Street photography

[unmtdrv]

I love to see street photos. I visit the Street and candid gallery on CS everyday so i was wondering how the pros and artists do it. I managed to find this YouTube clip showing how Bruce Gilden does it. He's a member of Magnum and that says a lot, but i dunno, take a look at the clip. I don't quite agree with his "style" of agressive shooting. :dunno:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkIWW6vwrvM

Simply brilliant, it takes that kind of effort to get those result.

 

[milamber]

Simply brilliant, it takes that kind of effort to get those result.

Here's a short interview he gave after the video was made of his "style" of photography:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWEzm2disjM

Apparently, Bruce Gilden believes in "getting into people's faces" as a style that works for him. He didn't seem very impressed with the person who shot using a telephoto lens.

 

[The Dry Box]

Magnum photographer, magnum attitude. Though there's too big a difference between the results of telephoto and wideangle pictures. Telephoto often makes good portraits, it brings focus to the character, and blur out the background. That's all to it really, you are capturing face, experssion, attitude, and maybe support it with a nice dreamy background. Telephoto compressed an image, and you'll usually see only whats behind the person though the background is usually not preserved. Wide angle captures what's around them, paying homage to the environment. That is perheps why the more hardcore crowds do not consider taking a portrait of a person with telephoto lens, as street photography.

If you have seen Bruce Gilden's "Facing New York", you'll notice that while the video shown him taking portraits, but he is taking a lot more than people. There's always something happening around them, and he seen to did something to the faces of the people while in the darkroom, usually distorting them maybe to express his idea.

PS: But of course a zoom lens remains a very variable option. It supports David Solomons style well when shooting across the road.

 

[milamber]

Magnum photographer, magnum attitude. Wide angle captures what's around them, paying homage to the environment. That is perheps why the more hardcore crowds do not consider taking a portrait of a person with telephoto lens, as street photography.

Yes, i've noticed some of this "attitude" while browsing through the many websites of street photographers. They seem to relish the idea of being able to come up close to their subjects to shoot. It's like a challenge and sign of photographic skill to be able to take wide-angle close up shots, while those who use telephotos are given more negative terms like "voyeur" or even "cowards". I'm of the opinion that these are just tools at your disposal to capture the moment and portray your vision of the scene. I don't like to be too prescriptive, saying that street photography should be like this or that. If a telephoto shot is what is needed, to compress the scene for example, then so be it!

Ok, now that we're inspired to take up street photography, it's very important to know our rights as street photographers. Take a look at this vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKl2sEN4yNM

 

[liquidityzero]

This is such an interesting thread!! Nothing is more accessible to us than the streets...& great information for everyone on the art of capturing better street photos. I vote this thread to be a sticky too!!

 

[Anjinnete Ross]

Wide angle captures what's around them, paying homage to the environment. That is perheps why the more hardcore crowds do not consider taking a portrait of a person with telephoto lens, as street photography.

There are portraits and there are portraits.

Take a good look again at those street portraits by street photographers, and see if you can tell the difference between one that is made with a tele lens and one that is taken with a 35 or 50 mm lens.

 

[Anjinnete Ross]

Yes, i've noticed some of this "attitude" while browsing through the many websites of street photographers. They seem to relish the idea of being able to come up close to their subjects to shoot. It's like a challenge and sign of photographic skill to be able to take wide-angle close up shots, while those who use telephotos are given more negative terms like "voyeur" or even "cowards". I'm of the opinion that these are just tools at your disposal to capture the moment and portray your vision of the scene. I don't like to be too prescriptive, saying that street photography should be like this or that. If a telephoto shot is what is needed, to compress the scene for example, then so be it!

Do you think that the reason for using a wide-angle lens is "bravado", a challenge?

Take a look again at the photographs, and again, and again, and again, and...

Then look yet again.. and see if it is all about bravado.

You can have your opinion, but be careful less you misrepresent others.

Ok, now that we're inspired to take up street photography, it's very important to know our rights as street photographers. Take a look at this vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKl2sEN4yNM

Instead of talking about "our rights". How about talking about "respect". You mean the subjects on the streets are there for your pleasure? You mean they have to obey you?

You should consider it a "privilege" that they allow you to photograph them!!

Why so legalistic?!

 

[The Dry Box]

There are portraits and there are portraits.

Take a good look again at those street portraits by street photographers, and see if you can tell the difference between one that is made with a tele lens and one that is taken with a 35 or 50 mm lens.

Yes there definitely is, as I had stated in the same paragraph. Unless you have a different opinion of course.

Instead of talking about "our rights". How about talking about "respect". You mean the subjects on the streets are there for your pleasure? You mean they have to obey you?

You should consider it a "privilege" that they allow you to photograph them!!

Why so legalistic?!

milamber comment sound pretty harmless to me. It is indeed a privilege to photograph anyone you want in public places, and I do not think he would think otherwise.

Yes, i've noticed some of this "attitude" while browsing through the many websites of street photographers. They seem to relish the idea of being able to come up close to their subjects to shoot. It's like a challenge and sign of photographic skill to be able to take wide-angle close up shots, while those who use telephotos are given more negative terms like "voyeur" or even "cowards".

It's not a challenge, more of a perspective imo. The difference I had pointed out before.

 

[milamber]

Instead of talking about "our rights". How about talking about "respect".

Precisely! I was referring to the way the photographer/videographer was disrespectfully treated in the vid. Do check it out. It's good to know what your legal rights are in such a situation as represented in the vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKl2sEN4yNM

 

[Anjinnete Ross]

milamber comment sound pretty harmless to me. It is indeed a privilege to photograph anyone you want in public places, and I do not think he would think otherwise.

A matter of opinions.

But to me, talking about MY RIGHTs, is not something that ia harmless. The insistence that it is MY RIGHTS to photograph you that is the cause of a lot of problems.

See the next post on my opinion on that video.

 

[Anjinnete Ross]

Precisely! I was referring to the way the photographer/videographer was disrespectfully treated in the vid. Do check it out. It's good to know what your legal rights are in such a situation as represented in the vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKl2sEN4yNM

Did you check out the video yourself? Look at it again, and yet again, and then again. And again.

He videoed the policeman and then continued to follow the policeman. In some way, he "hounded" the policeman. The policeman did not react when he was first photograph. But after being hounded, he did not like it, and put his hand to block the camera, and asked why he was photographed. His voice was certainly not aggressive in the beginning. But the photographer said that the policeman "assaulted" him. To me this was a plain lie. There was absolutely no assault. Was the camera damaged? Was there physical handling of the photographer?

Please, look at the video again before you continue on this things called "YOUR RIGHTS". Disrespectful? The photographer should be taken to task for falsely declaring that he was "assaulted"!

And I think you should be vary careful about what you wrote. Do not spread and perpetuate an untruth.

For your information, a policeman asked me why I photographed him. (still photo) I just told him that he looked good. We parted happy.

See what a little respect can do?

Instead of talking about "LEGAL RIGHTS"?

 

[mrchua]

Precisely! I was referring to the way the photographer/videographer was disrespectfully treated in the vid. Do check it out. It's good to know what your legal rights are in such a situation as represented in the vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKl2sEN4yNM

hmm what was wrong with how Simon started the petition? how come the interviewer asked if Simon regretted ever starting it? i didn't quite get that part..

 

[mrchua]

Did you check out the video yourself? Look at it again, and yet again, and then again. And again.

He videoed the policeman and then continued to follow the policeman. In some way, he "hounded" the policeman. The policeman did not react when he was first photograph. But after being hounded, he did not like it, and put his hand to block the camera, and asked why he was photographed. His voice was certainly not aggressive in the beginning. But the photographer said that the policeman "assaulted" him. To me this was a plain lie. There was absolutely no assault. Was the camera damaged? Was there physical handling of the photographer?

Please, look at the video again before you continue on this things called "YOUR RIGHTS". Disrespectful? The photographer should be taken to task for falsely declaring that he was "assaulted"!

And I think you should be vary careful about what you wrote. Do not spread and perpetuate an untruth.

For your information, a policeman asked me why I photographed him. (still photo) I just told him that he looked good. We parted happy.

See what a little respect can do?

Instead of talking about "LEGAL RIGHTS"?

hey mate, i get where you're coming from. i too agree that perhaps Simon was alittle out to aggravate the situation. to claim assault is overexaggeration. but you wouldn't want some random fella to touch or shove your camera would you? but back to the point, i guess whether or not we're allowed to film in accordance to the law, what is more important is one's ethics and principles. if i shot someone who really didn't wanted me to shoot him, or scowled at me, when reviewing the picture i'd be so disgusted with that subject and just delete it. personally for me, i'd much rather capture moments and people that bring out the best in human beings.

but i'm sure there are others who may differ. i'm just a hobbyist, so yeah. others who are involved with journalistic work or documentaries would be required to shoot even in poor conditions or shoot unwilling subjects. its their job, and they do have the right to go about doing what they do.

the law was made by men, and it can be altered. just look at the new terrorism laws. terrorists are being convicted and charged with crimes that they didn't even commit, just based on the fact that they had talked about it. the idea of a threat is enough to convict a person of terrorism. this is just an example at how legality has and can evolve with respect to other areas such as photography.

anyway, i believe milamber was just posting up an informative video on his part, to alert us of our rights as photographers.

 

[Yapster]

The photographers who emphasize more on people are Markus Hartel, David Brownridge and Richard Greene.

In terms of composition, I'll like to point out to another contact a my who post some very useful stuffs on dpreview. He is one of the few contacts I have who's landscape works I admire very much and is a constant inspiration. Normally, I don't enjoy landscapes as much, but he is exceptional.
He is Ian Bramham
A good street photograph is very much about composition despite some people thinking it's snapshots.

Paiseh guys, been busy editing my friend's wedding photo. And somehow, i am "quite" free now in office to surf surf a bit. (Tonight got to "OT" again. hehehe.)

Hehe, am looking at the previous links posted here.

Hmm, of the 4 shooters, i personally prefer the way Markus Hartel and Ian Bramham present their shots. Can see the effort in their PP, composition as compared to David Brownridge and Richard Greene. Just a personal preference though.

 

[Yapster]

Yapster: chey! =P
What you said is true actually, I am taking less pictures than I first started. For many reason though, it's bad. I should be taking more and filter the results since I am on digital, especially since the workflow is so much faster than film. There may be surprises within the bad shots sometimes.

Yup. It is like a roller-coaster . Initially, everything also shoot. Then the shots start to get lesser as you know what you really intend to shoot. And when you are use to what you really intend to shoot, the amount increases. And as times goes by, the number of shots really depends on your mood liao. Haha, my output are quite affected by my mood one leh.

HSCP isn't so in your face. A lot of it's photos actually stepped back more than most so call street photography groups I had seen. IE, if Markus Hartel on average work constantly 4 feet away from a subject, HSCP is much further back. HSCP struck me as a quality group where in every picture there is always something clever going on. My absolute favorite group to run a slideshow.

Oh, i was just quoting an example la.

 

[aquacocoa85]

Recently I made a trip down, or rather UP, to Russia and spent some time doing some street photography of Russian Faces. Trouble is, the culture there is very introverted. They don't wish to be in your photos and they are highly sensitive to cameras. It was crazy in the first 2 days coz I was stopped in Red Square 3 times by police officers because I was shooting photographs with a DSLR, and only till I decided to shoot from the hip and take a more freestyle approach to it, instead of eye level, then it worked. In the end, I managed to capture some really lovely shots with both a tiny film camera and my dslr.

Oh and before I forget, rangefinders are really helpful for such situations.

http://www.gluejuice.net/portfolio/street-photography-faces-of-russia/

 

[Anjinnete Ross]

hey mate, i get where you're coming from. i too agree that perhaps Simon was alittle out to aggravate the situation. to claim assault is overexaggeration....... but you wouldn't want some random fella to touch or shove your camera would you? .....anyway, i believe milamber was just posting up an informative video on his part, to alert us of our rights as photographers.

I think this whole issue arose because of at several things.

1 An insensitivity to the feelings of others. Look at the way the video was pointed at the policeman. The fact that the policeman could reach out his hand to block the camera showed how close he was. Think. How would we feel if someone shove a camera so close to our faces?

2 Then he accused the policeman of "assault" which was clearly rubbish. Then he talked about his RIGHTS!

3 You said that you wouldn't want some random people to touch or shove your camera. But you think it is OK for a random person (the photographer who appears out of nowhere?) to shove the same camera to your face? Is this policeman a random person, when the photographer singled him out to hound? Be fair.

The problem is what I call the UNHOLY TRINITY!

I, ME, MYSELF! That is all that matters! ????????

 

[Pokka]

Recently I made a trip down, or rather UP, to Russia and spent some time doing some street photography of Russian Faces. Trouble is, the culture there is very introverted. They don't wish to be in your photos and they are highly sensitive to cameras. It was crazy in the first 2 days coz I was stopped in Red Square 3 times by police officers because I was shooting photographs with a DSLR, and only till I decided to shoot from the hip and take a more freestyle approach to it, instead of eye level, then it worked. In the end, I managed to capture some really lovely shots with both a tiny film camera and my dslr.

Oh and before I forget, rangefinders are really helpful for such situations.

http://www.gluejuice.net/portfolio/street-photography-faces-of-russia/

You've captured some nice images in Russia. May i know ur settings when u shoot from the hip? Infinity focus F8? 1/60 ?

 

[liquidityzero]

I think this whole issue arose because of at several things.

1 An insensitivity to the feelings of others. Look at the way the video was pointed at the policeman. The fact that the policeman could reach out his hand to block the camera showed how close he was. Think. How would we feel if someone shove a camera so close to our face?

2 Then he accused the policeman of "assault" which was clearly rubbish. Then he talked about his RIGHTS!

3 You said that you wouldn't want some random people to touch or shove your camera. But you think it is OK for a random person (the photographer who appears out of nowhere?) to shove the same camera to your face? Is this policeman a random person, when the photographer singled him out to hound? Be fair.

The problem is what I call the UNHOLY TRINITY!

I, ME, MYSELF! That is all that matters! ????????

I think U need to take another look at the video again. From what I see...I see the cop walking over towards the videographer from out of the frame, and clearly the cops had intentions of speaking to him already, one approaching him from the right and one straight on. ALso note that as the cop is approaching him, he is using the telezoom range and starts to zoom out when the cop was within view. So you can't say that he shoved the camera into the cop's face when clearly this isn't the case. The cop mentioned, 'Can you tell me why you are filming.' Note that he did not say 'why you are filming ME'. Which would have made a lot of difference. Is it wrong for the chap standing at the corner of the streets to be stopped just for filming people? How many of us have walked past tourists or people holding a video camera and standing there filming as we walked past, and do you feel very violated by this action at all??

In any situation, I believe it is in our human nature to defend ourselves, even though at times we may be spurred to say the most ludicrous things. Imagine someone comes up to you, be it a normal person or a police officer, and shoves your camera away or back into your face. I WOULD consider that as assault to me. The impact of the camera & the viewfinder will hurt my eye & may cause serious injury if shoved hard. Hell, if the camera breaks I will definitely hound the person to compensate for damages to my property. If we know our rights, then what's the point of keeping quiet, even though you may be face on with a law enforcement officer, who clearly doesn't know his stuff.

 

[mrchua]

I think this whole issue arose because of at several things.

1 An insensitivity to the feelings of others. Look at the way the video was pointed at the policeman. The fact that the policeman could reach out his hand to block the camera showed how close he was. Think. How would we feel if someone shove a camera so close to our face?

2 Then he accused the policeman of "assault" which was clearly rubbish. Then he talked about his RIGHTS!

3 You said that you wouldn't want some random people to touch or shove your camera. But you think it is OK for a random person (the photographer who appears out of nowhere?) to shove the same camera to your face? Is this policeman a random person, when the photographer singled him out to hound? Be fair.

The problem is what I call the UNHOLY TRINITY!

I, ME, MYSELF! That is all that matters! ????????

lol.. no one is saying that it is. well, maybe only bruce gilden. ;p take it easy