Mackinaw
Think Different
- Local time
- 7:24 PM
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2005
- Messages
- 4,711
TLR users shoot from the hip all the time. What's the big deal?
Jim B.
Jim B.
Shooting from the hip = morally questionable?
- Thread starter user237428934
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 155
- Views 12K
Pablito
coco frío
To make fair they should close the viewing hood.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
That's easy with a 35mm or shorter focal length lens...
I use a 28 mostly, at f/8 or f/11 with fast film unless there's direct sun, and prefocused at 8 feet so you get on focus almost everything... When infinite or far subjects are irrelevant and you prefer to keep on focus subjects being really close to camera, it's better to set focus closer, at 4-5 feet maybe, but setting focus closer than 8 feet really reduces DOF a lot... Getting huge DOF with a 50mm is a lot harder...
Cheers,
Juan
tj01
Well-known
Candid street/people photography isn't really my main photographic interest but if I see something interesting I'll go for it. Generally, I find hip shots don't work a lot and I'm NOT a fan of the wide angle horizon tilted to all hell hip shots. Just MHO. I do think its possible to previzualize once you are used to a certain focal length so it's definitely possible to get results doing hip shots. Anyway, with the example below, I was sitting on the train about 3 feet from the woman and her forlorn expression is what I noticed. There wouldve been no way for me to capture that if I brought the camera up to my face. So, I scale focused @ 1.2 (is was the 35mm Nokton) and shot from my lap. I was surprised the focus
was accurate. Now, whether it's a good photo: Like I said, people aren't my main interest, but this is by far the most popular photo on my Flickr page, so people definitely respond to it.
Untitled by andre dos santos, on Flickr
great shot
uhoh7
Veteran
The best hip shooter ever:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/d_robert/tags/z/show/
Shooting from the hip is THE MOST MORAL method there is 😉
I don't mind having my picture taken on the street as long as I don't know about it. Somebody puts their leica in my face, I'm as annoyed as anyone else--there's something genetic about it.
Last edited:
lynnb
Veteran
Assuming your intentions in street photography are benign (as opposed to exploitative) and lawful, I see no reason why you should consider it morally questionable how you operate the camera.
Recording an image is recording an image, whether the camera has an optical viewfinder held at the face, a waist level vf, a swivel LCD screen or no vf at all.
If your objective is to record the flow of life around you the observer, it's not about having the guts, it's whether the very act of recording the moment in a photo will change the very moment you are interested in recording. As dreilly mentioned, good examples of street photography have a pleasing literalism and spontaneity. They are also a resource for future generations (even if it's just your kids looking through an album) to look back on, to see how people lived and how society has changed.
Some skilled street photographers can shoot very quickly and unobtrusively without interrupting the flow of life around them. For others, using the camera away from the eye is best way to achieve the same result. Both are simply taking pictures of life, in their time and place. They just involve different technique and camera position.
If you want to take pictures of people responding to being photographed, then by all means make it obvious that you are taking a photograph of them. You will have a different sort of picture: "people responding to camera".
Street photography involves social trust - are you benign in your intentions taking that photo of me? - why should you feel it may not be "morally legit" to take a photo without interrupting the moment, if your intentions are benign and lawful?
This photo was taken while walking along a beach. Raising the camera would almost certainly have drawn her attention and interrupted her reverie. The camera (Nikkormat) was held at chest height. I think it shows this style of shooting can achieve reasonable results.
Recording an image is recording an image, whether the camera has an optical viewfinder held at the face, a waist level vf, a swivel LCD screen or no vf at all.
If your objective is to record the flow of life around you the observer, it's not about having the guts, it's whether the very act of recording the moment in a photo will change the very moment you are interested in recording. As dreilly mentioned, good examples of street photography have a pleasing literalism and spontaneity. They are also a resource for future generations (even if it's just your kids looking through an album) to look back on, to see how people lived and how society has changed.
Some skilled street photographers can shoot very quickly and unobtrusively without interrupting the flow of life around them. For others, using the camera away from the eye is best way to achieve the same result. Both are simply taking pictures of life, in their time and place. They just involve different technique and camera position.
If you want to take pictures of people responding to being photographed, then by all means make it obvious that you are taking a photograph of them. You will have a different sort of picture: "people responding to camera".
Street photography involves social trust - are you benign in your intentions taking that photo of me? - why should you feel it may not be "morally legit" to take a photo without interrupting the moment, if your intentions are benign and lawful?
This photo was taken while walking along a beach. Raising the camera would almost certainly have drawn her attention and interrupted her reverie. The camera (Nikkormat) was held at chest height. I think it shows this style of shooting can achieve reasonable results.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Chris101
summicronia
Hi Lynn,
If we exclude photographs which are illegal, dividing photographs into benign and exploitive becomes difficult. In one scenario, they young woman in your picture knew she was in public and subject to being photographed, and if she were to find this photo, think "what a lovely picture of me!"
In another she might have been looking for solitude, worried that she has done wrong by running off to the beach with her boss when she told her husband that she was at a convention. If she were to find that photo, she might think "!$%! @$% ... who took this!!!"
In the first case, the photo is benign, the second exploitive. Can you think of two scenarios where the following hip-shot photo could be either benign or exploitive?
lynnb
Veteran
Thanks, Juan!
Chris - this gets quite interesting - the way I see it is that there is the original intention of the photographer, and quite separately, the interpretation put into the photograph by the subject/s or even third parties.
Taking your idea to its logical conclusion, one would hesitate to take any photograph in public because it just might include someone who finds it embarrassing or inconvenient. For this reason I think it's reasonable to judge benign or exploitative by the intentions of the photographer, not the interpretation of the subject, or another viewer.
If people out in public places can claim that any photograph is exploitative, then photography in public places would be impossible. But with estimates of 2.5 to 4 billion photos uploaded to just Facebook every month, that isn't going to happen.
Another problem is revisionism - photos taken now being deemed unacceptable in the future, as society norms change.
That's why I would judge this by the intentions of the photographer. I'd be interested to hear what your thoughts are on this (possibly it's been covered elsewhere in other threads?).
Regarding your example, I would use a test of "did this woman have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances, and was it intruded upon by this photo?". That's the test that Australian law uses in such cases, as far as I know.
Cheers,
Chris - this gets quite interesting - the way I see it is that there is the original intention of the photographer, and quite separately, the interpretation put into the photograph by the subject/s or even third parties.
Taking your idea to its logical conclusion, one would hesitate to take any photograph in public because it just might include someone who finds it embarrassing or inconvenient. For this reason I think it's reasonable to judge benign or exploitative by the intentions of the photographer, not the interpretation of the subject, or another viewer.
If people out in public places can claim that any photograph is exploitative, then photography in public places would be impossible. But with estimates of 2.5 to 4 billion photos uploaded to just Facebook every month, that isn't going to happen.
Another problem is revisionism - photos taken now being deemed unacceptable in the future, as society norms change.
That's why I would judge this by the intentions of the photographer. I'd be interested to hear what your thoughts are on this (possibly it's been covered elsewhere in other threads?).
Regarding your example, I would use a test of "did this woman have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances, and was it intruded upon by this photo?". That's the test that Australian law uses in such cases, as far as I know.
Cheers,
Chris101
summicronia
That is why I do not think that intention or belief that a photo is benign or exploitive, or any other adjective has any bearing. Legality is what trumps all. Is it legal to take and publish any particular photo. Some countries lean toward the no end of the spectrum, while others lean to yes. If you are going to undertake candid photography, from the hip eye or hidden automatic camera (as was used in the famous Nussenzweig/Dicorcia case) you had better know the laws of the location you are shooting/publishing in or be willing to face the consequences for your art.
ps, my photograph was taken with the full knowledge and cooperation of the subject, just to be clear about that!
ps, my photograph was taken with the full knowledge and cooperation of the subject, just to be clear about that!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Exactly. And if it doesn't worry you, then do it.
As for Ampguy's "How do you feel about others sneakily photographing you and your friend/family, then posting the images on the internet?", first, why would I care, and second, you've already made a moral judgement by using the word 'sneakily': indefensibly in my view, because it's impossible to define.
Take out that word and very few people would worry about it if they bothered to give it a few seconds' rational thought, not least because (as others have said) most of us are captured on surveillance cameras with shocking frequency. I defend the word 'shocking' on the basis that many surveillance cameras are an evidence of lack of trust bordering upon paranoia, rather than because I care in the slightest about being photographed by them.
The trouble is that an awful lot of people are allergic to rational thought and go on gut reactions instead; gut reactions that are stoked by the aforementioned low-level paranoia, the gutter press, 'celebrity' culture, and a general feeling of powerlessness.
Cheers,
R.
user237428934
User deletion pending
For that kind of shooting I use f8 and Set the distance to 4.5 meter. Everything between 2.5 and infinity is sharp (M8+28mm)
Chris101
summicronia
And it helps to pre-meter the likely subject, or use an AE camera too.
user237428934
User deletion pending
user237428934
User deletion pending
I still don't have a clear opinion wether a Person might have a right to control what happens with a picture. I think there is a difference between Looping at someone and taking His photo. With a Photo a certain situation is fixed forever and publishing this photo might have some negative impact. But you are right, there is no difference between shooting from the hip or taking the photo visible.
Photos of security cameras are normally Not published so most people don't care.
I personally don't Care if my photo is taken and published As long as the Situation is not too negative e.g. stumbling over your feet, making a really stupid face...
Last edited:
Chris101
summicronia
Depends on your definition of published. They are made available to persons or entities who can cause you harm. They can then be manipulated by said entities to appear incriminating, or at least damaging. And then used to prosecute or sue you.
And it's all done in secret, so there is nothing you can do about it.
craygc
Well-known
I never understand why people get so bent out of shape on the topic of shooting blind. Its merely a technique that works. It takes practice but it allows you to get shots that otherwise you couldn't have achieved. I use it a lot and never set focus to hyperfocal. I set my distance (usually 1.5 ~ 2 mtrs) and position objects at that range - after a while you can get rather good at the judging.
ronnies
Well-known
You almost always have to 'shoot from the hip' (or at least the tummy button) when using a TLR. Does that make TLRs (or waist level finders in general) questionable?
Ronnie
Ronnie
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Man! Those are good! - Ben
RanceEric
The name is Rance
And I love this quote by Gueorgui Pinkhassov of Magnum, from Magnum Stories:
"Good photos have come when I least controlled the situation. The process reminds me more of fishing than it does of shooting. I look through the lens; I create my composition – banal, boring. Get tired, get distracted – click and success. As though the photographic angels, upon whom it all depends, had begged, 'Don't look through the lens, let us work in peace.' Sometimes I have not even recognized my own photographs."
Great shot. I love the looks on their faces.
I've only shot from the hip two or three times and hated the results.. I would rather just put the camera to my eye, but I do understand there are times when shooting from the hip is necessary to get a certain kind of shot, but I'm just never successful..
Similar threads
