iPhone street shooting video by Koci Hernandez

Check out this really excellent video about street shooting with your phone by Richard Koci Hernandez. He's a

journalist and a professor of journalism at UC Berkeley. It's iPhone specific, but the principles apply to any mobile

phone.<P>

 

<a href= "http://www.iphoneography.com/journal/2012/2/22/richard-koci-hernandez-talks-iphoneography.html" target="_blank">Link</a>

<p>I saw that video a couple of days ago. I've done this with a DSLR, a compact and a smartphone, and in my opinion, a compact like the Canon S90/95/100 has it all over the phone for this purpose. If anything, I've found that doing this with a phone is actually less discreet. Look, it's a wide angle lens, and it's not like you can just pretend to be using your phone... you really have to point that thing very carefully if you don't want any wild distortions, and doing so makes it pretty obvious that you're taking a picture rather than reading what's on the display. In fact, because of their shape, flat but wide, the phones look larger when pointed at someone than a little compact digicam does. You're also stuck with only the wide angle lens, and so you have no choice: you always have to be very close to the subject.</p>

<p>Personally, I've found it's much easier to do street photography with a compact digicam. I particularly like the Canon S series, simply because the lens can easily be zoomed or set to open at a precise focal length, like 28, 35, 50, 85, 105. It's a million times more versatile than a phone camera, and the picture quality is much better overall - all i-hype aside.</p>

>>> If anything, I've found that doing this with a phone is actually less discreet. Look, it's a wide angle lens, and it's not like you can

just pretend to be using your phone...

 

I've shot with the same range of cameras from a 5DII with large/heavy lens, a compact LX3, and my camera phone. For me, with

respect to discreetness, it makes absolutely no difference. Why pretend?

 

>>> You're also stuck with only the wide angle lens, and so you have no choice: you always have to be very close to the subject.

 

Yes, I much prefer being close to my subjects. For me, good street photography is about being close to people, and best shot from

within rather than from afar down the block. Before moving to cellphone shooting my only lens used on my 5DII was a 35mm.

 

I'm really enjoying shooting with my phone, going on 6 months now. Its versatility as a device that supports so many aspects of my

street shooting is key.

<p>Thanks Brad. I think there are a few lesson's in here:<br>

-gear doesn't matter, not really<br>

-limitations can be assets<br>

-street: shoot close, very close</p>

<p>I still shoot most of my work with a (D)SLR or a MF camera but find myself using my iPhone more often. When I was walking the frozen canals in Amsterdam two weeks ago I used my iPhone a lot more than I did my DSLR. It's fun and about the obvious limitations I feel very much at home by what Travis said about that the other day:<br>

<em> "Coming from a traditional photography background, I was very anti iPhoneography in the begining. I felt that mobile photography was almost like cheating in a way, because the camera does all the work: sets shutter speed, aperture, etc. But now I just don't care"</em><br>

<em></em> <br /> </p>

<p>Eek-sellent! Any experienced photographer who wants to teach or mentor a new photographer should watch that video. It effectively demonstrates why digital is such a great teaching tool. </p>

<p>And it's the best implementation I've seen yet demonstrating how great digital is for teaching. The apps for locking focus on one area while dragging a finger around to show the effect of metering on exposure, including silhouettes ... wow. That's the type of technique I find myself struggling to explain to new photographers, and it's demonstrated so well with those apps.</p>

<p>I don't even own a working cell phone now, but if I had to teach someone the basics of photography, I'd definitely consider something like an iPhone or the Android equivalent now.</p>

>>> I think there are a few lesson's in here:

 

One more, and that applies to any kind of capture method, was his stressing finding good light. That is so

key. And yeah, Travis' words and reflections are great...

 

>>> Eek-sellent! Any experienced photographer who wants to teach or mentor a new photographer should

watch that video.

 

That's what I liked, especially with the sp vids around on the net now that try and portray sp into some

kind of bad-ass macho endeavor, even some going full-Gilden* on passersby for the shock value. But not really *teaching* anything about

the craft of sp to people wanting to learn.

 

* I like Bruce Gilden a lot, IMO, one of the best street shooters out there - something I suspect not many would agree with.

<blockquote>

<p>I've shot with the same range of cameras from a 5DII with large/heavy lens, a compact LX3, and my camera phone. For me, with respect to discreetness, it makes absolutely no difference. Why pretend?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />The only big difference is ease of carrying. A phone is easiest. A compact is easy but less easy than a phone. A dSLR is a pain to carry for a full day if you're not being paid. Otherwise, I have the same experience as Brad. I'm as obvious (or as discreet, depending on how you want to look at it) with a big camera as a phone.</p>

<p>to which I might add, I carry my iPhone with me all the time which I don't with any cam, not even a P&S</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, I much prefer being close to my subjects. For me, good street photography is about being close to people, and best shot from within rather than from afar down the block. Before moving to cellphone shooting my only lens used on my 5DII was a 35mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For the past week, I've been spending time in the "Street" category of the Photo Critique forum. I've posted a couple of my own for critiques and I've submitted my opinion on others...choosing my words carefully here....overall, with a couple of very notable exceptions, I found most of the 'street' photos dull, and uninteresting...sterile is the word that stuck in my head. I think it is because of the lack of interaction between photographer and <em>the environment surrounding the subject. </em>I believe many of the photos were taken using a telephoto lens which is like sniping: very precise, but cold and emotionless. That comes across in the quality of the photo to me. So, it stands to reason that using a tiny phone camera is far more challenging to pull off. You sort of have to make friends with the subject, however briefly,before you take their picture. </p>

<p>Well, all I can say is try it. I saw the video on a website which is apple-specific, so anything is suspect. I like to shoot close too, but that doesn't mean I want to be limited to it by the phone. 28mm equivalent is not the only way to be close, or even to do street photography. It's just one way. What is hardly discussed is that unless the conditions are pretty close to perfect, and the lighting behind you is such that you can easily see the phone's display, you're not going to get much of a picture from a phone of any brand, unless your standards are pretty low.</p>

<p>Look, I'm not saying they are useless for it, just that it's not all it's made out to be.</p>

<p>I've looked at a lot of pictures on iphone photography sites, and I'm pretty sure that many of them are faked, ie originally taken with a better camera, downsampled and transferred to a phone in order to be app'ed. People will do those things, you know.</p>

<p>Regarding Gilden's style (which makes me laugh because he's so New Yawk - I remember fellows just like that when I was a kid in NYC), what made that video so good is that Hernandez demonstrated a balanced variety of styles and approaches toward accomplishing the goal. Within a 12 minute video he covered pretty much the gamut of approaches, from establishing a rapport with subjects and photographing them openly, to the hip-shot and side-shot sneak grabs. </p>

<p>The "pretending I'm listening to music" thing was hilarious because it reminded me of those tiny ads in the back of Modern Photography back in the 1960s for those mirrored sideways view doodads you could stick on your "girlwatcher" lens.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"...you're not going to get much of a picture from a phone of any brand, unless your standards are pretty low."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Considering how popular low tech, low rez cameras and optics are - Holga, Lomo, the original Lensbaby - there's a significant demographic of photographers whose interests are beyond worrying about technical specifications... other than deliberately choosing to seek particular types of technical flaws in the pursuit of their preferred aesthetic. Not much different from me sticking my well corrected Nikkors on my SLRs and then abusing TMY by pushing it to 6400 and throwing away most of the technical capabilities Nikon engineers tried to craft into the equipment. But, yeh, my standards actually are pretty low, I admit it.</p>

>>> Well, all I can say is try it. I saw the video on a website which is apple-specific, so anything is

suspect.

 

Suspect? Please be more specific.

 

>>> you're not going to get much of a picture from a phone of any brand, unless your standards are pretty low.

 

Now that's really funny!

<blockquote>

<p>you're not going to get much of a picture from a phone of any brand, unless your standards are pretty low.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br /> Check out this exhibition of 20" x20" prints from phone cameras used by two street shooters. There wasn't a single negative comment about how the prints looked at the very well-attended opening.</p>

<p><img src="http://spirer.com/images/hipsta.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="525" /></p>

<p>Hey, I recognize that second photo from the right... must be a good 'un, since I'd seen it only once before somewhere on photo.net.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Coming from a traditional photography background, I was very anti iPhoneography in the begining. I felt that mobile photography was almost like cheating in a way, because the camera does all the work: sets shutter speed, aperture, etc. But now I just don't care"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /></em><br /> Ton, you only ever shoots fully manual on your dslr? Come on, automation can be good. It allows one to focus on the subject. As much as I like your recent site redo, I find your "iphoneography" label rather silly. You have urban and doc up there as I recall, and not nikon dslr photography, digital compact photography, etc...Photography is photography whether it's the Iphone, LF, Minox, d300 or whatever... </em><em> </em></p>

<p>Inspiring. The last few times I was in NYC I left my M at home and took my Nikon V1 - smaller, faster, more automatic - I felt it improved my shooting (plus with a "27 mm equivalent" I had to get closer)... Maybe next time I'll just take my phone :)</p>

<p>Leslie, for the record, Ton didn't use the word "<em>iphoneography." </em>He was quoting a guy named Travis who said all that stuff.</p>

<p>E, look <a href="http://www.tonmestrom.com/">here</a>...right next to urban works and documentary.</p>

<p>It isn't a big deal (nice site btw, Ton) but it is just a tad silly imo, that's all...</p>

 

Leslie, I don't think it's silly at all. It's descriptive and speaks to a movement. Kind of like the Digital

forum changing names to Mirrorless (even though I and millions of others been shooting with mirrorless

cams for more than a decade).

 

In the end, it's Ton's site. He's out there actually shooting with one regularly and getting outstanding results - he

can name the category anything he wants.

<p>Found this interesting story this morning. Sports photgrapher, Nick Lahan, recently shot photos of the New York Yankees on his iPhone...and Getty Images picked them up.</p>

<p><a href="http://fstoppers.com/shocking-getty-licenses-nick-laham-photographs-of-ny-yankees-taken-with-iphone">http://fstoppers.com/shocking-getty-licenses-nick-laham-photographs-of-ny-yankees-taken-with-iphone</a></p>

<p>Leslie, to begin with I always welcome constructive feedback so thanks for that but I think you misunderstood about why I like the quote of Travis. The reason is fairly simple, I come from a very traditional background as well. The Academy I went to, and the very reason for choosing that particular one, was they still used traditional techniques as part of their program, all the old procede's. The emphasis was on photography and developing and printing technique. It took me a fairly long time to switch to digital as a result and I was just as hesitant about using my iPhone for any "serious" photography until quit recently.<br>

As for your question, I hardly ever shoot manual. I prefer to use aperture or shutter priority when using a camera that has these features, which nowadays is almost all digital.</p>

<p>As for the rest, and mind you I never thought about it as deeply as this very text might suggest, using that iPhoneography tab does send the message that gear isn't as important as it is often made out to be which is exactly what you are getting at as well.</p>

<p>No app is going to create you a good photo but shooting with a (relatively speaking) low-res phonecamera doesn't mean one can't create outstanding results, with or without using apps.</p>

That is a good video, and the photographer points out a lot of things that are teaching points for young photographers. For those that pooh-pooh the iphone 4s -- it's an 8mp camera. I don't own a smartphone of any sort, but this video certainly points out how one can use any tool to its fullest when you know what to do with it and have good ideas for your work.

<blockquote>

<p>Leslie, I don't think it's silly at all. It's descriptive and speaks to a movement. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, we disagree...Not a big deal. Monotony is rather boring, no? As for a movement? Perhaps, someone is too amorous with their tool brand;) </p>

<blockquote>

<p>In the end, it's Ton's site. He's out there actually shooting with one regularly and getting outstanding results - he can name the category anything he wants.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course, without saying...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>...using that iPhoneography tab does send the message that gear isn't as important as it is often made out to be which is exactly what you are getting at as well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I feel different regarding this matter. Just by naming/calling it Iphoneography (or leica photography, lofi photography or RF photography) conjures up some preconceived notion biases (more so than just being descriptive), which I don't personally like...I think these biases would turn off (and on, also) certain groups of audience...I rather people like my photographs because of what they are and not because it's mirrorless, Iphoneography, or, say, RF photography...</p>

<p>PS. </p>

<ul>

<li>E, don't quote "for the record" so quick:)</li>

<li>Again, Ton, nice site...Iphoneography isn't much in the scheme of things.</li>

<li>I actually like the Iphone. Except maybe for the mandatory two year contract thingy</li>

<li>WTF is Travis? Sorry, I don't stop here by often enough...</li>

<li></li>

</ul>

<p> </p>

>>> Monotony is rather boring, no? As for a movement? Perhaps, someone is too amorous with their

tool brand;)

 

Monotony? Please elaborate on that.

 

The movement, perhaps not a good term, actually, in general is cameraphones; of that there happens to be a lot of traction with Apple's.

 

>>> I think these biases would turn off (and on, also) certain groups of audience...

 

No, it's Ton's photos that actually speak. I can't think of a single person who would be "turned off" by a label. However, I

could see some finding it helpful if they're into the same type of capture.

 

>>> I rather people like my photographs because of what they are and not because it's mirrorless,

Iphoneography, or, say, RF photography...

 

And of course you can label your tabs as you see fit. Others recognize it might be good to set them

aside from their other photography.