Old Street

[chez]

And you’ll end up in jail.

Plus you’ll get my personal award: The Neanderthal of the Year.

Jail, maybe. Being able to finish dinner out with my wife without some asshole with a camera in my face...priceless.

[petermfiore]

Jail, maybe. Being able to finish dinner out with my wife without some asshole with a camera in my face...priceless.

You could really enjoy and finish your dinner after such an event? I could't.

Peter

[KLaban]

The following is based on a reply I submitted elsewhere.

I guess we’ve all seen ’em, idiots sticking their cameras in people’s faces without so much as a thought on how that affects other’s sensibilities. Now that virtually everyone has some form of device at hand for capturing images it has become the norm. Hell, I’ve probably done it myself at times, but have never felt comfortable doing so: I know, I admit it, I am at times a hypocrite. If someone was to do the same to me they’d get a bunch of verbals, at least.

These days I’ll typically ask permission or at least be bloody sure that the subject/subjects are aware but uncaring. And yes, I know, permission alters the game, but rather that than cause offence.

Sometimes, we togs are our own worst enemies.

[RSL]

The world’s full of assholes with cameras, but that doesn’t mean we have to join the crowd. There’s a big difference between the guy who shoves a noisy DSLR with a giant lens in front of your face and bangs away and the guy who blends into the background and quietly, unobtrusively, even politely smiles and makes a shot with a small, black, quiet camera. The assumption in this thread seems to be migrating toward the idea that everyone doing street is a jerk. If you have any hope at all of doing successful street photography you’ve got to learn to blend in and be part of the background, not the howling foreground. That’s gonna mean missing a lot of shots, but that’s the price of doing it the right way.

[chez]

The following is based on a reply I submitted elsewhere.

I guess we’ve all seen ’em, idiots sticking their cameras in people’s faces without so much as a thought on how that affects other’s sensibilities. Now that virtually everyone has some form of device at hand for capturing images it has become the norm. Hell, I’ve probably done it myself at times, but have never felt comfortable doing so: I know, I admit it, I am at times a hypocrite. If someone was to do the same to me they’d get a bunch of verbals, at least.

These days I’ll typically ask permission or at least be bloody sure that the subject/subjects are aware but uncaring. And yes, I know, permission alters the game, but rather that than cause offence.

Sometimes, we togs are our own worst enemies.

Actually, permission does not alter the game. I find sitting down and getting to know your subject, getting comfortable with the subject and the subject comfortable with you leads to many more in depth photos than just a run and gun ( sneaky ) approach.

[KLaban]

Actually, permission does not alter the game. I find sitting down and getting to know your subject, getting comfortable with the subject and the subject comfortable with you leads to many more in depth photos than just a run and gun ( sneaky ) approach.

Couldn't agree more.

My wife is the most gregarious travelling and shooting companion I could possibly wish for, constantly engaging with those she meets, opening doors that no doubt would be closed to this rather reserved Englishman. She rescued this young boy from an open sewer, befriending the entire family.



My rock.

[petermfiore]

Actually, permission does not alter the game. I find sitting down and getting to know your subject, getting comfortable with the subject and the subject comfortable with you leads to many more in depth photos than just a run and gun ( sneaky ) approach.

That's a very different type of photography. Street is grabbing life as it happens. Hopefully poignant and universal moments. Most times it doesn't work. Your talking about casual and formal portraiture.

Peter

[rabanito]

Actually, permission does not alter the game. I find sitting down and getting to know your subject, getting comfortable with the subject and the subject comfortable with you leads to many more in depth photos than just a run and gun ( sneaky ) approach.

This is also my experience.
But some of us make a difference between "Street" and "Informal Portraiture"

What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet

We make too Much Adoe about Names and Clasifications 
I think...

[chez]

That's a very different type of photography. Street is grabbing life as it happens. Hopefully poignant and universal moments. Most times it doesn't work. Your talking about casual and formal portraiture.

Peter

It's not strictly portraits though...but most of the time humans are the subject. I'd call it documentary photography. I strive for poignant and impact photos as well...just a different means of getting there.

[petermfiore]

It's not strictly portraits though...but most of the time humans are the subject. I'd call it documentary photography. I strive for poignant and impact photos as well...just a different means of getting there.

 

I know, what I have seen, I like very much...

Peter

[chez]

 

I know, what I have seen, I like very much...

Peter

Not only do I feel I get more intimate images by getting to know the subject before taking any images, but I also get to know them as a person rather than some stranger on the street. Many times getting to know the subject, both getting comfortable with one another does not involve conversation, but just body language, eye contact etc...

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Not only do I feel I get more intimate images by getting to know the subject before taking any images, but I also get to know them as a person rather than some stranger on the street. Many times getting to know the subject, both getting comfortable with one another does not involve conversation, but just body language, eye contact etc...

All fine... just a different type/genre of photography than street.

[chez]

All fine... just a different type/genre of photography than street.

But what box do you define "street photography" in? Many of my images are taken out on the streets of everyday people. Is that not street photography?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

But what box do you define "street photography" in? Many of my images are taken out on the streets of everyday people. Is that not street photography?

In a broader sense, yes. And I am in favor of the broader sense. But some here would fiercely argue that is not true street.

[RSL]

That's a very different type of photography. Street is grabbing life as it happens. Hopefully poignant and universal moments. Most times it doesn't work. Your talking about casual and formal portraiture.

Peter

Exactly, Peter. The big problem is that street photography was badly named from the start, but if you study the work of the people -- HCB for instance -- who first worked with a hand camera and created the genre, you understand that it has to do with life as it happens. That usually means that the subjects(s) aren't aware you're recording what they're doing, and if they are aware, that they don't care and are going about their business and ignoring you.

Which is not to knock the other kind of photography, which I think most of us call informal portraiture, even though it doesn't involve portraiture in the formal sense. It's great to get on a familiar basis with someone who's going to be your subject. If you do it right you'll get some fine photographs. Keith does wonderful work in this genre.

As far as the argument that genre descriptions don't matter, I think that in this case at least, they do.  My fondest wish about the whole argument is that there were a better name for what we now call street photography -- a record of life as it's being lived.

As Peter says, it's an undertaking where there'll be more misses than hits, but that's the price you have to pay to do it -- frequent disappointment.

[KLaban]

The joy my wife and I get from sharing our images with those we photograph is often reciprocated by the joy expressed by those same subjects. Something that digital capture has facilitated and a narrow definition of Street would tend to preclude.

Whatever, genres - like tight briefs - make me uncomfortable.

[Rob C]

The joy my wife and I get from sharing our images with those we photograph is often reciprocated by the joy expressed by those same subjects. Something that digital capture has facilitated and a narrow definition of Street would tend to preclude.

Whatever, genres - like tight briefs - make me uncomfortable.

Keith, Keith!

You haven't taken secretly to wearing your wife's pants have you?

;-)

[Rob C]

I am now in two minds about chez' shots: on the one hand, stolen or given, they are wonderful images; on the other hand, they fall down the scale a little bit if I believe them to have been manufactured. If they have, then they rate no more highly on my personal scale than any other good, commercially produced shot. Theft and rapid reaction are of the essence in street; theft but not violent theft.

;-)

[KLaban]

Keith, Keith!

You haven't taken secretly to wearing your wife's pants have you?

;-)

Busted, as are her pants, now!

;-)

[KLaban]

The ultimate in photographic reciprocation.



;-)