My impression of street photography includes an element of the
photographer's presence. Using longer lenses is a way to avoid that
interaction, and smacks of paparazzi and spying, which I do not
classify as street photography.
Although the street scene wants to be decisive, and one can certainly catch
those with longer lenses, the image does not have the same sense
that comes when you know the photographer was present in the scene.
So the question I ask, was the image taken in a way that people know.
Hiding the act of taking a picture is more like spying. It is a way for
the photographer to avoid dealing with being part of the scene.
Being in the scene asks more from the photographer.
So, I think there is a strong element to the resulting photo from
being on the street and deliberately putting the camera to the
face and taking the picture. Images where the photographer is
present with the image being taken can say a lot about the
photographer. Some of Marc's images have that quality. You can
feel his presence in the images.
People are extremely sensitive to the presence of a camera
I'm not sure if it was Annie Leibovitz or another photographer,
who said they deliberately make the fact they have a camera known
from the start and don't try to hide it. I believe this is an important
aspect of street photography and the results obtained. And certainly
one can be discrete in taking the image, but the result is different
and you can feel the difference.
So when you say: "I'll admit that much common street shooting does
little for me." I can understand. And I think it is fear in the photographer
that is showing in the images. It is the quality of avoidance by
the photographer showing. Although the images you show as
examples are nice and perhaps have a decisive moment, you can
tell the distance of the photographer, and not just due to longer lens
but distance in the photographer's presence with the scene. Compare
those shots with Marc's images and there is a distinct difference.
You can feel Marc's presence in his images. He is engaged with
the scene.
Because people are very sensitive to a camera, even kids 2 years
old have already been trained, it is difficult to get natural expressions,
but that is where the art of the photographer's presence is important.
I find letting the camera be known from the start is good advice and
the choice of technique is a choice, but the results will also be
different. That can be good and bad.
Wayne
At 01:08 AM 1/28/2009, Moose wrote:
>I'm just not convinced by what appears to be the conventional wisdom on
>candid/street shooting. Sure, when HC-B started it all and for a long
>time after that, a small RF camera with wide angle lens was one way to
>do it. The "aim without looking through the viewfinder" approach started
>before that and has lasted as long. The TLR approach was pretty good
>with a short neck strap.
>
>My question is whether these were techniques of choice or necessity. No
>matter what anybody says, I don't see how popping a Leica up in front of
>my face is any less obvious to the subject(s) than popping an SLR or a
>digi P&S in front of my face.
>
>I also don't see myself getting any great success with the "aim without
>looking through the viewfinder" approach. Sure, your shots are initial
>trials, but look at what you got, a fruit stand and some peoples' backs,
>a nice shot of a family business, but fuzzy, a poorly framed street
>scene with the people small in the image and not very engaging, and a
>potentially mice capture of a wedding couple seriously mis-framed. I
>think I'd be lucky to do that well, even with practice.
>
>To me, it seems that contemporary technology offers good alternatives to
>sticking to the techniques of the past.
>
>First, long lenses and good IQ at high ISOs offer the ability to
>photograph people from outside their vigilant zone, at least in many
>parts of the world.
>
>Second, twist and tilt LCDs offer the ability to frame and focus
>properly without raising people's suspicions.
>
>I'll admit that much common street shooting does little for me. I look
>at many, probably most, of them and say in my head something on the
>order of "So there's some people walking on the street, looking in a
>window, waiting for a bus, whatever, who cares?" That's not to deny that
>there are some fabulous ones that capture emotionally engaging, to me,
>human situations.
>
>I'm more interested in candid portraits, where people are captured at
>somewhat larger scale and the image is more about them as subject than
>action on the street.
>
>As counterpoint to the idea of "street" shooting from close in with WA
>lenses, I offer some images taken using the two ideas outlined above,
>with three different cameras and at 35mm eq. focal lengths from
>33-480mm.
><http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Candids>
>
>OK, the last one isn't candid ...
>
>I've posted these before, but they are on point and may be new to some.
>- <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Brooklyn/People/All%20People/index.html>
>- <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=MCafe>
>
>The Canon A650 IS is a really terrific camera for candids in good light.
>One reason I'm excited about the G1 is the potential for candid shooting
>with better IQ than the A650. If I get one, it won't be red. :-)
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|