Ansel Adams a street photographer?

[markdeneen]

<blockquote>

<p>I've always, as this post proves to me, thought that certain 'street photography' is indeed very legitimate and beautiful - even without a fire behind the unaware subject.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>It's nice to know there is someone with the authority to bestow legitimacy on certain photography. Well, there is a perfect example of how a form of self expression can quickly become self-conscious and ultimately insufferable. Nothing personal against the person suggesting such authority, but that kind of <em>comment</em> is outrageous to anyone who has ever picked up a guitar, or a paint brush or a camera, or a chisel. THIS is legitimate - THAT is not! So says the <em>authority</em>!</p>

<p>Click!</p>

<p> </p>

[jgredline]

<p>Perhaps I should have chosen a better pic. That happened to be one I was looking at, at the time. It did however serve a purpose. It could be looked at as bad street photography which I admitted it was. It also served to point out atleast to me that Shawn went right for the boobs. If I wanted to show boobs, there are plenty of those around L.A. believe me. Yet in the context of he wrote I would be a creep along with many others here.</p>

<p>No that was the first frame in the roll and most of the time if I wind it right, I can get an extra frame or two from the roll. So in this case, I was trying to catch the hug that came next from some old friends that I obviously missed. So it went from what could have been a good shot to a bad shot. That however was not the point of the picture. He said</p>

<blockquote>

<p>'' But my opinion of "street" photography is very, very low, if the photographer includes an unaware person in the shot as the main subject. I have no issue with street photography that includes people if the people aren't the main focus, but if they are, <strong>it's just a pervert/</strong>money-maker taking pictures. '' </p>

</blockquote>

<p>So we / i used the word creep, but infact he used a much stronger word. Did I take offense to it? Yes I did. He called me a pervert. He also called my wife a pervert and many of my friends a pervert. And for the record, I have had pictures published in the LA Times, Pasadena Star news, Alhambra Source, The Voice and La Opinion and have never taken a single dime for any of it because It is a hobby. </p>

<p>Secondly, who is to say what a good street photo is? I see many that are praised and I don't see what is great about them... Yet others do. It goes both ways. I have seen what I would consider good and others will think they stink. It is all subjective ''imo''. Sure there are those rare few pictures that are indeed fantastic and will pass the test of time. But those are fewer and fewer as time passes. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Robin Smith<br>

A lot of street photographs may seem pointless (many do to me), but then most of photography is pointless too. After all just what is the point of, say, yet another Fall photo of colorful leaves - we have seen them all before and we will see many of them again (and again)?<br>

I do not fall into the category of person that thinks that everything taken on the street is interesting - a lot of it is mind-numblingly dull, but occasionally something great comes up - a bit like photography in general. Certainly, Javier does no one any favors by putting up a photo that he admits has no particular merit, but your statement is too dogmatic. One way of looking at it is that good street photography is possibly the most difficult genre to make successful, so the number of misses is likely to be very high.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Robin. as I said above I should have choses a better picture and I do agree with your above statement. </p>

[tomsheridan]

<p>I may be "creepy", but, boy, it's worth it!</p>

[tomsheridan]

<p>As above</p><div></div>

[michael_dimarzio]

<p>All of the friendly discourse over the past 6 months was creepy. It's nice to see things a tad more normal.</p>

[shawngibson]

<p>Tom - she looked at you like a complete stanger and her look says 'get lost'.</p>

<p>I appreciate the effort involved in trying to get great street shots, as per above. But if you REALLY wanted great shots as street photographers, you'd focus less on the girl and more on the shot. The above rain shot has no more talent than the first one I (hopefully conscienciously) derided. And I'm sorry for that, Javier.</p>

<p>Boobs/sexuality, per above...yes that's what I think you're often doing. I like boobs too, but I ask first. You want to photopgraph a beautiful woman, you have two options: ask her or be a creep. You'd get much better photos if you actually asked (if you have any talent):)</p>

[chanh_nguyen1]

<p>Is my observation correct that the majority of street photography is B&W? I wonder why.</p>

[markdeneen]

<blockquote>

<p>Is my observation correct that the majority of street photography is B&W? I wonder why.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>My answer is that it represents the <em>minimum</em> information required to communicate in the form. It's a reduction, a simplification which strengthens what is underlying. By eliminating the intense information of color, more emphasis is drawn to form, composition and dynamics, which are more prominent aesthetics in street, versus other forms. If you shot say, flowers in B&W, you are probably dropping one of the most important virtues of that subject - its color. In street, color isn't that strong (usually) of an attribute.</p>

[bms]

<p>Shawn,<br /> my 2 cents:<br /> I think there is not doubt that some street photography has something in common with voyeurism, in a broad sense. If you watch people, they can be utterly fascinating. That being said, the vast majority of my shots are pretty worthless - boring and uninteresting. I would doubt that many street shooters are different. There is however a philosophical difference in whether you want to "document" the street in an unobserved state, or, as many others do, interact with the subject. I am not claiming one is better than the other, but the approach is different. The results are much different in either case, too. Tom's photo IMHO illustrates how the interaction with the subject changed the shot, To you it communicates "Get Lost". but t does have a message it conveys.</p>

<p>Many may disagree with me, I actually though that Javier's shot has "potential" - it documents the chance encounter between two friends meeting in a busy city - it does tell somewhat of a story (maybe it could have been told better but that is not the point here). Now imagine the two women were looking at the photographer. Story gone, and now it is just an average snap shot.<br /> Whether one person like a shot or not is also subjective.<br /> That being said, I am current scanning some negatives, so I offer a somewhat random sample, FWIW....</p>

<p>Ben</p><div></div>

[bms]

<p>BTW, Brad great shot.</p>

[john_walsh7]

<p>Shawn, Your post makes a lot of sense. I dont bother with street with a 35mm anymore , I feel too awkward because people are nervous and dont want their photograph taken. In london recently there was a " protest " by a photography club with banners saying " we are steet photographers not terrorists " .. that about sums up the feeling on both sides of the lens. As a genre its practically ruined ..gone are the days when people gave you a curious look and got on with it... if a kid happens to be in the frame expect to be arrested here.. Indeed its now against the law in spain to take pictures of strangers in any public place e.g. a train station.. a tap on the shoulder from a security gaurd confirmed that to me. I notice the odd person now with a 70-200 ( lol ) , im sure it wont be long before they hide in dustbins. </p>

[bms]

<p>John, you bring up an interesting point. Times are changing.... not necessarily for the better... everyone is concerned about their privacy in the public space, while our personal information, shopping habits, medical conditions are sold over and over to advertisers etc. behind the scenes... the time of street photography maybe coming to an end.....</p>

[markdeneen]

<p>I haven't run into angry people, scared parents or over-reaching cops in my area. I generally find people to be like I'd expect - friendly, engaging, curious and not terribly paranoid. Although I do some shots with a 75mm or 90mm from perhaps 50 feet away, I prefer to engage people close-in and then photograph them as we talk. I like being up close with a 28mm or so most of the time.</p>

<p>I do think that when people see a guy with a long lens on a big black SLR they feel like he is spying ala the old detective movies. I find that RFs or waistfinder MFs are less threatening looking. One of my favorite street cameras is a P&S.</p>

<p>I hear a lot about angry parents too, but I shoot kids and have not had any problems with parents. This little boy's dad was a few feet away amused that I was having fun taking pictures of his boy.</p>

<p>I have a feeling that some of it is about the photographer's own presentation. I never try to look furtive, or secretive. I carry camera bags and tripods, and cameras around my neck, and I stroll casually making sure people see me, and see that I am taking pictures. I would never hide behind a building, for example. Or point a camera out of a window.</p>

<p>Maybe things are different in big cities? Street photography is fine here.</p><div></div>

[john_walsh7]

<p>Yes Mark i was reading your post wondering if I was doing something disasterously wrong untill you mentioned people in cities may have it different .. I have to say my experience in smaller towns is very different to a big city both here in Spain and in the west of Ireland. i have a 4 day weekend in the south coming up and I am looking forward to that . I was just listening to Stephen Devries talk about trying to do street photography in Moscow and finding it hard going,, he has been at it a long time.. I did say 35mm also I do find that people give you the curious " cooky " look when they see you with an antique camera though so you get a lot more latitude and are more easily ignored ( i imagine people are either unsure if its a camera or if it works chuckle ) My experience may be personal ,, it has become a bit of a viscous circle perhaps with me sensing people not wanting you to take pictures and then perhaps looking slightly flustered as a consequence if you know what I mean. My views are perhaps a function of my relative inexperience.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> the time of street photography maybe coming to an end.....

 

Don't think so. Not in the US anyway, and I suspect most places in the world.

 

My experiences pretty much align with what Mark D said above. Response and acceptance is about your attitude

and how you project when shooting. Sneaking around, being clever, doing hip shots, etc drives suspicion and

ultimately problems. People are much more aware than you imagine. Shoot confidently out in the open and

people figure you belong.

 

I see some people shooting with telephotos and don't get it. To do good SP, you need to become part of the

dynamics/energy in the area. Not shoot it from down the block or across the street. Ultimately it shows in the

photos.

 

>>> There is however a philosophical difference in whether you want to "document" the street in an unobserved

state, or, as many others do, interact with the subject.

 

No reason you can't do both. I do, switching back and forth often. Both types compliment each other.

 

Also, thanks to all that commented on my photo!

[john_walsh7]

<p>I just looked up this site , the spanish law and attitudes are carbon copies in the cities at least. <a href="http://photographernotaterrorist.org/">http://photographernotaterrorist.org/</a><br /> " <br /> On a beautiful sunny day in London I was taking photographs of Wren’s steeple at the ruined Christ church, Newgate, which adjoins the building occupied by Bank of America and Merrill Lynch.<br /> After about 20 minutes of taking photos, a security guard approached asking for ID and the purpose of photography. I refused to give any details. Shortly after a suited head of security came out to ask me the same questions under the pretence of ‘hostile reconnaissance’ . Again I refused. I had no obligation to provide corporate security guards any of this information as I was in a public space.<br /> I moved away from the building, under the constant surveillance of the guard, and crossed the road to get a wider shot.<br /> I was then approached by a PCSO who crossed the road and asked what me what was I doing, again I declined to give any information. He responded that if an ‘incident takes place, like a bomb going of,f in the near future and I hadn’t questioned you, I wouldn’t be doing my job properly.’<br /> After his departure I heard police sirens coming from the east and west. and watched in stunned amazement as 3 police cars and a riot van arrived, all with flashing lights. They pulled up outside the entrance where the guard had approached me. 3 of them marched toward me and said they were responding to an ‘incident’. Apparently there was ‘…an aggressive male who had been in reception of the building taking photographs of the staff, and who refused to leave’.<br /> I argued this with the police officer, saying that this was wrong. I was not in the building reception, I was not photographing staff, nor had I been asked to leave.<br />I was asked by police what I was doing and it was obvious I was taking photographs, but I initially declined to give any further information. During this questioning, one of the police officers was admiring my camera, and commented amusingly on my ‘I’m a photographer, not a terrorist’ badge.<br /> My camera bag was searched for terrorist related paraphernalia (notebooks and maps I assume), despite my lame protestations.<br /> The police officer again asked for my details as he produced his stop search form. When I said that I was not obliged to give the details, he said I would be physically searched, which did not sound like a very pleasant experience. So I gave my details and was not detained any longer.<br /> All of this was because I declined to be bullied or intimidated by a security officer, who now have what appears to be the full backing of the police in their assessment of photographers. "<br>

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1184614595?bctid=55696686001<br>

The local photographers clubs are sending around emails and blog posts explaining what " our rights " are. </p>

[jgredline]

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="600">

<tbody>

<tr valign="top">

<td>

<p>Things that I do and dont do.<br>

Dont think to much, just shoot. If you think to much, you will likely miss the moment and or chicken out. Dont hide, but be obvious. If you hide, you will let out creepy vibes and peoples senses will be directed at you, be friendly and smile allot. Talk to people. The most common thing I hear when taking folks pictures is, ”Sorry, I got in your shot”. I just smile and chuckle. I have found that when people ask me why did I take their picture, I am honest with my reason. Lying does not work well for me as I am a lousy liar. I always get caught so I avoid it. Do not hide who you are. I carry a personal card with my name, email address and blog address on it and I am quick to offer it up when approached or feel a tense situation arising. You would be amazed at how quickly this calms things down.</p>

<p>Most people are happy to have their picture taken, They just dont know it. There are times when I will ask a stranger if I can take their picture, though not often. I prefer the true candid. When I shoot street performers, I try and catch them candidly, but I pay them after wards. They are out to make a living and I can appreciate that. When I shoot people that are down on their luck, I will not walk away and leave them empty handed. This of course is me… All in all be friendly and your state of dress is also important. I avoid wearing hats when I can unless I am in a place where most people are wearing them. I never wear sun glasses. Sun glasses tend to let out creepy vibes. I always carry minimal gear. I dont use telephoto lenses as they are simply to big, heavy and bulky and scream ”look at me”. This of course is a personal preference, but each person has to decide what he/she is more comfortable with. Telephoto lenses will also let out the creepy vibes that must be avoided at all times…Never stand around. Always keep moving. Standing around will bring you unwanted attention. I dont hang around a spot longer than a minute. Look for interesting back grounds as well and try and time things. Be mindful of what you want. L@@K for interesting folks and scenes.<br>

There are times when you will want to purposely carry much gear to look like a pro…I do this for events such as protest, marches, or movie premiers etc.</p>

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>I will also add that 99% of the time I use lenses from 18-28mm on crop bodies and 24 to 50mm on full frame bodies. My personal favs are my 24mm lenses.</p>

 

[shadforth_stephen]

<p>Very few of Cartier-Bressons images have the person in the shot aware that he was taking it. Thats the whole idea of street photography... to catch a natural, unposed moment in time.<br>

Its not creepy...its actually very very hard to do. Wandering around streets talking nice scenes is no more than travel photography...nothing hard about that.</p>

[Uhooru]

<blockquote>

<p>Very few of Cartier-Bressons images have the person in the shot aware that he was taking it. Thats the whole idea of street photography...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Says who? Are you sure about that? IMO It's really only one idea of street photography...</p>

[jim_peterson2]

<p>I was going to comment on the AA street photos but see that this thread has gone in a completely different direction... which is an interesting discussion too.<br>

But what I wanted to say was that while the AA stuff was very great, it was surprising to me to see that he wasn't able to hold a camera straight. Every single frame is rotated to the left to some degree or another. I guess all of his work with tripods didn't give him time to perfect his hand holding technique. :)</p>

[john_walsh7]

<p>The really odd thing , its kind of sad really is if I want to see the rough layout of an airbase or what BOA on Canary wharf looks like all I have to do is go to google maps or some such service.. the culture that allowed that guy get arrested or tourists to be asked to delete their pictures is rooted in a wider view of society at least that is how I see it. I agree Shadforth that it is actually a very hard genre all other challenges aside. Javier thanks for the post, this is an interesting thread.</p>

[fi_rondo1]

<p>This deviation from Ansel Adams' photos made coming to this thread worthwhile. Adams has a lot in common with that Shakespeare play, "Much Ado About Nothing".</p>

<p>As for street photography and photographers... I think we actually do the cities and towns we work in a service. Not enough happens in people's lives and if they take offense we've at least given them something to talk about at home, at the office, and on the streets themselves. If someone asks me what I'm doing, I sometimes show them some photos. Once I laid down a spiel on the theory of Platonic images or Goethe's color theory (probably not accurate, but it pacified and amused my listeners)...<br /> I agree with Shadforth: <em>to catch a natural, unposed moment in time</em><br /> Anyhow, if we are to deal with the idea of catching life as it is being lived, it's almost necessary that the act of photographing go undetected. If you click three frames of a subject you sometimes get the progression from 1) unaware 2) becoming aware 3) fully aware. And the change in demeanor, body language, etc., is more than evident. If you ask them to pose they often <em>prepare a face to meet the faces</em> that will be viewing their picture in the future. (I said <em>often</em>, not never.) Personal anecdote: I remember when I was 9 or 10. I came into the house, my brother didn't notice me and he was laying on the floor with his coloring book. The serenity and concentration he exhibited was unlike anything I'd ever noticed about him before. It's that essence of that incident that makes this kind of picture make sense.</p>

<p> </p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>John I don't know much about Spanish law but as it happens I just returned from a extensive trip to Barcelona. I took photos all over the Metro, occasionally in plain sight of officials there without a single problem. The same is true of the Paris metro. While there is a official ban on photography (or so they tell me) I've shot and shoot there extensively without a single problem. Ever!</p>

<p>As it happens I walked into a demonstration of people from the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Rebublic in front of city hall last Friday (once a Spanish colony it's now part of Morocco and they strive for independence of all the Western Sahara) and although it was all very friendly the Guardia Urbana was out in riot gear. Nevertheless they were courteous enough to let me do my thing and answer my questions and you know what, sofar that has happened to me all over the place. I shoot all over Europe and although I'm a far cry from your typicial tourist I've never been searched by the police. In fact the ones I've met and talked to on several occassions have all been friendly, forthcoming and professional, from the Milanese police in their Armani designed uniforms to the tough looking "don't mess with me" Uzi carrying Paris special police and yes, even the London Metropolitan Police.</p>

<p>Sure, Section 44 has been a big mistake (for various reasons) the whole reason why it's been suspended. It's true that some very regrettable and well-documented incidents have happened but in my experience the police as a whole is not what some make it out to be. As for your example he was probably in his rights to neglect those security guards but why would one decline to answer a question from the police when in fact all they were doing (or so it seems) was following up on a call (however ill-guided). Remember these guys have a job to do</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The police officer again asked for my details as he produced his stop search form. <strong><em>When I said that I was not obliged to give the details</em></strong>, he said I would be physically searched, which did not sound like a very pleasant experience. So I gave my details and was not detained any longer.<br /> All of this was because I declined to be bullied or intimidated by a security officer</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Having principals is one thing, exercising your common sense quite another.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The local photographers clubs are sending around emails and blog posts explaining what " our rights " are.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When will these people learn that some basic people skills are of far more use in such a situation than pointing out their rights?</p>

<p>As for streetphotography, it's no more difficult than other kinds of photography. It's like a loose dog on the street. Some will cross the street and do everything else to avoid it while others will approach it, kneel down only to discover that it's actually a friendly bugger as this little fellow was in Barcelona. It's just not for some.</p>

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

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Having principals is one thing, exercising your common sense quite another.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure, and they often conflict...Excellent (dog) anecdote, Ton. </p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>All of this was because I declined to be bullied or intimidated by a security officer, who now have what appears to be the full backing of the police in their assessment of photographers. "</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John</p>

<p>I think you <em>were </em>unhelpful and that often does count as aggressive, and it is of course irritating, and while you may be within your rights, it strikes me that a security guard also has a perfect right to ask what you are doing around an area where he has responsibility. The chances are that if you had answered him helpfully nothing else would have happened. Are you like this with other people on the street? If so, God help you.</p>