Street Photography: Nailing it.

joxby said:
Can it be so different from a candid wedding shot ?
You use your nouse and experience to give yourself the best opportunity to capture that candid moment, whatever it is, whether its @ 50mm or 200mm.
Its perfectly reasonable to suggest that's how it was shot, whether it was or not is as irrelevant as how you captured a wedding candid, by accident....a staged pose....luck.....doesn't matter, you were in the right place at the right time by your own choice.
Click to expand...

I think my perception has been tainted by the way I shoot weddings, mostly candid. I see this shot, and also the butchers one earlier, and think 'so what ?'. I've got thousands of shots with that kind of interaction.

But ... I have tacit permission to be around those people at the wedding, it's a constrained environment. It's a different matter on the street of course.
 
WeddingHack said:
You've made your own interpretation of what you think the story is in the photo, I was just wondering if the photographer was thinking along the same lines, or had a completely different message in mind.

Maybe that's my problem with this kind of shot, it's too ambiguous for me, I don't know what I'm supposed to see.
Click to expand...


Yeah I Know, I got you the first time... (y)

Try answering my question, maybe that will help, I’d be interested to…. ‘What other message is reasonable to think the photographer had in mind’ ... cos appart from some extreme arty stance I can't think of any other apart from capturing the facts like he has.

Nowt ambiguous about it to me, I'm just stating what I see....I think. :thinking: :D
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Yeah I Know, I got you the first time... (y)

Try answering my question, maybe that will help, I’d be interested to…. ‘What other message is reasonable to think the photographer had in mind’ ... cos appart from some extreme arty stance I can't think of any other apart from capturing the facts like he has.

Nowt ambiguous about it to me, I'm just stating what I see....I think. :thinking: :D
Click to expand...

This reminds me of when I see a plain blue painting in an art gallery and underneath it has a really deep meaning to what it means. Did the painter paint it trying to get this meaning across or did he simply paint it and think of a meaning afterwards? It always baffles me.
 
lukewoodford said:
This reminds me of when I see a plain blue painting in an art gallery and underneath it has a really deep meaning to what it means. Did the painter paint it trying to get this meaning across or did he simply paint it and think of a meaning afterwards? It always baffles me.
Click to expand...

That's exactly where I am Luke.
 
Grrrr at Smashing Mag. Always leave me off the "Most amazing HDR's ever!!!!!!" filling them with terrible cliches and they never mention my guide. *grumble* Annoyingly they do have some good content now and then.
 
petemc said:
Grrrr at Smashing Mag. Always leave me off the "Most amazing HDR's ever!!!!!!" filling them with terrible cliches and they never mention my guide. *grumble* Annoyingly they do have some good content now and then.
Click to expand...

They should stick to web design based topics; their photography collections are far from consistent (quality wise). Hope your book is doing well, by the way :¬)
 
Grockle said:
Street photography to me is something which is poignant, unobtrusive and captures the moment. Gilden's style leaves me stone cold, it borders on abuse and is far from what I would class as a professional attitude.
Click to expand...

A bit brash to say the least, I couldnt do that, wonder how many times hes been thumped jumping in front of folks like that in this day and age, dont think hed get away with it in the UK,:shrug: Plod would soon be along. I saw this Joe Wigfall video last night after watching Petes links and looked at other street togs, maybe this is a good way to start off to build confidence, oh tes and a question do you ned a model release form filled in to use the images you take during street Photography :shrug:

[YOUTUBE]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/y-IOEAlBpSo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/y-IOEAlBpSo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

Dave
 
lukewoodford said:
This reminds me of when I see a plain blue painting in an art gallery and underneath it has a really deep meaning to what it means. Did the painter paint it trying to get this meaning across or did he simply paint it and think of a meaning afterwards? It always baffles
me.
Click to expand...



Yeah, they do get a little deep, but the shot in question is clearly of two people and a cyclist !! :thinking:... I think you guys should go and get your eyes checked myself. :naughty: ;)
 
I've seen a guy on youtube (Joel Meyerowitz) that holds the camera at the hip to get low shots and to become invisible to his subjects, he just flicks it onto auto and never uses the viewfinder. This style appeals to me but I should imagine it takes a great deal of practise to get anything decent in shot.

Tips on this would be most welcome
 
Just Dave said:
a question do you ned a model release form filled in to use the images you take during street Photography :shrug:
Click to expand...

No, you don't. Editorial use is what you do. As long as you don't put any stupid comment with the image and simply show what happened then you are ok. No release needed. The guy in the video has to be shooting at f/8, focused to infinity. Its how a lot of street photographers work. The only thing you have to do is be comfortable with the shutter sound. Its easy to be self concious when it goes off because you know you just took a photo of someone. Did they hear it? Do they know? Will they have a go at me? Shooting like that is fine, just don't feel like you're doing something wrong.
 
Dave, that Joe Wigfall clip is good. Notice how calm and confident he is when he's walking about with the camera, absolutely no hesitation that would make anyone suspicious as to what he was doing.
 
You can tell Wigfall has fun with it, and he's not intrusive, either. He shoots and checks what he gets, but it's clear that it's more than random luck - experience produces better shots than I would get walking down the same street.
 
petemc said:
No, you don't. Editorial use is what you do. As long as you don't put any stupid comment with the image and simply show what happened then you are ok. No release needed. The guy in the video has to be shooting at f/8, focused to infinity. Its how a lot of street photographers work. The only thing you have to do is be comfortable with the shutter sound. Its easy to be self concious when it goes off because you know you just took a photo of someone. Did they hear it? Do they know? Will they have a go at me? Shooting like that is fine, just don't feel like you're doing something wrong.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info about the release form, Pete, mmm I can see what you mean about the shutter, I dont shoot like that and never have but thought it would be good to try, as Ive never tried street photography before, well I mean I like street scenes and do shoot them but try to not have any one in them or at a distance if that makes sense, so to be focusing on some else is new to me, and something I need to over come (y) the other day is the closest I got to this as a lady was posing for someone else at Castlerigg, and I also went over and took a photo, but I felt a bit self concious when I did, my thoughts were did they see me, what do they think of me

KayJay said:
Dave, that Joe Wigfall clip is good. Notice how calm and confident he is when he's walking about with the camera, absolutely no hesitation that would make anyone suspicious as to what he was doing.
Click to expand...

Yeh that I can understand,

CapnKick said:
You can tell Wigfall has fun with it, and he's not intrusive, either. He shoots and checks what he gets, but it's clear that it's more than random luck - experience produces better shots than I would get walking down the same street.
Click to expand...

mainly that why I posted the vid as he seems to make it fun and share with the people he just took photos of, I know it would be more down to luck to get a decent shot, as he says he may take 150 and ditch 50 straight away.

petemc said:
Yer. Its harder to get that spot on composition.
Click to expand...

Thats the down side of that technique

Cheers guys I'll have to work on my confidence (y) as well as everything else :LOL:
 
It's not just digital - have a look at how many photos Winogrand used to take.
I've said this before, but although people view Winogrand as a great photographer, I think he was probably a good editor. He took literally hundreds of thousands of shots and picked out the good ones.

Now this guy, I think, is brilliant : http://www.mattstuart.com/Photographs/Black-White/01-COVENT-GARDEN-UNDERGROUND

I think this is probably my favorite of my own street shots, although I guess some mightn't even consider it a true street shot.
 
Woz! said:
It's not just digital - have a look at how many photos Winogrand used to take.
I've said this before, but although people view Winogrand as a great photographer, I think he was probably a good editor. He took literally hundreds of thousands of shots and picked out the good ones.
Click to expand...


When he died, he left 2500 rolls of film undeveloped, 35mm so that's at least 24 frames per roll, 60,000 frames then.....undeveloped..:wacky:
He went pretty quick so that might explain why he wasn't up to speed, I dunno, maybe he didn't care, he was shooting digital before it was invented:LOL:
Street lends itself to that type of machine gun shooting, things happen so quick.
 
joxby said:
When he died, he left 2500 rolls of film undeveloped, 35mm so that's at least 24 frames per roll, 60,000 frames then.....undeveloped..:wacky:
He went pretty quick so that might explain why he wasn't up to speed, I dunno, maybe he didn't care, he was shooting digital before it was invented:LOL:
Street lends itself to that type of machine gun shooting, things happen so quick.
Click to expand...

That is insane! I won't feel so bad now if it takes me a couple weeks to process an 8GB memory card!
 
joxby said:
When he died, he left 2500 rolls of film undeveloped, 35mm so that's at least 24 frames per roll, 60,000 frames then.....undeveloped..:wacky:
He went pretty quick so that might explain why he wasn't up to speed, I dunno, maybe he didn't care, he was shooting digital before it was invented:LOL:
Street lends itself to that type of machine gun shooting, things happen so quick.
Click to expand...


He famously said : "I photograph to see what something will look like photographed."
Curious fellow! While I like some of his shots, I still can't put him in the same category of the greats like Cartier Bresson who spotted great pictures then photographed them as opposed to what Winogrand appears to have done - photographed everything then spotted the great pictures.

Incidentally - while browsing the thread I noticed that someone had this as a great street photo. I think of all pictures, this one fails to qualify because he used models for it!
 
Annnnnnnnnnd!!!!!! Its done :D

As a result of this thread, and the spinoff challenge, TP now has an extra 300+ Street Photos under its belt! :)

I, for one, am completely and utturly trainwrecked. I have been out more or less every day, trying so very hard to A: Get over my fear and B: Try and spot an interesting shot. It has taken its toll.

With regards to the fear, I have conquered it. Nothing matters any more, I can now stick my camera in someones face, and fire the shutter, without a problem. For that, I am completely grateful to this place for the motivation and help.

With regards to spotting the shot, well I feel I have made some in roads, but still have a long way to go. My shots at the moment, are heavily skewed towards portraits. I see nice faces before I see interesting shots, and that is something I would like to balance out a bit more.

I think when the judging is out the way, we should all take a turn each, to present our shots one last time, and have a discussion about them. If we do it one member at a time, and specifically focus on the said members shots, I bet we will learn even more. Perhaps when the member presents his or her shots, they can explain their reasons for them, what they like, what they don't like, and choose their fave. We can then as a group discuss what we like and dont like, and what we would have done differently. It would be a shame to go to all this effort, just to end it right after judging. If we want to crack this game, we need to obsess, obsess, obsess :D

Thanks for making this so much fun!!!

Gary.
 
Sheesh Gary, you're such a drama queen! :D

As an innocent bystander it's been interesting to watch, both as an exercise in talk about/do and the resulting images, alot of which are first class.
 
I have just been reading this, interesting article

http://2point8.whileseated.org/2005/09/30/ways-of-working-7-study/

While I agree with most of his most of his points regarding this famous image

230405632_f2a09d737b_m.jpg


I'm not sure about his opinion of point

Photographer’s shadow doesn’t block key subject matter

from the following list

Monkeys are being held like children
Monkeys are dressed like humans
Monkey’s left fist clutching woman’s sweater
Child on right, below monkey, clutching human hand
Monkeys not wearing hoods –>
Child wearing hood/hat –>
Woman wearing paisely scarf/hood
Man wearing suit & tie
Both monkeys looking down and to the left
All five foreground faces in perfect light
Indifference of crowd in background
Photographer’s shadow doesn’t block key subject matter
Expressions on the couple’s faces; stern, focused, compassionate
The “normality” with which the couple shoulders the animals
Perfect place / perfect time

I agree maybe not 'key' subject matter, but I had not noticed the shadow until it was pointed out to me. I find it a bit distracting now...

any opinions?
 
GarynLea said:
I've seen a guy on youtube (Joel Meyerowitz) that holds the camera at the hip to get low shots and to become invisible to his subjects, he just flicks it onto auto and never uses the viewfinder. This style appeals to me but I should imagine it takes a great deal of practise to get anything decent in shot.

Tips on this would be most welcome
Click to expand...

I don't consider myself even really qualified to answer this but I have had some success just walking round with my camera round my neck with a wide angle lens pointing in the general direction of who I want to photograph and clicking away on auto focus. I got the shot of the policeman chatting to Dave from the Manchester Learn Together meet this way.

Dave + Policeman
 
yes...

i think you should of broke the questions down a little and posted them seperatly as there is too much to read and most people will be ilke..

blah...
 
lofcuk said:
I have just been reading this, interesting article

http://2point8.whileseated.org/2005/09/30/ways-of-working-7-study/

While I agree with most of his most of his points regarding this famous image

230405632_f2a09d737b_m.jpg


I'm not sure about his opinion of point

Photographer’s shadow doesn’t block key subject matter

from the following list

Monkeys are being held like children
Monkeys are dressed like humans
Monkey’s left fist clutching woman’s sweater
Child on right, below monkey, clutching human hand
Monkeys not wearing hoods –>
Child wearing hood/hat –>
Woman wearing paisely scarf/hood
Man wearing suit & tie
Both monkeys looking down and to the left
All five foreground faces in perfect light
Indifference of crowd in background
Photographer’s shadow doesn’t block key subject matter
Expressions on the couple’s faces; stern, focused, compassionate
The “normality” with which the couple shoulders the animals
Perfect place / perfect time

I agree maybe not 'key' subject matter, but I had not noticed the shadow until it was pointed out to me. I find it a bit distracting now...

any opinions?
Click to expand...

"Pedantic mode on"

They're chimpanzees, not monkeys :D
 
I think street photography isn't something you really learn. You need to have the eye so to speak. Obviously to some degree you can learn, but i remember a thread on here a while ago when some one kept just taking photos of people who were on the 'street' and couldn't understand why it wasn't 'street photography' he was doing.

Matt Stuart has some really amazing stuff, i sometimes wonder if some of the stuff he does is manipulated in any way? and i don't mean general pp'ing...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/joecoxphoto/4230863479/sizes/o/ One of my favourite's i've taken, and i'm definately no expert, any cc would be welcome.
 
holy thread resurrection :eek:
 
1: How important is it to capture "all of someone". Ie, as opposed to "Head and Shoulders", do you think getting the entire body in is important? AT the expense of what - facial features being closer and more detailed? That emotion being "lost" due to it being smaller? I struggle to answer this one, although personally - I prefer the close portraits. Am I wrong?

No you're not wrong, but it's not a hard and fast rule - what works for one subject may not work for another - are you interested in that persoan's face or do you want to place them in context of their surroundings?



2: What defines a "good street snap", and when does it become a "great street photo"? What must every "great street photo" have? What must it NOT have?

Contact with the subject - i see loads of 'street' photos that are just 'sniper-shots' taken with a long lens that have no connection betwen the viewer and the subject.
Context (see above).


3: How do you spot that "great street photo", what do you look for? Are there any hints, tips that you can share, which will help you plan that shot which is about to expose itself?

Not really - it's a visceral thing - you know it when you see it and it's different for all of us. What moves me may be dull and uninteresting to you.


4: With regards to lens selection, what works best? I love my 50, and I love my 85. The bokeh is amazing. I like my 24 to 70, but can't seem to use it to the same level I do my other two. What is your preferred lens choice and why? When you change lenses, what makes you change?

Two cameras - fitted with a 24-70 and a 70-200
If only one body then the 24-70 or failing that, a 35mm f/2.



5: How important is bokeh? What is more important - seeing the area and "event" in the background so to speak, or an amazing blur of colours and lights, which are in no way recognisable, but add an artistic element to a shot, which would otherwise be lost? Is there a line? Me? I love the blur. Again, am I wrong?

The subject is paramount: get that sharp first then worry about OOF background...or don't worry about it at all - who cares about the background anyway? Nice bokeh (and I hate that word and all it represents artistically - ooh Bokeh...shut up you ponce and look at the subject!) is a bonus, but not something to consider when you're on your toes photographing on the street.


6: How important is emotion? I suspect hugely important. However, are all emotions appealing to look at? Anger? Sadness? Fear? Are those street photos as good as Joy? Excitement? Affection? I find I get a lot of "**** off" looks - are they good viewing? I like them. Am I wrong?

All as valid as one another - you're photographing people and the whole gamut of emotional expression is there for you to capture - Look at Phil Starling's early work with Skin-Heads and Bikers in the 1980's - awesome stuff and very confontational...



7: Light is clearly important. But I don't feel its "landscape" important. Street lights change, any given street or viewpoint can have a huge variety of colours, shadows, light tones etc. It is impossible for us to control it, but we can still see it. So where us the "Golden Hour" of street photography? What light works best? What light should be avoided?

All light is just light - your ability to control it is what makes you a successful photographer - or not. Events dictate imagery on the street, not the time of day, though warm, pleasing afternoon light can be nice, it's the subjects and the events that matter more...



8: How important is an "event"? Does a shot of a person walking home from work, carry the same weight as a shot of someone partying at, I dunno, a massive charitable event? Do you feel there is a place for "non event street photography"? Where do you lie, Event versus Non event, and why?

Depends how you capture it - an 'event' image can be mightly dull if not done right, whereas a walking home shot can have massive impact - look at Don McCullin's early work in Bradford and the Industrial North in the 60's.



9: Candid versus Posed. What works best, and why? What is your favourite style? I prefer candid, but perhaps thats down to my fear of asking a stranger to pose?

I prefer semi-posed - ask permission then aske the subject to continue what they were doing that drew them to you in the first place - pretty soon (5-10 minutes) they'll forget you're there and carry on regardless...do NOT think you can walk up, snap and walk off again - it's bloody rude and may get you a smashed nose or worse, a smashed camera.
Engage with your subject...TALK to them...Interact...
It's the hardest part of Street photography, but once you start and get over your initial shyness (and we all are to some extent or another) it can be addictive.


10: How important are shadows. Shadows around the subject, as well as local shadows (under the eyes, in the lines of skin etc).

See 'Light' it will dictate this - how you use the light and how you approach the subject - again it depends on what you're attempting to get across...


11: Contrast, what is your take on it? Higher than "normal"?

Again, depends on the subject and what you're trying to convey.

12: B & W versus COLOUR. When, and why?

See above.

13: What, in your own honest opinion, makes a good street photographer. What qualities will they have? How do you imagine there attitude? What mindset are they in when they hit the streets? What preparation will they make? What is the typical shoot of a street photographer all about?

Confidence; total familiarity with equipment - do not be fiddling with exposure controls with a random subject you've just stopped on the street - you will look a right nob...
Be polite and engaging - most people won't want to co-operate - it's your personality that will win them over.


Hope that helps.
 
A bit late to the party it seems but for what it's worth, Street Photography to me is about storytelling. That's what it comes down to, most of the photography rules becomes secondary.
 
For me it was only a year or two ago that I found out I’d been shooting “Street” for a couple of years, though I wasn’t really deep into photography and would class most as snapshots. There seems to be this image that “Street” must involve people, so much so that some Social Media groups won’t allow an image if it doesn’t include them. I don’t agree, though having people in a shot can give it more emotion. If you look at the Wikipedia definition of Street Photography they split ”Street” and “Candid” into two categories but admit they do cross over if you will.
I believe Street Photography is easy to do, but hard to do well, and though I tend to go out a couple of times a week it’s never easy to get a keeper and would not class myself as a Street Photographer either as it’s not the only genre I shoot. I’m also an absolute beginner though I’ve been at it a few years.
P.S. I totally agree with Shutterman on the rest, just go out and enjoy, don’t use a long lens, you’ll look creepy and stand out a mile. Personally i use my 50mm or 24mm but have dabbled with my 10-18mm which can be quite challenging. I do want a 24-70mm to cover all the bases and definitely wouldn’t use much longer being as I use a crop sensor. I do have a couple of 35mm SLRs I want to try too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_photography
 
Last edited:
Holy thread necro Batman!
 
Edgey72 said:
don’t use a long lens, you’ll look creepy and stand out a mile.
Click to expand...
Really? I've been taking candids with long lenses in the street for more than 50 years and no-one's ever said a thing.

It must be that cloak of invisibilty I'm wearing... :tumbleweed:

Boy and girl outside Bath Post Office.jpg

Austrian police officer in the Zillertal S10 NIK_1082.jpg

Girl at Paddington Underground platform DSCN5023.JPG
 
Edgey72 said:
you’ll look creepy and stand out a mile
Click to expand...

No you won't. Lenses don't make you stand out, camera bodies don't make you stand out, hats, clothing, hair, none of it makes you stand out.

Feeling out of place, being furtive, hiding, that makes you stand out.

I saw a guy with a short focal length lens on a small camera body standing behind an advertising board shooting people 'secretly'. Everyone saw him. I've stood in a busy market square with a 70-200mm L lens, which is nice and white, and shot photographs and been ignored.

Street is not, never has been, and should never be defined by a focal length. Styles, emotions, feelings, they're affected by focal length, but not genre. Landscapes don't stop being landscapes if you use a 200mm lens. Portraits don't stop being portraits if you use an 18mm lens.

You might prefer the results of short focal length street, you personally might feel it's more 'authentic', but it's still just preference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top