Hi Richard,

I shot some interesting street scenes with a lot of story. But it makes no sense to send them to OE, because I think they do not meet
the criteria (???) of this site.

Greetings

Frank

Frank what is the harm in testing the water? are you denying yourself the chance of publication through fear of rejection or through some kind of crystal ball knowledge?

Gerhard, thanks for your reply.
The more I read the critiques, the more I am insecure.
But you are right, I should not pass up the chance.

Frank

Frank I am not right lets just say I just have a feeling!

Gerhard, whatever, your feeling ist helpful.

Frank

i'm afraid your rant is to no avail richard. i had the same grievance regarding documentary not too long ago.
oh, and in case the site asks you to have a look through the street category, and to send them an oe mail with the list of images that shouldn't be there... spare yourself the trouble... they won't follow up on it, and won't bother to write you an answer either.

oops, i shouldn't have said that, should i now ;-)

Richard, for me street photos are non staged photos of people including also portraits. it does not have anything to do with photoshop or blur.
maybe i am wrong...

That's why I kept it to the "last 20" as that is a good enough sample set for me. And this isn't CPI indexes that we are talking about here.

If anyone here (crew) wants a lesson on data warehousing and data mining and data cubes and recursive referential relationships and calculating statistical significance - I can do that too. I have both sides of my brain being equally strong and capable.

Point is - most of the work there IS NOT STREET. And it pisses me off because that is what I think is also causing the atrophy in the screening of street too and the popularity amongst the masses. How on earth are people able to see what street is an gain an appreciation for it, if it is diluted like some dodgy alcohol speakeasy? It is like putting single malt scotch whisky into a can of coke and selling it and expecting people to have ANY clue as to what properties make up a good scotch whisky.

I get that most people don't have the smarts upstairs to get BBC style comedy versus USA style comedy. And street work vs pretty abstract, air brush, eye candy, whatever falls a foul of the same cultural trap. So what is to be gained by not pushing out more and questioning people's comfort levels?

Much like the chat about Parr over in the magnum photo thread. I did not get it (Parr) - but I questioned myself for not getting it and a discussion ensued.

If there is no forum (IE: a category called STREET and filled with STREET) for people to view and then question themselves and their own tastes and philosophies - then what else are to expect but homogenised same ol same ol (ie the last 3 months). That and street work is kind of symbiotic and self reinforcing - it is worth more when seen as a collective.

I can see how documentary can suffer because it is a close cousin of street as well.

Call a spade a spade. Not a shovel. It is different.

I hope this doesn't come across as sour grapes due to rejections. They are just the catalyst. I have been banging this drum already for a while.

Give me my home page news feeds so I can follow others that "get it" and then I can go back to ignoring the homepage sans for the odd gem now and then. Either that or put screening back the way it was 6 months ago.

Cheers,
RF.

Correct. I am railing against the preponderance of arty-farty-blurry, photo shopped, layered airbrush work that is in the street category. That work is fine. But it ain't street and it is incorrect to lump street work in there with those kinds of shots and then expect people to be able to appreciate the RAW, basic, unedited and sometimes crude nature that street is in fact.

Should we not consider adding a category called Photojournalism? That one is quite broad, and in the mind of the viewer, quite forgiving.
PJ can be flexible, and can accommodate 'arty, out-of-focus street/everyday' as well. Speaking plainly - this will allow for any type of work you see in a newspaper, whether an elective edited and artistic photo that might be seen with a researched article, or the type of street that Richard (correctly) refers to.
Then again.....
On the other hand - as long as the site maintains a spirit and willingness of fairness between all the types of work submitted, and here the screeners and site owners will have to maintain a subjective input, why not do away with some of the categories.

RTFM

there used to be an urban category on oe long time ago, but then urban photos like cityscapes got included in the street category....

So on another thread, there was some discussion of having a forum post or wiki or something similar for each category of photography, with experts in the category explaining both the essence of the category and the qualities that make for a superior example of the category. In that thread, everyone seemed to think it was a great idea, but nothing has happened with it. It seems to me that this sort of information would do something to ameliorate the problems you're raising here. I suspect that in some cases, photographers submit to the wrong category not to pervert it, but because the distinction isn't clear. I know that screeners will change the category of a photograph in obvious cases (e.g., an abstract image posted to "fine art nudes") but I think it's less likely for them to change the category in less clear-cut cases, as Koen points out. I realize that it's probably not possible to define a category so completely that it will be obvious to everyone exactly where every conceivable photograph fits. I do think it's possible to define it well enough that it will be clear in the majority of cases. I suspect that if the number of poorly categorized images were significantly reduced, it might help to lessen Richard's discontent.

Since it appears that nothing will be done in the short term to make a special location available for these discussions of categories, I would urge Richard to start a forum post "What is street photography" that explains his view of street photography in a didactic way. I'd also urge others to do the same for their particular area of expertise. Koen would be an ideal person to start the thread "What is documentary photography," for example. If we get a nice set of threads on the various categories, I would guess that they could be migrated to their own forum topic or a wiki or whatever quite easily. The upload instructions could then include a link to that area to assist people who are unsure of the category to which a submitted photo belongs.

Another thought that might do something towards appeasing the opposing camps of PS/no PS and also facilitate proper categorization would be to split each category into two sections. So you could have "traditional street" and "digital art street." Obviously, there will be borderline cases, but I suspect that most people would agree about most cases. It seems clear that if you look at most categories, they are full of images that have been extensively edited. One could argue that all of those should have gone into the "Creative Edit" category. I'm guessing that a huge number of the photos on 1x would land there, with only a handful in each of the other categories. I think splitting the other categories and changing the creative edit category to something like "composited work" would probably clarify things in a way that would appeal to many people. For the "purists," it would make it easy to distinguish those photos that are done either entirely in-camera or using only traditional darkroom techniques (even if done in the digital darkroom) and those that are edited more extensively.

Thank you Fedor! You just proved my point. Your categorisation and taxonomy is INCORRECT!

Your manual may say that a carrot is a pumpkin - but that doesn't make it a pumpkin. All the wishing and self rule making in the world won't do that. It is called a CARROT.

So by labeling as such you are incorrectly enticing people to send in work and you are doing a disservice and a DILUTION to the name "Street photogrpahy" amongst the lesser versed new photogs out there.

The issue is not WHAT 1X likes or dislikes or pubishes or not. The issue is that the populace here are so sheltered and myopic that good street work receives a 5% popularity rating! Maybe not 100% or 65% or 45% or whatever......but 5%? C'mon there is a gap here in the knowledge and understanding of the audience of 1X. Even I vote for landscape shots and macro shots and preened model shots too. I can see the value and concepts to a degree in those style because I have THE OPPORTUNITY to see it clearly in one place and not HIDDEN and DILUTED.

Back in Robert's thread we talked (or I did) about being "Custodian's of the Arts" as well as styles. Showing leadership and promoting development.

That is impossible for street while it is mis labelled here as such and younger less exposed readers constantly look at stuff that is out of place by comparison. Do the shots fit in in general? Go have a look? No. So just like people are conditioned to think that noise is bad and mega pixels are good. People are never going to get to learn to appreicate or even know what the hell "Street Shooting" is.

The world and street shooting won't live or die by 1X. What is a shame is that it is claimed that 1X is catering to all tastes and has good diversity (go see arguments about documentary) and it is just one great big smoke screen. The fact is that most of the work on 1X has the same look and feel to it. Polished, photoshopped, air brushed, perfectly orchestrated "scene" shots. That is fine. But just say so. Don't put up vague labels like "Street" classify it with everything under the sun and then claim that the opportunity offered is diverse and that actions and submissions can change what is put up.

Crap.

Why would the average user vote on favourable or upload street when it is hard to come by and understand in the first place and is scared to do so in the latter case.

Call a spade a spade is all I am saying. This isn't rocket science. If you say something, do it. If you don't, just say that you don't. Simple. And don't mis use labels and names, it is doing an artistic disservice and rape to the affected genre.

Cheers,
RF.

@ifdefelseif

It may not help to have 5,000 different categories with minor differences. That is not the issue.

The issue is that the label "Street" has a very commonly accepted definition out there in the world. What 1X have done is take the public domain name "Street", take the public domain concept or design of it and then added all their own definitions (diluted/perverted) and then shove it up there with a qualifier on an "About" page that is tantamount to saying...."Well if you see the word 'Login' it doesn't mean this, it really means to 'delete'.

You don't need a million definitions of what something is. The world has established that.

Have a million ideas as you suggest on how to make a good example of something and variations and the like. But don't try and fundamentally change the established and known global definition of a label.

Cheers,
RF.

oh oh, I'm labeled as a street-photographer! hehe, that's cool :))

Richard,

I have absolutely no desire to change the definition of anything. In fact, my desire is quite the opposite. I believe that the problem you raise has two parts: understanding the definition and acting upon it (in the sense that miscategorized photos be moved to the correct category). As far as I can see, the second part depends completely on the first part.

1x (as well as the majority of other photo sites) has a membership that includes a large number of people who are just starting out in photography. As I'm sure you know, the advent of the digital camera has made photography readily accessible and easy for amateurs who may or may not have any foundation in photography from the more academic point of view. By academic, I refer simply to the history, categorization, theory, etc. of photography. I think your point is fundamentally the same as mine. We are both interested in education. In your case, that desire manifests itself as an insistence that street photography stay true to its definition. In my case, it manifests itself a little more broadly, across categorization as a whole.

Of course it's true that the world has established the definition of street photography. That doesn't mean that every photographer that submits a photograph to 1x is aware of that definition. Posts of the sort that I've advocated serve two purposes. First, they would make the definitions of each category readily accessible in a single place and facilitate proper categorization both for submitters and screeners. Second, they would educate people not only about what the category is, but about what makes an example of that category exceptional. In other words, they would be helpful not only to those wondering where to submit (and clarify when a photo is in the wrong category), but also to those screening and/or critiquing photographs from the category.

As for splitting categories on 1x, it may not be appropriate to do it quite so simplistically as saying "traditional street" and "edited street," but I think you could certainly have categories such as "traditional street" (or just "street") and "urban edits." On the other hand, I'm not so certain that the definitions of things never change over time. The role of artists has always been to stretch the boundaries, to invent and to reinvent. For this reason, definitions sometimes evolve.

In any case, I think that some of the time we all spend in the forums complaining about things could be well spent in dispassionate, discursive exposition that would be helpful to everyone and might indeed end up being quite productive and interesting. Complaint is only one avenue towards change. It seems to me in the short time I've been here that it doesn't generally end up producing action on 1x. Perhaps another avenue would be more efficacious? :-)

Here we go again... I don't have the time to read everything written here so I am just responding to the original post without regard for any other responses to it.

I consider myself primarily a street photographer because that is where the majority of my work comes from, but by just looking at my work you would never know it. But when I upload a street portrait or a moody street shot I always tend to put it under the street category because to me that is where they belong.

Richard I think you are being far too rigid with the definition of street where it pertains to this site, I looked at the 20 images and I didn't see one that I felt shouldn't be there, yes they could be crossed over to other categories as well but that is where the photographer felt they best fit. Street can be traditional à la Bresson or Street can be something more subtle. That is my 2 cents worth and now I have to get back to work.

Tracy - it is not me that is being rigid with anything. I am not making the definition. I am simply adhering and stating that there is an accepted standard for the definition of "Street" - established in the world for a long time and how it is used here is not in line with that common understanding.

I don't need to b rigid about calling a tomato a "fruit" and not a vegetable. The fact is - it is a tomato. And street shots don't have to be on the street either!

Street is just a label - it has nothing to do with streets.

It is about the unexpected, serendipity, chance. Yes it is often a little blurry, hastily composed, etc. But the meat of it is the chance and documentation of the world that we miss without the frozen in time concept of a photo.

You, I, the man on the moon can think whatever we want for something to be. But that doesn't change what it is. There is a very well understood definition of what street is and isn't.

You can't honestly say that the 1X definition is not polluted or perverted? If it is - which it is. Just say so. No need to make excuses or justifications. It is the crew's right to make the category whatever it is. Just say "we think it is something else and we still choose to then use a misleading category label".

I don't have to upload street. I can upload other stuff. But I resent spending a LOT OF TIME on street work ostensibly for an upload here and then the shots get 5% popularity. I only have to ask myself why is that the case? And apart from the shots being total crap - I have to come to the logical conclusion that people can't like what they can't understand. And they can't understand what they can't see and study. And they can't do that if you label things incorrectly.

Just use the correct labels. A simple and frank logical request.

Cheers,
RF.

Richard, just out of curiosity, how do you personally define Street shots? I am not being rude, i am honestly curios! :O) I have my definition, i just want to se how it stand up to others opinion.
/
E

@ifdefelseif

It's because I care and love the site that I complain. Otherwise I would just flee like a rat does the sinking ship. ;-)

Richard,
It's abundantly obvious that you care! :-) I'm just saying that when complaint doesn't get you where you want to be, try something else. I think you hit it spot on when you said


So, do what you can to change that. Educate us. Don't just tell us the definition exists; provide it, give us a link or reference, show us positive and negative examples that explain why a photo does or doesn't belong. Of course that goes for experts in every category. The other thread made it pretty clear that a significant number of members are hungry for this kind of knowledge and guidance. You can beging to provide it for street photography; I'm sure others will contribute if you get it started. Many of us will be extremely grateful and enlightened. :-)

@Elisabeth Gustafson

It is all those little moments that happen in life. That we miss without the camera. It is about taking those little moments be they normal or accidents of fate and documenting for what they are - or for how they give each other context if captured together. It is more often than not what is captured that the photog did not notice and that he noticed after or often someone else noticed something more too.

It is about highlighting the chance, luck, serendipity, humour and coincidence that is life. It is not about focus, rules of thirds, perfect exposure, sensor dust or noise, centre frame, corner frame, upside down, whatever. Get those things nailed as well - just extra warranties - they are not the core of the matter.

These moments and scenes can be anywhere. A street, a car, a plane, an office, a boat, inside, outside....where ever.

In a nutshell street photography is all about the serendipity and the juxtapositions that go with and there is only one or less than one chance to click and capture it.

I can't plan street work. I can't edit it in. I can only disappear in the crowd and keep my eagle eyes peeled and 6th sense primed. On the other hand I can go and take a shot that I know because ,X, Y and Z will be walking that way... or that Mr ABC will pose for me, that is something else. It is portraiture, uban landscape and mood, etc. It is not street. The demands are different, the results are different and the enjoyment is different, They are completely different beasts - as I outlined in my analysis of the 20 above (that is 20 as at the time of writing).

The other shots there are cracking and deserved to be pubished - but they are in the majority and they drown out the very style that has given it's name to the category!

:-s

Cheers,
RF.

Ah! Now we're getting somewhere... :-)

This is street:

http://1x.com/photos/street/23443/

This shot that I linked above - romps home the definition in spades.

These too are also street:

http://1x.com/photos/street/23426/
http://1x.com/photos/street/23353/
http://1x.com/photos/street/23318/

This is a portrait:

http://1x.com/photos/street/23357/

These are urban landscape:

http://1x.com/photos/street/23434/
http://1x.com/photos/street/23329/

This is documentary or mood:

http://1x.com/photos/street/23440/

Thanks Richard! It seems we're getting to something now :)
With your permission I'd like to share this:
http://fc11.deviantart.com/fs11/f/2006/227/e/2/street_photography_for_the_purist.pdf

And also a question (for the sake of conversation and learning, not for controversy!). I've read somewhere that some street photographers are "hunters" and others are "fishermen" (more or less), which means that some prefer to choose a good/interesting background and wait for someone/something interesting to happen. Not exactly serendipity, I'd say. Do you consider that is street photography? ;)

Mostly, it's perfectly clear why you categorize those the way you do, given your definition. I'd be interested to have a comparison of http://1x.com/photos/street/23329/ and http://1x.com/photos/street/23318/, since they have many similarities. I think that comparisons between such photographs can be particularly enlightening. I think a little more exposition about the last one you list would also be helpful. What is it about this one that makes it documentary rather than street? I think I can guess what you will say, but I think being explicit will be really informative.

@ Richard; Thanx for explaining your point, and how you see it. I am with you in what you say, but i necessarily don't agree about the motifs you say doesn't fit, but that is a whole other story! :O)
Cheers!
/
E

richard, portraits can be street too, but not all portraits are street. if a portrait is photographed in a public area and not staged it is imo (everybody has a different definition) a street photo too.

@ Ines.

It depends. My basic common man on the street test, is, is it something that is rare and special and we need the camera to 'see' it. If I know that a given place is, say, likely to have a flood of people at 12:30 eating lunch and all the pigeons and seagulls know of this place and the photog knows that the people will throw bread at the birds. Then not really - as you can see that everyday and by virtue of the fact that the photog knew of it and that people readily do it - where is the special serendipity and juxtaposition?

Now you may well get an awesome shot of birds on people and people and birds interacting - the joy of photography book by Ernst Haas has a great example in it. But that is not street. Nothing has been revealed by the "x-ray" of the street shooter.

@ifdefelseif

The guy with the umbrella. Nice photo with wonderful tones and reflections and angles and lines. But where is the special interaction between the elements in the scene? Where is the juxtaposition? Where is the moment of chance that needs a camera to allow us to see it?

The concentric circles and the head - well that is chance - a hunted shot by Ines post - but we can't see and stare at that scene without the aid of the photographer and a photograph - it is split second. There also is an interaction between the elements in the scene (the best street is when the subjects aren't aware of the interaction!!!) that creates a strong (or many!) juxtaposition there.

@remo

You are correct. However a portrait on the street where there is no interaction and hence juxtaposition between the subject on the street and the elements about it that could only be noticed and created the scene because of the camera, then it is not street.

If the portrait is of someone interacting with the elements to the point that a juxtaposition is created and an alternative meme or idra presented apart from the literal - then yeah - that is street.

It is not too hard a concept or rule to apply. Street in a sense is not photography. It just uses photography to CREATE the scene most of the time and for the same reason that every one likes a photo - to preserve it as well.

Most scenes/juxtapositions and shots that are street can only exist because of the camera. To that end, street shooting is often a self enabler by virtue of it's existence it creates the subjects for itself to use. Unlike pretty much all other forms of photography, sans maybe macro or IR/UV.

Cheers,
RF.

I am all in favor of deleting the category "street" and move the images into "architecture", "portraits" or "everyday". I am also in favor of merging the categories "mood" and "illustrative" together, deleting the category "night", moving "nature", "landscape" and "macro" together under "nature", moving "everyday" and "documentary" together, and and and... ;)

I am all in favor of deleting all categories and just call it photography!

Richard,
Perfectly clear and lucid explanation between those two photos and just about what I expected--thanks for the clarification. Just to push a bit more, I have another question. According to Inés, the concentric circles photo is hunted. I think you could make the argument that if you wait long enough, someone will walk by and you can get your juxtaposition. How is that different from waiting at the people and bird lunch spot? Does it make a difference if you wait there and only shoot when you spot a remarkable juxtapostion, perhaps an unusual interaction between a person and a bird or between people?

Not a bad idea! :)

I was going to say something similar, but in fact the circles photo was fished (or what I meant by fishing: the photog spotted the place and waited until someone had his head exactly in the middle of the target). I'm surprised by your concept that if you visit a place because you know what may happen there (i.e. people eating + birds) the resulting photo is less "street" than if you happen to pass by chance. And also the idea that if you see it everyday, then it's not street.
So, street photography is exclusively serendipity and juxtaposition for you. Mmm. I must review my ideas about Brassaï :)

No, it's not a bad idea from one perspective, but from another it may not be so great. If I'm interested in learning more about a particular category either from pure curiosity or because I want to become a better screener, understanding a category becomes important. I agree that as photographers interested in improving, stretching, and broadening our horizons, not categorizing photos may be the best approach. But in terms of appreciating and judging a particular photo fairly, we need a context. Art students take courses in art history of all periods and cultures, learning to appreciate works within their own cultural milieu for a reason, I believe. I think Richard's point is that judging street photography absolutely requires judging it within the parameters of street photography. To apply the same criteria to a street portrait and a studio portrait is not the right thing to do.

I had the same reaction as Ines, even further. The photog could have set up and asked a friend to walk thru, "no wait, walk thru again only 2 meters closer"...

Richard, I understand and ADMIRE your passion, I do think this argument comes across a bit "tight", even perhaps forced...

wow, after reading this thread i'm quite happy i'm shooting mostly landscape :)
i don't care much for labeling photography and i hardly ever use the category menu
when i browse this site. i could probably live with just a handful of them anyway.

Agree Remo...this would maybe solve the ongoing and everlasting discussions about what is what and where to put it... i belive that its not just street category that has "wrong" images in their folder but this goes for all categories....my work for example many would like to call pretty pixels and heavy edited work..even if they really almost all are macro shots with little or none editing. I solve this by putting all of my submissions these days in creative edit so that member screeners wont be hung up in this when voting...really a hopeless and childish solution but i think that Richard is right about the fact that people put things where they feel it belongs, and then as a human and perfectly normal reaction, voting also will suffer from this as people logically will get a negative feeling about the shot if they feel that the photo is not in the right category...i may of course be totally wrong here, but this is how i feel nowadays. Lately i feel that despite in a large amount of very good published work here, OE are fighting a struggle within the forums that many are very disappointed and angry over that "their" category is beeing voted down and maybe they feel that there are not enough understanding here about " their genre". The fight and the discussions over these thing will continue and i really think its a sad thing as this rearly ends up as constructive. This because each photographer will stand up strong for their own genre and ultimately shout out in frustration and may also leave OE eventually...as of course as a great loss for the diversity and good stuff beeing published here..we need all and we need all types of good work...now, a discussion about rights and wrongs may lead to education and learning for all of us, but i feel that these discussions almost all ends up with frustrated members...not a constructive way to go IMO...Ok..it may be naive to think that we all will live on this earth in peace and harmony...and it may be naive to think that these discussion is not necessery, but thats ok..i might be naive but i still feel that embracing all good photographic work is a good thing to do and not be so hung up in ways to do thing right..or wrong...i might be that naive but i look at the final result...and my conclusion is that there are a lot of very good work here in ALL categories :) i like that :)

It's nice to be able to pick a category in order to view a bunch of like minded images if I am in a mood to look at one genre or another.

If the categories serve any other purpose at all, I have no idea what that is.

yes i like the categories too, i was just making fun.

of course its nice to have categories..but all negativity that comes out of all these discussions are not IMO contributing to educate..and that is too bad i think...now the explanation that Richard provided is educational..and that would perfectly fit in a educational thread..so maybe we all should come up with similar in our fav genre...like: "this is how i define street..this is how i define abstract.here is wikis definition..." and so on...you know as they say"for educational use only" ;) may stop a lot of negative vibes and frustrations....? :)

i see your point willy. an artist (i dont see myself as an artist, i'm a photographer) is free to say what his piece of art should be. so a landscape can be a portrait, a portrait can be an abstract etc... its all up to the artist :)

This was exactly what I was saying and in fact what Richard ultimately did here. Again, apart from the convenience of being able to view a particular category of images (which many might want to discourage), the other advantages are that special categories such as street and documentary are judged in screening and critique according to the requirements of the genre to which they belong. If you follow the critique section, you see the same suggestions time and again: "follow the rule of thirds," "too much noise," "distracting objects," etc., as though the only things we knew were the bullet points offered in screening. I'm sure that it must be frustrating to street photographers to have their photographs judged by the same standards that studio photographs are judged by, and I think that was part of the problem that made Richard start this thread.

I don't think that discussions of genre need to be negative at all, and that was why I kept requesting a constructive definition rather than a simple complaint. To me, the complaint is only constructive to the extent that it starts a useful and informative discussion. I think that we have the beginnings of a good educational thread for street photography here. IMO, we should extract the parts that contribute to an educational discussion and start the first of what should become a group of threads to cover all genres. It would be great to have a dedicated forum topic just for these, but in the meantime, I think they could go into the "about" section.

Who is to judge, what is a "street shot"?
I took a pic of some horses pulling a waggon on a Street.
To me that's a street shot. Anything wrong with that?

Lars :-)

well said then :) it was this i ment, but you said it better than me :)
yes. And eventually i think that all would benefit from the way artists think when it comes to photography also..after all this is art..no matter what category one puts his work into..so why all the arguing? i much rather would have discussions that educate me in different styles and tecniques :) so the idea on a thread for all categories with howto`s and definitions are to me very interessting and good:)

there is no judge lars, but there is a common definition.
it is a street photo as long as it is not staged, now we could argue about what is staged or not, but that would be another endless discussion....

Sorry--I meant to say the "Philosophy" section. Of course, if Jacob wanted to add a special section... ;-)

Remo - You try stage these horses!

I love these endless discussions

Saves you a trip to the Church Service!

Lars :-)

:P im tired.....lol good night all :)

Well, I think this one wasn't one of those endless discussions :)
There's common knowledge and a historical base for what street photography is, and that isn't necessarily what Richard says (and certainly not what I think!), or anyone for that matter. But I agree that it's enlightening to compare and discuss, and eventually produce educational threads as several have mentioned above.
But please, come to this with an open mind! Don't start by jumping to the others' jugulars with confrontational sentences, leave irony aside, don't act as if there was only one Truth in the world, and then we might have something interesting to read :)

Ok Inés - for me Steet Photography is, what you stumble on in the steets of a big City, a smaller City or a Village. Stumble on, not stage .......

Lars :-)

Absolutely. There is a tradition in academic writing that allows you to say things such as "There is some disagreement about X. Some experts believe "a" and others believe "b." Most agree that "c." I think people can handle divergent points of view quite well. If there is a common basis, people can cope with the fact that some of their colleagues disagree with some of the "peripheral" issues.

Lars ;)

I've got a book on street photography waiting to be read (together with a few more), but here's a couple of definitions I've found in the first chapter:
- "it seeks to comment on issues of social and cultural importance" (Ian Walker, 2002)
- "Candid pictures of everyday life in the street" (Weterbeck and Meyerowitz, 1994)
- "Street photographers pursue the fleeting instant, photographing their models either openly or surreptitiously, as casual passersby or as systematic observers" ( Gilles Mora, 1998)

And a few more from the web:
- "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." (Nick Turpin, 2000; www.in-public.com)
- "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." (nonphotography.com)
- "Street Photography is a fine art sport typically played in single-city territories throughout the world by people infected with the buzz of the flow. You might say that all roads will eventually lead you into the crosshairs of a street photographer's camera, for there are thousands of them -- -- here and there and everywhere" (www.streetphoto.com)
Oops, maybe not that serious! ;)
It's worth reading this short article about the different types of street photography: http://2point8.whileseated.org/2006/05/18/the-phylums-of-street-photography/

So, anything else as main course?

Inés--that's terrific! Thanks for taking the time to put that together. In addition to the "what," we'll also want to add the "what makes is good." That will of course be more difficult, but I think it's really important. In the case of street or documentary photography, especially, it's important to realize that a lot more of the standard "rules" may not apply, or at least don't apply with the same priority as they do for a photo over which the artist has complete control. Other genres will have other prioritizations.

You're welcome, Diane! :)


Totally agree! And that's part of Richard's complaint too, if I'm not wrong. So, we need specialists to come out and shed light on this :)

Richard & Co: Thank you for a most interesting day of reading. I share quite a few of Richard's sentiments myself, however, I reckon that a site like OE has a lot to offer - warts and all. However, it should not become the most important the measure of one's performance. Most of us are serious amateurs, and with that in mind, should be simply happy that some entrepreneurial Scandinavians (bless them) created this avenue to for us to reach out to others that share our common interest.
In that vein OE is not perfect, however, it does seem to allow input from others that are knowledgeable in their particular fields.
It remains frustrating to upload, just to be turned down. I have only been a member for a short while, and have never been so dissapointed afa acceptance of my work is considered.
However, is it really that important that everyone out there votes for you? I do believe that many artists out there would not have reached their status as true artists had they subscribed to a popular forum to gain acceptance.
You clearly stated today that you have little regard for OE's way of dealing and discriminating against street. Many members contributed to this forum, maybe because they share your particular concern (count me in on this), or maybe because they project this to another category that concerns them.
I really feel that this to-and-fro conversation will bear no fruit unless there is some concrete resolution to this whole issue.
Simple: We know what the problem is. Let us them make a proposal to the site owners that a synopsis of each and every category should be made available on the site. Nothing too complicated - simple guidelines that can assist us to decide. You kindly submitted examples of what you consider street, portrait and documentary. However, I felt that I disagree with some, which just again points to the fact that there will always be so much subjectivity involved in these issues.
Guidelines, as long as they are short, and not too puristic/pedantic, will resolve this problem to some extend, and allow us to move onto less cerebral topics to discuss, like for instance how to take better pictures.
Over to the management.....

@ifdefelseif

Well in the case of a bird and a person interacting - yes it can be special and different and unique and serendipitous. The example was just one to show the broad strokes of the definition. There is always a bit of blur and movement around where the line is drawn. That is normal as opposed to just trampling over the line and then running a few more hundred yards - as is the case in 1X.

As to the concentric circles and fishing. Fishing is fine - and what makes this more of a shot than fishing for birds is that you can't see this image and story/scene without the photograph. Birds and people. Well you can sit for an hour and experience many moments.....

@Ines

Not quite. The main point of street work is that the moment ONLY exists in the camera and the photograph. That is the self fulfilling nature of it. As opposed to something that one can readily see and witness with the naked eye and then may photograph it to share. In street, yes you photograph it to share - but you photograph it - TO MAKE IT. Fishing or hunting are minor points to this clear main argument.

@ifdefelseif

True! And the real street shots in there are in a minority and only the more generic street shots that cross over into the cornicopia of definitions that is the 1X self reengineered concept - the more edgy and less generic (as in could pass as another form of photogrpahy) look down right weird and off. It is putting a smelly fruit next to a pretty apple and saying pick the best one. Most people will go for the pretty apple with no ability on how to judge or enjoy the smelly fruit. As as kid I always wanted banannas and never an avacado when given the choice. As I grow up and mature and develop a taste and understanding of stuff that is not sweet and chocolate, I learn to appreicate and love more the avocado. I was given the fair chance to learn and sample and not sent into a fruit store to only be surrounded by ice creams and jelly doughnuts!

@Clyde

It is about the result - not the setup. Can that image be seen everyday by normal naked eyes? No. It is a self fulling art style. Additionally, I didn't make up the style or rules. I am only used to and trying to keep the common public domain understanding of what it is. As mentioned above - step around the line, step over it, blur it - that is human nature. But to barge through it with gay abandon and charge off in a new direction - then fine. But give it a new label. No hijack and misappropriate an already understood and clarified label.

@Willy,

Wise words. I am all for EMBRACING new work and allowing others to embrace it. But how can one embrace something if it is smothered in something that it is not?

@Christian,

Street has nothing to do with "being in the street" or "on the street". Who made the rules? Well the public acceptance of the style that was pioneered by people like Bresson and Winogrand.

@Lars

Street has nothing to do with "being in the street" or "on the street".

@Andre

Thanks for writing - I am glad you enjoyed this. Please be clear that my issue is not about if things are voted for or not - or if they are published. What set my radar off, was that work that was rated in popularity at 5%. Now that is abnormal for shots that may or may not be 1X material and may or may not be good examples of the genre. But 5% suggests that there is a systematic issue with that Genre of photo's.

Then if you go looking in the pool - you can see why for the points I made above.

Christian and Lars also make good points as does Ines about people's own perspectives and definitions. And that is all fine within a "reasonable orbit" of the main topic. To go with the celestial analogy more, at 1X if the Sun is the core, rigid and uptight definition of street photography (go look at the Hardcore Street Photography group on flickr) and the view points of Ines and myself and other street shooters are represented by venus, earth, mercury or maybe even possibly mars and jupiter in some case. At 1X they have thrown in Pluto and Alpha Centurai into the mix too. And the STATE as such on their pages as Fedor so kindly pointed out.

It is now no longer the "Inner Solar System" but it is the "Constellation". So give it a new name. It would be fine if they labbeled it "Street and Urban".

Definitions and opinions are fine, Just don't manifestly and recklessly abuse a label and title. Because it misleads people and then they can't learn or appreciate something and decent work ends up getting 5% popularity in screening.

How is that good for photography of any genre?

Cheers,
RF.

@Richard: just to clarify one thing: when an image is rejected with a 5% popularity bar, it usually doesn't mean that the members voted overwhelmingly against it, but that it was rejected by the crew without having been put in member screening at all.

Oh - interesting - but that is even worse then. That shows a massive prejudice and lack of ability to understand and enjoy a key form of photography amongst the crew/screeners. That would certainly fit with the common style of wistful, air brushed, moody shots on the front page and the directional change in the last 3 months.

So back to my OP - does that not raise a question if the crew reject immediately but many established and skilled photogs here with somewhat good judgement see value in shots in critique?

Where does this leaves Jacob's statement in agreement with me in Robert's thread on "Traditional Photography" that...'Members can influence the shots by uploading and screening"?

How can that happen if no one ever gets to see the shots? And if they do - they get buried under a mountain of other stuff?

This is a retorical question. BECAUSE Street is mis used as it is - AND the help page as pointed out by Fedor has a everything + the kitchen sink "re-definition" of it - plus the fact that some screeners or crew do not think there is a problem with this blasé approach to calling carrots pumpkins.

That just goes to further highlight that street is under attack and is not given a fair run on the paddock here?

The evidence is mounting!

/Exit old baily.

Cheers,
RF.

Let's take a concrete example:


Rejected very quickly with ~5% popularity. Many people not see it until critique.

If this shot was judged by the peers in the "1X Street" category - then yeah. Have a go at the grain, have a go at the feet chopped off or whatever else that isn't megapixels, digital, super sharp, photoshop this, layer that, rule of thirds here......

Would I upload this to a "1X Urban Landscape/Urban" arty, air brushed and wistful category?

No.

But as a street shot - it is a GOOD shot (please feel free to tear into it as a 'street shot' if you want - I am a big boy'). It has a clear message, a funny and meaningful juxtaposition and it is easily relatable to many people of all cultures and backgrounds. PLUS it has such nice silver tones from that film. As a street photo that should be judged as such and compared as such it deserves to be given the chance to be appreciated and enjoyed for what it is. STREET. Along with it's peers.

So if there was a category called "Street" and I go ahead and upload it - but in reality the category really is "Urban Landscape and Arty Urban" - then of course the photo will get 86'd and after a few months I will start a few threads in despair. However if the category was labelled correctly - I wouldn't bother to upload it and I wouldn't be confused and perplexed.... though still starved of a good buffet of street and doco work here on 1X.

Look at my portfolio here at 1X - the majority of my work is not street shots that were published! Even though that is what I do 99% of the time. A portrait here or a scene there and one landscape. I could care less and don't put effort or practice into them because I don't really enjoy those styles that much.

But street.... man. C'mon already 1X. Admit to the prejudice and hypocrisy that exists around this topic.

Cheers,
RF.

PS: I still love you all. ;-)

Since you are bringing up false statistics - 53% of your rejected street shots were screened by the members, not 20% that you are saying. And blaming all on our taste is not fair - we also look for originality and that is a reason behind many of your rejected images.

Regards,
Jacob

Robert/Jacob.

This isn't about how many shots are or are not published or rejected. This has to do with street being a marginalsied subject - that despite there being a whole category as it's name sake - is in fact a small sub category that is thrown in with other work that is somewhat superficially the same in some kind of "Miscellaneous" everything else category.

That is not fair to street.

Not fair to street shooters who upload in good faith.

And not fair to the populace that are denied the chance to see some really interesting stuff. I mean really - how many landscapes can one see or look at before you run out of ideas or concepts? How many abstract art pieces can people look at and go "gee that is prurdy". how many times can you look at another photo of the same model in the same style?

Where is the thinking mans photography on 1X? That last setece can also be said about the work of Ben Goossens and co. That work is really smart. It makes the brain work. Not just the rods and cones.

Cheers,
RF.

This shot of Gerard also illuminates the bias and lack of capability to understand that I mention above:

http://1x.com/photos/member/7997/22150/

That shot was cancelled and the reason given was a dislike of the editing done. The concept was so foreign and alien and the foundation to be able to understand street so lacking - that the photo couldn't even be seen for what it was, when it was staring out there for all to look. It was prejudiced and maligned.

To think that the default position of thought was editing?!! That is in the same syndrome style as thinking and looking for "noise" or "sharpness" or whatever else the dSLR born crowd into photography have brought with them from 2002-2008 when they discovered shooting.

Anyone can look. But how many people can see?

The debate that came up in critique over that shot was very justified.

Cheers,
RF.

Richard, I would like to invite you to visit my 1x site (http://mdc.1x.com). There is a gallery named "the street". I think I have a selection of images that by and large are in agreement with what you say about what street photography is all about. Clearly, you may or not like them, but this is not the point. The point is that not everyone here is totally naive about the meaning of photography and their genres.

I also would argue that if the purpose of this site is to collect and display images with a strong visual appeal, some of the limitations of street photography that you mentioned might indeed affect the chances to be displayed on the front page.

Not that these images are bad, nor that the choice not to publish is wrong. Is it is just a matter of policy, which might or not evolve or change with time.

I am not saying that these discussions are pointless, far from it, although direct attacks might not be of great help.

You will also notice that many of my images have not been published on the front page. Some have been actively rejected, but most have not even been submitted. I try to see what might appeal others on this site and submit images that to me would stand a chance to be accepted. If they are not accepted I got it wrong.

But have you tried to submit to very selective galleries or events (left alone Magnum)? Have your images always been accepted? Would you jump at them for not including your image(s) among their selection?

That does not mean that, by not having been given the seal of approval here (or elsewhere), a given image (or style) has to be discarded and branded as "crap". It is just not to the taste of some (or many), but this happens all the time with art.

Just a few thoughts.

:)

I agree with what you are saying Marcello. And it goes to the heart of my point. If the style and taste is what it is - then change the name of the category so that people are not lured into uploading there and wasting everyone's time and getting frustrated.

If people are naive or not about a given genre - but to actively advertise a category with a misleading name and thereby tacitly suggesting that no one is naive - then there is a problem.

From now on, I will submit all street shots to critique first to share with people here and then my home page. The other 1% of my stuff that makes 80% of my published shots here, I will continue to upload to screening as normal.

At the end of the day - while that mis leading label is used and all the opaque and tacit suggestiveness that goes with it for the truly naive - you will have people like me and shots like Gerard's being thrown about.

If people dislike street for lack of visual appeal and that is 1X - then fine. Don't solicit uploads to it by having a category called "Street" !

Cheers,
RF.

PS and how on earth are people or tastes every going to get a chance to evolve and change and taste something new? This is a self perpetuating problem at 1X. 1X needs to do something radical like U2 did between Rattle and Hum and Achtung Baby. Stir it up. The wistfull, colourfull, clinical, yet fluffy mood pieces have been done to death here. How about some variety?

You're getting worked up for really not much. Categories are just here to provide convenience in browsing images. We have some very basic rules for a couple of them (any nudity goes into fine art nude, no zoo/pets shots in nature, no heavy editing in documentary, composites in creative edit) but that's the extent of it.
Making such a violent attack on the website just because one category is labeled X instead of Y appears, frankly speaking, quite ridiculous.

True - but the other categories are quite clear and the concepts of the art work there more stable. If new photogs come along and browse the street section - they get the wrong idea. It is all about how the categories help shape people's thought processes and attitudes towards a genre.

Say one is interested in street now - they go and browse the category - what do they then go away with? The WRONG idea. If it was as simple as saying that X should be Y - then yeah - it is ridiculous. But this is calling a carrot a pumpkin. It is not an issue of semantics or syntax, it is black and white inaccurate and misleading.

Interesting statement and something I hadn't seen expressed in quite this way before. I have to say that I'm a little uncomfortable with it. I actually do "pretty pictures" myself, but I recognize that art isn't just about beautiful things. If what you're saying is correct, then 1x isn't really about sublime photographic art in general, but about sublime photographic art that is easy to look at, technically perfect (or nearly so), beautiful (even if it is occasionally beautiful in the Joel Peter Witken sense), and easy to comprehend. I tend to agree more and more with Richard that if this is the case, then having a "street" category here doesn't make sense. I'm certainly not an expert, but what I've seen and read about street photography makes me believe it just doesn't belong on 1x at all if that's really true. Of course, if a photograph taken in the street happens to have all the "extras," it's welcome here, but what I'm hearing is that there is an unwillingness to judge different categories of photography according to the particular characteristics of that category. Am I just jumping to unwarranted conclusions or misunderstanding your meaning?

FYI all, I am bowing out of this thread. I will read all future comments and items - but in a bid to stop pissing off other people and wasting time, I will cease and desist. I think my view point is clear enough and I don't mean to sound like I am demanding change. I just like things to be clear and transparent.

But as a person whom I highly respect said to me once. "It is just a &^#%$*^ photo site".

Truer words may never be spoken in relation to this and many other debates of this ilk in these forums.

Onwards and upwards and I'm going to log out for a few weeks and just shoot and be happy to do what I do for myself for a change and stop worrying about everyone else and what they think.

Character is who you really are, reputation is mearly what other people think you are.

Time to focus on my character for a while.

Cheers,
RF.

I really don't understand these never ending discussion about categories, what fits or doesn't fit here and here....Categories are just here to make easier browsing among the images published on the website. I don't even look at the category when I open the thumbnail of an image on the main page; I like it or not. And when I'm looking for some specific subjects I know well I can look in the street, documentary, portrait category and why not, the everyday or illustrative...and so what? I could also end up finding some great shot in a category I wouldn't have looked at! And when I'm looking for something even more specific, well the search button is here and I can find whatever I want!
Honestly, why are people bothered so much by categories? Categories are here just for browsing, and nobody want (or can) to fix tight rules for each one...I think there cannot be rules..everybody has his own vision of what is right and what is wrong in each category, so why bothering? Just look at images you like, no matter where they are..

Andrea,
I believe Richard had two points that are completely orthogonal to the fact that you and most members may only use categories for browsing purposes:

1. In so far as 1x is a gallery of fine photography, it will be used by both members and non-members in many ways. One of the possible uses, especially for people who are not familiar with photographic art, is as a means of understanding different genres. According to Richard, the street category is doing a disservice in that regard. You may agree or disagree, but certainly, the way you or I may personally use categories is immaterial.
2. The characteristics, virtues, goals, etc. of different genres are different. As such, they should be screened/judged according to the standards for the particular genre. Although different categories may be more or less strict or obvious in terms of what "belongs" in them, he is arguing that when you use a well-known name of a particular style or school of photography as a category name, you have an obligation to ensure that the photographs in that category are indeed representative of the widely accepted definition of that style or school. Again, however you or I use categories is immaterial to that argument.

I think I understand that Richard would be happy if one of two things were changed:
1. change the name of the category and continue to publish the same kinds of photos that are already there, some of which are true representatives of the generally accepted definition of street photography and some of which are not.

2. keep the name, but ensure that photographs in the category are in fact street photography and are screened/judged as such and use a different category for other photographs taken on the street.

Richard you need to fix your spell checker! ;P


The same principle applies to any category, why should street be an exception? If you do not happen to take a street photograph that is outstanding why should I "understand" and be more lenient? Why is Cartier-Bresson great, otherwise?

Taking outstanding landscapes or building details or portraits or creative edits or whatever else requires no less skill and attention to details it would be unfair to judge them differently.

**Please, note. All my statements are just personal opinions. They are not necessarily subscribed, endorsed or agreed by any other member of the crew nor have any relation to site policies, judging criteria...etc.**

:)

I find this almost offensive for people who are not familiar with photography (and please take it with a smile, no intentions to be harsh!); you mean these people, let's say interested in street category, need a tight category with fixed and well defined rules to understand street? God, I hope nobody is so narrow minded! Art is not science; you can't fix rules, you can tell directions, but everybody will have his own vision of what's street (or whatever else). Broaden the rules, loose the category and NOW people will have some benefits browsing the category. if we are so wise to know which is "the widely accepted definition of a style", it will be easy to find these shot in a wide category, plus all the others that correspond to our vision.

But, let's say we fix some rules for what can be published on street; as Marcello said "The same principle applies to any category"; so fix the rules for all the others. Now suppose I have a good picture I want to publish in "Street"...wait..I can't! It doesn't satisfy Art.4! Well, maybe it fits documentary...oh no I haven't read Art. 5 comma 3bis! Ok I won't submit this shot because it doesn't satisfy any rule!
It's a stupid example, but probably a good representation of the future with "category rules".

It's all against the basic principle of the site: publish excellent work. If it is good is OK, the category is a plus.

Cheers,

Andrea

I don't think anyone is asking for more "leniency." The point is more that different aspects of great photography may be more or less important in a particular genre. To take an extreme example, if I judge an abstract painting according to the same standards that I judge a representational painting, the result will be skewed. Obviously, considerations of color, composition, and mood will apply to both, but the weight of each may be different. And when it comes down to judging how faithful the representation is, the judgment must be different for the two types of painting. Similarly, a world-class 19th century ballerina could judge 21st century Latin ballroom dancing to a certain degree, but it would take a connoisseur of 21st century Latin ballroom to really judge adequately. The results of the two judgments would probably differ. I believe that one of Richard's secondary points was that each genre should be judged according to the weighting system that applies particularly to the genre, rather than trying to use the same weights for every genre.

If you look at examples from the most famous/successful/influential street photographers, you will probably agree that many of those works wouldn't make it on 1x. So I think your statement is probably absolutely true--unless a street photograph excels to a high degree in the usual ways that apply to all other works at 1x, e.g., technical quality, lack of noise/grain, sharpness, lack of disturbing objects, composition, etc., it would not be accepted here even though it might be considered a sublime example of street photography by connoisseurs of that genre. Furthermore, because of the difficulty of achieving those qualities when a photograph must be snapped absolutely without the luxury of the time that allows the photographer to ensure them in other types of photography, the production of a 1x-worthy street photograph becomes much more a matter of luck than skill. Given that, it's hardly surprising that the street category apparently has so few photographs that strike Richard as being true representatives of the genre. :-)

Andrea,
I quite agree that fixing hard and fast rules is impossible, and I think Richard agrees with that too. It's a question of degree. His argument was that some of the photographs in the street category don't just stretch the accepted definition, they aren't even close. Personally, I'm not qualified to say whether that's true or not, since I'm neither a street photographer nor a connoisseur.

I think it's quite reasonable to argue that since 1x is not an educational site, and since the web is filled with inaccurate information in general, the student of photography who relies on browsing 1x to understand a photographic genre deserves whatever misconceptions he or she may get in the process. I'm not sure that's a good attitude to have; personally I think that striving to avoid disseminating inaccurate ideas is always good, but of course it's not necessary. The suggestion that he had to change the name is a reasonable one. It avoids inaccuracy, it doesn't restrict the category in any way, it allows those who want to browse photos taken on the street or in other public places to do so in just the same way as he or she always has. I think he said that if that were done, he would better understand that street photography, other than the exceptional work that happens to score high according to (almost) every standard doesn't have a dedicated home on 1x.

And I didn't take it as being harsh at all! :-)

I'm always unsure when I express myself in English :-))

You have expressed yourself very well and clearly in English Andrea, and get my vote with your opinion.
...want to see my Italian....:-(

Andrea,
I understand how dangerous another language can be--strange connotations lurk around every corner, but you were perfect! :-)

The key word being photo. Or so I hope.

For me, street-photograph is a traditional discipline. In this discipline you must have respect for the great street photographers as Lisette Model, Jacob Riis, Manuel Alvarez Bravo, Eugene Atget, Van der Elsken and more. Normally there must for me be a social scope. As I read somewhere: It is the mystery and splendour of the art has little to do with photography itselv. The making of the picture - especially streets-photos - is simply and quick. The hard part is everything else: the whole of the photographers relationship to the world.

With regards
Soeren

In that way of course your picture of the Queen's horse is NOT a street-photo but rather a documentary-picture, Lars. On the other hand a street-picture is not necessary taken exactly on the street. What is important is the urban and social environment which is crucial for me. In that way Ansel Adams picture of the Spanish American Woman, near Chimayo, New Mexico in 1937 is absolute not a street-photo.

With regards
Soeren

Queens horse? - it's a normal horse on the street in front of a carriage! :-)

Oh, I misunderstood, but I'm not sure that change my point ;-)

That's OK, me neither! :-)

I totally agree.

why don,t we just call it Candid street photography.
that way the catagory will be better defined.

I agree with Richard, but here, street is more general and wider, it is :


(written at the top of the page when you click on street category)

Here, it means images taken in urban environment and not the strict definition you can find in wikipedia for example.

Maybe here, the word "Urban" would be better than "Street".

But it is just about words ;-)

You know, some well known great street photographers use to ask some people to be at the right place, or to do the right things, in order to have the perfect shot, so it is not as candid as we think ;-)

Also rules are made to be broken.
I don't think you absolutely have to follow this rules in any situation.
For example, remember this famous Bruce Gilden, he almost always uses a flash ;-)
But I agree that it has to be the realest as possible.

Yes, I've understood it well ;-)

These rules will Van der Elsken be very sorry to have to live with...

With regards

yeah i've mentioned that before, it would be a perfect name for the gallery category.

i dont know if rules apply to street. as long as you capture that real moment, who cares how you got it!

...ummm, I don't think that is true. It's fun to say, but it isn't true.

One might say, "Rules are frequently broken, sometimes for good reason," which is probably true.
One might say, "No rule exists that hasn't been broken," which may or not be true.
One might also say, "If it wasn't a rule, we couldn't break it," which has a nice ironic ring to it.

But think of the danger, sorrow and grief humans would experience if it were true that rules were made to be broken.

Consider, for instance, three rules that some children are taught:
Don't play with matches.
Look both ways before crossing the street.
Don't pet strange dogs.

or, for adults, rules against killing one another, sleeping around, lying, cheating, stealing, keeping promises, etc.

Same goes for art. Some rules just make good sense and have done so for thousands of years. Break them if you want to, but not because they were made to be broken.

I sign that "manifesto" Robert... :-)

It is just something we say when there are some exceptions ;-)
In fact we should say "There are exceptions to almost all the rules".

In French we say (about something) "It is the exception which confirm the rule."

I know where you are coming from here, but you can have all the above and end up with a crap picture, none of the above and end up with great picture. I sometimes think 'street' is getting like some sacred religious creed. 'Thou shalt not' etc. It's just a convenient label for a certain kind of photograph, not the path to enlightenment. . ;-)

On the rules thing. . . Creative people need rules, or at least unquestionably held beliefs to kick against to a certain extent. Like Joel Mayorewitz shooting street with a large format camera and in colour. Not what a lot of street shooters would choose.

imho etc etc.
Jon ( a lousy street photgrapher, and a 'deviator from the true path' ;-) . . . . )

Where is this horse?

You what?

You know...I've been kind of thinking this same thing for a while now...these "street" photog's are an opinionated bunch aren't they!

You should try the 'hardcore street photography group' forum on Flickr if you want opinionated ;-) A lively forum you could say. Actually an interesting and inspirational place more often than not, but not for self effacing types I don't think.
Jon

so you guys havent heard of Chris Weeks and his leica rangefinder, then? :P he does make great images though.

HCSP on flickr is tough. It is a goal of mine to get 1 image in there at some stage in my life.....

Excellent work though. But I KNOW that 95% of it would NOT be published in 1X for sure.

95% of the photos at Magnum wouldn't be published here. 1X is a tough nut to crack.

possibly. judging from what is street here, its more of a different nut to crack.

;-) does he use a Leica rangefinder? As in a rangefinder camera made by Leica? A Leica one? As in Leica of Germany? The people who make Leica rangefinders?. . . etc etc ;-))
Jon

Yep Leica M9 and a few canon bodies!

Actually he has some very interesting utube clips out!

He also does some video work as well!

Glen

yeah you can't deny his photos are pretty cool. his recent vimeo street photography documentary vids are interesting, and its great to see some photographers at work. just skip the sections where he's raving about his rangefinder :P

the PDF file he put out on deviantART is also much of the same concept....if you can stand his style of writing.

annoying most of the time.

mostly.

leicas are the best.

you suck if you don't use one.

etc.

....and if you don't get it - you suck - and don't need to ask me to get it... and I can't make a sentence or a paragraph... I just write as I think and you just don't get it because I do.... so you suck....

Horrible read.

My Nikon EM is smaller than a Leica M7 and quieter too.... so the only range finder debates that hold salt are the larger than film viewing area and the lack of a wide open aperture effect or dim light on view finder ease of use.

I still want a Leica though for the beauty that is the craftsmanship. No other reason.

What are the links to his vids?

http://vimeo.com/6497905

I laugh a lot... let me tell you.
The most important is not the camera... but your soul, your eye...
A Leica will never transform a bad street photographer in a good one...
Anyway, there is some rules I guess... 28 mm to 50, 2,8 to 4, no continuous shooting...

28 and 50 I have settled on. Otherwise for one lens 35 is it. But I am getting used to going 2 lenses now. 20mm is good for places like HK. Not sure where else in the world is so crazy dense. Also apart from focal length the MINIMUM close focus distance makes a difference.

Regarding his ranger finder orgasm. I can open two eyes with my FM3a and still see the world. I know that staring down through an SLR can be like looking in a tunnel - so - um - I don't do that. :-s