Long Post Link to Thoughts on Nature of Street Photography and "Tips and Tricks'For the Street

<p>I often find in my e-mail or in comments from members or others requests to help the correspondent, perhaps a member and in many cases a newbie, 'learn' about 'street photography.</p>

<p>I often just point them to the nearly 2,000 photos in my portfolio and the 16,500+ comments (at least half of them by me), tell them that there's enough commentary about the art and nature of 'street' to fill at least one good manual just dedicated to 'street photography' that should answer almost every conceivable question, and if they comb all my comments under all of my photos, they'll get generally well-written answers in great detail that will satisfy their request, and also that they should look at the 100+ pages of comments under my portfolio.</p>

<p>Keeping in mind that most who ask such questions are 'newbies' or established members who do not engage in taking 'street' and knowing for some those comments under photos and my portfolio were written with a book of sharing and instructions in mind, (and copyrighted in many cases), I trust in my correspondent to self-tutor, only commenting again when they comment on this or that photo as they may troll through my portfolio and I can see their taste, read their comments, and see maybe where they may need help; then almost always I give it and personally.<br /> Usually I give very good comments in reply to their comments under individual posts.</p>

<p>However, I just authored a post under one photo that is a synopsis of some interesting points I have made several times in those comments, and I think for some they may make interesting and instructive reading for those who are fearful of wading through 16,500+ comments looking for nuggets about 'street'.</p>

<p>That post is the last one under this photo:</p>

<p><a href="/photo/14741254">http://www.photo.net/photo/14741254</a></p>

<p>You'll find commentary (and my wonder) why Flickr.com's 'Hard Core Street' group seems to limit itself to photos in proximity to actual 'streets' and also those which it appears are 'anonymously taken' (e.g., the subject is unaware of being photographed if I understand correctly those rules).</p>

<p>There are many points on when to be anonymous and when not, as I view it, with illustrations, and some references to some well known Cartier-Bresson photos with much commentary and my own description of what and how I do what I do for those who are interested.</p>

<p>There are numerous points on personal safety; how to keep 'safer' on the street, how to get photos legitimately in some places (e.g. shopping centers) where one might think ALL photos are banned, but some are not, a detailed pointer on whom absolutely to avoid shooting in order to keep safe, who poses the greatest threat to the 'street photographer, how authorities sometimes 'make up' rules about 'no photography', how to challenge those alleged rules or alleged laws (when you think they don't exist), how to handle security and police in general, requests and/or demands for deletion, and especially when you've caught police and/or security red-handed making up 'rules' or 'laws' against photography that just don't exist (e.g. they 'invented' the 'rule' or 'law' on the spot just so they could harass you, or they have a general misunderstanding, attempted to apply it to you, but you sensed that. Hint: Do NOT embarrass them; make them friends. You can't have too many friends on the street.</p>

<p>For personal safety, the greatest threat to the 'street photographer is almost never the subject, in my experience, as you're observing the subject, and have fair warning about any potential trouble. It's the trouble you don't see coming, and why it may come your way, even sometimes from behind you, and why you will be caught flat footed and maybe confronted, injured, or worse.</p>

<p>If that entices you, click on the link.</p>

<p>That post draws on ten years' recent experience, and 40 years over all, plus it draws on my work as a free lance, a war photographer (of sorts), a wire service employee, plus extracted advice shared by my colleague photographers (some with Pulitzers) and observations by me when I worked for Associated Press (long ago) in San Francisco, Reno, and finally as a boss at Associated Press World Service Photos.NYC, (before I quit at age 25 -- they were ultra cheap), as well as a business magazine I worked at (also taking photos as well as writing and editing).</p>

<p>Happy reading if you're so inclined.</p>

<p>The link again (and go to the last comment --- by me.)</p>

<p><a href="/photo/14741254">http://www.photo.net/photo/14741254</a></p>

<p>john</p>

<p>John (Crosley)</p>

<p>Good post, thanks for pointing to it, John. </p>

<p>Thanks for posting those thoughts in your comments section. As I was looking through some of your images, I noticed that many of the ones I thought most striking were shot at 18mm or 24mm-equivalents (thanks for not stripping EXIF data). Even though I own both 18mm and 24mm primes (I'm not really a "zoom" person), I had a need for a 35mm prime for some full-length images I've been wanting to set-up, so I just bought the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lens, and was anticipating trying my hand at some street candids again with it as well.</p>

<p>I'm anxious to see what I get as soon as it arrives. My 18mm somehow feels more at home on a film body, so I'm going to slap the 35mm f/1.4 onto a digital FX body, and the AF Nikkor 18mm f/2.8D onto a film body (loaded with Tri-X). However, shooting at "only" ISO 400 will likely be a challenge, plus the film body will have the slower lens (f/2.8). I suppose I could just rate it higher and overdevelop (since I'm shooting for film grain anyway).</p>

<p>Anywho, what I wanted to say, was that I was very adventurous (and, fortuitous), on my first "street" outings when I first bought my Nikon D3s a couple years ago. Of course, I began very tentatively, but slowly my confidence grew. But that was more than a year ago, and I've got to start that acclamation process all over again. I know, I should start with just one body, but I've been dying to shoot some Tri-X . . .</p>

<p>Louis Meluso,</p>

<p>I almost never (maybe never) post 'questions' in any forum, so I run the risk with such a post as seeming self-indulgent, and if anyone thinks so I apologize, but you of course do not have to read, either, (I get an occasional detractor who thinks I 'write too much) and my stock answer is 'don't read it then' and just look at the photos.</p>

<p>So your first words encouraging me help reinforce the idea that it was right to share this information packaged like this.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>john<br>

<br />John (Crosley)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Ralph Oshiro,</p>

<p>I'm interested how much you seem to 'worry' about what lens you're using or going to use.</p>

<p>For me, I just take whatever camera I have and lens I have of whatever focal length (I prefer zooms for obvious reasons) and shoot away. Some subjects (such as faces far away), can't be captured with anything less than a telephoto, so a wide angle is pretty much out of the question and other obvious limitations (but see below for 'super megapixel' cameras).</p>

<p>I can shoot portraits with a 200~400 f 4 zoom, or a 10~24 mm DX wide angle zoom or anything in between -- really just about any lens, and though they look somewhat different, you can make a good portrait capture with any lens, it all depends on your inventiveness and adaptability.<br /> Also, on how far away I am from the subject, and what I'm carrying. I can shoot with the 200-400 f4, which can be hand carried (I used mine hand carried to shoot birds much of the time, heavy as it was and disabled as I am). For 'street' it's pretty much out of the question; too expensive, too heavy, too bulky and attracts far too much attention. Almost the same with the heavy and bulky Nikon 80~400 zoom (older version VRI at least).</p>

<p>It helps to be versatile. Last year I shot pretty much with a 18-55 zoom only on a cheap 'kit' camera and got some world class (in my view) photos. I generally go out with two cameras (three is too many without an assistant to hold one, as straps and bodies get tangled too easily with more than too, and there's a risk of dropping one or more.</p>

<p>Each of two will have a different zoom range, covering in aggregate from 10 or 12 mm to 200 mm and maybe with a 2x doubler or a 1.4 or 1.7 tele-extender depending on whether there is low light to be considered.</p>

<p>As to shooting at ASA (ISO) 400, just go out in the middle of the day. I often have to go way down to ISO 100 at F8 or so because it's so bright in the middle of the day in sunlight, and even when there's midday moderate clouds overhead I still have to stop down a great deal, keep a high enough shutter speed that cars won't be blurs, same with moving hands, etc., and can get great captures in such light with ease, so getting captures with ISO (ASA) 400 rated film (Tri-X for instance) should be no problem.</p>

<p>Look at my early work; it almost all was captured on Tri-X, and I did OK. A little bit was captured with Ektachrome (ASA/ISO 160?), and then desaturated by a lab to black and white (The transparencies were sold in a storage locker sale when an insurance company cheated me and didn't pay me timely.)<br /> I often shoot at night or evening, and also in the underground or public transportation plus indoors otherwise and that's more of a challenge. I especially like the low light capability of a D3200 for such times and of course digital is better for switching from outdoors to indoors lickety split, because all you have to do is adjust the ISO sensitivity, rather than reload film. <br /> Film is somewhat more difficult in low light, but film to ISO 1600 still may be available and otherwise film can be 'pushed' in processing for low light to increase its effective ISO (ASA).<br /> Hope that helps.<br /> Be careful about 'worrying' overly much about your equipment. While nice sharp images are wonderful, I want you to know that my highest viewed image which has over 1/4 million 'views' (almost all clicked views, and not 'thumbnail' views) is blurred substantially because my VR inadvertently was switched off, but the 'story' of the photo is very interesting -- even outstanding, and universal.</p>

<p>I took wonderful captures (Nixon on sidewalk) (Chinese immigrant girl in front of sweatshop), (old men in hotel lobby) with a 28 mm lens that didn't even automatically stop down when I pressed the shutter release; I had to manually 'open it up' to focus critically, then manually 'stop it down' if shooting at a higher numbered aperture, and it was manual focus, it cost $28, and was an extremely sharp lens.</p>

<p>It was made by Soligor; you can sometimes buy such old lenses at camera dealers who often feature them 'hit or miss' in a box or basket from trade-ins at $5 a lens often just sitting on a counter - the better lenses are mixed in with the junk lenses that came in on cameras that were good and the dealer insisted on the lens to get that extra $5.</p>

<p>The more I know and the more I shoot, the more with a little practice (and not much) I feel I can shoot with anything, and that is a happy state. Of course state-of-the art equipment is great, because it's that much easier to get great captures, in great quantity, and not get headaches from doing so many adjustments. With manual and non auto anything the photographer had to do much more 'thinking' or have loads more experience; same pre-digital, as you often were surprised at what quality your negative turned out from exposures in tricky light if you did not bracket.</p>

<p>Cartier-Bresson and many Leica shooters in strong light did not always focus; they used hyperfocal distance presets, then just framed and shot.</p>

<p>However, I have one video showing Cartier-Bresson in a street bazaar/street fair, showing him adjusting focus manually for each frame on an old Leica IIIc with its miniscule focus viewfinder; he had mastered superimposing faint images to get a proper focus in about the time an autofocus today works. It was something to behold.</p>

<p>The important thing is just 'being there' and framing nicely (credit Elliott Erwitt for the first quote.</p>

<p>('F8 and be there' was his advice to a woman who asked him the 'secret to his success'.)</p>

<p>When I've had too much equipment with me, I've found choices of lenses a hindrance in fast-developing situations; I try to put a lens on the camera and NEVER change it, and to choose a camera for the lens attached -- and this bonus -- never any dust on digital captures.</p>

<p>If I have an assistant, as I've had from time to time, then I can ask for, say, a fisheye, and attach it quickly, handing off the lens on the camera to the assistant. It's far too easy to drop a $1,500 lens while changing one on the street to be doing that in a hurry to catch a fast developing situation, and I change lenses only if there's plenty of time, otherwise I 'make do'.</p>

<p>''Making do' is an seldom noted but very valuable skill of the 'street photographer, and I suggest that most able street photographers are accomplished in that, but just don't write or talk about it much.</p>

<p>With the new super megapixel digital cameras, cropping and getting quality captures IS a possibility, though I prefer to frame in the camera if at all possible. But if I've got a sharp lens and no telephoto for a distant subject, I'll take the shot with the newer super megapixel cameras, suspecting I may be able to crop a good quality capture later, though it is not preferred.</p>

<p>I hope these thoughts help.</p>

<p>john<br /> <br />John (Crosley)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Nice read on this snowy Montreal morning. My aim is not to show people in bad light, I dislike that kind of street work. I try to show an interesting perspective or view of a moment. Sometimes I hit the mark, oftentimes not. Always interesting though and watching what the street photographers are up to on PN as well.<br>

Good stuff John.</p>

<p>John said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm interested how much you seem to 'worry' about what lens you're using or going to use.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, I wouldn't necessarily characterize it as "worry." I've been basically re-building my lens inventory, replacing older 'D' glass with newer, AF-S counterparts. I think, pretty conservatively, I've now settled on five select lenses as my "standard" set:<br /> <br /> 14mm f/2.8<br /> 24mm f/1.4<br /> 35mm f/1.4<br /> 85mm f/1.4<br /> 150mm f/2.8<br /> <br /> That said, when going out, I'm usually carrying only <em>two</em> lenses: the 24mm f/1.4G and 85mm f/1.4G. But, when I receive the 35mm later this week, I plan to take <em>only</em> that lens and a single FX body. If I decide to take a second lens, it'll be the 18mm on my F6, just because it looks so "right" on a film body.<br /> <br /> I originally bought the 24mm f/1.4 for available-light environmental portraits (among other things), however, I found that I often had to crop full-length shots taken with this lens, and that most of my full-length shots were better-served by a focal length of between 30-35mm. Plus, I really dislike cropping any image, since it distorts the natural geometry of the lens' optical rendition . . . so came the 35mm prime.<br /> <br /> As for lens choice, I think that's both a technical and an organic selection. Technical, in determining the exact amount of angle-of-view and foreshortening desired in any given shot, and organic, for example, in my feeling that the 18mm just "feels right" on a film body.</p>

<p>John said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I took wonderful captures (Nixon on sidewalk) (Chinese immigrant girl in front of sweatshop), (old men in hotel lobby) with a 28 mm lens that didn't even automatically stop down when I pressed the shutter release; I had to manually 'open it up' to focus critically, then manually 'stop it down' if shooting at a higher numbered aperture, and it was manual focus, it cost $28, and was an extremely sharp lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ha! I also have an image of Nixon crossing a street in NYC, which I took with a Kodak Instamatic when I was 11. Two of my most-prized photos were also taken early on: a portrait of some high school girls on a volleyball court I took at 14, and a group of prostitutes in San Francisco, also shot when I was about 14--this would've qualified as my first "street" image.<br /> <br /> Although, the prostitutes' image would've been banned by the "hard core" Flickr site, since I did ask their permission, and they're staring right into my lens. Both were shot with manual-focus lenses (either a 28mm or 50mm) on a Canon FTBn. I'm hoping I still have the prints stashed away somewhere.</p>

<p>No one has ever asked me how to shoot street photography. If they did, I would tell them to grab whatever camera they had handy, walk out the front door and keep walking until you see something you want to take a picture of. Take the picture and move on. Repeat until film is used up or card is full. It really is that simple imo.</p>

<p>Well, I bought the 35mm f/1.4 for full-length environmental portraits, and to fill the "hole" in my prime line-up. But, I also bought it because I think it's a perfect focal length for street, and up-close PJ-style shots in general.</p>

<p>As soon as I get it, I'll mount it to my D3s and go out for some night street photography (I shoot mostly at night). Maybe the next night, I'll toss it on my film body, and concentrate separately on film shots. I don't like carrying a lot of gear--typically, a single body, and two lenses at most.</p>

<p>Hi Marie H.</p>

<p>I don't ever go out intending to 'show people in a bad light'. 'Bad light' is entirely subjective, but to most it means according to their own subjective viewpoint, which may be the opposite of mine, it's 'not flattering' since I'm not running a paid portrait studio or advertising photography shop.</p>

<p>I intend to depict reality, and many people feel that they are unworthy of being photographed; my job when I take their photo often times is to convince them that they are worthy in their natural state and 'God Forbid! to let them 'prettify' themselves.</p>

<p>For if you ask permission too far in advance, most would go home and put on their going to religious services best, bathe and comb their hair, which is NOT what 'street' shooting is all about, and why being in the moment is so important in shooting 'street'.</p>

<p>A long ago favorite talk show host had a great saying: Do it first, ask forgiveness later, or in our case, shoot first and ask permission later. (He was a Catholic priest at one time, converted to talk show host. </p>

<p>Many people reflexively will say 'no' when asked about anything, and especially if they can be photographed, and your job is (1) to find and photograph those who will say 'yes', (2) to photograph anonymously (clandestinely such as with a telephoto or using one ruse , device or another such as shooting them when they're distracted and maybe engaging in highly interesting and unusual behavior which makes sometimes 'great' captures, (the above photo shows 'unusual AND interesting behavior I think and is a good illustration, but it's NOT shot clandestinely), and (3) shoot now and ask permission later if you must reveal that you have shot them, but do not delete under any circumstance. </p>

<p>When asked or TOLD to delete, I just tell them the photo will reside with a half million others 'not worthy' on my Winchesters (hard drives) and I will view it to learn how to take a better shot, unless I truly intend to show it, in which case I will NOT say that, but attempt to convince such a person of the photo's niceties and why it's so.</p>

<p>If necessary on a deletion command by a subject, I'll just walk away, especially if I've explained myself and my policy of never deleting except if the photo is, say, out of focus and doesn't have artistic value as an out of focus capture (I have some that have value as such).</p>

<p>I sometimes invoke the words of Bruce Gilden, who famously says 'It's Your image, but it's MY photo', and because it's my property, you have no right to control it or me at all.</p>

<p>Period. </p>

<p>Full stop. </p>

<p>But only if they persist. </p>

<p>Then I walk away; most are too lazy or bound up in duties or obligations to follow, and in any case, passersby will often be critical or even hostile if they start to get out of hand. This very, very rarely happens, however, as I have a pretty good street manner. Although such objections seldom persist to the end, they can arise and sometimes do BEFORE you have a chance to 'sell yourself and sell your capture and/or your skill and even make a friend of the objector.</p>

<p>Such circumstances are very, very rare, at the end. If friends, acquaintances, or companions see the capture and start praising it, then their objections are literally sunk, so they drop them and may even be 'converted' to your side.</p>

<p>It always helps to keep several captures on a card from last shooting that excel, or take some wonderful shots at the start of each day earmarked to show potential detractors your skill and that you're not just some dilettante with a camera 'using them', but a serious artist. </p>

<p>In fact, if you do that, it also helps to call yourself a 'portrait artist' or a 'photo artist', as that sounds more hifalutin than photographer, which can get confused with paparazzi, and thus subjects and others may lump you in with those most reviled photographers who engage often in bad behavior for a living, harassing celebrities and famous people. </p>

<p>A person might even consider hitting a paparazzi who has taken their photo, but respect a 'photo artist' who has chosen them to demonstrate in a capture their artistic skills by making worthwhile photos, and the proof can be to show one or two really good photos to a subject detractor -- it can shut up a detractor fast and even make a new friend.</p>

<p>It's often in how you carry yourself and also in the choice of words. You're a salesperson for yourself and your needed freedom to take your captures. The more 'sales skilll' you use without being phony, the better you'll be able to get in close or move about to take the capture you want if others are aware of your presence, as they often are when you're shooting with a wide angle lens up close in an open area.</p>

<p>Anyone who has looked at some of my wide angle portraits of people they must know I've never met in my life before, are seeing photos that sometimes are of people I met a minute before and managed somehow, sometimes to get my camera (after a few preliminary shots) right up to almost the tip of their nose without objection.</p>

<p>It helps when shooting wide angle, to literally put a subject's eye to the viewfinder to demonstrate to them how 'far' away everything appears when shooting superwide.</p>

<p>Subject disapproval then seems often to disappear, AND often subjects allow all sorts of honest and forthright behavior by the photographer, so long as there's respect shown them AND they respect how they've been approached.</p>

<p>Don't lie to people. Don't promise them e-mails. I tell them 'no e-mail copies; I may not unload my chip for a week, and then it'd take five secretaries just to answer e-mail photo requests. Sorry, but here's the site where a good one may appear, from a week to a year from now IF it appears at all.</p>

<p>And then I write down my name and tell then to google.com it.</p>

<p>Then Photo.net has a new viewer in the process, and that may help Photo.net's advertisers sell some cameras or some such, as a PN bonus as well as increase viewership. </p>

<p>Sometimes those people become actual PN members, too, if they have a photographic bent. Miles Morgan, a good member and fine photographer here, was recruited by me to PN in Bangkok when I met him on the street; there have been many others as well.</p>

<p>If you sell yourself, also sell your images. If asked for a card, and you appear prominently on Google, just give your name and say 'put my name in Google.com and it'll be on the first page, or in my case in Ukraine for instance, it'll be the entire first page in Google.com.ua returns under my name.</p>

<p>In almost all things in life, you have to sell.</p>

<p>Like it or not, those who sell well, seem to succeed, but selling don't mean lying, cheating or pushing but instead EDUCATING others to needs they often didn't know existed or showing them solutions to problems they didn't know they had.</p>

<p>A person who can EDUCATE others to previously unknown needs, can be successful in almost anything they honestly can promote, and if you're on the street, start with yourself and your work. If you believe strongly in your work (or your diligence in trying) the majority will SENSE the honesty in that, give it respect, and thus give you more latitude and freedojm to take captures you want instead of giving you the finger and/or walking away with epithets or muttering bad things.</p>

<p>LIFE is vital on the street; it's not made for bookish people.</p>

<p>Cameras, and especially 'pro looking cameras' are 'people magnets' and sometimes for guys, they're also 'chick magnets', as a funny looking guy in Santa Cruz taught me 10 years ago, as he pushed in his front tooth that was falling out because he couldn't afford a dentist; he had spent $12,000 on his Canon instead of needed dentistry.</p>

<p>This not handsome guy showed me his photos which were OK, but he also showed me photos of his girlfriends, whom he had met while photographing. They were stunning and way above him in 'class'.</p>

<p>They 'traded down' because they wanted good captures of themselves; they were enchanted by his ability to show their beauty off and he had harnessed their vanity and allowed them to devlop personal and sexual feelings for him, the PHOTOGRAPHER' who captured them well (and who couldn't even with a Brownie they were so good looking). </p>

<p>The world of 'street' involves making split second judgments often one after the other, and sometimes taking chances to get that 'great' capture. It also involves the risk of being (at least temporarily) disapproved by complete strangers who make up in their heads little dramas you are not privy to, but into which you might play an important and pejorative part, again, at least at first, until you use your SALES TECHNIQUES to turn the tables and convert potential detractors into 'friends' or at least 'friendlies'.</p>

<p>When I've been photographing in one place (in or around) for a while, I often will hear my name called out, as though I'm special; it's others trying to impress their friends that they know the 'big shot' photographer, or just that they do indeed regard me as a friend, though we only may have talked for four or fiveteen minutes a year or so ago. Memories are sometimes very long, which points out the need for good conduct on the street. I'm no 'big shot' but as my father's lifelong lust to be around important people proved to me, people think that somehow being NEAR a person of even marginal celebrity or fame (even minimal) will somehow rub off on them and MAKE THEM SPECIAL. [in my father's case, he celebrated and dealt with well known business people, and they returned the favor by taking his money and losing it, but always taking some for themselves which they spent on themselves generously] </p>

<p>Fame or celebrity seldom 'rubs off' but people sometimes are lustful of bathing in the glow of even the most minimal connection to any sort of the most minimal celebrity. It's human nature for many.</p>

<p>One of my finest photos, was of a man in a Halloween type mask on New Year's in Kyiv Ukraine's Metro. The masked man was sent to me by a man a ways way in a wheel chair (a beggar and drunk but a nice guy) who likes me, and thought the friend with the mask would make a good capture for me, and so he sent this interesting and bizarre man my way.</p>

<p>See this photo:<br>

(Mod: Photo removed, broke the page. Please use the built-in editor for proper links.)

<p>The exposure time underground with a 'kit' lens was nearly a second under impossible lighting and out of six or seven exposures I got only one that worked, but it's a good one in my opinion (Color and black and white are posted). </p>

<p>This version is linked by Google.com images under my name. </p>

<p>All because once long before I was nice to a guy who drinks too much and is disabled by talking to him a little. He buys his beers by begging from his wheelchair.</p>

<p>The subject was 'seeking me out' not vice versa and the subject had no idea of who I was, except a recommendation from a guy I had talked to long ago.</p>

<p>You know you're doing something right when the subjects sometimes seek you out in 'street', I think; that's something considered pretty rare.</p>

<p>'Street' I stated in one of my first posts on Photo.net is 'thinking man's (woman's) photography". You constantly are interacting with people (usually strangers) and making decisions often about human interactions as well as 'seeing' photos that may disappear in a split second unless you're lightning fast. </p>

<p>In my first Photo of the Week, I had a bout 1/10th of a second for the capture or less before it went away never to repeat, and I had anticipated it, running ahead to put myself in position to make the capture. It was split second timing.</p>

<p>(Mod: Photo removed, broke the page. Please use the built-in editor for proper links.)</p>

<p>'The Progression of Age; with over 50,000 clicked views.</p>

<p>In the second Photo of the Week, conversely I had about 20 minutes to study a scene and take many versions, and only 'settled' on the eventual choice.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.google.com.ua/search?q=john+crosley&hl=en&qscrl=1&rlz=1T4GGNI_enUS520US520&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=GJNIUYaRBMbh4QSp-4DIAQ&ved=0CEAQsAQ&biw=1455&bih=655#imgrc=8zhH2zD7Wvjf4M%3A%3Br-7sedGzH8yM6M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fgallery.photo.net%252Fphoto%252F13142312-md.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fphoto.net%252Fphotodb%252Fphoto.tcl%253Fphoto_id%253D13142312%3B679%3B455">http://www.google.com.ua/search?q=john+crosley&hl=en&qscrl=1&rlz=1T4GGNI_enUS520US520&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=GJNIUYaRBMbh4QSp-4DIAQ&ved=0CEAQsAQ&biw=1455&bih=655#imgrc=8zhH2zD7Wvjf4M%3A%3Br-7sedGzH8yM6M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fgallery.photo.net%252Fphoto%252F13142312-md.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fphoto.net%252Fphotodb%252Fphoto.tcl%253Fphoto_id%253D13142312%3B679%3B455</a></p>

<p>'The Bus Stop'</p>

<p>Street is varied and usually moves quickly. When I can't shoot street and have the equipment, I like to shoot birds in a well know rookery in California; the birds move ultra fast, and the patterns and movements they make must often be captured in a fraction of a second or they're gone forever.</p>

<p>This kind of photography as Cartier-Bresson's publisher said is about capturing 'the decisive moment', and that moment often must be recognized, framed and captured in a split second.</p>

<p>For me that's fun and engaging. It tests wit and skill to the extreme and like golf, one never can achieve perfection; one keeps score by how few misses there were, or better, the ratio of the very few good to great photos to the thousands of discards.</p>

<p>In essence that ratio is the 'street' photographer's equivalent of a golfer's 'handicap', except just one photo, or a small group of photos that are superb, can make a photographer's reputation if that photographer knows enough not to show his/her dreck to others and stores the dreck out of sight. (Don't delete, it's a teaching tool to review past captures, and hard drives are now very cheap).</p>

<p>I hope this is helpful and responsive - it's meant for PN's 'hard core' and 'newbie' street photographers. I want in the future when asked 'how to take street' to be able to point to this Forum post colloquy and say 'look here first' with a link, which is why I respond here at such length, in such detail and so discursively. </p>

<p>Forgive me, Marie H., if I kill two birds with one stone.</p>

<p>john</p>

<p>John (Crosley)</p>

<p>Ralph Oshiro. 'worry' means to 'fret' as well as some more well known meanings, FYI, for instance, she 'worried, the lace on her dress with her hand, as she argued with her husband. (using in one context, but the word 'worry' can also mean not physical involvement but just 'fretting' overly.<br /> ********<br /> I'm glad you have a Nixon image.</p>

<p>I tried to interest the Nixon library in my image but they said 'we have so many; just send us yours (for free) and we'll see if we like it, but honestly we have so many . . . . .'</p>

<p>A critic member on Photo.net termed it one of the greatest photos of the 20th C., however hyperbolically, and although I scoffed at the time, I now understand his critique.</p>

<p>********</p>

<p>Here's the Nixon photo, with Pat Nixon's gloved hands and arms clutching him and simultaneously reaching out just as Tricky Dick is doing, actually touching my side in his reach to someone behind and beside me (all taken by me as I walked to work).</p>

<p>I scooped AP's Washington D:C photographers who were trailing him with another photo taken moments before which got front pages across the globe, but have no copy of that. I'm trying to get my hands on a copy.</p>

<p><a href="/photo/2108712">http://www.photo.net/photo/2108712</a></p>

<p>'Tricky Dick' in a vey popular moment, San Francisco, 1969.</p>

<p>john</p>

<p>John (Crosley)</p>

<p>Marc Todd,</p>

<p>Boiled down to its essence, that's all it really is. It helps to get some geometry and good framing in your capture, however.</p>

<p>Caveat: without guidance, when shooting strangers, most people don't have the gumption to actually frame the photos, focus and press the shutter knowing someone may object, which is part of why I write.</p>

<p>It's also why many write me asking for tips and tricks to overcome their 'street fear'.</p>

<p>Nice, interesting post.</p>

<p>john</p>

<p>John (Crosley)</p>

<p>John said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Here's the Nixon photo, with Pat Nixon's gloved hands and arms clutching him . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Excellent!!!</p>

<p>I would not have a desire to keep a picture of someone who wanted it deleted. I understand differing views on this, but I feel I would owe that much to a fellow traveler on Earth. No photo is more important to me than certain other things.</p>

<p>That being said, I've never been asked to delete a photo. One guy I made photos of by permission in my home decided after the fact that he didn't want the nudes shown publicly, even though we agreed that I was shooting nudes for my portfolio which would be public. At the time, one of the photos of him was one of my best. I have never shown it publicly. I simply couldn't.</p>

<p>Loved looking at your photos John, and I understand your point that the image is of them but the photo is yours. I have to say that if the image was a real keeper, my best ever,I'd be bent on keeping it despite the objection of the subject. So far I delete as asked, because nothing I have taken has been that great or important to me. So I have no issues deleting at this stage anyway. Honestly, I'd be hard pressed to delete that photo of my lifetime. I guess I'm not so holy.. Kudos to you Fred. I do believe though that I couldn't use anything I think would cause hurt, insult or damage to another person. <br>

I just got a 35mm lens for my apsc camera, and also a 50mm 1.7. I was against the telephoto but now I'm rethinking it, or maybe an 85 prime but I think the zoom is a better option. I don't want to carry or buy 2 cameras. Or bother with lens switch.. Are the wide to tele options any good for street? I use pentax k5 now. </p>

<p>Marie, as you may know or at least I'll tell you here and now, I am most definitely not holy. It's just my personal ethics. I might agree to some level of holiness for doing things like caring for my ill parents or lending a helping hand to people in need when I can, but there's really nothing terribly saintly, to me, about deleting even a great photo of someone who doesn't want their photo to have been taken. For me, it's just a matter of relationships and maybe a little karma. Likewise, on the other end, there's nothing evil about John's or your desire to keep such a photo. The extremes of being either holy or evil don't really apply here, as I see it. Gray area does apply, for me.</p>

<p>I haven't gotten to where I worry for this dilemma but if I do I will do what's right, I'm not a saint either but I do believe in karma ;) and what goes around does come back to bite you in the azz!! (I know this how? from my own experiences. true. that)</p>

>>> Take the picture and move on. Repeat until film is used up or card is full. It really is that simple imo.

 

Absolutely. Many times I'll do an early morning 6.5 mile trek (from Glen Park to the Embarcadero) and

pass through seven San Francisco neighborhoods. At the end I'll usually have a handful of candids and street

portraits from people I meet along the way. Some days, none. It's not complicated or about gear.

<p>6.5 mile trek Brad??? You obviously forgot to mention that this is uphill both ways this being San Francisco and all ;-) Seriously, I'm looking forward to visiting SF again soon for the Winogrand exhibit.</p>

>>> Seriously, I'm looking forward to visiting SF again soon for the Winogrand exhibit.

 

And the Gordon Parks exhibition, too! BTW, that particular route is pretty flat...

<p>Gordon Parks too? Gotta back to my city by the bay.</p>

Marc, the Parks exhibition is at a nearby gallery: <a href=

"http://www.jenkinsjohnsongallery.com/exhibitions/13.02.parks/13parks_works.html">Link</a>

 

<P>

 

And, some <a href= "http://www.sfstation.com/gordon-parks-centennial-e1851341">more info</a>...

Just a heads-up for those wanting to see the Winogrand exhibition at SFMOMA... The show will end June

2nd at which time the museum will be closing for around three years (!) to accommodate new construction

for expansion. That's a loooong time!

<p>Brad, that's an important 'Head's Up'. I have been very near the SFMOMA, but haven't been through it yet.</p>

<p>I'll have to make a point of visiting before the witching day and hour that you mention.</p>

<p>Is there a way that you can make another post but more prominently, or maybe start another thread without running afoul of Administration, as that is of more interest than just the audience of 'Street and Documentary' forum, unless of course, it's already been well and prominently discussed elsewhere on this site.</p>

<p>Thanks so much for the warning. I think I'll even change my plans because of it.</p>

<p>john</p>

<p>John (Crosley)</p>