Framing Reality: Street vs. Documentary Photography

The camera’s power lies in its ability to freeze moments in time, but it is far from a neutral tool. Every photographer makes decisions about what to include and what to leave out, and these choices profoundly shape the final image. In both documentary and street photography, subjectivity plays a key role, though it is handled differently depending on the purpose and expectations of each genre.

When it comes to documentary photography, the aim is often to inform, particularly about social or political issues. It offers a factual narrative, presenting real-world events as objectively as possible. In this context, subjectivity can be a risk, potentially compromising the credibility of the work.

In contrast, street photography thrives on spontaneity. It captures candid, unscripted moments in public spaces, finding beauty in the ordinary. For me, what is fascinating about street photography is that subjectivity does not undermine the work; it enhances it. The photographer’s personal vision shapes the moments, creating an artistic expression that invites viewers to interpret the scene in their own way.

Historical Context

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, urbanisation in cities like Paris, New York, and London coincided with rapid technological advancements. The evolution of cameras, from large view cameras to the more portable Box Brownie and later the 35mm format, revolutionised photography. Photographers were no longer tied to cumbersome tripods or long exposures. They could now explore life in the streets, capturing moments as they happened. For an evolving, image-hungry society, this was a new way of seeing the world.

I have always been hesitant about crediting someone as the “father” of street or documentary photography. Take Henri Cartier-Bresson, often credited as the “father” of modern street photography. Yet Cartier-Bresson considered himself simply a photographer, not confined to a single label. The same goes for Dorothea Lange, Walker Evans, Jacob Riis, and Lewis Hine. These photographers navigated between personal projects and assignments, and for me, what separates street photography from documentary work often depends on the nature of the commission and the client’s brief.

Speaking of blurred lines, I cannot forget two photographers whose books hold a place of pride in my collection: Robert Frank and Garry Winogrand. Neither identified as street photographers, yet their fluid and spontaneous approaches fit, at least in my mind, into the “Street” category. Both captured moments of life in ways that felt candid and unfiltered, which is exactly what I love about street photography.

Purpose and Intent

At the heart of both street photography and documentary photography lies the desire to capture reality. However, their purpose and intent set them apart.

Street photography often focuses on the aesthetics of urban life and the serendipity of everyday moments. Personally, I have found that the goal is not to tell a specific story but to let the scenes unfold on their own terms. This openness to interpretation is what makes street photography so compelling. The fleeting gestures, the interactions, the play of light and shadow all invite the viewer to find their own meaning.

In contrast, documentary photography has a much clearer objective: to inform, raise awareness, or tell a story about a particular issue. In this genre, the photographer has a responsibility that extends beyond simply capturing moments. They must provide context, guiding the viewer through the narrative, whether it concerns social justice, environmental degradation, or cultural change. For documentary photographers, the emotional tone tends to be more serious, aiming to provoke thought and empathy, which makes it feel different from street photography’s more personal, artistic approach.

Blurring the Lines and Conclusion

The boundaries between these two genres, for me, remain blurred, especially as street photography and documentary photography have adapted to the digital age. As I see it, street photography thrives on ambiguity, leaving room for personal interpretation, while documentary photography guides the viewer through a more structured narrative.

But in today’s world, where social media platforms like Instagram have become major spaces for photographers, street photography has found a new home. The immediacy of sharing imagery and engaging with a global audience, even if it is through the filter of Instagram’s algorithms, has made the genre mainstream and increasingly popular. Have we reached the stage where quality is sometimes overshadowed by quantity? Perhaps that is a question best left for another post.

In contrast, documentary photography often sticks with more traditional outlets like exhibitions, books, or long-form essays. These formats offer the necessary space for in-depth context and narrative development. Even though documentary photographers use social media, their work still benefits from more considered presentations, where viewers can take the time to engage deeply with the subject.

In the end, does it matter if there are blurred boundaries between photographic genres? After all, I am simply a photographer, and if I see the potential to take a landscape photograph, I will do so, as I enjoy all kinds of photography. Now, here is the thing: on my website, I post a variety of images. However, on social media, I have begun limiting my work to predominantly black and white street photography. The reason? It is far better to build a cohesive body of work through presenting a series of images, as it demonstrates a photographer’s style and intent. Could this be interpreted as using the documentary approach, at least in image selection for publication? Or perhaps I am still slightly confused about blurred boundaries.