Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Fine_Art on December 05, 2015, 01:27:28 am
-
I think of Street as "fish in a barrel" photography; the main thing you need for an undisturbed manner in the subject, is a long lens. I have a 24-600mm equivalent lens camera that uses a tablet as a focusing/ control system. You can do portraits from half a block. The lens opening is about the size of a quarter. It is basically beyond subject detection. Do I use it for people? No. It is my cheap tele until I get a good long lens on the Nikon mount.
Most people seem content with cell phones. I can't stand those cameras. You get wide angle distortion. There is no 135mm portrait lens for cell phones as far as I know. Selfie, fine. In your face photography, not fine.
IMO street is completely in the realm of the 1080p or 4K video cameras now. The lenses are beyond detection, take your pick of any 60 fps frame you like, people can, and soon will, start recording everywhere they go. You see 1080p car cams, anyone can walk the streets recording all day in 4K video. Front and back. Privacy is over.
-
I agree about the long lens but not about the 24-600 lens. A 14-150 on a mirrorless camera means you can shoot from a distance or you can set the lens for 35mm or 50mm equivalent. Imo flexibility is important. However I accept that I am in the minortity because most street photographers prefer primes and getting close to the action. David Gibson - London street photographer - stated in a book of his
http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2014/10/the-street-photographers-manual-by-david-gibson-re.html
that a prime is a must and the final image shouldn't be cropped, something that I have difficulty agreeing with. Joel Meyerowitz
http://www.in-public.com/JoelMeyerowitz
was advised by Robert Frank to not become involved in the "action " but stand back and let the "action" flow by you. In other words become a spectator. He done that and felt that his street photography improved. Like anything else there are many ways of shooting and you do what you feel is personally comfortable.
-
Maybe it's from years using standard and digital SLRs but I find cell phones extremely clumsy to use. I can get a shot off much faster with my Nikon then with a cell phone. To keep the weight down when we travel internationally I usually only take the 15-85 DX zoom with my Nikon D300 and maybe a 24mm prime. The clear advantage to using a zoom is you don't have to worry about moving closer or further from the subject. Most of the image captures are done with the zoom and when I look at the results in LR, I generally find that most fall in the 24-35 mm range.
-
In my opinion shooting with anything longer than normal lens is not street photography. It is too timid and cowardly.
One has to be inside the action and composition.
-
In my opinion shooting with anything longer than normal lens is not street photography. It is too timid and cowardly.
One has to be inside the action and composition.
No flexibility in your thoughts?
-
Most people seem content with cell phones. I can't stand those cameras. You get wide angle distortion. There is no 135mm portrait lens for cell phones as far as I know. Selfie, fine. In your face photography, not fine.
The wide angle distortion you refer to is not caused by the mobile phone but by the distance from the subject you are located. Stay at the same distance from the subject as with your DSLR and 135mm and no mobile phone will produce any distortion. Of course you'll have to face two new issues: digital zoom (to achieve the 135mm equivalen FOV) and the ability to focus and shoot a mobile phone from such distance.
Regards
-
Isn't it strange how there is always a moral obligation to create a subset of 'rules' to the arts...
It's a genre I'm neither happy shooting nor much good at, probably because I'm really rather shy and unwilling to confront people - even if I know them well; I prefer to avoid unpleasantness of all kinds, if I can. However, those that do it brilliantly (shoot street!) and without causing damage to others do deserve admiration, if only because they are actually out there doing something instead of dreaming about doing whatever their something might be.
It strikes me that the genre is not really all that easy to place as genre. People oft refer to HC-B et al. and their work as if their era was the same as the one we face today: it isn't; not even remotely. The pace of life is vastly different, the actual people-types that made up a lot of the classical genre subject matter no longer exist and have been replaced as subject by addicts etc. If you look at any of the old masters' books (I speak of the Paris-based original matrix), you really see nothing of the kind: you see normal working-class sorts doing their normal blue-collar thing, or perhaps a sly dig is being made at the expense of the rich in some formal gathering or another, at which stage you must not forget that a lot of those photographers worked primarily for very leftish magazines, even HC-B, who was personally far from poor. On the whole, there seems a very clear absence of photographer malice, but depending on just how far back you care to place that dividing line, some definite changes come about - especially in the USA scenario.
I suppose that I'm really thinking, here, about the visual aggression that the extremely close 28mm work of Klein etc. shows. Yes, I do admire Klein for his nerve, his eagle eye and also very much for his fashion stuff, but I don't think the one totally excuses the other. And, as I noted about the differences, Klein is American. I think the American ethic is an entirely different one and so in-your-face that it can hurt. Which leaves the Brits (see? no offence in that abbreviation: I use it about myself!) out on a limb somewhere, not entirely sure to which group they want to belong, or whether they are indeed strong enough in volume to make up an entirely independent grouping of their own.
This, of course, leads to the next problem: what to do with street images once you have a collection of good ones? Is a book the answer? Who will publish it unless you are Magnum-sponsored? Are successful street books successful because of their images or because of the real or imaginary 'magic' created by the constantly churned publicity surrounding their authors?
Perhaps street, after all, is just another personal delusion; a dream of times past and a futile battle to recreate what's no longer there, critical (as well as much personal) acceptance being given to anything that remotely mimics what went before?
Isn't it a bit like Hollywood suddenly thinking of making its movies in black and white?
Rob C
-
Thx, Guillermo.
Good points Rob. I think part of the reason photogs in the US feel free being more agressive, is their laws are more toward free speech than privacy in the public domain ( public places) than Commonwealth countries.
The old days required far more skill. You might go out with 3 rolls of film, needing to make the most of each shot. Decide, compose, shoot, instantly was a learned skill. Now a person can drink their latte, while their gopro records everything.
-
(see? no offence in that abbreviation: I use it about myself!)
Why would there be offence in an abbreviation you choose to use about yourself?
otoh when others choose names to call you… see?
(But you already know, and choose to cause offence for your own amusement.)
-
As ever arrive late to the party but I am quite shocked that this is even being discussed. It surely doesn't matter what focal length you use, the image will dictate this. If I had the time which I don't right now I am sure I could find classic street shots taken with long and short lenses. It's the photograph that counts and if compressed perspective is required then a long lens will be selected.
If you're using a long lens to avoid the possibility of the subject reacting then maybe you're letting the lens dictate the image?
I have mixed feelings about these really in your face street guys with their very wide angle lenses it seems invasive and disrespectful. I admire Martin Parr's works amongst others as he seems to get a good balance of 'being there' and not invading. I saw some guy at the Columbia Road flower market use both flash and what must have been a 20mm lens lean into the face of a guy in a wheelchair which just seemed plain wrong. If you tried that in my local town Kidderminster you'd be lucky to walk away. These London folks though.
Mike
-
The reason we feel the need to define "rules" is so that "words" have "meanings"!
If we allow "street photography" to mean anything at all, then we might as well drop the word "street"
But such is the evolution of language. All words converge, eventually, toward a sort of meaningless grunt as new words arise with actual, albeit temporary, meaning.
-
I have mixed feelings about these really in your face street guys with their very wide angle lenses it seems invasive and disrespectful. I admire Martin Parr's works amongst others as he seems to get a good balance of 'being there' and not invading. I saw some guy at the Columbia Road flower market use both flash and what must have been a 20mm lens lean into the face of a guy in a wheelchair which just seemed plain wrong. If you tried that in my local town Kidderminster you'd be lucky to walk away. These London folks though.
Mike
Lol, having shot in Columbia Road a few times myself, I agree. I much prefer the hang-back approach using something in the 50-100mm range. "In your face" isn't cool at all, imho. Maybe the clue is in the name. If the shot doesn't show something of street life, or at least an environment of some kind, then maybe it's another kind of photography, portraiture perhaps. That's the point of wider angles, isn't it (?): to show some context, even if only a few other people rather than a large, distorted face in the frame. Anyway, I much enjoyed the article.
-
Why would there be offence in an abbreviation you choose to use about yourself?
otoh when others choose names to call you… see?
(But you already know, and choose to cause offence for your own amusement.)
Hands up, all you Brits, who feel offended being called Brits!
;-)
Rob C (British beyond doubt - check the passport!)
-
No flexibility in your thoughts?
Like Isaac says above, there have to be certain rules to make definitions work. For me "street photography" has something to do with dynamics and action and composition including apparent movement vectors, eye directions etc. You can not call just any photograph taken in town a "street" photograph. Many photographs also here marketed as "street" are really just still lifes and portraits (if not just boring snaps converted to artsy B&W or taken with Leica Monochrom). Is a landscape which has a little bit of street in it a "street photograph"? Actually a "street photograph" really can be taken in the countryside, if it conforms to the rules of dynamic composition and decisive moment. That is the way I see it.
-
Hands up, all you Brits, who feel offended being called Brits!
As before -- Why would there be offence in an abbreviation you (plural) choose to use about yourselves?
otoh when others choose names to call you (plural)… see?
But you (Rob C) already know that, and you (Rob C) choose to cause offence for your own amusement.
-
I take no offence at Brit but usually say English (which I am) or from the UK. I'm not sure every culture would be familiar with Brit. Can't see the French using it. I can live with Pom and Limey if I have to :)
What does distress me is being mistaken for a German when abroad. How on earth can anyone not see I'm as British as the most British thing you can think of? Possibly Rob C for example :)
Mike
-
I take no offence at Brit but usually say English (which I am) or from the UK. I'm not sure every culture would be familiar with Brit. Can't see the French using it. I can live with Pom and Limey if I have to :)
What does distress me is being mistaken for a German when abroad. How on earth can anyone not see I'm as British as the most British thing you can think of? Possibly Rob C for example :)
Mike
I was once mistaken by a local Spanish girl I was trying to get to model for me, as being French! She thought my Spanish had a French accent. My French accent, when I try to use what I can remember from school, sucks... go figure. In truth, pretty much all the local folks are able to start brief 'buy this' conversations with 'foreigners' (is that un-PC too? Isaac, help me on this one!) in either German or English, and they generally get it right. I think it's a combination of eye-colour and facial features lending some overall identity conception to the local folks upon which they make their instant call. I think Germans generally appear a bit taller and heavier built - perhaps not so much of the blonde and blue eyes, though, except for some of their women and children whom I often mistake for visiting Scandinavians. I'd hate to carry the responsibility of a border guard... maybe that's why they all shrugged, gave up, and just went home for breakfast.
Rob C
-
The most exotic mis-guess of my origin was Luxembourgeois. I was riding up a hill with the French cyclist who made the guess, but clearly he didn't mistake me for one of the Shleck bothers...
Having just read the article, which is refreshing for its lack of artificial definitions, the thought occurs that one can do street photography in non-street locations. I've photographed friends of friends at parties in a way that would meet the requirement of capturing the subject as he or she is, rather than posing. No I don't use a flash, I've always hated being shot with a flash and I wouldn't expect anyone else to appreciate it, and I'm not about to carry a 1m soft-box about with me :-)
The other advantage is that I can usually contact the subject to ask if he or she objects to me using the photo...
(This is Julie Cherki, herself a photographer)
-
I'm not sure every culture would be familiar with Brit. Can't see the French using it.
No, you'd be un rosbif (roast beef), but that's better than being called an "anglo-saxon", the all-purpose dismissal of anything perceived of as being from the English speaking world :-)
-
The most exotic mis-guess of my origin was Luxembourgeois. I was riding up a hill with the French cyclist who made the guess, but clearly he didn't mistake me for one of the Shleck bothers...
Having just read the article, which is refreshing for its lack of artificial definitions, the thought occurs that one can do street photography in non-street locations. I've photographed friends of friends at parties in a way that would meet the requirement of capturing the subject as he or she is, rather than posing. No I don't use a flash, I've always hated being shot with a flash and I wouldn't expect anyone else to appreciate it, and I'm not about to carry a 1m soft-box about with me :-)
The other advantage is that I can usually contact the subject to ask if he or she objects to me using the photo...
(This is Julie Cherki, herself a photographer)
I've only been to Lux. once: an IWS shoot on which I temporarily lost my exposure meter (left on a doorstep) but had it returned, on my own return to the scene of the disaster, by a kind lady whose doorstep I'd stepped - thinking the place empty, no doubt. I therefore have a great general regard for the Luxers, their honesty, and especially for their old and reasonable concept of banking. We need more of the same!
Rob
-
No, you'd be un rosbif (roast beef), but that's better than being called an "anglo-saxon", the all-purpose dismissal of anything perceived of as being from the English speaking world :-)
Okay; some French expressed with a Mallorcan accent:
Rob C
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/465173_orig.jpg)
I pass this brave little fight for life almost every day. I imagine an old lady just hangin' on in there, but it could be anybody else at all.
-
So here's my effort from this afternoon, I don't think I unduly disturbed the subject
-
Although last night I got a bit closer...
-
Although last night I got a bit closer...
Nice one! Looks happy, which in the circumstances, is great!
Je suis Paris!
Rob
-
Well, at least Lyon :-) Normally, 8 december is the Festival of Light... to thank the Virgin for saving Lyon from the plague some time in the 15th century, while neglecting to save most of her competitors in the silk industry. Traditionally, this involved people putting candles in their windows on the night of the 8th... but over the last 20 years it has blown out into a massive 4-5 night son-et-lumière, with 4 million people packed into the city (usual population 1 million...). A couple of years back I spent an hour trying to walk across a 4 lane bridge towards the city centre, the crush of bodies was so dense. I gave up, you needed to arrive mid afternoon.
This gives some idea pf what goes on at one of the major sites... but it's the whole city, and of course no access control at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG9IE_4kFVA
It doesn't take much imagination to think what a few nut cases with guns and suicide vests could do ... :-(
So for this year it has been cancelled, but there were enough remnants already installed that the locals came out for a look :)
-
Thanks for the link: now sent to my daughter who spent time in France during her uni days. My offspring, and generations of, seem to have had more opportunities of enjoying that country than have I!
Seems to me those types of shows are far more interesting to watch than the expensive showers of sparks that all countries feel obliged to present at the break of each new year...
Rob
-
Nice one! Looks happy, which in the circumstances, is great!
Je suis Paris!
Rob
Here is my street scene from Paris taken last May when we were on holiday. Taken with my 16-85 zoom at 35mm, f8, 125th sec exposure
Alan
-
Just along from there is an excellent bookstore, where one can buy this extremely useful book:
-
Okay; some French expressed with a Mallorcan accent:
Rob C
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/465173_orig.jpg)
I pass this brave little fight for life almost every day. I imagine an old lady just hangin' on in there, but it could be anybody else at all.
Hi Rob,
I totally missed this...Love the mood the light and your memory.
Peter
-
Just along from there is an excellent bookstore, where one can buy this extremely useful book:
Are they still only partially covering the person? I like the idea of open air, for reasons of hygiene, but not of trying to contain retain a facial expression of absolute indifference if on display; I image only a native could crack that one. Or am I thinking of Italy? It all becomes one...
Rob
-
Hi Rob,
I totally missed this...Love the mood the light and your memory.
Peter
Thank you Peter; trouble is, I am finding that I get more and more drawn to the darker side of living. It's perhaps a result of the change in the season: winter is here without a doubt, and though the sun shines during part of the day, it gets dark far too early and the apartment freezes the moment the sun goes down. Yes, I heat it, but the structure is breeze block, and the only insulation is ant colonies. Whatever heat is inside instantly passes right through to help the garden. Insanity; architectural vandalism, and should be open to prosecution. We need a class action! Small chance - everybody is hand in glove.
Rob C
-
Are they still only partially covering the person?
No, almost all the old pissoir are gone... now they have these super-sophisticated space capsules which steam-clean themselves between uses. Which means a minimum 10 minutes per person, long queues and the homeless piss next to them... who can blame them. I've seen tourists in Montpellier squeezing in 3 at a time out of desperation. Another example of French detachment from reality I'm afraid, the politicans who make the decisions have never used one :(
Anyway, here's a shot of the café at the head of Canal St Martin, Place Stalingrad, 7th November... (yeah, cropped, I'll be struck down by lightning).
-
Just along from there is an excellent bookstore, where one can buy this extremely useful book:
Also available as an app. Quite entertaining as well as life-saving.
-
Paris street photo. Literally 8)
-
My temptation would have been to turn it quickly through 180° because the primary, more interesting feature is figuring out what the books are.
The secondary feature is sussing out what some women carry in their handbags that makes them so large (the bags - or is that still too ambiguous?). This is also better contemplated, I do believe, from the bird's eye view (shudder!) that our woman enjoys as well. It lends logic to her selective process.
The altered perspective would add an exciting degree of visual unease, which can do no harm at all.
Rob C (In pensive mode, and after much deliberation.)
-
My temptation would have been to turn it quickly through 180° because the primary, more interesting feature is figuring out what the books are.
Thanks for the suggestion - that's more or less within my editing skills :-)
-
figuring out what the books are.
You are such a nostalgic romantic person. Those are DVDs…
Image does not have much to do with "street".
-
You are such a nostalgic romantic person. Those are DVDs…
Image does not have much to do with "street".
And here I was, dreaming of sweet little "poche" editions of classical books on 'street' heroes... how everything turns to modern dust!
;-)
Rob C
-
Not the Café de Flore, but as close as I can get without a super-super-tele.
Rob C
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/4947292_orig.jpg)
-
Not the Café de Flore, but as close as I can get without a super-super-tele.
Rob C
I have to say Rob, you are producing some very intriguing bw images. The last few have a strong sense of mystery.
JR
-
I have to say Rob, you are producing some very intriguing bw images. The last few have a strong sense of mystery.
JR
I agree.
As for the latest one, I had no idea you were photographing in bars as long ago as 1919. :D
Eric
-
I have to say Rob, you are producing some very intriguing bw images. The last few have a strong sense of mystery.
JR
Hi, JR, I enjoy doing this sort of picture - not as much as I did model stuff, but, in its own way, it's also quite a giggle.
Thanks for the comment!
Rob C
-
I agree.
As for the latest one, I had no idea you were photographing in bars as long ago as 1919. :D
Eric
I was never one to waste an opportunity for a free drink!
Perhaps that's why, now, I can't have any more of them beyond that miserable glass of daily red! Weekends - well, Sundays - I cheat: with my home-made paella I indulge in a glass of Viña Sol. Delightful! I used to have Saturday lunch at home too, with the white, but am well on the road to abandoning that: the dishes, the pots; what a bore and how long it takes to clear the decks. So long, in fact, that I leave it until the very last thing before retiring, and often think I'm not going to have the courage to keep on, that I will end up facing them at breakfast. So far I have held on to my nerve and gone to bed with a clear kitchen if not always a clear conscience. Can't have everything.
Rob
-
Get a small dishwasher. Life is too short to wash pots and pans :) You can a nice slim one that works well for a limited number of plates etc.
-
Get a small dishwasher. Life is too short to wash pots and pans :) You can a nice slim one that works well for a limited number of plates etc.
Not on your life! Here, water costs a fortune, the obligatory Calgon costs another one, and the exercise from washing said dishes helps me sleep! It's a matter of boring oneself to sleep; safer than popping yet more little helpers.
Thought this might indicate the kinds of places where I do not have lunch:
A wealthy Jewish husband and his wife were having dinner at an upscale
restaurant when this absolutely stunning young woman comes over to their
table, gives the husband a big open mouthed kiss, then says she'll see him
later and walks away.
The wife glares at her husband and says, "Who the hell was that?"
"Oh," replies the husband, "she's my mistress."
"Well, that's the last straw," says the wife. "I've had enough, I want a divorce!"
"I can understand that," replies her husband, "but remember, if we get a
divorce it will mean no more shopping trips to Paris, no more wintering in
Barbados, no more summers in Tuscany, no more BMW in the garage and
no more yacht club. But the decision is yours."
Just then, a mutual friend enters the restaurant with a gorgeous babe on his arm.
"Who's that woman with George?" asks the wife. "That's his mistress," says
her husband.
“Ours is prettier," she replies.
-
“Ours is prettier," she replies.
;D
Shame you weren't there to capture the moment of that first kiss :)
-
;D
Shame you weren't there to capture the moment of that first kiss :)
I would have blown it; left with my own mouth open.
Rob
-
This is about as 'street' as I ever get.
-
That's a very strange installation; if it was white, great capture of tones!
Truth to tell, it seems to have more surprise as a smaller image - before you can get the full idea of what you're looking at - seems like a floating veil or something light and breezy, just above the couple. Maybe you could try disconnecting it's earthly base, and making it look disembodied...
Rob
-
Huddle.
Rob
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/6507760_orig.jpg)
-
This is a very "dark" image...crypt like.
Peter
-
This is a very "dark" image...crypt like.
Peter
I find myself there a lot these days - these creatures just leap out at me all the hot dam time. Perhaps it's a reflection (NPI) of the winter: all those empty and closed shops that prove they have no valid reson to exist other than to relieve the honest tourist of his/her money - in return for which they don't even get old rope. Somehow, the lack of natural sustainability for those sorts of ventures appears a sign of their dishonesty. The crap trade. They probably run a publicly-funded course at university for it. But you have to wait six weeks to see a specialist at the local hospital.
Rob C
-
Slow suicide.
Rob C
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/1346121_orig.jpg)
-
Slow suicide.
Rob C
Now the words are dark...
Peter
-
Now the words are dark...
Peter
And the nights grow ever longer, the darkness creeping down earlier until the coming Solstice changes everything.
I went out to change a bulb at the beginning of the garden path today; the bloody thing just broke away in my hand, leaving its metal base in the Edison socket. Where it can damned well remain: I don't have insulated pliers and even less faith in the time switch. December; season of cheer.
Rob C
-
I prefer a (fixed) lens around 35mm and noramlly crop photos afterwards. I have no moral point of view for my choice, just a photography standing.
First; the focal lens does not change perspective, only the placement of camera. A short focal lens requires me to move closer to the main subject. For *me* the subjcet in street is allways something alive. By moving closer I change the perspective to highlight the main subject and "push" the background to the eeeeh, background. So a short focal lenght for me is a means to highlight main subject. I can do this by a longer focal lenght and short DoF, but this minimises the ablity to show the context of the main subject.
Another reason for me to have a short focal lenght is to get a relationship with subject by moving closer. Other prefer to not have such a relationship.
-
I prefer a (fixed) lens around 35mm and noramlly crop photos afterwards. I have no moral point of view for my choice, just a photography standing.
First; the focal lens does not change perspective, only the placement of camera. A short focal lens requires me to move closer to the main subject. For *me* the subjcet in street is allways something alive. By moving closer I change the perspective to highlight the main subject and "push" the background to the eeeeh, background. So a short focal lenght for me is a means to highlight main subject. I can do this by a longer focal lenght and short DoF, but this minimises the ablity to show the context of the main subject.
Another reason for me to have a short focal lenght is to get a relationship with subject by moving closer. Other prefer to not have such a relationship.
Which means you have become part of the scene and disturbed what you had visualized in the first place. If you had remained a spectator then the people in the scene would have been less aware of you and what you had seen in the first place would likely have remained intact. In a perfect world the photographer should be invisible and everything would remain "natural".
-
Which means you have become part of the scene and disturbed what you had visualized in the first place. If you had remained a spectator then the people in the scene would have been less aware of you and what you had seen in the first place would likely have remained intact. In a perfect world the photographer should be invisible and everything would remain "natural".
Yes, exactly :).
Sorry, I do not agree with you on "In a perfect world the photographer should be invisible and everything would remain "natural"". There is no such thing as an objective observer as soon as you make a photography. But I can agree to being a stronger director of the story to be told by establsihing a relationship. That is exactly my intention.
P.S. Modern science has for long left the idea that its possible to have someting "natural" or "intact". By observing the observer (being alive or not) interacts with reality and changes it.
-
I have had a look at your images. Very interesting. Imo the best ones are the images where the people aren't looking at you or in your direction. The ones where they are looking at you look posed and this is where I differ from your approach. I try to get images where I haven't been noticed and I feel this is what "street" is all about. BTW where are your B&W images. If you only do colour then you aren't really a street photographer. ;)
-
This is what it is all about. The photographer isn't trying to create a scene or be part of it. He is an observer of the scene.
https://www.lensculture.com/articles/eamonn-doyle-i-dublin-street-portraits?utm_source=fb-social&utm_medium=social&utm_content=ART-314&utm_campaign=EA15-ART#slide-22
-
I have had a look at your images. Very interesting. Imo the best ones are the images where the people aren't looking at you or in your direction. The ones where they are looking at you look posed and this is where I differ from your approach. I try to get images where I haven't been noticed and I feel this is what "street" is all about. BTW where are your B&W images. If you only do colour then you aren't really a street photographer. ;)
Thank you (if you refer to my photos)!
I'm not into taking photos i the hidden. To me it looks suspicious. But that's me, and I have no problem with other not sharing my point of view 8).
I have asked a few times if my photos where I make a relationship with subjects are "street". As far as I understand the opinions differ. I have no problem with calling them "people photography".
To *me* its about telling a story. Those posing are the story of a brief meeting. Quite few of my other photos where the subjects are not looking into camera are pictures where I have asked for permission or tried to be as open as possible about me photographing. Does this really make any difference?
As to B&W, I see the world in colors :)
-
As to B&W, I see the world in colors :)
You may be partly joking or not, but some very serious photographers think exactly the same way, and when you consider their pictures, you can understand why they believe as they do - quite apart from the obvious fact that we all see in colour - unless colour blind. It's a choice: sometimes it's based on subject but possibly also quite as firmly on psychology and feelings at the time. All external factors can 'colour' your emotional state. Photography is subjective, after all, and how the person feels is how they are at that moment.
Mostly, these days, I like messing around with b/w and that's what I tend to seek out on my wanderings. Yet, sometimes, regardless of what you think you are on the watch for, the opposite comes along as a present. It's up to you to accept or to reject.
Looking for gloom, I found this, a couple of days ago:
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/367494_orig.jpg)
Life is a gift, as are your opportunities; you mustn't deny them, ever.
Rob C
-
Which means you have become part of the scene and disturbed what you had visualized in the first place. If you had remained a spectator then the people in the scene would have been less aware of you and what you had seen in the first place would likely have remained intact. In a perfect world the photographer should be invisible and everything would remain "natural".
I don't really agree with this. It is perfectly possible for a photographer to be close to the actions and yet remains essentially invisible. I photograph children a lot and they can be completely immersed in their own world and not see things right next to them. Equally, I have seen people in the street warily eying a photographer across a street because he is furtively trying to shoot with a 200mm lens. Either method can work.
Jim
-
I found this, a couple of days ago:
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/367494_orig.jpg)
Life is a gift, as are your opportunities; you mustn't deny them, ever.
Rob C
Very nice. I like the ambiance that comes through in your image. There's a feeling of waiting for something to happen, of a pause in a situation taht is unfolding.
-
…quite apart from the obvious fact that we all see in colour - unless colour blind.
The colour blind see in colour, but they see fewer colours.
We all stop seeing in colour in low-light.
-
Very nice. I like the ambiance that comes through in your image. There's a feeling of waiting for something to happen, of a pause in a situation taht is unfolding.
Thanks - the reality of what unfolded was this: I missed the first shot I was trying to take because I drifted oof - and felt it! - (manual focus, of course), and then somebody passed on a bike and then by the time I was ready and focussed again, this guy in denim walked into frame and voilà! Far better with a little splash of blue to lift it. But I do my best to cheer people up all the time: I wear jeans...
;-)
Rob C
-
The colour blind see in colour, but they see fewer colours.
We all stop seeing in colour in low-light.
Until a few minutes ago I saw nothing in any colour at all: we had a power cut that lasted for ages. Lit a candle... fortunately, the bulb and battery in an old torch (flashglight) still worked long enough to find/fix the candle, put it into a wide plate, and walk back through to where I slouched into reverie on the couch - just like the proverbial potato. I found the torch because it lives in the office up and left of the computer, next to a speaker. I found it in Braille.
;-(
Rob C
-
@Rob C: Thanks for sharing! You are lucky or more likely trained to "see" in B&W. Honestly even now in dusky north of Norway with sun below horizon I see in beautiful blue colors and fails to "see" in B&W :)
@Jim Pascoe: I agree. But I don't think its being invisible. Imo its more becoming a part of the environment when being open about making photos as opposed to being a threat when lurking in the background. An example. Some time ago I was lucky to witness reindeer herding, and got the permission to walk inside the fences among the herders to photograph. The reindeer of course avoided me, but the sapmi more or less accepted me as a part of the landscape 8). Please see a few shots: Modern_Sapmi (https://www.flickr.com/photos/70952617@N07/albums/72157647227322103)
-
@Rob C: Thanks for sharing! You are lucky or more likely trained to "see" in B&W. Honestly even now in dusky north of Norway with sun below horizon I see in beautiful blue colors and fails to "see" in B&W :)
@Jim Pascoe: I agree. But I don't think its being invisible. Imo its more becoming a part of the environment when being open about making photos as opposed to being a threat when lurking in the background. An example. Some time ago I was lucky to witness reindeer herding, and got the permission to walk inside the fences among the herders to photograph. The reindeer of course avoided me, but the sapmi more or less accepted me as a part of the landscape 8). Please see a few shots: Modern_Sapmi (https://www.flickr.com/photos/70952617@N07/albums/72157647227322103)
Some beautiful motion images there! I really do like what you have achieved.
Seeing in b/white. It probably comes from fashion, where you have to be very aware of not losing clothes to backgrounds. There was no temptation to use filters to separate things: you could mess up colouring/patterns in clothes so easily trying that! The best way, I suppose, is to think of all colours being only shades of grey, and then taking care to avoid putting one similar grey in front of another. In other words, don't put pale pink in front of pale green or pale blue - they will look much the same. That's one reason so much studio fashion uses white background rolls. You can make the roll pretty much suit any colour of garment just by how much light hits the paper. But, you need a pretty large space for that to work properly; too small and the light just bounces everywhere and screws your best intentions.
Digital capture sure removes uncertainty about that! If you are Salgado, it also helps see whether 'greys' are too close.
Rob C
-
@Rob C: Thanks for sharing! You are lucky or more likely trained to "see" in B&W. Honestly even now in dusky north of Norway with sun below horizon I see in beautiful blue colors and fails to "see" in B&W :)
@Jim Pascoe: I agree. But I don't think its being invisible. Imo its more becoming a part of the environment when being open about making photos as opposed to being a threat when lurking in the background. An example. Some time ago I was lucky to witness reindeer herding, and got the permission to walk inside the fences among the herders to photograph. The reindeer of course avoided me, but the sapmi more or less accepted me as a part of the landscape 8). Please see a few shots: Modern_Sapmi (https://www.flickr.com/photos/70952617@N07/albums/72157647227322103)
Well strictly speaking I did not mean literally invisible, just not notable!
Jim
-
The colour blind see in colour, but they see fewer colours.
We all stop seeing in colour in low-light.
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=106445.0;topicseen
There is colour to be seen in this scene?
-
Thank you (if you refer to my photos)!
I'm not into taking photos i the hidden. To me it looks suspicious. But that's me, and I have no problem with other not sharing my point of view 8).
I have asked a few times if my photos where I make a relationship with subjects are "street". As far as I understand the opinions differ. I have no problem with calling them "people photography".
To *me* its about telling a story. Those posing are the story of a brief meeting. Quite few of my other photos where the subjects are not looking into camera are pictures where I have asked for permission or tried to be as open as possible about me photographing. Does this really make any difference?
As to B&W, I see the world in colors :)
When I stand away from people I am not trying to hide and I stand in plain sight and I am not trying to be furtive. What I don't do is approach people and ask for permission - I don't need it in UK law - and I don't invade their space hence I can't be accused of harassment. The exception to this is static political rallies where I get in among people and capture images. The participants don't mind photographers taking images and a lot of them expect it. Perfect "street" photography imo. There are many definitions of "street" and each photographer sees it differently.
-
Quote Reply#62
I don't really agree with this. It is perfectly possible for a photographer to be close to the actions and yet remains essentially invisible. I photograph children a lot and they can be completely immersed in their own world and not see things right next to them. Equally, I have seen people in the street warily eying a photographer across a street because he is furtively trying to shoot with a 200mm lens. Either method can work.
Jim
unquote
Are the children strangers to you? This is what I try hard to avoid because mothers in particular don't like a camera pointed at their children, especially close up. Standing far away isn't necessarily furtive but invading someone's space and blocking their movements is probably the most annoying thing. I try to look as is I am shooting the scene and nobody in particular which means I very rarely get spoken to and asked what I am shooting. Shooting close up is imo "problematic" and likely to cause the most offence.
-
Quote Reply#62
I don't really agree with this. It is perfectly possible for a photographer to be close to the actions and yet remains essentially invisible. I photograph children a lot and they can be completely immersed in their own world and not see things right next to them. Equally, I have seen people in the street warily eying a photographer across a street because he is furtively trying to shoot with a 200mm lens. Either method can work.
Jim
unquote
Are the children strangers to you? This is what I try hard to avoid because mothers in particular don't like a camera pointed at their children, especially close up. Standing far away isn't necessarily furtive but invading someone's space and blocking their movements is probably the most annoying thing. I try to look as is I am shooting the scene and nobody in particular which means I very rarely get spoken to and asked what I am shooting. Shooting close up is imo "problematic" and likely to cause the most offence.
Hi Stamper - they are often in schools where I am photographing. Sometimes they are engrossed in work or playing, or just daydreaming. But I have noticed the same thing with my own children years ago, and now grandchildren too. I think the point is that it is possibly to become 'invisible' even when you are quite close. But each photographer has to find out what works for them. Personally if I'm out and about and want to photograph someone I will often see what I want to shoot firsts, then communicate with them and get their acceptance, then shoot my pictures. Am I tampering with the scene? Yes, but the end result is the same - and that is important to me - I want my pictures to be real. If I can shoot un-noticed then I would do that too.
Jim
-
Never have a tourist fall in love with you; you'll inevitably break her heart.
Rob C
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/144872_orig.jpg)
-
Never have a tourist fall in love with you; you'll inevitably break her heart.
Rob C
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/144872_orig.jpg)
That little piece of mail sets the entire narrative...something is too late.
Peter
-
Hi Peter,
Yes, I quite enjoyed the experience! Made a change from an empty cup of coffee.
;-)
Rob C
P.S. Let's hope it's only the mail that was late!
-
Maybe I haven't posted this one before - maybe I have - memory...
Rob C
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/232326_orig.jpg)
-
Reflections from the street.
Rob C
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/8838232_orig.jpg)
-
From one lead ballon to another. But hell, it's Christmas tomorrow...
Rob C
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/2398417_orig.jpg)
-
You are such a nostalgic romantic person. Those are DVDs…
Image does not have much to do with "street".
The street occupies about 50% of the frame (which was the point of the visual "pun") so objectively speaking your comment is nonsense :-)
-
Off-street street.
Rob C
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/7170170_orig.jpg)
-
Just bought myself BRASSAÏ, POUR L'AMOUR DE PARIS from Blume publishers. Quite interesting, and another way of doing 'street' back when.
Strange how much of his work was nocturnal; coming from Brasso in Transylvania there may have been a family reason for that. Makes one wonder about myths, realities...
Rob C
P.S. On another kick, but connected:
http://www.horvatland.com/WEB/en/THE80s/PP/ENTRE%20VUES/Rubinstein/entrevues.htm
-
Strange how much of his work was nocturnal; coming from Brasso in Transylvania there may have been a family reason for that. Makes one wonder about myths, realities...
Rob C
It always goes back to the family...
Peter
-
It always goes back to the family...
Peter
It does; me too, because of my mother's influence when she dragged me off to art galleries when I was a kid. And my aunt, who had Vogue, Harper's Bazaar... and a Rollei. You either thank, blame or perhaps a bit of both. You really have no choices - you just think that you do.
Rob C
-
It does; me too, because of my mother's influence when she dragged me off to art galleries when I was a kid. And my aunt, who had Vogue, Harper's Bazaar... and a Rollei. You either thank, blame or perhaps a bit of both. You really have no choices - you just think that you do.
Rob C
Ever notice how all younger folk are all self made, until their kids grow up...
Peter
-
Ever notice how all younger folk are all self made, until their kids grow up...
Peter
+1. ;D
-
P.S. On another kick, but connected:
http://www.horvatland.com/WEB/en/THE80s/PP/ENTRE%20VUES/Rubinstein/entrevues.htm
A gem of a link, thanks Rob.
-
A gem of a link, thanks Rob.
No problem - happy to spread some good material. Here's the link to the entire collection of interviews:
http://www.horvatland.com/WEB/en/THE80s/PP/ENTRE%20VUES/multi.htm
Rob C
-
As I professed several times, I have neither talent nor interest for street photography. And yet here is one type that gets my heart racing (a Chicago street photographer - though Russ might argue she isn't):
http://theweek.com/captured/587253/shadows
-
As I professed several times, I have neither talent nor interest for street photography. And yet here is one type that gets my heart racing (a Chicago street photographer - though Russ might argue she isn't):
http://theweek.com/captured/587253/shadows
But she's still well-rooted in the past; she's only doing it crisper. Check out Saul Leiter.
Rob C
-
Part of the problem with 'street' lies in its definition: this ain't news - we've been here so often.
Perhaps the way to look at it is to realise that any tight definition is, ultimately, self-defeating. The genre has encompassed so many different people over so many years that it is a nonsense to say Joe is street but Jim is not, regardless off the fact that both work on the street. It seems to me that the traditional idea of street is confined to the close, confrontational as in Klein, possibly also in Frank; certainly so with Winogrand and somewhere in the middle with Joel M. Just for starters. Arbus? I don't think she's street at all: I think she was into something almost too personal and not in the least psychologically healthy, though that's not to say that none of the others verged on the obsessional too.
Some, such as my own favourite, Leiter, worked for years on the street but also did fashion; his street is beyond the confrontational: it is into the artistic, the appreciation of colour, of black and white, of blocks of tone. In short, he's a visual poet in a way that nobody in his right mind could describe much of what contemporary street seems to be. He was, of course, also a painter.
I look at my own few attempts at some part of the genre and try to figure out just where the hell it fits - if it does, if it could, or if I should even care about any of that. This is shot on the street; is it street; who knows?
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/6787143_orig.jpg)
All I can say is that I enjoy doing this kind of thing, more than I imagined that I might when I started just a few months or so ago – at least, that's how the personal time-frame seems to me right now. I might have started years ago – can't really see it, though.
But street awareness? That dates back to the 50s with the British magazine edited by Norman Hall, Photography. At the same time there was the American Popular Photography Annual and its sister, Popular Photography Color Annual. These three were originally more valuable (photographically and educationally speaking) to me than anything else; I kept them for years, right until we were leaving to settle in Spain, at which time I donated the collection to a Glasgow studio where, I suspect, they ended up as fillers for setting up and adjusting still life levels under some tartan cloth... I have no memory about what happened to my many years of Playboy.
If there's a single, powerful message that comes through to me, it's something upon which I have commented before: the best shooters of them all were Jewish. I have no sure idea why this might be, though my mind suggests that it comes out of hard experiences, a sense of never really belonging anywhere; the permanent voyagers and consequently, always distanced just enough to be astute observers.
Rob C
-
Part of the problem with 'street' lies in its definition: this ain't news - we've been here so often.
Yup.
I look at my own few attempts at some part of the genre and try to figure out just where the hell it fits - if it does, if it could, or if I should even care about any of that. This is shot on the street; is it street; who knows?
The way I see it, that's street.
All I can say is that I enjoy doing this kind of thing, more than I imagined that I might when I started just a few months or so ago – at least, that's how the personal time-frame seems to me right now. I might have started years ago – can't really see it, though.
I think there's something liberating about watching people move, waiting for a moment that you maybe don't yet know what will look like. There is some added spice from the frustration of "missing the shot" so many times because you weren't quick enough, or were looking the wrong way.
Sometimes, people are very predictably helpful, though.
(https://frettled.smugmug.com/Vacation/New-York-2013-05/i-Pc7DmPm/0/M/20130512-1772-M.jpg) (https://frettled.smugmug.com/Vacation/New-York-2013-05/i-Pc7DmPm/A)
Happy new year, people!
-
I haven't a clue about or an interest in defining 'Street Photography'. That said I love taking images from and of the street.
.
Hangdog, Morocco, 2015.
I love doing so, too, there's so much to see. And I love that photo!
-
Me too. I'd defintely print it & hang it on the wall
-
As I professed several times, I have neither talent nor interest for street photography. And yet here is one type that gets my heart racing (a Chicago street photographer - though Russ might argue she isn't):
http://theweek.com/captured/587253/shadows
Good is good, I don't care how it is categorized. Thanks for posting that link.