Street Photography for the Purist

Remember ... when I first started writing this I knew there would be people that disagree. I wrote that my definition of street photography was what
the masters defined it as.
Black and white film.
More often than not made with a rangefinder.
More often than not made with a thirty-five or fifty millimetre lens.
Content ruling over sharpness.
Sharpness belongs in the tabletop, macro and fondler realms.
Perhaps there should be a category or genre for “digital street photography.”
Yes, there should.
It’s not that I hate digitally manipulated street photography, it’s just that it’s not street photography as defined from way back in the day.
I’m sure it has a place.
It doesn’t have a place with what I want to shoot.
It doesn’t fit in the way I see the street.
Because, really, it’s about how you see street photography.
I see it through framelines when I’m actually able to put camera to eye and I see it from the mental visualization of my angle of view when shooting
from my hip.
Please ... attempt that with anything but a full-on manual rangefinder with fast lenses and fast film and you’re not going to get shit.
Or even slow film.
Back in the day when street photography was defined as a genre 100 ISO film was considered fast.
Their maximum apertures were two-oh or even two-five.