Or does it?
Sure, most of the great Street Photos do have people in them. Of course…. as Street Photography is mostly defined by photographing people evolving in their usual surroundings.
But the presence of people is not always indispensable.
There’s also the implied presence of people, the traces of their interactions with their world. There are the objects they manipulate, the traces they leave after their passage.
There’s a whole lot more to Street Photography than ‘simply’ photographing people. And I don’t say ‘simply’ because it’s supposed to be easy!
It’s the most difficult part, for me at least, in Street Photography. To face strangers, to risk being challenged, to have to stand up to someone who takes offense at being photographed.
And then there’s the question of color!
Does Street Photography have to be Black and White? Certainly not. We see in color, we live in color. Black and White is a representation of our world, a rendering using light, shadows, contrasts… it’s perfectly great if used wisely as all the great masters of Street Photograph show us.
But there are others among the great masters who taught us to use color. Not to be afraid to use lowly color to picture our world. There’s Fred Herzog, William Eggleston or Sean Lotman who put color to very good use.
Is color good for every photo? You decide in this example:
The Black and White version is quite strong, but in this case….
…I think color adds a lot to the subject.
Any ordinary object relating to the human presence can become a subject for Street Photography.
Can color be the sole defining aspect of a photo? No! Street Photography, as I said is always linked to the human element. It always refers to human presence.
So Is the presence of people necessary? Is a Black and White approach necessary? I really suppose no, it’s a feature, it’s a choice, it’s simply optional… and the other option is definitely less stressful for the timid photographer.
What’s your take on people and color in Street Photography?
Thanks for stopping by!