1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Street Photography

Discussion in 'Talking Pictures' started by Nikonchris, Jan 6, 2017.

  1. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    Exactly what Tony wrote above.
     
  2. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    Andrew Flannigan likes this.
  3. lfc1892

    lfc1892 Well-Known Member

    Valid points well written, Tony. But, and it's only my opinion, but I think good "street" work needs to be up close and personal in most cases. Sure, it can be achieved wit longer lenses but generally the results just aren't as good, unless, that is, the artist is after more of a portrait look. Which for me, and most people, isn't really street, even though it can still be great photography. Which comes back to your point about definition. I think it's safe to say most people who really know the genre are talking about wide and close work when it comes to street, so it makes sense to direct the OP towards this end of the spectrum for this reason and also because it's what I think street is and after all, that's what the OP is after. My opinion. I'm sure plenty will disagree, but surely, that's what we're all here for.
     
  4. lfc1892

    lfc1892 Well-Known Member

    I didn't declare that only short and close is good, but hat generally it's better for street. I think you'll find way more sites and articles arguing that than the other way around.
     
  5. lfc1892

    lfc1892 Well-Known Member

    It would be way more interesting to hear your thoughts and constructive input rather than sarcasm. Your thoughts, as in not someone else's.
    how about thou post me some links to celebrated long lens street photographers whom we can compare to the likes of Magnum, in public etc etc etc

    Again, I clearly didn't say street was solely for close use. So again, what exactly is your point? I would be interested to hear your own thoughts on this.
    When the vast majority, if not all top street photographers out there shoot wide and close, why choose to point a beginner in the wrong direction?
    Unless, that's the style of shooting he or she wants. Maybe it would have helped to ask them and actually provide some constructive advice as opposed to just empty sarcasm?
     
  6. lfc1892

    lfc1892 Well-Known Member

    I'll put my point another way. I've taken some really nice landscape shots on a long lens. Would I advise a beginner wanting to start out in landscape work to buy a 90mm lens and hit the beach at sunset? Nope. Sure, it may yield some good work, but chances are, they've probably seen good landscape work and want to emulate it. So no, i would sway them towards a 10-20, quite possibly not central Birmingham and definitely the Photographer's Ephemeris.
     
  7. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    OK, now define "most". How many people take this sort of picture? How many use wide angle lenses, how many use standard lenses, how many use long lenses? What you're doing here is using weasel words to justify your opinion. If you just said "this is what I like to do but others have a different approac" then I'd reply "good for you" and leave it at that but yoy persist in claiming the FSM touched you with her tentacle and gave you the sensor of stone.
     
  8. lfc1892

    lfc1892 Well-Known Member

    and just how do you work that out? Before you reply, you may want to consider that I mentioned the likes of Magnum and in public. Non of my work is posted there. I'm not good enough. So it has absolutely nothing to do with my work or what I like to do, but it's what the top guys do. The vast majority (this can often mean "most") if not all on those sites shoot wide for street. As I've said more than once. And for some reason you ignore this. Strange....
    Maybe take a look and get back to me.
     
  9. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    There's no point in arguing about it. Bottom line - I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong. Let's leave it there.
     
  10. lfc1892

    lfc1892 Well-Known Member

    There's every point in arguing something out when two posters have conflicting opinions we can all learn from, especially when they have a good and rational thought process to back their opinions up. Which is precisely what Tony did. The difference is, I've explained why I think what I do, and have challenged the points you've made towards me through sarcasm and accusations of using "weasel words", and haven't heard a dot in response. But sure, lets leave it be.
     
  11. Jimbo57

    Jimbo57 Well-Known Member

    I think you are wasting your breath. Am I alone in suspecting that the said gentleman is the reincarnation of a guy with a mock-Roman senatorial pen-name who slid into oblivion a year or so ago?
     
  12. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    The problem is the definition is too narrow. Candid street portraiture, for example, is a subset of street photography. Street photography is not just short focal length, up close work, street photography is broader than that, it has to be or you end up with 10 other categories of work which are all prefixed with street. The issue really is that definitions are often constraints rather than inclusive groupings. It drives a behaviour though which defines the classification by the artistic style, rather than by the subject matter. If I took a shot of a definitive moment which worked with a long lens, then it's a street shot. The look and feel isn't the reason for the classification, but it becomes that if we're not careful.

    When you say, "Most people who really know the genre ..." you're really just saying, "Most people who believe street photography is defined by the resulting look of the photograph". For me, street photography is about public photograph with a human element. It's about meaningful photographs, regardless of their look.
     
  13. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    And again, I don't disagree that there are more sites saying you must use a short focal length otherwise it's not street, I just happen to think they're picking the wrong element of street for their definition.

    Is this street photography? Does it convey an emotion?

    [​IMG]Stand Out from the Crowd by Tony Evans, on Flickr
     
    Andrew Flannigan likes this.
  14. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    But this doesn't support your argument, because the classification 'landscape' is about the content, not about the technique. If 'street' is also about the content and not the technique then it must flow that the lens is irrelevant.
     
  15. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    You may or may not be alone, but it's irrelevant and unhelpful.
     
  16. Jimbo57

    Jimbo57 Well-Known Member

    I don't agree that it is irrelevant or unhelpful. The person in question is making this forum an unpleasant place with his constant sarcasm and opinionated utterances. If he can be persuaded to desist, then it will be very helpful, especially to beginners who ask perfectly reasonable questions and who might benefit from a reasonable range of replies.

    Jim
     
  17. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    I think what you mean is I speak up when I don't accept what other people say. Anyway, this thread's about the definition of street photography and Tony's making the most sense at the moment.
     
  18. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    @lfc1892 makes plenty of sense.

    My advice to the OP hasn't changed - forget the definition of street photography, it's unhelpful. Decide what you want your images to be about, to be like, to contain, to convey and then use the tools that most help you achieve that.

    Standing up close to people you don't know and taking photographs is hard, and the only way to make it easier in the long term is to do it a lot. I would suggest respecting people, their personal space, and their personal circumstances as much as you can, and finding a style you like and enjoy.

    I take a lot of candid photographs in public, with a mix of long and short focal lengths. None of it is 'classic street photography', but all of it is street photography, and I enjoy it very much (and no one's more surprised by that, than I am, because I bought the camera to take photographs of wild life).
     
  19. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    True enough but he's wrapping it up in the claim that his way is the only way, which you are showing is far from true. I tried to make a joke about it and he didn't see the humour. {shrug}
     
  20. lfc1892

    lfc1892 Well-Known Member

    Sure of course that's your definition, and it's perfectly valid. But When I say people who really know the genre, I'm talking about people who are held in the highest regard in the genre. The guys at the top. Who most people class as being the best street photographers over a generation. How many of them shoot long lenses for street? That says it all for me as if the vast majority of the world's leading photographers shoot close and wide, that tells you something about what the genre is about. Although not exclusively.
     

Share This Page