Can someone please explain me the difference between "Street" and "Everyday" categories here in 1x?

I know the definition of street photography as "People in candid situations in public places"
or as it is defined in wikipedia: "Street photography is a type of documentary photography that features subjects in candid situations within public places such as streets, parks, beaches, malls, political conventions, and other settings."

I think that 1x's definition of "Street" (Street photography, cityscapes or other exposures in an urban environment.) is vague not to say wrong...

One is a elite religion of the chosen, the other is for the rest of us peasants...

Do a search on the forums - discussed ad nausea.

You are right. 1X is wrong. Don't fight it - just save your energy and move on. I am at my limit now too.

RF.

I just read your forum post "What is going on with the street category?"
All of it! As it seems, this place is not for street shooters :)
You are lucky you can post at www.street-photographers.com
and I am lucky I can post at deviantArt :D
How can we take 1x seriously when they define "street" as "cityscapes or other exposures in an urban environment"???
This is what the new, unexperienced photographers learn about "street"???

Most successful definition I've ever read! :D

Oh you hillbilly, you made my night with that one. :D

There is a whole never level of elitism and that is HCSP pool over on flickr. I too find myself completely confused by some shots and have no idea what is good or bad when looking at it.

Oh well. Everything in life is subjective. It is just a shame that not everyone in the world thinks like I do!!! ;-)

We can all agree on that having two puppies - each licking out one of your ears is SUBLIME!

Yeah, I don't really get why some shots are in the pool at HCSP (if that's what you meant). I enjoy reading the discussion section though.

this happens if oh so very arty people try to do streetphotography :)

Photography is photography IMO - categories are not of overwhelming importance, just of some importance! Unless you want to make a cult out of it, of course!

All images should IMO have a decent exposure, not too many disturbing factors, a good light, a genious - not too complicated (!) - composition and some kind of aesthetic/message/impact, that makes you feel a bit - alive eventually! :-)

That's all! :-)

Ridiculous in my opinion. If a street photo has a couple of points Lars mentions, I don't see why it should not be recommended for publication. Just because you hardcore street photographers go against every rule, guideline and general normality photography has to offer does not mean you don't belong. You make life interesting. :)

"Street" - a place where garbage collectors work.

"Everyday" - Images of garbage collectors doing their thing.

Discuss.......;-)))

What a subtle delimitation of the definitions of 'Street' and 'Everyday' - I'll pull my Hat for Mal! :-)

For me "Street" is a spur of the moment picture in which you only take one frame (or maybe few, if you have a motordrive camera). You go for the shot in the spur of the moment and while planned in this moment, it is a little bit of luck on whether it comes out as intended. It is NOT just fire away and hope for the best - not at all.

"Everyday" is also of maybe street scenes but is much more calculated and planned - perhaps waiting for the correct light and choosing a few alternate viewpoints and so on. Perhaps going back tomorrow when things suit the capture a bit better.

The two categories, for me, are divided by how "Fleeting" the capture was.

Street photography may get away with many more "imperfections" in the picture than the Everyday category but makes up for it through the uniqueness of the moment or juxtaposition of the photographic elements when captured.

I salute as I wear no hat. A comment that has already altered the way I evaluate such images.

A Snapshot?

OK, now I'm confused. This sounds like it could be a sports event like the World Series. You go to a place where there will be people doing their everyday stuff, a.k.a. the Yankees and Phillies. You take a camera and a lens or 2. You hang around and at a moment when something really cool happens you fire away one or more if motordrive. Pow, it's a homerun!!

And I thought this street stuff was a religion or something fancy like that. LOL!!

This sounds a bit like a checklist, as if the shot would be good only if all the lines of this checklist are ok.
My opinion is that there's no rule as long as the shot convey something interesting, an idea, a mood, an emotion etc...
This is the difference between science and art.
Science means a process of following a set of predetermined guides in order to acheive a result.
An Art, by contrast, takes the power of metaphor and independent thought inherent in the human mind to bear in order to create something.
An excellent shot could be underexposed and messy.

According Markus Hartel, a street photographer I like very much :

http://www.markushartel.com

Snapshot?

So you do not pay attention to composition and light which give the photo graphic appeal?

Yes, I care about light and composition, but it doesn't mean I care much about strict rules about them. (golden numbers etc...)

For example, in Markus Hartel's shots (http://www.markushartel.com ), there are always disturbing elements, but his shots are excellent to me. (and not only me)

Arty Bullshit IMO! :-)

Lars, look at this website :
http://www.markushartel.com
And tell me what you think about it

Thanx. ;-)

Well, the first one was not more underexposed and messy than the Street-pics I'm used to here at 1X! :-)

You have just looked at 1 image, look at several ones and tell me.

Also I think that in street photography, impact is strong when there is a serie, because you understand the photographer's point of view better.

I have looked at more now - for me more or less the same (but I'm only an peasant living in the countryside, so don't count on my provincial POV).
But to call it a serie, a lot of various more or less deprivated descriptions of urban life, is a bit much for me. IMO it can only appeal to people, who have suffered no real hardship themselve in life, and still suffers under the realm of social romantism!
Are we really going to have that sort of bullshit here, when we implement Series?

Well i guess we could have a series of an over saturated block of dirt! :-)

???

What is a street photo? Its not documentary photography of the street but it has the same footing. Its not a tourist picture but it has the same footing. Streets go in another direction. The language of street photography is not an amplified language as documentary photography. And the opening exclamation marks in street photo reveal not an emotional intensity, but an ironic amusement. An ironic distance. That is a very important for me. Otherwise it is rather the documentation. But is the correct category so important for 1x?

With regards Soeren

Its probably time you got your head out of that country sand Lars its not doing your thinking any good!!!

Well Mr. Beamer, if you're shooting the Yankees its a religion..:-))

I'm simply talking about the Romantism of Suffering, reserved for people, who have experienced no hardship themselves! They can call themselve Street photographers as much as they want, for me they are just Socal Romantics!

Strict rules? What strict rules? A photo with nice light is a better photo than one with light that does not suit the photo. And a photo with a composition that allows the eye to flow around, as opposed to a composition so cluttered there is nothing to focus on but the concept hidden inside there somewhere. Bizarre.



Well I think he's said more useful things than you have.

Yes but not at useful as you have!

Glen I have to ask what you're trying to achieve?
If you're trying to make a point, making personal insults is not very convincing.

Then you have thought before you got involved..... AGAIN!

Wow this thread is going to be fun!!

SO, is it this simple:
"For me "Street" is a spur of the moment picture in which you only take one frame (or maybe few, if you have a motordrive camera). You go for the shot in the spur of the moment and while planned in this moment, it is a little bit of luck on whether it comes out as intended."

OR is it much more mystical:
"Streets go in another direction. The language of street photography is not an amplified language as documentary photography. And the opening exclamation marks in street photo reveal not an emotional intensity, but an ironic amusement. An ironic distance. That is a very important for me. Otherwise it is rather the documentation."

I think my head is going to spin a lot over the next few days...

I actually think Soeren may have come VERY close to nailing it:
He said "Streets go in another direction." I would make a simple change: "Street goes in many directions."

Yes, T-H-I-N-K-I-N-G.

Yes, I agree!
But mostly in the direction 'Political Correctness' regarding 'Romantism of Suffering'!

Street photography is not only about suffering or poverty at all.
Street photography is not photography about poverty. It can be about poverty, but it can be about many other things (richness included).
And I agree with the ironic distance, as Clyde said.

HEY!!! Don't mix politic and religion!!!

You should try it one day!

But i guess at the age of 14 you have a good excuse!

a bit sometimes, but not mostly at all.

Lars, look at HCB's images, count the images about poverty or suffering people, and then talk.

"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.
The purpose of street photography will again vary from one street photographer to another. Some photographers are interested in simply and honestly documenting life as they see it, at times adding their own interpretation to the scene. Some want to make artistic photographs of available street scenes and others basically enjoy taking pictures and do it purely for the pleasure of it."

Quote from "No Rules street photography"

This kinda makes sense to me!

I am not talking about poverty or suffering people, I am talking about the 'Political Correct' photographers, with no personal experiences of hardship, that are forcing us all more or less to their interpretation of the 'Romantism of Suffering' in the City.
Man, you should pity us, that lives on the countryside! Nobody want's to sympthize with us and romantize our life. Why Isn't there any Countryside-photographers?

I grew up in the country ;-)

One point for you, then! :-)

Hey, wait a minute I shoot sunsets and trees and mountains in the country and Rui shoots goats and sheep and shit. WHAT ABOUT US??? Aren't we "Countryside-photographers"???

Well most street shots are very subtle. That is the point. The moments themselves are so fleeting and subtle that people don't see them in normal life - a camera helps isolate them. But even then a subtle and hidden topic is not going to jump out excessively...

No just going to live longer than us city dwellers.... ;-)

Christian this is an interesting read on how the three intersect.... they are all very similar.

http://www.sevensevennine.com/?p=429

What do you know about that, Lars? Do not sit and think that you carry world on your shoulders alone and only you know the planet's problems. I know many here who have struggled to get where they are now.
With regards/kærlig hilsen
Soeren

For me it's opposite? Grew up in town, live in countryside. Is that better here? :-)

With regards Soeren

I grew up - upside down.....

Much more comfortable here in the northern hemisphere....

That's what is in my mind from the very beginning of this thread.


Cannot agree here. I do see these things in normal life ... but I don't take photographs of these moments. If I would, I would personally call them snapshots.

How about "Seaside Photographers"?
Good thread! And good to get the hillbilly involved! I finally managed to define what I do! :-)

So what is a snapshot then? Apart from a killer u-turn and turtle firing manoeuvre that one can execute in battle carts in Mario 64......screw you Bowser! The Princess is coming......

No, no Clyde, you are a "Landscape Photographer", a much better class altogether...!!

Remember, use only landscape format! If not it will not be politically correct..

Sorry I don't understand well your thought.
Do you mean that almost all the photographers or people who love street photography have no experience of hardship ?
And what is "Romantism of Suffering" ?

And personally, I go into the streets because that's where things happen :
Many people, many stories, many paradoxes, many contrasts, many strange behaviours, many different things but in fact similar on some points, fun, sadness, poverty, richness, seriousness, surprise, boredom, love, hate, sleep, run etc.....real life, it's a testimony of our time.

I believe the two categories are very much different, but sometimes overlapping. Street is about life. Everyday is about how people experience life. Street is about juxtapositions, absurd or pivotally emotional moments, everyday is closer to photojournalism where the context is more important than it is for street.

For example: imagine HCB and Brassai going for a walk on the same street. HCB takes shots of people jumping over puddles: all about juxtaposition and decisive moments, doing the archetypical street. Brassai takes shots of tramps and low-class elements: all about context and social situation, doing the archetypical "everyday" - or more correctly, sociographic photography. Two very different points of view but of the same subject, namely life in Paris. And when HCB goes to Mexico and photographs prostitutes, it's overlapping - a little bit of both.

About the "Romantism of Suffering"... well, sometimes before making such statements it doesn't harm to get a little photographic education. First of all, the romanticism of suffering was never a street photography problem, it was a Magnum problem. It was the big issue for people like Chim and Capa and Bischoff who photographed suffering people and always asked themselves, how for Christ's sake can someone call photographs of dieing people beautiful and well composed, and if it's ethical and correct to make suffering look good and "artistic" in photographs. Second, no self-respecting photograph (not one whose name is still remembered, that is) ever made romanticism out of suffering. While during the Great Depression mainstream photography focused on escapism and esthetism (like Cecil Beaton), many photographers plunged into the suffering of the people (Margaret Bourke-White being the best known of them) with the aim to show how things really are, and not presenting a romanticised verson of reality. (BTW, this was how Robert Capa too became aquainted with photography). Thus street and docu/sociography are just the opposite of romanticism, as a matter of fact they were invented as a counter-reaction to romanticism. Comparing them is like comparing the Sex Pistols to Pink Floyd.

Very refreshing and stimulating take on this Balazs. Thanks.

Thanks for giving more insight, Balazs!

@ Balazs

One thing that I often try to aim for is a story in one frame. Now by story I mean setup/juxtaposition.

It came up in another thread a while back where one photog had a doco photo rejected here that was published in NG or similar. The comments that I gave in the critique was that the photo by itself didn't explain anything. As an accompaniment to text or in a series of shots it would work.

Now this is a different topic than romanticising any particular element of life. It is the point that in a street style shot you can't get too deep into any metaphysical/philosophical story. Sometimes you can by accident of fate or a suprisingly strong juxtaposition - but to really capture the doco or everyday style shots, I feel that a sequence will always be stronger. That and when shooting you have an idea of the shots and story that you want to come away with.

When shooting street the only thing I know at the start of the day is the type of lens that I will have fitted (28, 35 or 50) and if I am going to go for wide open shots with slow film, or deep DOF/high shutter speed shots with fast film. I have no agenda apart from that.

Totally right. Too bad that all this is influenced by cultural background. For instance, imagine a lovely couple walking on a street under a sign that says, "Love street". Ain't this a wonderful juxtaposition? But if the sign said, "Ask Caddesi" or "Szerelem utca" the photo would mean nothing to most of us. This is one reason why street shots have such a difficult time on international sites. Here on 1X for example, I saw more than one Indonesian street photographs fail for the simple reason that Western audience didn't get the meaning.



That could well be. Besides, those magazines choose photos for a particular audience, and a photograph in the Turkish NG could be totally lost on German readers and vice versa. Not even NG can have an "Afghan girl" in every issue, 99% is just illustration of an article.


I don't know... for me, good street is pure metaphysics and philosophy. You just can't exactly tell what's so special about them, but they are special. Most works of Kertész, HCB and yes, Parr are like this imo. All have something surrealistic, something unlikely about them.



Agan I don't know - can't recall any famous docu sequence or series, all coming to my mind is Elliott Erwitt's sequences - like the dog in the cemetary, the sunbathing couple "blown away" in the wind" - but that's pure and full-breed street, not docu. As far as I know his oevre, E.E. didn't took documentary sequences (but did many outstanding single docu shots, like his famous shot of John Paul II).



Oohhh but you should. Do it like Doisneau: "today I will find a nice young couple, pay them a few bucks to kiss in front of my camera, let them do it again and again until they look spontaneous enough, and then I will take the Mother Of All Spontaneous Street Shots." :)))

Cool thoughts lately.. thanks mates.

Well I did over simplify. I do have a style in mind by virtue of the lens I choose and the place I want to go. Be it crowded or open...... I have some Provia 400 so when my old (1978) super ground glass focus screen arrives so I can focus properly at 1.4 and 1.2. I plan to go out and shoot night shots in colour on the street with lots of "Hollywood bokeh".

But there is not much philosophy to all that..... ;-)

See! I told you it was an elite religion!!


Blasphemy!!

Happy to meet you here too, besides deviantArt :)
Very constructive comments on the thread I started!

Clyde is right imo... Street is all about ephemerial moments, like chasing butterflies. Street photographers must not get involved in what they photograph - they remain outsiders, they photograph a scene from outside. They never dig up the muddy grittiness of life like documentarists, simply because they don't have to (and no one expects them to do, for street is not about that). Therefore street photography is much more like living in an ivory tower than any other genre of photography.
If you disagree, consider that Clyde and I do agree about something. This juxtaposition doesn't happen all too often and should be therefore taken most seriously :))




Kali mera, Stamatis :))

yes snapshots. i make only snapshots and i am proud of it :D there is no magical thing in my photos, no tricks and so on.
for me street photography is like fishing...

...and you are a very good fisherman Remo! :)
I feel the same when I hit the streets to make some shooting!

agree !

That's indeed a spectatular diagram. I only wish it wouldn't ignore the world outside Anglo-Saxon culture. It's OK, American and British photographers talk about American and British photographers (with very few exceptions), but the world doesn't end up there... or could it be that this kind of photography is limited to the Western world where Anglo-Saxon, especially US visual culture has become our common language? Or maybe once again it's proven true that it's New York and London galleries who decide about who's getting famous? :)

Amen brother!!


Did you make a typo?? shouldn't it be "irony tower"??

This sounds like a lovely title to me. Now you only need to take a matching photograph...

How about this:

http://www.clydebeamer.com/2009/10/walkin-burbank-5/

Are you a street photographer ?

Who me?? I've not yet been tapped by that sword...

Arise Serf Beamer.

Ask us no more. Ye has taken what is yours by right.

Maybe it has already been mentioned in this or other threads, but this looks very interesting: http://www.vivianmaier.com/

Lars :-)

Yes this has been mentioned on another thread..... But i agree with you Lazs this is very interesting works!

A very lucky find!

I am also coming to believe that viewer intelligence/sophistication plays a part too. I had a recent rejection where the comments were all over the place with not getting the relation between two elements and not understanding the title. In the case of the title not understanding and missing a key and OBVIOUS relationship between the elements - I can only conclude that for the title it is a language/education issue and for the elements it is my old favourite - a predisposition to those things that lighten up the rods and cones or are yank at the base emotions within us all.

I remember discussing this before about a photo that Robert Hutinski put up with an old man grouching down towards an cheap looking lady. Most people in the thread didn't get nor could see the story in the image.

So while we have a discussion going on now on BW vs colour. I think that the street issue is going to be the same. Some people just don't get it. That is fine. I don't get a lot of the shots in HCSP on flickr but shots I have published here - don't make it there. So I continue to try and educate myself so that I can appreciate the style more.

My issue has NEVER been that 1X doesn't like street. My issue is the completely misrepresenting label of the group and due to that the already hard battle of nurturing a culture and understanding of street is made - well impossible on 1X.

RF.

Very well said...

well I can see what you mean but I don't agree. You may be right if you are talking about the content/the audience itself at a given time, But things change, the audience change, there are trends. And I believe these changes are more represented here than on flickr groups or similar stuffs that are IMO a little "ghettoized" - and despite the aesthetical vision of 1X owners/screeners (which frankly I have no clue what it is). I think it's good to keep on posting/submitting here, because regardless of frustration (pics not published, not understood), it fuels some education in the long run (not only for street). I personaly have learned more about street photog here than anywhere else (from people like you and others) because in the end of the day the whole thing is more challenging for everybody (as a viewer as well as a submitter) and challenge is stimulating. And as a photographer submitting his own work you find yourself more involved in others' work regardless your own "style" (if there is).

Of course keep on submitting and making or striving to get better. That is the point for sure and a goal. Lead change by example.

I guess the main issue is developing a nurturing culture to help bring out into daylight the discussion and appreciation of the style. I only make this comment when I read some of the member screening comments that I see. Most of my work published here is not street. Maybe my first shot - that is about it. So for other styles of shots (my majority) when I read member screenings they make sense, are informative and more often than not get ordnance on target.

When the street shots come back with comments, it just makes my head hurt and exhale in despair. Like I am fighting a battle that I can't win.

Of course! As I wrote: "And the opening exclamation marks in street photo reveal not an emotional intensity, but an ironic amusement." Therefore street-photos is a very difficult discipline on a international board as 1x. Humour is of course very different and maybe connected to intelligence too.

With regards
Soeren

And culture and geography, etc. But having said that, normally those with active brains also indulge in travel and reading.......

Et voilà. Merci Balazs.