Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Street  (Read 32069 times)
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2927


« Reply #20 on: April 27, 2010, 03:41:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Russ,
           your last few posts have been very insightful and you obviously are speaking from experience. A few years ago I did some street photography with a long lens and I quickly realised it wasn't the "right thing" to do and stopped despite it being legal. As I stated in another post political rallies are the way to go if you want to do this sort of thing. After a while you get to know who likes to be photographed and who doesn't and who doesn't care. The ones that like it tend to look at you thus spoiling it a little. The ones who don't look away and the disinterested look ahead and try and ignore you. As you stated you should think about what you are doing and don't pester people. As to putting a flash in front of someone then you deserve it to be inserted in your rear?
Logged

EduPerez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 696


WWW
« Reply #21 on: April 27, 2010, 03:50:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rob C
Reportage; Martin Parr; English 'holiday' towns; junk food/people; flash; colour; cult of the ugly and the defeated; exploitative crappy images; Magnum; personal opinion.

Rob C

Too cryptic; not understood; personal opinion.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #22 on: April 27, 2010, 05:31:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EduPerez
Too cryptic; not understood; personal opinion.




Eduardo

Clear; well understood; accurate response!

;-)

Rob C
Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #23 on: April 27, 2010, 08:23:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rob C
Reportage; Martin Parr; English 'holiday' towns; junk food/people; flash; colour; cult of the ugly and the defeated; exploitative crappy images; Magnum; personal opinion.

Rob C

   
-Agree
-disagree

"Reportage; Martin Parr; English 'holiday' towns; junk food/people; flash; colour; cult of the ugly and the defeated; exploitative crappy images; Magnum; "
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6565



WWW
« Reply #24 on: April 27, 2010, 08:40:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rob C
Reportage; Martin Parr; English 'holiday' towns; junk food/people; flash; colour; cult of the ugly and the defeated; exploitative crappy images; Magnum; personal opinion.

Rob C

Rob, I'm not quite sure what you're saying, but Martin is a member of Magnum.
Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #25 on: April 27, 2010, 08:41:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: stamper
Russ,
           your last few posts have been very insightful and you obviously are speaking from experience. A few years ago I did some street photography with a long lens and I quickly realised it wasn't the "right thing" to do and stopped despite it being legal. As I stated in another post political rallies are the way to go if you want to do this sort of thing. After a while you get to know who likes to be photographed and who doesn't and who doesn't care. The ones that like it tend to look at you thus spoiling it a little. The ones who don't look away and the disinterested look ahead and try and ignore you. As you stated you should think about what you are doing and don't pester people. As to putting a flash in front of someone then you deserve it to be inserted in your rear?
Russ has been doing street for many years I guess, maybe in Lu-La the most implicated in street photography (that I know so far) so his advices in this terrain are experienced and always usefull, so as his picture critics comments. That's a great aportation.

I don't use any more a big long lens either (don't like the weight balance) so I'm doing street with short and discrete 28mm-50mm and 16. All manual focused.
But then, if pointing with a huge tele on the face of the people is agressive in some situations, what about the compact cams now that feature big tele lens?
They are discrete yes, but if you think about it, you can get the face as the main subject from a distance and the person does not even know it.
I'm not sure if it's not worse than clearly showing what are your intentions with the big tele lens. Because then, the person is aware of your action. In the other case it is clearly a rob. So when Gilden is jumping at the face of his victims, there is nothing hidden in that process. What's right then? Being discrete, not disturbing anybody but stealing pics without consent? or just showing what you are doing clearly, even if it can be agressive.

I notice that in the Michael's pics, people are generally aware is shooting them.

Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6565



WWW
« Reply #26 on: April 27, 2010, 09:07:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Fred, First of all, it isn't the focal length of the lens that appears aggressive; it's the size of a rig that seems to threaten people. I'd say that stealth is the best way to do street photography, but the word "stealth" has a connotation of "furtive," and that's not what I mean at all. If a long focal length lens on a small camera will do the job quietly and unobtrusively, fine. But there's a perspective change when you use a long lens that may or may not be appropriate, depending on the particular scene.

I'll say it again: When you make someone aware that you're shooting a picture of him, what you get is a posed picture. If you're a landscaper that probably doesn't bother you because you're not after relationships between people, other people, and their surroundings. You're shooting a static shot -- same as a landscape. Here's a shot I made on Sunday at an art fair. There's no way I'd have been able to get that expression if the guy had known I was shooting his picture.

[attachment=21702:Carver.jpg]

Fred, you keep talking about "stealing" pictures without consent. But every time you go out in public people are stealing your picture -- with their eyes if not with cameras. Seeing other people is a necessary, and sometimes delightful, part of human existence. To fix an image of someone in time -- with a camera -- hardly seems "stealing."


Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #27 on: April 27, 2010, 09:14:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
Fred, you keep talking about "stealing" pictures without consent. But every time you go out in public people are stealing your picture -- with their eyes if not with cameras. Seeing other people is a necessary, and sometimes delightful, part of human existence. To fix an image of someone in time -- with a camera -- hardly seems "stealing."
Russ, I certainly agree with this idea. And you're right, if the man had been aware of you, the picture would have been a pose.

Cheers.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #28 on: April 27, 2010, 10:04:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
Fred, you keep talking about "stealing" pictures without consent. But every time you go out in public people are stealing your picture -- with their eyes if not with cameras. Seeing other people is a necessary, and sometimes delightful, part of human existence. To fix an image of someone in time -- with a camera -- hardly seems "stealing."




Come on, Russ, you are being disingenuous with that line! Even catching the eye in some quarters is enough to get you floored!

Rob C
Logged

stamper
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2927


« Reply #29 on: April 27, 2010, 10:07:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rob C
Come on, Russ, you are being disingenuous with that line! Even catching the eye in some quarters is enough to get you floored!

Rob C

Rob.....you must be visiting some strange places?
Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #30 on: April 27, 2010, 10:16:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, I think I forgot to mentionned an important detail in my tale: The tourist was actually in a "dangerous" area of downtown. He obviously did not know it.
I mean, the way the old lady insulted him was primitive and probably alcool was involved. The reactions of the people were completly exagerate, passionate and uncontroled minds. This place is a drug area and prostitution in the street. Here only a look could be enough to get problems.

But look at the minds control in action: when I tried to defend him, one guy said:"And if he his a terrorist?" No comments...
« Last Edit: April 27, 2010, 10:17:49 AM by fredjeang » Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6565



WWW
« Reply #31 on: April 27, 2010, 10:59:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rob C
Come on, Russ, you are being disingenuous with that line! Even catching the eye in some quarters is enough to get you floored!

Rob C

I don't shoot pictures of wolves, Rob. But my wife had an encounter with a cougar last spring. She was all by herself, early in the morning, crossing an open field in Garden of the Gods on the outskirts of Colorado Springs when she saw the cougar -- a big one -- standing about a hundred fifty feet away. She stopped and made the mistake of making eye contact with him. Fortunately the cat evidently had just gorged himself because he turned and waddled off. So, you're right. Eye contact can be dangerous, but you don't have to make eye contact when you're seeing other people -- with or without a camera.
Logged

JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #32 on: April 27, 2010, 11:29:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
I don't shoot pictures of wolves, Rob. But my wife had an encounter with a cougar last spring. She was all by herself, early in the morning, crossing an open field in Garden of the Gods on the outskirts of Colorado Springs when she saw the cougar -- a big one -- standing about a hundred fifty feet away. She stopped and made the mistake of making eye contact with him. Fortunately the cat evidently had just gorged himself because he turned and waddled off. So, you're right. Eye contact can be dangerous, but you don't have to make eye contact when you're seeing other people -- with or without a camera.
Appearing meek and avoiding eye contact is the advice for brown bears, not cougars. With cougars you want to appear as big and threatening as possible, so they aren't tempted to think you might easy prey.
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6565



WWW
« Reply #33 on: April 27, 2010, 02:07:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JeffKohn
Appearing meek and avoiding eye contact is the advice for brown bears, not cougars. With cougars you want to appear as big and threatening as possible, so they aren't tempted to think you might easy prey.

Jeff, Maybe that's the way Texas cougars behave, but in Colorado they don't like eye contact. Bears either. In the springtime there are almost always bears around our house since we live on the edge of Garden of the Gods, most of which is wild.
Logged

EduPerez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 696


WWW
« Reply #34 on: April 27, 2010, 03:20:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
[...]I'll say it again: When you make someone aware that you're shooting a picture of him, what you get is a posed picture.[...]
My thoughts, exactly.

Quote from: RSL
Fred, you keep talking about "stealing" pictures without consent. But every time you go out in public people are stealing your picture -- with their eyes if not with cameras. Seeing other people is a necessary, and sometimes delightful, part of human existence. To fix an image of someone in time -- with a camera -- hardly seems "stealing."
Not to mention surveillance cameras: oh, the irony.
Logged

JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #35 on: April 27, 2010, 09:25:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
Jeff, Maybe that's the way Texas cougars behave, but in Colorado they don't like eye contact. Bears either. In the springtime there are almost always bears around our house since we live on the edge of Garden of the Gods, most of which is wild.
It's not a matter of what they "like", but what is most likely to trigger an attack. A quick search on google and you'll find that all of the advice warns against looking away or turning your back on a mountain lion. Much of it explicitly suggests maintaining eye contact.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/sequoia/maps/brochures/lions.pdf
http://www.nps.gov/grca/photosmultimedia/r...03lions_wmv.htm
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/news/news04/04009.html
http://www.angelfire.com/co/KlueLass/lions/ljohnson.html
http://users.frii.com/mytymyk/lions/onguard.htm

Logged

DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #36 on: April 27, 2010, 10:16:18 PM »
ReplyReply

http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Pontificat...or_Cowards.html
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #37 on: April 28, 2010, 04:03:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Excatly DarkPenguin. Read the short article and that is where my concern are. In this thread the idea that emerged so far is that using a big tele lens for street is agressive and has to be done carefully according to the circumstances. Logical, nothing to say about that. But then, if telelens is banned in a way, it is accepted to "rob" pictures in the name of authenticity, to avoid poses. Here I'm not sure. If I'm ready to accept that either, I'll have to accept the first part also.

In my understanding, Gilden is extremely agressive (I do not like that), but he is inside the crowd his photographing, not outside and does not hide to the people the fact that they just have been "caught".  If there is a lot to say about his method, it's not clear for me if his ethic is not better in a way.
When I get more experience in street I'm sure I'll overcome these contradictions and be able to get a clear opinion about these facts.



Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #38 on: April 28, 2010, 04:19:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: stamper
Rob.....you must be visiting some strange places?




Like Glasgow?

;-)

Rob C
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #39 on: April 28, 2010, 04:22:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Looking or not looking a pussycat in the eye isn't the point: the point is avoiding ever being in the same place as said cat!

Rob C
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad