Street photography is a fairly broad term, covering landscapes and scenes as well as portraits and close-ups. Of course, there are limitations, but the genre seems so wide that it’s virtually endless.

Recently, I talked to Bram Penninckx for an episode of the Slices of Time street photography podcast. In his recent project, Le Ring, there are no humans. To me, it floats between cityscapes and street photography. However, it’s hard to define in words when a photo is a cityscape and when it’s a street photo.

I sometimes feel the same way about documentary and street photography. They overlap, and photos and series flow between the two.

So, I decided to dive into the question: Does Street Photography Have to Include People?

Definition of street photography

As usual, I would like to start with the definition. As a follower on Threads also used the definition in his argument to my question.

“street photography, a genre of photography that records everyday life in a public place. The very publicness of the setting enables the photographer to take candid pictures of strangers, often without their knowledge. Street photographers do not necessarily have a social purpose in mind, but they prefer to isolate and capture moments which might otherwise go unnoticed.”

• Britannica https://www.britannica.com/art/street-photography

In the first line, we see the recording of everyday life, which, to me, can include people but isn’t essential to it.

It also mentioned taking candid pictures of strangers, though the word ‘enables’ is used, indicating, at least to me, that it’s not essential—though a big part of street photography.

Do the Greats include people in their street photography?

Looking at the work of some historical street photo heavyweights can provide an answer, so I dove into the works of some famous street photographers.

Henri Cartier-Bresson is famous for his decisive moment, usually involving the perfect moment to snap a person in his photos.

Though only relatively recently known, Vivian Maier focused on people a lot, especially kids, women, and herself.

And let’s not forget Bruce Gilden’s approach to shooting people up close.

On the other hand, we also have photographers like Elliot Erwitt, who created an entire series on dogs. Though people are occasionally in the shot, there’s plenty of work without any person.

Daido Moriyama takes plenty of photos without people, capturing scenes on the streets.

So, looking at the greats, I see that people are a big part of street photography but not essential to every shot or series.

Do contemporary street photographers include people in their shots?

There are, ofcourse, also photographers shaping the street photography genre of our current time. 

You have interesting photographers like Boris Hamilton who show work, often without people, but always with a hint to people.

Or people like Geit Eero, whose work speaks to many people and often includes no person at all.

Others, like Fredrik Axling, focus almost solely on people in the streets, shooting the everyday lives of the humans they see when out and about.

Tim Jamieson focuses on events in the streets, capturing people’s strange yet ‘mundane’ activities.

So, looking at today’s street photographers, even if it’s only a tiny sample size, I can conclude that there’s no reason for people to be in (all) your street photos.

Why would you add people to your street photos?

Let’s dive into the benefits of adding people to your street photography.

First of all, people-watching is fun. Even without a camera, lots of people engage in this activity. We enjoy watching what other people get up to. This aspect ofcourse shows that people are an excellent subject for your photos.

People also add emotion to the shot. Just like colors can influence a scene, the look on someone’s face also provides a lot of context and emotion.

Humans are often predictable, but sometimes still surprise you. This added random element to your scenes can instantly make dull scenes much more enjoyable. Just be sure to be ready for that decisive moment.

And ofcourse it’s also about the clothes they wear. A pop of color in a nice coat can instantly improve a sea of concrete.

Why would you take street photos without people?

Apart from the photos of Henri Cartier Bresson, nothing is black and white. So why would you avoid people in your street photo work?

Removing people from a typically populated scene can add mystery and tension. What happened? Where did everyone go?

It also trains your eye to look for different subjects, such as dogs, as Elliot Erwitt did, or interesting scenes and scapes, as Bram Penninckx did in his Le Ring project.

Not everyone is as lucky to live in a crowded area. So people are in short supply in your area. Or, as many of us are, you’re too shy to photograph people. And that’s fine, too.

In today’s world, maybe you don’t feel like photographing people. You consider and worry about their privacy. 

Of course, these last issues and concerns are legitimate. To reframe those ideas, it can help to talk to other photographers and join them on photo walks.

To people or not to people?

Which option should you choose? Well, both. There’s no set rule or ratio to how many people should be in your photos for it to be a street shot. You can choose which of your shots need a person and which don’t.

Often, it depends on the location, the subject, and maybe your mood. There’s no right or wrong, but it can be fun to experiment with it.

The book Twenty Something by Stefano Broli comes to mind. The book evolves from ‘empty’ street photos to more populated ones, showing the return of people in public spaces during and after the COVID lockdowns.

In conclusion

Seeing that Sean Tucker posted a video on this topic while writing this article shows that I’m not the only one thinking and trying to formulate an answer to this question.

I’m always happy to see us photographers communicate and share our ideas this way. Building a community with nuanced opinions.

So where does that leave me/us in this? As with many things in street photography, there is no right or wrong. It’s what you make of it. As long as there is a hint of humanity and it is candid, it’s considered street photography by me. An empty road, an animal out of place, a person buying groceries at a market, ripped posters—it’s all street photography.

What’s your take on this question? I’m curious about your opinion, so let me know in the comments or on social media!