Street photography with a 300mm

[peterm1]

I much prefer using longer lenses on SLRs for street work. Usually not perhaps 300mm but I see nothing wrong with it. ( Come to think of it when I use a 180mm lens it is effectively a 300mm on a cropped sensor DSLR.)

In fact I see a lot right with it. Longer lenses give shallower DOF. This can be a nice effect. Most importantly it allows distance between the shooter and subject. That means more natural "wildlife" behaviour. Besides I loath those "street shooters" who insist on using a 28mm lens but then stick it 100mm from the subjects face in a kind of photographic ambush. I think if someone did it to me I would be inclined to punch them on the nose - so I refrain from doing it to others. Very rude!

And of course when using a pro quality fast tele these usually give superb image quality. Here are a couple from one of my favourites - a 180mm f2.8 Nikkor. As I say, efffectively a 300mm give or take. Characteristic sharp images, great bokeh associated with this lens.


DSC_2083a1 by yoyomaoz, on Flickr


DSC_2074aa by yoyomaoz, on Flickr


DSC_1510a by yoyomaoz, on Flickr

 

[jordanstarr]

I'm not a fan of long lenses on the street as they are not intimate enough. Even close-ups don't give me a good feel for the environment. Longest I go is 50mm and even then I don't think I've used it in 4 months. However, I have seen plenty of great shots with long lenses and they have their application. But for me, it's not the way I see and view the world and the techniques that are most applicable to telephoto shots are boring to me (ie. zoom on one subject, mostly in the middle, blurred background, etc) and allow for very little creative variation of composition and angle. I like the challenge of being able to fill the space of a wide angle lens and use the lens to it's full potential. I feel it makes me "see" better. Just my opinion though.

 

[jippiejee]

But for me, it's not the way I see and view the world and the techniques that are most applicable to telephoto shots are boring to me (ie. zoom on one subject, mostly in the middle, blurred background, etc) and allow for very little creative variation of composition and angle.

I couldn't agree more. When street photos shot with wide-angle lenses give you that nice 'being there' vibe, long focal length photos look like they were shot from the local light tower in the comfort of a cold beer and without having to get your boots on.

 

[uinku]

The examples posted above are more akin to street portraiture than "street photography," which is understandable since the telephoto isolates the subject. And I'd be hesitant to say that sitting back with a telephoto is easier than getting in close with a 21mm--they're different methods and styles.

 

[Luis]

Peter M, those are excellent pictures. The flutist's expression is charming.

 

[Spicy]

sounds to me like the problem is not in the lens selection, but rather the camera-grey-matter interface.

if you say X lens shouldn't be used in Y situation, the problem is simply YOU aren't creative enough to use it.




and to those that argue that teles are pervy, one could equally argue that creeping through someone ELSE's personal space close enough to get that great "I'M-PART-OF-THE-SCENE" shot is just as grievous a violation. besides, similar to the heisenberg uncertainty principle, simply by being there, you're changing the result.

 

[back alley]

sounds to me like the problem is not in the lens selection, but rather the camera-grey-matter interface.

if you say X lens shouldn't be used in Y situation, the problem is simply YOU aren't creative enough to use it.

that's pretty harsh...judging someone's creativity...

i would like a 300 someday but i doubt i would use it for street...seems like cheating to me...but that's me.

 

[wray]

For street I find any focal length can be used when it's done with a purpose.

Sometimes a 24mm is the right lens.

Sometimes a 28mm will do.

Then when I want some compression a 200-300mm.

 

[Jubb Jubb]

and to those that argue that teles are pervy, one could equally argue that creeping through someone ELSE's personal space close enough to get that great "I'M-PART-OF-THE-SCENE" shot is just as grievous a violation.

not really. you are giving the person in the frame a chance to a) know you are there, and b) come up to confront you about it if they don't like you taking a photo. If you are shooting from afar they don't even know you are there.

 

[Spyro]

Nothing wrong with a tele in the street, it will give you a certain look which is either what you're looking for and want to milk it, or not.
No right or wrong there.

I havent tried it myself (too lazy probably), but as a viewer I'm a sucker for longer focal lengths in street photography, especially on bigger formats. DiCorcia comest to mind:
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=photographer%20%22heads%22%20nyc&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1047&bih=490&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=WmKGT99YqbSJB9qlhL8H#um=1&hl=en&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=dicorcia+heads&oq=dicorcia+heads&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&gs_l=img.3..0.54699l57049l0l57225l14l14l0l6l6l1l281l1846l2-8l8l0.frgbld.&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=c02ae8edcebd99a0&biw=1047&bih=490

or this kid in Singapore
http://www.flickr.com/people/dannysantos/

 

[jsrockit]

The examples posted above are more akin to street portraiture than "street photography,"

Street portraits and street still life are still street. RFF tends to have a very narrow definition of what street photography is or can be.

 

[Sparrow]

Street portraits and street still life are still street. RFF tends to have a very narrow definition of what street photography is or can be.

... well no not really, it's about people and their culture, isn't it? people who can only photograph people's backs, bits of street furniture or portraits at great distance like to think it's something else, something easier.. but it isn't really

 

[jsrockit]

... well no not really, it's about people and their culture, isn't it?

Again, a narrow definition. Objects and portraits CAN tell us of culture no? Objects can say just as much about a culture as a photo of a person from that culture. For instance, the book "Street Photography Now" includes a section on street still life.

http://www.thamesandhudson.com/streetphotography.html

...people who can only photograph people's backs, bits of street furniture or portraits at great distance like to think it's something else, something easier.. but it isn't really

I think what you are describing is just bad photography (generally speaking).

 

[Sparrow]

Again, a narrow definition. Objects and portraits CAN tell us of culture no? Objects can say just as much about a culture as a photo of a person from that culture. For instance, the book "Street Photography Now" includes a section on street still life.

http://www.thamesandhudson.com/streetphotography.html



I think what you are describing is just bad photography (generally speaking).

Well I'd have said narrowness was actually a good attribute in a definition, it would help in defining it, no? I notice the four photos they chose to promote the book were all of people and taken with normal'ish lenses.

The long lens thing just feels a little unsavoury, a bit voyeuristic, a bit like surveillance

 

[jsrockit]

The long lens thing just feels a little unsavoury, a bit voyeuristic, a bit like surveillance

I feel the same way, but I would never say someone else shouldn't use it or that it cannot be "street."

 

[Jubb Jubb]

URL]http://www.thamesandhudson.com/streetphotography.html[/URL]

I think what you are describing is just bad photography (generally speaking).

This is a very good book. And what's the bet that there aren't many photo's in there taken with a tele-photo lens...

 

[jsrockit]

This is a very good book. And what's the bet that there aren't many photo's in there taken with a tele-photo lens...

True, there aren't many that I can remember. However, my comment wasn't about the focal length, but about street portraits (and or street objects), not being street. Not that it really matters if it is street or not. WGAFF really.

 

[Ducky]

that's pretty harsh...judging someone's creativity....

I agree, there are nicer ways to say things.

 

[btgc]

The long lens thing just feels a little unsavoury, a bit voyeuristic, a bit like surveillance

This times surveillance cams use WA lenses, must have seen in news.

I really do not want to stand either side. As said before, bad photography is just bad, independent on lens used. Going through my archive I see it more than good photography. Bypassers, backs, buildings, cars, decorations and details. I can take bad photo using any lens you give me and I see no relation to focal length.

Back to question what is street photography. Definitions changes over time. Good and bad pictures don't.

 

[Jubb Jubb]

True, there aren't many that I can remember. However, my comment wasn't about the focal length, but about street portraits (and or street objects), not being street. Not that it really matters if it is street or not. WGAFF really.

I guess street photography is personal to a lot of us, so we all react personally. But the original argument was that you have to be in it, to better capture it, not observe from a distance. It's how you define it i guess, or better, how you capture it!