FWIW, I don't agree with those who classify street photography as a subset of "documentary." I know that some street photographers step across the border into documentary work. I definitely have. You walk into a story and there you are, documenting an event transpiring in front of your eyes.
But in my mind, street photography is about capturing a moment in time, devoid of context. Context can certainly enhance one's understanding of the photograph's "meaning" or the photographer's intention, but good street photography can stand on its own, apart from any larger social or political context. Documentary work establishes a time and place and meaning from the outset. Ddocumentary work can certainly incorporate street photography. But on its own, street photography is its own thing.
"good street photography can stand on its own" Yes! Totally agree. A great photo is a great photo. Outside of the series, project, context, etc. I admired a lots of 'street photos' long before I knew the label. They were just great photos. Look at Alfred Eisenstaedt TImes Square kiss or Walker Evans subway portraits.
There is whole rat hole also of what is and what isn't street photography. I simultaneously feel that labels are helpful--to learning, classifying, reviewing my own work, seeking out the work of others, etc.--and really unhelpful--putting photos into a limiting box, taking time to fight about what something fits into, spending time trying to make photos that fit into that box, etc.
I don't really do 'street photography' (in pretty much any sense of the word) but I do like to go out into town and make photo's :) I don't mind to include people but I want them to have a supporting role (so small in the frame, as a silhouette, face not showing etc) instead of being the main subject.
I think people in a supporting role can often liven up an otherwise boring photo. Trying street photography has been humbling... but a good exercise--no matter what I do with it long term.
Good photos — especially the one with the portrait. European streets are photogenic. North American streets are mostly empty space. OK, they can be interesting, too, but mostly as places to move through, rather than to socialise in.
:-) Yeah, I had a whole section in mind on what is street photography and does it require people? There are too many answers to this question. A number of them would call everything I do street photography. But, I decided not to delve into that debate and for simplicity sake, I don’t call my photos street photography if they don’t have people.
Great read, Josh! I can’t say I really tried street photography almost for all the same reasons you mentioned. I love, that you tried it and found out through it, what you are really passionate about! Keep doing whatever you feel like doing!
I initially gravitated towards street photography, as it seemed closest to my interest in framing urban scenes. But I was more interested in the architecture than the people (included more for scale and complementary shapes). I tried incorporating people more centrally but I’ve wrestled with the expectation that street photography is about candid shots. You are not supposed to engage with the people in the frame (a person looking at the photographer ruins the shot). I’ve been changing my approach as I’ve learned that the social component can be very rewarding. I guess that means it’s not street photography anymore, but that’s OK.
I think street portraits are another fascinating subject. And those totally involve engaging with the person. I’ve watched some amazing YouTube videos where the people have an incredibly friendly and engaging wave approaching someone and saying something like “wow, your jacket goes so well with your eyes, can I take your portrait?” it’s amazing how quickly they can make a connection.
I did one portrait it was also very intimidating. But I could definitely practice more and get more used to doing.
"See The thing that you have to do is not simply 'can I take your photograph' it's to engage them in a particular way that is unique to them."
and
"'Excuse me I just noticed your sleeve it's really quite something would you mind if I took your photograph' in that instant I begin not with taking but by giving it's a compliment but it's a compliment born of authenticity."
Lots of good tips there. It’s good that, in keeping with the idea of co-creation, he suggests that subjects should be offered a copy of the photo if they express an interest.
Great post and imagery Josh.
FWIW, I don't agree with those who classify street photography as a subset of "documentary." I know that some street photographers step across the border into documentary work. I definitely have. You walk into a story and there you are, documenting an event transpiring in front of your eyes.
But in my mind, street photography is about capturing a moment in time, devoid of context. Context can certainly enhance one's understanding of the photograph's "meaning" or the photographer's intention, but good street photography can stand on its own, apart from any larger social or political context. Documentary work establishes a time and place and meaning from the outset. Ddocumentary work can certainly incorporate street photography. But on its own, street photography is its own thing.
Mark, Thanks for the comments!
"good street photography can stand on its own" Yes! Totally agree. A great photo is a great photo. Outside of the series, project, context, etc. I admired a lots of 'street photos' long before I knew the label. They were just great photos. Look at Alfred Eisenstaedt TImes Square kiss or Walker Evans subway portraits.
There is whole rat hole also of what is and what isn't street photography. I simultaneously feel that labels are helpful--to learning, classifying, reviewing my own work, seeking out the work of others, etc.--and really unhelpful--putting photos into a limiting box, taking time to fight about what something fits into, spending time trying to make photos that fit into that box, etc.
I don't really do 'street photography' (in pretty much any sense of the word) but I do like to go out into town and make photo's :) I don't mind to include people but I want them to have a supporting role (so small in the frame, as a silhouette, face not showing etc) instead of being the main subject.
I think closest I get is something like this collection: https://ronaldsmeets.info/album/the-quiet-streets-of-crone/ - it's really more about the actual "streets" ;)
I think people in a supporting role can often liven up an otherwise boring photo. Trying street photography has been humbling... but a good exercise--no matter what I do with it long term.
True words 👍
Good photos — especially the one with the portrait. European streets are photogenic. North American streets are mostly empty space. OK, they can be interesting, too, but mostly as places to move through, rather than to socialise in.
I'm sure everywhere you can find streets that are interesting to photograph :)
:-) Yeah, I had a whole section in mind on what is street photography and does it require people? There are too many answers to this question. A number of them would call everything I do street photography. But, I decided not to delve into that debate and for simplicity sake, I don’t call my photos street photography if they don’t have people.
Great read, Josh! I can’t say I really tried street photography almost for all the same reasons you mentioned. I love, that you tried it and found out through it, what you are really passionate about! Keep doing whatever you feel like doing!
Susanne, FYI, I have a copy of my Zine for you if you’d like. Send your mailing address to me at josh@weinbergphoto.com and I will get it on its way.
That’s very kind of you. You know I am based in Germany, right?
👍 Took six weeks to get to Mark in New Zealand. Don’t start checking the box right away…
I initially gravitated towards street photography, as it seemed closest to my interest in framing urban scenes. But I was more interested in the architecture than the people (included more for scale and complementary shapes). I tried incorporating people more centrally but I’ve wrestled with the expectation that street photography is about candid shots. You are not supposed to engage with the people in the frame (a person looking at the photographer ruins the shot). I’ve been changing my approach as I’ve learned that the social component can be very rewarding. I guess that means it’s not street photography anymore, but that’s OK.
I think street portraits are another fascinating subject. And those totally involve engaging with the person. I’ve watched some amazing YouTube videos where the people have an incredibly friendly and engaging wave approaching someone and saying something like “wow, your jacket goes so well with your eyes, can I take your portrait?” it’s amazing how quickly they can make a connection.
I did one portrait it was also very intimidating. But I could definitely practice more and get more used to doing.
I’m reminded of Brandon Stanton’s ongoing Humans of New York project (and books).
These two videos are amazing classes in street photography
This one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbZYkZLJfVw) Hugh explains his technique.
See 2:25 and 2:48 where he says:
"See The thing that you have to do is not simply 'can I take your photograph' it's to engage them in a particular way that is unique to them."
and
"'Excuse me I just noticed your sleeve it's really quite something would you mind if I took your photograph' in that instant I begin not with taking but by giving it's a compliment but it's a compliment born of authenticity."
This one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_koJG4Lw2U) Hugh shows his technique in action starting at 1:00
Thanks, Josh, I will watch the videos.
Lots of good tips there. It’s good that, in keeping with the idea of co-creation, he suggests that subjects should be offered a copy of the photo if they express an interest.