Talk:Street photography/Archive 1

Archive 1

Talk page created

Okay, I have created the talk page so it should now be easy to make comments.

Use 'edit this page' or '+' on the tabs at the top to add comments.

Streetphoto Mailing list discussion

John Matturri has offered to do a definition which would be a lot better than mine, I think. Tom says he thinks the definition is not friendly to people who know nothing about SP and I think he's right. UnSane 14:48, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Re-arranged first couple of paragraphs

Took the content of the "definition" section and moved it to front of the article, then deleted the definition section. Seems alot clearer to me that way. Nut feel free to back out the changes if you disagree.

BTW, seems like we could really do with a typical SP photograph (or two) at the top of the page, maybe one B+W and one colour?

-- tom

Tom, that's much better. Thanks. The outline is really just a suggestion. Not all the things need to be split into different headings, they can just be paragraphs within a single heading.

I agree about the photos but it has to be something that can be published under the GNU license. Any ideas?

I think we should add a link section for street photographers working today.

UnSane 00:46, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

It's been a while

OK, nobody had touched this article in a while, so I started filling in gaps in the heads and subheads that had thus far been left blank. I hardly did anything with pre-existing text.

Links

Wikipedia is not a repository of links or an advertising billboard. Moreover, linking to photographer's personal websites from is vanity and SPAM. If these photographers are notable enough then they should be given their own articles from which it would be appropriate to have links to their sites. If these links are repeatedly added I will report this at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. siafu 8 July 2005 14:52 (UTC)

I have added the site of a street photographer that I admire. I am somewhat at a loss as to why a page on street photography would not permit links to photographer's websites. It seems relevant to me, and to have a page that focuses on an art but does not feature any artists seems counter intuitive. I would suggest that an artist who wants people to view his work is not vanity or spam, but the whole point of creating art. I'm also wondering why this link keeps getting deleted and the Full frame images site (which appears to be an artist's personal site) does not.

Thanks - Bill

@Siafu - from the "Wikipedia is not" page you cite: "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding to an article a list of content-relevant links; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." Adding links to contemporary street photographers is not link spam. You are removing links at will and leaving in links that fall under your very own definition. Consider creating a link area for working street photographers as brought up by another user before.....

The links I added were "content-relevant links", not simply personal photographer links.... If we followed your definion of what that is, you would have to remove in-public and full frame images as well.

-Babaschwabba

Since full frame seems to be such a terrible concern, I removed that as well, though I didn't add it and it's inclusion has nothing to do with whether or not the others removed should be added.

The fact that we're dealing with "artists" wanting people to view their "work" and not "merchants" wanting people to view their "wares" does not mean that posting the links is any less a matter of advertising. You'll notice that the book article does not contain links to local bookstores, amazon.com, author's websites, or local libraries; similarly the street photography article is not a bulletin board for individuals to post their own websites or those of photographers they happen to admire.

I too am a street photographer and I have a website, as is the case for thousands, even millions, of people throughout the world. This does not merit any or all of them for inclusion in the wikipedia article on street photography. In short, it is not encyclopedic to make endorsements, and against wikipedia policy to include these links here. As I said above, if any of these artists are "notable", they should have their own articles, from which a link to their website would be perfectly appropriate. siafu 8 July 2005 21:01 (UTC)

I disagree. Content-relevant links are what we are talking about. People who come to read about street photography should be directed to sites that are current on the topic. You are removing content and making this page less informative. Why not try adding content. You are too quick to remove based on your own judgement, thus not being objective; plus you are taking the rules too literally. Your site should be here also, but alas, you have no text or anything relating to street photography on that site so it would not fit too well. All the links that were here before should stay. Content-relevant links are allowed in the Wikipedia regardless of their origin (did you read my last post?). The constant removal of personal sites is a major error by editors all over this site. I am going to suggest a mediator to take care of this.

Also, what made you remove all of these links in the first place? And if you are so keen on what is personal and what is not, why did you leave in the Full Frame images site earlier? And what of In-public then? It is a site that commercially promotes Street Photographers. It is not a resource or learning tool but an agent for them , like the way amazon.com is an agent for authors. And the mailing list? That site is all about spam and has no purpose here. I also added a photographic forum earlier today and it was removed. It seems you removed everything I added regardless of what it was. You are creating an edit war by doing that. Please explain yourself and your edits from today better...... --babaschwabba

(re-added after edit conflict)As for why I didn't remove the other sites, the simple answer is that I'm not a machine. I didn't add those links, and it's not my explicit responsibility to have done all the work there is to do. That argument is a red herring anyway; it's still to you to demonstrate why these sites you're adding belong at all. If there are others that don't belong, you are welcome to remove them yourself and state why, my not removing them is not an endorsement of their content. I did, however, look into each one that I removed before getting rid of it, so I am not removing your edits regardless of what they are.

Let me spell out my position as clearly as I can:

1. There is no criteria we can use to decide if a personal website is "good" (worthy of inclusion) or "bad"

2. Absent any reason to choose one over the other, all must be included or excluded together

3. Wikipedia is not a repository of links, as stated earlier

Given the above, I don't see how we can justify including Joe Photographer's personal exhibition, or my own. The origin of these content related links is not the issue, it's the nature of said links. This is not a place to advertise for "good" photographers and their work. I say again, if they are so wonderful, important, or relevant, start an article for them and link from there. Content relevant links from here would be ones that are ABOUT street photography, not ones that endorse particular photographers and their work.

I am not trying to create an edit war or pick a fight, but unless there's some particular reason that these links DO NOT count as spam, which is what they are by default being personal exhibitions, then they do not belong and repeatedly placing them in the article is vandalism. If you believe I am interpretting the guidelines "too literally", I invite you to explain to me why in this case they should be waived instead, as absent extenuating factors (i.e. "all else being equal") the guidelines are meant to be followed (that's why they're guidelines). siafu 8 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)

--you are getting better with your explanations I must say... "There is nothing wrong with adding to an article a list of content-relevant links" is what sticks out in my head right now... So I wonder why you removed the link to the Street Photography group from Flickr? It is a site ABOUT STREET PHOTOGRAPHY in that it DISPLAYS street photography..... May we agree that sites like that are allowed?

Lastly, I feel you should review each and every photographic related page and remove all websites that are not general discussions about Photography... this would include the link to "IN-PUBLIC".

--baba

Added New Image

I have added an image to the Techniques section. While it is one of my own I feel it contributes to the article as it deals with the subject matter being discussed in the aforementioned section. Brings a bit of colour to the article, too. :) --^pirate 17:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You guys know as much about street photography as I do rocket science! :-) You learn Street Photography by looking at GOOD images and shooting, NOT by reading what uninformed people have to say about it! Robert M Johnson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.124.235.240 (talk) 00:20, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Good picture! SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! :) --^pirate 21:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

AfD on No Flash Corner

I have no knowledge of street photography, but since No Flash Corner says it is a "term in street photography" .. I thought the people who read this Talk page should know that there's an AfD on the No Flash Corner article. --EarthFurst 02:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Definition?

"Street photography is a type of documentary photography — without explicit social agenda — that usually features people in candid situations in public places such as streets, parks, beaches, malls, political conventions, and other settings"

Without explicit social agenda? Is this accurate? In terms of the works of Hine, Frank, Winogrand, Arbus - to name a few - I think much of street photography has a social agenda.

Jgaff 06:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

V-J Day kiss

I'm not sure that Alfred Eisenstaedt's photo of the V-J Day kiss is an appropriate main photo given that it was a posed situation using models. Because it was a posed situation with models, I feel it doesn't it qualify as street photography. You could certainly talk about the history of the photo though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.91.119.254 (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm definitely going to need to see a source for this info, because I have never read that this shot was posed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romancekiller (talk • contribs) 13:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are confusing this shot with Doisneau's kissing photograph, which did feature models posing. To my knowledge, the subjects in Eisenstadt's photo were aware of him photographing them but they were already kissing when he started shooting.

Deepcloud (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Genghis45's addition

Genghis45 has repeatedly inserted a self-serving paragraph into this article. I don't find this contribution to be necessary to the article and have reverted it several times. To avoid running afoul of the 3 revert rule, I'd like to call this edit to the attention of other editors for your consideration. TheMindsEye 02:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Duly noted, and I've reverted it a few times myself. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And blocked for 3RR violation. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to start cutting soon

I'm going to probably start cutting this article down soon to remove the how-to content, opinions, and original research. Just FYI. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Completed. The article is now a stub. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Article Photograph Inappropriate

I think we should change the photograph that goes with this article, it is the most uncharacteristic photograph to demonstrate street photography that I can imagine without it being of some completely differing topic altogether. For example it doesn't depict some emotional moment between two people, it doesn't include some kind of gag; it is instead just a snapshot, something that street photography can resemble but isn't. Lopifalko (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

In which case, find a good freely-licensed photo that shows what you're thinking about and be bold. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Lopifalko. The photo is a bad example of street photography. I'd be willing to give this photo or any other of my photos for this page for free. I can change the licensing to whatever is required if needed. --Jaredkse (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Jaredkse, what you proposed would be a good image for this purpose, I would encourage you to upload it to Wikipedia commons --rogerd (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Great. I've uploaded the image to Wikipedia commons with a creative commons license and will change it on the main street photography page. --Jaredkse (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion Jaredkse's image isn't a good example of street photography as the people are only a minor part of the scene and it doesn't particularly say anything, resulting in an ill thought out snapshot feel that doesn't have any gravitas. Lopifalko (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Reverts

Can I ask why you mention Adams? Very odd. Why does it mention political conventions, in its place it should read 'Public Events'. Can we assume the Author is American. Street photography is an international occupation, you need to keep it so otherwise it falls into a western definition. Malls are private property so I dont know why they are included, they are a miserable venue for SP anyway.. The places you suggest reinforce the western definition, again I'll stress its an international occupation. The reference to straight photography is vague and incorrect as street include photographers that engage in all the corners of art. History also supports these photographers (eg, Callahan and many current photographers). "the aim of creating images at a decisive or poignant moment." Thats just one aspect and it neglects too much to be representative. The defining period did not end in the 70's, it continues. The world hasn't stopped just yet. The Leica is not the most famous, its for the Leica wiki to suggest such a history but this page is for street photography and its not a hardware page. I'll remind you too that hcb often used friends in images and that history in hindsight is not an accurate depiction of the truth. "John Thomson, a Scotsman, began photographing the street prior to Atget" a syntax error and it also follows the Atget reference. "and had more of a subject aware style in comparison to Atget." and again, How could this suggestion be made when Atget did not use human subjects. "Henri Cartier-Bresson, who has a reputation comparable to Atget" what does this mean ???? There is no connection between street photography and Jazz. The suggestion arose somewhere in literature and it is absurd and has no foundation in fact. Zone focusing is an alternative to manual focusing not AF. History shows that candid is in degrees and includes non-candid, these definitions are so selective and ignore the fact of history borne out by the images. A very sad wiki, has been in this state for many years, choice of photographs has also been its sore point. I'm pleased those last images were removed but the replacements are only marginally better --3hoursmissing (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

SchuminWeb, if you're going to revert my input into this article then please have the decency to say what you disagree with and why. This article is very lacking and I'm just embarking on making lots of changes, I don't want to have to fight each one out with you. Lopifalko (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The way it was added previously, it looked promotional, and we've had issues about that on this article in the past. The Flickr pages are removed again, though, since those kinds of sites are generally unsuitable for Wikipedia. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replying SchuminWeb. If you look at the older street photographers I linked to I think all have 'street photographer' in their opening paragraphs; and the contemporary ones I added, I'm trying to add those that are well known. I can understand to some degree why the Flickr groups aren't so suitable, so I'm willing to go with you with regard to the Garry Winogrand group, but the HCSP group is extremely well known group, having featured in many media reports about street photography, so it takes the reader to a place that is one of the most vibrant locations of street photography on the web, which to me seems a worthwhile external site to link to. Lopifalko (talk) 08:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

TheMindsEye called my 'contemporary street photographers' section a "catchall for any name someone wants to add" but that seems over paranoid. Without it how are we to add contemporary photographers? if someone self promotes then their promotion can be removed. Lopifalko (talk) 08:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Link farm

I've just removed the following from "External links":

• Why We Shoot And How: Street Photography For The Purist - various authors mainly from DeviantArt
• Street Photography Information: A tutorial from photo.net
• In-Public.
• Burn My Eye.
• Seconds2Real: Street photography collective from Austria & Germany.
• Invisible Ph t grapher Asia: Street photography and visual jurnalism in Asia.
• Sidewalkers.asia: Street photography in Indonesia (Indonesian language).

"Street photography for the purist" combines pretty good photography with interminable text.

In short paragraphs.

Like this.

It gets tiring.

After a time.

The "tutorial" is not a tutorial. Of the five other websites, at least two are excellent, but no particular reason is given for them to be listed here. (Indeed, recent edits have removed (mis?) information about the sites.)

Among my own favorite tutorials is one by John Brownlow that's mostly, but not exclusively, about overcoming shyness. It has long vanished from pinkheadedbug.com (taken over by a domain name squatter) and from the "pink headed bug" area within the later johnbrownlow.com (abandoned). But Wayback has it: here (white text on white!), the following page (same color scheme), and the following page (light gray on white). Using Firefox, I can read it by pressing Ctrl-A ("select all"): merely selecting the text makes it legible. However, there may be more eligible web pages.

One or two of the links I've removed should perhaps be readded. Well, let's see arguments for this. -- Hoary (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

New York School of photography

This is worth reading to help understand what is, or more likely what isn't, this idea of the New York School of photography: 'What was the “New York School” of photography?' -Lopifalko (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Classic practitioners of street photography

In this edit, 68.76.227.6 (contributions) adds:

== Notable street photographers ==

Classic practitioners of street photography include Brassaï, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Robert Doisneau, Alfred Eisenstaedt, Robert Frank, Bruce Gilden, Willy Ronis, W. Eugene Smith, Garry Winogrand, Joel Meyerowitz, and Manuel Rivera-Ortiz.

68.76.227.6's edit summary reads:

I agree with having a separate category with street photographers, but I strongly believe the article itself should have a section stating the most important street photographers

I find this extraordinary.

Brassaï, Cartier-Bresson, Doisneau, Eisenstaedt, Frank, Gilden, Ronis, Smith, Winogrand, Meyerowitz: yes, they're all notable and arguably important. ("Classic" seems a bizarre description for the street photography of Gilden, but we'll let that pass for a moment.) But Rivera-Ortiz? I'd never heard of him until I started to see his name popping up on Wikipedia.

Of course, I'm just a simple Wikipedia editor and make no claim to being an expert. For that, I defer to books. The first promising book that comes to hand is The Oxford Companion to the Photograph (2005). Let's look through it:

• Brassaï: There's an article on him on page 85.
• Cartier-Bresson: There's an article on him on pages 107–109. (Not as long as the numbers suggest, as it's interrupted by a full-page photograph.)
• Doisneau: There's an article on him on page 180.
• Eisenstaedt: There's an article on him on page 191.
• Frank: There's an article on him on page 237.
• Gilden: There's no article on him, and his name doesn't appear within the long "Index of People and Companies".
• Ronis: There's an article on him on page 543–545. (Not as long as the numbers suggest, as it's interrupted by a full-page photograph.)
• Smith: There's an article on him on page 582.
• Winogrand: There's an article on him on page 686.
• Meyerowitz: There's an article on him on page 405.
• Rivera-Ortiz: There's no article on him, and his name doesn't appear within the long "Index of People and Companies".

The omission of Gilden is rather surprising. The noteworthiness of his perceived deficits won him a dismissive essay ("Bruce Gilden: A Penny to See the Peepshow") by Gerry Badger, published in Creative Camera back in 1986 (and republished in Turner and Badger's Photo Texts, 1988). His perceived merits led him to become a full member of Magnum Photos.

So whatever his degree of "classicism", Gilden's inclusion isn't absurd.

The Oxford Companion to the Photograph seems pretty up to date to me: for example, it is illustrated with photographs from the latest Iraq war. But five years might be a long time in photography, and during the last five the perceived importance of photobooks seems to have shot up, fueled in part by Parr and Badger's two-volume The Photobook: A History. Let's see what these have to say about our street photographers:

• Brassaï: Paris du nuit is written up in vol. 1.
• Cartier-Bresson: The Decisive Moment and The Europeans are written up in vol. 1.
• Doisneau: La Banlieu de Paris is written up in vol. 1.
• Frank: The Americans and The Lines of My Hand are written up in vol. 1.
• Gilden: Go is written up in vol. 2.
• Winogrand: The Animals is written up in vol. 1, Public Relations in vol. 2.

Eisenstaedt, Ronis, Smith, Meyerowitz, and Rivera-Ortiz don't make it. (NB these volumes do not purport to introduce the best of photography, merely the best of photobooks.)

Of course it could be that Manuel Rivera-Ortiz is young (well, his forties) and that his talent in street photography has recently emerged to become a new or an instant classic. So what's new in street photography? Howarth and McLaren's Street Photography Now (2010) is the most promising of one-volume guides. This page conveniently lists its contributors. Here they are, blue/redlinked:

Christophe Agou, Gary Alexander, Arif Asci, Narelle Autio, Bang Byoung-Sang, Polly Braden, Maciej Dakowicz, Carolyn Drake, Melanie Einzig, Peter Funch, George Georgiou, David Gibson, Bruce Gilden, Thierry Girard, Andrew Glickman, Siegfried Hansen, Cristóbal Hara, Markus Hartel, Nils Jorgensen, Richard Kalvar, Osamu Kanemura, Martin Kollar, Jens Olof Lasthein, Frederic Lezmi, Stephen McLaren, Jesse Marlow, Mirko Martin, Jeff Mermelstein, Joel Meyerowitz, Mimi Mollica, Trent Parke, Martin Parr, Gus Powell, Mark Alor Powell, Bruno Quinquet, Raghu Rai, Paul Russell, Boris Savelev, Otto Snoek, Matt Stuart, Ying Tang, Alexey Titarenko, Nick Turpin, Lars Tunbjörk, Jeff Wall, Munem Wasif, Alex Webb, Richard Wentworth, Amani Willett, Michael Wolf, Artem Zhitenev, Wolfgang Zurborn

Gilden and Meyerowitz are there, Rivera-Ortiz is not.

Now, this strikes me as an odd list in some ways. (Notably, the Japanese representation: Kanemura certainly photographs in streets, but he's hardly what I think of as a street photographer: I'd have chosen one or other of Michio Yamauchi and Jun Abe.)

So what does Rivera-Ortiz have going for him as a street photographer? I turn to the article on him. This says:

In 2010, Rivera-Ortiz visited Dharavi and Baiganwadi and took pictures of daily life in these two Mumbai slums.

(Which is unsourced, but let's believe it.) Good. It's too early to expect publication, but have they been exhibited?

We're given a list of exhibitions, but none since 2008.

Oh well, let's turn to his books of street photography. Street photography done anywhere, at any time.

There aren't any.

I've no reason to believe that Manuel Rivera-Ortiz is a notable street photographer. Just what is it that I fail to perceive about his work?

I propose to replace Rivera-Ortiz and (less urgently) Gilden with the following three people:

• Ihei Kimura: as an undisputed great in Japanese street photography and a pioneer of colour. He merits an article in The Oxford Companion to the Photograph; and his Pari is written up in The Photobook: A History, vol. 1.
• Helen Levitt: as a master of street photography and an innovator in the portrayal of children. She merits an article in The Oxford Companion to the Photograph; and her A Way of Seeing is written up in The Photobook: A History, vol. 1.
• Raghu Rai: as a master of work in India: no quick visitor, but instead somebody who has been there for years, and has fine books to show for it. He merits an article in The Oxford Companion to the Photograph; and is included in Street Photography Now.

I would replace Gilden not because his work is unimportant (like it or not, it's significant) but because he's unrepresentative. I'd replace Rivera-Ortiz not because his work isn't good enough (I really don't know) but because I have no reason to think that he has more than minor significance. -- Hoary (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest to also include William Klein (who has an article in The Oxford Companion to the Photograph) and Arthur Leipzig. I wouldn't hold the fact that Manuel Rivera-Ortiz has not (yet?) an article in The Oxford Companion to the Photograph against him; he only started his photographic career in 2000. Rivera-Ortiz is predominantly a social documentary photographer, but he can also be categorised as a street photographer. I agree, however, that he has not (yet) reached the same level of significance as Brassaï, Cartier-Bresson, Doisneau, Eisenstaedt, Frank, Gilden, Ronis, Smith or Winogrand. -- ConcernedPhotographer (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting point. Ortiz's article really didn't clearly state that he's only been photographing since 2000. I've now edited his article to make that point clearer and to better conform the info in the article to the (limited) information provided by the citation. Since he's only been working for 10 years, in what way could he be considered a "classic" street photographer? TheMindsEye (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we need to distinguish "classic practitioners of street photography" from "classic street photographers". The term "classic" may have a different meaning in the former and in the latter expression. In the former the meaning seems to be "serving as the established model or standard" (i.e. a classic example of a street photographer, meaning a person belonging into the street photographer category) while in the latter "classic" would seem to mean "belonging to the highest rank or class" of street photographers (which would not apply to Manuel Rivera-Ortiz).

Also, thanks for clarifying the article with regard to the fact that Rivera-Ortiz only started photographing professionally on or about 2000. I believe I had read this in an article somewhere and will look for it. -- ConcernedPhotographer (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the article: [1]. Actually, started photographing professionally in 2001. I will add/link this article as a reference in the Rivera-Ortiz article. -- ConcernedPhotographer (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for your input. Right then, if we do have a list of prime/classic exponents (and I'm not convinced either that this is a good idea), then

Classic practitioners of street photography include Brassaï, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Robert Doisneau, Alfred Eisenstaedt, Robert Frank, Ihei Kimura, William Klein, Arthur Leipzig, Helen Levitt, Joel Meyerowitz, Raghu Rai, Willy Ronis, W. Eugene Smith, and Garry Winogrand.

would be an improvement on the version that I quoted at the top of this thread. But I still have worries about it. For example, while Eisenstaedt certainly took one of the best-known street photos of all time, I know little about his work in general and wonder if there was all that much "street photography" within it. Or again, while it's undeniable that work in New York (and Chicago?) and Paris was very important and influential (and plain enjoyable), these particular cities may be overrepresented in such a short list. -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely, including your concerns. -- ConcernedPhotographer (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Any list of "Classic practitioners of street photography" should include Diane Arbus and Vivian Maier. 5.148.31.130 (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Shift intro's comparison with photojournalism and documentary photography?

I find the statement "similar to social documentary photographers; photojournalists work in public places, capturing newsworthy events, which may include people and property visible from public places; services like Google Street View also record public space at a massive scale." confusing. Street photography rarely records 'newsworthy events' and most street photographers are working from curiosity and/or for artistic purposes, and they are in many cases (Winograd, Ray-Jones etc.) unattached to mass media (the exception being the 'humanist photographers' including Cartier-Bresson). I'm going to shift this sentence out of the intro to improve its clarity, since it deals with what street photography is not. JamesMcArdle 07:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

There are some valuable points in that paragraph, comparing other genres of photography to street photography; and raising the topic of people who work in public places, that will be returned to later in the legality section. But as it stands, it is muddled, and I expect best dealt with by tidying it up and moving it into a paragraph below, also in the lead section. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

yes there are good points here and they do point to the rest of the article. I'll have a go in a while...time for dinner! JamesMcArdle 09:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)