I put it to you that photographs of people walking parallel to a wall in long light (or silhouette) is the most played out trend in street photography. Once you notice it, it is fucking everywhere. And it's not even very good. It doesn't actually require all that much skill. And yet it wins awards all the damn time. It doesn't actually communicate anything, it's just "LMAO look, that person looks like they are interacting with the scenery a bit". What's the fucking point.Some examples.
>>4495292What do you suggest as an alternative?
nice, looks great
>>4495292I think you're making the assumption that these photos are seen as good *because* of this one lighting feature. The first one could be any hacky x-pro basedtographer sure, but the second one is pretty good. The way I look at it is that there's two scenes in the photo, the shadow, where both the man and the cross are present, and the solid scene, where only the man is. That alone is pretty interesting. The value of the photo has nothing to do with 'long shadows (y/n)' it's the actual content that matter, the lighting just helps present that message in a beautiful way. It's not like its a new fad to shoot at golden hour for better lighting.
>>4495293Actually kino.
>>4495299There are lots of other styles of street. You do see this a lot in Street photography examples, its true. You could try getting up in peoples faces like Bruce Gilden.High contrast black and white like Daido Moriyama. Restrained contrast documentary style like maybe Diane Arbus.Martin Parr style shots, colourful images of working class people.
>>4495305Oh sick. I was thinking of taking pictures of people walking perpendicular to walls instead of parallel, but those all sound pretty solid as well.
>>4495306>people walking perpendicular to wallsYou mean people walking INTO walls?
>>4495308Yeah or away from them.
>>4495306Another option would be still parallel, but to ceilings
>>4495308Call silverwitz, rothstein, shekelberg, and noseman. This could get change photography forever.
