"Street Photography" and "Architectural and Traditional Street Photography": Can someone provide a quick, clean difference between these two media? No dissertations or lectures...

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

Can someone provide a quick, clean difference between these two media? No dissertations or lectures, please. "Just the facts, Ma'am," as Joe Friday used to say.

flyguy Loc: Las Cruces, New Mexico

jaymatt wrote:

Can someone provide a quick, clean difference between these two media? No dissertations or lectures, please. "Just the facts, Ma'am," as Joe Friday used to say.

In my opinion, I believe that "street photography" is more about the people and activities as a subject and
architectural would pertain only to buildings and "cityscapes".

ebbote Loc: Hockley, Texas

I agree with Flyguy.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Architectural is photographing spaces - indoors and out. Street is photographing moments - usualy but not always including living subjects. Lots of street photography is about patterns, light/shadow/color contrast, etc - and can be abstract.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

I knew someone who was a street photographer many years ago..He used a 50mm 1.8 prime lens on a film camera. He would strike up a conversation with his subjects, young, old, male, female, on the streets, taking photos of them with permission. Bus stops, mobile hot dog stands, cafes, recreational centers, and parks were some of his choices for photography. He would put together an inexpensive portfolio and show friends with remembrances of the conversation he had with them. Much like this forum. This is different than just taking a wide angle view of the White House in DC or any structure. IMO.

Leitz Loc: Solms

jaymatt wrote:

Can someone provide a quick, clean difference between these two media? No dissertations or lectures, please. "Just the facts, Ma'am," as Joe Friday used to say.

Immediately under the title of each section is a description of what it's about.

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

The "Architectural And Traditional Street Photography" section displays numerous pictures in which people are the primary subject matter and the section also displays street photography in which buildings are a primary subject. In short, it has both. Don't know why the separate exclusionary "Street Photography" section even exists.

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

rjaywallace wrote:

The "Architectural And Traditional Street Photography" section displays numerous pictures in which people are the primary subject matter and the section also displays street photography in which buildings are a primary subject. In short, it has both. Don't know why the separate exclusionary "Street Photography" section even exists.

That's what I was wondering.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

rjaywallace wrote:

The "Architectural And Traditional Street Photography" section displays numerous pictures in which people are the primary subject matter and the section also displays street photography in which buildings are a primary subject. In short, it has both. Don't know why the separate exclusionary "Street Photography" section even exists.

Interesting. I just learned something today. Good answer that makes sense.

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

Street Photography
The Street Photography section is for images and discussion of the genre that records pictures where the subject is life.

Architectural and Traditional Street Photography
Traditional Street Photography and Architectural Photography often go hand-in-hand, since both can be captured from the same place, just different Points-of-View. This section is a forum to share one, or the other, or both.

Macronaut Loc: Redondo Beach,Ca.

The "Street Photography" section was started by the request of many, then managed by Apaflo, who's interpretation of "street" seems to be just about anything you point your camera at that has a connection to humanity, such as a truck in the middle of a field for example. Basically, anything goes or can be considered "street".

The "Architectural and Traditional Street Photography" section was started shortly after by many/most that did not agree with that extremely loose, all inclusive, anything goes interpretation and wanted a more traditional or classic approach.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

'The "Street Photography Section" is for images and discussion about the philosophy and techniques of the genre called Street Photography, that records pictures where the subject is life.'

The above is the first line in the introductory message in the Street Photography Section. Farther down that is explained a little more:

'... We accept almost any inclusive definition of Street Photography, and will not exclude any discussion or image if a member feels it is appropriate to Street Photography.'

The essence is simple: It isn't my definition of Street that counts, and your definition is not exclusive. Everyone is entitled to discuss what they understand Street to be, even if most of the ensuing discussion says that it isn't Street at all! But...

'... gratuitous personal discussions, attacks or insults and/or name calling are not (and will be deleted).'

Nothing posted to the Street Photography Section is or has ever been deleted based on disagreement. Bullying, name calling, and gratuitous insults absolutely will be deleted.

pete-m Loc: Casper, WY

mas24 wrote:

I knew someone who was a street photographer many ... (show quote)

Cool

Leitz Loc: Solms

rjaywallace wrote:

Don't know why the separate exclusionary "Street Photography" section even exists.

If the numbers of topics, posts and subscribed users are any indication, the Street Photography section is more than twice as popular as the Architectural and Traditional Street Photography section.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Macronaut wrote:

... The "Architectural and Traditional Street Photography" section was started shortly after by many/most that did not agree with that extremely loose, all inclusive, anything goes interpretation and wanted a more traditional or classic approach.

An excessively loose definition of street photography is no more useful or helpful than a blanket claim that all photography is art. Such definitions cannot be argued because there is only one arbiter. Only one person's opinion counts.

The definition of Traditional Street Photography is more useful. Likewise the definition of Architectural Photography is clearer and more restrictive. Both of these are universally accepted mainstream definitions.