[Leica] Speaking of Street Photography

[pklein at 2alpha.net (Peter Klein)]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and present a couple of pieces of my 
early work apropos the "Street Photography" subject.  I've never considered 
myself a "street photographer," but I have taken photos on the 
street.  Below are a couple of photos that I took in 1972, when I was a 
mere college freshman in Boston.

The first photo was taken on a foggy weekend morning in early 
spring.  Before breakfast, I went prowling about Beacon Hill looking for 
atmospheric fog shots, and ended up in Government Center.  I spied three 
guys "sleeping it off" in a gray granite window nook.  Now, I have seen and 
*not* photographed many down-and-out people before and since, but for some 
reason, this one needed to be taken.  I wasn't in analysis mode then, it 
was one of those Ted Grant "Gee, look at that" moments.  So I took several 
angles quickly.  Fortunately, the subjects didn't wake up, and I figured I 
could outrun them if they did.

http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/oldpics/homeless72.htm

It was only later, after I developed the film, that I realized why this 
picture was different from similar pictures I'd passed up.  It was texture 
and composition.  The stone and the man's beard.  The torn elbow and the 
dark spot on the stair.  The arrangement of his "bunkmates'"  shoes. I 
passed over the negs that showed the other two guys for the one that showed 
only their feet.  And I deliberately cropped part of the subject's leading 
shoe off.

Here's another one, this time on Boylston Street right across from Copley 
Square and Trinity Church.  The worker was building the reviewing stand for 
April 19th (Patriot's Day) parade.  This time I knew it was all about 
composition, the idea of a "framer" framed by his own handiwork.

http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/oldpics/framer.htm

So, are these pictures "street photography?"  Are they reasonably good 
photography? I know that some people regard pictures of the down-and-out 
"exploitive," but I always have felt that the one above is one of my better 
pictures, and it does "say" something.

Both pictures: Leica M2, Dual-Range 50 Summicron, Tri-X in D:76 1:1.  The 
first shot was probably 1/60 or 1/30 at f/4.  The second was "cloudy 
semi-bright" exposure.

--Peter

B. D. wrote:
 > For whatever its worth, street photography must contain either irony,
 > humor, or some degree of pathos. It has to say, or really show
 > something about the human condition. It can't just say 'some people
 > are fat;' 'a girl talks on a cell phone.'

Alastair wrote:
>To explain why some street photographers are better
>than others using terms like "irony, humour and pathos" is fine, but
>not every image, or even great image taken as "street photography"
>need contain one of these 3 elements. How about pure horror? Having
>said that -- I just hate blanket statements --, I have to agree in
>general with the sentiments expressed. No form of art/craft is easy
>when it is performed at the highest level.