17
[Discussion] Does nostalgic editing rob us of the documentary aspect of street photography? (rblind.com)
submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Disclosure: I do street photography on Fuji Instax color and monochrome, B&W film, and color and B&W edited digital. My username is accurate, I have low vision.

What we now call street photography - that many of us do as a hobby or with a focus on art - came from journalism and documentary photography, right? The Leica and black and white workflow was good for professionals documenting current events.

As photographic technology progressed, photojournalism moved to color film, then to digital as those became more appropriate for the workflow and for the reader.

In general broad strokes, photojournalists have been capturing current events with the technology of their time, therefore they’ve been representing their times with the look that technology brings. If the early 1900s happened in black and white, and so much of the rest of the century happened in Kodachrome, the 21st century is happening in whatever “color science” means. Sharp lens - lacking in character? - and balanced - realistic? - colors.

With all that context, when we use film simulations, edit in black and white or - gasp! - shoot on film, are we documenting our own time or are we bound to nostalgia? Magnum Photos was all about the most effective technology to capture the moment, not charcoal sketches. Are we effectively capturing the spirit and visual aesthetics of the 2020s or are confusing future historians? Or… are we just really enjoying ourselves and creating art, while we leave the documentation to people using their smartphones and PJs?

What are your thoughts? I’d love to hear from hobbyists and pros alike. Are you editing for a nostalgic feel or focusing on focusing on sharp realism? Both? Why and when? And how do you feel about others’ work? Do you miss a more current look in street and documentary photography?

top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

I think I have two general responses.

I think you're right in that photography and the style of photographs has evolved with technology. Each of those technological steps has been partially shaped by art (what makes it to market) and taste (what succeeds in the market). Additionally, darkrooms gave a lot of leeway for the look of the final image. This also ties into what makes for a compelling image - you're often looking for a dramatic scene, a subject that's a bit out of the norm, and/or unique lighting. Yeah, there are street photographs of everyday people doing everyday things in normal lighting, but they often aren't that compelling.

In other words, photography is often stylized. I personally think that's OK, especially when you consider how flat lightly processed photos are.

The good news in today's world: if you shoot digital you can shoot raw + jpeg and change the look of the image pretty drastically with non-destructive edits. I've re-edited photos I've taken over a decade ago and changed their look significantly. I can do the same again in another 10 years if it strikes my fancy.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Good points! Stylized vs realistic is also decided with subject and composition, not just medium.

I hadn’t thought about re-editing in this context. That kind of flexibility leaves room for a later choice too.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Interesting topic! I think in photojournalism is important how looking to a particular shot make you feel, which is probably going to change in time due to different context (i.e. a black and white photo may give you a drammatic effect now, but maybe it wasn't like that when that was all you had). So I think you should use the technology that better help you reach the feeling you're looking for NOW. Future historians are going to be confused regardless :)

[-] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago

All my photography course work in journalism was shot on film; however in the news room it was all digital.

When asked, photojournalists I worked with be them professor, student, or professional, discussed photos as language. You learn to speak in film because it forces an understanding of the fundamentals.

In photo j the shots are not staged and you can maybe get two shots before the news is gone. That feels like film.

Film is also what people imagine when they think of authenticity. Those grains have very ' dont quote the old magic to me... ' vibe

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

Very interesting. Yeah, the K1000 and friends are great for the fundamentals, developing and printing is as important to learn as cursive or touch typing.

Do pros recommend film for anything apart from learning or the vibes though? Yeah, I’ll only get a frame or two with my Pentax, but I could get 30 plus with the R10, let alone an a9. Aren’t these better tools of the trade?

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a photojournalist or a corporate photographer doing anything but digital, and I only see wedding photographers doing stylistic editing. Even that is actually going into staged photos, so documentary work seems to be very realistic.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

IMO once you get the fundamentals and feel film is for art and expression. You'd be mad not to use digital for work or volume. Film doesn't scale vertically or horizontally without mad cash and skills

this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2025
17 points (100.0% liked)

Photography

6005 readers
6 users here now

c/photography is a community centered on the practice of amateur and professional photography. You can come here to discuss the gear, the technique and the culture related to the art of photography. You can also share your work, appreciate the others' and constructively critique each others work.

Please, be sure to read the rules before posting.

THE RULES

  1. Be nice to each other

This Lemmy Community is open to civil, friendly discussion about our common interest, photography. Excessively rude, mean, unfriendly, or hostile conduct is not permitted.

  1. Keep content on topic

All discussion threads must be photography related such as latest gear or art news, gear acquisition advices, photography related questions, etc...

  1. No politics or religion

This Lemmy Community is about photography and discussion around photography, not religion or politics.

  1. No classified ads or job offers

All is in the title. This is a casual discussion community.

  1. No spam or self-promotion

One post, one photo in the limit of 3 pictures in a 24 hours timespan. Do not flood the community with your pictures. Be patient, select your best work, and enjoy.

  1. If you want contructive critiques, use [Critique Wanted] in your title.

  2. Flair NSFW posts (nudity, gore, ...)

  3. Do not share your portfolio (instagram, flickr, or else...)

The aim of this community is to invite everyone to discuss around your photography. If you drop everything with one link, this become pointless. Portfolio posts will be deleted. You can however share your portfolio link in the comment section if another member wants to see more of your work.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]