Street photography

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16785572
Sometimes I wait in places for something to happen, sometimes I'm on move searching but it's always more than just snapping. I look for leading lines, patterns, repeating shapes, contrasting tones and an interesting subject or moment when all of this come together.

iamascientist hit the nail on the head.

Look a the work of those that did have done it very well.Read their philosophies and how they approached it. They are widely varied but there are some common threads that run through and reasons why their work is singled out. Here is a link that I've probably posted in this thread but worth a repost. A good $13.00 spent and a great insight into some of the best.
http://everybodystreet​.com/

Right, there might not really be any rules, but whether taken by a photographer this past year or 60 years ago, I typically gravitate towards "street" photos shot with wide to normal. Obviously, there are exceptions, particularly with short-tele's.

As always, use what's best to reflect your vision.

[You know, haven't seen the movie, waiting for a hard copy, since I'm not set up for streaming on the tube (and I ain't watching it on my Macbook Air).]

jonneymendoza wrote in post #16785110
first ruke of street photography. there is no bloody rule so stop moaning about how u HAVE TO SHOOT wide and close because its false and complete bull

Tough cookie...

Your current Flickr page looks like predominately wide for the street shots on it, BTW.

I'm not so ruke anymore to lug around tele for the picture which is easily obtained by walking closer.
If we look at something regular, we don't need telescope for it. The street photography isn't special either. Just walk like tourist and look around

sjones wrote in post #16785806
Right, there might not really be any rules, but whether taken by a photographer this past year or 60 years ago, I typically gravitate towards "street" photos shot with wide to normal. Obviously, there are exceptions, particularly with short-tele's.

As always, use what's best to reflect your vision.

[You know, haven't seen the movie, waiting for a hard copy, since I'm not set up for streaming on the tube (and I ain't watching it on my Macbook Air).]

I think it's being screened in some cities also. Waiting to hear when it will be in Chicago.

now that I think about it...perhaps this would be the ideal set up.

A small mirrorless set up like the Fujifilm X camera with a 28/35mm lens for walking against the flow of street traffic and approaching people...and an SLR with a long telephoto lens to capture spontaneous moments from a far with a pleasing and creamy bokeh as the background.

If only money were no option! I have very limited gear because i make no money from street photography, but most of it from portraiture.

golden1245 wrote in post #16786005
now that I think about it...perhaps this would be the ideal set up.

A small mirrorless set up like the Fujifilm X camera with a 28/35mm lens for walking against the flow of street traffic and approaching people...and an SLR with a long telephoto lens to capture spontaneous moments from a far with a pleasing and creamy bokeh as the background.

If only money were no option! I have very limited gear because i make no money from street photography, but most of it from portraiture.

lots of film photographers were predominantly shooting with either a 28mm, 35mm or 50mm, then have a 2nd camera with a med tele like 85mm or 135mm for the rare moments that they need some reach.

there's no rule on street photography and personally IMO it's such a broad term.
the only relationship that some photos may have is that they were taken on the street.
the main reason why most 'real' and hardcore street photographers prefer a wider lens is because it gets them close and personal to their subjects, almost like you are viewing the world through their perspective and not from someone 20-30 ft away from them.

using some of my photos as example, these would have looked and expressed different emotion if taken farther

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/b5tH​kF

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/b5tV​GB

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/b6W2​JT

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/edM7​Ts

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/b5tU​Kz

A great piece on Winogrand. He brings up the street photographer label.

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=3RM9KcYEYXs

taemo wrote in post #16786533
using some of my photos as example, these would have looked and expressed different emotion if taken farther

wow, excellent photos Taemo! They really capture the essence of LA. I love the shot of the bicyclist carrying the surfboard. The length of the surf board trailing to the edge of the photo really leads your eye into the subject. Awesome! shot from the hip??

Another cool piece from Meyerowitz
http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=Xumo7_JUeMo

A couple of real gems in there Taemo

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16786624
Another cool piece from Meyerowitz
http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=Xumo7_JUeMo

A couple of real gems in there Taemo

thanks!
I love watching and rewatching those street documentaries on youtube
another one that I like from Joel, http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=b1gICU1H78s

golden1245 wrote in post #16786620
wow, excellent photos Taemo! They really capture the essence of LA. I love the shot of the bicyclist carrying the surfboard. The length of the surf board trailing to the edge of the photo really leads your eye into the subject. Awesome! shot from the hip??

thank you, yeah those kind of shots can't be done with a tele lens.
yes I was shooting from the hip back then, 5D w/ 24-105L at 24mm and f/8 or f/11

Thats a great piece Taemo. I actually saw him speak in the mid 1980s. Redheads was the exhibit at the time IIRC. He shot Red Heads with that beautiful Deardorff of his as well shooting Cape Light with it. They are both great books BTW.

This is a cool piece on the day he met Robert Frank.
http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=jvRyXju8Fmo

Elliot Erwitt
http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=qCxI_eSb0jE

As ambiguous as street photography is, perhaps its primary consistent is that it is socio-anthropological in nature, in that it typically reflects the presence of humanity, whether humans are in the photo or not. As such, the setting does not even necessarily need to be urban, thus allowing for a broad scope of possibilities.

Still, while the 'rules' are flexible, most of us have a general perception as to what falls in line for street photography---if we see a book with "street photography" in the title, we have certain expectations. But as they say, even if it is difficult to verbally delineate, we know it when we see it...sort of...

I personally like to shoot with a 70-200 lens, almost 100% at 200 length (my favorite lens was the 200 f2.8L) I like to be unabtrusive but get in really close via the 200mm. I find you can step back and sink into the background and take pics many times without people noticing. I really like to bring the people on the street into almost a story telling close up of them.

http://www.flickr.com …/in/set-72157629112056353

http://www.flickr.com …/in/set-72157632677407514

Another pretty cool but long piece by Meyerowitz. His ground zero work is pretty powerful.
http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=nO3DvdwgUYw

kf095 wrote in post #16785811
Tough cookie...

Your current Flickr page looks like predominately wide for the street shots on it, BTW.

I'm not so ruke anymore to lug around tele for the picture which is easily obtained by walking closer.
If we look at something regular, we don't need telescope for it. The street photography isn't special either. Just walk like tourist and look around

yes it is wide. i shoot mostly wide but also sometimes shoot tele. So i am no fanboy of such a length but basically telling you all that it does not matter what focal length you shoot. one doesnt mean its not street photography and thanks for viewing my flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/kYvh​ij