street photography without the street

Started Sep 23, 2012 | Discussions thread
shutterbud Senior Member • Posts: 1,350
Re: Purists are fools

apaflo wrote:

This is true for any given genre, but we see a lot of this with Street. It in fact is a broad category, but individuals are always trying to claim it is defined more narrowly, and almost invariably their definition is not Street, but is a definition of their own style of Street. They literally try to exclude different styles as not even Street.

Street doesn't have to be 1) BW; 2) shot with a rangefinder, much less a Leica; 3) need not be either a wide angle lens that has been zone focused; nor 4) a telephoto with a 90 degree mirror to look around corners; it need not 5) have people in the picture, nor 6) even show a street; and 7) the streets shown don't have to be urban, nor 8) do the people show need to be weird or strange.

But any of those can in fact describe some individual's style of Street Photography. They just don't exclude the next photographer who chooses a different style.

Hear hear.

I think the problem with Street Photography is a lot of people seem to think it's got something to do with being cool or "real" or whatever. It's as if they see themselves as some sort of photographic urban warrior. The more I come across this attitude, the less I care about how other people categorise images. As far as I'm concerned, if an image appeals to me, it doesn't matter which FL, DSLR or film stock was used to get it. I also feel that far too much is made of mundane technical aspects in capture- I have a couple of images which are just all wrong, even by my own rather lax standards, but I love them. Too often we see super-precise exposure/focus, with little content.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow