| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/13/2008 09:57:36 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by JaimeVinas:
Gordon,
I have to disagree with the coward remarks. |
You can disagree if you like, but it doesn't change how I feel when I shoot that way.
Originally posted by JaimeVinas:
And the other style is more of a portraiture type of photography |
Yup, which is what I called it when I talked about it earlier on - and is what the original poster was asking about if you go back and look at it before it got derailed by people up in arms that I personally don't enjoy long lens candid shooting.
Message edited by author 2008-03-13 22:01:48. |
|
|
|
03/13/2008 10:06:05 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
If you like it, go for it. I'm explaining why I don't like it. Not why you shouldn't do it. |
I fully understand, how you feel.
What I'm saying is that you shouldn't feel that way.
I believe you're challenging something that shouldn't be challenged and you'll open yourself up to some bad-ass awesome work if you can get by it.
You're limiting your potential and a chance to get some superb images for some code that doesn't have much value, if you really look at it. Just my opinion, of course but I do hope you can see my point. |
|
|
|
03/13/2008 10:13:04 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by Gordon:
If you like it, go for it. I'm explaining why I don't like it. Not why you shouldn't do it. |
I fully understand, how you feel.
What I'm saying is that you shouldn't feel that way.
I believe you're challenging something that shouldn't be challenged and you'll open yourself up to some bad-ass awesome work if you can get by it.
You're limiting your potential and a chance to get some superb images for some code that doesn't have much value, if you really look at it. Just my opinion, of course but I do hope you can see my point. |
I like constraints. They make me creative. I see limits as a way to reach potential. I think most things should be up for being challenged. Mostly I'm pushing myself in a direction I'm uncomfortable with. That typically for me has been where the breakthroughs and interesting work have been. Following my fears. Doing the things that make me nervous, because those have bigger rewards, for me (I'm getting tired of over qualifying everything so somebody else doesn't jump down my throat for 'telling them how to do it' hopefully I've made that point) The Online Photographer post above about commentary is good example - if you don't know passionately what you like or dislike, then everything is just a generic mish-mash of weak opinions. I don't like Anne Geddes' work. I don't like long lens candid street photography - because of the disconnection, because of the compression and distance of the lens. I'm mostly bored of wedding images and trashing the dress in particular. HDR landscapes images do nothing for me either. Not a big fan of stock photography. But I like portraiture and particularly I like portraiture of strangers or people I've just met. I've found something that I really enjoy, even though it scares and delights me in equal measure and as a result I'm working hard in that one area. So I don't see it as limiting my potential, I see it as trying to stop spreading myself so thinly that I never do anything interesting or beyond the superficial. I'm along way from that yet, but I'm trying. Having an opinion about what you like and don't like isn't a bad thing. It shouldn't be taken as an insult to anyone who happens to love something that I don't like - I'm not telling them to stop doing it. Nor does it mean anyone should give a damn about the pictures I'm taking.
I'm not not doing this for some 'code' I just don't like those images, how the look, how I feel taking them, what they communicate to me (because no doubt of all my hang-ups that I've laid out here to bore everyone) but that's what those sorts of images say to me.
bored yet ? :) |
|
|
|
03/13/2008 10:19:08 PM · #29 |
|
|
|
03/13/2008 10:19:14 PM · #30 |
Probably the best tip I can give you in addition to everything else that has been said here:
- Divert attention with your eyes - it's an old magician's technique but it works wonders for candids. Simply look in another direction to the one your camera is pointing.
People will always be attracted to the aim/direction of your camera but look at your eyes for confirmation. If the direction is not theirs, they don't care and relax..and go back to 'au natural' mode, which is the one you want.
Also, check out my Morocco photos. Most of these are candids because they have a fairly interesting take on photography over there (either don't do it, or pay, both of which suck, so candid is the way!). Shot with the 17-40 at the short end, and shot from the hip (literally).
N
Message edited by author 2008-03-13 22:22:30.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2008 10:22:10 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
bored yet ? :) |
LOL
Sounds like the bottom line is you don't like those images so it's no issue, from the get go. Nothing lost. Nuff said.
I on the other hand love them and they hold great value for me as a photographer and as a viewer. So, that's all there is to it.
All for now...
Message edited by author 2008-03-13 22:23:34. |
|
|
|
03/13/2008 10:39:31 PM · #32 |
So before we wandered off on this interesting tangent:
Nick mentioned paying people. I pay people quite often. Well, usually I give people money, if they approach me and ask. A few dollars here and there.
Then, if they happen to have something interesting about them, after I've given them the money, and not tied to that, I might ask them if I could take a few pictures.
Most of the people I'm shooting though aren't homeless. Or maybe they are - probably in equal measure. I don't really differentiate much.
Eye contact is important - if you don't normally do it, practice making eye contact with people and smiling. Just get used to doing that at first can help a lot, if you don't normally do it. Then later when you are asking people, you are making eye contact and come across as more trustworthy.
If people ask me what its for, I usually tell them its for my porn site. Typically that makes them realise that any worries they have are silly and breaks the ice. Works in Austin, might not work where you are asking :)
Message edited by author 2008-03-13 22:40:15. |
|
|
|
03/13/2008 11:00:41 PM · #33 |
well craig, the only advice I can give to you is if downtown san jose is anything like downtown la, use a long lens.
the walking homeless, discharged mentally ill, foreigners, and the regularly suspicious don't like their picture taken.
I once did just this, and had to get a security guard from my job to intervene on my behalf because a crazy person didn't appreciate the artist in me snapping his picture.
good luck.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2008 12:18:45 PM · #34 |
| oh the other this is be careful what you compliment people on. I've seen people try pretty inappropriate personal 'compliments' with women when asking to take their picture. Physical attributes aren't usually a good starting point to 'can I take your picture' :) |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 12:57:27 PM · #35 |
like a moron cuz he's way outnumbered ... I'm going to sortof side with Gordon
If you go to any street photography website, blog, forum, etc and ask about the unwritten code of street photography ... the first rule you'll read is " long lens photography is NOT street photography".
I have used a long lens for public candids many times and have gotten great results, but I feel like a coward when I do it. It's often times very easy to tell that the photographer was nowhere near the event he has captured, and that takes a little bit away from the image ... but I still like some of those types of shots.
(braces for impact) |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 02:17:04 PM · #36 |
I use a 55-200 and a 50mm 1.4. WHen I see great steet photography, I don't care whether or not the photographer was close. a good street photo will let me see a moment in time I'd otherwise not be privy to. One that might've been lost in an unnoticed sequence of motion. I see emotion that might have been disguised if they'd known there was a camera. Perhaps Gordon was right that there may be an element of voyerism to it. Or maybe I just like to people watch. The only difference to me between long and short lenses to me is the compression of elements in the photo. I don't think your lens choice determines what's street photography and what isn't. Its more when you click the button....
|
|
|
|
03/14/2008 02:29:59 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by hopper:
like a moron cuz he's way outnumbered ... I'm going to sortof side with Gordon
If you go to any street photography website, blog, forum, etc and ask about the unwritten code of street photography ... the first rule you'll read is " long lens photography is NOT street photography".
I have used a long lens for public candids many times and have gotten great results, but I feel like a coward when I do it. It's often times very easy to tell that the photographer was nowhere near the event he has captured, and that takes a little bit away from the image ... but I still like some of those types of shots.
(braces for impact) |
Moron. |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 02:40:12 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by hopper:
like a moron |
Moron. |
for more reason than you know |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 02:45:32 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by hopper:
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by hopper:
like a moron |
Moron. |
for more reason than you know |
Same boat here. |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 03:03:50 PM · #40 |
Totally appreciate  Gordon's observations about HIS own feelings about taking pictures of people/strangers in public (just to avoid "street photography.") I share them entirely, and have a long way to go to begin to catch up with his ability to approach strangers. I do have quite a few good candids that I show to friends but which I will never post because of the way I feel they were gotten. (Not all of my candids fall into that category, but possibly the ones with more bite). If photography is about one's own sensitivity to the visible and human world, surely that sensitivity includes exactly such feelings whatever they are.
Thank you, Gordon. |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 03:10:35 PM · #41 |
Two suggestions:
1) If you want close-ups of homeless folks or bums, take some money with you ($5) and offer it in exchange for some photos.
2) (as already mentioned by others) Use a telephoto and catch the subject in a candid situation.
The photo below was in downtown San Jose, and I doubt he would have let me take his photo if I had asked. :-)
|
|
|
|
03/14/2008 06:10:49 PM · #42 |
Who gives a flying fluck??!! There are no rules when it comes to street photography!! Whoever decreed that using a long lens isn't street photography, or that getting in-yer-face with a 20mm somehow is....is speaking what we loving refer to in blighty as "total bollocks" :)
Seriously... it's about the image produced, not the focal length. Or it is in my weird world...
N
|
|
|
|
03/14/2008 06:28:52 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by Quasimojo:
Seriously... it's about the image produced, not the focal length. Or it is in my weird world... |
But seriously, doesn't the image produced and what it communicates change a lot, depending on the focal length ? 35mm to 400mm of the same scene ? I wonder if the police would have bothered stopping you with a shorter, less white lens and a point and shoot ? :) People react differently to different types of camera - with suspicion to long lenses and someone on the far side of the street, usually with amused acceptance to someone with a smaller camera, more obviously involved. There's times when neither is welcome too, of course.
I agree it's all street shooting. People get very hung up on notions of 'purist' street shooting or 'classical' street shooting, like HCB. That all was normal or wide lenses. But it also was all rangefinder which is a really different way of composing than through the lens SLR, too. You see the scene unfolding, you have a greater than 100% viewfinder so you know what's about to come in or out of the frame. So I think the purist notion is a bit silly, particularly if you are going to lug around an SLR anyway.
I certainly don't do 'purist' street photography either so I'm not claiming some purist high ground.
Message edited by author 2008-03-14 18:40:15. |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 06:52:59 PM · #44 |
I rather think Mr Cartier-Bresson would have disliked being labelled a 'street' photographer. My guess is he would have preferred the term 'photographer'.
The essence of what is most often intended by the term, especially by those who have a reasonably wide knowledge of photography, is here
As to how to get decent shots of people on the street: I would say learn to shoot from the hip; learn to disguise what you're doing; for candid street portraits use a long lens; for impact use the lens whose distortion or otherwise most appeals to you; learn to put yourself in situations that offer more opportunities (rallies, meetings, public events, festivals, holidays etc); carry your camera with you ALWAYS; learn to see more than simply your immediate subject - always be aware of her/his/its relationship to the background, to incidental elements, to forms and geometry within that scene; and look at the work of the masters (there is no list - you have to find them for yourself) obsessively. Also, remember that if it was easy, then everyone would be doing it successfully all the time: the best stuff is supposed to be hard to produce. That's one of the reasons its special.
Some of that is what I think about it. |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 09:14:01 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by e301:
I rather think Mr Cartier-Bresson would have disliked being labelled a 'street' photographer. My guess is he would have preferred the term 'photographer'. |
From what I can tell from interviews, he'd have preferred the term 'artist' or probably more likely 'painter'. He was pretty much dismissive of photography in the last 30 years of his life.
Message edited by author 2008-03-14 23:54:01. |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 09:38:00 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by e301:
I rather think Mr Cartier-Bresson would have disliked being labelled a 'street' photographer. My guess is he would have preferred the term 'photographer'.
The essence of what is most often intended by the term, especially by those who have a reasonably wide knowledge of photography, is here
As to how to get decent shots of people on the street: I would say learn to shoot from the hip; learn to disguise what you're doing; for candid street portraits use a long lens; for impact use the lens whose distortion or otherwise most appeals to you; learn to put yourself in situations that offer more opportunities (rallies, meetings, public events, festivals, holidays etc); carry your camera with you ALWAYS; learn to see more than simply your immediate subject - always be aware of her/his/its relationship to the background, to incidental elements, to forms and geometry within that scene; and look at the work of the masters (there is no list - you have to find them for yourself) obsessively. Also, remember that if it was easy, then everyone would be doing it successfully all the time: the best stuff is supposed to be hard to produce. That's one of the reasons its special.
Some of that is what I think about it. |
Best post on topic in the thread. e301 and pawdrix are two of the best on the sight at street photography. Its great to have their input on this site.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2008 11:13:52 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by neophyte:
Best post on topic in the thread. e301 and pawdrix are two of the best on the sight at street photography. Its great to have their input on this site. |
I meekly feel like pointing out that its totally off topic from the original request though. Most everyone seems to have addressed how to avoid what the original poster asked about. That seems interesting in of itself. On that original topic, the best advice I've heard is probably summed up by this from Keith Carter:
When I go up to people, I'm always nervous. That never goes away. I figure they are going to tell me no.
I mean, why should they give me their time. So I just go and I just do it and I smile and I ask and I get right there.
Sometimes they are so startled, they say 'sure' and sometimes they don't.
Just do it.
Message edited by author 2008-03-14 23:16:39. |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 11:29:07 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I wonder if the police would have bothered stopping you with a shorter, less white lens and a point and shoot ? :) People react differently to different types of camera - with suspicion to long lenses and someone on the far side of the street, usually with amused acceptance to someone with a smaller camera, more obviously involved. There's times when neither is welcome too, of course. |
Sure, big white lenses are threatening and scary for some unknown reason, but in photography terms the subject is unaware so it's irrelevant imho.
Which was the film where the line was "guns for show, knife's for a pro"...Lock Stock? And in Leon there was comment about snipers being easy and the last lesson being the knife. Point being that anyone can shoot a long lens down a street and it takes more skill/cunning/balls/chutzpah/cojones to get close, but you can still capture the images you want to with either method....it just depends on the situation imho.
I plan to shoot a nice cliche shot of the punks in Camden one summer day. In my world that's a long lens assignment..I don't care how lovely they are and how misunderstood blah blah...they bite...nay even feed on people like me. Other times it's really easy and it's almost a case of stick the camera right in their face and go for it. But just can't see why one is good and one is bad....the results depend on the photographer not the focal length...
N
|
|
|
|
03/14/2008 11:32:31 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Just do it. |
And when you're Just Doing It....Keep Doing It... i.e. either double tap each shot, or even short bursts. Sometimes you just don't have the luxury of framing so machine gunning it can help...but focus can be a pain so muck about with focus modes to see what works.
N
|
|
|
|
03/14/2008 11:36:34 PM · #50 |
This is a completely fascinating conversation. If I were to give advice, I would echo what Gordon has already said. If street portraiture is what one is after, be engaging, be genuine, be restrained. Use 85mm. I struggle with the same issues Gordon has (and notably Keith Carter, one my favourites) and have in fact only taken a few successful street portraits. Here are examples... the first guy wound up becoming a member here after I told him about the place (he's not active though).
[thumb]494479[/thumb] [thumb]504172[/thumb] [thumb]504193[/thumb]
Message edited by author 2008-03-14 23:37:04. |
|
