>>4184669>OP is compellingOkay, why? It looks like a corny photoshop. Multiple flash exposures if they were feeling like practicing their technical skills. What does it compel you to do? What is inarguable about it? What can not be denied?
You see, to me, the thing about the vast majority of street photography is, from the minute you pick up a camera yourself, it all seems like passe tricks and random subjects, somewhere between function testing and trial and error learning, exhibited to make it feel like less of a waste of time. It's cheap. It often ends up being about something other than the photograph by necessity.
As soon as the photo is compelling, telling a story, inarguable and convincing about what it is, call it what you like to call it, it magically becomes something other than "street photography" - journalism. The dividing line is that journalism, or its staged counterpart, the yellow press, can occur in any setting while "street photography" is exactly as self-descriptive as "wedding photography".
The term "street photography" was in fact a mistake and founded generations upon generations of people randomly taking photos of random people hoping it will be good because it's set on or around a street. A learning experience, but far from a necessary one, and hardly worth any distinguishing terminology from the more apt "casual photography".
