Question about street photography

[stuegan]

Hi,

Just wondered if people could share a few opinions or a bit of advice with me on something. I started a gallery a few weeks back which is concentrating on street photography, and generally I've been looking for photos that have a similar kind of feeling to them which show the urban environment as a fairly non-descript backdrop and figures generally looking detatched or lost among their surroundings.
It's probably easier if I give a couple of examples to explain what I'm on about(!), but the gallery is here as well http://www.pbase.com/stuegan/everybody_ ... is_nowhere





Anyway, the nature of my street shooting, of capturing people mainly from a distance, has developed due to the fact I'm fairly quiet by nature and don't really have the confidence to get right up close (with or without the subject's permission), though this is changing the more I practice. For me though taking photos from afar seems to suit the mood of this gallery, but thinking longer term, I think it's a habit that's well worth losing, and it's this that I was hoping to get opinions about.

The vast majority of street photos I like are up close so you really feel transported to the very spot the photographer was stood in. It also helps me connect more with the characters in an image if I can see them close up so that expressions etc are easier to read. I've found hip shots are not really for me with getting candids as I don't like the fact there's so much guesswork and luck involved and you don't have as much control over the image. What I wanted to know is how brazen are you all with your street photography? And does anybody have any tips for getting close in with SLRs or DSLRs without attracting too much attention to yourself and potentially disturbing a scene?

Lastly - where do you all stand on the distance thing I've mentioned above? Is it possible to really connect with a photo of somebody that is taken from far away?

p.s. I do use a telephoto lens every now and again but the more photos I view the more I *think* I can tell if the photographer was clearly slap bang in the middle of things, which I prefer.

[tsienni]

It surprised me that someone else underwent almost the identical mental process as I did.

Glad you raised the question. Personally I have come to view these two ways of doing street photography apples and pears. To me they would end up in two photographic genres. If I compose a large scene from afar, it's rather like I'm doing a landscape in the broad sense of the word. If human subjects appear therein, they are but ingrediants of the picture which is the final entity.

On the second type, I come to be a firm believer in the tradition, though. I didn't take too seriously the approach of being close to the subjects until recently. But it really has no turn-around on this, as simple as that. Form is important to make photography as a fine art, but at the end of the day it probably doesn't even matter so much as human emotion.

Another consideration: one strange thing about photos is that, for the viewer, oddly it may seem, circumstances under which photos are made always find their way to show up in the photos. Hence the final impact photos exert.

I don't know if my chaotic thoughts make sense or not. Lately I'm editing this series ( http://www.pbase.com/tsienni/refugee ) To be honest this is the best photographic experience I've ever had myself. So I had some intense reflections afterwards.

Thanks, Stu, for sharing your ideas on this board. I only wish I have a clear answer but I don't.

[jdepould]

http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/How_to/hd_Lesson_3/_Shoot_the_Street.html

and to reinforce the anti-telephoto thing. . . http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Pontification/n_Telephoto_Is_For_Wimps/a_Telephoto_Is_For_Cowards.html

two great articles about street photography.

[sean_mcr]

Stu as the Smiths track goes

Shyness is nice, and
Shyness can stop you
From doing all the things in life
You'd like to

You're not alone in being shy, in fact your in good company. Robert Frank was painfully shy. Yet he overcome that to create The Americans, a body of work that changed so many things in this art.

If you're doing something out of apprehension of doing what you really want to do then ultimately you're going to feel like you're settling. You're going to have to overcome the shyness if you shoot it in the way you really want to.

Anything born out of fear will almost always show in the photo in the same way something born out of love will. Where something comes from often determines where it ends.

Have a read of this interview

http://www.popphoto.com/popularphotogra ... wnlow.html

then go to his gallery

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pinkheaded ... antraffic/

Then his forum
http://www.johnbrownlow.com/streetphoto/index.php



By the way, i chose Dublin over London or we'd have had that pint

[sean_mcr]

Ah the old teles are for cowards debate, it's run and run that one. Though i do agree that much of it is true, i have to say that his street photography blows goats.


Stu


http://www.johnbrownlow.com/phb/techniq ... ssone.html

[jimcritchley]

I think you may have answered your own question in that as you take more pictures you become less aware of your own presence. I too find it a little bit weird taking pictures of people in the street, but then it depends what you want out of the image. I found it was easier to lose yourself in crowds in London and therefore get more candid shots of people and the surroundings, if there are less people around and you want a closer image of a person then you may have to bite the bullet and ask (which then may result in a pose!).

[stuegan]

Thanks for the responses and for taking the time to reply - they made for some interesting reading (I haven't read through or looked at all of the links yet, but will do when I have time later today or tomorrow).

I should really clarify - I'm not shy to the point where I wouldn't ever ask for a photo or put myself in a situation where, in a broad sense, being a photographer or taking a photo was a problem for someone, but I have missed photos as a result of hesitation or not going close up enough to something or someone. Sean, I think you have hit the nail on the head when you say 'you feel like you're settling' - that's exactly how I feel about it, and what Tsienni says about not turning back once you get in the habit of getting in close has confirmed to me that I need to start doing that as much as possible.

Anyway cheers again, some food for thought which is what I wanted.

[pikkabbu]

Interesting post.

To be or not to be within the action ?

Bruce Gilden, from Magnum, a one I admire very much, said:
"I'm known for taking pictures very close, and the older I get, the closer I get."

I started shooting in the streets with a 200mm, no more than a couple of days. I felt as a voyeur, from out of the action. Most of my street photos are now shoot with a Tokina 12-24mm.

I developped (practising home and in the garden) the hability to select the focal lengh and adjust the framing in a "John Wayne's way", I mean with camera at hip (and I don't use to crop).

I stay in the middle of the site where I want to shoot, walking around, slowly, blending with the environment.

I feel like part of the people I photography, not as a stranger.

Some photos mine here: http://www.pbase.com/pikkabbu/sociales

thanks 4 this message.

pik

[simplephotography]

I started at 300mm, and now I mainly shoot at 17mm. Now, my images are a lot more speaking.

300mm:



At 17mm (real close):



They are not the best, but it gives an idea of how I've evolved.
Shooting at 17mm is easy, because people often don't even know they're in the picture, because of the wide angle.

[heffa]

I love the discussion in this thread. I'm very interested in street photography -- capturing people doing what people do -- but appreciate the challenges involved. The info here is very helpful!

[andrys]

I started at 300mm, and now I mainly shoot at 17mm. Now, my images are a lot more speaking...

They are not the best, but it gives an idea of how I've evolved.
Shooting at 17mm is easy, because people often don't even know they're in the picture, because of the wide angle.

Not sure what you're going for, but for me as just a viewer, the first one,
despite the shadow/highlights problems, is very striking and does say
something to me. It grabs me, and I love the expression in the man whose
face we see. Getting that 'close' with the spontaneous warm, communicating
expression you captured has a lot of impact for me at least.

[pikkabbu]

A good tele photo remains a good telephoto.
And Simplephotography's 1st one is good thanks to these two interesting men.

Let me try a couple of example of close up photo.
The 1st one with 18mm focal





the next one with the loved Tokina 12-24mm. This man was explaining us how and where to take a good photo in this town.




I feel that telefoto is a way to portrait someone in the crowd, and some are really good. Anyway, I've better to be a part of the crowd, part of the action, somthing like taking wedding photos being familiar of the bride.



pik

[sean_mcr]

I've been following this photographers work for a couple of years now Stu and i think his style will really appeal to you. As he can really balance a subject with its environment. If he's close it's for a reason, if he's at a distance it's for a reason, but never due to restrictions.

http://stefanski.one.pl/~alkos/pixelpos ... p?x=browse

There's a shot every day. He's pretty mischievous and there's humour and black comedy in his work, not to mention beauty

[blondeanarchy]

Interesting thread and a question I've been thinking about myself. I've only been regularly taking street pictures for about six months, but at the beginning I was reluctant to take close candids and used nothing but telephoto lenses for distance shots.

Now I have less patience with telephoto and find that my street candids are much more interesting if I'm very close to the subject. Keep in mind that I'm a total amateur so my opinion shouldn't carry much weight at all, but I do think both methods have their uses. I certainly wouldn't call someone who prefers telephoto a "coward".

You can see my own street photos here for examples of both.

[simplephotography]

Interesting thread and a question I've been thinking about myself. I've only been regularly taking street pictures for about six months, but at the beginning I was reluctant to take close candids and used nothing but telephoto lenses for distance shots.

Now I have less patience with telephoto and find that my street candids are much more interesting if I'm very close to the subject. Keep in mind that I'm a total amateur so my opinion shouldn't carry much weight at all, but I do think both methods have their uses. I certainly wouldn't call someone who prefers telephoto a "coward".

You can see my own street photos here for examples of both.

So why wouldn't your opinion count just as much as anyone else's? Because you have less experience?
Let me tell you that I learn every day. I get lots of mail from beginning street photographers, who want to know certain things about my own work. Well, they often have very fresh ideas. They are full of motivation and enthousiasm. Anyone who says that your opinion is less valuable because you only start out, is too high with his nose in the clouds. I just adore to spend time with beginning street photographers. They inspire me all the time.