can it be street if shot with a 70-210 zoom?

Looking through the examples given here, I think the only requirement for "street" photography is that it actually contain some bit of paved driving surface.
 
My question, referring to the first post is: Are there any rules in photography, or more general, in a creative process?

I think, if there were rules, you really had to stick to it wouldn’t be a creative process anymore. Nevertheless not ignoring a recommendation all the time doesn’t need to be that stupid, either... Hope you get, what I mean.
 
FrankS said:
I don't think anyone should impose their personal rules/biases/etc onto another person doing art (including street photography).

Artists/photographers do what they do, in whatever manner they do it. The viewer is free to experience the result and react to it subjectively. They are free to enjoy/appreciate the result, or not.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree here with Frank,
The "Street-Photographer" will use the "Tools" needed to "Get-The-Shot".

I have used a 70-300 when I had my DSLR to see how it would work out. I found a guy reading a book outside his shop on a very slow day. If I were closer, I would disturbed his reading. It can work, under the right conditions. I guess, making sure it "looks" like a "street-photograph" is a valuable aspect to consider with long lenses,

600h-PENTAX%20K20D%20-%20PLA_3136.tn.jpg
 
Harry S. said:
Im just going to say no. You really have to be in amongst the people, not overlooking from a distance. The angle of view of a 200mm lens is that narrow that unless you are significantly far away, it will usually be a single-person candid portrait anyway.
Click to expand...

Yes, That's the "Key" being farther away, with a longer lens. 30-60 feet is a good distance for 200mm-300mm. It allows you capture the environment along with the candid capture Perfect for "Across The Street" candid.
 
^If the image above was shot using a wideangle lens from just behind the guy, it would be an interesting shot but it will never have the narrative power and structure of this picture.
 
ebino said:
^If the image above was shot using a wideangle lens from just behind the guy, it would be an interesting shot but it will never have the narrative power and structure of this picture.
Click to expand...

If there is such WA shot, we can discuss what's better. If it is only shot from that place and moment, we just have what we have.
 
btgc said:
Avid photogs have found way to work around this restriction - they use lens(-es) with "L" on it.
Click to expand...

Thus Robert Frank is/was not a "street" photographer, because his lenses mainly said "Z" on them. And later, his camera said "K" ;)
 
Last edited:
btgc said:
If there is such WA shot, we can discuss what's better. If it is only shot from that place and moment, we just have what we have.
Click to expand...

Its not hard to imagine. Put yourself behind the guy with a 28mm and you would have him with his back and the front of the tank in the background. you could make it dramatic by going for a low angle shot, but you will never have other tanks in the shot, the scale of the man and the tanks, and the symmetry of the street lines, not to mention the burned bus on the top.


This is where the craft part is essential to make the art... But in all fairness this was shot from a window of a hotel because journalists were not allowed on the streets.
 
Kolame said:
My question, referring to the first post is: Are there any rules in photography, or more general, in a creative process?

I think, if there were rules, you really had to stick to it wouldn’t be a creative process anymore.
Click to expand...

I think that this is not a useful distinction. Very many forms of creative expression are rule-based. Others are much less rule-based. But you can't seriously argue that writing sonnets, haikus, etc., or composing writing music within constrained musical forms are not creative processes.

For that matter, within alpinism there are deep and serious debates about the rules, and there is little question within the alpine climbing community that making a new route or doing an old one in better style (i.e., with a more restrictive set of rules) is a creative process. And in general, it's agreed that the tighter the self-imposed rules are, the more serious and meaningful is the undertaking.

Rules are important. They define context.

And most important artistic movements begin with the breaking of rules in an established tradition, and the establishment of new rules.

Note that I'm not arguing that street photography should have a particular rule set. In fact, I think that it should, but rather that each practitioner should define his or her own rules. For myself, I am increasingly unable to distinguish between landscape, urban landscape, and street work. Some things are clearly within one genre, some within another. But the things that interest me most at the moment fall within the transitional boundaries between these categories.
 
Last edited:
I think I'm the Greg mentioned. Yes, I shoot long glass as well as Leica M, and it's nice I get a pass for that. I also shoot Widelux F7, Twin-lens Rollei ... and 4x5 ...00. Clearly I'm not a purist.

What I can say about shooting with long glass on the street is that it is by no means easy. Well, at least not for me. Especially since I use Nikkor AIS manual-focus glass, often without a monopod. I just find that the monopod attracts way too much attention and going without the stick is not workable for long periods of time, like at a sporting event. On the street, it works for me.

Some recent work with long glass.



Shooting in an alley; photo by Kat.



Shot I took on the street with Nikkor 300 2.0 IF-ED AIS on D3.




Carl Zeiss 180 2.8 Olympic Sonnar on D3.



Nikkor 800 5.6 IF-ED AIS on D3 wide open and handheld @ 1/2000 second.

Some of my older work with long glass.



Nikkor 300 2.8 IF-ED AIS on F2AS on Tri-X.



Nikkor 500 IF-ED P on F4S XP2.



Nikkor 300 2.8 IF-ED AIS on F2AS MD2 on Tri-X.





Both of these were taken with Nikkor 300 2.8 IF-ED AIS on F2AS and Tri-X.

I was following this girl dancing in a shallow pool of water and she slipped and broke her leg. I just happened to catch the moment it happened. And the aftermath of her friends giving her comfort.



Nikkor 300 2.8 IF-ED AIS on F2AS on Tri-X.

A couple in colour taken with Kodachrome 25/64 scanned from prints.



Nikkor 300 2.8 IF-ED AIS on F2AS on Kodachrome 64.





Nikkor 135 F2.0 AIS on F3T and Kodachrome 25.



Nikkor 135 2.0 AIS on F2AS and Ektachrome 400/800/1600 @ 1600.

One more. It's an old one taken on the beachfront in Toronto with the Nikkor 8 mm 2.8 AIS on F2AS and KR 25.



I guess I'm trying to say that as far as focal length goes, it doesn't matter. At least not to me. Or the camera, whether digital or film. It should be about the picture and all the elements connected with that, and of course the moment. Get that right and everything else falls into place.

One thing I can say is that when you use/carry long glass, your (well, at least, my) telephoto perception extends out. One must be aware of the range of one's lens. And to that end, when carrying the Nikkor 8 mm 2.8 fish-eye, imagine 180 degrees.

This pre-visualization is the real key to successful photography on the street and everywhere else to some degree or another. Knowing your gear and being in the right place at the right time with the camera ready is more important than what camera or what lens you use.

I know this is the RangFinderForum so it's only natural and quite right to think that Leica M is the best.
And over the last couple of years, I've come to use/carry and love the Leica M film camera/lenses (system). But I see no reason to stop carrying and using longer lenses along with my Leicas and Rollei, Widelux ...OO.

While it's always interesting to find out and see what photographers carry and use, the thing is to find out what works for you.
 
Last edited:
Street photography, once called candid photography, is about the subject matter, not equipment.

Using a wide-angle lens is up-close and might be too personal. Using a long lens is the equivalent of a sniper, kill the subject but remain unseen.

To each his own.
 
ebino said:
But in all fairness this was shot from a window of a hotel because journalists were not allowed on the streets.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I had in mind. Sometimes we have poorly composed, awfully exposed shots made with camera/lens not suited for situation....but that's what we have. And it's better than have nothing.
 
Thank you very much, DNG, it was my pleasure sharing them.
A couple more.









Nikkor 300 2.0 IF-ED AIS on D3 handheld



Nikkor 800 5.6 IF-ED AIS on D3 tripod/Wimberley



Nikkor 80-200 2.8 ED AIS on D3
 
Last edited:
semilog said:
I think that this is not a useful distinction. Very many forms of creative expression are rule-based. Others are much less rule-based. But you can't seriously argue that writing sonnets, haikus, etc., or composing writing music within constrained musical forms are not creative processes.

For that matter, within alpinism there are deep and serious debates about the rules, and there is little question within the alpine climbing community that making a new route or doing an old one in better style (i.e., with a more restrictive set of rules) is a creative process. And in general, it's agreed that the tighter the self-imposed rules are, the more serious and meaningful is the undertaking.

Rules are important. They define context.

And most important artistic movements begin with the breaking of rules in an established tradition, and the establishment of new rules.

Note that I'm not arguing that street photography should have a particular rule set. In fact, I think that it should, but rather that each practitioner should define his or her own rules. For myself, I am increasingly unable to distinguish between landscape, urban landscape, and street work. Some things are clearly within one genre, some within another. But the things that interest me most at the moment fall within the transitional boundaries between these categories.
Click to expand...

I agree that there are 'rules' for styles of photography or it's not that style. What a photographer does within that style is their own interpretation.

Landscape isn't street, portraiture isn't street, reportage isn't street and candid isn't street. What I'm seeing is a level of overlap between candid and street. A lot of the examples posted in this thread with telephoto lenses are candid shots. I think 'street' requires proximity to the subject and appropriately the interaction should be on the street. So far there are no examples of Zoo Photography by Winogrand, but I'd like to see some of those by him!
 
Many people believe street photos have to have people in them... I don't. To me, it doesn't matter your approach (wide angle / tele / etc.). If you are on the streets taking pictures of scenarios / objects that only exist in the streets, then it is street photography.
 
Whatever works for you, there are no rule.

Reality is that not many shots work with a very long lens. You need to kneel, bend, and stay still so you restrict yourself from many potential shots. The real issue with the tele lenses is that this choice is often not dictated by a style decision, but a behavourial one : people don't dare interacting so they shoot from far away.
 
Look at it this way: The user of the 70-210 could have the lens set to 70mm most/all of the time. 70mm qualities for street, hey?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom