Street Photography Techniques

[robert goldstein]

<p>Stephen Asprey, since using stealth techniques to take candid photos displeases you, then by all means you should never use them. Many other photographers, however, do not find it so distasteful. In fact, it can be rather exciting, given the small amount of danger involved. In general, persons in public places may legally be photographed, whether they like it or not. One could even view this as the price of living in a free society. Except for professional <em>paparazzi</em> , almost everyone who engages in street photography is an amateur who does it for art or for his/her own pleasure. There is never an intent to harm the subject, which, in my book, means it is not unethical.</p>

[roger krueger]

Robert Goldstein: Pretty much any electronic release can be operated in your pocket if you have big enough pockets--my big

Canon TC80N3 timer remote works well in the cargo shorts I usually wear shooting, and in slacks as well, although it'd

probably be tough in jeans. You can also get cables to use flash radio remotes like Pocket Wizards, Alien Bees Cybersyncs

or Elinchrome Skyports to trigger your electronic release camera.

 

Stephen Asprey: Enemy may be too harsh a word, but yeah, I have zero patience for people who think their way is the only

way.

 

The HCB disciples who think because their hero didn't crop no one should; Ansel Adams and the Newhalls virulent campaign

against anything not f64, pictorialists in particular; film v. digital partisans; brand snobs, anti-zoomists, long lens deriders,

Photoshop phobics--they'd none of 'em be missed (O.K., O.K., maybe Adams).

 

Making these decisions about your own photography is one thing--I don't own a zoom, and don't even use my 50 on the

street, let alone my 135. I crop pretty much every shot. But that's just what works for me, I don't presume my choices make

me superior to others who've chosen differently... except people with the subject dead center every shot, and chronic

backstabbers--they need to switch to badminton or maybe Popsicle-stick sculpture :-)

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Allen Herbert if I am using my 21mm I dont see anything that I can't use my 21mm for..understand ?? why woudl across the street if I cant shoot it in teh first place?<br>

If you had a zoom 18mm to whatever it would open up more doors of opportunity. Not really rocket science to undertand, Petey. If a photograph has the zoom effect, by that i suppose you mean the far away effect....so what. Surley it's more about the content of the photo, not what lens or cam ,or, how it was taken. Now don't get me wrong, i'm all for using a wide angle lens and being part of the street not a far away observer,however, that extra focal length on a zoom can be very useful.</p>

 

[alex_mabini1]

<p>Okay, I'll give away my most useful one thus far...</p>

<p>Use a cell phone! No, not the crappy camera on the cell phone, but use it to make people think you are talking on the phone and they won't really notice you have a camera at your hip that you're shooting with. I used to drink a cup of coffee, but the coffee would run out so fast and by the time I was done shooting, I'd be wired.</p>

<p>Practice shooting from the hip. For me, this method only works in portrait mode, but when I am trying to capture individual, interesting people rather than scenes, it is the perfect method.</p>

<p>I use a Ricoh GR-D II in MF mode for the fastest response. I've also found that with the LCD off, there is a .1 sec delay as compared to when the LCD is on, both in MF mode and snap mode, so I now keep the LCD on all the time and carry lots of spares.</p>

<p>Another advantage to using a cell phone is that people won't bother you. The hard thing is figuring out things to say on the phone. I may go crazy one day talking to myself so much.</p>

<p>Here's some of my photos taken with this method:<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3209/2972742729_4f52b7f1c5.jpg?v=0" alt="" width="375" height="500" /><br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3284/2972742735_248103d91d.jpg?v=0" alt="" width="333" height="500" /><br>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2237/2247673703_ba40f90966.jpg?v=1203263455" alt="" width="333" height="500" /><br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3223/3057539489_d4217661a1.jpg?v=0" alt="" width="375" height="500" /><br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3161/3057539983_ed815ae23d.jpg?v=1227595665" alt="" width="375" height="500" /></p>

[alex_mabini1]

<p>Okay, I'll give away my most useful one thus far...<br>

Use a cell phone! No, not the crappy camera on the cell phone, but use it to make people think you are talking on the phone and they won't really notice you have a camera at your hip that you're shooting with. I used to drink a cup of coffee, but the coffee would run out so fast and by the time I was done shooting, I'd be wired.<br>

Practice shooting from the hip. For me, this method only works in portrait mode, but when I am trying to capture individual, interesting people rather than scenes, it is the perfect method.<br>

I use a Ricoh GR-D II in MF mode for the fastest response. I've also found that with the LCD off, there is a .1 sec delay as compared to when the LCD is on, both in MF mode and snap mode, so I now keep the LCD on all the time and carry lots of spares.<br>

Another advantage to using a cell phone is that people won't bother you. The hard thing is figuring out things to say on the phone. I may go crazy one day talking to myself so much.<br>

Here's some of my photos taken with this method:<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3209/2972742729_4f52b7f1c5.jpg?v=0" alt="" width="375" height="500" /><br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3284/2972742735_248103d91d.jpg?v=0" alt="" width="333" height="500" /><br>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2237/2247673703_ba40f90966.jpg?v=1203263455" alt="" width="333" height="500" /><br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3223/3057539489_d4217661a1.jpg?v=0" alt="" width="375" height="500" /><br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3161/3057539983_ed815ae23d.jpg?v=1227595665" alt="" width="375" height="500" /></p>

[robert goldstein]

<p>Alex, talking on a cell phone. I love it.<br>

Rob</p>

[vivek iyer]

<p>Alex, Nicely composed, awesome snaps.</p>

[peteradownunder]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Surely it's more about the content of the photo, not what lens or cam ,or, how it was taken. Now don't get me wrong, i'm all for using a wide angle lens and being part of the street not a far away observer,however, that extra focal length on a zoom can be very useful.</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>How something looks is what photography is about..street and zoom don't go buddy ya gota be in there just almost touching or just on the very edge of the not there, thats the best pics - easy to test my hypothesis - show me one telephoto pic that works as street ...just one.</p>

<p>Ps Merry Christmas</p>

 

[robert goldstein]

<p>Earlier, I wrote about the random quality of photos taken without actually composing them in the viewfinder. Sometimes the results are quite surprising and certainly not what you would have gotten shooting conventionally.<br>

Rob</p><div></div>

[Nowhereman]

<p>Although I'm not into stealth I find that using a Ricoh GRD2 makes one look like an innocous tourist. The other thing that helps is using the LCD monitor on this camera rather than an optical finder in that people don't really know when you're taking a picture. I use the LCD roughly to establish the edges of the frame and look directly at the subject when pressing the shutter.<br>

 <br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3189/2978576562_e5f45aa977_o.jpg" alt="" width="864" height="648" /><br /></p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3148/3036750688_e1bcd69445_o.jpg" width=864 height=648>

<p> <br>

 <br>

 </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3196/3026623393_136a379b05_o.jpg" width=864 height=648>

<p > <br>

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/malland/.Pictures/_0010223_hh_table.jpg" alt="" width="864" height="576" /><br>

 <br>

--Mitch/Paris</p>

[Nowhereman]

<p>I just wanted to add that the above three pictures are taken very close up, 0.8-1.0 metres. The second one is taken with the 21mm EFOV converter for the GRD2.</p>

[dick_sanders]

<p>A lot of good advice from good shooters here. But I think the best advice is to be aggressive and not be shy about going after the pictures you want. You can also pick a busy spot, put the camera to your eye, and shoot away as people enter the frame. I used that method for the following portfolio on a specific corner in the red-light district of Tijuana, Mexico.<br>

<a href="http://www.dicksanders.com/portfolios.aspx?id=red_door">http://www.dicksanders.com/portfolios.aspx?id=red_door</a><br>

But after a while I gave up candid work because I found the people on the street way to fascinating not to engage them. And then I asked permission to photograph them. Check out my YouTube video of "street portraits" and see if this type of street photography appeals to you. Best of luck. -- Dick Sanders<br>

<a href="

 

[Uhooru]

<p>@ Steve Asprey - Steve, what "greats" have you learned from? Last I recall, Walker Evans, who universally would be labled a a "great", shot one of the most significant candid photography books ever made with a camera through a button hole in his coat. It's not about some macho concept of bravery, it's about the kind of shots you want to get. I am definately not, typically, a "stealth" shooter, but I don't ascribe to any such shooting rules as I don't see a valid basis for them. Seeing the photo is much more important than how you get the shot..</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>2nd what Mitch has to say. The GRD's are incredibly naturally stealthy. I just point and shoot mine and no seems to notice. </p>

[vivek iyer]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=299288">Barry Fisher</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub8.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> <img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Dec 29, 2008; 05:22 p.m.<br>

.. It's not about some macho concept of bravery, it's about the kind of shots you want to get. I am definately not, typically, a "stealth" shooter, but I don't ascribe to any such shooting rules as I don't see a valid basis for them. Seeing the photo is much more important than how you get the shot..</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well said, Barry.</p>

[ray .]

<p>There are no rules, but long lenses tend to fall into the trap of making things look remote and distant, not necessarily because the photographer intended it that way. Here's a street type pic I remember working well though, shot with with a 90 on 35mm film:<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/336038&size=lg </p>

 

[Allen Herbert]

<p> "show me one telephoto pic that works as street ...just one"</p>

<p>It really a massive stretch of the imagination to claim that not a single street photograph works unless it is taken with a wise angle lens. We are now moving from photography to religious zeal. I'm curious at what focal length the zoom stops working? 50 mm,75 mm,90 mm.135 mm,150 mm etc. Okay at extreme lengths you do get that faraway look but you also get distortion with wide-angle lenses.</p>

<p>Reality is there is no book of rules,no right or wrongs,just what works.</p>

<p>Three photos which i took at various focal lengths...yes, it would have been nice to be closer but sometimes it's just impossible. Why let an interesting photo opportunity go just adhere to some rules you have made up in your head,Petey.</p>

<p>Happy new year mate,and to all. </p><div></div>

[Allen Herbert]

<p> ./</p><div></div>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>,./</p><div></div>

[Nowhereman]

<p>Sure, Allen, there are no rules and you can use whatever focal length you like; but I must say that I've seen better pictures from you than these three -- for me only the second one even begins to work. Again, you can use whatever you like, but for me it's virtually impossible to be "involved" with what is going on in the scene if I don't shoot with a 50mm EFOV lens or less: even with 75mm I find I'm too far away. My favourite focal lengths are 21, 28 and 40mm EFOV.<br>

And the 28mm focal lenght really grew on me after I got a Rich GRD a couple of years ago: at first it was very difficult to use this focal length, as I had used 35mm and moved to 50mm as my most used focal length. But, then, when I got a Ricoh GX100, which has a "stepped zoom" facility, which allows you to step from 21 to 28, 35, 50 and 72mm EFOV in discrete steps, I expected to be shooting mainly at 35 and 50mm, but found that the bulk of my shots were at 28mm. The latter focal length is very popular in Japan, perhaps because so many Japanese street photographers use it.<br>

You can see my Bangkok Hysteria© book project, most if which is shot at 28mm, by<br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/malland/sets/72157594271568487/show/"><u>clicking here</u>.</a><br>

—Mitch/Paris</p>

[Nowhereman]

<p>Seems like photonet has changed how you make a link. The url I wanted the link to was this:<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/malland/sets/72157594271568487/show/</p>

[joan_s.]

<p >This is one of my favorite pics - obviously I could never have taken it by approaching the woman to inform her of my presence. I generaly get the best results by staying discrete, I used a compact for all the pics in my portfolio though. I've recently upgraded to a DSLR and might have to rethink my techniques.</p>

<p > <br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6475279-md.jpg" alt="" /></p>

 

<p >For this one I knew the girls and waited around long enough for them to start ignoring me and my camera...</p>

<p > <br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/7793953-lg.jpg" alt="" /></p>

 

<p >This couple actually stopped me and asked if I could take a pic of them...</p>

<p ><center><img src="http://www.photo.net/photo/8199791&size=lg"></center><br>

<img src="../photo/8199791&size=lg" alt="" /></p>

 

<p > </p>

 

[tonmestrom]

<p>Arguments here have become rather circular it seems. Street photography is bound by some rules and the most important one is a workable distance. To a certain extent which lens is used isn't that important. But as a general "rule" working fairly close to your subject is paramount.</p><div></div>

[fusionfoto uk]

<p>I wonder did Jack Welsh get any pictures of the screaming lady on the Amtrak, I know I would have made it worth the embarressment and got a few shots.... LOL<br /> <img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3285/3084742512_185f884c52.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="353" /><br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3233/3084099087_76c4619766.jpg" alt="" width="367" height="500" /></p>

[ilona_larue1]

<p>I had a horribly experience with street photography, our teacher assigned us to a certain part of town and we were told to spend 4 hrs and shoot pics.... does not matter what we shoot, as long as all the pics are somehow related.... I teamed up with another girl, we met at 8AM, and by 9 AM, we have been threatened by 4 different men, ( and at the time, we were not even shooting, just walking around with a camre ) the threats were anywhere from busting our camre up to busting our faces up... we decided to take pics of buildings, still was not good enough, we were harrassed the whole time, hindside I think, that happened because basicly we broke every rule of self defense. First of all, women alone had no busines to be on that part of town alone on the street, second walking around with a two thousand dollar equipment hanging around our neck.. asking to be robbed, third, be mindful of your surranding, don't act pre-occupied, well, we were trying to concentrate on our project... so on so on... I would just warn female photographers, use common sense, no photo worth to die over, or even to get robbed ot raped... those people were harrassing us because they knew, they can intimitate us, still not worth it !</p>