Photography

The only way to develop a true understanding of and appreciation for the genre is to study some of the greats.

List of Street Photographers

It's just outdoor photography in urban environments. I personally focus more on architecture and taking photos that one day might be a historical record of an area. The older I get, the less I care about people being in my urban photos - and I even go out of my way sometimes to make sure no one is in them. I feel like people should be able to exist in public unbothered, which is why I find the aggressive sorts of "street photography" to be something I'd rather not personally be about.

For me, there are two types. Street photography with unique moments and artistic (contentious I know) renderings of human life on the street (think Joel Meyerowitz, Alex Webb, Martin Parr, Saul Leiter) . Then there is bad Instagram street photography, or dare I say snapshots, of random people on the street making gestures or scenes that are just not interesting. All falls under street photography but some people are just better at it than most.

I like this definition from iN-PUBLIC.

Is it random pictures of strangers?

Yep

Urban pictures?

Sure

People living their daily lives?

Definitely

What sort of general criteria is there for street photography

There's no criteria. Just as "bringing out the beauty with an attempt to make it look grand and dramatic" isn't a criteria for landscape photography either. You photography is what you want it to be.

I've shot street for several years now. Here is my portfolio if you really care.

To me, street photography is (usually) candid photos of humans being humans in their natural environment. It doesn't always have to be literally on a "street", but it usually is. Likewise, it doesn't always have to be candid, but it usually is. I personally tend to separate photos without humans in them as a separate category from "street", but not everyone agrees. For example, photos of city environments without people in them would be "urban" photography to me instead of "street" photography, but again, that's just me.

Best I can figure is that it means candid natural light portraits of strangers. However, it's so trendy that people use it to describe several other sub genre, and that they value compact/ inconspicuous gear.

For me that's capturing special moments, interactions or views in urban environments to tell a story through the photo.

Is it random pictures of strangers?

It can be, but it needs to have a story, something special in the interaction or the environment, I don't consider that guys taking photos of young women in the street without consent just because "they are beautiful" is street photography (but weirdly that's one of the most popular photo style on social medias...)

It means taking pictures of people without their permission when they are doing menial shit, slapping a blue, moody filter on it and posting it on social media.

No?

Post a photo in a Facebook street photography group. You’ll get numerous replies telling you that it’s not street photography. Post another after taking on board your feedback from the first. You’ll get more comments saying it’s not street.

Repeat this process and eventually you’ll have eliminated all the things street isn’t, and be left with what street is.

I always looked at it as capturing something about society or humanity at a moment in time. Either a person or something a person made, settings that involve people in the past present or future.

"...since it's all the hype now"

There have been other periods of time where this has been hyped up as well. I remember in the mid/late 90's a lot of museums and galleries showcased solo and group shows, usually with the big names (Sebastiao Salgado, Walker Evans, Robert Capa, Helen Levitt, Vivian Maier (not 90's but 2000's) , etc....). So, nothing really new here, just another wave that somehow has become trendy. I think there are some reasons behind this, maybe certain new artists springing up, new cameras designed for this purpose like Fuji XT (and resurgence of pivotal old film cameras such as Leica M), and of course there's social media. I try not to get bogged down by the trends and hype. To me, great photography is great photography no matter how it's categorized. I love "street photography", but I am a little curious as to why it seems necessary to define this with people in public places, the decisive moment, and a gritty old urban background. I'd love to see a photographer pull off some good "street" shots in a new glitzy shopping mall, or in a bland quiet suburban neighborhood, or maybe even just their own backyard.

I don't blame you for not understanding it. Street photography has been beat and stretched so much in the last couple decades that what most people say or think street is isn't what it was traditionally. It's a victim of it's own principles.

Traditionally, street was antithesis to the early days of photography when photography was taking direction from the painting world and it's principles. The idea was to create order out of chaos. Put a frame around a moment as it unfolded. That chaos, only existed in that moment (the decisive moment) and could not be recreated.

The juxtaposition of people and their expressions, set against an unscripted backdrop of forms and signage, that sometimes balanced or counter balanced the overall scene made each frame unique. Good street photography is quite hard to achieve and without a deep understanding of how to analyze an image the complexity of it is often lost on people. Those that say it's just a snapshot are missing what is really happening and need to look deeper.

Most of what is considered street today is not street in the traditional sense. Long lenses, set up shots, heavy post production, etc. Isn't what street was ever about.

However, because street broke all the rules originally, I guess you could make an argument that what passes for street today is the evolution of that early revolt.....

IMO you have to see good street photography first and get an idea of what it is supposed to be before looking at what it's become to really make up your mind (and your own interpretation).

I would look at Henry Cartier Bresson, Gary Winogrand, Elliot Erwitt, Robert Frank, Walker Evans, Lee Friedlander, and Joel Meyerowitz.

No.

It's not all the hype now, it's been all hype ever since the cameras started to become available.

The beauty of (good) street photography is the unreproduceability. Every person can go to Horseshoe Bend and take beautiful sunset pictures if they study little bit of theory, but very few people can get similar street photography results to the masters. That takes time, good eye, sense of storytelling. Good street photograph has a story behind it - which can be very superficial (basically photo version of one like joke) or very deep (a documentary about a city riddled with AIDS).

However (and unfortunately), from the most people it is only what you described - random pictures of strangers.

Instead of a landscape, it’s a cityscape. Just like a landscape could cover most anything in nature, like a forest, mountain, etc etc, a cityscape can cover anything set in an urban environment. Generally speaking, it covers more people centric subjects, as opposed to urban architecture, but there aren't any hard and fast rules. No need to overthink it.

it only refers to photos of random people who look angrily at the camera

Well you walk down the street and take photographs.

I think of it as just unplanned, unobtrusive photography in an urban setting, capturing events unfolding naturally.

Great street photography requires ironic vintage gear and wardrobe. Both can sourced from a thrift store or from an Ebay seller in the former Soviet Union. Having a mechanical typewriter helps (for blogging), as does a Victorian-era bicycle. Grow a mustache. If you want to be truly misunderstood as an artist, create high contrast b&w images that are underexposed and out of focus.