alistair.o
Well-known
Thanks for the thread.
To me street work is all about educating the eye/mind to what will be a good picture.
When I started street work it was digital all the way. I would fill a chip and then sit and PP my life away and look for anything that constituted interest (cropping was King).
Now, I shoot mainly film, B&W. To say that my past experience wasn't helpful would be untrue. But, to say that street work done in film is alot more challenging is very true. I have learnt to wait after I have walked and found a nice location. Patience and the avoidance of the 'snapping syndrome' make it an experience that I love and yet can hate at the same time. Al
To me street work is all about educating the eye/mind to what will be a good picture.
When I started street work it was digital all the way. I would fill a chip and then sit and PP my life away and look for anything that constituted interest (cropping was King).
Now, I shoot mainly film, B&W. To say that my past experience wasn't helpful would be untrue. But, to say that street work done in film is alot more challenging is very true. I have learnt to wait after I have walked and found a nice location. Patience and the avoidance of the 'snapping syndrome' make it an experience that I love and yet can hate at the same time. Al
Nikkor AIS
Nikkor AIS
Nikkor 24 2.8 AIS FM2
Nikkor 135 2.0 AIS on F2AS
Nikkor 400 2.8 IF-ED AIS on D3
Nikkor 24 2.8 AIS on FM2
35 mm 3.5 Rollei fixed lens
Nikkor 16 2.8 AIS on F2AS
50 1.0 Noctilux on Leica M7
Widelux F7
Nikkor 135 2.0 AIS on F3/T
Over the last 25 years or more, I have used many different cameras/lenses/formats/film/digital ...OO, for street photography.
For me, it's more about where/who I am than what I've got.
And while I know I can make/take pictures with anything, I choose to use nice gear for my photography. I've never cared what kind of car I drove, living in a big house or having fancy clothes. But having the right lenses/cameras has always been very important to me. And having the time/inspiration to use them.
Note: Sorry, I posted this in the wrong thread. It was meant for the other one about whether the right lens is important for street photography. Thanks.
Last edited:
FrankS
Registered User
I think that the nature of street photography being what it is, it has a higher tolerance for technical imperfection than other types/genres of photography. Photo-journalism is the same. If the content is compelling enough then it is easier to ignore technical imperfection in street and photo-jopurnalism than say, wedding, portraiture, pet, product, and archetectural types of photography.
(War photography would have the highest tolerance for tech. imperfection, IMO)
(War photography would have the highest tolerance for tech. imperfection, IMO)
Last edited:
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
Less than what? Less what than what?
Sorry, but the question should be formulated differently. As it is, it assumes other forms of artistic expression are better... And "better" is a subjective term. Can we pose the question in terms of SP being more or less prestigious, known, admired? Otherwise, it's like talking about different ways of representing images in two dimensions, akin to asking whether watercolor is inferior to oil, acrylic or tempera.
To me, each of the traditional photography branches (defined by professionals and their niche, not by academia) deserves equal respect. I may admire portraitists more than product specialists, but then that's a very subjective, personal statement.
Sorry, but the question should be formulated differently. As it is, it assumes other forms of artistic expression are better... And "better" is a subjective term. Can we pose the question in terms of SP being more or less prestigious, known, admired? Otherwise, it's like talking about different ways of representing images in two dimensions, akin to asking whether watercolor is inferior to oil, acrylic or tempera.
To me, each of the traditional photography branches (defined by professionals and their niche, not by academia) deserves equal respect. I may admire portraitists more than product specialists, but then that's a very subjective, personal statement.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
I agree that sports photography may be the most technically demanding, but most genres of photography require of the photographer a specific skill set, in order to do well and differentiate oneself from the crowd.
That said, the skills required of the portraitist are not the same skills required of the photo-journalist, for instance, even though they both superficially involve interacting with people using camera gear.
What I read behind the OP's question is really the question of street photography as a genre. For instance, I often question my own understanding of the distinctions between "street" and "photo-journalism", because while many examples of PJ-type photography also occur "on the street", and are superficially often good examples of street photography, not often does one find a good example of street photography functioning as successful photojournalism.
Good street photography tells stories, but in ways much more subtle and artistic than that required for publication via a media outlet to the public. I think the distinction here is one of the sophistication of the viewing public to read and understand the subtle nuances of the visual language that is good street photography. PJ imagery, taken in public, has to resonate to the general viewing audience in much the same way that the level of writing in newspapers is often geared toward the least common denominator of a high school/secondary school level of education. PJs often have to "talk down" to their audience, in order for their work to get past the editor and into publication; whereas those few who succeed professionally as street photographers do so much more as a sub-genre of art photography.
Of course, these distinctions remain indistinct and fuzzy, and there are always exceptions. I'm thinking about Bruce Gilden, a member of Magnum (IIRC), and a great PJ as well as street photographer. I can't easily parse his work into carefully segregated categories of journalism and street, there's too much overlap, which is one certain indicator of his skill and success.
~Joe
That said, the skills required of the portraitist are not the same skills required of the photo-journalist, for instance, even though they both superficially involve interacting with people using camera gear.
What I read behind the OP's question is really the question of street photography as a genre. For instance, I often question my own understanding of the distinctions between "street" and "photo-journalism", because while many examples of PJ-type photography also occur "on the street", and are superficially often good examples of street photography, not often does one find a good example of street photography functioning as successful photojournalism.
Good street photography tells stories, but in ways much more subtle and artistic than that required for publication via a media outlet to the public. I think the distinction here is one of the sophistication of the viewing public to read and understand the subtle nuances of the visual language that is good street photography. PJ imagery, taken in public, has to resonate to the general viewing audience in much the same way that the level of writing in newspapers is often geared toward the least common denominator of a high school/secondary school level of education. PJs often have to "talk down" to their audience, in order for their work to get past the editor and into publication; whereas those few who succeed professionally as street photographers do so much more as a sub-genre of art photography.
Of course, these distinctions remain indistinct and fuzzy, and there are always exceptions. I'm thinking about Bruce Gilden, a member of Magnum (IIRC), and a great PJ as well as street photographer. I can't easily parse his work into carefully segregated categories of journalism and street, there's too much overlap, which is one certain indicator of his skill and success.
~Joe
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
Every type of photography has its own demands.
Some (sports and wildlife for example) are heavily gear dependent. You simply cannot produce consistently good work without the right lenses.
Others, (street, photojournalism, portraiture, for example) demand much more from a photographer in other ways. Portrait photography, for one, requires a much greater understanding how to manipulate light. And how to interact with another human being. The best lenses in the world can't overcome deficiencies in those areas.
That doesn't mean any of them are greater or lesser. They're just different.
Some (sports and wildlife for example) are heavily gear dependent. You simply cannot produce consistently good work without the right lenses.
Others, (street, photojournalism, portraiture, for example) demand much more from a photographer in other ways. Portrait photography, for one, requires a much greater understanding how to manipulate light. And how to interact with another human being. The best lenses in the world can't overcome deficiencies in those areas.
That doesn't mean any of them are greater or lesser. They're just different.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
And, street shows a great deal more of daily life than most other styles. The appearances of daily life is something we take for granted but if not photographed, nobody will remember what the fashion of today looks like in ten years' time, or cars, or street layouts in the city where you live, or.... etc. In that sense, street is more important.
Also, I find shooting street much more of a psychological game since it's about my own guts and my people skills in an infinitely variable situation at the same time. I don't get to put a model at ease slowly, I have to assess, snap and handle the situation
and I like that. So that's why it's more important to me.
Last edited:
Carterofmars
Well-known
I used to think 35mm was best but now think 28mm is most useful.
Street shooting is challenging on many different levels. You need to have quick reflexes. You need to preset you lens, and then keep yourself at that prescribed distance from your targets. You need nerve. You need all of these things to be on point and then maybe you'll get something that is decent.
Street photography isn't easy.
Street shooting is challenging on many different levels. You need to have quick reflexes. You need to preset you lens, and then keep yourself at that prescribed distance from your targets. You need nerve. You need all of these things to be on point and then maybe you'll get something that is decent.
Street photography isn't easy.
Last edited:
bo_lorentzen
Established
Did not know any type of photography is less than other forms.?
But for sure a lot of the images which is being classified as street rely more on the photographers eye and instinct than on the equipment used to capture the image.
Personally, I would say that street is maybe a more demanding and challenging form of expression than many types of photography, one can fiddle with a table-top shot for weeks, but only get maybe 1/250th sec and 1 frame on the street.
I really admire the guys who can consistently go out there and deliver amazing images on the street.
Bo
www.bophoto.typepad.com
But for sure a lot of the images which is being classified as street rely more on the photographers eye and instinct than on the equipment used to capture the image.
Personally, I would say that street is maybe a more demanding and challenging form of expression than many types of photography, one can fiddle with a table-top shot for weeks, but only get maybe 1/250th sec and 1 frame on the street.
I really admire the guys who can consistently go out there and deliver amazing images on the street.
Bo
www.bophoto.typepad.com
Turtle
Veteran
technical demands are lower in some respects and the nature of the topic tends to support less than perfect technical results as long as the 'feel' is there. However, its kinda moot, because even the cheapest CV lenses wil bang out tack sharp images at f5.6 and the more middling apertures (F8 etc) used for street work so getting a 'poor quality' image is quite difficult without motion blur or some other issue.
My fave is a M and CV 35 2.5 II pancake. I like this lens for its tiny size and stiff focus so I can pre-focus and know it wont get knocked off easily.
My fave is a M and CV 35 2.5 II pancake. I like this lens for its tiny size and stiff focus so I can pre-focus and know it wont get knocked off easily.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Perfect answer!
Gabor sums it up without over-analyzing or existensializing the simple question that Joe asked.
antiquark
Derek Ross
If street photography is "less", but as we all know "less is more", then doesn't that make street photography "more?" (More or less?)
That being said, the best form of photography is nude photography. Someone should combine the two: nude street photography. That would be neat.
That being said, the best form of photography is nude photography. Someone should combine the two: nude street photography. That would be neat.
gekopaca
French photographer
IMO street photo is difficult, it's the great school of the "instant décisif".
And I think street photo is a kind of political (sociological at less) act.
You need to have a particular feeling with people.
You need to have solid, discret and light camera too.
You have to walk a lot, at every hour in the night, or early morning…
… and sometimes and somewhere, it may be dangerous for the camera and/or the photographer.
Maybe that's why some photographer don't use their most luxury stuff in the street - sometimes the same for me.
For my use the best (idealistic) combo for street photo is :
-Lens for day light : 18 to 24mm (eq. FF), black paint, metal lens hood.
- lens for low light : 35 to 50mm (eq. FF), faster as possible (f0.95 to f1.4), black paint, metal lens hood.
-Camera : digital RF, black paint, silent shutter, live view + tiltable display (doesn't exist yet!).
And I think street photo is a kind of political (sociological at less) act.
You need to have a particular feeling with people.
You need to have solid, discret and light camera too.
You have to walk a lot, at every hour in the night, or early morning…
… and sometimes and somewhere, it may be dangerous for the camera and/or the photographer.
Maybe that's why some photographer don't use their most luxury stuff in the street - sometimes the same for me.
For my use the best (idealistic) combo for street photo is :
-Lens for day light : 18 to 24mm (eq. FF), black paint, metal lens hood.
- lens for low light : 35 to 50mm (eq. FF), faster as possible (f0.95 to f1.4), black paint, metal lens hood.
-Camera : digital RF, black paint, silent shutter, live view + tiltable display (doesn't exist yet!).
Last edited: