@Christopher I want to go to there!

I like the documentary aspect of them but don't love them as street photographs. Maybe its the subject matter though since it's very similar to Venice beach.

For me its about creating a narrative rather than just showing what's there. A good street photograph makes me wonder whats going on and not just go "oh ok, this is happening." There's other aspects to but I'll have to reflect on that a bit. A friend of mine's sister has a blog with some really surreal pictures that make me stop and think about why she took the picture and figure out the meaning of them. Or at least it makes me try to find it.

For what my opinion is worth, I'm engaged by frames 4, 9 & 11. These have more of a moment in time that hints at a story or provokes a thought.

Cheers
V

I do love seeing just matter of fact photos of other places too so it probably is just the subject matter. Everything just seems too familiar.

Technically, your photos are all pretty great. Perhaps we shouldn't try to quantify or qualify our street shots but instead look introspectively. Why did you take the picture, what were you trying to say or what were you seeing, what was the purpose of this?

I agree and disagree. HCB's style is all about that but I also don't feel street photography always needs people.

Here's a few from my contacts all with different styles who I think produce excellent street photography.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4

FinePixCamera said:

What makes a good street photograph? Two words: Decisive Moment. Without that, you have documentary work at best and usually the interest level is much much lower. It is phenomenally hard to get the Decisive Moment. A huge part of that is luck, with the rest patience and skill. Mundane life is well, mundane. It is those Decisive Moments that take it up many notches.

Couldn't agree more. I have put a few shots up for critique on HCSP (Flickr group) and oh how they have let me know that I have a picture of, well, very little interest lol. But herein lies the skill and enjoyment of it all I guess - searching for that ever elusive decisive moment. Apparently Bresson waited for hours for a cyclist to ride past in the famous shot on the stairs, but the [decisive] moment did come... Someone once made an analogy of photography to fishing - waiting for the perfect catch is like waiting for the perfect moment?????

@FinePixCamera - the decisive moment is an english translation of HCB's term 'À la sauvette' which means something more along the lines of: candid shots snatched spontaneously on the street in a kind of naughty way. So @steve1401 I'm not sure that waiting patiently for the ideal subject to walk into the chosen frame is in the spirit of this (plus, I get bored after a few minutes).

I don't think there's a shortage of these wonderful candid moments, you just need to tune your eye and brain to start seeing them.

Then the trick is to capture them quickly (hence my recent problems with the X100 - slow AF/shutter lag). I know HCB did it manually with an old Leica, but I'm no HCB!

I agree with that @Asudef that street photography always needs people - although some well-known street photographers don't believe this to be the case.

I must be the ONLY person around who has NEVER seen a HCB photo. Even today. At least not knowingly. OK laugh at me. I never heard of the guy until the X100 went viral. Previous to moving all my Asian travels, I was a committed landscape photographer and always studied Ansel Adam's photos. I used to travel across the US making landscape photos. I suspect I'll go back to doing that once I return to life in America.

asillett said:

I agree with that @Asudef that street photography always needs people - although some well-known street photographers don't believe this to be the case.

You misread. I was saying that SP doesn't always need people involved to be interesting or tell a story. To me, its more about depicting life or saying this is where life goes on and it goes on despite it having or needing an audience.

3 of the 4 pics I linked to are like that. Particularly the latter two.

FinepixCamera = +1 - without that engagement the photos are good, but more documentary in style. That's a personal preference though, and I think that this is where this discussion will end up.

I guess it differs in that a landscape does whatever it does, I'm not too sure. It is documenting a subject.

But to me, a street scene documents a culture, something metaphysical. And that is what I find fascinating.

I think there are some great shots in this thread, the initial selection showing great vibrancy of colour yet looking natural and capturing a feel for the location (I probably like them more as we're just getting to the end of three months of cold, grey rain here in England!). It always bugs me that those kinds of shots are so hard to capture here as we are so often overcast. Even shot from the hip they are largely very well executed.

Ratty/FinePixCamera makes a good point about what takes a good photo to that next level - something that separates the amateurs from the best pro's in regard to street style photography in particular. Does inspire me to get out and try some more of that kind of photography - especially now I have a silent X10 rather than my "Hey everyone look over here!" shutter noise on my old Nex 5! :)

I think what I would ask the photographer is: why are we here looking at this scene? What is it that I am supposed to see? Going back to the photos first posted: dog cruiser: why am I here? What am I supposed to be looking at, and why should that be engaging? And then: skate: same questions. To me, the first frame misses the purpose, going by the title: I'm supposed to notice the dog, but I don't, and so I'm looking at a person on a bike, riding in pretty generic surroundings. The "skate" frame on the other hand is far more compelling: the pose of the skater, the oblique camera angle works better here, because it places him better in against the background; the background itself holds more context to where he is skating, and is an interesting backdrop to his isolation (the headphones, the way that he is shirtless is subtly echoed in the figures on the beach)

Here are two of mine:




In my own practice, I tend to wait for a shot, often quite a long time and in my experience it pays off to keep shooting.

Someone discussed Cartier Bresson and claimed that he must have been shooting "rolls of film". Not quite true. There is that famous bit of footage of him working the street. You see he maneuvers himself in position (pushing people aside, getting really in on any action that interests him) but he takes only a few shots. With the Leica he would have only 24 or 36 frames available in one go anyway, so you try to let every press of the shutter count, because it's such a pain to change film. I used to do street shots with a fuji medium format rangefinder: 8 shots: you tend to be really judicious then, LOL.

mattmaber said:

steve1401 said:

Yep, concur - and they will DEFINITELY tell you what they think!!! Go post something on their critique thread and report back here - go on, I dare ya' lol...

EDIT - Matt the 'dare' was aimed at this thread, not just you singularly :-)

hahah yep, for un-censored critique its great. And as much as Id like at least one photo in the pool in my lifetime, HCSP are not the be-all and end-all

There's a lot of crap in that pool. I would not worry too much about it.

Great feedback @Lodro, thank you.

@Alexx, welcome to the community!

I think it's gonna be very difficult to get a lot of good pics by shooting from the hip. If you shoot like this you'll end up with too many photos that have body parts etc cut off. Look through your viewfinder and compose your photo carefully. Whenever possible talk to your subject before snapping away. I think you will get a lot more keepers that way. If you're photographing people and you spend a little time with them and have their permission to shoot their photo you can shoot a few photos from different distances and angles and then choose what you like best later. Sometimes you may not be able to speak to your subject though so you take what you can get.

One other indispensable element: there has to be an element of danger in a street photograph, comparable with the little bit of fugu poison that lets your lips tingle so pleasantly when you eat fugu. But you ask yourself: will I survive?

Lodro said:

One other indispensable element: there has to be an element of danger in a street photograph, comparable with the little bit of fugu poison that lets your lips tingle so pleasantly when you eat fugu. But you ask yourself: will I survive?

Whoa cowboy, you might want to check your testicles at the door and re-think your priorities. That's the kind of approach to street photography that gives it a bad image, and makes it difficult for the rest of us.

'will I survive' - are you serious?

Alexx said:

Lodro said:

One other indispensable element: there has to be an element of danger in a street photograph, comparable with the little bit of fugu poison that lets your lips tingle so pleasantly when you eat fugu. But you ask yourself: will I survive?

There are streets without the danger.
for example;
2 lovers kissing on the street,
children playing,
people singing and playing guitar,
fresh fruits or hot dog car,
...

Try to photograph children playing and see if you don't get chased by a mob shouting "pervert! pervert!"

Also I was reminded of this Paul Strand quotation:

“It is one thing to photograph people. It is another to make others care about them by revealing the core of their humanness.”

Which is all very well until you remember that Strand made one of the most exploitative street portraits ever.

I guess that what I was trying to express by danger is that feeling in a photograph and about its photographer of being "on the edge", precarious balance, instead of playing it safe.

Great comment Lodro: "What I see a lot is people not daring to get close to their subjects and so they photograph their backs, or something too far off, or a dog pissing against a car."

Lodro said:

What I see a lot is people not daring to get close to their subjects and so they photograph their backs, or something too far off, or a dog pissing against a car. But as a viewer of such a photograph I have to ask myself: why am I looking at this? The "danger" of course is daring to engage with the scene and the people in it. This goes for lovers kissing and people playing guitar equally: these may seem safe situations, but it's all in the approach.

Ok this is far better explained then only 'danger'. I agree 100% with you

Lodro said:

I guess that what I was trying to express by danger is that feeling in a photograph and about its photographer of being "on the edge", precarious balance, instead of playing it safe.

Agree too. But what about when you have to approach a scene as a 'voyeur' .. just to catch the moment?

biscuit said:

Portraiture is a whole other thing.

Yes it is for sure. I don't know how others feel about shooting a close up shot of a complete stranger in the street with a 24mm lens but to me it's not exactly portraiture. To me any photo shot in the street is street photography but there are many different types of street photography. Most people are really afraid to get close. I think I have the opposite problem in that I tend to get too close. I hope to improve in the future.

biscuit said:

"Just because it has people, and they're on the street, doesn't mean it's street photography." - B. D. Colen

And there's a lot of great street photographs that have been taken nowhere near any pavement. Just sayin'.

FWIW, speaking as someone of Cuban descent, that whole business model of taking tour groups of gringo photographers down to sponge up the local color creeps me out. Poverty tourism. I hope you had the decency to tip your subjects.

Different people call different things street photography. Could you give us your interpretation as to what you consider to be street photography and also post a few examples of your own street photos if you have any? I would especially like to see some of these: "And there's a lot of great street photographs that have been taken nowhere near any pavement. Just sayin'."

I'm just an amateur photographer who likes to shoot all kinds of photos. I always thought that most photos shot in the street would be considered some sort of street photography but maybe I am wrong.
You say you are of Cuban descent. Have you lived in Cuba and if so in what area? I have mostly only been to Havana and I have been there at least 30 times in the past 9 years or more. I have never been there with any group and I have never stayed in a hotel or been on a resort there. I only stay with Cuban familes that I know in licensed casas. I would never have any interest in going to any country in the world with a bunch of Gringo photographers for Poverty tourism as you describe it. In 99% of the times I have been to Cuba I have gone alone.
Most of my photos of people in the street are shot up close with nothing longer than a 24-70mm lens. It's also very rare that I photograph anyone without asking their permission. Sometimes these people ask me to take their photos. I know Havana very well and I remember where I shot all of these photos and I even know the names of a lot of these people in my photos plus a little bit about them. Quite often I go back and give them copies of the photos. If you know anything about Havana you will know that people don't move around a lot so it's very common for me to run into some of these people in the street where I may have photographed them several years before.
Not all Gringo photographers are on Poverty tourism type tours and I really don't know why you brought that up unless you assumed that I was that type of person.
Life in Cuba is not easy and I have helped out many people there incuding one family that I help on a regular basis.

Agree too. But what about when you have to approach a scene as a 'voyeur' .. just to catch the moment?



Please define "voyeur"
By the way: those street portraits are posed, I would say.