Guest Tess32 Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Yep agree with Luke. People change the second they know they are being photographed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocco Posted April 9, 2009 Author Share Posted April 9, 2009 (edited) guys I am not going to make comment on the "ideal" street photography method. As I sit in the middle on this. I do think what Luke mentioned in you cant be shy and it's something I need to combat. But after alot of consideration I have decided on the 17 - 35mm f/2.8. Purely as what I have found is I have never come across a situation in my work were I have needed length yet. But I have needed more width and to be closer to my subject. I am hoping to do a bit more work for a magazine in covering some local journalism (only a small magazine, but you have to start somewhere right ) so thinking this might be a more practical lens at this stage. Also with the wedding work I have helped Ash out with I have noticed width is my problem, not length (thank god I am not a man writing this or it could all get a bit daunting :p ). So the 70-200 can wait for end of year. Thanks for the help guys and you given me some great points to consider. I just have to figure out my style, but what I do know is it's "people" I want to concentrate on. Oh and get as good as Ash so I can win an award.............. :D Edited April 9, 2009 by Rocco1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poo d'état Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 My friend always ask peoples permission before he takes a photograph. His style is more about interesting people he finds out and about. That's the only way to do it, really. Ummm no - then it's posed, it's portraiture, (available light). But not street, not candid, not photo-journalism. And how difficult (impossible) it'd be to get permission from the Anzac Day marchers as they go by, or a small crowd-scene of people watching the march. And you'd have to forego city-life shots like a group boarding a tram or patting a police horse. My comment was in response to Rocco1's friend's style of photography. Furthermore, posing/portraiture and street photography/photojournalism are not mutually exclusive. You can go up to a fruit-seller and take a photo upfront, eyes to camera and all, and that would still be street photography. The only kind of truly candid and unposed shots, puristically (is that a word?) speaking, are either papparazzi-type voyeuristic telephoto shots, performance/sports/etc, or live news as it's breaking. In terms of street/people photography, in a documentary but non-news sense, the proper way is to ask your subject for permission. 'Asking for permission' doesn't always have to be verbal - it can be much more subtle like making eye contact, lifting your camera and suggesting it with the cock of the head/raise of the brow/pointing, or by making it very obvious that you're about to take a person's photo but giving the person time to object to it*. If it is a special or unrepeatable moment where you don't have time to check, then asking for permission afterwards is an option. If the person is your 'shot'#, like in the case of Rocco1's friend, then the only right thing to do, imo, is to ask for their permission^. *There are situations where permission can be 'assumed', such as a public procession like the Anzac Day marches or Mardi Gras, or even rallies/riots. It is a major event/spectacle that participants know will watched and photographed/recorded by the media as well as members of the public #As opposed to more general shots of a particular scene such as a group of people boarding a tram ^That's also why the papparazzi are so reviled by celebrities and real photojournalists alike I disagree with this - strongly The proper way is to NOT ask for permission. I think it's perfectly acceptable to stand on a street corner and take photos of the goings on - without any permission what so ever. That is the essence of streed photography imo - totally candid, unposed. Bresson, Winogrand, etc... A street photographer has to overcome shyness and just snap away like he belongs. No long telephoto lens - a 50mm or shorter. I've done some street photography before. The easiest method is to simply plonk yourself somewhere and start snapping away - after a while people start to ignore you and get on with their lives. I think we, as photographers (and society in general), risk loosing some important historical records if we allow true candid street photography to disappear. My 2c. Shooting a photo of a person is somewhat different to a general streetscape shot - i mean, if someone's just a dot in the background, then the shot really isn't about them. So how do you take a shot of someone (at frame-filling distance... unless you like your people tiny in your composition :p) with a 50mm or shorter lens, without them knowing? And if they did, would that automatically render it posed? Dorothea Lange's Migrant Mother was taken with the subject fully aware of Lange, yet it remains one of the most well known images in documentary photography. There's no way of proving it but i'm sure that a good portion of Cartier-Bresson's subjects of his closer shots were well aware of his presence, especially since his longest lens was a 50mm. Like i was trying to say, they're not mutually exclusive. Yep agree with Luke.People change the second they know they are being photographed. Again, the only way to shoot a photo of someone (for purposes other than background fill or a wider general streetscape shot) and for them to be completely oblivious to it is to use a telephoto lens. If someone was using a 50mm lens to take a photo in my general direction from across the road, i probably wouldn't be too bothered. If someone was using a 300mm lens to shoot a photo of me sipping on a coffee, for example, from across the road, i wouldn't be very happy, even if it's perfectly legal. I was taught to use a simple line like, "Do you mind if i take a picture of you, just the way you are?" (though i confess i still struggle with it as i also haz a case of the shyness). I think ultimately it comes down to the comfort level of you and your subject; personally i will never be comfortable photographing someone's image without knowing they're okay with it. To quote Cartier-Bresson, "One must always take photographs with the greatest respect for the subject and for oneself'". But getting back on topic... Great choice with the lens Rocco1! I'm v.v.envious. Looking forward to seeing some shots! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kja Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Just be aware that with shorter lenses you can get some distortion that is unattractive when shooting people. And backing off with a 50, 85 or even 135 will most often get more natural looking faces than shorter lenses when you are all up in their space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocco Posted April 9, 2009 Author Share Posted April 9, 2009 I was told the 50mm can distort as well. How much distortion are we talking here with a 17-35? RD, Dorothea Lange's Migrant Mother is one of my favorites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kja Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 At 17, quite a lot if you aren't careful. Keep the ppl from the edges and near the centre for the least distortion; keep the camera "flat" on helps, too. I use my 17-55 TONS for portrait sessions, so it certainly can be done and I love the fast options that range provides. I am moving to a longer focal length for many things now though as I find that most people I've encountered do relax faster and more with a tad more space between the camera lens and them. I just used my 50 extensively the other night for the first time in a people heavy environment. I didn't notice any distortion. I was on a 1.3 crop sensor. 50mm was always the people "standard" lens on film bodies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashanali Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 There is very little distortion with a 50mm on a DSLR - to the point that only purists would notice it. Don't stress about it. off topic - rocco, you WILL be winning awards soon enough. I have no doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poo d'état Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 17's not that bad, here are some shots borrowed from work: 17mm 17mm 17mm 22mm But yep, if you stick to Kja's advice, to keep people from the edges and keeping the camera flat, you should be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocco Posted April 9, 2009 Author Share Posted April 9, 2009 But yep, if you stick to Kja's advice, to keep people from the edges and keeping the camera flat, you should be fine. Thanks RF for the samples. Takes a nice picture. But comment on the edges and keep in the middle, that is only if I am shooting at 17 right? off topic - rocco, you WILL be winning awards soon enough. I have no doubt. Thanks Ash. This is my goal one day. Hopefully with a few more years experience. Ash do you guys use a 17-35? I know Alex's switches between a wide angle and his 70-200. Just cannot remember what your guys wide angle is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chezzyr Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Need to try a fisheye for some funky/fun distortion. I had one for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashanali Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 But yep, if you stick to Kja's advice, to keep people from the edges and keeping the camera flat, you should be fine. Thanks RF for the samples. Takes a nice picture. But comment on the edges and keep in the middle, that is only if I am shooting at 17 right? off topic - rocco, you WILL be winning awards soon enough. I have no doubt. :p Thanks Ash. This is my goal one day. Hopefully with a few more years experience. Ash do you guys use a 17-35? I know Alex's switches between a wide angle and his 70-200. Just cannot remember what your guys wide angle is now. Alex has the cheapie that came with the kit. 18-55. We do have another wider one but again, it's not the best quality. It's why one of our next purchases will be the 10-22mm. And I need to talk to you about AIPP membership. There's no reason why you couldn't join as an emerging member seeing as now you are technically working as a photographer. There are great benefits and you will be able to enter the awards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubiton Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 Big head syndrome - I have to make sure I dont go anmy further than 50mm ith the horses or you get big head syndrome. This is perfectly demonstrated in that first shot of Hugh Jackman and the bloke on the right edge who has a massive head and hand compared with Hugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chezzyr Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 Could be worse, could be a fisheye lens. I had one of those for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poo d'état Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 I'm actually rather fond of the Big Head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruthless Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 Is that pooh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poo d'état Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 (edited) But comment on the edges and keep in the middle, that is only if I am shooting at 17 right? Almost missed that one Rocco1, it'll be slightly more obvious at 17, decreasing as you move towards 35. You might already have a feel for it with the 24 end of yours. It all comes down to personal preference. I don't mind a little bit of distortion or Big Head (Or Other Body Part) Syndrome, especially with portraits; Platon uses it very effectively, check out his portraits of Clinton, George HW Bush, Pat Buchanan and Rev. Al Sharpton. Eta: And go look at Christian Bale, Jim Carrey, Prince, Alexander McQueen and Paul Smith. Edited April 10, 2009 by ruffdiamond Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poo d'état Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 Is that pooh? Unfortunately not... Not that time anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruthless Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 I managed to bring some home on both shoes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poo d'état Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 I managed to bring some home on both shoes! Clearly they had so much fun they sneaked you a parting gift... :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruthless Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 I figured as much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now