Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/05/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Bmceowen@aol.com jotted down the following: > I looked at this site. I'm actually surprised you're calling it "street > photography." Even the section titled "street" doesn't seem to fit the genre > -- or at least my stereotypical view of the genre. There are hardly any > tilted horizons of anynomous people streaming by the camera or photos of > people's backs. In fact, a lot of what's here seemed to be multiple photos of > the same person -- which implies permission and actually working the > situation -- far from typical "street" photography. > Well, the conclusion I draw from that is that perhaps you need to rethink what you consider street photography. As it is, it almost appears as though you equate "street photography" with "tilted horizon" and "shot from behind". A rather narrow definition, in my view. My personal interpretation of street photography is that is shows life in public places and is unstaged. I would not exclude portraits of people in their working or leisure environments who are fully aware of the photographer. I see no reason why pictures without tilted frames couldn't be street photography, just like I see no reason why vertical panoramics can't be considered panoramic photography, or why landscapes taken with a tilted frame shouldn't be considered landscape photography. M. - -- Martin Howard | Visiting Scholar, CSEL, OSU | It is essentially contestable. email: howard.390@osu.edu | www: http://mvhoward.i.am/ +---------------------------------------