"Telephoto Is For Cowards"

[drisley]

I happened to be reading one of Petterri's Pontifications yesterday (it's a wonderful website with LOTS of great photo info), when I came across an essay with the title "Telephoto Is For Cowards" (http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/Pontification/n_Telephoto_Is_For_Wimps/a_Telephoto_Is_For_Cowards.html) .
This article is amazing, and has really got me rethinking my whold candid strategy.
To sum it up here is a quote... "fact is, real photographers don't shoot candids with telephoto lenses."
If you are looking for an interesting read, check it out. Plus, check out the rest of the site, I love it!

[aam1234]

No intention to rain on your parade drisley. But this is somewhat old news. What I'm dying to know is where Petterri is from.

[CyberDyneSystems]

It's true.. when on Safari in the Serengeti I will insist on only using a 20mm prime for all my wildlife photos... :shock: :lol:

Oh ,. candids,..

Well,. when getting Candids of the next WTO riot I will insist on using only a 20mm prime... ;)

Interesting article though. I just can't see drisley giving up his 135mm :)

[drisley]

What's old news? Petterri's website? Or the fact you shouldn't use telephoto for candid?
Either way, it may be old news to you, but not to everybody. Obviously it was new to me.
I believe he is from finland.

And there is no way I'm getting rid of my 135F2L. But then again, that lens is probably the best low light sports lens there is, and I do that more often than candids. :)

[HJMinard]

What I'm dying to know is where Petterri is from.

Helsinki, Finland

P.S. Not old news to me. Thanks for the link, Drisley.

[Steven M. Anthony]

I'm not sure how one can get a truly candid photo of someone who knows you are taking a photo of them. If your desire is to capture someone being themself, the worst thing you can do is stick a camera in their face.

[aam1234]

Helsinki, Finland

I doubt it. He is Armenian, some kind of a Western Gypsy.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I'm not sure how one can get a truly candid photo of someone who knows you are taking a photo of them.

Well that's an excellent point! Makes you wonder about the definition of the term Candid...

[Candid Bandit]

Saying coward would be an over kill and will turn off alot of peeps wanting to do candids. Maybe just a little shy would be the right word IMO.

[Jesper]

Well..... like I already wrote in sugar_babygirli's thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=62663) about more or less the same subject, you could also go to India (I just returned from a holiday in North-India); the people there are coming to you to ask you to take their photo... it's very easy to make portaits of strangers that way..... :)

[aam1234]

Hey Jesper! welcome back!

[cjm]

"fact is, real photographers don't shoot candids with telephoto lenses."

Yeah they sure don't when they are Superman or the Flash! For those of us who can't get to the other side of a room in a second, running towards a subject might change the mood and position of that person or thing. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Redbird_xo]

I'm not sure how one can get a truly candid photo of someone who knows you are taking a photo of them. If your desire is to capture someone being themself, the worst thing you can do is stick a camera in their face.

I'm with you on this one. In addition, people who live in metropolitians would likely to deny a photo request from strangers.

[aam1234]

Jesper?

[poke]

I found the guys point of view mildly insulting... The law says its ok to do certain things in public, and as long as you abide by that then you are not violating anyone right to privacy. He is entitled to his view, I just hope he never makes it into government where he can enforce that view on others.

I for one really enjoy taking candids from just outside noticable range. I find that the expressions and emotions you can capture are totally different than when people are aware of you.

What the law does say is that if you want to use the photo for any commercial use, then you need a model release. I think that is the welcome compromise between privacy and the right to capture what is happening in public.

Enough from me....

[HJMinard]

I doubt it. He is Armenian, some kind of a Western Gypsy.

I don't know what you're trying to say ... or what your point is ... but it very clearly states on his website that he's from Helsinki. His name, Petteri Sulonen, certainly sounds Finnish. As far as ethnic origin ... does it matter? I'm of mostly German descent, but I'm still American.

[cactusclay]

I read that somewhere before and I knew as I was reading it that it would be greeted here, with something less than inthusiasum. Real photographers are happy to do what they do and happy to let others do what they do, without trying to make others believe their way is better.

[drisley]

Hehe, I knew this topic would be, err, well, topical! :)
I think what his point is, in order to get real good candids, it's best to talk with the people, an get the picture of the subject in context, rather than just a random, tight shot of somebody without much idea what is going on around them. This is definatley and artform, and as a photographer it really makes you have to be very socially adept. I've thought about this for a long time, and that is my problem. I'm alot more shy, and I find this to be a challenge to me and other photographers, to get a little more up close and personal. It's seems to be a very good social learning experience.
Petterri (definately Finnish), also explains why this would still be considered a candid in the article.
Definately starts a great debate, but I'm willing to try anything to make me a better photog and person.

[Steven M. Anthony]

After reading his opinion piece, it is clear that the author has his own idea of what candid photography is and what it isn't. It's also clear that his view is extremely narrow. Clearly, when you know the people you are photographing--and they know you, and trust you--they will stop noticing, at some point, that you are taking photos. Personally, when I'm shooting candids of people on the street, they are just walking by me --or I'm just walking by them--and I take the photo. There is no hours of hanging with them. But it will be the extremely rare occasion where you approach someone you do not know for a candid, and within 1 or 2 minutes they are oblivious of you shooting away. What you will get is people showing off--maybe not mugging for the camera; but not being who they really are.

Clearly, spending time with people, and gaining their trust, works great for taking candids. I have a great candid of some Paresians playing boulles on my web site that I caught 2 hours into sitting with them (me not speaking much French, and they speaking an equal amount of English).

But the IS more than one way to do most things--and taking candids is one of those things.

[Persian-Rice]

My favorite photographer once said, "If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough."

Cheers

[Ogrt48]

His article proves he's rather full of himself.. well anyways from his profile on another forum cough dpr.. cough ^_^ :
Name Petteri Sulonen
E-mail Click here to send this user an email
Location Finland / Helsinki
Profession Tech. director

[tim]

He makes some interesting points, I think i'll use a few of them, thanks for the link :)

[Steven M. Anthony]

My favorite photographer once said, "If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough."

Cheers

Good enough for what?

[Lissa]

What irritates me the most about that article is not the telephoto issue. It's the phrase, "real photographers." That is such a snobbish attitude, and I have no use for it.

I don't care how much experience a person has, or whether they're amateur or pro. If a person has a camera and takes photographs, they're a photographer. Period.

I may not be the best photographer out there, but I enjoy the hobby. I love taking pictures, and looking at other photographers' works. To state that I'm not a "real photographer" because I do or don't use certain equipment is pure rubbish.

[DocFrankenstein]

IMO he's totally right.

Telephoto is invasion of privacy... also takes the subject out of the context.

What's the point of blurring out the background?

Nice article Drisley

[Lissa]

Blurring out the background makes the subject stand out. Backgrounds can sometimes be a distraction.

As far as the privacy issue - when you're in a public place, you should have no expectation of privacy. Of course, if you're someplace like a dressing room, restroom, etc., it's different. But someone strolling through a public park, nope. As long as I'm not being intrusive, I have the right to photograph someone. I don't have the right to publish their image without their permission, however.

[Tom W]

Good enough for what?

Good enough to get your butt whipped by the boyfriend of the lady into whose face you just stuck your 15 mm fisheye lens! :)

[Persian-Rice]

Ya I guess hiding the in the trees and secretly photographing people is much better.

I dont care who thinks who is a photographer, who cares what others think of you? as long as you are respected for your images. Some of the greatest artists are the most screwed up people. I think some people are photographing things to impress others, that is a shame.

I personally dont care if someone uses a telepheto or a WA for street photography.

You know what concerns me? Its that the majority people are so worried with what others think about them that they resort to this. You know what? most people dont care, and if they do judge, so what? Are you that insecure that you are afraid of what a complete stranger that you will probably never see again thinks of you? I think people think they are more significant then others, that everyone is watching them and examining their every move. The truth is, people are so concerned with what others are thinking of them, that they could care less about what you are doing.

I think the judgement is somewhat correct, but I dont think that ranting is going to fix anyhting, you need to ask the questions. I think that if you are always judging what others are doing, except for women, who the majority of naturally do that, I would say its time to examine what your are doing. Being passive and caring what other are going to do is going to lead to one thing, missed oppertunity after missed oppertunity. Not to say you should be careless, you need to judge other, but everything has its time and place.

[Jesper]

Hey Jesper! welcome back!
Thanks! :) Lots of India photos on http://jesper.fotopic.net ... 8) it was great, too bad it was only three weeks...

[Lissa]

Quite the contrary. I don't care what others think of me. Snobbery is a peeve of mine, is all. I was merely stating my thoughts on the article.

I think that if you are always judging what others are doing, except for women, who the majority of naturally do that, I would say its time to examine what your are doing.

Excuse me? Generalize much?

[DocFrankenstein]

Excuse me? Generalize much?
With the number of sisters he has, he has all the rights to generalize. :p

[Steven M. Anthony]

Ya I guess hiding the in the trees and secretly photographing people is much better.



I'm not sure that's the only alternative to suing a short lens! I also don't think disagreeing with the article is a sign of insecurity.

Personally, when I evaluate the merit of a point of view, I look at aspects of it like how well it generalizes, or what assumptions it makes. Mind you, I'm not that concerned who is stating the point of view. If HC-B made the statement, I'd be just as critical of it.

What I find UN-useful, are points of view that are restrictive or prescriptive. Such points of view typically assume the motivation of people to be universal. In my experience universal motivation rarely, if ever, exists.

Clearly, if one wants candid photos of people demonstrating something important in their lives, meeting and talking with them before-hand will likely yield great results. On the other hand, if one wants candid photos of people acting as they normally do--going through the daily events of their lives--that technique will likely fail.

If one understands the breadth of motivation and desire among photographers seeking candids, the limitations of the pov presented in the article is obvious.

[cjm]

Anyone a scientist? You need to invent invisible paint so then we can paint our camera's with it and take Macro pictures of people in elevators.

[Steven M. Anthony]

Anyone a scientist? You need to invent invisible paint so then we can paint our camera's with it and take Macro pictures of people in elevators.

Wal*Mart has it...

[RockOne]

I'm not sure that's the only alternative to suing a short lens!

That's probably not a good idea. Those short lenses have very good lawyers you know :-) :-) :-)

[Andy_T]

DRisley,

yes, the post is not new, but it still makes a good read. :wink:

I agree with him ... I've heard that 'legally' one doesn't 'have a right to privacy in public places' :confused:. Still, I'd rather not get pictures of people that they would not allow me to shoot in the first place.

It also reminded me a lot of a documentary I saw after Henri Cartier-Bressons death in which this was claimed as one of his most remarkable capabilities ... the unobtrusitivety and ability to 'blend in'. According to that documentary, he could stand in a crowded street snapping away with his 50 mm rangefinder and most people would ignore him or not even notice him in the first place.

But then, I don't take many candids :cry:
I haven't yet figured out what is worse for me ... approaching strangers and asking them whether I can take their pictures or being found out as having taken a picture with a telephoto lens unauthorized :confused:

Best regards,
Andy

[drisley]

It may currently be legal to shoot people in public places, but at the rate things are going, and especially if more and more people are carrying large white lenses around, it may soon be illegal.
Unfortunately where I am, it has recently become illegal to carry any sort of camera into public recreation centres. :(
So, I think the moral of Petterri's story is that it sure doesnt hurt to ask permission, and it may make you a better photographer in the long run.

[eosster]

I've communicated with Petteri and I find him very nice and intellegent. You don't have to agree with him, but I find his article very informitive for me, JMHO.

[Jon, The Elder]

All depends on where your coming from or going to.

www.pbase.com/jpferguson

Any of the Warm & Fuzzy galleries will show you a few hundred candids with a 28/135IS. What good is a candid once they have noticed you? Human nature puts them "on alert" even if they do not look back to you.

Like some one else just said - all depends on what YOU call candid.

40+ years and Tele's work for me.

[Longwatcher]

The key to his opinion is that he is really talking about "situationals" as he calls them.
He is correct in his opinion if he is talking about taking pictures of people in different situations, which may or may not be candid in the classic sense.
To me candid means that the subject did not pay attention to the photographer, whether they were aware of the photographer or not does not matter.

As to telephoto, I love using telephoto at the local beach. I think it is more obvious then a wide angle. When I sit there on the hill, set up my tripod, camera and long white lens, everyone becomes aware that I am there. Walking around with a wide angle means they may or may not be aware I am there unless they happen to notice me or I engage them in conversation.

I do agree though that a wide angle would be better in a crowded area. however as mentioned there are times when a telephoto is the only sensible way to get the shot.

I did like most of the other opinion articles on his page (especially the lens cost one).

[intechpcx]

The biggest flaw I see with his Thesis and rant is that it is based on politics and manners not photography. To say "real photographers don't shoot candids with telephoto lenses" is complete horse manure.

The fact is this statement doesn't take into account simple photographic concepts such as Depth of Field and Perspective. When I choose to shoot with a telephoto lens it's often because I want the more limited depth of field that a longer focal length provides at the same lighting. Perspective is another big thing for me. To me, getting the proper perspective in a photo, even a candid, can make all the difference between a boring shot and a standout capture. There have been plenty of times where I needed the shallower perspective of a telephoto to bring the mood of a scene together. He dismisses all of this with his statements.

I guess my point is that regardless of the other points raised here, there are legitimate reasons that a REAL photographer would want to use a telephoto lens. Those go well beyond the desire to photograph in psuedo anonymity or stealth. Sorry, but I'll continue to use my 70-300 whenever I choose.

[Ballen Photo]

IMO he's totally right.

Telephoto is invasion of privacy... also takes the subject out of the context.

What's the point of blurring out the background?

Nice article Drisley

I'm with Doc on this one. If someone let's it be known that they dont want their photo taken, I feel morally obligated to honor their wishes.
I try to always think "What if the circumstances were reversed?"
On the OTHER hand, if they are NOT the obvious main subject, and the photo is of the area in general, then it's open season. I simply would not want to single out and do unwanted personal portraits of a person/persons, and especially then post them on the web afterwards after their expressing their wishes to NOT be photographed.
This is just my own two cents and personal feelings about it. :rolleyes:
-Bruce

[Steven M. Anthony]

I'm with Doc on this one. If someone let's it be known that they dont want their photo taken, I feel morally obligated to honor their wishes.
I try to always think "What if the circumstances were reversed?"
On the OTHER hand, if they are NOT the obvious main subject, and the photo is of the area in general, then it's open season. I simply would not want to single out and do unwanted personal portraits of a person/persons, and especially then post them on the web afterwards after their expressing their wishes to NOT be photographed.
This is just my own two cents and personal feelings about it. :rolleyes:
-Bruce

I use a telephoto for some candid shots. And when someone indicates they don't want to be photographed I don't photograph them--even though I would be within my legal rights (depending where I am) to go on shooting. That's common courtesy--and has nothing to do with one's status as a "real photographer."

And if anyone in one of my shots sends me an email asking to be removed from my web site, I would remove the photo.

But that's not even the point of the article. His point was that candids made with a telephoto aren't as good as those done with a shorter lens. And for this main point, he really offers no evidence beyond his opinion--which really isn't evidence at all.

[Ballen Photo]

I use a telephoto for some candid shots. And when someone indicates they don't want to be photographed I don't photograph them--even though I would be within my legal rights (depending where I am) to go on shooting. That's common courtesy--and has nothing to do with one's status as a "real photographer."
You are correct, using a telephoto has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not someone is a "Real" photographer.

And if anyone in one of my shots sends me an email asking to be removed from my web site, I would remove the photo.
On the assumption that they even knew they were there. ;)

But that's not even the point of the article. His point was that candids made with a telephoto aren't as good as those done with a shorter lens. And for this main point, he really offers no evidence beyond his opinion--which really isn't evidence at all.
I'll have to go back and read it again, but I was sure that He posted a rant about "Invasion of Privacy", as well as this giving photographers a bad name. :shock:
If He insists that telephoto lenses are not good for candids, then He's simply wrong and looses credibillity. :rolleyes:
-Bruce

[Steven M. Anthony]

He might have, but I think it was an aside--not his main point. Any point he makes relative to "invasion of privacy" is way off base, as when we are in public, we waive our right to privacy. That doesn't mean one can't respect the wishes of other. It's just that in public they are just that--wishes.

Imagine if the right to privacy could be maintained in public. People saying "hello, how are you?" to us could be sued for invasion of privacy. Anyone caught looking at another person could meet with the same consequence. I bring up these extreme examples to illustrate why societies overrule rights to privacy in public places.

So if his point was the privacy issue, maybe he should have said "kind photographers will respect others' desire for privacy even when the others are in public."

[karusel]

The only way one would not invade privacy according to author of that essay is to let people know you're GOING to take their photo. Anyone who's in picture. You think famous candid photographers did that????? From this point I see no case against long telephotos.

Also, the reason why a candid photograph - in order to be a good one - needs everything in focus? Is it impossible to shoot with a 200mm telephoto closed down to f/8 to a somewhat distant subject with everything quite in focus? I call BS. And it is probably okay to use a 35mm @ f/1.4.

The only reasonable point this fellow has is that shorter focal length gives the feeling of being in the scene, and it allows for greater depth of field, if the background scene is appropriate for a composition that works.

I've been shooting alot of long tele candids, and quite a few wide angle. BUT. The long telephoto IMO is generally the only way to get away unnoticed BEFORE the subject(s) notices that you carry a camera and that you're taking photos, possibly of them, too.

I additionally think, the said author has some personal issues, since someone elses ways all over and all across, cannot be simply labeled as cowardness.

[drisley]

The only way one would not invade privacy according to author of that essay is to let people know you're GOING to take their photo. Anyone who's in picture. You think famous candid photographers did that?????

Actually, yes they did, and if you read his article thoroughly, he gives examples.

[karusel]

I've read it, but I cannot recall it.. anyhow, I'm pretty sure that not ALL of candid photographers let all subjects in frame of candid photographs know their photo is going to be taken prior to taking the shot, or asking afterwards if they're allowed to keep the shot. ;)

[drisley]

"Pick up a book with work by the Magnum photographers (http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/). Or Cartier-Bresson (http://www.henricartierbresson.org/), if you can't find anyone else. Page through it. Do you see people mugging for the camera, looking frozen? Hell no! Every picture is a little story all by itself, with the people sunken in thought, kissing, in the middle of a conversation, at work, arguing, fighting, in conversation with the photographer... living. It's as if the photographer blinked and froze a moment of time in black-and-white just as he experienced it. Did they do this with telephoto lenses? Not on your life. I'm guessing here, but I think you'll find that the most common focal length is 50 mm, with a fair bit of 35 and some 28 thrown in -- with at most an occasional 85 here and there. Normal, medium wide, and at most short tele. Were they master ninjas, able to make themselves invisible at will? Did they have stealth cameras they could carry in their shirt pocket and set off with a remote switch hidden in their watches? No way: they used the same Leicas and Nikons and what not that were and are the basic tools of every photographer shooting for money or for pleasure"

I remember reading somewhere, maybe in this forum, last year, about a famous candid street photographer.
He used a method that a few candid photographers used where he would mount a wide angle lens on his camera, close down the aperture, and wade thru crowds with his camera at chest level taking pictures. Apparently this can work extremely well and give some of the best street candids your ever going to see.
I remember a picture showing the photographer doing this, and he had a bagel or something in one hand, and camera "at the ready" in the other.

[karusel]

Yes, the hip-shooting. I've first heard of if from some pbase user with whom I've exchanged a couple of emails. I'm trying to learn this, but there are two predispositions: a fixed focal wide angle lens, and first imprinting to your subconciousness what the exact angle of view is, from then on it's just lots of practical training.

[drisley]

I've been experimenting with "random" shooting with a wide angle, ie, not looking through a viewfinder. The scary thing is that I get more "keepers" this way than I do when I actually compose with the viewfinder :) Not to mention the horizon is always perfectly straight! :)

[nat869]

I just saw this thread and read that guys article for the first time. It was really interesting, thanks Drisley. I think his point is less about whether to use a telephoto or not, but more about a style of taking candid photographs. The idea of spending time with people until they have that familiarity/comfort with you, all the while taking shots, is pretty cool. It may not be revolutionary, but it makes the idea of candid photography more appealing to someone like myself.
I always really enjoy seeing the candid photos that are posted and it would be cool to see candids taken in all different styles. Myself, I would like to try his technique sometime and use one of my telephotos or 50mm.

[drisley]

Nat869, you took the words out of my mouth.
It is a great challenge for a photographer, definately a great challenge for a shy photographer, and I think in the end practicing in this manner could also make you better at portraits, as your inter-personal skills should improve.

[MediaMagic]

My favorite photographer once said, "If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough."

Cheers

Yeah, that's a good point.. one of my favorite photographers also once said, "You can't take any shots at all while removing the L glass from your ...." and then there's the cleaning time..

I think this is one of those topics like the jpg vs raw debate where it could be discussed for eons. Each approach has its place, a correct circumstance, and is a viable avenue for a great shot.

[picnic]

I doubt it. He is Armenian, some kind of a Western Gypsy.

He is from Finland. He spent some time when he was younger in the US, but lives in Helsinki now--and it seems that his family is from there (he has a number of photos of his family at holidays--and they certainly don't look Armenian LOL). His wife is Lebanese I think--in fact, they are in Beirut at the moment (dangerous as it is).

Diane B

[aam1234]

His wife is Lebanese I think--in fact, they are in Beirut at the moment (dangerous as it is).
Diane B

Aha, I knew it.

[Jon, The Elder]

People pay me very good money for my candids at horse shows.
I use a Canon 28/135 or my Canon 70/200 f4

morally wrong?

Monetarily satisfiying....You bet !

[drisley]

Mmm, I wouldn't classify that as a "candid" that is being talked about in the article.
The writer even mentions that telephoto is fine/crucial for sporting events which is a whole different cup of tea.

[DocFrankenstein]

People pay me very good money for my candids at horse shows.
Yeah, what about candids of cars? Or soccer players? :rolleyes:

[DocFrankenstein]

Yeah, that's a good point.. one of my favorite photographers also once said, "You can't take any shots at all while removing the L glass from your ...." and then there's the cleaning time..
His point exactly! :lol:

Imagine a long fast telephoto being stuck up your... instead of small and convenient wide angle. :confused: