Today’s rant is something that I’ve been trying to formulate for a while, it came to a head whilst I was walking around Saltaire with my girlfriend. I was browsing in a local shop and came across a book called “Bert Hardy’s Britain”. It’s a collection of photos of Britain taken by Bert Hardy in the mid 20th century, seemingly focused on the poorer end of society.

His photos have a fantastic charm about them, he gives the working class people he documented a dignified, albeit raw and honest representation – a difficult thing to do when dealing with abject poverty.

This book in particular however will not be the focus of today’s writings, what it will be though is the match that lit the tinder on fire. It’s a great example though, so we’ll include some of its images.

What I’d like to talk about is how street photography has changed with the world.

Obviously the aim of street photography is to document life, be it a select group of people, a place, or just a random moment in time. If there’s someone there with a camera then it’s going to be remembered no matter how mundane or extreme it is. Imagine if we’d have had photography since the dawn of time, some amazing moments could have been captured – as a side note I’d love to see what historical moment you wish was photographed, I’d probably go with a Viking raid on Britain.

Street photography is a medium that I have always been interested in but never really made efforts to try, I think I might be too set in my landscape ways to have to deal with….people.

As I said at the start, I’ve been trying to work out how to word this for a while, I honestly don’t know if this is going to be a convoluted mess, so I’m just gonna go with it.

The point

So what’s my point? Well we’ll start by looking at these example photos. To me they tell a story different to the one they show. We have a woman walking into a shop in the Gorbals and a boy having his shoes shined on the street, now I’m fairly confident that shoes and shops haven’t changed, but what has changed is the world these people were part of.

That’s my point.

The magic

Street photography is almost a magical thing in the sense that It’s a moment frozen in time forever, I find this absolutely mind-blowing!

Now, there’s an artistic aspect to Street photography that seems difficult to achieve, these are matters of composition, lighting and subject, no doubt this is the “decisive moment” Cartier-Bresson was talking about, if we put aside all the artistic efforts they’re simply a record of time and place. This is where things get confusing for me, with many photographs of the past century there seems to be an unavoidable, seemingly accidental art to them.

This is both brilliant and infuriating, on one hand we have a huge stockpile of historical photographs to enjoy and analyse but it annoys me because it feels very difficult to achieve the same level of aesthetic quality and interest nowadays, now please don’t misinterpret this as me saying all modern street photographers are sh1t, I’m honestly not suggesting that, what I’m trying to get at is the fact that something has changed, it’s something that to my simple mind has made the task of street photographers a lot more difficult.Take this photo for example, “The Steerage” by American photographer Alfred Stieglitz. It was taken in 1902 aboard the SS Kaiser Wilhelm. I’m not going to write a full rabble about it, but for more info go look into it’s wikipedia article, it’s a great read.

To summarise though, it’s a miracle this image was taken at all, Stieglitz had to run back to his cabin on board the ship, pick up his Auto Graflex 4×5, put the only loaded plate he had in and then run back to the scene. One chance and he certainly carpe diem’d the hell out of it. Now I’m no scholar so I can’t go into the socio-economic symbolism of the image but obviously, things have changed since 1902, even a layman like me can tell that the level of poverty seen on this ship would be pretty much impossible to come across now.

To bring this image back to our question at hand, could we create such an interesting image nowadays on modern cruise ships?

The photo above is one of Bert Hardy’s. It absolutely fascinated me when I first saw it; it looks like a dreamscape, the ethereal light on the left and the creeping shadow to the right surround the people in the centre; the young boy looking into the shop, the woman who’s interest is leading her inside, the old man behind her who seems to be very interested in Hardy’s presence, and the two distant people at the back.

It’s such a simple photo but I love it.

Again, to bring this back to what we’re discussing; with all the hustle and bustle and things screaming for your attention is an image as barren and telling as this possible now? 

One thing that is totally absent in this photograph are cars, no doubt this is partially due to the poverty of the area but it is worth mentioning that cars were obviously less popular back then. Not only are there no cars, there’s not really anything, no bins, no signs, not even the clothes shop has a frontage. I think this is why I find it so interesting. It’s literally just ‘a street’. 

You might be interested in...

The question

Now, this is my question to you, it’s a long one but I would honestly really appreciate everyone’s answers.

As I write this article I’m sat in a cafe in Sheffield. I’m visiting my friends at university here but they’re busy doing boring computer work so I’ve wandered off for a cuppa.

As I look around this busy city I see signs, lights, metal, wood, glass, cars, noise and loads of people despite it being late. This isn’t a problem but it highlights the question we’re discussing now.

If we take street photography into our modern cities around the world now, would we look back at the photographs in 100 years with as much interest and reminiscence as we do with photographs of previous decades?

I know this is getting a bit pretentious but I find there to be something almost philosophical about this question. Will the fact that on average we all have more money and more things change our perspective when we look back?

I think this might possibly give some explanation as to why some underdeveloped countries are popular destinations with photographers (myself included). Places that have pockets of poverty like India and Africa. Obviously, these places have booming industries in other parts but there are large swathes of land that are totally different to what people are familiar with in their own countries.

Perhaps there might be a vague connection between our interest in early street photography and the modern sights we see in poverty-stricken areas of today, it’s just a break from the norm; clean glass lines of offices replaced by chaotic knocked together shanty towns, flawless tarmac roads give way to muddy back streets. This aesthetic chaos is what appeals to some western folk.

In researching this article I realised how much I love the work of Alfred Stieglitz and Alvin Langdon Coburn, I can not put into words my adoration of the photographs that these guys made. If you go have a look at their work you’ll see a fair amount of street scenes, although they don’t really feel like “street photography”, I guess it’s hard to be candid with a plate camera, they do give an amazing glimpse into the world they were part of though.

This is “The Terminal” by Alfred Stieglitz obviously it shows a carriage being pulled by horses. It seems like an absolutely freezing day and the beasts must have been working hard as there’s steam rising from their ghostly backs. I feel like the composition of this image along with its exposure and subjects make it look like an engraving from Paradise Lost. 

Now this is where we get back to the question at hand again: if we take the same camera and go to New York on one of its many snowy days and photograph a similar scene but instead of horses and carts it’s a row of cars with a man wearing jeans and a shirt, will that image have the same punch as our Stieglitz one?

As I’ve said, this bugs this shit out of me, because the answer to me is NO! A big fat NO! …and this no brings with it another question: have we lost this type of subject forever? Did we have just a few decades to capture these parts of history before they faded away with the world’s progression.

How do we capture the essence of this century, I can’t wait to see what it is and I would love to hear your thoughts.


This is where this article was due to end, but there was a development. This article took a while to write, as I kept rewriting large parts of it. Eventually, a friend offered to have a look at it and give his thoughts, so I obliged and sent him a rough draft. We had a bit of a chat about it and he raised a thought-provoking point in relation to the last parts of the article where I mention if photographs from today would garner the same interest as those taken 100 years ago.

To my surprise, he disagreed with me and said yes, not from a matter of photography though but through the lens of nostalgia

It’s a very interesting perspective to take on the matter and it truly made me think, It’s hard to disagree or agree with him because we’re both living in the same world at the same time so this is just normal to us.

Add that to your thoughts before you add them below.

Thanks for reading!

~ James

Share your knowledge, story or project

The transfer of knowledge across the film photography community is the heart of EMULSIVE. You can add your support by contributing your thoughts, work, experiences and ideas to inspire the hundreds of thousands of people who read these pages each month. Check out the submission guide here.

If you like what you're reading you can also help this passion project by heading over to the EMULSIVE Patreon page and contributing as little as a dollar a month. There's also print and apparel over at Society 6, currently showcasing over two dozen t-shirt designs and over a dozen unique photographs available for purchase.

About the author

James Horrobin - Gareth

James Horrobin

Leeds (UK) based large format photographer. If you want a large format portrait just let me know and we'll have a chat.

, and please make sure you also check out their website here.

Join the Conversation



This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Lovely thought-piece, well done :o) I’ve been trying to think of a reply. It’s a subject I also feel strongly about, but my thoughts are just as nebulous as your own!
    I think there will always be scenes you can find to document modern life, which will be interesting to future generations. A shot of a bus full of people on their smartphones, for example, might be fascinating once they’re superseded by whatever comes next.
    Don’t forget that the photos you love so much are very much a “greatest hits” of the last 150 years. The ones that stand the test of time are the exceptional ones. I’m certain there were many more that would raise no more than a “meh” from most modern viewers!
    My general rule of thumb is… if it contains people (and, by extension, fashion), transport (cars/buses/trains etc..) or retail (shops/markets), then it’s likely to be interesting in the future, because those are the things that change the most.
    Be sure to choose your own “greatest hits” and PRINT THEM! Ideally on proper photographic paper in a darkroom, if you’re able to. Those prints are proven to be archive-stable for 100 years at least. I wouldn’t trust my digital files for 100 days!
    Very thought-provoking article, though. Thanks for writing it.

  2. If Steiglitz photographed in the 1930’s he would have told the story of the depression. The 40’s the war. The 50’s McCarthyism or the new suburbia or America’s booming industry. The 60’s, the civil rights movement and protests of the war and communes and rock and roll. The 70’s, a time of dismay from Vietnam and disco and vinyl leisure suits. The 80’s, a time of excess….It goes on and on. Each time had cars, but newer ones with advancements playing a different role in transport. In each decade Stieglitz would have used or experimented with the latest and greatest advancements in camera technology. The common thread is in every decade, Stieglitz’ keen eye would record the world from his eye’s unique perspective. The answer is seeing from awareness of the world. The world is not static, and if one takes the time to see one participates in the (r)evolution. If there is a diminution of today’s street photography it is not from the lack of compelling subject matter. Rather it is from the dearth of people who take the time to see. How many street photographs today are dotted with 90% of the subjects stuck inside of the 4X5 inch hand-held computer? 100 years from now, even those avoiders of seeing will be of interest from further evolution of man and our environs. I have no doubt Stieglitz and Bresson and Richard Scherman and Vivien Mayer would revel in seeing today, publishing captures from a Nikon D850 or a Canon Canonet QL XVII to those willing to look.

  3. Here we have one the essences of photography. Is it art or is it a record of the world around us? It is, or can be, either. I love looking at “old” photographs. Even ones taken in my lifetime. Some creators spend hours setting up a still life to get the lighting and exposure “just so” and call it art. I like some of these pictures but I enjoy a documentary style of photo more. Maybe this is just me. There are those who probably feel the opposite to me. We as photographers have the privilege of documenting the world in which we live today in the same way as the likes of Stieglitz did at the turn of the century. If we choose to do this on film and print the results, there’s a good chance that 100+ years from now people will look at them and think the same about our times in which we live and the images we have recorded. The catch is will we? I home in on film and prints because these have stood the test of time. If they are recorded digitally without being printed there is a possibility that our descendants may not be able to access the images! For example when did you last use a smart media card?
    Not so much a rant more a philosophical outlook. I think
    Thought provoking article though.

  4. Interesting and complex point you raise there!
    I personally don’t feel as you do.
    First off, those pictures you enclosed here are amazing, yes, from a photographic point of view, and also (especially) from a historical one.
    They’re a living legacy of a time we (and even our grand-parents) didn’t get to know, that’s why they’re so exotic to our contemporary minds and tickle them in all the right ways.
    But, in my opinion, it doesn’t mean the cities (or the world) of our time are any less interesting: imagine bringing this (now dead sadly…) early 20th century photographer into our world. How amazed he would probably be by those fancy cars without horses, planes flying above sky-scrapers, technology everywhere! He would probably try to capture THAT because it’s exotic to his mind.
    And at the current rate of technological boom we’re in, pictures of today in a hundred years might look more alien than pictures taken a century ago, today.
    Well, only time will tell!