On Street Photography

[AlfSollund]

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  .

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 

[Rob C]

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:



Life is a gift, as are your opportunities; you mustn't deny them, ever.

Rob C

[Jim Pascoe]

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

[alainbriot]

I found this, a couple of days ago:



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.

[Isaac]

…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.

[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.

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

[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

[AlfSollund]

@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  . Please see a few shots: Modern_Sapmi

[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  . Please see a few shots: Modern_Sapmi

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

[Jim Pascoe]

@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  . Please see a few shots: Modern_Sapmi

Well strictly speaking I did not mean literally invisible, just not notable!

Jim

[stamper]

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?

[stamper]

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  .

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.

[stamper]

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.

[Jim Pascoe]

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

[Rob C]

Never have a tourist fall in love with you; you'll inevitably break her heart.

Rob C

[petermfiore]

Never have a tourist fall in love with you; you'll inevitably break her heart.

Rob C

That little piece of mail sets the entire narrative...something is too late.

Peter

[Rob C]

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!

[Rob C]

Maybe I haven't posted this one before - maybe I have - memory...

Rob C

[Rob C]

Reflections from the street.

Rob C

[Rob C]

From one lead ballon to another. But hell, it's Christmas tomorrow...

Rob C