Is street photography dead?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 6000 Image Height 6000 Number of Bits Per Component 16, 16, 16 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2011:11:23 13:26:11 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 3000 Image Height 3000
it's been dead for 40 years.
A lot of people still doing it.
>>2865851
A lot of people are beating a dead horse.
Better to think of it in terms of Street Photographers. There's an inner coterie who aren't dead yet, so whatever they produce keeps the genre alive. Once they're gone who knows...they may or may not even think of themselves as street photographers. Maybe the truth is street photography never existed on the first place. Whose label is it anyway?
>>2865851
a lot of people are taking bad, disrespectful pictures of the homeless and lower class black/hispanic communities, jacking the contrast up and pulling the saturation down
or pictures of people on bikes, people waiting for the bus, sillhouettes of people in dark lighting, desolate architecture illuminated by streetlamps
no one is doing street photography. street photography is a solved field, and all the pictures that can be called that genre were taken over 30 years ago.
yes street photography is dead
why dont you go make some friends and put some pics of them on instagram instead
welcome to the brave new world of art photography
What's your conception about Street Photography?
Why it is dead to you?
prove me your point
>>2865868
Then what do you expect in street photography?
>>2865868
>street photography is a solved field, and all the pictures that can be called that genre were taken over 30 years ago
Lets see them
ITT: People who have no idea what street photography is
There will always be subjects to document
>>2866003
Until the heat death of the universe occurs
Who gives a shit? Do street photography if you want.
Dont wait for /p/ to validate your shit
>>2865868
I want this post to be the de facto pasta in every street thread from now on. It says everything that needs to be said in a witty, succinct fashion.
Nope. I love taking photos of the street! IF it's not dead to you, it's not dead.
>>2866858
No it doesn't.
>>2866863
What else needs to be said?
>>2866873
I'm gonna need a brief history on the development of street photography, ten pages bare minimum.
>>2866874
Just because you need it doesn't mean that everyone does.
>>2865844
>Is street photography dead?
It is dead in same way in which cinema is dead.
/thread
https://www.instagram.com/the.things.i.shot/
friend always talks shit about other photographers who take pictures of building and food and stuff
he considers himself a pretty good street photographer
idk what to say when he says that lol, is he really a good photographer, or he's terrible, like i think he is?
>>2866908
I'm personally not a fan, though I'm not sure I could articulate why. Just kind of rubs me the wrong way I guess. Seems like the kind of thing a lot of people are into now though. At least among the Instagram users I know. Is that a common style?
>>2866911
not in my area at least, he's the only one doing that, but i dont find any attractiveness to it
>>2865844
Street photography is to photography, as photography is to the art world. It's valid, but it's also the lowest tier. It suffers as a genre because there's just so much of it that's completely awful. It doesn't help that there's a large, vocal group of self described street photographers with nothing to say in terms of their work, or in conversation.
[spoiler] no [\spoiler]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQIdhKkf-E4
>>2866917
Fucking yawn. He's doing literally nothing new with the genre. These are all retreads of the same shit that Frank/HCB/Friedlander/Winogrand were doing long before this kid was even born, or Moriyama was doing 30 years ago.
Pic related is one of the few new things to be done with street photography in the last 20 years.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make x-finity Camera Model ultraity ultra Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 3353 Image Height 2792 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Compression Scheme Unknown Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2008:02:29 17:37:02 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 661 Image Height 550
>>2866913
I go to school in a very urban place. Lots of kids with cameras. So I see a lot of that sort of thing. Yeah, no, I don't find much of any interest in it either.
>>2866915
It's definitely a saturated field. Not that I'm one to talk, but I'll often see people who are completely incompetent attempt photography just because they have a camera they were required to purchase for their art 257 course or whatever. Anybody feels they can do it now. It tends to trivialize things I think. I don't know. Just my two cents.
>>2866918
Christ it's not about revolutionizing a whole genre with every picture you take. I like this guy because imo his rendition of night colors is nice and the interaction of the charachters in his pictures is interesting.
In some way the genre is saturated, i mean there is only so many things that can happen in a city. This doesn't need to be a bad thing though, because even with similar content, the photos can be very different and interesting in their own ways.
>>2866915
>self described street photographers with nothing to say in terms of their work, or in conversation.
its photography, why should they have lots to say about their own work? thats the public/critics task. if you need to have an elaborate and intrincate discourse about your "work", maybe youre a shitter with better talent for rethoric and prose than photo.
>>2866928
Maybe I'm mistaken but I think they meant that their photos don't have anything to say about their subjects. Not that those photographers don't have anything to say about their photos. Just how I read it.
>>2866928
>>2866935
Sorry if I was a bit unclear lads. What I mean was that often examples of "street photography" don't seem to have any point to it beyond being a photography taken outside in an urban area. There's no reason for that photograph to exist, there's no substance to it. Very often looking at street photography I get the feeling that for many street photographers just having taken a candid photo on the street and made it high contrast grainy black and white is good enough, which personally I don't think is true. Hope that clears up what I meant, whether you agree or not.
>>2866945
but thats a very shallow criticism of the genre and can be applied to literally anything you dont like.
>Sorry if I was a bit unclear lads. What I mean was that often examples of "landscape photography" don't seem to have any point to it beyond being a photography taken outside of the urban area. There's no reason for that photograph to exist, there's no substance to it.
see?
>>2866951
I think your edit also holds true though. Just taking a photo that complies with genre features doesn't make a good photo. That's the trap I think a lot of street photography falls into moreso than most other genres, you get a grainy black and white candid shot of a person, but that's all you get. No thought other than "I need to be making grainy black and white candid shots of people".
>>2866958
>No thought other than "I need to be making frontal colorful shots of buildings corners".
thats my edit for "urban minimalists".
i still dont see how street photo falls into that trap "more" than other genres. i see cliches everywhere in every photo field, have you seen 'indie fashion photos'? it looks literally the same everytime independently on which country it was shot. at least street shows you people that actually look different depending of the country, so pls explain.
>>2866963
>i see cliches everywhere in every photo field
agree completely with that.
With street photography being as popular as it is though I think it follows that there's more of it about, and therefore more bad examples.
>>2865868
Street photos become relevant in 40 years when technology has come to pass. 40 years from know I don't think people will be glued to their phones and the Internet (if it hasn't been taken down by NWO or World War 3) will be plastered with pictures of teenagers looking down at their phones en masse
>>2866994
let me expand a bit on this, part of the appeal of your Henri Cartier Bressons and Vivian Meiers is that they provide us a window into a time before many of us were born.
I personally love looking at color photographs from Florida that paints a time before greedy real estate developers from New York and Jewish banking elites set up shop.
>>2866994
You're a fucktard and know next to nothing about photography or art. Please don't talk to me or my board again.
