Karl Blessing wrote:

Hrm... Obey, Skittles, Pink... I see a bright future for them.

Yeah...I just couldn't resist that shot.  I'm just glad there was a "V" left.

A R M wrote:
[img]

I like this two. The fist one is nice because of the people wearing clothes with stripes.

The second photo is my favorite because of the similarities between two fashion trends. The poster of the Caucasian model wearing a shirt from a top fashion designer. Such shirt might be seen on a top fashion show and be considered top fashion only because of who was the designer. On the other hand, the Hispanic male is wearing pants from a known brand that is famous because of its name. The name "Adidas" makes it "cool" to wear. Both "models" wearing fashion extremes regardless of who the fashion designer was or the ethnicity of the models make this photo very interesting to watch.

Good job!

automotive photography wrote:
Some older ones. Haven't done Street stuff for a while.

Really like this one.

A R M wrote:


This photo get my attention, good job!

me voy wrote:
IMHO: Street photography and Photojournalism are two different things. I prefer the second.

Street photography is usually a random, candid shot with no story telling. Photojournalism has more thought into it and if done well, the results can be very gratifying. Since, photojournalism can be done on the streets, it is considered a step above street photography.

PS. I am enjoying looking at everyone's photos. I would like to see more with the photojournalism emphasis. Just my opinion.

This is true about bad street photography, but not good street photography. Most of it is really bad.

Most photojournalism is pretty mediocre. By necessity, it's most often functional rather than artistic.

If by photojournalism you mean documentary photography, like Tim Heatherington or anyone at VII, then I kind of agree with you, but I wouldn't call that street photography.

Cartier-Bresson and Gary Winogrand made great art out of photos they shot on the street, but their photos were neither documentary nor photojournalism. They definitely had stories in them.

I think the word story is a bad choice. I can't provide a better one, but I think it's very often interpreted literally, which means it's interpreted as a narrative. Documentary photography is about narrative and actual planned and researched stories, like VII's story on malnutrition.

I think the photo of the vulture watching the starving child is a great example of a non-narrative story. We don't know what happened before or after, but we know that things are bad when a child is left alone and a human has become part of the food chain. It's not a narrative, but it does explain a bigger stuation clearly, more powerfully and more effective than words could, but its still not a narrative story.

A generalization that photojournalism is a step above street photography is simply wrong.

MC Grain wrote:

This is true about bad street photography, but not good street photography. Most of it is really bad.

Most photojournalism is pretty mediocre. By necessity, it's most often functional rather than artistic.

If by photojournalism you mean documentary photography, like Tim Heatherington or anyone at VII, then I kind of agree with you, but I wouldn't call that street photography.

Cartier-Bresson and Gary Winogrand made great art out of photos they shot on the street, but their photos were neither documentary nor photojournalism. They definitely had stories in them.

I think the word story is a bad choice. I can't provide a better one, but I think it's very often interpreted literally, which means it's interpreted as a narrative. Documentary photography is about narrative and actual planned and researched stories, like VII's story on malnutrition.

I think the photo of the vulture watching the starving child is a great example of a non-narrative story. We don't know what happened before or after, but we know that things are bad when a child is left alone and a human has become part of the food chain. It's not a narrative, but it does explain a bigger stuation clearly, more powerfully and more effective than words could, but its still not a narrative story.

A generalization that photojournalism is a step above street photography is simply wrong.

Actually, street photography is Photojournalism. Most of it falls under the category of "Features".

We studied the photographers you mentioned in my school. Photojournalism was my major. Take a good look at the work from those photographers and you will notice that 80-90% of their photos have a story behind them. Whether they knew it or not, they were setting the basis of photojournalism.

Read "Photojournalism: The Professional's Approach" by Kenneth Kobre.
Also www.cpoy.org and www.nppa.org

Graphix Gallery wrote:



That is just the best!

me voy wrote:

Actually, street photography is Photojournalism. Most of it falls under the category of "Features".

We studied the photographers you mentioned in my school. Photojournalism was my major. Take a good look at the work from those photographers and you will notice that 80-90% of their photos have a story behind them. Whether they knew it or not, they were setting the basis of photojournalism.

Read "Photojournalism: The Professional's Approach" by Kenneth Kobre.
Also www.cpoy.org and www.nppa.org

Features means editorial. If your definition of PJ is anything that appears in a newspaper, then there's no way to argue with that. But, Street, PJ and Documentary all have specific styles.

I don't see how you can call this PJ, it's not news and it's not even about a person. It's closer to fine art. A photo doesn't have to be fine art to be Street, but this is definitely Street rather than the other two categories.



If you look at these, there are a couple that could be considered portraits, but this is documentary. It's not news, it's not about an event. In some ways the reason that it exists is because it's not news. The purpose of this is to affect people's behavior by communicating without words. In other words, through art a story, or condition is told. While there's probably quite a bit of improv behind the creation of these photos, they could be posed and still equally valid. That can't happen in PJ or Street, only Documentary - think about the portrait aspect.

A photo of Obama or a candidate giving a speech from a podium isn't Street, and as a single shot is not part of a documentary narrative, so it's not Documentary, it's a PJ photo.


We can make broad categories: portraits, fine art, PJ. If you're going to make things that broad, I can see an argument for Street falling under PJ, but I think there's equally an argument for putting it under fine art. It's like calling Lifstyle photos Commercial. Ok fine, but when you call them Lifestyle you're really specifying something whereas Commercial could be a catalog photo of clothes, not on a model, or a still life of jewelery or a car.

There is a separate style to the content of Street, Documentary, and PJ, which makes them all different and gives them their own identity, like Lifestyle, regardless of the style they're shot in.

This is why there was the exchange "That's not a Street photo" "Yes it is, I was standing in the street when I shot it." Street describes a style of content, not a location.

me voy wrote:
Actually, street photography is Photojournalism. Most of it falls under the category of "Features".

We studied the photographers you mentioned in my school. Photojournalism was my major. Take a good look at the work from those photographers and you will notice that 80-90% of their photos have a story behind them. Whether they knew it or not, they were setting the basis of photojournalism.

Read "Photojournalism: The Professional's Approach" by Kenneth Kobre.
Also www.cpoy.org and www.nppa.org

Ultimately this is the problem with an art school. You go in with an open mind and a belief in the school - probably well deserved - but because there must be quantification for grades, there becomes a right and a wrong and you don't always see when the school is installing their opinion or even just the teacher's individual opinion and not fact. That's a risk in any school setting, but when it's shaping your creative process and vision, it can be limiting until the point where you can see what it is.

The argument that it's what they taught you in and undergraduate school is not a sound one.

me voy wrote:
I will now stop feeding the Trolls.

That's pretty much a losing battle... they feed off everyone here... they're kinda like zombies...

me voy wrote:
I will now stop feeding the Trolls.

There can be no more trolling of a post than one like this.

Raoul Isidro Images wrote:
Love doing it.

Here is my latest this week:


http://500px.com/photo/5300782

Don't be afraid to get in there.  For me I think really braking that personal bubble is the key to capturing people.