Forget the cameras - what are your working methods?

Another tip for shyness:

Put on headphones. Turn up the volume. You'll instantly feel insulated from the scene in front of you.

Add beer to increase isulation.
 
A tip about the headphones: Use big ones. Get those large cans so that they can see you coming. The more conspicuous you are, the less people will take notice of you. Strange but true. People tend to get offended if they realize you're trying to photograph them stealthily.
 
Yes, if you look bold and confident people tend to see you as someone doing their work and largely ignore.
 
cp_ste-croix said:
You know what I have actually found? Using a TLR from the waist, because it puts me in a semi-submissive posture (head bowed, shoulders forward) people seem way more at ease, even if they recognise that I'm taking a picture. Anyone else found this?

I did! It is indeed like that. All the factors combined - waist level, face not obstructed, old looking camera, "semi-submissive posture" make people feel less threatened as compared to an eye-level camera.
 
Imagestreet said:
(2) Try one of the exercises that involves taking 6 rolls of film a day over the normal 2 per month.
(3) DON'T BUY ANY GEAR AND AVOID EBAY 😱
(4) Shoot a set of themed pictures (currently thinking about "Women in the city" as I work in the London financial district AND umm I like pictures of women)
(5) Taking risks (take at least 10 shots every day you can shoot that are out of your comfort zone)


All well thought I'd say, especially 3 and 4 !! 😀
A themed series, yes that's what it must be. "Shooting people", what does that mean at all ?
Some seem to understand it as shooting strange people standing or sitting around by chance downtown thus trying to hide they have no vision. People are not a photog's human furnishing for "street" shots.

If you get closer to the people, I mean if you point on them directly, if you want to shoot a personal portrait of somebody you should have a good reason to do it and you have to respect his dignity.
If I were old fat and ugly ( just realized, I am !!) I would not like to land in some stupid web galleries where amateur "street" shooters want to show what strange birds they have caught.
the so called candid photography is often wrongly understood issue.
Communication is necessary, if there is zero relation between photog and object the photo fails if the distance gets too close.
In general the distance is an decisive thing, it solely determines how you have to act and how people re-act. Very old instincts are coming up with distance issue. !!!
BTW Almost all people in the world interpret a long Tele lens a lack of distance, these long dongs attract attention like hell and people react immediately. !!

Respecting other peoples dignity is a VERY important thing for a photog and has nothing to do wih shyness at all !

"Women in the city " is a nice theme, and the more you can focus it to a certain group the more interesting the series will become. You simply must know what your result shall be. BEFORE you start ! 🙂

Try to communicate whenever it is possible. The biz card is o.k., simply say what you are doing, say it's a project and that you don't know if you can sell it to anybody, no money. Most women will be glad that you find them attractive enuff to photograph them, offer them a photo, thus you get the adresses and phone numbers, nice side effect ! 😀 😀

Good luck and take care,
Bertram
 
Well i like street photography, i am stioll an amateur though, trying to promote my self to a higher level, but i'm a bit shy on this matter, i mean yes u can ask people and mostly they'll say yes, but still sometimes it's a pose that u wanna capture as soon as possible if u do that, ur shot is gone for good. And i also fear they'll get annoyed, it's not that their reaction si goin to be harmfull, but it's not nice to walk around annpying people with ur camera...

Yet carrying my camera and talking, gives me a great pleasure, many people make u stop and talk to u and u might end up with a couple of photos...

But still i'm a bit shy...
 
A year or two ago, I was shy about street photography. I just steeled myself and made myself do it. Now, I stick a camera in anybody's face, I don't care. I'm too big and too scary looking to worry about it. If pull a frowny face at me, I just grin and wink at them and move on. If someone catches my eye before I pull the trigger and indicates that they don't want their photo taken, I move on without taking the shot.

I've had one person come up to me and demand that I remove the photo I took. Amazingly, she was an artist - a painter. She said she 'didn't permit photos' to be taken of her. I laughed in her face and told her I'm an artist too, I take photos of whatever I want. Imagine that - if the police aren't telling you that you can't take a photo of a bridge, your fellow artists are trying to restrict what art you can produce - rules they would never accept to be placed on themselves.

My advice is to just start doing it. Keep a grin on your face and a song in your heart. The more you look like you know what you're doing, the more people leave you alone and let you do it.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
The reason not to take pictures of cops is they will almost always tell you no and wont bother to wait for you to ask permission before telling you this. They're very concerned with who might be profiling cops, or trying to identify the entire set of local cops, or other "intelligence" like activities.
(That and he has a gun, handcuffs, baton, and pepper spray, any one of which can make even the bravest of folks uncomfortable, even if he gets in trouble for it later on.)

Bertram2 said:
People are not a photog's human furnishing for "street" shots.

If you get closer to the people, I mean if you point on them directly, if you want to shoot a personal portrait of somebody you should have a good reason to do it and you have to respect his dignity.
If I were old fat and ugly ( just realized, I am !!) I would not like to land in some stupid web galleries where amateur "street" shooters want to show what strange birds they have caught. Bertram

I agree with this one - how would you like to find your picture on mulletjunky.com? Or if you were an attractive woman (for this you only have to think you are), how would you feel wondering if the nervous goofy guy taking your picture is your own amateur stalker, that YOU are the reason he's out taking pictures?
 
XAos said:
The reason not to take pictures of cops is they will almost always tell you no and wont bother to wait for you to ask permission before telling you this. They're very concerned with who might be profiling cops, or trying to identify the entire set of local cops, or other "intelligence" like activities.
AFAIK this isn't illegal in most of the places with modern democratic governments.

If cops don't want to be photographed or identified, they should work in civil dress. Or they can change a job.
 
I thought this article was extremely helpful on one mans technique to shooting "Street photography" He shoots mostly from the chest/waist level and offers lots of good tips for when/how to position the camera, where to stand, etc....

from his article:
"The first thing you need to shoot on the subway, is a fairly wide angle lens. The second thing that is helpful is autofocus. The third thing is autoexposure. And most importantly, an auto-winder. Most of this work was done with the 21mm and 28mm lenses. Both are excellent used wide-open."


http://www.davebeckerman.com/general/Contax-g2.html

tp
 
XAos said:
The reason not to take pictures of cops is they will almost always tell you no and wont bother to wait for you to ask permission before telling you this. They're very concerned with who might be profiling cops, or trying to identify the entire set of local cops, or other "intelligence" like activities.
(That and he has a gun, handcuffs, baton, and pepper spray, any one of which can make even the bravest of folks uncomfortable, even if he gets in trouble for it later on.)

I was at the airport in Orange County, CA, waiting on a plane. At the time, I was still a smoker, so I went outside to burn one.

I saw a couple of fat cops in golf carts riding up and down the sidewalks in front of the airport, apparently too lazy to get out and walk. I took their photo as they had a confab. I was using a digital point-n-shoot.

They saw me. One of them wheeled over to me on his golf cart. He got out and walked over to me.

"Did you just take a photo of me?"

"Yes, I did."

"May I see it?"

"No, you may not."

"Why not?"

"I am afraid you'll delete it or seize my camera."

"I may do that anyway. I don't want you to take my photo."

"Too bad. You're a public offical, and we're in public. You don't get a say."

"I want you to delete my photo."

"No."

"I want you to give me the camera."

"No."

"Give me your ID."

"OK."

I gave him my ID. He called in my name, address, etc - waited to find out if I was wanted for any crimes. When I was not, he handed me back my driver's license.

"You know, it's not smart to take photos of cops."

"It's even dumber to interfere with the press."

"Oh, are you the press?"

"Wouldn't you like to know?"

At that point, I put out my cigarette and left. It may sound like I was brave, but I was shaking. Inside the airport, I went through security and watched as the cop spoke to the cop on duty assisting the TSA security guards. They both stared daggers at me, but they didn't do anything to me or try to take the camera away again.

I refuse to give in to police bullying. I may be arrested someday for my attitude. So mote it be.

I agree with this one - how would you like to find your picture on mulletjunky.com? Or if you were an attractive woman (for this you only have to think you are), how would you feel wondering if the nervous goofy guy taking your picture is your own amateur stalker, that YOU are the reason he's out taking pictures?

If people go out in public, including fat ugly bald people like me, they are subject to having their photo taken and used in a variety of ways.

Traditionally in the USA, this meant only that the photographer could not use their photograph commercially (to make money from) or to hold them up to public ridicule, if the person pictured was identifiable. That would require a model release. Therefore, if someone puts your photo on mullets-r-us and makes fun of you, you have an actionable cause. But that's only if you know about it, and only if you care to pursue the civil action. And you take your chances in court.

Look up sometime when you go out. There are cameras ALL OVER. You can't walk too far in most cities without being photographed without your permission.

I am a big advocate of personal privacy. I think the government intrudes too much into our personal lives, and it is getting worse.

However, I accept that privacy only applies if you remain in your private spaces. When you go out, you are 'in public' and if you don't want your photo taken, too bad.

Asking permission to take a public photo is a very, very, bad idea. It gives people the notion that they have the right to say 'no' - which they do not. At least, not in the USA. Don't want your mullet to go a' flyin' - don't go out in public.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
tpersin said:
I thought this article was extremely helpful on one mans technique to shooting "Street photography" He shoots mostly from the chest/waist level and offers lots of good tips for when/how to position the camera, where to stand, etc....
Notice that in the footnote link, he reveals that he found that practice inferior and abandoned it in favor of more traditional work with M6.
 
Thumbs up Bill. The officials should be reminded once in a while who is in charge.
 
Or better yet get a haircut. As much as I dislike them and the crowd who who wear them, the people who make it their lifes obsession to mock them are about two stops freakier. The press thing works both ways, (I'm not sure how we ever got a canonized press - if you got a blog - you're The Press, congratulations.) I have had people who were fine with strangers taking random pictures who specifically did not want to be in the paper, or on the news, but I dont do a lot of individuals.
 
varjag said:
Thumbs up Bill. The officials should be reminded once in a while who is in charge.

I worked in law enforcement for many years, both civilian and military. I respect the police and the tough job they have to do. They have my full support and cooperation. But they may not infringe on my rights as a US citizen in order to do their jobs. If they're allowed to do that, we'll end up with a police state.

Cops are people too. They are fallible and sometimes they get full of themselves and high on their apparent power - the fact that people tend to do what they are told by those in a position of authority. But to give in to this is wrong - it hurts everyone.

So, as difficult as it is, the police must behave within the limits of their authority and with respect for the rights of citizens, even if that makes their jobs harder.

I feel that I'm doing my job as a citizen when I take a stand and refuse to let my rights be trampled upon. I realize that many will interpret that as 'hating the police' or being 'in favor of lawlessness', which I am not.

I believe in a society that has laws - and that the police are empowered to enforce those laws - and that they deserve our support and assistance. However, in a lawful society, everybody has to live within the restrictions of those laws, or it is not a just society. That means the police, politicians, judges, everybody.

I'm not brave, just stubborn.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
XAos said:
The press thing works both ways, (I'm not sure how we ever got a canonized press - if you got a blog - you're The Press, congratulations.) I have had people who were fine with strangers taking random pictures who specifically did not want to be in the paper, or on the news, but I dont do a lot of individuals.

You brought up several issues here. The first is the issue of people who blog declaring themselves 'press' and getting that respect. The second is 'canonized' press, by which I presume you mean the fact that 'the press' gets special treatment that citizens do not.

First - if we decide that bloggers are NOT 'the press' then we have to answer the question - who IS 'the press?' Traditionally, this has been reserved for newspaper reporters and photographers. Then radio and TV. Cable news. Then it got cheaper to print and we got weekly 'alternative' papers and college news and Samizdat. Are all these 'the press?' And if so, why are bloggers NOT 'the press?' In other words, the use of the term 'press' has expanded over the years to include those who report and those who editorialize, complain, carp, raise hell, and just generally behave like a public nuisance. SO....which one is 'the press?'

When you decide who is 'the press' you then have to say a) what 'the press' is and is not and b) who gets to decide.

I would suggest that this is the way the world ends. Nobody gets to decide who 'the press' is, just like nobody gets to decide who 'the clergy' is. It is self-declared. Valid for all or valid for nobody. If you give the power to decide what is and is not 'the press' away - that person or authority will eventually abuse it, and the public will be the ultimate victim. History is clear on this.

So, are bloggers 'the press?' Yep.

Next point - the press getting 'special treatment'. Yep. In the USA, anyway.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


While anyone may declare themselves to be 'the press', once they have, a special rule applies - "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of...the press." That's a special prohibition, put there on purpose. The Framers of the Constitution knew perfectly well that in order for a despotic government to remain in power, they must first stop people from talking about it. No despotic authoritarian government can ever have a free press. Therefore, a free and unfettered press is a cherished hallmark of a free society.

Canonized? No. Given special protected status? Yep. It's in the Bill of Rights.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Re: shooting in public.
People will REACT to the way you ACT. If you are uncomfortable, sneaky, tentative, etc, people will probably respond in a negative way. On the other hand, if you just simply go about your work, look busy, look like you are supposed to be there and having a good time, then people will largely ignore you or respond positively. It is all about your attitude.

Personally, I don't see the point of tricks like pretending to be taking a picture of something else or shooting from the hip, but if it works for you, fine. You can't argue with results.
 
Back
Top Bottom