Your true personality and the effect on your street photography

I heard that record on the radio a long long time ago and it must've sunk in. You know, the

one where the guy sings "timing, a-tic-a-tic-a-tic-a-tic... timing... timing is the thiiing, it's

true, cuz timin' brought me to you....!

<i>You know, the one where the guy sings "timing, a-tic-a-tic-a-tic-a-tic... timing... timing is the thiiing, it's true, cuz timin' brought me to you....!</i>

<p>

I hear <i>Zing! Went The Strings Of My Heart</i> when I'm out shooting...

One thing that happens to me when I am on the sreet shooting is that all stress and personal worries dissapear. I really live in the moment. I am truly Present. Also street work, to the extent that you are shooting candids of people, is almost athletic in the hand eye reflexes you need to capture the "moment". I too am a loner. I only ever met one person with whom I could shoot serious street successfully. I love shooting on the street. I'd rather do that than anything else. Why, I don't really know. There are very few pictures that I have taken that I knew were good pics when I took them:those moments are special and I remember them well. It might sound stupid, but its also great to get outside, see the world, and get some exercise. AIPAD has their annual convention next weekend in NYC and I try to go to this event as often as possible. Its a TWOFER. You get to see great pics and prints AND you get to shoot in NYC after getting galery burnout. End of babble.

I know I talk to myself a lot rather than to the subjects when I am wandering around. I even

sing to myself. When I'm not physically shooting I love having a metal rangefinder around my

neck. I love holding people's often empty gazes a bit too long just to see where they will go,

what they will do. When I am shooting I am silent and expressionless. I make tiny

adjustments on the focus. It's an amazing experience. I would love to see a video of how my

entire body changes just before the moment of exposure. It's almost a pure moment of super

anxiety and concentration when the "drug" takes effect. That's why I might never switch back

to SLRs. I actually see the moment happen.

I'm not sure I know my "true personality". But I am doing something out there. I will talk to people and sometimes not, depends on the photo I'm doing. Somtimes I want the photo to include that moment of acknoledgement of "other", its good theatre, sometimes I really hope they don't see me.

 

NYC, San Francisco are the two best places I've found so far for shooting on the streets. Los Angeles is getting better for me. But the light in New York City is amazing.

>>> But the light in New York City is amazing.

 

That's for sure. I shot there a few years ago with Tom and Grant and it was immediately

obvious it's a lot kinder than SF light. Must be the tall buildings...

>>> I'm not sure I understand your point, Vivek. Which "veterans"? What "web personalities"?

 

>>>>> Oh, some who claim to be people personalities, claim they can actually interact with real

people on the street but do not come across as such from their web postings.

 

 

I don't understand your point either. Having shot with lots of people from this forum, I've seen a

wide range with respect to engagement with people on the street. Jeff, who I've probably shot with

at least a couple dozen times, is always chatting people up and shooting in the process. And

people from all different backgrounds - from the tame to a bit scary. Certainly goes about it

without fear. Don't know if he fits your category of a "veteran" or personality, but he's been doing it

for a long time. And people like relating to him.

 

 

With respect to "real people on the street," and not being able to reconcile people engagement

claims, perhaps the issue is that kind of behavior is personally difficult?

I read your opening post...but skipped all the other comments because you hit a point with me immediately...so if I am being redundant please excuse.

 

I started seriously in photography in 1973. I started Street in 2000. I have always watched people. I have recollections of sitting int Pennsauken (NJ) Farmers Market just watching all the people I saw. I have always been facsinated with what people do in public. I can sit ther and watch people for hours...totally enthralled in the human experience of living in public.

 

In the year 2000 I first noticed street...........it was pictures of all that stuff I use to sit there and watch. I immediately pursued getting good at street photography.

 

I will always do street...............even if I don't have a camera in my hands. I am just facsinated with people in public. The things they do...just amazing. I've never enjoyed taking pics so much since I combined my natural tendancy to watching people in public with taking pics of them doing it.

interesting....the talk of audio...I was just musing on this on the subway ride home today, that I would like to record some audio while I was taking pics. Mainly so I could add a soundtrack to my pic on my website of the actual NYC sounds associated with the pics.

 

What is a good audio recorder that reproduces the sound really good. Not too expensive....but I'd be willing to spend $300 on the set up. small, lightweight, voice actuated....with override for constant recording.....would prefer memory card storage, but not essential.

 

sorry to turn this into a hardware question....but it is an interesting thing to do.........as some of you have already discovered.

Tom, on portable recorders, there's probably a dozen to choose from (each manuf makes a

couple) - Edirol, Sony, Olympus, Marantz, Zoom, Sound Devices, Tascam, and M-Audio .<p>

 

I ended up with <a href=

"http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0012754UG/ref=cm_rdp_product">this one</a>.

 

It's SD card based (and has 2 GB built-in). Relatively low priced. Built-in mics are good. Has a

low noise preamp for external mics, which I'm trying tomorrow. Runs for 12-14 hours on 2 AA

bats. Small. Easy to read display. Records in several formats. Built-in speakers (not wonderful

due to size). Easy to use controls. Files sound great imported into a sound app. I'm still

learning...

Orville, seems I forgot something. That's thanking you for that kind invitation. Who knows, I might take you up on it someday. The same applies here. Also to all of you here :-)

Not sure how to add something new here.

 

 

I'm an experimenter, I try different techniques, angles (films, exposure methods, ways of holding the camera). I'm always looking for constructing something from nothing with minimal information (as I think Frank said above). All of that should be obvious by what I post here.

 

 

I also try to change my personality, but am perhaps not able to change the 'true' core of it. I am always a beginner, an amateur not a veteran - which might betray a lack of self-confidence since I'd rather move on than be judged. I was very timid until my mid twenties and that should be plain from the lack of confrontation in what I do. I have never been driven by 'cool'. So while I'm interested in the reaction of others - I'm not sure how that feeds back into the process.

 

 

Further to what Marc and Orviile said about recording with little reference to the output. I thought like that until 2 years ago I started studying again and didn't have much time to process shot film. My shooting dried up with it. Perhaps I do need to see the output to be able to come up with new shots. The amount of time I have spent carrying the camera around without taking a single shot in that time is phenomenal :-)

To Brad: The selective quote referenced no one in particular. My posts were only to get Orville's reaction (Mar 28, 2008; 03:44 a.m.).

 

I enjoy/appreciate the talented contributions from Jeff Spirer and many other "regulars" here.

Beats golf.

Gulf shrimp beats golf for me.

Search for meaning, order. I love composing a photograph as much as any other part of the process. I also like the non-verbal nature of photography. I studied literature at college. Words, words, words.

Not sure about "traits." I think of some of them as flaws.

 

 

 

1. Impatience (mine). On the street, something is happening or circumstances are changing nearly all the time. Don't like what I'm seeing ? I can turn a corner, or hang out for a couple minutes. It'll change.

 

2. Inattention to details/ sloppy craftsmanship (again, mine). When I take pictures of landscapes or architecture -- and I do try a few -- they suffer for one of these two reasons ... often both. On the street, in an instant, I either have or have not taken a photo of someone or something interesting. And either way, that instant is gone. I can only kick myself about it for so long. I cannot go back for a "re-take." I can learn from blown opportunities, and hopefully I do, but in a sense it's like tennis (the only sport I played competitively) vs. golf. In tennis, the last point is over. The next shot is coming. Now. But in golf, you have to stroll over to "what you just did," wait for others, etc. Too slow, requires too much precision, and allows too much time for reflection -- for me, of course.

 

3. I'm a walk-around kind of guy. I like the feel of the street. I always have. Choice of a cab ride or a walk ? Except in a downpour (if I'm in a suit) I'll walk.

 

Compared to several who have responded, I've been at this for a very short time. But man, it's been fun. And challenging. And rewarding.

"I suppose the inevitable question is, what trait deep inside you makes you shoot street photography?"<P>

 

In the words of noted and oft lauded American philosopher John Prine:<P><I>"You are who you are and you ain't what you ain't."</I>

Ah, yes. John Prine. <p>

 

Well, Ellis, the <a href=http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00GrwZ>thread I started back then</a> was a bust, but I remember the song very well.

>>> >>> Joe, I used to walk around with either an Olympus digital or a Sony Professional Walkman recorders to tape what was happening on the streets. Sometimes I'd key in on ... the conversation of a couple and follow them for as long as possible.

 

>>> I'm starting to do that now with an flash-based Oly digital recorder. ...

 

.

.

.

 

Just a word of caution, in the United State this kind of activity, snooping (listening in) or recording conversions without people knowing it, is not legal. So much not legal as to rise to the level of a crime, a felon in some states.

 

The Supreme Court has held that people in public have a reasonable expectation their conversations will not be overheard by other people and thus the conversations of people in public are considered private. There is no way for anyone to record a conversation in public without invading someone elses privacy. Some states have extended protections for that privacy making street audio recordings of conversations or snooping a crime.

 

Fwiw, in some states you cannot even record conversations inside your own home without first notifying those conversing.

Oxide Blu -- <p>

 

Though I understand you were only generalizing, I don't believe you've correctly summarized the law.<p>

 

It is certainly confusing to assert, as you did without qualification, that "the conversations of people in public are considered private." You mean <u>all conversations</u> ? Anywhere they take place ? Even if you and I are shouting at one another from soapboxes in the public square, that's considered "private" ? Please show me a statute or a case (state or federal) that stands for that proposition. <p>

 

The expectation of privacy (or the absence of it) is in many cases a key consideration. You omitted it entirely. Moreover, it's true, as you suggest, that statutory prohibitions on recording are very much a state-by-state patchwork of laws. <p>

 

As I nearly always say, the only reliable way to get legal advice is to confer with a lawyer who actually has expertise in the subject matter in the jurisdiction in which your question arises. But for those who want a starting point -- just a starting point -- have a glance at this part of the <a href=http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/state-law-recording>Citizen Media Law Project site</a>, since it provides helpful summaries and references to certain state statutes.<p>

 

Massachusetts, for example, has a broadly worded statute that comes very close to the sweeping prohibition that Oxide Blu asserted. But California law refers to a "confidential" communication -- a much different law.

The pictures are deeply affected by personality.

 

Where you choose to go, and what you observe are results of thought and instinct.

 

What you react to, and what makes you move the hand to fire proves the point.

 

Maybe you nailed the shot, maybe not, but what it is you've got is yourself lay before you, for good or ill.

 

Some people want to tell, some people want to learn, others want to tell what they've learned in the hope that you learn something too.

 

Rarely is it the same thing.

 

Once it's a picture, it's a new observation.

 

And it you are exposed to it by thought, instinct, and presence there at all.

 

I see a lot of frames where a person is seeing me, in whatever situation we're both experiencing. Maybe I saw them, and they were the shot. Seeing me was the shot. Maybe they were just there, and they were an integral aspect to the overall thing I reacted to shooting.

 

I walk a lot, I walk too fast.

I can't get as much in, versus everything going on around. Everything from weather and inactivity. Walking and shooting and observing is a cathartic necessity for me, for a reason I don't know.

 

My personality is that of an angry, frustrated, wronged and unsatisfied person, with boredom and anxiety thrown in.

 

But I'm interested, and very honest. Loner, chain-smoking, or drinking coffee, the camera is tied to the wrist whenever possible. I dress incongruously to my time and place. I'm scruffy becaus eI work on old cars and live in three cities and don't sleep well. And I can't seem to wag my tail socially, to convey to the other dogs out there how friendly I am.

 

These are aspects I have to consider, but don't feel are necessary to alter...

 

...because that's me, for good or ill; and if I changed because I didn't like that Chinese parents held their children a little closer, women avoided eye contact, and winos thought I was their new best Mark; then the pictures would be dishonest. And wouldn't have come from me, in that facet of living.

 

I rarely have the camera up to my eye. Maybe once out of 20. I think the picture, and respond. When there's eye contact in a shot, it's either me, or it's the camera they're looking at. Then it them, and me there, with a camera.

 

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/7125121-md.jpg/"img>

 

this is one of those instances.