Best EI for street photography?

[Ansel]

And if doesn't exist street photography, Vivian Maier photos doesn't exist... Or Doisneau...

No, they exist all right. Its the label invented recently to describe their work that I am questioning. What exactly is it meant to mean. Please enlighten me?


I am with Gary Winograd. Titles like street photographer are stupid!

See: http://www.jnevins.com/garywinograndreading.htm


Here's an excerpt:

GW: Well, I'm not going to get into that. I think that those kind of distinctions and lists of titles like "street photographer" are so stupid.

BD: How would you prefer to describe yourself?

GW: I'm a photographer, a still photographer. That's it.

 

[tunalegs]

No, they exist all right. Its the label invented recently to describe their work that I am questioning. What exactly is it meant to mean. Please enlighten me?

What difference does it make? Street photography. It's self explanatory. What: photography. Where: streets. How is this even something to debate.

Back on topic: I shoot ASA100 almost exclusively. When it gets too dark I bring out a tripod and a cable release and keep shooting.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hi Ansel, obviously, for Winogrand the concept of street photography was one he didn't grow up with, and that's why he reacted that way, even being a pure street photographer... I think he didn't want anyone to publicly cage him into shooting in the streets exclusively...
Street photography not only exists, but will exist forever, and thousands of photographers practice it around the world and thousands of students study it around the world, and it's one of the most interesting and hard to achieve styles in photography, no doubt... It refers to a kind of human content photography (not streets or buildings or people simply passing) that can be done in lots of places, not only streets, and that is not planned, and perhaps its most important quality is how quickly the photographer has to react to capture a vanishing situation of interest. It's different to most photography, and in my opinion, it's one where lots of good photographers from other kinds of photography like portraiture, product, fashion, architecture, try hard and get no good results, because of the amount of factors you need to control well in an instant you can't make happen again. To some people, street photography is the real photography.
Cheers,
Juan

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Reaching 100 voters, 60% are shooting at 400, and 20% are shooting at 800. It seems those are the most commonly used EI's for daylight, and perhaps max. shutter speeds matter, as some forum members comment...
Cheers,
Juan

 

[Ansel]

Hi Ansel, obviously, for Winogrand the concept of street photography was one he didn't grow up with, and that's why he reacted that way, even being a pure street photographer... I think he didn't want anyone to publicly cage him into shooting in the streets exclusively...
Street photography not only exists, but will exist forever, and thousands of photographers practice it around the world and thousands of students study it around the world, and it's one of the most interesting and hard to achieve styles in photography, no doubt... It refers to a kind of human content photography (not streets or buildings or people simply passing) that can be done in lots of places, not only streets, and that is not planned, and perhaps its most important quality is how quickly the photographer has to react to capture a vanishing situation of interest. It's different to most photography, and in my opinion, it's one where lots of good photographers from other kinds of photography like portraiture, product, fashion, architecture, try hard and get no good results, because of the amount of factors you need to control well in an instant you can't make happen again. To some people, street photography is the real photography.
Cheers,
Juan

Hi Juan,

There is nothing in that description that was not around at the time of Winogrand - it actually sounds like the Cartier Bresson decisive moment/surrealist approach that has been around for decades, but seems to just focus on the superficial aspects.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hi Ansel,
It seems you're confused, not only about street photography as something that doesn't exist while it is accepted by the world you live in possibly before you were born. It might be time to accept reality instead of playing with words that go nowhere.
About your last comment, please allow me to clarify one more confused view: I didn't say the the kind of photography called street photography, and with this I mean the things we shoot and the ways we shoot them, were not present in Winogrand days: of course they were, and he's a great street photographer, and before him, there were others, and Atget was a great street photographer too, apart from the rest of shooting he so very well did, so street photography has existed as long as photography and streets have existed to allow photographers have fun with interesting moments.
What I stated previously, is not that all this we like so much didn't exist while Winogrand was alive, but a very different thing: the concept, with that name, wasn't a common, public one while Winogrand was young and starting as a photographer...
Instead of being confused after others' words, and even misexplaining them in public, I invite you to try to understand others' opinions... Starting with Winogrands' ones would be great for you and for this forum...
Cheers,
Juan

 

[semi-ambivalent]

even being a pure street photographer

Juan,

Always happy to cloud an argument; but it bears remembering that Winogrand did advertising and some sports photography too, although that is not for what he is remembered.

s-a

 

[Chris101]

Yeah, the term 'street photography' is like the supreme court definition of pornography. Difficult to exactly define, but we all know what it is. For all of his refusal to be defined and pigeon-holed, Garry Winogrand was arguable the most iconic and prolific street photographer ever. I sure love his style, both personal and photographic. I think of him whenever I street-shoot, no matter what the EI I use.

 

[Ansel]

Gentlemen, your comments further reinforce my view that their is no real substance to the term 'street photography'.

I am still open to a proper, agreed description of what it is meant to be exactly.

There is no common aesthetic or approach between its so-called proponents, who are said to range from Adget, Cartier Bresson, to Windogrand.
In fact you could not find three more different approaches to taking photographs!

 

[SausalitoDog]

I picked 400 because it sounded most logical...but as I think about it I really never use 400 !

I use auto (which often gives me 400) or I use 200 when it's really bright or 1600+ at night

Wow...it sure drives home the advantage that digital brings to the party.

Tom

 

[igi]

Ansel is just trolling guys... like how Ansel Adams trolled Eggleston's at MOMA.

400 for me. Fast enough for sunny and cloudy days.

 

[slidesandthecity]

800 for me, because I also like to shoot indoors from time to time.

 

[Ansel]

Ansel is just trolling guys... like how Ansel Adams trolled Eggleston's at MOMA.

400 for me. Fast enough for sunny and cloudy days.

Not trolling (what ever *that* is meant to mean... 😱)..

But I do find it odd that people use such words without really knowing what they mean, or indeed regardless of whether they have any meaning at all.

The OP asked what is the best EI for street photography. Asking, what is street photography? therefore is a perfectly legitimate question. Not sure why folks are getting so agitated about it.

 

[Richard G]

Not trolling (what ever *that* is meant to mean... 😱)..

But I do find it odd that people use such words without really knowing what they mean, or indeed regardless of whether they have any meaning at all.

The OP asked what is the best EI for street photography. Asking, what is street photography? therefore is a perfectly legitimate question. Not sure why folks are getting so agitated about it.

"Trolling" has no meaning either...?

Can I recommend Wittgenstein's 'Philosophical Investigations'? I think you would enjoy his writing.

 

[Ansel]

"Trolling" has no meaning either...?

Can I recommend Wittgenstein's 'Philosophical Investigations'? I think you would enjoy his writing.

Very funny. 😛

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Juan,

Always happy to cloud an argument; but it bears remembering that Winogrand did advertising and some sports photography too, although that is not for what he is remembered.

s-a

Hi s-a,
Most of us know, I guess, Winogrand did other kinds of shooting, just like most photographers do, and that's why I understood, and explained here previously, his concern when an expression ("you're a street photographer", more or less) in my opinion warned him because he might have felt it was about to cage him publicly to shoot in the streets and nowhere else... And by saying "a pure street photographer", all I said is he was able to do street photography in such a pure way he became an icon, a model, but I never said "exclusively"... Thanks for your comment.
Cheers,
Juan

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Gentlemen, your comments further reinforce my view that their is no real substance to the term 'street photography'.

I am still open to a proper, agreed description of what it is meant to be exactly.

There is no common aesthetic or approach between its so-called proponents, who are said to range from Adget, Cartier Bresson, to Windogrand.
In fact you could not find three more different approaches to taking photographs!

Hi Ansel,
No problem with your comments here, really, you can keep doing them and you can even repeat your position... Finally, forums are for free expression...
But think about this: using your own reasons, you could go to another forum and say fashion photography has never existed because Helmut Newton, Horst P. Horst and Lachapelle look different. You wouldn't need to read the comments on that: you already got them here...
Cheers,
Juan

 

[Ansel]

Juan,

I think that choosing a single exposure (regardless of the type of photography) is usually a bad idea.

As a general rule with film I would suggest:


1. Flat light - NO SHADOWS. Use makers speeds and times.

2. Bright light, but cloudy with SOFT EDGED SHADOWS, cut speed by HALF (1 STOP) and reduce development by 20%.

3. Contrasty light - SHARP SHADOWS. Cut speed by 1 1/3 stop and reduce development by 33%.

Its also nice to have two film bodies rated at different speeds so you can keep your exposures separate as much as possible, and not have to develop high contrast images together with low contrast on the same roll.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hi Ansel,
All you just said can be found in other older posts of mine, if you want more specific information... I've done it, both for studio and street, and I've even carried more than two bodies, because apart from the types of light, sometimes it's cool to have a third body/lens with slow film for selective focus only on daylight (f1.4 and f2), or a fourth one with ASA3200 film, but it all makes you a bit slower while shooting, and it's kind of a burden for hours, and it isn't the most unobtrusive way to do things either... So, box speed and one camera are OK for different light conditions, and IMO, I've found pushing one single stop and caring about metering and development, works too... Obviously the thing that's not possible is, on the same pushed roll, showing a direct sun scene with clean shadows as in a wild pull with overexposure, but except for architecture, I prefer to consider sunny b&w just like slide film: a media to express zones under direct light. Anyway, using a single EI or a single roll and camera, can be very useful and comfortable, not to mention perhaps the most important fact: how fast we can react... It's not easy at all to shoot in a street with sun in one side and shade in the other one, without being excessively noticed...
Cheers,
Juan