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

So the term street photograph is only useful if it communicates 'something' about a photos contents. An overly loose definition just means the label is useless as a communication tool.

At least for me, the environment being as much a subject of the photograph as a single person or group of people is a big part of what classifies a photograph as a street photo. The environment is critical as it provides a bigger picture context for the shot.

That is why telephotos make shooting street photos harder. They are great for isolating a person in the environment and can produce great shots, but that runs against the idea of the environment being a significant participant in the shot.

If you pull back far enough and shoot closed down enough, you can certainly accomplish this. That does go against how people often use telephotos though. This is where I think people fall back to 'wide angle/involved in the scene'. Both of those are approaches more likely to have shots with a lot of environmental richness.

I would describe some of the the excellent shots in this thread are more candid portraits than street photos. This isn't a criticism, just a label that makes sense to me. If the difference doesn't make sense to anyone else though - if it fails to communicate a useful concept - I should drop it. 🙂

Edit: I am not trying to argue my position here, just to suggest a slightly different framing. If we focus on the contents of photos and the attributes we'd use to describe photos widely accepted as street photos, it would be easier to talk about different ways of using tools to produce these shots. 🙂
 
Last edited:
street photography is a lot like cultural studies (on more than one level), we can't force it into a cage of definition(s), but we can outline some things that street photography is NOT or should not want to be.
we can't put some focal lengths in the cage and leave some outside, but we can tell when a picture does not tell a 'story' (may it be abstract or concrete) about a situation, moment or place (which are maybe all the same thing).
it's about humanity, human culture, human condition, but that doesn't mean there have to be actual people in it. neither does it mean, that a photo of a random stranger really 'is about' any of these things.
 
Last edited:
Brian Legge said:
...The environment is critical as it provides a bigger picture context for the shot....

That is why telephotos make shooting street photos harder. They are great for isolating a person in the environment and can produce great shots, but that runs against the idea of the environment being a significant participant in the shot.
Click to expand...

Yes. Now we're getting somewhere.
 
I agree! telephotos make it harder to 'tell a story' due to the compressed background, perspective etc. but that doesn't mean it's impossible.

it also depends on whether you work in a series of pictures to reflect something (might be a little easier to find use for a telephoto) or just want to get single pictures that can stand and speak for themselves.
 
Last edited:
jingles_97 said:
Serious though, here is one I wish to have a longer focal length so that I can be further back and not have my shadow show up in the frame.
DSC00847.jpg


or dare I say, CROP?
Click to expand...

@ jingles_97 , I think the 'wedding shot' with the inclusion of your shadow is excellent street work either that or if it's posed then it's more candid but whichever category it's an excellent shot. There's three different things happening here plus the interaction among the three groups plus yourself as a 4th dynamic. It's really a very good photograph. Walk away smiling because IMO you nailed it. I wish I had taken this one.
 
Thank you for the link. I like Leiter's photos a lot. When I think about it though, his work doesn't come across to me as street photography exactly. Its just seems like he uses the colors and shapes of the street to create 'paintings'. I guess there's no reason that can't be part of the street photography genre. In any case, I very much enjoy the quiet beauty of his pictures.

And thanks for reminding me of the "Photographers Speak" site... very entertaining.
 
I believe you can use either. Personally, I prefer a 35mm lens and use one as often as or a 105mm.

Using your feet and given an opportunity:

saxmad.jpg

​

Al
 
ebino said:
Its like Jazz, if you think you know what Jazz is, then you have no clue whatsoever about Jazz... For the simple reason that no single great jazz musician has ever commented on what jazz is, except poetic abstract reasonings now and then.

If you have in your head an idea of what street photography is, then you're not a street photographer.
Click to expand...

I think I know what jazz is. And street photography. I think there's room for analytic discussion, opinion, and argument----with the need to avoid the extremes of both global, rigid definitions on the one hand, as well as an anything goes, call-it-whatever-you-want position on the other hand.

I value street shots for the narratives and tension and often irony they can create. I generally see an uneasy balance between subject (often people) and context (often, but not always urban.) I've given up shooting with long lenses because I like the surprises and extraneous detail I often find in wider contexts. Some people are not after that----they want a person.

I see some street photos (photographers) as analogous to music----non-verbal, mood oriented, impressionistic. I lean toward photos as literary--possibly a matter of "working with" or discovery of the image--often requiring several passes and reconstructing a narrative not immediately accesable.
 
jsrockit said:
It seems to me there are only rules regarding street photography in internet forums, not in the real word.
Click to expand...
A good example of my prior post. I don't think anyone is seriously proposing rules. But your "real world" is likely to be different from others', and something in that world and your character, style, or distinctiveness as a photographer is likely to result in certain leanings, trends, or preferences expressed in your photos. What is it?
 
What I meant is that people on internet forum try to pigeon hole everything into a genre, while when people are actually out making these photos, they are not worrying about if it fits a defined category. Of course our influences and environments are going to be different and result in differing experiences, but to me it always seems exclusion is for those who want to keep something at its "purist" form. Sometimes that's good... because a watering-down effect occurs making that genre stale, but sometimes it is not good because it becomes stale by being too traditional. "Good" experimentation generally gives new life to a genre.
 
jsrockit said:
What I meant is that people on internet forum try to pigeon hole everything into a genre, while when people are actually out making these photos, they are not worrying about if it fits a defined category. .
Click to expand...
IMO, protesting against pigeon holes and defined categories can be straw-man arguments. No one is really advocating rigid rules and requirements.

The OP asks a yes-no question and the only sensible answer is "it depends." And to go any further, we'd need to know what the OP or anyone else hopes to achieve in general from their street photos. There should be something of a match between the gear and the goal. So it's fine to say that any lens is OK in "the real world," but it would be a richer conversation here if people explained what they want from their real-world photos and why they generally choose a focal length to accomplish it.

I'm looking forward to seeing what sort of changes in philosophy, attitude, and photos I come up with now that I bought my first competent P&S since my Coolpix 990.
 
MartinL said:
I think I know what jazz is. And street photography.
Click to expand...

Its great if you do, I don't.

On the other hand, sometimes 'how do you know' is more important than the simple matter of 'knowing'. You cannot know something unless you know why you know it.
 
So now we can only use certain lenses for street photography??? So what are we talking about here, the photographers close up proximity or the final image. This makes no sense what ever. If we are making rules like this I think it's nonsense. It's all about the final image and not the camera or the lens or the film or the developer! That's it!! - jim
 
Last edited:
I have tried several times using tele lens for street shooting... and it was really hard. Too many hurdle such as shallow DOF, too long, tricky to compose and crowd. Basically, it's technical thing NOT about cheat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom