Street photography cliches

Ah ... street photography police!
"You must" ... "You must not" :runaway:
 
juggler said:
Did you actually read it? The only 'must' was to avoid photographing homeless people. The author was otherwise quite careful to qualify their suggestions that some common themes need careful handling in order to produce work sufficiently original to do well in their competition.
Click to expand...

I'll be honest I thought the article was a pile of s***e.
 
UaeExile said:
I'll be honest I thought the article was a pile of s***e.
Click to expand...

That's quite strong. Maybe I'm not being critical enough. What did you find sh*te about it?

I just read it as reflecting their experience of what's submitted to their competition. As such it contains some useful ideas to avoid producing the same stuff as many other street photographers.
 
juggler said:
Did you actually read it? The only 'must' was to avoid photographing homeless people. The author was otherwise quite careful to qualify their suggestions that some common themes need careful handling in order to produce work sufficiently original to do well in their competition.
Click to expand...

Every word?
No ... I find such commentaries on what is and is not 'approved' as street photography tiresome.
That said, I realise that some people get very excited about the genre and how it should be followed ... I'm just not one :)
 
the trouble with street photography is that it has a very bad "signal to noise" ratio compared with other genres and people seem to think anything goes as long as it has a very contrasty black and white "gritty" filter applied lol
 
juggler said:
That's quite strong. Maybe I'm not being critical enough. What did you find sh*te about it?

I just read it as reflecting their experience of what's submitted to their competition. As such it contains some useful ideas to avoid producing the same stuff as many other street photographers.
Click to expand...

To me it just comes across full of self-importance and the condescending tone refers to 99.9% of street photography.
 
boliston said:
the trouble with street photography is that it has a very bad "signal to noise" ratio compared with other genres and people seem to think anything goes as long as it has a very contrasty black and white "gritty" filter applied lol
Click to expand...
I don't think street photography has a lower 'signal to noise' ratio, but that it's difficult for most people to discern what's signal and what's noise, because it's more nuanced than most photography. It's easy for me to spot a bad portrait, or a bad wildlife shot, but how do I know what a bad street photo looks like? How do I know whether the photographer has managed to put across the message?

I hate to say it, but we're sailing close to the A word here.
 
As far as I'm concerned, photography is just another art form and I don't think there should be any rules as to what one should or should not do, it should be how the photographer intends the picture to be, if anyone see it as a bad photo, then that's just their opinion and they choose to see it like that.
We can't all like the same things otherwise the world would be a boring place.

:)
 
Phil V said:
I hate to say it, but we're sailing close to the A word here.
Click to expand...

Bingo cards at the ready. :D

Why do some people have to categorise photography into genres with 'rules' as to what fits in one genre or another? Why can't it all just be photography? :thinking:
 
This site takes pleasure in posting rules about what makes a bad street photograph but they are unable to show a picture that according to their rules is a good street photo. It is difficult to take such a site seriously.
 
juggler said:
...........I just read it as reflecting their experience of what's submitted to their competition. As such it contains some useful ideas to avoid producing the same stuff as many other street photographers.
Click to expand...

I agree entirely.

I don't see what people are getting so upset about.
 
Graham W said:
Never quite understood why "Homeless People" are less deserving of our attention...Treat all your subjects with equal respect.
You don't hear people complaining about Don McCullin's street pics.
Click to expand...

It's not that they're less deserving of your attention. It's just that it's cliched and arguably exploitative. If you're going to photograph the homeless, bring something new to the table - tell a story. I've lost count of the number of pics I've seen of a homeless guy with a sign while suited, oblivious people walk by. It's a tired, lazy narrative.

People don't complain about Don McCullin's work because it shows incredible craft in composition and storytelling. When he was capturing the homeless it was in the 60s and 70s and it wasn't just taking a candid of a guy holding a cardboard sign - he often engaged with his subjects and showed them to be not only destitute but living, breathing, characterful people.
 
UaeExile said:
Half of Henri Cartier Bresson's work falls into their cliche categories.

Bet he'd be gutted :(
Click to expand...

How so? HCB, despite having photographed the homeless, spoke out against doing so. His work has been copied and emulated so many times over the past century that some of the themes and ideas that he trailblazed may have become clichéd.

I'm not a street photographer, but a huge fan of it. The main criticism I have of some street photographers, outside of using clichés badly, is a lack of patience.
 
redsnappa said:
This site takes pleasure in posting rules about what makes a bad street photograph but they are unable to show a picture that according to their rules is a good street photo. It is difficult to take such a site seriously.
Click to expand...
Forget other peoples rules,follow your own.:):clap:
 
decigallen said:
How so? HCB, despite having photographed the homeless, spoke out against doing so. His work has been copied and emulated so many times over the past century that some of the themes and ideas that he trailblazed may have become clichéd.

I'm not a street photographer, but a huge fan of it. The main criticism I have of some street photographers, outside of using clichés badly, is a lack of patience.
Click to expand...

To be fair I think it's more the use of the word itself that annoys me. Frequently used by people who have an over inflated opinion of themselves and the pictures they take. That and the fact it can apply to any genre of photography out there and almost every picture made.

We're all following in the footsteps of others.
 
gramps said:
I realise that some people get very excited about the genre and how it should be followed ... I'm just not one :)
Click to expand...

I'm the same. I just don't get it. I have similar feelings about portraiture and glamour.

I don't see why anyone would want a photograph of someone they don't know.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
I don't see why anyone would want a photograph of someone they don't know.
Click to expand...

Same reasons as why people buy any art I would imagine.

Aesthetics or emotional attachment. Or general interest I guess
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
I'm the same. I just don't get it. I have similar feelings about portraiture and glamour.

I don't see why anyone would want a photograph of someone they don't know.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Horses for courses.. most photos are more interesting to me if they've got some human interest. If I see one more wide angle shot of a rock in a blurry wave with a sunset on the horizon I will, um, well, go and look at something else, probably.
 
kissfoto said:
Follow your own rules, if people like your pictures fine, if you like your pictures even better. We all have different tastes and understandings of what we are doing just have to respect other people ideas.
Click to expand...

I agree, Ian. The web has spurned a generation of people who "know best" and are constantly telling us what to do. Okay, some of the so-called "rules" of street photography make sense to a point but if we all followed them to the letter it would become a very boring genre. Look at some of the great names in street photography - Klein, Webb, Moriyama, Haas et al - all rule breakers. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
 
I live in London and I like people, I'd much rather see/have/take pictures of people than say cats, birds, creepy crawlies ... subjects popular with millions of serious toggers, and to great effect.

I like 'street' and I have my own rules. No dossers, no children, and always be prepared to share and delete upon request. Shoot first, ask questions later. Snapping should be fun, no arguments, no hassle, no upsets.
 
I'm sick of all these articles telling us how we should take photographs. Advice is is one thing, being told what is "acceptable" is just plain arrogance.

I also don't get why we should avoid taking pictures of homeless people or beggars/junkies/dossers.. It's part of what is going on on the street. If we all ignore them due to "rules" or "etiquette", people in 50 years time will not get a real idea of how the streets were now. I'm not advocating going out looking for them, but if I see a good shot involving a homeless person, I'll take it, as I would any other scene that grabs me. Street photography is social commentary, and as such imo should not be censored, by ourselves or others.
 
aliengrove said:
I'm sick of all these articles telling us how we should take photographs. Advice is is one thing, being told what is "acceptable" is just plain arrogance.

I also don't get why we should avoid taking pictures of homeless people or beggars/junkies/dossers.. It's part of what is going on on the street. If we all ignore them due to "rules" or "etiquette", people in 50 years time will not get a real idea of how the streets were now. I'm not advocating going out looking for them, but if I see a good shot involving a homeless person, I'll take it, as I would any other scene that grabs me. Street photography is social commentary, and as such imo should not be censored, by ourselves or others.
Click to expand...
totally agreed shoot what I want when I want with what I want as long as its not against the law
 
I know through my many friends that are buskers, it really winds them up when people stand and take photos of them without leaving even a small amount of change. I myself don't busk, but I always give a bit of change if I stop to take pictures of anyone that does.
I feel like this could translate to the homeless too, and if you decide to take a photo of someone in need, then the least you can do is offer some charity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top