http://www.streetviewphotography.net/b-spvsdp/ I can't get over how oft-debated and nebulous street photgraphy is, yet everyone has an opinion. For instance, this article claims street photography is not documentary, and that a person who is aware they are being photographed becomes a "street portrait" but not "street." So why do we keep making these distinctions, when each street photographer applies their own twist, their artistic inspiration, and no two street photographers are the same nor should be. In my opinion, an impromptu portrait on the street still has all the elements of other street photos, and the only thing missing is surreptition. Surreptitiousness does not a street photo make, so why is that only missing element the one that makes a street portrait not "street?" I understand the idea that framing and other artistic elements make street photos less than strictly documentary, but by being "more than" documentary I would not say that that makes a photo "less than" documentary if it also includes the right elements. You just can't pin these things down.