Street Photography

No, definitely not!

1 (9.1%)

Generally no

4 (36.4%)

Maybe, depends on the circumstance

3 (27.3%)

Generally yes

1 (9.1%)

Yes, of course, why not?

2 (18.2%)

Total Members Voted: 10

Voting closed: March 05, 2011, 03:12:29 pm

[Stecyk]

If you saw interesting street photography images and then learned that they were created a photographer who used an extremely long lens or, alternatively, a camera and flash unit that was be triggered as he or she drove by, would that information influence your appreciation of his or her street photography?

Are there some general rules for street photography as to what is appropriate or inappropriate conduct?

Addendum: I am reading each response.  Because I don't want to influence your vote in the poll, I am not reacting to your comments.  I sincerely appreciate everyone who participates.  Once the poll has expired, I will comment.  Thank you.

[PhillyPhotographer]

As a street photographer myself part of the fun is to be in the middle of the action. I rarely use anything larger than 28mm. If an image is good it's good.

Most street photographers would calling using a 200mm or larger lens sniping.

If you see something while driving I see no reason not to take a photograph. If it's the only way you do it I might have to call it commuter photography. LOL

You mean using a flash Like Bruce Gilden  ?

[PhillyPhotographer]

Stecyk let me simplify this in two words.  NO RULES

[RSL]

The main problem with a long lens is that you end up with an unrealistically flattened perspective. Michael likes a quite short lens. I like a 50mm on a full-frame camera, though I sometimes use a 35mm. Nowadays I sometimes use an Olympus E-P1 with a 25mm lens on it, which gives me the equivalent of a 50mm on a full-frame. For the most part I keep a Leica 50mm bright-line finder in the flash shoe and use zone focus.

Why should there be a problem with shooting from a car? Walker Evans shot a lot of good stuff from the window of a moving train, and Garry Winogrand shot out of car windows. Lee Friedlander still does.

As far as Bruce Gilden is concerned, he ought to be prosecuted for giving street photography a bad name. (To back up a bit, so should William Klein.)

Certainly, there are no rules in street photography, but you can learn a lot about what's possible by studying the work of the masters.

[pegelli]

Stecyk let me simplify this in two words.  NO RULES

+1, but pls. note that the font size of my last two words is quite a bit smaller  

[Patricia Sheley]

+1, but pls. note that the font size of my last two words is quite a bit smaller  

Smiles come at the most unexpected moments.... When I saw Michael's  NO RULES   it felt as if he were yelling another rule...

[candide]

I pretty much agree with Russ on this issue. Using a shorter lens preserves more of a sense of involvement with the life unfolding before you. A really long lens tends to distance you both visually and emotionally. I primarily use a 35mm lens for my street work, although I've lately been experimenting with a fast 85mm lens in crowds.

[Stecyk]

I apologize for my late response.

To all those who did respond, I appreciate your efforts.  The poll is now locked.  Because I didn't want to influence the vote, I didn't vote.  But if I had voted, I would have voted Generally No.

By way of background, I am just an amateur photographer who has tried street photography.  I learned that I lack the confidence to carry a camera and point it at strangers without their permission.   So I admire those who do and even more those who can win over their subjects' trust.  I understand, of course, that the magic of street photography is that often the subject doesn't even know that his or her image is being captured. 

I also understand that in the U.S. and many others countries, even if the subject objects, the photographer has the right to capture and publish the image.  There are exceptions, of course, such as in the province of Quebec.  Please see Canada's Supreme Court decision here: Aubry v. Éditions Vice-Versa inc., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 591.

Could I use a long lens or drive-by with a photographic rig, including a flash, to snap pictures of unsuspecting people?  Yes.  But that, to me, seems somewhat predatory.  Even if the subject were to realize that his or her image were taken, there is absolutely no opportunity for the subject to voice his or her concern.  Even worse with the drive-by shooter, the subject might even be startled or alarmed by the flash.  Somehow that doesn't seem fair.

Given what I just wrote, why didn't I vote "No, definitely not!?"  That's a hard question to answer.  But I could easily imagine a student (or anyone) who took pictures from a train or subway.  She is "driving by", though probably without a flash. This photographer is just capturing images as she goes about her daily life.  I contrast that example with a person who rigs up his vehicle with camera and flash and zaps unsuspecting people as he drives by.  I am unable to articulate why I am okay with one and not the other.

I know my general feelings on the matter.  I was curious if others shared my views.  From the very small sample that responded, I see that I am my views are not extreme and are shared.  However, given the small sample size, I am reluctant to draw any conclusions.

I realize others have different views on this subject.  And I realize that this subject can easily draw passionate responses.  I have zero desire to go there.

To all those who read and responded to my survey, thank you.

[RSL]

Stecyk, Where did you get this thing about flash? Flash doesn't belong in street photography, which is one reason Gilden ought to be prosecuted.

How much time have you spent studying the work of real masters of street photography like Andre Kertesz, Robert Doisneau, Willy Ronis, Marc Riboud, Helen Levitt, Walker Evans, Elliott Erwitt, Garry Winogrand (who often used flash indoors, but not outdoors), Henri Cartier-Bresson, who never used flash, Robert Frank, Lee Friedlander or Steve McCurry, to name just a few? One of the primary objectives of most good street photographers is to avoid intruding on the scene. When people see a camera they pose. Once people are aware that you're shooting pictures you're out of business unless you intend to shoot posed pictures. Sometimes that's okay, but most of the time in street photography it's not okay.

If you want to do street photography, can the flash. Be as unobtrusive as you possibly can. Above all, be non-threatening and smile a lot. If somebody realizes you've taken their picture, show the picture to him and offer to email a copy. Because of the perspective problem the fact that the photographer used a long lens is obvious to anyone with eyes to see. Usually, but not always, you lose immediacy with a long lens.

To me, and to a lot of people, street photography is the most satisfying camera work there is. But you need to become familiar with the masters before you tackle it -- just as a writer or a painter or a musician needs to be familiar with great literature or great painting or great music to have a chance of doing good work in his field. Also, knowing what's possible can be a confidence boost when it comes time to point your camera at people. It sounds to me as if you'd like to tackle street photography. Why not study the masters for a while and then have at it? It's fun.

[Stecyk]

Stecyk, Where did you get this thing about flash? Flash doesn't belong in street photography, which is one reason Gilden ought to be prosecuted.

Where did I get this thing about flash?  It's right there in the poll question.

From your answer, it appears that you might have skipped over the flash part and thus your answer might change?

That aside, I wholeheartedly agree with everything else you've written.  Your comments reinforce my own internal beliefs.

I sincerely thank you for your comments.

[RSL]

Where did I get this thing about flash?  It's right there in the poll question.

Stecyk, Exactly. I wondered, and still wonder how it got into the poll question.

[John R Smith]

Well, Weegee used flash. A lot of flash. His stuff looks a lot like street photography to me.

John

[seamus finn]

Re the lens issue,  Robert Capa said if your photographs aren't good enough, you're not close enough.

[RSL]

Well, Weegee used flash. A lot of flash. His stuff looks a lot like street photography to me.

John

John, Arthur Fellig (Weegee) was a police reporter, not a street photographer. There's a big difference. Weegee shot the most sensational stuff he could find for the scandal sheets. An awful lot of his stuff was shot at night because that's when mafia families rubbed out their competition. In those days if you wanted to make a picture at night you pretty much had to use flash. Long exposures didn't work very well when the cops were swarming around the car with the cadaver inside.

[seamus finn]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, Russ, but isn't it suggested that Weegee was sometimes allowed bv the police to rearrange crime scenes into more photographically pleasing elements - obviously the CSI squad was a bit lax in those days! His early work practices were amazing - he used a 4x5 Speed Graphic camera preset at f/16, 1/200 of a second with flashbulbs, a set focus distance of ten feet and developed his photographs in a homemade darkroom in the back of his car

[LKaven]

Could I add Larry Fink into the mix to create a penumbra of vagueness around the flash question?  I'd say his work is a bit like "indoor street" given the way he works an event, often indoors, sometimes out.  This is a bit different from the Bruce Gilden confrontational style.  Using a snooted flash, Larry snatches moments out of the ether with stunning brilliance, without appearing to exploit his subjects for anything more than what they're giving up voluntarily.

[BenjaminKanarek]

I would suggest, keeping it honest, intuitive and instantaneous.  By this I mean, use your gut feeling and react to the circumstances around you to capture moments around you.