Well - I've just got around to reading the thread linked to in the OP, and a couple of comments stood out to me...
"Quality doesn't mean deep blacks and whatever tonal range. That's not quality, that's a kind of quality. The pictures of Robert Frank might strike someone as being sloppy - the tone range isn't right and things like that - but they're far superior to the pictures of Ansel Adams with regard to quality, because the quality of Ansel Adams, if I may say so, is essentially the quality of a postcard. But the quality of Robert Frank is a quality that has something to do with what he's doing, what his mind is. It's not balancing out the sky to the sand and so forth. It's got to do with intention." (Elliott Erwitt)
Makes a lot of sense to me, but then I suppose it depends on where you are coming from photographically. I can appreciate an Ansel Adams but in the end it's just a pretty picture - there's no narrative. Give me a good street or documentary picture any day
and
Simon, you will be get a lot of applause about this quote here in a RF forum. But quote this in a large format forum and you will be crucified...
Which pretty much sums up the different approaches of Landscape and Street/Reportage photography.
Now, I'm the first to admit I'm a dyed in the wool Landscape shooter. The only time I'll include people in the shot (given a choice) is if I'm desperate for a little foreground interest, and there is absolutely nothing there. Then I'll co-opt a friend to go and sit in a particular place for me, or go for a self timer shot and get into frame myself (
usually with my back to the camera, looking out into the view "a-la Wainwright's sketch images 
)
The top and bottom of it is
I don't enjoy shooting people. There - I've said it, I just don't enjoy it. If I take a photograph of someone that I know, then I feel that the photograph isn't for me, it's for them. I therefore feel compelled and pressured into trying to make them look good - or at least better than they normally look. And I just don't understand
WHY i'd want a picture of someone I didn't know. So - I avoid it wherever possible.
So - street shooting is a closed book to me. I've opened it, read a couple of chapters, and didn't get hooked, so took it to the jumble sale, and don't intend buying another copy - even if I'm stuck on Hull Railway station for 7 hours until my next train with nothing else to read.
I think that in the thread where this sprang from some of my comments on quality may have been interpreted a little over literally, but as it was the "show us..." thread I didn't really want to hijack things any further. Maybe I could explain a little better here?
I most definitely wasn't having a outright attack upon street shooting when I said " Just because it's shot on film, it doesn't instantly transform it into art (even if you ARE an art student!) Taking a grainy black and white shot doesn't make you Robert Capa or Henri Cartier-Bresson. " I'm fairly sure that HCB spent ages lurking "Behind the Gare St. Lazare" waiting for someone to jump over that puddle, and to capture the "Decisive Moment" - I'm equally sure that the shot of the bike passing the spiraling staircase was, if not exactly set up, then pre-visualised by HCB, and I'm fairly sure he lay in wait for a cyclist to pass bye. Both of these examples show that a good way to get high quality output is to put a bit of thought into things. I enjoy good quality street stuff, but bad stuff leaves me cold.
I also commented that some shots were lacking a little in contrast and could be improved by a gentle coat of photoshop. While I happily stand on that, It doesn't mean that I personally demand that every shot has the full gamut of black to white. Most photographic subjects DO have a range that covers a large chunk of that gamut however, and it seems a shame not to take advantage of that.
When we get a newcomer to F&C, who asks for assistance, one of the first things that comes up is "what B&W film can I get" - these people are usually, quite rightly, steered in the direction of the C41 B&W films for their first forays, as it's easier to get them processed in minilabs on the highstreet. Sadly, as many of us know, the output of minilabs is something of a variable feast, especially with the B&W films. I've had maybe half a dozen rolls processed by various labs, and to be honest, not one of them was scanned anywhere near as well as I managed on a modest flatbed scanner with the default settings. Guess what the main problem was? ... lack of contrast :shrug: So - maybe we should be saying, get the C41 film, have it scanned by the minilab, but have a look at the output file, see if it needs a tweak in photoshop for contrast?
