What's up with this new generation of photographers shitting on street photography and showing major concerns over "invasion of space" and other types of "ethical concerns"? What will happen to the major achievements of 20th century photography if no one is claiming it? Is this also a sign of woke times? Now ethics matter more than art or truth? Isn't it a given that an artist needs to have giant balls if he want to make good work? How street photography is different from realism in art? Is the description of someone by writer is more "unethical" than the photograph of some person? Why are zoomers afraid of reality? Wasn't Tichy darling of /p/? What happened? How should we deal with these question?
>>4471105Street was always shitter tier let it die nothing of value is lost
Taking photos of non consensual people is a rapey and disgusting perversion. There is nothing more mentally sane and satifying than photographing someone who is happy to be photographed
>>4471105At least in Europe, there has been a big push towards privacyOn the photo side, the street genre got oversaturated by all the youtube wannabesSome of the hate, especially here, is the typical hating on what's popular>>4471106Street was popular and well liked here 10-15 years ago
>>4471109I don't consent to you using those words, you are disgusting
>>4471110When every zoomer fucknugget with zero career prospects tries to make themselves into an """influencer""" and sticks their retarded vlogging persona into every corner of everyday life, yeah, it's no surprise the general consensus is fuck street photography.Nothing of value was lost anyway. Taking frames from a CCTV feed or gopro hidden in your pocket is about the same level of quality and infinitely easier
>>4471106And replace it with what? The snoozefest that is documentary photography?
Let's call things what they are? People on this board reapond negatively to an Ashkenazi smugly flashing random people in the face, not to "street photography".
>>4471105because "street photographers" go around being deliberately invasive of others space, know that they are being invasive and then are offended/act surprised that somebody might find it invasive. If you're going to be a cunt, knowingly, then own it. Don't turn around and play victim or make fun of your chosen subject when you did something you know is antagonistic.>>4471113Taking frames from a CCTV feed would actually have more artistic merit than running up and flash photoing randoms with a shitty point and shoot.
>>4471122>implying street photography isn't as boring
>>4471166>seethes in all street photography threads.
>>4471105At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. Taking a photo of someone doesn't harm them in any way, regardless of what the person may think.
>>4471200BUT MY EGO!
>>4471167Compare Walker Evans' American Photographs with Brassai's Paris by Night and tell me which one is more entertaining.
>>4471106shut up libtardi'll take street over 90 percent of all of the gearfag shit on /p/ you queers would rather argue DxO scores than actually go outside and use your shitIf I ever bamboozle my way into a janitor position on here this board is going to get cleaned up overnight lickety fucking split
>>4471244meant that for >>4471109 but you're both fags
>>4471244>Sugar explicitly states if he's ever handed a shred of power he will use it to crush opinions he does not agree with because they hurt his feelingsWow. What a shocker.Some of your content on this board is legitmately good, but you might actually a massive nigger if that's your plan.
>>4471173Schizo? I lurk this board almost exclusively. I don't think I've ever posted to a street photo thread.
>>4471282> I don't think I've ever posted to a street photo thread.The street photography threads around here tend to have a somber lack of street photography in them, so we forgive you for thinking you've never participated in one. And yes, you did it again, you just posted in one.
>>4471281Maybe I should instead, just to grind sugar down. Could be fun. After all, I was a right winger for most of my life, so I have the maximalist authoritarian militant intolerance, but I actually read the fucking bible so I'm a goddamn lefty libtard now, and oh boy am I out for vengeance. Simple fucks all mistakenly believed it when they were told it's the hippy pacifist peacenik lefties that are your enemies, but they are not. It is those of us who are apostates who are the greatest danger, because we already know & are well versed in what these vile scumbags bring to a fight, and we have scores to settle, and a tangible reason for revenge.
awsome i love having this thread every month. surely this time will be different
>>4471291>based vengance paladin on a warpathGott mit uns
>>4471291You sound like someone who doesn't exist.
>>4471105a real photographer will ask a person to take photos when they're doing pointless tasks throughout a whole daytaking a picture when there are a lot of people in a space it's alright though
>>4471291>but I actually read the fucking bible so I'm a goddamn lefty libtard nowSounds like we didn't read the same bible or something, must be some American jew subverted crap you're reading.
>>4471281I would probably delete 90 percent of the gear threads. we have a gear general. this place used to be a learning experience and now its a bunch of retards arguing over dumb shit just to argue.There's a lot of stuff I don't agree with but that doesn't mean it should be deleted, but most of the gear threads would get pruned and every film vs. digital troll thread would be gone the second I saw it.Maybe it's better I don't be a jannie lmao
>>4471105Photography is art, and street isn't art. It's journalism of the Mundane.
>>4471339>every film vs. digital troll thread would be gone the second I saw itJust admit it's because you couldn't tell the difference in those fe2fucker threads lelJust like people couldn't tell between my APS-C and FF samples.
>>4471339The only rule we need enforced is to have a stickied gear general and all other gear threads are deleted immediately. All gear discussions goes in the gear thread. That's it.I'd make a rare exception for the very topical or the very niche gear topics, but general shit like hurr durr I bought a <gear> what am I in for can get fucked.Retards are allowed to have wrong opinions but that's different the the board being flooded with 19 gear threads.>>4471340Correct. Rare cANON sane thought.>>4471341I kind of miss fe2fucker. At least he did interesting stuff. Poopcam was retarded but in the type of interesting and poorly named way. He actually got banned huh.
>>4471345>Correct. Rare cANON sane thought.He's just trying to one-up cinefag who claims photography can be art but doesn't have to be and that street isn't art. Which is actually saner than what cANON is spouting here.
>>4471348Let me quote Ansel Adams:"You don't take a photograph, you make it".Therefore if it's taken, it's not a photograph. Call it a photographically recorded image if you want, "photo" for short. But when one says "photograph" or "photography", it's the art.
>>4471340Have you ever given a definition for art?
>>4471341Your 200x400 samples comparing ancient low tech cannot dslrnosaurs? Even more dishonest than the "which ones are snoy" cope collage.
>>4471358Not as dishonest as your post, comrade. They were 1000px wide as specified by the sticky. Let me guess, you "need" more? If given a 25MP MFT picture and a 20MP FF one you'd probably pick the 25MP one as FF if cropped to 3:2 ratio.>>4471352I'm going to give you a machine-translated, trimmed-down definition from a philosophical encyclopedia I have at hand: "Art is a form of creativity, a means of human spiritual self-realization through sensory and expressive means (sound, body movement, drawing, words, color, light, natural materials, etc.). The distinctive feature of the creative process in art is the inseparability of its subjective and objective determinacy. Emerging as the result of the creativity of a specific subject, a work of art acquires a transpersonal character in its being. The properties of the content and form of a work of art, as well as the way it is perceived, not only testify to the creator's psychological uniqueness but also characterize the collective forms of experience and the direction of thought inherent in the culture of the era that gave birth to it."To be fair the translation doesn't do full justice to the original, but English is a bit limited when it comes to nuanced matters.
>>4471368>uhm excuse me, they were sized for third world screens which are the only screens that really matter, and everyone is totally as blind and retarded as meLmao micro four thirds has essentially exited the camera market> If given a 25MP MFT picture and a 20MP FF oneThere are no good 20mp ff cameras, just canon piece of shit blobs with mft dynamic range, so, it's basically mft vs mft but the canon "full frame" achieves a sharper image and better rendering with fewer lens elements and less expense which means it remains superior for relevant photography and only worse at pedo creepshots because the zoom lenses are larger (but also, faster)>mft's crowning achievement: sometimes equaling a crappy canon DSLR that's old enough to vote, by spending 5x more moneyI wonder why the crop cope hit the turbo button lately... here are some posts that seem to have angered the mft shills>>4471127>>4471256>>4471270
>>4471377If you want to defend FF then just state there's lenses that have no MFT equivalent, don't write that embarrassingly wrong bullshit. Make it 24MP FF if you want, point remains unchanged.
>>4471382>m-muh equivalence...Allow me to dig up doghair's bone herehttps://archive.palanq.win/p/thread/4454569/#4455121ff gets a brighter more detailed image with mathematically equivalent settings. equivalence is just a theory. maybe it works fine when comparing an om1.2 with a canon 5dIII, but higher tech cameras like the nikon z7ii, fuji gfx100s, hasselblad, sony a7rv, nikon zf, fujifilm x-t5 are all more than capable of visually busting equivalence.equivalence is just a theory. it's a theory about ideal, normalized cameras shooting according to rigid guidelines in a consistent test environment. this doesn't happen in real life. it's not relevant to real life. for whatever reason, full frame ended up being better than micro four thirds in the majority of real life situations, and now olympus is out of business.
>>4471377>micro four thirds has essentially exited the camera marketI feel like there was a point before the big three graduated from DSLRs into MILCs, since they were still rather big and different enough.Once Cannikosnoy pumped out mirrorless cameras it was over for M43.
>>4471385The dog moved from the light source.>>4471389>I feel like there was a point before the big three graduated from DSLRs into MILCs, since they were still rather big and different enough.They downgraded to MILC.
>>4471391Lol your entire worldview is based on being a coping micro four thirds fanboyWhy are the worst gearfag posters (cANON, moop, olympanon) always coping foolturds fanboys? The entire mu-43 forum is pure gearfag cancer and the most obnoxiously retarded gearfag youtubers are all crop copers… i wonder, was full frame max specs just the gearfag entry point, and crop cope the gearfag destination? People who actually enjoy photography seem to gravitate away from flagships and crop cope and towards midrange ff and high end aps-c.
>>4471393did m43 raped your dog or what
>>4471393kek, you couldn't be any more wrong. I don't like MFT because it's inherently untrustworthy, being MILC. FT I do like, but the resolution is a joke for today's standards and the one thing they offered, extreme viewfinder magnification, is nearly equalled by the Pentax K-3 III, all with a larger viewfinder. The sensor reach of MFT is basically equalled by the 90D as well, with a real viewfinder to seal the deal.
>>4471395now post your photos so we can laugh>inb4 you don’t
>>4471396At least you're honest about your intentions after losing the argument.Funny how you chose to focus in the gear to avoid facing the fact that street isn't photography though.
>>4471400>404 photo not foundhe called itcandid street photography is art because it is the conscious selection, exposure, framing, and retouching of ephemeral moments in real lifeand most street is art because its stagedcry if you may but know the world disagrees with you because you are stupid, not because it is a jewish conspiracy, just like the world went (back to) full frame because crop fucking sucks, not because of a sony yaluza conspiracy and equivalence.
>>4471404>because its stagedthat's not street>cry if you may but know the world disagrees with you because you are stupid, not because it is a jewish conspiracy, just like the world went (back to) full frame because crop fucking sucks, not because of a sony yaluza conspiracy and equivalence.Equivalence is actually why. 35mm hits the sweet spot of a multitude of factors from cost to ergonomics to dynamic range. It's a natural format if you will. Everything converges to it. It's about the same size as human retinas.
>>4471412shut up canon go take your gearfagging somewhere else
>>4471105Mortality of street photography would have been a more interesting thread topic.
>>4471412You have started and lost this argument hundreds of times. Redoing it until you happen upon someone unable to disprove you will not transform your coping gearfag lies into truth. You are just a typical impoverished fatnik.
>>4471439You just admitted the so-called street that is staged is art because it is staged. Candid street is a game of luck, not photography. It's turning the camera into a slot machine and you even get to call some forgettable crap a jackpot to pretend the pathetic hopeful button pressing activity bears fruit. Some people get luckier and get some actual jackpots but it's far from art. Now, there is documentary photography which involves some vision. Unlike the so-called photography of the likes of Mark Cohen. Street "photography" is nothing more than a group of hacks praising each other, with some in the club having access to making it a way of laundering money. It does a huge disservice to the art of Photography by being fraudulently sold as such.
>>4471588street photography is jewish photography
>>4471589And every bit as fake as the cookie ovens
An open challenge to anti-street photography niggers:If you think that street is as easy as pressing a button then feel free to pick up some 40$ ricoh and become the next Daido Moriyama. We will discuss further after you have become the next Daido Moriyama. Thank you.
>>4471593>open challenge to anti-street photography chads>do some street photographyNo. I refuse to lower myself to your standards.
>>4471603Cope harder tranny
>>4471340Photography can be art but it doesn't have to be, it's weird that you insist on picking this hill to die on. The word "photography" predates the idea that it could be considered an art.>>4471348That would explain the absurdity. >>4471351That is a based quote, but while he was talking about photography in the context of art he wasn't really talking about what you're implying here (that merely taken photos aren't photos). He meant that *his* photos are made, not taken. Because he's an artist, not a spray and pray hack. Hence his other quote about the "machine gun approach to photography".>>4471593I already proved that Daido Moriyama and Garry Winogrand's photography are easily accessible if you try. Winogrand's most celebrated photos are just a pale imitation of Walker Evans's least important work.It's not that we can't do it, it's that we don't want to.
>>4471593There's your yellow nigger
>>4471105>>4471105>muh streetshitsIt’s trash, for trashy people. No one is impressed by spraying 1000’s of low-effort snapshots and picking out the few “human interest” images that don’t fully suck balls. If you want to be a fucking journo, start with a goddamn story you tards, otherwise there’s no fucking substance to your images, and no one has any reason to look at them bc the worlds already up to its eyeballs in quantity over quality generic content.Tech Co’s desire to Hoover up the revenue stream devalued photography as an art form to total worthlessness, just like they did for music, movies, TV, books, and everything else in humanity that ever had any value. Enjoy your economy where the only thing in it is billionaires buying and shutting down other billionaires and everyone else rotting in the gutter.
>>4471606>>It's not that we can't do it,Lol street isn't as easy as raping dogs. >>4471607Do you masturbate to these photos?
>>4471588I don't agree that snapshits aren't photography, just not art photography. But if we replace "photography" with "art" in your post, I fully agree.>Mark CohenIf he weren't a jew it would be completely unbelievable that he's praised by anyone at all. But the early life gives sense to what would otherwise seem like a bad joke.>>4471608>It’s trash, for trashy people. No one is impressed by spraying 1000’s of low-effort snapshots and picking out the few “human interest” images that don’t fully suck balls. If you want to be a fucking journo, start with a goddamn story you tards, otherwise there’s no fucking substance to your images, and no one has any reason to look at them bc the worlds already up to its eyeballs in quantity over quality generic content.Agreed>Tech Co’s desire to Hoover up the revenue stream devalued photography as an art form to total worthlessness, just like they did for music, movies, TV, books, and everything else in humanity that ever had any value. Enjoy your economy where the only thing in it is billionaires buying and shutting down other billionaires and everyone else rotting in the gutter.I think there is a place for art photography still, you just have to ignore the flood of garbage around it.>>4471610So predictable, you get pwned and all you have to give back is some impotent lashing out. The reason you hatefully accuse me of bestiality is because I'm an iconoclast and demolished your street fake gods.
>>4471612The only thing you have demolished is a dog anus
>>4471614>doubles downLife of the stupid street shitter. Go back to taking creepshots, retard.
>>4471617STOP fucking dogs
>>4471618I never started. It would be like asking a streetshitter like you to stop doing art, you never made any. That's why you're a streetshitter.
>>4471619Dog rape is not okay
>>4471604Ad hominem. Not even a good one at that. Do you just string together some buzzwords and hope that'll be enough to prove your point?
>>4471606Just because it wasn't yet seen as such it doesn't mean it wasn't art. The very technical limitations made it almost impossible to do non-art, because you needed to direct to get anything that wasn't a blurry mess.
>>4471606>Hence his other quote about the "machine gun approach to photography".Please note he calls it an "approach to photography", they approach photography but never touch it. There is an attempt to do photography but it's not bold enough to actually do it, they just expose negatives.
>>4471200depends what you define as harmphysically certainly notbut causing distress and discomfort is a form of harm
>>4471606>It's not that we can't do it, it's that we don't want to.nah man, i've tried to do it go out and take ten thousands of picturesnot even one comes close to daido or winnogrand level
I don't really understand why anyone would have a problem with street photography.For me personally, photography is more about history and archival than "art".I can appreciate the artistic side of photography, and I have no problem with people who enjoy taking portraits or whatever.But that isn't why I fell in love with it.I fell in love with Photography because I've always had this weird obsession with time and history. I never want to forget anything.Street Photography is important because it captures the every-man. It captures life. It is how things were at a certain place in a certain time.I'm surprised that more people in this thread aren't talking about that. You're all just circlejerking about photos being "artsy".I like to walk around on the sidewalk and take pictures of people because I hope that in 100-200-300 years someone will look at my picture and say "Hmm, that is what people in the 2020s looked like." "Hmm, this is what Chicago in the 2020s looked like"The same way that we look back at old street photos today. Its archival. And for many of us who aren't models getting our portraits taken, its our only chance at immortality.
>>4472421Daido and Winogrand are both mediocre to bad, they just happened to go to places where something barely interesting was bound to happen. Sometimes they staged stuff. Go to public events and keep your eyes peeled. You'll find it's easy to take Winograndian snapshits. You'll realize it's bad photography and that Winogrand was a propped up GWC.
>>4472420I would not define that as harm because you can just choose to not be upset by it. But for sake of argument, lets say being recorded or photographed without consent is mental harm. You now cannot go anywhere. You cannot visit any building whatsoever. You cannot leave your home. There are cameras everywhere, security, peoples phones, helicopters, drones, satellites, streetview. If you get upset by a person holding a camera near you but not any of those other things, you are either attention starved and looking for conflict, or so retarded that you shouldn't be alive.
>>4472460certainly the actual being photographed is not the problem it's the method of how you capture the photosecurity cameras are in place and taking photos indiscriminetely once there is an action that is on purpose and invading personal space is when it becomes harmor at least one can justify that it feels harmful
>>4472474Once again, it happens all the time. People are taking photos with their phones and recording videos constantly. You are also not entitled to personal space or privacy when you are in public, that is why it is called public, not personal. The law in every free country reflects this.
>>4472433>>4471105a lot people don't want their face being used for ai generative.And the last point is one that many people forget, their subject's circumstances and how taking a photograph of them may impact their lives. Photographers need to be more empathetic and think of implications the photos they take might have.
>>4472477Passing by someone who happens to have their equipment out and recording VS. someone deliberately shoving a camera in your face will never be comparable. It's curious how street photographers can't perceive what is obvious to normal people.
>>4472478Thank you ChatGPT now give me a recipe for pumpkin pie
>>4472537>feminine dismissiveness
>>4472499It only "feels" different if you're a moron who can't think critically or write. The result is the same; you're on some piece of media that someone might view or post on social media (a risk you are socially agreeing to the moment you enter a public space). How close or whether or not you see the camera, or what kind of camera it is has literally nothing to do with this result.
>>4472474Whats the difference between someone who has a photographic memory and draws a precise copy of what they saw and someone using a camera to do the same thing?
>>4472652Honestly, it's not the end result that's the problem like you all seem to be worried aboutBut the method of how you do it.Shoving a camera in someone's personal space will activate a person's nervous system causing fear, hormone secretion etc.This is what we consider harmfulThe act of causing an unconscious response in someone can be deemed harmfulNow legally, I don't think it's a problem to even do the above. Unless you are deliberaately trying to portray the person in a way that harms their reputation.But we are talking morally so, even if taking photos is not illegal in most places, morally causing distress on someone can be seen as imoral
>>4472656Will you change your blue shirt if someone has blue shirt triggered ptsd?Not everyone is bothered by getting their picture taken, and arguably most people are not. Why should the minority of people caring about something harmless stop people from doing as they please? I don't see how pointing a camera at someone is different than simply looking at them when in public.
>>4472656So you should never go outside in case you trigger someone else, got it
>>4472662Ironically he may feel anxiety trying to avoid causing anxiety to strangers. There are certain cultures that care more about that sorta thing, so I get it even if I think it's kinda silly. No talking on the bus!
>>4472656>we are talking morallyon 4chan of all paces
>>4472433>I don't really understand why anyone would have a problem with street photography.Because they are arseholes, internet forums are full of them. Sadly the are also full of insecure people who give them the attention they can't get another way.
>>4472651>street snapper still can't into nuanceMaybe there's a genetic component after all.
>>4472721Not that anon but if you have ever read portraits and character assassinations of people written by credible writers you'll see how fucking brutal they are. They dissect the man and put it on the display. Those sketches are more brutal than any photo of them ever.
>>4472691Your post activated my nervous system causing discomfort. You are just as bad as the street photographer, if not worse. At least the street photographer makes people uncomfortable without the shield of anonymity, immoral coward.
>>4472755Aw baby got hurt :'(
>>4472763The people that hate street photographers are simple minded hypocrites! Expected! *snaps photo 4 inches from your face WITH high powered strobe*
>>4472771Based and more balls than you'll ever have
Its going to be even worse>Some streetfag takes ur pic>puts in AI pornographer>its spreads all over the interwebs
>>4472771I've never seen a Street Photographer, besides Bruce Gilden, use the flash in their pictures.Getting close and flashing people is literally what Bruce is known for, its his unique thing.99% of Street Photographers dont use the flash because they're aware that people dont want to be strobed in their face.>>4472789I agree with this. Good street photographer requires balls. You need to *really* not care what people think of you. And likely your efforts will not be appreciated until after you're dead. Because nobody cares to look at pictures of the world they live in. Only future generations will be interested in the world YOU lived in.
>>4472789I used to do exactly that lol. I lost my street photography drive after I moved to a way shittier city. It was pretty fun to just wander around, annoy people by taking photos of them, having a beer with lunch, annoying more people by taking photos of them then going home to develop and scan film. Very indulgent.
>>4472807And yes I know this is a shitty pocture lol. It's just to prove a point. I didn't use flash too often either, but I did mess around with it a decent bit.
>>4472807Now you're salty and projecting because your street career never took off
>>4472815Not at all lol. I mean yeah skill issue, but living in LA was literally soul sucking. Living in a highrise in the tenderloin district of SF was better than LA. Moving out of that hell hole literally cured my depression.
>>4472815Also really salty behavior how you change the goalposts so quickly after I disprove you. Kek. Lets see your flash street photography. Oh wait you dont have the balls for it. Lol
>>4472801>I've never seen a Street Photographer, besides Bruce Gilden, use the flash in their pictures.>>4472801>And likely your efforts will not be appreciated until after you're dead. Because nobody cares to look at pictures of the world they live in. Only future generations will be interested in the world YOU lived in.Checkout Feng Li, he is chinaman street photographer who uses flash without coming off as Bruce Gilden copy cat #124
>>4472817Now you became a fart sniffing old man with no ambition and lost your vital and vulnerable drive of street photography? This is sad bro. Also imagine pussying out of a city where millions of young people want to live in. >>4472818I don't do photography. I am just a fan.
>>4472721>It's just different>No I can't articulate why, it just isI guess I was right about the "can't think critically part" lol
>>4472823LA is fake and gay. Terrible place to raise children. I still take my photography seriously, but I don't have the time or desire to spend my days wandering around hunting for a cool pic while my soul withers away. Studio work is more my thing now. I like making photographs. A lot of people mature out of the street hunt in search of greater technical and artistic output. You admittedly don't know jack shit about photography so it may be hard for you to understand what I'm talking about.
>>4472877>Studio work is more my thing now. I like making photographs. A lot of people mature out of the street hunt in search of greater technical and artistic output. Fake photographs just aren't my thing. That is why I enjoy Street Photography. I only care about capturing life.Real life isn't smiles and posing and looking at the camera. Candid shots are all that matter.Even when I'm at parties or events, I dont have people pose for pictures. I just take candid shots of the party because that is what the party actually was, that is what was real.I also do sports photography for a local High School and I like to think that my Street Photography background gives my pictures a unique style compared to the other photographers there.Sports Photography is nice because it scratches that candid itch for me. They're not posing, just playing the game.
>>4472910My my! What an edgy lil zoomer you are! Such grand and hilariously incorrect assumptions about what studio photography entails. Sounds like you have more fun taking snapshits than making photographs to me. Me too sometimes, but I don't consider it anything more than that. I definitely do not larp as a journalist either. YUCK!!
>>4472925>What an edgy lil zoomer you are!What part of what I said was edgy? I'm genuinely curious. Do you think the word Candid is edgy or something?>Such grand and hilariously incorrect assumptions about what studio photography entails.Studio Photography is a scheduled event where pictures are taken. So its not candid, its planned.>I definitely do not larp as a journalist either.When did I larp as a journalist? I'm not a journalist kek. I mostly take pictures for myself and my own archive.Is this reply just meant to be ragebait?
>>4472926Oh you're just dumb. Sorry for being rude to you.
>>4472926Looks like it. Out with a whimper, too.
>>4472926>>4472910Your post does read a bit like beginning photog cope
>>4472937You want me to write an essay on why snapshitter anon is a thoughtless retard? I think he has already said enough for most people to see where he is at with his photography.
>>4472797> going/b has been doing photoshops, bubbling, and "deep fakes" for years at this point, but it has nothing to do with street photography.
>>4472937>>4472976I assume he thinks I'm edgy because I said "real life isn't all smiles and looking at the camera"He just heard that and ran with it without understanding what I meant at all I guess.>>4472980I think you're just mad that I called Studio Photography "Fake Photographs". But that is what they are.You plan the photograph, you order the subject to pose a certain way, you can even decide what clothes they're wearing.None of it is real.I dont have a problem with Studio Photography or any type of photography really. But they ARE fake photographs, staged.I like Street Photography because of what I already said. I only care about archiving real life. I am only interested in candid shots. For me, posing ruins it 99% of the time.Sometimes when I'm on the street someone will see me taking a picture and pose for it randomly, I can't stop them from doing it and I guess in a way that is still their genuine reaction, but I would prefer no posing.I just want to see how life was for real people at a certain place at a certain time. Real pictures, not fake pictures.
>>4472996Sorry to break it to you, but 95% of famous street photographs are posed. This raw and real thing you lust over is not strictly limited to being a photojournalist/documentarian on the street and you just don't get that. The real you want comes externally as you observe the world and the real I want comes internally as I create something through visual media. Im not mad at you for saying studio is fake. Im calling you a retard for saying studio work is all fake and having such a shallow understanding of what studio work entails. Who said I even do portraiture in my studio? There is literally nothing fake about making photographs in a studio even portraiture. It's honestly idiotic to call one form of photography fake and another real because in essence the skill of a photographer comes from his ability to frame and compose an image to distill/capture meaning out of reality. You chose to zoom in on a guy running with a ball avoiding the crowd and defenders. That image is a fake because he isn't alone in a field running with a ball. There's people chasing after him and a crowd watching.
>>4472996>staged = not realWeird definition to take and a weird hill to die on, if you decide to try to impose this defintion on everyone else.>I only care about archiving real life. I am only interested in candid shots. For me, posing ruins it 99% of the time.That's all fine, but it's just subjective, about your tastes, and there's no reason to jump from this to calling anything besides unposed street photography "fake".There's plenty of realness in other types of photography. Just not the type of realness maybe you're interested in (the realness of a moment in time on a city street - that's a very narrow range of reality). Can you post some of your street photography?I'm none of the anons you've been replying to, btw.
>>4472996Street is just lazy studio photography It's all just arranging elements in the scene, and with street you don't have to put an effort to shape things the way you want, you just focus on how to frame what's in front of youThere are challenges to both genres and approaches, but you sound like a beginner when you only look at things so one-sidedlyGo look at contact sheets of any of the classic street photogs, they are shooting just like they would if they happened to be in a studioYou're also just retarded if you think studio shooting means you can't get good candids or "real" photographsAll pictures are fake lolJust say you're lazy, that's okay
>>4472998>You chose to zoom in on a guy running with a ball avoiding the crowd and defenders. That image is a fake because he isn't alone in a field running with a ball. There's people chasing after him and a crowd watching.It isn't fake though because I didn't choreograph it. It just happened.Sure you could argue that Sports Photography is less authentic than Street Photography, I'd concede that.But its still much different than intentionally setting up shots in a studio.Once again, you are taking me saying "fake" the wrong way. I guess I should've said staged. Studio Photography is staged and my street pictures aren't and I prefer that.You said before that I was larping as a journalist. I dont consider myself a journalist, taking pictures of high school football isn't journalism and neither are my street photos. I just do it for me.But, I do think I'd enjoy being a war photographer or going to riots and civil wars and the like. Im kind of envious of those guys who were in Nepal recently and got to take pictures and videos of that uprising or whatever haha.That is what I love. Life. You can like studio and I can like street.
>>4473007>It just happened.and stuff only ever just happens on the street, so trueyou definitely sound like someone that just started photography and got introduced to street for the first time
>>4473007You don't understand that what you're doing and describing is just photojournalism. You can say you aren't as much as you want, but that is literally what you're doing. If all you want to do is capture reality as it happens you are doing photojournalism. Simple as. All you want to say with your photography is "this is life as it happens, here is a visual document of reality."Choosing a specific framing or timing to take a photograph is basically staging a photograph without all the hard work and technical skill involved in actually staging a photograph. There is nothing inherently wrong with staging a photograph, and arguably it is a much higher form of photography than what you describe as street photography(photojournalism).
>>4473002>Weird definition to take and a weird hill to die onStaged things are *literally* not real, that is why they are called staged. It is derived from the idea of stage plays, and how stage plays are not real, they're staged.It would be like saying a movie is real.>There's plenty of realness in other types of photographyMaybe landscape or nature photography. But Studio Photography is fake, its choreographed, its in a studio.>Just say you're lazy, that's okayHow is Studio harder than Street Photography? With Studio you literally have all the time in the world to setup your shot exactly how you want it. With Street, your shot could be gone in less than a second. You need to be on alert at all times. Its not just "arranging elements in a scene", its finding the whole scene. I dont have the luxury of Studio Photographers.>>4473010>and stuff only ever just happens on the street, so trueFor me it does, because I don't choreograph anything. I don't care if 95% of famous street photos are staged or whatever. I didn't even know any photographers before I got into photography. I was just drawn to the historical and archival aspect of it. I want to document life today.>you definitely sound like someone that just started photography and got introduced to street for the first timeI started photography a little over a year ago in September 2024, so make of that what you will. I've done Wildlife and Street Photography mostly. That is what I'm drawn too.Maybe in the future, if the opportunity presents itself, I will do War Photography. That would be exciting.
>>4473011>There is nothing inherently wrong with staging a photograph, and arguably it is a much higher form of photography than what you describe as street photography(photojournalism).Like I said to the other guy. I fail to see how spending hours framing your photo in the studio is harder than being on your feet and having 1 second to land a shot. They're completely different disciplines of photography.>You don't understand that what you're doing and describing is just photojournalism.I just dont consider myself a journalist at all. What I photograph isn't interesting or newsworthy, its just life. And I wouldn't considering taking pictures of High School football journalism either.Like I said to the other guy, I would be interested in doing War Photography or Riots or anything like that. Something exciting where I could die. That is how I want to live.
>>4473034>>4473032>I dont know anything about studio work, but I do know it is really easy, fake, and bad!
>>4472998I read the first word in your post as "Sony". Time to take a break from /gear.
>>4472910> Even mermaid migration> Portfolio> On track At risk OffWhat am I looking at?
>>4473032>Staged things are *literally* not realYou probably also think fiction literature has nothing to do with the real world.
>>4473039I never said it was easy or bad. Where are you getting that from?>>4473047Some people waiting for the bus to come pick them up.>>4473048>You probably also think fiction literature has nothing to do with the real world.Hmm? What did I say that? I love fiction literature and find messages in it all the time. There are certain pieces of fiction that have completely changed my life.I don't really know why everyone is trying to put words in my mouth. I say what I say.
>>4473048> This shit that never happened> Made up by a literal trust fund kid> Curated by a Jewish think tank> Tells us a lot about society
>>4473053wow now i think ethnic diversity is the life of a city and the primary source of vibrance community and joy. and also we must help all the poor people across the world by giving them food and them bringing the resulting population surge here and leaving the country as poor as we found it. thanks rabbi. photography is so powerful!
>>4473032>How is Studio harder than Street Photography? With Studio you literally have all the time in the world to setup your shot exactly how you want it. With Street, your shot could be gone in less than a second. You need to be on alert at all times. Its not just "arranging elements in a scene", its finding the whole scene. I dont have the luxury of Studio Photographers.Studio requires talent and vision, it's art. Street is a numbers game, it's gambling. A type of gambling where you get to call garbage a jackpot if your standards are low enough.
>>4473067>Street is a numbers game, it's gamblingAnd by this I mean actual street photography, not the staged faux street which is fraudulent mediocre art because all its value rests on the illusion that it's some "decisive moment".
>>4473070You, cANON, /m43/, and huskyfag killed /p/ harder than moop and ambush ever did lol
>>4473075Did we really? I thought it was dead long ago from the fujifag discord circlejerk praising garbage
>>4471166>flash photoing randoms with a shitty point and shootflashing randoms is based
>>4473075yes ambush and moop took photos and made photo threads
>>4473556So did heatheranon
Morality is a bullshit concept used by self important people for when they want to sit on a high horse and talk down at you.That being said, do be kind to your fellow souls, life is hard as it is.
>>4473575>Morality is a bullshit concept used by self important people for when they want to sit on a high horse and talk down at you.Yeah basically. Street Photography is for those who are fully immersed in Clown World. Set yourself free, flash people on the sidewalk.
>>4473575>do be kind to your fellow souls, life is hard as it is.Who make it hard for each other? People themselves.
>>4473647I wish I could shoot you in the head with a gun.
>>4473712Really? I would really appreciate that.
>take photos of underaged girls>post and share them online>"ackshually its street photography and perfectly legal!">photographers see nothing wrong with this
>>4473809The people most concerned with freedom of speech and liberty are often those others want silencedIt sounds noble and then you realize that mostly describes pedophiles. People who everyone wants dead, who no one would ever speak up for.
>>4473818Free speech absolutism is a midwit trap.
>>4473809It is kind of sad though that these days we live in a world which is so consumed by evil that you can't even innocently take a picture of a child.Myself and many photographers I know get nervous when a child is nearby because we dont want to get called creeps who are trying to photograph kids. We aren't trying to, they're just there.I don't know who that guy is, I assume he was an actual predator which is a bad thing of course, but do you think anyone called Vivian weird for this picture?>pic related.
>>4473831>worldNot everywhere is fucked up karenland
>>4473831vivian was a bonafide creepy weirdo tho
Morality? We have sociopaths in charge everywhere you look across society. Don't fuckin sweat it, it's just photos. Take whatever you want in public. Prepare to face the consequences if you photograph some tough guy jabroni and he doesn't like it. Obviously don't go wandering into playgrounds without a kid of your own, but short of that, whatever man. Just take pictures. Or don't. Street is kinda played out. But if you have a unique perspective or feel drawn to do it, just do it.
