The Beautiful Art Of Street Photography

Are there 2 or 3 p's in Creepy?

Rich Franco

I don't see anything creepy here. First shot was from a respectable distance (no low angle upwards even...) and the second really tells a story.

I'm still trying to overcome my innate shyness at pointing the camera anywhere in public for street photos, even though I specifically bought a smaller rangefinder style camera for that purpose instead of using the big DSLR.

Of the few that I have got :

An exhibitionist who would't be camera shy, and two people steadfastly ignoring him.


At the lake. I was also waist deep in the water.
This is one of those very shallow lakes, we were about 100M from shore.
No hiding behind a tree for this shot.


Walking to the car after work:


At a marina on Salt Spring Island. Not sure if this one counts as street.

trever,
Well done and well said...and good candid's as well. Fine Art America generally speaking is NOT the place for street photographers. It's more for still life, landscape, flowers, etc.

By the way, my street images are not all of secular ladies....

I think its not so right that FAA is not a place for the street photography.. The question is its not much buyers for this kind of photography, but its a real art.

Here is one of the best street photographers I ever knew, with philosophic view of life and its a real art captured with keen point and eye. Michel Verhoef. Just look at his gallery.

i really think you should have a not safe for work on the header of this. and i still don't consider shooting the back side of a lady, and adding that title to it - street photography any more.


---Mike Savad

i would consider this street photography, though be it the amount of work i did on the reflections was a bit of a pain.


---Mike Savad

Mike,
thanks for your opinion. I guess this is why you prefer doing still life. Different styles for different people.

Jenny, Yep, I agree, thanks for showing us such beautiful street images...

Jenny, um, if you know anything about what is "real art," then you would know that street photography is a major art genre and has been so for the past 75 years or so.

http://www.iphotocentral.com/search/result_list.php/256/Henri+Cartier-Bresson

Bresson was one of the great street photographers....His prints sell in the thousands of dollars and can be purchased by major art dealers around the world.

Mike,
I don't know if a "manipulated/changed" image can be a "true" street image. That said, it's a beautiful piece of art.

it has nothing to do with still lives.

you may photograph and sell people as long as you don't put them in a poor light - that's the law. and by placing a particular innuendo on them, that's a bad light.


---Mike Savad

Well, I don't see this everyday, glad I had my camera to capture this.

Yes, Robert Im absolutely agree and I just wondered why its not have any attention here on FAA this kind of art... I fell in love with street photography not long ago, but its so much exciting as you are deeply inside the real life, catching the hidden interaction in between the people, the unexpected situations , opening the world of intimate relations...

if i didn't mention it, you wouldn't have known. like if i used a polarizer, it may not have needed any.






---Mike Savad

Mike objects to my title...Why old men hating being old....(a photo of two beautiful young ladies walking)
He describes this title as "innuendo"
noun
his innuendoes were usually just thinly veiled sexual remarks: insinuation, suggestion, intimation, implication, hint, overtone, undertone, allusion, reference; aspersion, slur.

For the life of me, I see NO innuendo, no slur, no aspersion, no insinuation, no lewdness.....
If anything, it is simply a sad fact of life for old men. they no longer have any chance of having a beautiful young lady as a girlfriend. My title may fall under that category of PATHOS...

pathos
a quality that evokes pity or sadness: the actor injects his customary humor and pathos into the role.

I am 71 years old. The ladies in my picture are what? 22? This is pathos, not innuendo.

Mike,
I love your street art and I am jealous. Great work. If I had but one artist to collect here on faa, it would be U. Hope that my wife and I win the lottery one day. We will make you rich.

the title is suggestive enough to say what you want it to say. and i would say its enough to be sued if pressed. it's one thing to call it - two ladies on the street, a friends day out, or something that has no other suggestive meanings. it's another to do what this is.

in a court of law, pathos won't come up, only damages to reputation and so on, provided they can prove that's them in that picture. in either case one should be careful how they title things because of the suggestive nature of things, it can come back to haunt you at unexpected times.

as pathos as it might be.

---Mike Savad

Mike, with all respect to you and what you are doing, Im afraid I wouldnt consider your images presented here as street photography at its purest, more suitable scenes of life maybe..
Its interesting, beautifully edited but not street photography.. Street photography its a breath of life, it cant be edited hardly...

Here's a few of mine.

Robert - I'm not sure what you meant when you said that a manipulated image can't be a true "street image". Why not?

Trevor - I'm self-conscious about taking pictures of people also. That's why I just bought the Sony DSC-HX50V which has a 30x optical zoom and is a small point and shoot camera. People don't notice you that much if you're the distance of a football field away.




-- Susan Savad

Susan, thats what I said, breath should be as breath as it is, as seen and done. The same with your beautiful images its scenes of life but not what call street photography..

Mike, I see we have a 100 percent disagreement here. You have your opinion, I have mine. My title brims with PATHOS....about what healthy straight old men feel when they see beautiful young women. You seem to be reading smut into it for whatever reason of yours.

Also, just to review the legality of street photography. Here are some general guidelines...Disclaimer: My words do not constitute legal advice.

1....simply photographing a person in public view — including children and law enforcement officials — does not require either a model release or expressed consent.

2....as long as your shooting position is on public ground, you can photograph whatever you wish; this includes subjects situated on private property but within public view, such as a couple sitting on a restaurant patio that you can view from the street. Similarly, contrary to popular belief, you do not need to obtain parental or guardian consent to photograph children on or visible from public property.

3....if you had the right to photograph a subject or scene, generally speaking, you also have the authority to display the photograph as an illustration of art or news – and that includes showing those images on your blog, in print, in news media, and in your photography portfolio (print or online). Indeed, you can even sell prints or digital copies of your street photography.

I used to think "street photography" denotes photos taken on a street -- I suppose I'm too literal-minded. Recently a buyer of this one wrote me a note about it and used the term, so my thinking has changed.

This street image also shows the artist as a young man (lower right side)....The lovely lady gave me the cold shoulder.

Article about Arne Svenson's photos and the case to be made if someone can recognize himself/herself in a photo.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/05/nyc-tribeca-residents-enraged-over-photos-they-claim-violate-their-privacy/

And Robert, Henry Cartier- Bresson (the same as Ansel Adams) its just a magic of the famous name, you cant even imagine how many more talented and unique works for now possible to find from the modern "ordinary" photographers. The famous names magnetizing but that all, photography went far far away from those times and now I can see many brilliant photos which just not valuing because the public doesnt know the names... Pity.

Rona, here is the image which once again NOT a street photography. Street photography is the purest slice of life, non expected but caught at the flight, the fleeting story, which can be very evident or sometimes hidden and you have to watch carefully and find what attracted photographer and what he pointed to...
Here is just street, nothing more..
Your customer, Im sure he is happy with the image, but he was wrong in the meaning of street photography.



By the way here is also not a street photography although the man staying right on the street...

I often use a telephoto for the few times I street image. Now that I've a m43 system, I often use it with a telephoto for street work. I remember (on Fredmiranda I think) someone said you were not a real street photographer unless you were up in the face of the subject. But for me, I'm on the side that even observing can cause that buttery fly in America to flap its wings. So I try and be unobtrusive when I'm street imaging. Yes this is a converted image, but it is still street photography IMHO.

For some 4 years I used a Leica Rangefinder with a 35mm wide angle lens for most of my street images. I learned how to be seen but NOT seen at the same time. Usually I had the F stop at F16, shutter speed at 30. This gave me the chance to use a hyperfocal distance setting of 8 feet to infinity without having to focus all the time. I could always open up to F11 or 8 if need be because of lower light level.



this is a street scene and not a "planned portrait." Altho I don't usually associate a "portrait" even candid as a true "street" image.

there are no rules in photography.

street photography - photos taken on the street usually of people in a candid moment. whether you add special effects, edit it, make it black and white, crop it, clone it, etc - it's still street photography.


---Mike Savad

robert you can call it anything you want, but pathos will be laughed at, and you would be found guilty of whatever damages they may say they had because of that title. the title has a creepy stalkerish feel to it, and the title supports it. whether that was your vision or not wouldn't matter in a court of law. the question comes down too - if those ladies weren't at all attractive, if they looked like rejects from a weight watchers commercial, like they should work at a circus, etc - would you have the same title? does it matter what they look like? as long as they are young?

you have the right to photograph people -- as long as you don't put them in a poor light. which means placing a suggestive idea into peoples heads.

for example, if i shot you coming out of a liquor store, looking a bit scruffy, a bottle in a bag, and i shot you as i can - and titled it - homeless drunk. that would be enough to get me in trouble. because you would then be labeled that and could mess your life. my defense - it was funny. that's where that bit of the law comes in. you can shoot it, but you can't make the subject look bad - then they can sue and probably win.


---Mike Savad

but that news story had more of a peeping tom thing - they weren't out in a public street but in their homes where they expect privacy.


---Mike Savad

News story - I think several floors up in a high rise not level with the "street" and someone is taking photos of you and your neighbors from another residential dwelling with a telephoto lense over a long period of time and frequently is stalking and is invasive, creepy and morally off. I would assume some privacy by not having my apt visible from the street. If the photographer had asked permission to do this project and allowed the subjects to approve images and verify all other images were destroyed.....

The photos in the exhibit are tasteful/artistic images per se, but that does not mean the method acquired was or should be considered legal. These are not quick "street photos", which I relate in part to getting images "on the fly" that are traditionally portrayed in a gritty urban, non editing, not polished up or straightened, barely edited manner.
I think both the Savad artists here have valid street photography images. They have both interpreted the images in their style, it's still street photography....

Melissa Bittinger

Robert,

Your image if taken by a "30 something" would probably be acceptable to the general public, but the same shot taken by a 71 year old man and from the back and looks like you jumped out of the bushes, after they passed, certainly has the "creepy" factor in it and then the additional image from the nudist colony, supports my assesment.

The images Jenny posted and the other artist, Michel and then a few other images here certainly qualify for Art and a subset, street art/photography. Mike's images and others while lacking the "edge" most people associate with "street photography" also qualify as Art and indeed well done. Your 2 images do not. Just snapshots.

The inclusion of Henri Cartier-Bresson and Robert Frank, and your image is,well ludicrous.

So your opening comment about this image of yours, could ONLY be taken from the back, in order for it to qualify as street art is also ludicrous,

I'll stand by my "creepy" description,

Rich

Presuming that Mike is only a wizard when it comes to creating his art - and he uses photographs he took of "street" scenes - they are street photography. That he manipulates his photo's - who doesn't run their photo's through photoshop or some other photomanipulation software program. Most you folks are discussing the aesthetics of your "street photography". Why there isn't a category - is all you street photographers fault - if you had a "group" and generated enough energy - and sales - in that category that YOU made - I'm sure Sean and company would oblige you by making it a category. I mean - like he has categories that everything fits into - like abstract art. AND - Someone will have to have a definition of just what street art is - too bad it would just be another catch all category and if there was a street in the image or it was taken from the street - it would still be considered "street art" because there are no real rules here at FAA - other than not even hinting at religion or politics in the discussion forums.

Trever, if I were that lady wearing the backpack in your "Free Hugs" photo, I would feel very unhappy about your publishing my image without my knowledge (if that were the case). I do feel a little creeped out when I see "street" scenes with only one or a few people in them. Somehow, that just doesn't seem right. I do understand that shots of crowds of people is okay. Can someone explain the legalities or ethics of publishing the images of one or a few people taken on the street? Do you obtain a model release? (Not sure what that really is, but I've heard it come up here several times.)

Dear Robert, i too........... most people associate with "street photography" also qualify as Art :)


...... Theater Tickets

i think that while street photography could be labeled documentary - it really isn't. since it covers a random event, and not a specific one.


as far as the law goes, you may photograph and display images of people (kids are a different category i think), and sell them - but not commercially that's where the release comes in. however many more forward people get the release so they can do it commercially. but anyone is free to sue anyone for any reason at all. the ones you see in court though are the ones where they make the most money and often if not always the artist wins.


---Mike Savad

this row was shot out a car window (as a passenger) while stuck in traffic.


these are scenes i just liked


and this one i placed here because 3 looks best in a row not 4.


---Mike Savad

The street is always the best school:

"Street Photography" implies a spontaneous, uncooked image. Mike's images are cooked to pieces, appear staged and don't fit the category. Technically, sure, they are on the street (maybe). But his argument is the same as saying pictures of people wearing clothes is fashion photography.

Also, Mike, Robert's ladies are virtually unidentifiable. He could call them "Working Girls" and not be in any trouble at all.

@Marcio -- awesome shots!


Dan Turner
Dan Turner Fine Art
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online
To Enjoy Dan Turner's Pinterest Boards, Click Here

The first one was taken on a rainy day when construction workers were getting off work. I did a lot of filtering on it because I wanted the heavy effect. The second one of the saxophone player was just a street performer. He knew I was there, but he wasn't posing for me just playing away while people walked by. I also have different versions of this guy.

that not to worry store - i know that store front - there is a webcam in my phone, it's across the street from the singer store next door.

dan everyone has their own ideas and definitions. i don't need to follow it. i don't care for the natural look of things and yet my things are street none the less. as for the back side - it would be hard to prove but not impossible, there are plenty in his gallery that has that same feel to it, that are from the front. never ignore the law it can bite you when you aren't expecting it to.


---Mike Savad

As some people use to say, if you can smell the street in the photograph, then it is street photography.

Street photography has nothing to do about taking candid photos. It doesn't have to be candid. On the opposite, I find the best street photographs are the ones with people showing some reaction or interaction with the camera. The closer the person the better.

And it has nothing to do about taking photos in the street. It can be in a beach, in a building, etc. Street photography is just a name for a type of photography taken in public space with random people without the intention to creating something else from the image other than the description of the street, scene, space and people.

If you are manipulating it it's not any more the register or description of scene or random people in public space. You are creating something else other than street photography.

Mike, you can have your own definition of street photograph but street photograph is what it is and that is it.
Taking photos of wide life without care about wide life is not wide life anymore.

people are too confined to their rules...


---Mike Savad

It is not a rule, it just is.
And it is not confinement. I take photographs and it happens to be street photographs, or architecture photographs, etc. I don't follow any rule in order to give it a name. If it wasn't street photograph I would care.

Your photos are not street photographs and you shouldn't care aether, as far as you like what you do.

Marcio. How can you claim street photography is what it is in one breath and tell Mike his is not and then in the next breath state you don't follow any rules to give it a name for yourself?? So he has to follow the "rules" on what street photography is by your definition but when it comes to your own you don't need to follow any rules?

Okay, this is getting confusing.

"dan everyone has their own ideas and definitions. i don't need to follow it."

"never ignore the law it can bite you when you aren't expecting it to."

Dude! So which is it? The rules are for everyone else but not you? Or the rules are not for you unless you can get sued? Or you want people to follow your rules or you'll turn them in -- but you don't need to follow them? Where is the line? Teach us, brother.

Dan Turner
Dan Turner Fine Art
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online
To Enjoy Dan Turner's Pinterest Boards, Click Here

I agree with Rich on Roberts pics. Creepy stalker snapshots.

laws of photography - such as defining what street photography is....

is not the same as making your own definitions of the actual law is. don't take what i said out of context and make up your own reality.

the line is simple - honor your subject. don't call them hookers, don't suggest things in a perverted fashion, just show the people as they are. or they can sue from defamation of character. and whether the judge say yes or no about the ID - your still in court wasting time and money. there is no need to make fun of or make suggestive titles unless you have their permission to do so.


---Mike Savad

Phyllis Wolf,

I never said people has to follow rules. People can photograph what they want the way they want. What it happens to be it is. But don't try to photograph sport and call it fashion.

also be aware that you don't know who those ladies are - they could be a couple of friends having a good time. or they could be the governors two daughters. you can't say who you might be dealing with.


---Mike Savad

I find very little about "street" photography that is "beautiful". Yes there have been some iconic "street shots", the sailor kissing the dame for example. And if you want to call them art photography - that's fine with me - but I haven't seen any that "I" would purchase to decorate my walls with. Does street photography tell a story - yes, is "some of it" good photography - yes. Perhaps in photo journalism - it does become art - say a book or magazine - but would you put it on the wall in your home or office - unless it related to your work? and I'm still (not really) interested in why you wouldn't need a "model release" when you take someones photo - take that sax player who would definitely be recognizable - and put it up here on FAA for sale to just anyone. ??


And old men hate being old because everything aches, your bones, your muscles, getting out of bed or even urinating on occasion - but two blond frazzle headed broads walking down the street in front of me - doesn't make me hate being old. Been married now for 40 years - and IF I were a young buck again - those are not the girls I'd be running after.

i find some buyers buy urban related things, and many of these fit into that. it's not really my cup of tea either, even though i do make them.

i think a part of this rule thing is, many of these terms existed when no one could edit images. but today, we can, and should. and as soon as you mess with exposure and the like when downloading - it's edited.


---Mike Savad

A street sax player puts himself out there for his art (music), but an average lady on the street corner waiting for a bus is just going about her daily routine, and I believe she has a right NOT to be photographed and used for art. Especially if she is only one or two people in the entire scene! So, I agree with you, Roy, that a model release is needed, but perhaps not in the case of the sax player(?) whose purpose is to be noticed.

so it makes a difference what the person is doing as to whether a model release is necessary - I find that bogus - and I'm sure a court would also.

Well that's weird. Only half my post is posting. Glitch!!

Dan Turner
Dan Turner Fine Art
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online
To Enjoy Dan Turner's Pinterest Boards, Click Here

as far as i understand the law the only thing you can't do with a person is use them commercially (advertising). but as a general rule, you can't use the person in a suggestive way. like if you shoot a person and call them a hooker - and they find out, due to your title, you could be sued and would probably lose.


dan it doesn't matter if they are hookers or not. and unless you just used their service, how would you know? and once again - i follow the law.... rules of photography are different.

just because you don't recognize these people doesn't mean they aren't recognizable. the person that owns that body will recognize themselves. and their friends will know it by hair and bag alone. just because you think they aren't doesn't mean you won't be taken to court anyway. the rule is simple, don't make fun of people, or make them feel bad in the title. and yes, if they are ok with the title and you get a release to that effect, then it should be fine because they ok'd it.


---Mike Savad

anyway i answered dan's post before it did whatever it did - karma i guess.


---Mike Savad

Mike, you're getting into some obscure Mike Savad code of conduct and faulty projection. Fine for you, but others have their own set of rules. They're not wrong, just different from you.

If others want to risk lawsuits and death, let them. You ain't Banksy, and Banksy ain't you. In these matters, MYOB.

Dan Turner
Dan Turner Fine Art
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online
To Enjoy Dan Turner's Pinterest Boards, Click Here

Roy, I meant my comment to be more of a question than a statement, although it didn't come across that way. I simply don't know when/if a model release is needed, and it would be great to see some guidelines. I just think that street performers wouldn't object to being photographed.

.

What an interesting discussion to read. From what I'm gathering (and I may be misinterpreting things), I think that many people here's opinion of street photography is that it's basically the same thing as, or at least very similar to photojournalistic photography-ie: The type of photos you'd see in a Nat Geo magazine. I probably think of street photography the same way but I think it's pretty pointless to debate since I don't see anyone swaying someone else's opinion on the matter and there are also some grey areas-at least in my opinion. BTW, here's Wikipedia's definition of "street photography" and how it's different than "documentary photography". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_photography

Here's some of my examples of my opinion of "grey areas".














These are my pictures and I honestly don't know how I would define them. I think of street photography as candid pictures that capture an honest and un-manipulated (not meaning "unedited", just meaning not posed) moment in time. I think that you can edit a picture and it still be street photography, after all, if you shoot in JPEG your camera does the editing for you (eg: picking the colors, sharpening the image, etc.) whereas if you shoot in RAW then you have to do those things manually yourself. Anyway, I think based on my personal description of "street photography", my images fit the bill. However, I personally wouldn't call them that, I don't know what I would call them other than "fine art photography". They're also not "event photography" so if we're wanting to slap a label on them, what are they? With the exception of the very last image which was taken at another "event", I wanted these pictures to have that gritty, de-saturated look and to show people the side of the rodeo that they don't generally get to see, things I was able to capture only because I made my case to the man that runs the event and earned myself an all-access pass behind the scenes. Some of the photos posted by others I would consider "Candid shots", not "street photography" but if they want to call it that then that's fine with me.

@Patricia, I RARELY ever photograph people at all. In fact, I think I have 8 out of my 170 images that have a person of any kind in them. However, I was downright paranoid about the whole model release thing when I photographed that rodeo. I carried around the forms just in case but my goal was to not take a single picture with a person's face in it so that I wouldn't even have to worry about it. I've read so many different things about when a model release form is needed and when it isn't , I personally would err on the side of caution and not sell a picture with someone's face in it. Case in point, I have an awesome picture of a gorgeous Mexican girl who was a performer at a rodeo last year. It was a public event but because I don't know her name or have her permission to print and sell a picture of her, I won't ever attempt to sell it. I'm sure that's just me being paranoid but I'd rather be sure than sorry. :)

dan if you want to interpret the law the way you want, you go right ahead, and you'll end up facing a judge. it's as simple as that. i looked it up - you should too.


---Mike Savad

the simple conversion from color to black and white, whether done in camera, as film or whatever is an edit.

i think as long as it happened the way it happened and you didn't paste the people in, its a valid form of street photography



it tells a life around here story, and that's it.


---Mike Savad

Amber, those are super photos! Thank you for mentioning that you carry around model releases. It does makes sense to be safe rather than sorry, as you said.

.

"Street photography is a genre of photography that features subjects in candid situations within public places and does not necessitate the presence of a street or even the urban environment. 'Street' simply refers to a place where human activity can be seen, a place to observe and capture social interaction. The subject can even be absent of any people and can be that of object or environment where an object projects a human character or an environment is decidedly human."

Those who are saying Mike's work is not "street photography" because of the post processing don't know what street photography is. It is a subject, not a stylistic statement. You appear to be confusing "journalistic" or "documentary" styles of photography with the genre of street photography.

"you'll end up facing a judge. it's as simple as that."

Mike, you say that like it's a bad thing. You're overly concerned about the legal system. Do you consider yourself a victim? Have you been abused by the legal system?

I use the system. I like the system. It's not out to get me. It can be leveraged in creative ways. Live life, Mike. Stay flexible. Don't let fear rule you.

@Ed -- I LOVE your work in this area!

Dan Turner
Dan Turner Fine Art
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online
To Enjoy Dan Turner's Pinterest Boards, Click Here

.

dan are you just trolling now?

no i haven't been in trouble, however i can tell if someone could get sued by what they say. you can be as relaxed as you want to be, but you'll get caught if you do it. i'm certain if that was your wife or kid, you would make certain that your voice would be heard in his direction. because they people have no relation to you, you have no sympathy for them, and i find that sad. considering i'm a person who in general doesn't care about people or their feelings - feel more for these ladies that can't defend themselves.

any time there is anything about copyright, theft, slander, etc - your there to back up the bad guy or say it's ok. or tell people they won't be sued - as if you know. people do sue for stupid reasons, there is no need to help them out with that. i don't live in fear, but i do live with caution. if your too relaxed you get in trouble. it's as simple as that. and with a sue happy world, well, i can't wait till you go to court because you didn't think it would happen to you.


---Mike Savad

As many of you, I like Mike's work but I am sure that he does not a street photograpy and I'm afraid he does not understand it at all. I don't have my street shots here at FAA site except one maybe. I'm going to make another website and blog with them.

I've been doing this for 40 years and the only thing I know about it is that it is not a snapshot or nice photo of street life or pure documentary work. It has to be something more, some story to tell to other people.

"i can't wait till you go to court"

Heheheheheheh. What?

Dan Turner
Dan Turner Fine Art
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online
To Enjoy Dan Turner's Pinterest Boards, Click Here

I think there is a general misunderstanding of "street photography" and that it actually has to be in a street! Amber's images are great, but wouldn't fall into a "street photography" catagory, but more an "enviromental" catagory. Images created in a particular environment, fall under Art, as does "street photography" and I would argue, "environmental" is the main catagory and street is a subset. Some of the images posted may be indeed shot in a street, but fall into the snapshot/candid catagory and shouldn't be confused with real " street photography", such as Ed's or Mike's.

Further confusion is the question of Mike's images. He adds an "artistic" value to his images and that might confuse people, that, first they are not B&W and they also look "nice"! So they can't possibley be "street photography"! Wrongo!

Dan, Mike, our own Mikie, marches to a different drummer and any "shortcomings" are far overwhelmed by his artistry of his images. He's a Thomas Kinkade, he just doesn't know it! He just needs a manager and he would be on his way to fame and fortune!

Patricia, the bottom line with images, with people in them, is that they can't be used, without a written model release, for COMMERCIAL purposes, like ads, billboards and products. The problem is the description of what "commercial" is. Most courts agree about selling products, but some are confused about Fine Art. BUT, if you go to any high end galleries in NY, Santa Fe, or San Francisco, you'll see images being sold of "street scenes" for thousands of dollars, and to me that is the answer,

Rich Franco

Darius: I'm afraid that, even after "40 years", it is you who doesn't understand the definition of "street photography".
"Street photography is a genre of photography that features subjects in candid situations within public places and does not necessitate the presence of a street or even the urban environment. 'Street' simply refers to a place where human activity can be seen, a place to observe and capture social interaction. The subject can even be absent of any people and can be that of object or environment where an object projects a human character or an environment is decidedly human."

What you are doing is a style-journalistic or documentary of street photography. Mike's work, as does many others who aren't "gritty", are also"street photography", but the style is different.

I can't understand why this is so difficult to understand. "Street" is a genre (like "landscape" or "architectural"), not a style.

maybe we shouldn't call it street photography and just call it - streeties.


---Mike Savad

What are YOUR guidelines for showing faces in your street photos? Are there any legal ramifications of taking a persons photo without their permission and then posting it "for sale" on FAA? Do you need a model release to sell an image on FAA where a person is recognizable?

Here's an interesting link on the topic. http://www.rcfp.org/rcfp/orders/docs/PHOTOG.pdf

Louise: you may be rigt in one, I've been doing journalistic photos for the lat 40 years. You are right about the overall genre of street photograpy as well, but as I said, it has to be story, it has to be something to tell, it does not need to be technically perfect but a snapshot is a snaphot even if it falls within the "rules" of the genre. Anyway, you can't say that I am doing a style-journalistic or documentary of street photography after seeing my only one photo.

I agree with Mike Savad... why take a chance in a title or keyword to give someone looking to get rich an excuse to sue. You don't have to be "right" to sue, just have the few dollars to bring the suit. AND regardless of what "I" think... this is one of those things like "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and again I agree with Mike, it doesn't matter whether YOU think the title is suggestive, IF the subject "feels" it is suggestive then to them and anyone who "feels" like them and so they "feel" they have a right to sue you. SO, ROBET why take a chance... thank Mike for bringing to your attention the possible "suggestiveness" of your title... change the title and we're all on the same page.

The Wiki link that Amber posted above and a link toward the middle about photographing people/property and some of the laws involved. It addressed several of the issues discussed here. It's a long read, but has a lot of good info. Here's the direct link to it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law

Dariusz, I am saying in general. And Mike's certainly tell stories, so the "trashing" his style is getting from people who aren't aware of style vs. genre is uncalled for. Your example, Dariusz, is "journalistic" in its style. That's what I meant. It's taking a moment in time and freezing it, no pun intended. ;)

"dan are you just trolling now? any time there is anything about copyright, theft, slander, etc - your there to back up the bad guy or say it's ok. or tell people they won't be sued - as if you know. " - Mike



So you've noticed it too. It's like he lives for it. It seems he wants to continually lead people right over a cliff.

By the way, you are right on this issue and as usual, Dan is wrong.

see there's a good chance you'll win in court, and it might even be tossed , but in the mean time, your not working, your paying a lawyer, and your wasting money. i've had plenty of times when i wanted to use a title or a person in a way that would be funny in my head, but just bad idea. just this vacation i saw a guy, who could have easily been a stand in for wimpy from popeye.

he had a gut that stuck out far enough that his hanging camera was practically horizontal, and he stood next to this caboose. and i probably could figure out some caption for it, and i do have a picture because after all i was there. but can't use it for anything because it's not nice and he can sue. and keep in mind that you might not be sued right away, this picture could haunt you 10 years from now. and ignorance of the law isn't ever an excuse.

people should always live with some fear. it shouldn't control you but you can use it as the voice of reason. where all the voices yell -- yeah do it, it will be great and even that little angel has no objections - the third guy, your inner lawyer, is reading to you why you shouldn't do something.


as they teach you in grade school - if it happened to you, how would you feel?

so when i post images of people, i try to take it one step further and take away the fact that i'm shooting that person, and try to label the scene, which happens to have people in it. and i keep it simple.

---Mike Savad

"as usual, Dan is wrong"

About what, exactly? I haven't said anything wrong, Phyllis. You and Mike are projecting instead of reading, looking for the scandal and the gossip instead of comprehending the freedom of creativity. As usual.

You and Mike go through life thinking you're two inches from trouble. I have no such hang-ups. Most people don't.

Dan Turner
Dan Turner Fine Art
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online
To Enjoy Dan Turner's Pinterest Boards, Click Here

and it's easy for dan to dish out advice, he has no pictures of people at all. and if you go to court based off his chillax attitude, well that will only be trouble down the line. just because they probably won't sue, doesn't mean they won't.

---Mike Savad

dan read the law about defaming people, and how your saying it's perfectly ok to do that. of course you have no hang ups, your clearly oblivious to the law in this regards. but you have no people, so it doesn't matter to you.


---Mike Savad

@ Dan
I think you should write a blog on trolling instead of the illegal advice you throw out so often. Your response is classic troll. lol!


@ Mike
You are observant. I noticed that too back when he was encouraging others to use whatever "free" images they could find. Yet he does not.
He doesn't have hang ups because he doesn't take any chances at all. He just advises everyone else to do what he doesn't.

Street photography can be an art, its all in the eye of the beholder and how you approach it. I was a photojournalist for over twenty years, which really means I had to know how to do a little bit of everything from sports to fashion to food, and portraiture. Here are some of my best sellers:

always be on the side of caution. while you might not slip down the stairs this time, hold the rail anyway. while you might not go to jail yelling pig real loud behind a copy, don't do it, not worth the trouble finding out. calling some young ladies, and for all you know, minors, something in a creepy innuendo style title - does portray them in a bad light. and just because you can't see their faces doesn't give you the green light to use such a vulgar title.

i really wish people would catch up on simple things about the law. while the law can be a tricky pickle, it's not that hard to find out basic things that should have been learned when you were still in school - don't make fun of people, they just don't like it.


---Mike Savad

Whene er I need an logical answer on the photo industry I turn to Dan Heller. Here is his article on model releases. At the very least, it provides a good starting point

http://www.danheller.com/model-release-primer.html

.

Frank,
OMG you titled the pic of your fireman "Eating Smoke." Aren't you afraid he will sue you because, well, because he may think you are calling him incompetent at his job? If he eats smoke he may kill himself. Are you saying this fireman wants to commit suicide? Wow...Better change the title.

Mike S..I don't know what your problem is but it may have to do with sex. Where I see beauty, you see smut. Where I read pathos, you read smut.

What is street photography? Here is one such opinion....(that I share)...
http://www.in-public.com/information/what_is

Be that as it may, what this topic has done for me (with all the wonderful advice/pics/words of wisdom....even from Mike S who I praise to the skies for his beautiful images) is rekindled my desire to return to my first love....street photography. That and the fact that no one buys my landscape, still life, flower, fresh fruits and vegetable images. Screw it, might as well do what I love doing more than anything else in photography.

PS...read what you like in this title and pic...

My last word... I rest my case....
IN my opinion (shared by others) street photography when printed should NOT be manipulated with HDR editing. HDR is for making “beautiful” artsy images.

Street Photography is not in the business of creating beautiful images thru the magic of photoshop. An HDR photograph blatantly ceases to be “street” although the composition and content are. HDR images fall out of the genre of Street Photography.

I’m not opposed to photographic manipulation (and have done my fair share). However, It’s one thing to tweak exposure and contrast to make the image look good, but I can’t accept the effect being stronger than the image itself as are all HDR images.

Here are Reuters guidelines for their staff photographers and freelancers:
ALLOWED:
Cropping
Adjustment of Levels to histogram limits
Minor color correction
Sharpening at 300%, 0.3, 0
Careful use of lasso tool
Subtle use of burn tool
Adjustment of highlights and shadows
Eye dropper to check/set gray

NOT ALLOWED:
Additions or deletions to image
Cloning & Healing tool (except dust)
Airbrush, brush, paint
Selective area sharpening
Excessive lightening/darkening
Excessive color tone change
Auto levels
Blurring
Eraser tool
Quick Mask
In-camera sharpening
In-camera saturation styles

Reuters' rules are for journalistic photography, not street photography. Again, you are confusing a style (journalistic) with a genre (street). You are entitled to your opinion as to what you "think" it should be, but it goes against definition.
Because "Street photography" is a genre much like landscape or automotive, there is nothing wrong with manipulation any more than it would be wrong to manipulate a flower image.

back to street photography.
This one is taken on The Strip in Las Vegas.

Please check my gallery "People " for more

It's interesting and amazing to me how often disagreements and misunderstandings come down to the fact that the parties aren't speaking the same language even though they are using similar words. Sometimes this is because of varying connotations but often it's differences in definitions as well.

These genres, such as street, are simply man made categories. They serve in that capacity, but can limit as well.

Having said that I thought the Rueters guidelines were interesting.

It is defined as a "genre". What the state of mind is when shooting is within the person holding the camera.

As I have said, Street photography has nothing to do about candid photos (it can be candid but it doesn't have to be). The Wikipedia text is wrong.

Street photography is about moments in public places with random people. That's all. No more no less.

Once you apply heavy editing it is not about the moment any more but about the "photography look", or altering the moment for the look sake and not for the moment sake.

Turning a colour street photo in black and white is to remove colours distraction of the scene. Applying HDR and others edition is to add aesthetic look and distraction above the actually scene or moment.

There is no complexity on understand it.

Anytime someone makes a religious or political comment in a thread, they are quickly admonished not to break the forum rules and/or the thread is closed. So why is RF Gabriel in this thread (and previous others, actually) allowed to continually flout one of the other forum rules?

6. The forum is aimed at a general audience. Pornographic or generally offensive text, images, links, and swearing are not allowed. Users may not post images that require a safe filter to the open forum.

It's not that I have a problem with nudes (I have two or three in my own gallery), but I do think forum participants should be allowed to choose whether or not they wish to view nude images. Repeatedly dropping them into a thread about what is or is not street photography is nothing short of visual trolling!

I don't mean to offend but stating that it's a "state of mind" sounds like fuzzy wuzzy woo woo artistic talk geared towards impressing a potential buyer! No, some of the images posted in this thread I think anybody could have taken. I think some of them are also quite good.

That would be like saying landscape or nature photography was a "state of mind" ....no, it's a style or a "genre".

This is not street photography. It was taken in the street and is part os a story and looks like candid. But it is a model, playing a role in the street:




This is street photography. It is not a candid photo and it can be seen also as portrait. But its is a random man in a "public" place in a random moment or scene:




This is not street photography. It is just a photo of somebody took of a hot good looking man (me) in a damn good rock in roll bar. :)

Personally I don't equate simple nudism with pornography, but that's me.

I don't see anything wrong on Robert photo of the two ladies. In some peoples mind it may look like he was stalking theses two girls and his intention was to register their buts for his particular pleasures. But for him it was more likely two girls who happened to pass by in that particular moment and their style is beautiful and interesting.

I often knee down in the streets to photograph peoples legs, foot and people cycling. Often some people pass by and look at me with a judgemental face (specially here in Germany) as if I were a creepy sexual maniac taking photos under girls skirt and legs. Well, often there are girls on mini skirt passing by with beautiful legs and I photograph them. But my intention is not to register a appeling sexual image of a random girl who may also be a under age (14 to 16 years old) girl. I take their photo as I take photo of interesting and stylish legs of elders, men, who also pass by in the same place and moment.

This is a photo that I took with the intention to photograph bicycles but it happened to be a girl with skirt. Some people look art their legs and breasts liners and accuse me as pervert. But the perversion is only in theses judgemental minds people:

I think it is quite funny that people look at nude as pornography.

You see people doing topless in a beach or park and you ignore it. But if you see a topless in a photo... WRONG!!!

You admire a beautiful face of a little charming child and people think it's cult. But admiring a beautiful face or a young person... PERVERT!!!!!!!

You make a beautiful nude drawing and it is art. But if you take a nude photo... PORN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


When I am photographing amateur models I can't say they look beautiful because they feel I am being creepy. So with them I have to say, "very good", "this pose is right", etc... People's mind are just funny.

I realized that the main point of this discussion is to attract the buyers somehow and show the beauty of the street photography, just explaining to the people that is a true art and here is again everything turned to the battle of ambitions... So pity..

"i really wish people would catch up on simple things about the law... don't make fun of people, they just don't like it."

Wow. Mike, making fun of people is not against the law. If it were, you'd be in jail. Along with Leno, Letterman, Conan and pretty much every comedian on the planet.

"the illegal advice you throw out so often"

Phyllis, apparently that is only in your mind, since you have not provided one instance of such advice.

If the boogie man were really around every corner suing artists and photographers we would hear about it, yes? Lots of things could happen, but you're making a career out of recruiting people into your world of judgment and paranoia. You and Mike are crying Wolf, nothing more.

Phyllis and Mike, have you ever seen these types of threads in the FAA forum?
-- I'm Being Sued!
-- Update on My Lawsuit!
-- Can Someone Recommend a Good Lawyer?
-- My Photos Are Illegal!
-- I'm Sued Again!
-- I Lost My Case!
-- I Owe Thousands Because of My Photos!
-- The Judge Threw the Book at Me!
-- My Photos Cost Me My House!
-- I'm Suing A Street Photographer!
-- I Made Fun of Someone, Now I'm Sued!
-- I Was Laughed Out of Court!
-- My Photo Subject Punched Me!
-- I'm Going To Jail!

Where are those, Phyllis??? Could it be that the problems you and Mike so desperately cling to don't exist? Duh,Yes.

I know, I know...a comet could hit us tomorrow and I said not to worry about it! Please do carry on with your gloom and doom predictions. ~ Yawn ~

Dan Turner
Dan Turner Fine Art
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online
To Enjoy Dan Turner's Pinterest Boards, Click Here

frank eating smoke - will not hurt his reputation. where as your title is vulgar and insulting and would creep any female out totally. if she knew - you could get in trouble and that's all i'm saying. i'm doing you a favor. did you click on those links people are posting about defaming a person?

adjusting histogram levels and auto levels are the same thing. i notice that the use of black and white film isn't listed, and should be on the no list. and in the end it hardly matters because the scene is the scene no matter what you call it or how you define it. i really don't see why people are hung up over definitions.

but here's the real deal - you constantly complain your not selling, while you sell every so often, you still complain. maybe it's the titles. maybe what you consider is just pathos or whatever excuse it is that your using - maybe it's just the titles of your pieces are offending viewers and putting you in a bad light. i'm an artist and it offends me. if i saw childish remarks as a title i would just move on to another artist.


---Mike Savad

robert your telling us heavy editing is bad, yet your first image shows major signs of a lot of editing. like heavy use of shadow correcting, i'm certain that is against the rules. these girls practically glow and much of the shadow content is lost. so don't tell me that editing is bad.


---Mike Savad

@ Robert. I titled my photo "Eating Smoke" because it's an industry term from when I was a Firefighter. Having said that, because I come from a photojournalism background, I tend to with my pictures and titles error on asking forgiveness before I ask permission. I see my job as a photographer and artist to be a visual storyteller.

Here is the best description I know from my mentor, John H. White: http://thegrio.com/2013/07/20/wide-lens-open-heart-the-work-of-legendary-photojournalist-john-h-white/

A good mix of my work is of religious subjects, especially in churches ( see more on my Flickr site, click on "Sets" : http://flickr.com/fjcps ). I always make sure that people in my pictures see me taking their picture. When not, I try find them, hand them my card, and ask if I can add that picture to my collection. Most of the people are okay with it, short of the long. Plus, with my card they usually go to my website and see what I'm up to ( and I've had a lot of referrals because of this ). The most issues I have with permissions is when a religious book publisher wants to use the pictures.

I forgot to mention one thing Dan Turner inspired me with in another thread: "A painter paints what will sell ... an artist sells what he paints." ~ Picasso

"I titled my photo "Eating Smoke" because it's an industry term from when I was a Firefighter."

This is why I say that in order to well understand somebody arts you have to study or learn about the artist, his time and influences, to avoid misunderstanding and wrong judgement.

Judging somebody works without asking the artist to tell about it before, or without trying to understand the artist history and intention, is a terrible behaviour.

Nothing speaks completely by itself. You always need some background knowledge to have some understanding about anything and understand their context.

"Be that as it may, what this topic has done for me is rekindled my desire to return to my first love....street photography."

Bravo, Robert. There are fewer things sweeter in life than being sure of your path, shooting what you want and saying what you wish. Your street photos are your most authentic work.

Dan Turner
Dan Turner Fine Art
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online
To Enjoy Dan Turner's Pinterest Boards, Click Here

Such a wonderful topic, yes? lol....
So many different opinions. What did some guy say? "You go your way and I will go my way. If we meet fine, if we don't that's OK also." Now then if you prefer the heavy syrup of HDR images, hey good for you. But for street images, I stay true to the genre as it has been practiced for the past 75 years or so (we can add a little salt and pepper but NO heavy syrup on the bacon please).




To the very few of you who express your moral outrage at some of my images, if you don't like the subject matter, don't look. You have plenty of flowers and landscapes to look on fine art america.

heavy syrup - seriously? the thing is i sell these images. street photos are nice, but they aren't hot sellers, and at the same time, both titles and what you post can make you look bad as a photographer. and if you can't project at all, that when you put someone in a bad light, it can get you in trouble. but don't listen to me, i don't care.


---Mike Savad

Marcio,
Dude, I agree with you 100 percent. I was being facetious, treating a serious issue (your title: Smoke Eater) with deliberately inappropriate humor, being flippant. It's a good title well done. I wanted to show someone here how easy it is to appear ridiculous when you introduce your personal hangups and tag them onto someone else.

robert - convince the judge. if that was your daughter up there and some old guy made the same comment - what would your reaction be? and answer honestly. the hangup would be on the person suing. will it be for this one or some other one you title that way. it only takes one to drain your bank account. you can laugh it off if you want, but it can happen. and as said, buyers are turned off by things like that too. a rep is hard to get back.


---Mike Savad

You know what? I did not check this thread because...well I guess I thought it would all be street photography

However all I see are personal insults thrown at each other

Now, I really do not care who is right, nor who is wrong but, if you cannot have a discussion without personal insults to each other then you do not belong here.

ANYONE throwing a personal remark at another member from this point on in this or any other thread WILL be removed from the forum.

and I do mean ANYONE

Mike,
Once again I may be your Number 1 fan. I love your work, and may learn how to do HDR one of these days. But not for my street images. I stay true to the genre and most practitioners of this art form agree with me (or I with them).

As for you selling your images and me not...I admit to being jealous...I tried being something I am not...still life, creepy dolls, flowers, landscapes.....all visuals I like and do my best to present, but so many others on Fine Art America are so much better than I could ever hope to be.

So it's back to the streets I go.

On the topic of money...While I am NOT rich by any means, I did marry a top exec (woman) for a world wide company and they presented her with a very nice retirement income which translates into if I never sell an image here.....no skin off my back.

Honestly, the main reason I would like to sell my work is that like most "artists" it would be a sign that my work is appreciated by others.

yeah except that first image is clearly been heavily edited. so how you can say it's street photography used as the first example is beyond me.

as far as creeping out buyers - all it takes is one image with an odd title like that and it could turn off that person instantly. they will stop looking. it won't matter if you have davinci skills, they will stop looking. it's like when someone brings up toilet humor in conversation, from that point on you tune them out.

and if you do have plenty of money, they you'll have no problems paying the lawyer bills, because i can see that happening based off how relaxed you are about the titles. if you want to be appreciated by others, use images and titles that won't offend people. if you want to push pop art, don't post things that look like you were hiding behind something - like the top shot or the nudist colony or whatever that was. that's my advice.


---Mike Savad

The title is not one I would choose, however there is nothing wrong with the first image. Not sure how it is in the USA, but in Canada there there is no assumption of privacy when walking in a public area, street, or sidewalk. It is open season for photography, as long as you are not breaking other laws like shooting up-skirt or other forms of Voyeurism. (you hear about it every now and then in Toronto). A lot of people get confused about who can be photographed in public and even more confused about when an image of someone or people together can be sold. In Canada you can't sell the image if there is just a "single person" in the frame, unless you have a model release - even if it is for "fine art". (It can be kept for private viewing) You can try to get away with it, but are opening yourself up to a lawsuit. As long as there is more than one person in the frame, even if the second person is blurred in the background, it takes away the need for release in order to sell as "fine art". The rules change when using it for commercial use (advertising, promoting brands or products), in this case you need release of any person that can be "identified".

Two good examples would be Mike's Sikh sitting on the bench and the man standing by Joe's Bike Shop. In Canada you would not need model release to sell the Sikh image (as art), because there are other people in the frame. You would need a model release to sell the guy standing by Joe's Bike Shop, even if being sold as "fine art".

Robert's first image would not require any release. I don't think Robert could be sued over the title.

Jenny's Immigration image would need a release, but her Young Forever would not. The last three that Jenny posted would require release in Canada. Marcio's women on bike's would not need a release, first of all because they can't be identified, but even if they could be there are two of them and there is third in the background. The first two that Marcio posted would require release, even to sell as "fine art".

You do not "need" release to sell the work, but you would be required to show proof of release if any of the people decided to sue.

Thing is, you can be sued for any reason at all, even if you are working within the rules. The case may be thrown out, but it still costs you time and money to fight the suit. This does not happen often in Canada, because the person suing loses the case he/she has to pay both parties legal bills.

There was a street photographer in Toronto last summer, who drew a lot of negative attention when he opened up a gallery viewing of women he had photographed as they walked around downtown streets. He would photograph poses of them fixing the buckle on a high heel shoe, reading on a bench, or just simply walking to work. They were all strikingly beautiful women. There was a group determined that the police should charge him with stalking or Voyeurism, but it went nowhere because he was working within the rules. All it did was give him tons of free publicity on all the local talk show radio stations.


EDIT - It bothers me a little when photographers sell images of people who live on the streets. They make dramatic images, but it is taking advantage of their inability to do much of anything about it. Even if they are alone in the frame and their faces are visible, a photographer will sell it anyways because they know there is very little likelihood the individual will ever find a lawyer and sue. Some photographers will get a release, but most will not.


EDIT 2 - If any of the photographers are upset because I used their images as examples, let me know and I will remove from my post. My intent was not to shame. I am just responding to some of the comments about lawsuits and what is safe/not safe to photograph and sell. I can only speak for what I have read and been advised of with regards to Canadian law.

Tiny, thanks for your big words of wisdom....
Time to chill, don't you think...Heed Abbie's words of wisdom....(If you don't like my titles, keep it to yourself or write me a private note.)

Now then let's all have a drink....or is someone going to tell me I offended them by showing alcohol?

it's not the image tiny, but what you call that image. it's like calling someone an idiot or saying he's a rapist when he's not. placing them as a sex object is a form of humiliation and people can sue for damages. it's not about being photographed in public, it's how it's categorized.

rob its not about chilling, it's just a caution you should take, an early warning that i'm actually looking out for you. it could land you in trouble.


---Mike Savad

For all of us here who object to titles (for whatever reason) and nudity (for whatever reason), you may not want to enter the Contest - "Kinky Stuff" here on Fine Art America. I entered a few of my images but I can see from the other entries that my two are wayyyyy too tame to win, show or place. And the titles? Blush...Keep your kids away...

Thank you, Abbie! The moderators here are the reason I keep coming back to these forums. I really don't know how you keep up with it all ...

Having said that, all of you and your viewpoints have been quite interesting to me in forming or tweaking my own. Thank you!

Mike,
thank you, sincerely...But I am 71 years old. I can handle it. I served in the US Army for 4 years, been in jails in 3 different States, been married twice with many other lady friends, trained a German Shepherd protection dog from Germany (not your typical pet Shepherd from America with the sloped back but a true guard dog), seen folks killed, seen people die, have known murderers, thieves, and even priests, worked as a vigalante for 6 years (with the above dog at my side/with the knowledge of the forest police)

I even have a good lawyer who would love to defend me in any case (for the money of course).

But most of all, by the time the case would be settled I will be dead. At 71 I am fading fast. "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn"

"Phyllis and Mike, have you ever seen these types of threads in the FAA forum?" - Dan


Dan, I'll give you 2 reasons;

1.) The internet has been like the wild west. people have been getting away with a lot of things for a long time but just as the wild west was tamed over a period of time, so to is the internet being tamed gradually and the law is ever more present. Tons of people were downloading recorded music on Napster.....and the law finally stepped in and shut them down. The music and film industry have been fighting back. Slowly but surely the law is also catching up with problems within the visual arts industry as well. If you choose to ignore the inevitable thats up to you.
2.) Many people have the good sense not to listen to the advice you keep giving..;." Do whatever you want, there will no consequences, not worry about it. If you don't do as I suggest then you have "hangups"." ( < What you've been saying on a regular basis now. Which is nonsense by the way) ( Also, why don't you ever tell people that you don't do the things you encourage them to do???)

I know what you are saying Mike.

I said I don't "think" there could be a case over the title, because I do not know. I do know that the image itself is fine. (legal)

A title like that, "could" be used to argue the photographers motive and intent when the image was taken. If the title has a sexual reference, then one "may" be able to show and successfully argue that there was sexual intent when the image was taken.

In my "opinion" it would be tough to PROVE any "sexual" reference, the way some are implying in this thread. I take it more of a man who is dreaming of "younger" days. The artists is hardly responsible for a persons mind going to the gutter, when reading the title of the photograph.

----------------------------------

I have not yet tried "street photography", but after seeing some of the images on this thread it is something I would like to try. I think it would be much more difficult than still life or nature photography.

Tiny, thanks for the words, part of the works you mentioned not mine, but photographed by Michel Verhoef. Anyway lets speak that for the street photography impossible to get any releases, I think its pretty understandable. And Im quiet sure NO ONE even famous and recognizable street photographers have the releases.
Have to add that the people from photosessions I have in my collections all with signed model releases.
Sure its can be the issue with releases about street photography, just photographer's own risk. As I said its impossible to have the releases from street models. Its absurd.

How you imagine signed release from this man for example. or the release from the parents of this girl ??? By the way this girl has been chosen by Getty from me and funny they asked me the release of that although its absolutely clear that its a editorial photography! How would world find out about other cultures, people, countries without such photography if ask all the time releases???

@ Jenny,

I know of at least one street photographer in Toronto that carries around releases with him when out shooting. He will use them when he has to, based on the guidelines I discussed earlier.

I think you are right though, that most photographers take their chances when it comes to releases.

It also depends on the country the photographer lives and works in. The laws change from country to country. I have been advised to get a release every time I take a photo of a "single person". I may never get sued without a release, but if I have it I never have to be worried about losing a case. :)

I've found this discussion really interesting. I find street photography fascinating and have struggled with some of the same questions raised here. I think it's a bit of too bad that sometimes we feel we have to be *right* and can not let that go.

One of the points of discussion has been "what is street photography?", and clearly there is disagreement on that. Now, I don't shoot street a lot because of where I live. However, when I do, I prefer film greatly to digital, and cell phone cameras just seem to be cheating. I like a small unobtrusive camera that doesn't take much adjustment, or make a lot of nose. If I catch someone doing something unflattering, I generally wouldn't use the photo. This is another human being, they deserve the same respect you would give anyone else, including yourself.

I do like to shoot at events where there are lots of cameras around already. I like this because there's a lot going on and I think that people would already expect that they might end up in someones photos.

I'm still working on how to approach folks for permission, and when I should. This is primarily an ethical question for me. Obviously, you can't ask first for many shots, simply for practical reasons.

Sorry, Tiny, see above I just adjusted for my text...

@ HW,

You are right. Asking first kills the photo. The Toronto photographer I mentioned a few posts ago will take the shot as a candid and then approach the individual to ask for release to use the image. But only if it falls into the category of an image that requires it. If the person is moving too quickly and he can't get to them, or they refuse the release, he will not use the image.

@ Jenny,

In Canada you would not need a release for either or those two images. There are multiple people in each image.

EDIT - if you tried to use the image in advertising (commercial use), you would need a release.

From my understanding "Editorial" purposes have their own set of rules and laws.

Isn't an image considered "Editorial" only if used for that purpose. I don't think you can claim an image as "Editorial" (using the rules that fall under editorial use) and then sell it as a "Fine Art" print??? As soon as you sell it as a "fine art" print, you now fall under the rules of what you can/can't sell as fine art.

Tiny, I also selling editorial images to Dreamstime stock with people taken from the streets all around the world and its never required the model releases...

Jenny,

You don't need the model releases to sell as "fine art". You need the proof of a model release if you get sued.

Kind of like driving a car. You don't need a license or insurance to drive a car, you only need them if you get pulled over and asked to provide proof of having it.


If the images you are selling have multiple people in them, there is no need for a release (at least not in Canada). If they are of one single person, you do not need the release to sell it, but you will need it if that one person decides to sue you.


EDIT - I am not sure what the rules are for using the image of one person for editorial purposes, as I have never submitted images to a paper nor am I am photo-journalist. I will ask my wife about it, as she is a trained journalist.

All those street images I have in the FAA gallery have the key words - journalism and editorial.

Using keywords of Journalism or Editorial means nothing. They are being sold as "Fine Art" prints. FAA is not an editorial site.

If you sell an image to a newspaper it falls under "editorial" rules and guidelines. If you sell the image as "Fine Art" on a POD site like FAA, it now falls under the rules and guidelines of selling "fine art".

It does not matter what your intent was (editorial) at the time you took the photograph. All that matters is how the image is being used or sold.

Tiny, if you want to try the street photography, you have to be ready for everything as you are actually peeping for private life of people, for their intimate connections. So be ready that no any releases will be given to you. So its your choice.
And if it would be basing on releases the Street Photography just will die..

I presented here on FAA the works which I personally calling Fine Art as its not just snap shots from the streets, although I have the part called - Trash sketches from the Amsterdam Streets...

Jenny. You appear to be from Russia. I have no idea what the laws are in Russia and for all I know there may not be any guidelines for your street-photography.

I can only speak for the laws and guidelines that I have to follow, based on the country I live in. Canada. In Canada there are set laws that deal with photography and selling it. If you visited Canada to do street-photography, you may fall under the same guidelines. (not sure about that???)

If a photographer wants to sell an image as fine art and the image has a single person in the frame who can be identified, there needs to be proof of release. The photographer can sell without release, but they take their chances. If the individual in the photo sues and the photographer has no release it "could" cause them a lot of trouble. If there is more than one person in the frame, the rule no longer applies and the image can be sold as art with no release. (as long as the photograph was taken in a public place).

If the photographer wants to sell it to an ad agency for use in print advertising, the rules change again. Even if there are multiple people in the frame, every identified person will require a release.

I am not 100% sure of the editorial rules in Canada, but I don't believe there needs to be any release, as long as the image is not portraying the individual in false light. The photographer can't take that image and decide to sell it as "fine art", under the same guidelines as editorial use.

Well, the only thing what I can say, that profession of photographer mostly its a challenge and Street Photography its a slippery field and required some wise bravery.. So only your own choice what to do on this field, if to follow all the rules. you'll never get anything interesting (hm-mmmm - its my opinion), adventure giving you more chances. But its up to you, I never even tried to make another person think my way and change one's mind. Im not breaking the human rules and never allow myself to be rude or hurt somebody, I would even say that by most of my images Im flattering to the person as see first his best and beauty. I think its enough for me to continue street photography.

Jenny I do not know why you have been taking my comments so personally? I have made it quite clear in all my posts that I am speaking from the viewpoint of Canadian law. Even my fist examples were based on what I know and have been advised on with regards to Canadian law. You do not live in Canada and so those rules do not apply to you, unless the laws in Russia are similar. I am not trying to change you or get you to do anything "my way".

I believe it is important that all photographers know the laws that govern their work, in the country they are living / working. Once you know what the laws are, you can choose to do with them what you want.

I do not always follow every law where I live, but when I get caught I pay the price. A good example would be speeding. :) I tend to do that from time to time.

--------------------------

On the topic of street-photography, I wonder if the laws apply to a photographer based on where they live, or where they are shooting? I live in Canada and while in Canada taking photographs I have to abide by the laws here. If I traveled to another country where the laws are different, should I not govern my work based on the laws in that country?

In my prior life as a "street" photographer, I have been kicked out of places (cemetery where 12 of my relatives are buried/amusement arcade, etc.), threatened with death (from Latino gang members). I do not at any time go into my "confrontational" mode under the above circumstances (altho my nature I am a very aggressive person). I smile, say yes sir, and retreat and go someplace else. If anyone objects at any time, I put down my camera and walk away or talk my way out of it with a simple Simon approach.

I don't care if my images are flattering or not. But I don't "look" for images that are unflattering. I take what is given to me.

I once spotted an accident on a lonely country road. I got my pals to stop (we were on a fishing trip). We got out to examine the overturned pickup truck. One of my pals, a biology teacher, yelled at me, "Hey, don't step there. That's the guy's brains." Poor driver had been decapitated when his truck rolled over. Then the cops arrived. The dead guy's dog was alive and well in the truck and would not let the cops get near his dead master. So what to do? BANG BANG BANG.....Dead dog. Cops shot him.

Why am I telling you this gruesome story? I did NOT take pics of this horrible scene (altho my Leica Rangefinder was in my hands). Not that I did not want to. But because a few of my pals yelled at me, "put your camera down." I respected their wishes. If someone tells me not to take pics, I don't. But wow, what pics that would have made....cops shooting faithful dog; driver decapitated, brains splattered on the road, etc....

Even though it is not illegal to photograph police at work in Canada, you have to be careful as they will do everything in their power to stop you and/or take your camera / delete the card .. etc...

Not sure what it is like in the USA or elsewhere.

@Robert, your comment that if a person doesn't want to see nudity, the person should just not look at nude images, makes no sense in the context of this thread. There is no warning that this thread has anything to do with nudity. People who choose to read the thread have no idea they will be viewing nudity. That's not right. Not everybody shares your desire to play voyeur, and it's very unfair of you to assume that no one could possibly be offended by unexpected nudity in this (or any other) thread.

Also bringing up the Kinky contest is just silly. That contest is obviously going to contain all kinds of images that more sensitive viewers won't want to see. It says so in its very title. Different kettle of fish altogether.

Just because you don't care whether there are nude images on display on FAA for any and all to see without warning doesn't mean that every person viewing the threads agrees with you. It's very wrong of you to force your nude images on people who may not wish to view them. That's akin to you flashing people in the subway and then exclaiming, "If you don't want to see me naked, just turn away!"

Deborah, Please do not moderate the thread. That is as much against the rules, as the nude images, Robert

I have removed the first one and am taking advice on the second

The forum is aimed at a general audience. Pornographic or generally offensive text, images, links, and swearing are not allowed. Users may not post images that require a safe filter to the open forum. They should be safe filtered.

You can catch up with all the forum rules here, http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=260080


Now, back to Street Photography withOUT the naked ladies.

Abbie, I wasn't moderating the thread; I was responding directly to Robert. Is that against the rules too?

No it is not

This reminds me of people being concerned about national geographic...no offense meant, just what I thought of.

So, I'm going to ask a basic question. What are the features of a nude photograph that crosses the line to requiring a safe filter? This seems like it could be rather subjective. Obviously things I see as nothing lewd or provocative, others do.

HW, I think any nude image should have a safe filter. To me, it's not about lewdness or provocativeness, because, I agree, most artistic nudes are neither, but just about differing sensibilities. Again, I equate this to discussions about religion or politics. I think most people don't really care if a few people want to argue politics or religion in public threads, but there are some people who just don't want to see it at all, even when the thread title makes it clear what the thread will contain. So those discussions are specifically prohibited. It's about trying to make sure that no one is offended, even if the majority doesn't think there's anything to be offended about.

@Deborah. Yes, I understand. I'm just trying to reconcile the instructions for when to use a safe filter and the action of removing images from this discussion which (to me) would not have required a safe filter. In reading the instructions, I see no requirement for a nude to have a safe filter by that single criteria. The instructions refer also to "good judgement". I like that, but sadly folks don't always agree on such things. Clearly there is some gray area.

My latest work since I have hit the streets more often

@Semmick. Nice image. I think you may have restarted the "what is street photography?" discussion though... :)

I know what street photography is, but there is a lone man on a bicycle in my image :)

This reminds me of the time that I created a discussion (not here). It became so popular that we had some 300 regulars. I got bored with it after a time and I gave it to a woman to be the new moderator. The first thing she did was to ban me. hahahahahahahah....

Semmick...Some folks think that street photography should not be heavily edited like with an excess of color. I believe this is what HW may have had in mind when he said, "I think you may have restarted the "what is street photography?" discussion though... :)

HW may be hinting that he thinks your beautiful image may have an excess of color that you edited in. Whether it does or not (does it?) it's still a good image nicely done. By the way, you don't have to have humans in a street image for it to be a "street" image.



I love street photography. But I would not apply heavy editing to any image. No syrup, no HDR...some salt, some pepper (cropping, little bit of added color, contrast, etc)...

This has been a wonderful discussion for me. So many replies, so much insight and so many wonderful images by so many of you. Thanks for all your participation. Best of all for me is that I have decided to return to my first love in photography....the art of street images...which I did for some 4 years many years ago.

I joined fine art america some 6 months ago with the intent of creating and trying to sell "beautiful" wall decor such as landscapes, flowers, sunsets, etc. But the competition is so stiff in the usual topics that it's like (for me) trying to walk up a hill covered with bacon grease. I keep sliding back.

Just today I focused almost exclusively on "street" images at a farmers market. What a rush of happiness knowing that I don't have to be picture perfect with every pixel in every artsy fine art place.

To thine own self be true. I suppose my fine art america income will drop from the $70. I earned in the last 6 months to zero, but hey I did marry a top exec in a world wide company. I may be dumb but I ain't stupid.

Gosh, I hope the title of this image I took this afternoon doesn't upset one of my pals here on fine art america....

This shot is of Steve McQueen in his last film before his death... The Hunter is a 1980 American film based on the exploits of real-life bounty hunter Ralph "Papa" Thorson.
This scene was filmed at Marina City in downtown Chicago one city block from my studio... i was walking by when they drove a car off an upper level floor of the parking garage and into the Chicago River, McQueen walked to the edge and looked down and i took this snap... they only had one take and used three or four cameras to shoot the scene. Photographed with a Nikon F, 105mm lens on TRI-X film. Scanned from a 4.5x7 inch silver gelatin print.

Ed, nice. Try to sell it on ebay???

PS...
Thanks for sharing your street images. Love this type of art. Perfectly pretty pictures of flowers, landscapes, etc (further prettied in HDR) are fine for wall decor and the average collector, but the outsider art of street photography has its devotees as well (maybe not here). For whatever reason, street photography is alive and well and we have many new members.

True that we don't have to follow the same old ways of the past masters of street photography....And we don't. Not all street photographers use film cameras (we now use digital, even cell phone)...Not all use wide angle or normal lenses, some use telephoto. Some decades ago, we even introduced color to our street images.

But, I have to voice my disagreement with "recreating" a scene and then passing it off as an "authentic and candid" street scene. In my opinion, the recreated scene falls into the category of "movie" making. It's what Woody Allan and other film directors do...



What I find refreshing about our street images is that they do NOT have to be picture perfect to show off their power. They don't (and should not be) edited and edited over and over in Photoshop.

Not only is the following image a "street" image but it could also fall into the category of "surreal." The lady in black leather is my wife.

PS...
the fact that it is staged negates the essence of "street/candid" photography in my opinion and transforms the subsequent images into the category of Fabricated Photography...

Fabricated Photography
"In her catalogue essay, "Sets and Situations," M. Darsie Alexander observes that many contemporary artists such as Gregory Crewdson, "have forsaken the tradition of photographing the world of everyday events in order to fashion their own alternate realities, creating sets and situations exclusively for the camera," adding that "working in this state of 'retreat' from the outside world has enabled them to exert a high level of control." "A shift toward what has been termed 'fabricated photography' or 'the photography of invention' came about gradually, the result of a growing awareness of photography's fictionalizing attributes. During the 1960s, artists and critics began to challenge many of the prevailing assumptions about photography's objectivity, examining how the meaning of an image can be shaped by many factors, from the politics of its maker to the context of its presentation.," the essay continued. Artists included in this section of the exhibition also include James Casebere, Laurie Simmons, Cindy Sherman and Philip-Lorca diCorcia."

the thing is, there are many photos here that tell no story at all. a street photo is not a documentary. a documentary shot doesn't need a story because it has the essay below it explaining what is happening in that image. and the photo should show everything without editing much more than the straightness.

a snap shot tells no story, and that's what i'm seeing in many of these shots. it's impromptu, and many (not mentioning names), just are cut off, unbalanced, and kind of uninteresting. without knowing anything about the scene, you can't tell what is happening in that scene it tells no story.

street photography may capture a moment in time, but it's not a documentary, it needs to be self explanatory. and many of these are not. they look like a day out with a camera. there should be no reason why you can't edit it more- these images are not a part of a newspaper or a magazine. enhancing the image doesn't change the story, so there should be no reason why it shouldn't be edited, and it shouldn't justify not editing the image.

i think people should hang up their ideals at what something should be or should not be and just get the story with the shot.


---Mike Savad

I'm with Mike - I'm seeing a lot of photos that look like snapshots and that don't tell a story. They aren't "street photography" photographically speaking. Street photography isn't just taking a photo of something you see along a street. Street photography to me is not something one just does. There is an art to it, to finding the story, to finding that just so unusual scene that someone will be able to see the story. I take photos of graffiti and parts of old building but I don't consider that street photography. I may be out on the street but that's not it. Street photography isn't just something you decide to do and then do it well. I think it's a style that you develop over time - the ability to find the stories on the street. Most successful street photography I see is in black and white which gets rid of the clutter of color so that you can concentrate on the people and what is going on. I would love to do street photography but I'm not sure I have the eye or the nerve to walk around cities taking photos. And then there is the concern over model releases should I decide to put one on FAA for sale. Maybe if the people aren't recognizable, although I posted on my FB page what I thought would be an unrecognizable lady jogger in Cades Cove in the Smoky Mountains and what happened, the lady recognized herself and when I went to her page I could see it even if she was at a distance and it was from behind. And a friend was just recently asked to stop photographing near a merry-go-round here in town because parents were uncomfortable with him shooting because their kids were on the merry-go-round. Ok, I'll step down off my soap box for this evening.

you can use any words you want, but if someone is looking at a scene, it should be self explanatory. it should be more than a person standing, or eating something. it can be a life around here moment. it might be some car people are driving these days. buying a newspaper, etc. it tells a story even if small. but it shouldn't look random, there are images on this site, that looks more like footage from a security camera, than a deliberate shot. that's my view.


---Mike Savad

usually i don't do the "typical" street photos - because i don't usually notice people. to me they are invisible. and in these days, you could get killed if you point it the camera at the wrong person. so i do it from across the street, to give me a running start if they dare run out in traffic to get me.

shooting kids can be tough, though at a country fair it's easier, but far more cluttered.

i like capturing street scenes and will use that term, mostly because someone can't insist has to follow certain rules.


---Mike Savad

Due to the serious nature of the discussion in this thread, I offer my version of street art:

The closest I've gotten to doing some "street photography" was at an air show walking around before the main show started finding some volunteers having a little fun. Does this photo tell a story? I think it shows a young lady having fun on a mechanical bull and about to fall off while her friends are enjoying her plight and in turn photographing her. Is it great? Probably not. I like it though. Can I really offer it for sale? I'm not sure.

listen, the image with or without editing - still tells the story. a cake is still a cake, and the frosting just makes it better. you can still eat it without it. shooting in color then doing a straight conversion to black and white - doesn't help your story either. adding a soft glow or obliterating the shadow detail - doesn't help the story when people do that.

i don't know exactly what your talking about, this sounds more like a school concept you think you understand. the photograph - is the scene. otherwise it can be anything. while you consider it a good lesson, to an outsider, i don't know what's going on in many of these shots (not just yours). while my images may not pull you in, they pull my customers in. because they can relate to it themselves. which is what i want, since it generates sales. i'm not here to make a statement nor do i want an edgy picture. i like simple scenes of life around here. the effects make it stand out from a plain of boring flat shots.

in general, i'm seeing many images up here that look more accidental. the shot that you wouldn't show the person after, or the one you shot when you were swatting at a bug. i like images that look deliberately made, not accidental. see everyone has their own version and reality to what certain terms mean. and this is a fine example of just that.


---Mike Savad

This is pretty much the normal reaction whenever I'm doing street photography; people squeal "All right, go ahead!!" (wind to 3:26)



The short video shows a master at work. A must watch for anyone wanting to do street photography.

Dan Turner
Dan Turner Fine Art
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online
To Enjoy Dan Turner's Pinterest Boards, Click Here

PS...
Funny you should show the Garry Winogrand....Women are Beautiful....
I was just browsing thru that book of his in my personal library a few hours ago.

I agree with the following definition of "street" photography,...

"Street photography is a genre of photography that features subjects in candid situations within public places and does not necessitate the presence of a street or even the urban environment. 'Street' simply refers to a place where human activity can be seen, a place to observe and capture social interaction. The subject can even be absent of any people and can be that of object or environment where an object projects a human character or an environment is decidedly human.

"Framing and timing are key aspects of the craft, with the aim of creating images at a decisive or poignant moment. Alternatively, the street photographer may seek a more prosaic depiction of the scene, as a form of social documentary.

"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_photography

I'm getting more and more interested in street photography ... some stuff I shot last week -

Miriam,
Good work. Keep at it.

I like these, too.

Thanks, Robert. I believe I've found my voice. This is my favorite way of shooting.

I'm still finding my way.

Mr. Turner,
God bless you for giving us this movie clip on GW....I watched it some 30 years ago but had forgotten about it....Home again, Home again, thank god almighty I am home again (long story)....I have but a few years left and will use them to do street photography which I did around 1978 to 1982 or so.....Now to dig out my Leica Rangefinders.....OMG....I traded them all in for Canon digital.....sigh....

ALL comments have been thought provoking. thank U.

By the way, I used a Nikon for those photos and it was impossible to hide. That's likely why some of the people are looking at me, but I think it doesn't matter. Someone looking at you can draw the viewer into the shot. I used to be super-shy about taking pics of people in public, but I figure it's like flying; scared at first, then you realize you want to get to wherever it is that you're going, so you get over it.

Not sure street photography is very salable here, but It's really my favorite genre. This is one of mine that I think has a little potential to sell.

Love your work, Robert...I'm more of a lurker in the forums. I was lucky enough to stumble upon this scene...one of my favorites! Nice thread!

David,
Beautiful image. Well done...Kind of looks like me and darn if I don't own a PitBull as well!

Diane,
Simple but charming scene...works for me as a good street image.

Miriam,
Many ways to peel an orange. You don't really need to hide your camera when taking street images, nor do you need a tiny camera (like an iPhone5)....Look at the camera Garry Winogrand has around his neck and he isn't exactly hiding himself or what he is doing (Mr. Turner gave us the movie clip of GW at work taking candid pics.) A side note, GW left tens of thousands, a million? images unprocessed at his death. He, in the long run, had a rather difficult life.

Thanks, Robert! Saw the guy and his dog in Santa Fe in 2011.

Robert, I agree. LOL about Garry Winogrand's camera ... I also think it's good to find a spot rich in possibilities - stories, as Mike describes them, and that makes for a lot of inspiration for the photographer. Haha Dan - so far, no one's squealed at me while I'm shooting! But I'm sure it's bound to happen. :)

Now that I am doing street photography again, I asked a pro street photographer how he post processed his images. For example, did he sit for hours rendering his “candid” images into HDR images. By the way is this an oxymoron? I mean candid images transformed into HDR???

He laughed and said “I post process my images with a pinch of salt, no syrup. Nor do I strain my eyes for hours on any image. Maybe post process up to two minutes, but that would be on a difficult image.”

OK, but surely you use a magnificent photo editing program like Photoshop?

Again he chuckled...”Nope, Photoshop is wayyyy too complicated and far too expensive. I can get by with something like Photoshop Elements 11. After all, I am only going to use a pinch of salt, remember? Little bit of cropping, straighten, contrast, definition, sharpen...and it’s done.”

But you at least use a large screen at least 24 inches?

He looked at me like I was some kind of HDR expert.

“Nope,” he said, “I use a Mac Laptop Pro with a 15 inch screen.”

I had to ask him about his camera/lens/settings for street images.

“Just the basics” he informed me. “Like a 50mm lens set at 2.0, Camera ISO at 200 for most images, Shutter Speed around 250. Now excuse me I have only a half hour and I need to process some 20 images for my next show.”

what exactly is a professional street photographer? how does that work? the only person who ever used the term syrup as a description of what it looks like - is you. i doubt this discussion ever took place.

the images a i make - are HDR's - 3 images stacked. anything else is shading, no different than if i did it in a darkroom. everyone has their own techniques that works for them. can we see some of his photos? i'm curious what they look like. he is a pro after all, he must have something posted. i still consider most of these snapshots. too tight, crooked, and and just an excuse if this so called pro doesn't know how to edit. there isn't much difference between photoshop and elements - it's the same program just 4 versions less.

why would the size of your screen make any difference to your editing? and how does it pertain to hdr? your conversion makes no sense, because it's all fiction.

anyway, show us his work. what's his name?

---Mike Savad

Robert, the words you describe from that street photographer is exactly how I've done it too, but I never put it to words to realize it like that ... I just do it.

Philip, your words to describe street photography are simply wonderful.

I can't believe this thread is still going and shows so much interest. I think we should see if this can be a category on FAA?? ... and to get the momentum going there should be a group something like " classic street photography ". I personally don't have the patience or time to monitor such a group, but if someone gets it going I'll be the first to sign up!! There is a market for this work, though it may not be "fine" art prints, but it is art prints none the less. Though having said that I might be wrong, as there is an art to street photography, so you can call it fine art.

Mike, a professional street photographer is like any other photography medium, he / she focuses ( sorry about the pun ) on photographing street. Where a photojournalist, for example, focuses on more than just street. And, I can't speak for Robert but, the difference in editing for the average street photographer focuses more on camera technique than back-end technology or lighting. Most street photographer's I know shoot in JPEG with limited use of external ( flash ) lights. It's all pure with little manipulations.

I belong to a group on Flickr called Streets Chicago, I'm sure you'll find others if you do a group search there, here is the link: http://www.flickr.com/groups/streetschicago

if they shoot it that way as a challenge that's fine. but i was never about the challenge and want the scene more than the moment. people who shot film first will usually think in this manner because they are used to it. but i didn't get the camera i did and not edit after. it's like having found a diamond and not cutting it nicely. while many here are calling their things street photos, i still see the lack of a story and the very tight crops suggest snap shots. there are some here that do tell a story. often finding that story is a matter of just waiting a few minutes. many of these look like shoot and run shots.

in the end it's more than just technique. the style a person uses is what lets people recognize is yours. but you need to start with good stock, and a story or the editing will fall apart.


---Mike Savad

I don't do too much street photography. I find it very hard to photograph people without invading their privacy or making me feel as though I am intruding... I wish I knew more tricks that would make me feel more comfortable doing this type of imagery as I really do enjoy seeing people situated in the day to day tasks instead of being posed.
I took this image as an assignment for a photography class I was taking...I think it sort of falls in the middle of the two discussions found here.

i think the trick is - not to care about the other person. looking at that video above or some of the other shots, you have to be in their face to really get the shot. i remember when i was younger i shot some guy when on a cruise, i think he was smoking pot at the time, and he did notice me, i was at a distance though and could get away faster.

from what i remember though. if you stand around for a few minutes, you become invisible to most people. however you only have like 3-10 seconds to shoot a picture before they notice you. something like that.


---Mike Savad

Karen,
Nice image. Are you implying that a pretty woman should be as thin as a lamp post? lol..

Mike,
The conversation is created from a youtube video on Post Processing Street Images by professional (gets paid for his street images/teaches street/etc) street photographer Thomas Leuthard. If you like street photography, you’ve probably heard of Thomas Leuthard. He lives in Switzerland and, although he hasn’t been on the street photography scene for very long, he’s made quite a name for himself in the community worldwide.

Read more: http://digital-photography-school.com/focus-on-thomas-leuthard-street-photographer#ixzz2bC8aP0uJ

Here's an abridged interview with street photographer Thomas Leuthard.

What do you look for when you roam the streets?
There are a lot of things I’m looking for. I focus on Interesting characters, funny situations, graphical repetitions, matching colors and so on. I scan the streets all the time while I’m walking…

3. What drives you most, the actual shoot or the resulting images?
For me it’s the challenge to see interesting things, to capture life and to make an interesting shot of something ordinary. Sure the result makes you proud, especially when you know the story behind it and when it was a special situation to capture it.

4. If someone objects and asks you to delete in camera, what do you do?
Yes, I delete, when someone requests me to delete.

http://digital-photography-school.com/focus-on-thomas-leuthard-street-photographer

Mike - I agree with you about style and how you "control" if people notice you.

Karen - nice moment! The way to overcome your fears is to do what you want to do more and more. It's like the story of the guy who was afraid of the dark, so he sat in his dark basement for five minutes a day. Before long became so used to it he could sit for an hour or more.

I became involved in street photography as a young boy. I was shy as a child so I did more watching and listening than talking ... it caused me to study body language. That is all street photography is, when involving people you use body language to tell the story. I am not afraid now to approach people because to me the story is more important ... all it takes is a click of the shutter to tell the story of humanity for history sake.

“Photography is a major force in explaining man to man.” - Edward Steichen

i've never heard of that guy. while i like some of his photos, like the train one. the rest of his images had the look of - why are you pointing that camera in my face look. every one of them had that look. like a cross between conviction and confusion. is this the guy who said syrup?


---Mike Savad

(LOL) thanks for pointing that out Robert... She is actually thinner than the lamp post!
We are very proud of the beauty of the southern "Carolina" girl image in our state and this young lady is a perfect example of natural beauty,
minus the cigarette of course....
Thank for the tips Frank. I may try more of street photography after reading all these posts...

Karen - I have heard much about the beauty of the southern "Carolina" girl image in your state, but never been there to see it for myself. I always wondered if it is still alive all these years or has become "watered down" a bit. Sounds to me like the spark for a street photography project, you think?

By the way, I forgot to mention in my last post what the late Zig Ziglar use to say: FEAR = False Evidence Appearing Real.

Are you trying to talk me into getting some more of the "natural beauty" of the wholesome girls of North Carolina?
I will see what I can come up with...
My husband is good at pointing them out to me...(lol)...

Yes, Karen, get to work. I think it would not only sell as "high art' here on FAA but a potential for a coffee table book. Natural beauty is an important but rare thing, I would think, many men don't know what that is if they see it?? You and your husband can work together on this project!!

... Like my wife used to say " take a picture it lasts longer". Of course, that was before we were married and she taught me to see a woman for who she is as a person. Now my pictures have a whole new meaning. But now I'm digressing from the topic at hand, so I'll leave it at that.

I like the "natural beauty" project idea... I'll work on it...thanks for the input, tips and idea!

Mike - Did you happen to look at that link I provided from Flickr? There seems to be some street photography that looks HDR like???

Keep scrolling down: http://www.flickr.com/groups/streetschicago/

many from that flickr link would be a snap shot, there were quite a few that were tonemapped. the black and white ones seems to usually show a deliberate story and is probably best utilized for this use.

when i make my things - if the lighting is bad, it will be an hdr. hdr the effect - is tonemapping. people are getting that confused. in the end it all depends on the effect you were going for. tonemapping is nice because you can increase the raw grit of an image - if done right. or you can make it look more like a rockwell piece.


---Mike Savad

Mr. PS..
wow, once again thanks for the vid on Mr. Friedlander....Names from my youth!!!!
I prefer Mr. Winogrand BUT Friedlander is right next to him....
Both men, as you can see, were obsessed with picture taking....

As the film says, most modern photographers take pics with the intent on selling them online (faa, etc) in galleries...Lee F was not that way, just not interested. He just wanted to take pics all the time, just like Winogrand.

This thread got pretty bogged down and repetitive so I ended up just skimming a lot of it. Regarding "getting sued", anyone can sue for anything. It doesn't mean they are right or that they will win. I've seen people asking for definitive answers on the subject of when you need a release, what's allowed and what isn't. Trouble is, that there ain't none. the real answer is when in doubt, seek legal advice. But what I see are a lot of personal opinions on what can and can't be done. Moreover lots of misinformation. Sure, we can quote one of our favorite photographer's blogs, but really, is that legal advice? Even the attorneys that post information on this subject clearly state that it is not legal advice. So how can a photographer with no backing from the BAR give legal advice and why would you follow it?

A little reading from reliable sources can clear up some of the misunderstandings pretty fast:
http://everydayaperture.com/law/ (this guy is an attorney)
http://www.photoattorney.com/ (you'll have to search her blogs, lots of great info on how the law applies to various situations)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia (I'm not a fan of Wikipedia, but this is good brief article with references to the legal decisions involved. The point being that we're on pretty solid ground with selling prints of recognizable faces.)

Regarding what constitutes the definition of Street Photography, well it's pretty nebulous. Does it really matter that what one person calls Street Photography doesn't match your own view? Its like the question of when does it become digital art? When do edits go beyond "pure" photography? Ford vs. Chevy. You see, how important is it really? in the grand scheme, it doesn't matter.

Two recent "street" images of mine, both candid. I don't usually take "street" portraits as I like to include more of what is happening in the scene, but whatever....

Another fav street photographer for me is CHARLES GATEWOOD. As I write this I am browsing thru his breakthrough book "Sidetripping.

"https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CEwQtwIwBA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DttijSlf_5mA&ei=ylYBUoykGYOcyQHMqoGwDA&usg=AFQjCNEaFDdDAOhrLUfZCWAmKZfR5lkdVg&sig2=dPCphr-HFs56kK-OFhFzug&bvm=bv.50310824,d.aWc

The vid made me nostalgic. Lets all shot some film, dag nabit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SExsuRIGAlg

Yipes! I accidentally pressed the "Stop following" button, so now I have to comment to get back into this discussion.

Okay, so here's a couple others:

this photo was taken on the streets on barcelona Spain

beauty - aesthetics, aesthetic beauty - all in the mind of the beholder - " I " have never seen any "beautiful" street photography. I've seen lot's of nice, well done, quality "street photography" - most of it is more photo journalism than art - beautiful or ugly. If to you it is beautiful - that's fine - and I have no problem with your aesthetics - just for me - it isn't true.

Edit - going back down to Robert's comment: street photographer Thomas Leuthard.

What do you look for when you roam the streets?
There are a lot of things I’m looking for. I focus on Interesting characters, funny situations, graphical repetitions, matching colors and so on. I scan the streets all the time while I’m walking…

3. What drives you most, the actual shoot or the resulting images?
For me it’s the challenge to see interesting things, to capture life and to make an interesting shot of something ordinary. Sure the result makes you proud, especially when you know the story behind it and when it was a special situation to capture it.


You see - street photography is all about the story, interesting situations - not art photography. Will it capture a beautiful girl, man, building - yes - but does that make it "beautiful art"?

Roy,
Does "art" have to be "beautiful"? Does it have to bring a smile to our face as we honor its beauty? Must all art look like Norman Rockwell or Thomas Kinkade or Monet or our typical fine art america artists?

If you expect "street" images to always tell a story (most folks do/even other street photographers), you might be better off doing documentary photography (see Ken Burns and the way he uses still images in his brilliant work). In my opinion, "street" can tell a story but that story does not have to hit you over the head with its message.

As far as "street" not creating "beautiful" art because of its nitty gritty aspects, I strongly disagree (as do many other art lovers/critics). Look at the street images of Diane Arbus for one example. Look at the images of artists such as Goya, Bosch, Francis Bacon (just to name a few). Because beauty can be a subjective experience, it is often said that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

Street photography is an art almost as old as photography itself.

it depends on what your final goal is. if it's to take random snap shots of people then you have met your goal. if it's to do what you enjoy - and sell those images to the public because they like it, i dont' see that happening in these images. they all look like family snap shots, not to sound insulting or anything. so yes, they should be art, especially if you are labeling them street photography, there should be some kind of creativity and artistic balance when you make these, otherwise they are snapshots.

usually art means beautiful - or anything at all can be art. and while technically anything can be art - something has to determine why its art. otherwise i can label the rats in my shed as art.

documentary photography is TOTALLY different. and yet if done well, can also be art. what i'm seeing here is snap shots labeled as street photography, so it sounds fancier than it really is.

in the end what is the goal? what looks nice in a gallery doesn't look as good on a wall. you can't sell it as a coffee table book unless you get a release, it would be hard for the most case. the end goal is - why was this shot taken? and why would it be interesting to someone else, enough for them to buy it from me - that's the goal. street scenes done in a specific location or a certain time - often done as a series might look good. but random things you saw while walking in a park one day - not so much.

that video dan showed, the guy looked like he was randomly taking pictures - yet they didn't show what he shot on that boardwalk. i wonder why that is... guess they didn't look like anything. though if you take enough pictures, your bound to get a keeper here and there, the trick is to sort through them and find the gem.


---Mike Savad

Reposted....
Post Processing your photographs is a valuable skill to bring out the beauty of your images, to make them picture perfect IF your aim is to create “art” for $$$ here on Fine Art America (god knows I have tried to do so).

But what if your talent as a photographer lies elsewhere? What if you are a “street” photographer? Should you then spend hours, many hours, “fixing up” your CANDID images?

In the old days prior to our wonderful computers, some of our street photographers (not all/not Arbus, not Weegee) did work for hours in the darkroom on a special image. Today our computers and photo editing programs have turned hours of post processing into a mere touch of the keyboard.

Also isn’t the concept of working hours and hours on a candid image a true oxymoron? Doesn’t CANDID mean truthful and straightforward? The skill is in the taking not the making.

That said, some street photographers (either because of temperament or philosophy) tell us they almost never work more than a minute or two on any of their street images. (This is computer work, not darkroom work.)

I myself (because of my edgy temperament) have a 10 minute rule. If I can’t express what it is when I first “felt” the image, I go on to another photo.

Generally, I apply the following steps for my street images...
RAW only, straighten, crop, contrast, definition, sharpen, vignette, touch of saturation....(I use RAW not jpeg for my street images because of the flexibility it gives in post processing “light.”)

Time spent on an image....1 to 10 minutes then on to the next image.



PS...
Mike, I value your advice on HDR images. On street images, not so much.

it just seems to me you don't know what street photography actually is. that thing above is a snap shot. sorry, but it is. it's crooked, cluttered and tells no story. it makes no difference how you edit it as long as it looks good, tells the story and most importantly - people like it and want to buy it. otherwise there is no point. otherwise i would tape a camera to the back of my bike and click a button where ever i am. while some of the images might look good -it will be random and chaotic.


using ed's example that he for some reason erased - i really think it should be for sale - this tells a story. many stories. black and white. old and young, it shows an era, etc. it looks deliberate and doesn't have a lot of extras in it that would make it look like a snap shot.

it's easy to make snap shots, many images aren't worth editing at all.


when i make things i want to tell a story, it makes no difference at all if i use hdr - there is no editing rules when it comes to photography and any particular type is just a name and it holds no rules at all. i utilize hdr to capture detail often overlooked.





hdr brings out the details in the wood trim. lets me peer into the barber shop, it removes the shadows in a face. it brings out more in a piece. and whether i spend 5 minutes or 5 hours on a piece - makes no difference what so ever. if i told you i spent 10 min on piece, what that make a difference? there are people that make work very much like mine, but do it at night with a lot of lighting. they look like street photos- and in the end, that's all that matters.

---Mike Savad

and who is that fleamarket aimed for? who would want it on their wall? that's the type of question i ask myself when i make these pieces. now i suppose in a 100 years that image could work, because it shows a time and a location, but that's a long time to wait. i have pieces, snap shots of my grandmother when she was like 15, with old cars driving by. it's a snap shot, yet its interesting because it is different. or a ball game with what would be considered old classic cars in the background at hitting distance.


---Mike Savad

I'm no street photographer but I would think that as long as your exposures and everything are good it shouldn't need much editing. You might want to add a vignette or something to make the main subject stand out. If you shoot raw you will need to do some editing or your image will be pretty flat, but other than some local adjustments and sharpening not much should be needed. Unless of course you are going for a more artistic style, for example like Mike gives everything and hdr feel to it. Check out Jay Maisel, he is the master of street photography. I have a question though, if you are selling street images with people in them shouldn't you have a model release signed before you can sell them

Mikie,

You're right, a lot of "snapshots" here posted as "street art". Big difference and I guess not totally understood by the poster(s). Grabbing a shot,when no one is looking, is way different than finding a "scene" a street scene and knowing this is good or something good is about to happen. Maybe subtle to some, but not to most. You,Jenny,Miriam and Ed and maybe a few others know what real street photography is and it shows in their images.

I think with your images, the issue, is that your images are 1. In color and 2. Look too nice, no edge. And that's might be confusing to some reading this thread,

Rich

Removed my snapshot of a street scene :)

probably. i might try some gritty black and white stuff since that seems to be right for this genre. though i think it works better for urban. mostly i'm people blind, i'm looking at things, not people. and staring at people is a good way to get into trouble. zoom lenses are important to me. though a short lens is nice because it lets you blend in better. much better than a lens that sticks out like 12" when open.

for me the basic keys are - the people aren't cropped off. there are no extra pieces of people, there is little clutter unless it adds to the scene. the image still needs framing and context. i think should be colorful, or can be, but not to bright and not saturated (unless it's a clown selling balloons or something). it should tell a story of some kind, even something really basic, like he's buying coffee. and the look of the person shouldn't embarrass them, it should honor the person. the expression should be something that won't offend the person if they saw themselves online or where ever. it should not be in mid sentence, if their fly is open - close it digitally. if their pocket is sticking out, if they have a stain on their shirt etc - clean it up. i clean gum and garbage off the side walks because i don't want to dishonor the town.

after all i want to sell this to someone that might live in that town, and it should be clean. unless it's the city, then that's how it looks usually.

a person should know whats going on in the scene without seeing text, title etc. many of these images look like a random shot with a title to fit it.


---Mike Savad

you can replace it with this one, it has more of a street photo vibe to it.


---Mike Savad

D.A.

No need to remove anything from here. My point was that some were pushing images that are snapshotty(real word?) and trying to convince others, that they were a good example of "street art". Calling something,something, doesn't make something,something else! (World record for the use of the word "something", 4 times in a 8 worded sentence!!!

Dat's All!

Dr. Otto Fokus

much of this thread is like saying that everyone on you tube is an actor because they made a video of themselves and they are known now because people viewed their video.


---Mike Savad

if the photo doesn't need to tell a story and there doesn't have to be a method involved, then why do we have classifications for it?

a good photo should be about something - but again it depends what your goal is. if your trying to make something of yourself, then perhaps an esoteric, random approach to shoot things as you see them might be the edge you need.

but if your trying to make a living from it, it's better that it has some kind of context. people have to know or understand why they took that picture.

like above - what is going on in that scene with the bright hats? they look clumped together. anything can be going on in there. or the fishing scene - people are just stacked everywhere. if a few minutes were waited, you would find that there would be two fishing and the others setting up a picnic, perhaps to cook the caught fish. but that scene is just a bunch of people. and the one rod in there, tells us something is about to happen, but it's not in there.

there should be a reason why you took it. otherwise its accidental. so yeah, there needs to be a story or context of some kind. otherwise it's a snap shot. and the one of that girl could easily be his kid.



i remember a while ago i knew a guy named Darwin Wiggett, he specialized in mountain scenes but did a few that were different than the others and could be a snap shot but wasn't. one of them he said - he taped his camera to his bald head, and put a shutter bulb in his mouth. he held his girl by her hands and spun her around in circles, while he took pictures. all you was were out stretched arms with a moving background. he sold tons of those as stock. the other one was of his dog with the head out the window, take with a fish eye lens from the other window in front, while he sped down the barren road.

stuff like that - that's creative. and what makes something that would be a snap shot for one person, makes it into art for the next.


---Mike Savad

who is this guy in the video? he sounds like he's being paid to show of these images and he looks like he's having a hard time telling us more than what we are seeing in there.

---Mike Savad

So many here think a "street" photograph must tell a "story." Stories have a beginning, middle and ending (I was a short story writer for some years). It is my opinion, shared by some other street photographers that pics that tell a story fall into the category of Documentary (see Ken Burns, and other photographers who present dozens of images on the same topic to tell their story)....

When I take a street image, I don't worry about how it is going to look as a "nice" image, that's why HDR was invented. Nor do I have any story telling in mind. I want to describe the image well, not tell a narrative (buy a fiction book and read it if you want a story). My images show light on a surface, that's all.

I trust my instinct when on the street. I look for a lot of activity. Most of my street images don't make it. One good image out of 200??? One great image out of 1,000?
Most folks here on Fine Art America want "structure." I am content with reality/chaos.

Hopefully by next year, I will have all my attempts at "structured pretty images" off Fine Art America replaced by what I enjoy most Street Photography....

the guy in the video is talking about Paul Graham, an English fine-art photographer whose work has been exhibited, published and collected internationally. In 2009, he won the Deutsche Börse Photography Prize. He is also a Winston Churchill Memorial Fellow, and a Guggenheim Fellow.

Paul Graham has been a prolific and well published artist, including two survey monographs, by SteidlMACK (2009) and Phaidon (1996), along with 10 other publications. One book, Empty Heaven, is devoted to Japan,[3] another A Shimmer of Possibility, comprises 12 volumes examining the USA.[2] His work has been exhibited extensively – notably participating in the Italian Pavilion of the 49th Venice Biennale (2001), the inaugural exhibition at Switzerland's national Fotomuseum Winterthur, and most recently a solo exhibition at New York's Museum of Modern Art.[2] He was one of the 24 photographers included in the Tate Gallery's landmark "Cruel and Tender" survey exhibition of 20th century photography (2003),[4] and a European mid career survey exhibition at Museum Folkwang, Essen, and touring from 2009–2011 to the Deichtorhallen, Germany, and Whitechapel Gallery, London. In 2012 he was awarded the Hasselblad Award 2012, regarded as photography's top honor.

no they don't. thats where your wrong and what many have to know and understand what a story is in the context of an image.

its like this. you have a picture of a barn - nice, but eh. a barn at sunset also nice, but eh. a farm at sunset, with a road leading to an old tractor.... that tells a story. the tractor rides up to that farm on that road. it's not a complicated thing.

a lady is picking apples, and we are led in with a buck full of apples. a kid has a cone in his hand, and there is ice cream on the street, the boy is looking down. that's a story.

hdr was invented (like a 100 years ago), to expand the amount of exposure information - nothing more. and many of the things i do, i polish with shading to add depth and drama, hdr won't help bad scene, nor will editing it.

the problem is, your images are only lit - there is no depth to it. you as a photographer, a so called "specializing in street photography" should be looking for the story. looking for the moment. capturing that story. you don't have to polish it, but it has to have content and context that anyone can figure out what they are looking at, without the help of a title. you actually don't want busy, because busty scenes often have nothing to do with the story you want to tell. you can enjoy things fine, but if you want to sell, i suggest adding context to your images. almost anything is a story.


the stories don't have to be major, no dogs allowed inside, so he's waiting for scraps outside.


just drinking her coffee checking her phone, signs of the time.


everyone is looking for the right produce. the story isn't deep, but you can tell what they are doing, and why i shot it, just by looking - that's your goal.


---Mike Savad

Mark,
No model release is needed for selling pics of public street images. This is a simple answer but basically on target.

a guy with a cat, i don't care where he was published, we already know that getting scene in a gallery and being a thing - all it takes is the right people. i still call his shots snap shots and not much more. not much better than the stuff that 9 year old girl made. i'm never impressed by titles or awards, i can only judge things based on the last things made.


---Mike Savad

yes and no. if you sell it as stock, as advertising, and probably books - you would need a release.


---Mike Savad

The main issue with Street Photography is that it deals with the ‘real.’ Most commercial photography deals in retouched fantasy or specifically polishes reality to make it into an aspirational ‘super reality’. The commercial "art" photographer typically employs all the tricks (HDR the latest gimmick) in post production to make the world look more colourful, more beautiful, brighter and purchasable.

Mike

How can you possibly say this



a COUNTRYSIDE scene

is more of a street scene than this



or



I admit it, snapshot aside, how on EARTH does a countryside image get dibs over a real street for being a street scene??

Lost Am I, Yes I Am

Selling street images...

I am not a lawyer and these rules may differ in your geographical territory but generally here are two golden rules to observe.

1....You must not use the photograph in a way that implies an endorsement of a product without the permission of those in the photograph.
2....You must not use the photograph in a way that misrepresents those that appear in the photograph. For example, you take an image of a man talking to a young girl in public ....and you title it....sex predator.....

What is it like to be a Professional street photographer? One who earns a good income from being such an odd animal....
Here is a site by Nick Turpin....well paid street photographer...

http://nickturpin.com/category/street-photography-theory/

because the first one (though a bit dark), shows a location and a person in that environment, and the second ones, is just a table with a fake blur in the background. as their definition goes - it doesn't need to have a street in it, nor does there need to be one. i consider a person photograph that is taken candidly, to fit in as a street photo better than just something taken on the street. plus it was the only other photo in any of your accounts.



@robert - as far as mislabeling - the first one falls under #2. it doesn't have to be strong just enough to upset someone emotionally.


i think the main issue of why people are confused is - they are taking it from examples of people that are in galleries. but that does not signify what it should look like. that turpin guy - some look like snap shots. others do have a story look to them. i can't honestly say i care about any of them though. but if he can convince people to buy them. then good for him.



really a guy and his cat is interesting ---- tell me why.


---Mike Savad

You have said in other threads that one should study the artist to know what they are trying to convey through their art, yet you expect artists here to explain their work to you because you don't get it or like it?
There is no shortage of pseudo-intellectuals here, that's for sure.
The argument: "Street photography" is candid and in the moment and should need no explanation beyond what one sees.
The reality: Tell me what I'm looking at because I have no clue. Otherwise it is just a snapshot.
Let's see-a snapshot is a shot taken in a snap. Self-proclaimed "street" photographers take shots in a snap, hence, snapshots. Everyone else has to be perfect and have a clear agenda. I get it now.

In my opinion, ‘Street Photography’ is ‘Photography’ in its simplest form.
It’s all the other forms of photography that need defining...landscape, fashion, portrait, reportage, art, advertising, HDR….they are all complicating additions to the medium of Photography... They are the areas that need to be defined.

Here is a simple image of hair. A photographer (man/me) is pleased that his wife (mine) has such beautiful long blond hair and that on this day, during this walk he sees her hair blowing in the summer wind and he wishes to capture the "moment" that brings him so much happiness....

it's a life around here moment, generations of age and race, all shopping in the same store, harmony of a beautiful day, getting fresh fruit in an urban environment. perhaps i need a video of a guy talking about the virtues of this piece, then perhaps you would value it more.

you didn't answer my question by the way.


i'm not making fun of your art - why are you making fun of mine? your additions to this thread have become petty and tiring.


---Mike Savad

is there some reason you take most of your pictures of ladies and blonds for that matter - from behind? just wondering.


---Mike Savad

Whoa I think you are SO far off base it is reedickeedoodaluss

Fake blur? What a horrible way to describe my work!

The sunset in the middle of the countryside is not, no way, not at all even a little bit of a street scene.

Definition of a street is A public road in a city or town, typically with buildings on one or both sides

My image is a COUNTRYSIDE view with no roads, streets, buildings...................

The other one is taken.......oh look, what a hoot! In a public place with a road through and buildings on either side

Definition.... in a street.... ie... street scene with no additions or anything else in it and even people..... doing their things candidly

"It's Mike who doesn't *get it*, that a picture can mean something without it having to be about something that's easily understood, and who constantly needs explaining."
Then why are you asking?
Why should there be anything besides the art? If you are so intent on needing explanations for why someone did what they did, then you either have a vested interest in it (which you don't) or you're not getting it/you're confused.
Don't like it, don't look at or buy it. It's really that simple and you're not getting THAT.

PS..
thanks. it's been awhile since I consciously looked for candid moments.

I do have a reference point for the image of my wife's hair....It's the scene in Bergmans movie THE SEVENTH SEAL...the knight Antonius Block enjoys a country picnic of milk and wild strawberries gathered by Mia (wife of the circus actor/juggler). Block says: "I'll carry this memory between my hands as if it were bowl filled to the brim with fresh milk...And it will be an adequate sign – it will be enough for me."

Funny how the mind works...

not really, the blur/fog is fake looking, some things are sharp some things not. fog doesn't discriminate what it hides, contrast goes down, sharpness is cut. when bokeh is used, you can't use it anywhere, like look at that pole, it's sharp at the base and soft at the top. the background can be soft, not the whole pole. it wouldn't be soft around only a part of the door, leaving the other side fairly sharp. it wouldn't leave the shoes sharp, and the head blurred. i like the lady in the pink parasol, if she was moved over to roughly where those people are passing by.

i've seen a number of street photo descriptions since this thread has started. and it seems to really cover a large base of things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_photography

wikipedia - "Street photography is a genre of photography that features subjects in candid situations within public places and does not necessitate the presence of a street or even the urban environment. 'Street' simply refers to a place where human activity can be seen, a place to observe and capture social interaction. The subject can even be absent of any people and can be that of object or environment where an object projects a human character or an environment is decidedly human."

it's fairly confusing to be honest.



---Mike Savad

philip - where's your answer. i answer your question - answer mine.

why is the guy with the cat better than mine or anyone's?

and answering with another video is not an answer it's just a lame cop out.

---Mike Savad

so if that's your answer - then why doesn't it apply to my art?


---Mike Savad

lol....you people can "debate" all you want. I would rather go out and meet new friends like this lady dog...

Street photography is about life on the streets, hence the name, street photography

Mike you are so wrong (IMO) it is funny and not worth answering (IMO) so I am not going to,apart from to say my photograph is awesome and I love it. and that folks, is all that matters :D

"The problem with people calling something a snapshot or not is that it's a judgement often made from thinking that a photograph has to be *about* something. But the subject of a photograph can just as well be the photograph itself and the formal elements in it. That's were photography as the art of seeing comes into it."
But..."Mike, tell me why your 'Storefront - Hoboken - NJ' image is interesting. All I see is a processed image of two women picking fruit from a fruit stand. The only thing that holds the image together is the processing, there's not much beyond it. It's a snapshot badly disguised as something else. The same for the cafe image."

Got a video for that contradiction?
"I do both wall decoration and art. I know the difference between the two."
And what would that be, Enlightened One? Which do you sell more of?

yes maybe, and yet everyone seems to have their own definitions. wiki, other places, other forums, this forum. every answer is different. some thing it's documentary, other think it's snapshots of whatever... i assumed that street photography has to be taken on or from the street. yet i've seen people label that and post just a street - kind of like leaf photography.

as long as you like your picture, that's fine. i'm just defending my answer.



but why the cat? if that photo didn't have a guy in a video backing up the story - all you would see is a guy and a cat, under an underpass and nothing more. the story was explained verbally. because the images sure didn't provide enough context for that to make any sense.

philip i've been using this process for years, i teach my method, and i have yet to see images that look like mine. and if you plan on pulling out random hdr shots, they won't anything like mine, i've seen that ploy used before.

thing is the only pattern i've seen, mostly from you is - you show us a picture and a video, another picture and references that he's in a museum. yet i haven't seen any that doesn't explain the artists impressions of something. it's like that's the only way you understand it - if someone gives you the info.

why is the guy and the cat more meaningful to you then? and don't deviate around the question again.


---Mike Savad

Here are a few of mine.





This one I know is more UE (Urban Exploration) than Street, but I do consider UE as a part of Street Photography. This is from one such run where we entered an old river dredge and photographed it.

phil quit it with the insults.

and everyone knows that anyone who insults are either jealous or have no good sounding argument, and the only way they can look big is to insult other people and it's really tiring and does not make you look professional by any means.

you have yet to answer my questions why you like that cat image so much. the only thing you have done is side step and say - hey look over there, while you sneak out the back.


there is no way in the world that i can do homework and study that cat image - to find out why YOU like it.


---Mike Savad

You really haven't explained anything, only quoted other photographers or artists and posted videos. Not a lot is coming from you directly except "If you don't know, I'm not going to tell you" or "study it for yourself".
These are statements not made by someone of experience or life knowledge but of someone schooled. Huge difference.
You haven't answered questions: Which of your work has sold more, the "art" or the "decoration"? What do you consider to be the difference? You said the same things re: "Street photography" vs. "Fine Art Photography" yet haven't explained your stance on where the differences lie or where your own lines are drawn.
Now, just like the movie "Six Degrees of Separation", I could call you out as a fraud-someone who surrounds themselves with the truly knowledgeable then mimics their philosophies in such a way as to appear an intellectual but can't go deeper than what is apparent for fear of being found out or I could assume you have difficulty with the English language and therefore can not understand what is being asked of you.
Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't really care but I am intrigued as to why you are being so ambiguous to the point of practicing double-speak.

"your additions to this thread have become petty and tiring."

Senor Mike! Those words describe virtually every post you've made here and nearly every post you make on FAA.

Petty and Tiring: If it's good enough for you, it's good enough for others as well. Live and let live.

Dan Turner
Dan Turner Fine Art
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online
To Enjoy Dan Turner's Pinterest Boards, Click Here

like your additions are so much better dan...


---Mike Savad

I really don't want to read all these posts....

Any talk of religion, politics or direct personal attacks here?

Honor system for now.

Sigh...and still hasn't answered anything thrown his way...so I have to make the assumption that the queries can not be answered because the remarks leading to them were utter BS...
ta-ta! I get better responses from my new puppy.

PS,

Are these examples of "street photography or just photography taken in the street? I think a "snapshot" taken by an artist certainly can be art, Mr. Henri Cartier-Bresson, is a fine example of snapshots, at least in his day, that are now considered "high art" and worth thousands of $$$$.

And the converse of this, is that a snapshot taken by a "non-artist" , remains a snapshot, as many have been posted here, as examples of "Art",

Rich

by the way, I like these, especially the top two

If by some strange reason, someone should buy this image, I will give my "earnings" to the next person we see asking for money.

to sell things, one should not say - if by some strange reason this should sell -- it leaves a bad taste as to why anyone would want to buy from you if you don't have confidence in your own work.


---Mike Savad

PS,

as I mentioned I liked these images of yours, but I think you and others are posting images that have no relevance to this discussion about street photography, not you so much, but one other, who shall remain nameless, otherwise THE WRATH OF ABBIE shall strike!

Rich

here's an old one i had on the theme of street, yet i doubt it would pass the definitions people set on this topic.


---Mike Savad

Mike,
I may not be selling any of my really awesome images but my wife's Corgi is on the verge of stardom with his talented graffiti painting tongue.

Phillip,

Here is an example or two of my "street photography", which to me is just photography, taken or captured while in a street, which has no value, where the photo was taken "from" versus "what" the subject was:







While not snap shots, I wouldn't consider these "street photography" either, so I think posting images that aren't actual examples, no matter how good, doesn't help the discussion stay on track and actually confuses some here,

Rich Franco

Here is a street photographer, Mark Cohen, who bills himself as a Surrealistic Street Photographer. He is widely known and has had many shows, etc....He can be found on Wikipedia. Cohen’s photography was first exhibited in the 1969 exhibition Vision and Expression organised by Nathan Lyons at George Eastman House. He has twice been awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship and received a National Endowment for the Arts grant in 1975. A monograph of black and white photographs, Grim Street, was published in 2005 by powerHouse Books. A second book, True Color, followed in 2007.

He says his street images ARE snapshots made in a very simple way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjmiU18UvK0

I like the way he works and I like his images. I even like his self appointed title...Surrealistic Street photographer. In short, I am a fan of his.
surrealism
a 20th-century avant-garde movement in art and literature that sought to release the creative potential of the unconscious mind, for example by the irrational juxtaposition of images.

On a personal note, I am so happy that I became a member of fine art america, but not for the reason you may think. I joined to show off (and sell) my pretty pictures but soon discovered (how dumb can I be) that we have tens of thousands of really good fine art photographers who are here to do the very same, AND they are all as good if not far better than I could ever hope to be in creating "pretty" images.

So I opened another door that led me back into my distant past...Street photography....what a relief....to be back doing what comes naturally to me. I grew up roaming the streets of Chicago and my end days will be the same....

i made up a batch of street photos based off the very lose rules from here and other observations, probably have them up next week.


---Mike Savad

Mike,
if you don't like being here and you don't like us, why are you here? Surely you don't think you are an expert on street photography? You show NO insight into this fascinating aspect of photography. You are an expert on beautiful HDR images. Be proud of what you are and don't try to be someone you clearly are NOT.

PS...
once again thanks for posting this. much appreciated.

HCR says "I am not a reporter." He is a surrealist. Wonderful. He was told he would not have a career if he labeled himself as a surrealist photographer. He continued on his merry way and did it his way, and did not get tied up in knots of rules, rules and more rules. He is NOT a photojournalist. HCR says "facts are NOT interesting."

He did not want to pose his subjects but to snap them in their habitat, be like a cat on tiptoes, always on tiptoes.

He wanted to see his subjects "stripped naked." Nor would he let his subjects see the images he took.

When he took portraits of Ezra Pound, they were silent for over an hour. HCR took a few images of Mr. Pound.

Street photography is an instinct. You have a chance to get it right maybe once....you don't keep snapping away at the same fleeting gesture.

"I'm extremely impulsive. I never think. I react."

"The first glance is essential." "it's seldom you get a good picture." "Life changes every minute. Death is present everywhere."

God bless HCR....

HCB says "I am not a reporter." He is a surrealist. Wonderful. He was told he would not have a career if he labeled himself as a surrealist photographer. He continued on his merry way and did it his way, and did not get tied up in knots of rules, rules and more rules. He is NOT a photojournalist. HCR says "facts are NOT interesting."

He did not want to pose his subjects but to snap them in their habitat, be like a cat on tiptoes, always on tiptoes.

He wanted to see his subjects "stripped naked." Nor would he let his subjects see the images he took.

When he took portraits of Ezra Pound, they were silent for over an hour. HCR took a few images of Mr. Pound.

Street photography is an instinct. You have a chance to get it right maybe once....you don't keep snapping away at the same fleeting gesture.

"I'm extremely impulsive. I never think. I react."

"The first glance is essential." "it's seldom you get a good picture." "Life changes every minute. Death is present everywhere."

God bless HCR....

um - huh?

who says i don't like any of your or want to be here? where does that come from? i never said i was an expert in anything, but i can recognize a snap shot when i see one.

when you first joined - you were a religion photographer., then you were a macabre photographer. then you were a pop photographer. now it's a street photographer? and your telling me i have no insight.... hysterical. that's a good one.

calling yourself what you think you are, you should go to a class before telling people what you think people aren't.


---Mike Savad

Street art:

Sorry, Mike, I am no longer responding to your snarky remarks. Remember I love your HDR work and I am a huge fan of yours for that type of art. Wish I had your talent.

This is a great new article on street photography. I recently started following this photographer's blog and have really enjoyed it. Check it out: http://www.f-stopeight.com/14-things-to-keep-in-mind-when-shooting-street-photography/

what part was snarky? you can love my hdr all you want. that won't change my views on this topic.


---Mike Savad

Here is the Street Photography of Lin Haring, who is a (quiet,unopinionated,non-attendee@forum) Street Photographer, who, imo, has what it takes........please, support her, look at the artwork, take yourselves off your own pages for a while...........enjoy..............600+/- images....

http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/lin-haring.html

thought i would post some links about hdr and street photography since each person has their own ideas and there is no such thing as one type as long as it documents life on the streets:

http://www.graphics.com/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=807 - he uses hdr in street scenes

http://www.alexcoghe.com/straight-approach-versus-image-manipulation-when-comes-street-photography/ - he has doesn't have any solid problems with hdr other than he doesn't like hdr, and then posts that reuters guide to documentary photography, but there are no street rules.


now if you have to follow a rules of a contest, then i would say yes, follow the rules, but only because everyone else should be as well.

http://www.miamistreetphotographyfestival.org/#!services/component_71401 like this one does not want hdr. but it also goes on to say:

You agree that the photograph does not infringe on the copyrights, trademarks, moral rights, rights of privacy/publicity or intellectual property rights of any person or entity, and that no other party has any right, title, claim, or interest in the photograph.

here are the guidelines they look for - see if they match up with your own:

• Does it fit within the realm of street photography?
• Authentic representation of scene without use of digital darkroom (see exceptions)
• Is it compelling?
• How unique is the depiction?
• Does it suggest a narrative? Do we want to know more?
• Is there empathy for the subject matter?
• Originality
• Composition
• Is the image powerful or predictable?

looking through these links you'll find just as many people saying it's ok and it's about what you saw and the story. and others are against saying it's more about documentary. it's almost like saying, it's not a good wine unless it was made in france. you'll have pro and con against that too.


http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2013/05/things-to-consider-when-shooting-on.html this is a nice page to look at. it shows a candid look that i can call street photos. i find it interesting that many people are actually using a small camera. mostly because it's light and most people don't notice you. and since many of these images don't need to be totally sharp it may be an ideal camera to use. --- read #4 by the way.


---Mike Savad

here's a link about etiquette:
http://blog.chasejarvis.com/blog/2013/06/what-ive-learned-in-the-trenches-the-5-step-guide-to-better-street-snapshot-photography/


---Mike Savad

Rosemary and Mike...
Thanks for the articles on "street." Much appreciated and read. I am currently adding many articles on Street photography to my folder on that topic.

Here is an article on Selling our Street Images....

http://www.yanidel.net/selling-street-photographs-part-i/

Also...
"Edit: In the US, you are allowed to sell a recognizable photo of someone on the street as a work of art. What you are not allowed to do is to sell it for commercial photography — that is to say, photos being used to sell a product. This would prevent the sale of photos of a recognizable person to (let’s say) a stock photo service, but not as a work of art, or photojournalistic purposes."

Used google street to make street images?????? Wow....Weird....and/or funny

that guy sold the rights to images to magazines, but he didn't mention anything about a release from those people. as far as magazines go, i don't know if that's considered commercial or editorial.

he has pictures of children that were used as an ad - did he get permission - or is this just allowed in his area? i thought france was much more strict about these rules.

his idea behind model releases will lead him to court. if he's using these images as stock, anyone can sue him for any number of reasons. the images he showed had faces that were easily recognizable. in the US if those children were used by an adoption agency, or something with abuse, or that chess guy was used for an old age home or something like that. those are all cases where he could get into A LOT of trouble. and while it hasn't happened to him yet, doesn't mean it won't.


the comments reflect my own questions. the person buying the image wouldn't be the one to get in trouble, you the photographer would be the one in trouble. so him discussing it - won't prevent him from being sued if used improperly and once it's stock it can be used anywhere.

the laws are different everywhere, i wouldn't honestly use this guide as a way to sell things. and no street photo of any kind should be used as stock due to copyright, trademark logo usage and the people inside of it.


---Mike Savad

Love Funny Face.....

"If a modelrelase is needed in the end, it's the book publisher or company you sold the image to, that would or could get sued, and the publisher can't blame the photographer either, because it's publisher's responsibility to ask for a model release."

That might be true where you live, but there have been a lot of lawsuits against photographers for allowing images to be published that the model/person did not sign releases for.
Cameron Diaz sued and won when a photographer she modeled for sold topless photos of her is the first that comes to mind. http://www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00003444.html
Here, it falls on the photographer to have signed release, not a publisher.

about street photography....



about............. loneliness

why doesn't this thread die already?


---Mike Savad

You like Zazzle, he likes Street Photography.

It's ok as long as the harangues stop.....horses for courses....Don't look !!

This is my last look !!

Vivian .... I'll be happy ....... if you continue this topic :)



I'm glad you like it :)

how is that top one at all street photography?


---Mike Savad

lol, Mike.......can't resist?

Um, which topic......?

Mike, there is no need for you to pop in here if you are not interested in the thread and think it should die

Leave it to those who want to chat properly

Street photography? Did someone say "Street Photography" ? hahahaha...oh, sorry....
Did you know that street photography is alive and well around the world with thousands of men and women taking candid pictures of people in public? Yep, it's true.

In fact, I practice this wonderful art form at least twice a week. Why just today.....

I love looking at everyone's street photography.

Laura,
So do I. It's so "natural." A slice of life. I also like putting bible verses to some of my street images. Here is an example...Look at the baby boy...To me he seems to be leading his family and so I remembered:

Isaiah 11:6
King James Version (KJV)
The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

St Anthony's Feast North End, Boston.....................

If you want to put bible quotes on your art, please, by all means....

If you put them in the threads you have crossed the religion boundary.

Please take some time to review the rules here, again. http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=260080

.

Philip that was a great find!