# The Myths of Streetshooting - explained and mostly busted



## The_Traveler (Sep 23, 2013)

I was incited to write this post because of a question posted on an Internet forum and the several answers that followed. The question had to do with the suitability of certain equipment for portraits of people &#8211; and the poster named three photographers specifically,Henri Cartier-Bresson, William Klein, Richard Avedon. 

Besides the fact that these three, while they all shot people, areas different in chalk and cheese and so their favored equipment wasdifferent, the kinds of statements that came out about street photography seem to cling to the same few myths that seem to prevail.

Before I get into the myth-busting stuff, a bit about myself. I think of myself as a street shooter; the spirit of street shooting is to capture something unique and interesting and present that to be seen.  I think that good street shooting has something emotional and intense about it and I try to shoot and process that way no matter what subject I am shooting. I don't claim to be great or even good but only a practitioner with some opinions developed over the few years on effort.

OK, back to the myths I'd like to address.


*Myth 1* &#8211; *to shoot street photography you must have asmall camera body and a relatively short focal length lens, generally in the 30-40 mm 
range.* 

This kind of statement is like saying that all novels must be written on a yellow, lined pad with a number 2 pencil. 

Shoot what you have, shoot what gets you the pictures you want and, most importantly, shoot a camera setup that you are intimatelyfamiliar with.  

For years I shot with a big, clunky Nikon dslr usually with a 24-70 lens, often with a 50 or a 70-200.  This is alarge bulky setup but, in my opinion,  it worked for me.  Yes, it was large and bulky and obvious but the trade-offs were superb image quality and very, very fast autofocus. 

Three or four months ago I switched to the much smaller, lighter Olympus OMD 5 with equivalent  lenses. My reason for switching was that the bigger cameras and lenses were just getting to be too much of a physical burden. I came back from 3 weeks hiking around SEA with two bodies, four lenses, backup hard drive and I made a vow to either get a smaller system or to stay in bed.

Now I do have all the advantages of a lighter outfit with adequate image quality and speed but on balance I lost a system I could usewithout thinking and I'm still learning the new one &#8211; and not being  particularly productive yet. 

My point is that it isn't the equipment that is the overriding factor in success but your ability to handle it in the time that you have to get your camera into play.
*
____________________________________________________________________________________*

If this is interesting, the rest of the article, along with alluring pictures is at 

*The Myths of Streetshooting - explained and mostly busted

*even if you don't read the entire piece, here is an important couple of paragraphs.
______________________________________________________________________

One of my consistent disappointments is to cruise around on the web, looking at websites, hoping to admire and find inspiration in others' work.

This last week, however, I came across the work of two shooters I liked a lot who deserve some mention separately.

First I heard Kay Chernush speak and it was a minor revelation. Her work, although it was usually done on assignment, was beautifully composed and executed with an artist's touch. She worked at the shots but each one seemed just spontaneous light and lovely. In all that, she was relatively unconcerned with the technical aspects, assuming that technical competence goes without saying. Lovely work, nice person. Kay Chernush Photography

Second, I saw the Peter Turnley's site and was bowled over with his use of color and composition. This link is directly to one of the most beautiful pictures I have seen in my memory. Peter Turnley's site and the photo mentioned.  Actually, Peter Turnley gave me permission to show the image but I want to force as many of you as possible to see his site. 

These photographers both shoot, in what I consider, a 'street shooter' sensibility, using the image to capture and project the emotion and, to use Kay Chernush's phrase, a 'sense of place.'


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 23, 2013)

OK, someone has to disagree or agree - am I talking in an empty room?


----------



## amolitor (Sep 23, 2013)

Naw, I read it. Good stuff


----------



## Designer (Sep 23, 2013)

I agree with your points.  

What gets me is all the people who think that it is:

1. Something everyone must aspire to.
2. Something substantially different than any other type of photography.
3. Therefore requiring specialized equipment and techniques.


----------



## sashbar (Sep 23, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> OK, someone has to disagree or agree - am I talking in an empty room?



OK, you asked about it   To be honest, with my epic 3 months street shooting experience I find your 1st Myth chapter a bit obvious. 
If you want my (experts :salute opinion, the camera matters less than the number of shots a street shooter takes to get an image. 
With your first shot you are noticed.  With the second you are silently questioned. With the third they are alarmed (the shot is gone here, but you do not realize it yet) 
With the fourth shot they get seriously annoyed. And with the fifth they get demonstrably angry. And you better spare your sixth click. 
So do your stuff quickly and preferably with one shot.  As HCB famously said, you have to kill your pray with one perfect shot, do not let it suffer and die from multiple wounds somewhere in the woods. 
As soon as you are good enough to do it, camera does not really matter much as long as it is capable of producing half-decent quality images.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 23, 2013)

Designer said:


> I agree with your points.
> 
> What gets me is all the people who think that it is:
> 
> ...



Street photography has, in common with any action photography, that one must think substantially ahead and anticipate what the shot will look like.
It is my opinion that it separates people into two groups, those who can do this and those who can't do it - successfully.
     (success in my terms being shots that do transmit some meaning/emotion and aren't just in focus and well exposed.)


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 23, 2013)

sashbar said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > OK, someone has to disagree or agree - am I talking in an empty room?
> ...



I can point you to people who aver that small bodies and shorter focal length - and even film - are the right way.'
(ignoring Vivian Meier and Frank Oscar Lawrence who both used twin lens reflex.)


----------



## sashbar (Sep 23, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> > The_Traveler said:
> ...



This kind of people is not limited to photography. Sadly.


----------



## gsgary (Sep 23, 2013)

I will disagree, with the equipment i use i can get shots quicker than your OM or your DSLR and they will not hear the shutter fire and i shoot with a 28mm on film


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 23, 2013)

gsgary said:


> I will disagree, with the equipment i use i can get shots quicker than your OM or your DSLR and they will not hear the shutter fire and i shoot with a 28mm on film



is quicker always better?


----------



## DiskoJoe (Sep 23, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with your points.
> ...



I have taken a lot of what I learned doing street photography and applied it in events I have worked. In street you have to be quick and anticipate the action, same in event photography.


----------



## JacaRanda (Sep 23, 2013)

Peter Turnley - Moments of the Human Condition

Riveting!


----------



## sashbar (Sep 23, 2013)

JacaRanda said:


> Peter Turnley - Moments of the Human Condition
> 
> Riveting!



Yes, he is great and an amazingly hard worker. But his mentor was a true genius.

Atelier Robert Doisneau |*Galeries virtuelles des*photographies de Doisneau - Clochards


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 23, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > I will disagree, with the equipment i use i can get shots quicker than your OM or your DSLR and they will not hear the shutter fire and i shoot with a 28mm on film
> ...



not according to my wife.  :er:

seriously though...
I dont do street photography, but with weddings, even though it is a constantly moving event, it isn't always about getting the shot as fast as possible. 
Its about looking at the scene and "seeing" the shot you want to get. sometimes that shot is right now, sometimes it is a second or two from now. 
its just as important for the photographer to know "when" to take the shot as it is for them to know "how" to take the shot.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 23, 2013)

sashbar said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > Peter Turnley - Moments of the Human Condition
> ...



turnley is a master on his own, nothing against his mentor, but turnley is wonderful.
if I had taken the pic I linked to, I'd probably retire my camera and spend the rest of my life looking at a print of it


----------



## dsiglin (Sep 23, 2013)

Can't really add much worthwhile to this conversation other than I have really enjoyed having an articulated screen. The ability to look down when composing similar to a twin lens reflex has enabled me to capture people in their environment with alerting them to my presence. So, having an articulating screen can definitely help. That said, I do enjoy the "always on" aspect of my QL17.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 23, 2013)

dsiglin said:


> Can't really add much worthwhile to this conversation other than I have really enjoyed having an articulated screen. The ability to look down when composing similar to a twin lens reflex has enabled me to capture people in their environment with alerting them to my presence. So, having an articulating screen can definitely help. That said, I do enjoy the "always on" aspect of my QL17.



Whatever you took it with, this shot below is superb.
Thought so when I saw it, still do.


----------



## kundalini (Sep 23, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> *Myth 1* &#8211; *to shoot street photography you must have asmall camera body and a relatively short focal length lens, generally in the 30-40 mm
> range.*
> 
> This kind of statement is like saying that all novels must be written on a yellow, lined pad with a number 2 pencil.



I prefer a 0.5mm mechanical pencil filled with HB lead for day-to-day lettering and light sketches.  For emphasis, I'll use a 0.7mm pencil with B lead. 



> For years I shot with a big, clunky Nikon dslr usually with a 24-70 lens, often with a 50 or a 70-200. This is alarge bulky setup but, in my opinion, it worked for me. Yes, it was large and bulky and obvious but the trade-offs were superb image quality and very, very fast autofocus.
> 
> (Longer ago) I switched to the much smaller, lighter Olympus OMD 5 with equivalent lenses. My reason for switching was that the bigger cameras and lenses were just getting to be too much of a physical burden. I came back from 3 weeks hiking around SEA with two bodies, four lenses, backup hard drive and I made a vow to either get a smaller system or to stay in bed.


I'm with ya brother.  I ditch the heavy gear when out and about, family get-togethers and the like for the m4/3 format.  However, I must add that I have shot some really decent portrait shots that I doubt anyone can tell the difference on the web from a m4/3 camera, an APS-C camera or a full frame camera.



The_Traveler said:


> *Myth 1* &#8211; *to shoot street photography you must have asmall camera body and a relatively short focal length lens, generally in the 30-40 mm
> range.*


*
*For discussion purposes, a Myth 2 might be handy.


----------



## Rick50 (Sep 23, 2013)

I've been reading your blog and appreciate what you have written there as well as your photo's.
Not sure I can make the grade but will be making an attempt.


----------



## sashbar (Sep 24, 2013)

I was shot from the hip (ok, from the belly) with some small unpterentious camera last Friday. I was staring at him through my DSLR viewfinder, he was (kind of) trying to be discreet, using his articulated screen....  I shot him and he shot me. :salute: We did not talk, did not even had an eye contact. But I am pretty sure we both ended up with a crap photo... You can draw your own conclusions..

PS: Is his left arm shorter than the right one, or he just feels uneasy?


----------



## manaheim (Sep 24, 2013)

I use a D800 and a 70-200 2.8 VR2. It's heavy and bulky but keeps me at a range to get a shot without them reacting to the camera... however, as someone said... that's on the first shot. People are very good at knowing when a camera is pointed at them.

The gear CAN matter... depends on your shooting style.  With a 30mm lens, I wouldn't do it.


----------



## gsgary (Sep 24, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > I will disagree, with the equipment i use i can get shots quicker than your OM or your DSLR and they will not hear the shutter fire and i shoot with a 28mm on film
> ...



Yes too slow you have missed the moment and using a rangefinder i can see outside of the frame giving me a better veiw

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 24, 2013)

gsgary said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



there are always trade-offs.
For your style and intent, then perhaps the faster is better always means something because the trade-offs are worth it.
Because I sometimes shoot one-handed, with long lenses, from my waist etc. then the different qualities a camera possesses have other, different values and I find the best balance of features, including speed, for the way I shoot - but that balance isn't a rule for everyone.


----------



## gsgary (Sep 24, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > The_Traveler said:
> ...



The new E-M1 looks rather nice


----------



## ronlane (Sep 24, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> *Myth 1*  *to shoot street photography you must have asmall camera body and a relatively short focal length lens, generally in the 30-40 mm range.*



Lew, you KNOW you have to use small equipment for street photography. Every camera store in America will tell you this. And you need a 1Dx or a D4 with a 400mm and a 1.4x to shoot sports, and a 24-70 and 5D Mk III to shoot portraits. If we don't buy all that then the stores will go out of business. lol. 

Yes, I am joking. I agree that you should use what you have and go take pictures. There is nothing wrong with wanting those other lenses or cameras but it is not needed. (Although I do find myself wanting more ultra wide at times.)


----------



## dsiglin (Sep 24, 2013)

Thanks Lew, just my lowly Nex-5n with a Helios 44m-7 (a russian CZ biotar knockoff). 

I tried using an autofocus lens that day but being able to zone focus with the manual lens is something I just can't do without. I have respect for those that do street photography with auto-focus, it's actually much harder, imo.


----------



## kundalini (Sep 24, 2013)

I rarely try to conceal the fact that I am shooting on the street, regardless of the gear that I'm carrying, big or little.  I've had the great fortune to strike up interesting conversations with people that I never would have otherwise had the pleasure to meet.



















































Apart from the guy on the bicycle, I had a decent conversation with all the above.



Apologies Lew if this post is an infringement on your thread.  I just thought it part of the discussion about "in your face" versus "stealth" shooting styles.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 24, 2013)

kundalini said:


> I rarely try to conceal the fact that I am shooting on the street, regardless of the gear that I'm carrying, big or little.  I've had the great fortune to strike up interesting conversations with people that I never would have otherwise had the pleasure to meet.
> 
> Apologies Lew if this post is an infringement on your thread.  I just thought it part of the discussion about "in your face" versus "stealth" shooting styles.



Not at all.

I espouse a different style, not exactly 'stealth' but, most of the time, just not intruding into the scene.


----------



## kundalini (Sep 24, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> Not at all.
> 
> I espouse a different style, not exactly 'stealth' but, most of the time, just not intruding into the scene.


Thanks.  I'm not exactly 'in your face' either.  Ususally pretty cordial.  Sometimes I need to converse, sometimes other have the same need.


----------



## sashbar (Sep 24, 2013)

I usually do not need an articulated screen as I do not want to conceal  the fact that I am shooting either, simply because I do not feel I am doing something wrong. But there were rare occasions when I simply had no nerve to shoot openly, looking through the viewfinder - like with this girl. We were sitting on the opposite benches quite close, and I admit - I used the articulated LCD pretending that I am just checking and deleting my files.  Was this shot worth it?  I do not think so, even though I have somehow kept it..


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 24, 2013)

sashbar said:


> I usually do not need an articulated screen as I do not want to conceal  the fact that I am shooting either, simply because I do not feel I am doing something wrong. But there were rare occasions when I simply had no nerve to shoot openly, looking through the viewfinder - like with this girl. We were sitting on the opposite benches quite close, and I admit - I used the articulated LCD pretending that I am just checking and deleting my files.  Was this shot worth it?  I do not think so, even though I have somehow kept it..
> 
> View attachment 56360




I guess this is why i could never do any serious street photography. If I was too embarrassed to be honest about taking a picture, I simply would not take it. 
I find it to be an odd compulsion, this "ninja" photography, as it were. I suppose I simply lack the understanding of a street photographers mindset, and the pleasures gained from sneaking pictures of people. (that arent naked) I only know that it is not my cup of tea. 

why did you not think the picture was worth it? If you thought as much, why did you keep it? Do you keep it to remind you of a successful photograph taken under the guise of "deleting photos"? A clever ruse, yet one bearing fruit.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 24, 2013)

If I said that I thought anyone doing glamour shots was really perverted and totally disrespectful of females, would that be offensive?


----------



## sashbar (Sep 24, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> > I usually do not need an articulated screen as I do not want to conceal  the fact that I am shooting either, simply because I do not feel I am doing something wrong. But there were rare occasions when I simply had no nerve to shoot openly, looking through the viewfinder - like with this girl. We were sitting on the opposite benches quite close, and I admit - I used the articulated LCD pretending that I am just checking and deleting my files.  Was this shot worth it?  I do not think so, even though I have somehow kept it..
> ...



Yes, that's why I never conceal the fact that I am taking a picture.  There is nothing sneaking about my pics at all.  That picture, as I said, was a rare exception, and probably you are right, that's why I keep it.  I would not call it a succesful photograph though, because the success is not about how you made the shot, but the end result.  And I do not understand why are you judging the street photorgaphy as a genre by a shot that, being an exception, does not represent it at all...
To understand the street photographers mindset you need to think broader than that.  Some say that there are more and more pictures these days that do not reprpesent real life at all and are as far away from reality as Photoshop is far away from a mirror. And I agree with that, the world of photorgaphy is polluted with an "art for art sake" stuff, the only thing - it is not art. And then there is this "glamour" stuff that The Traveller has mentioned...  Street photographers doing an important job in this respect, they bring us back to reality. If you feel sneaky this is your problem, not a problem of street photography.


----------



## gsgary (Sep 24, 2013)

This is a 28mm on a Leica M4-P, not too close


----------



## DanOstergren (Sep 24, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> If I said that I thought anyone doing glamour shots was really perverted and totally disrespectful of females, would that be offensive?


Not offensive, but completely false.


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 24, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> If I said that I thought anyone doing glamour shots was really perverted and totally disrespectful of females, would that be offensive?



not sure where you are getting the "offensive" vibe from. certainly not from me. 
but, if you find glamor shots to be offensive, then it is certainly your perogative not to shoot them. as it is your perogative to feel however you wish about them. 
im not particularly offended by anything. don't mistake my lack of understanding for a particular style or not wishing to partake of it for being offended by it.


----------



## dsiglin (Sep 24, 2013)

> I guess this is why i could never do any serious street photography. If I was too embarrassed to be honest about taking a picture, I simply would not take it.​




Heh, somehow I missed out on the embarrassment gene. No, it's that _sometimes_ I want to merely observe and not influence what is playing out in front of me. This is particular true when documenting very "human" moments like the elderly man. Then there are times when I engage my subject. Here are two instances. Both of these people I talked to for at least ten minutes (make that thirty for the accordion player) and both gave their permission to be photographed. Sadly I completely futzed up the focus on the first one. :/

​





​


​


----------



## limr (Sep 24, 2013)

Those are beautiful.

I'm far too shy to engage people for the most part to do a more interactive kind of street photography, but I have always liked to observe. Even long before I had any interest in street photography, I would notice odd little things about people or their behavior. My boyfriend laughs at me whenever I get a certain thousand-yard stare look on my face; apparently, this is my 'observation and analysis' face  I'm sure that's what made me interested in street photography, though to be honest, I didn't realize this when I first started trying it out. It was not a decision to try street photography; it was a realization that this is what I'd been doing.


----------



## dsiglin (Sep 24, 2013)

Thank you. That accordion player was amazingly good and quite the character. He also recommended a local pub that ended up having the best seafood I've ever tasted.


----------



## limr (Sep 24, 2013)

I tend to take shots from farther away - not only the shyness, but I prefer a bit more context for 'the moment'. Plus, my preferred camera at the moment is my K1000 just because I know her so well, but she's got a loud mirror slap, which isn't great for that unobtrusive style of street photography I seem to be fond of. I need to start getting more familiar with a quieter rangefinder 

Here's some that are more typical of my 'style' (if I even have one!  )

Closest I've gotten to an accordion player:



These three I was pleased with because I felt successful at anticipating a moment and being ready to catch it:


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 25, 2013)

DanOstergren said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > If I said that I thought anyone doing glamour shots was really perverted and totally disrespectful of females, would that be offensive?
> ...



The point I was trying to make was that using negative generalizations - like 'sneaky' in describing street photography - is more than vaguely insulting to those who do it with good and honorable intentions.


----------



## sashbar (Sep 25, 2013)

BTW why there is no sepatare "Street Photography" section in Photo Galleries ?


----------



## terri (Sep 25, 2013)

sashbar said:


> BTW why there is no sepatare "Street Photography" section in Photo Galleries ?



Nothing deliberate - the thought has been that TPF has enough Galleries to cover the many categories.     "People", "Photojournalism", even "Cityscapes" can fit the bill depending on the dominance of the image's particular subject.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 25, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> If I said that I thought anyone doing glamour shots was really perverted and totally disrespectful of females, would that be offensive?



Well, there's glamour, and then there's "glamour" and then there's "nudge nudge wink wink glamor eh, eh?" and somewhere in there it gets pretty perverted, if you're doing it right.


----------



## DanOstergren (Sep 25, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > The_Traveler said:
> ...


"Sneaky" isn't really a great comparison to "perverted and disrespectful to females" in my opinion. If you could, what word would you replace "sneaky" with in order to describe street photography where the subject doesn't know they're being photographed? Perhaps discreet?


----------



## Derrel (Sep 25, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> The point I was trying to make was that using negative generalizations - like 'sneaky' in describing street photography - is more than vaguely insulting to those who do it with good and honorable intentions.



We used to have a regular poster here on TPF....He lived in a big, western USA city...basically 9 out of 10 of his "street pictures" were of young females on the street, almost always with big, prominent bosoms, and skimpy skirts or shorts. When I mentioned that to him, that almost all of his shots seemed to be,well, basically "Hey, that young girl has some nice t*ts!" type of shots, he got pretty bent out of shape. Said that wasn't what his work was about. And yet...that what it was, over and over and over and over, for months on end...Stalking the streets for young females in short skirts, tight tank tops, or short-shorts, basically random girls and women, who happened to be walking around the city sidewalks when he came by with his camera.

So, yeah, those who shoot "street" with honorable intentions are one thing, but there also seems to be a good number of what are called "creepers" these days, out for downblouse, upskirt, and crack shots. And all claiming that their work is "street photography". I find that much worse than people who deliberately, and with the actual consent and knowledge, of *WILLING female volunteers, *set out to make  "glamour" photos, or even soft-core porn images in a cooperative, collaborative endeavor.


----------



## dsiglin (Sep 25, 2013)

creepers are going to creep.


----------



## sashbar (Sep 27, 2013)

If we go along this way we willl soon call paedophiles with cameras "street photographers" and then someone will say "That is why I will never do street photography".  Let us leave freaks alone.

As for "sneaking shots" - I would say that there are different kinds of street photography, but most street photographers have to have the nerve to communicate with people they have shot without their permission. And I find myself to be more and more engaged with people I sometimes shoot in the street. This woman selling laces in the street was absolutely furious when I shot her from close range, but I was polite and we talked, and i explained why I am doing it and what it is all about, and then we talked more, and I learned that she had graduated from my home town Uni, and actually she was quite intelligent and well travelled and spoke very fluently in three languages. And now she was selling laces to tourists. And when we parted 15 minutes later, we hugged each other and she kept saying "thank you, thank you" which surprised me a  lot.  And I left with a strong sympathy for this apparently very lonely woman with an intriguing past and a bleak future.  These encounters are great and last in memory much  longer than any "sneaking shot".  And even if  the shot itself is nothing special, I will be keeping it.    





This guy was crossing the street right in front of me, and I simply could not help pressing the button.  He sad: " What the f**k do you think you are doing? I am not a tree, I am a human being"
I sad "Yes, and you are an amazing human being". And that's how we started to talk. And he posed for several more shots and  even agreed to move to a better background. In the end I showed him all the shots and we agreed that the first one was the best, because he was not posing. He even invited me to his restaurant across the street. I doubt though that my dinner would be free. But then again, it was a memorable encounter. 



And this guy was so happy, he offered me money for the photo and gave me his address. I did not take the money and lost his address. I wanted to send him the picture. Shame on me. But I will definitely have a print and when I am in this town again - I will find him. I rememeber the street name, it is a small town.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 27, 2013)

^^^ which is why I use a 70-200. 

"Oh, no, sir, I was shooting that building right behind you.  Sorry for the misunderstanding. Yup. Have a nice day!"


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 27, 2013)

Derrel said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > The point I was trying to make was that using negative generalizations - like 'sneaky' in describing street photography - is more than vaguely insulting to those who do it with good and honorable intentions.
> ...



What I've read about pedophiles seems to indicate that a good percentage seem to believe genuinely that what they are wanting to do is consensual or is 'all right'; that is their own delusion. The photographer Derrel is talking about has been ejected from a couple of photo-hosting sites because of the traffic/content and he seems to believe it was undue prejudice. He has his own website now and, although he puts up other pictures, his are 95% attractive women - generally very, very well shot.  I've gone through those discussions with the same photographer and he isn't able actually present more of a case for what he does than he likes to do it.

 Human beings have an almost infinite capacity for self-delusion.


----------



## sashbar (Sep 27, 2013)

manaheim said:


> ^^^ which is why I use a 70-200.
> 
> "Oh, no, sir, I was shooting that building right behind you.  Sorry for the misunderstanding. Yup. Have a nice day!"




Why not telling him that he is right, Christians must stand for Israel ( or whatever) and his powerfull message should be spread around the world.  I would have DEFINITELY told him this bull if only to see his reaction - that's the first thing that crossed my mind. . And chances are - you will have a splendid photo opportunity here. And who knows, maybe this guy is more interesting than he appears. It happens all the time.  More than that< if he agreed to pose I would talk to him about the Christian cause, and then i would say - even if I am a hardline atheist...  Might be a great shot.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 27, 2013)

There are some photographers who believe they should record the world around them without influencing it directly.  I agree with this- even despite my aversion to talking to random people.


----------



## sashbar (Sep 27, 2013)

manaheim said:


> There are some photographers who believe they should record the world around them without influencing it directly.  I agree with this- even despite my aversion to talking to random people.



Yes I am aware of that, but do not understand this argument. I think it is just an excuse. The street photography is mostly unstaged, so the scene ( or the world, if the photographer thinks that he has the whole world in his frame) is not influenced before the shot, he captures it "as is". And I agree that shouting to people before the shot to provoke a reaction and doing similar things is inappropriate. This is influencing the scene. Planting objects or rearranging them to improve the composition or impact can also be considered as influencing the scene. Some purists are aginst it,  some established great photographers do it every day. So one can argue here. But if a photographer thinks that by communicatiing to people after the shot was taken he is "influencing the world", then he probably thinks a little bit too much of himself.   There is, of course a famous sci-fi book about a man who killed a butterfly and the following chain of events completely changed the world. But it is sci-fi, and even there he had to kill somebody   So, no, I am not buying it.

PS:  I re-read your post and realised I am a bit off the mark here. Yes, I hear what you are saying now. Still my point is valid when it comes to photographers who refuse to communicate in any way.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 27, 2013)

Frankly, if you wanna take pictures of hot women on the street, what's the problem with that? Nobody seems to mind if you look at them and remember them with your mind.

Note that this is quite distinct from catcalling, making lewd remarks, overt ogling, and other behaviors that generate discomfort. Humans seem to have a very odd attitude about photography, which is basically a leftover of "you steal my soul when you make a graven image of me" superstition.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 27, 2013)

sashbar said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > There are some photographers who believe they should record the world around them without influencing it directly.  I agree with this- even despite my aversion to talking to random people.
> ...



No one has said that.
That's a straw man argument.
If it is your style to take a picture and then try to engage the person, no problem, go for it.
In general I don't see enough for me in this kind of photography, where the person is engaged and then shot, without anything else going for it. Limiting to this one note, shoot and engage, is like always processing the same way or only using the same lens; pictures become constrained by something external.

I try to take the pictures as they occur without any preconceptions, except that I try to change the happening as little as possible.


----------



## rexbobcat (Sep 27, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Frankly, if you wanna take pictures of hot women on the street, what's the problem with that? Nobody seems to mind if you look at them and remember them with your mind.



It's potentially a legal problem in Texas, where you can be arrested if you are suspected of taking pictures of non-consenting individuals for sexual gratification.

And  not saying no isn't saying yes, so that makes this law super broad concerning photographing people who don't give you explicit approval but obviously don't mind being photographed.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 27, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Frankly, if you wanna take pictures of hot women on the street, what's the problem with that? Nobody seems to mind if you look at them and remember them with your mind.




I think that only taking pictures of women with big breasts is a bit distasteful and juvenile, objectifying women.  Trying to excuse an interest in doing exactly that by saying it is 'art' seems to be dissembling.
I think you should own what you do, not try to obscure the issue with some other name, and deal with how others feel about it.
Substitute 'children' for 'females with big breasts' and then explain your reaction.
My feeling is that the photography of females with big boobs or children brings to view what I think is an uncomfortable character attribute.


----------



## sashbar (Sep 27, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> > manaheim said:
> ...



I would not call it "my style". I do not have any style at all, I am not good enough for it. What I am saying is talking honestly to people if they react in a negative way is better and ultimately more rewarding than trying to pretend that you wanted to shoot a cat behind them etc.  Shooting people is not an excuse to start a converrsation ( or if it is - it is probably the worst one possible) .  But there are situations when the choice is simple - just to ignore a great shot, because the negative reaction will be most likely, to ask for a permission and take a picture ( which in most cases makes no sense at all, because the scene is gone) or to shoot and then explain if needed.  The photographers who prefer "not to influence" will probably miss this shot because they do not want to communicate with their object. And the chances are - it would be ther best shot of the day. There were many situations when I chose Option 1 and just walked away, just to regret it later. And there were many situations when i went for it and it ended up just great, and everyone was happy.  But of course there is always a line that one should never cross, and I think it comes with experience.


----------



## sashbar (Sep 27, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > Frankly, if you wanna take pictures of hot women on the street, what's the problem with that? Nobody seems to mind if you look at them and remember them with your mind.
> ...




And that means you simply can not take photos of anyone of the opposite sex in Texas.. o, wait a minute, it means you can not take photos of anyone full stop.. Tough.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 27, 2013)

Exactly the same superstition applies when kids are in play, and it's equally nonsensical but even more deeply ingrained in society.

Laws against photographing kids/women for "sexual gratification" come out of a social desire to prosecute people for thought crimes, combined with a superstition about "picture stealing souls". Since here in America we pretend to not actually criminalize thinking, we instead apply outlandish punishments to whatever actual act strikes as as most closely allied to the BadThink we're actually trying to punish.

I'm a parent and a member of this society. I feel it, but I recognize it as unsavory.

That doesn't mean a bunch of pictures of large breasted women is necessarily artistically worthwhile. If taking bad pictures is a crime, though, we got bigger problems.

This is probably about all I should say here, though, since this is at risk of diverging into territory we try to avoid on TPF, if it's not there already.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 27, 2013)

sashbar said:


> I would not call it "my style". I do not have any style at all, I am not good enough for it.
> 
> What I am saying is talking honestly to people if they react in a negative way is better and ultimately more rewarding than trying to pretend that you wanted to shoot a cat behind them etc.  Shooting people is not an excuse to start a converrsation ( or if it is - it is probably the worst one possible) .  But there are situations when the choice is simple - just to ignore a great shot, because the negative reaction will be most likely, to ask for a permission and take a picture ( which in most cases makes no sense at all, because the scene is gone) or to shoot and then explain if needed.  The photographers who prefer "not to influence" will probably miss this shot because they do not want to communicate with their object. And the chances are - it would be ther best shot of the day. There were many situations when I chose Option 1 and just walked away, just to regret it later. And there were many situations when i went for it and it ended up just great, and everyone was happy.  But of course there is always a line that one should never cross, and I think it comes with experience.



I would agree with all of what you are saying as long as you preface it to say that 'In my experience' and you recognize that this behavior applies perhaps only to you.
It is not true that what has worked for you in your circumstances with your personality is as true and constant for everyone as the force of gravity.


----------



## sashbar (Sep 27, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Frankly, if you wanna take pictures of hot women on the street, what's the problem with that? Nobody seems to mind if you look at them and remember them with your mind.
> 
> /QUOTE]
> 
> Actually I agree. If there is no stalking or harrassment involved, who cares?


----------



## limr (Sep 27, 2013)

sashbar said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > There are some photographers who believe they should record the world around them without influencing it directly.  I agree with this- even despite my aversion to talking to random people.
> ...



It's not just an excuse. I don't think talking to someone _after_ taking the picture is influencing anything, but engaging first and shooting second _is_ influencing the shot. I prefer to get the shots when people are unaware. It feels more...truthful in a way. Like they're not trying to perform or put on their "I'm talking to a stranger" persona. This is just my feeling, truly, and it will be different for everyone who even vaguely likes to try their hand at street photography. And it's not that I disagree with the idea of engaging with someone before or after the shot, but that's just not me. I'm an introvert, I feel awkward talking to strangers and it's not enjoyable. I would not get anywhere near the kind of stories that you are able to get because I just can't. I don't know how to draw people out because I myself become withdrawn in this kind of interaction. So no, it's not an excuse; it's just that the engaging style of street photography isn't for every photographer's personality.

And then there's Miroslav Tichy: Miroslav Tichý - photographer - photo  Not sure where he fits into this conversation, but I couldn't help but think of him as I was reading through the thread. Here's a NY Times article about him, too: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/arts/design/12photos.html?_r=0  By all rights, this guy should not be famous. And yet...the pictures are compelling. But I can't figure out why.


----------



## sashbar (Sep 27, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> > I would not call it "my style". I do not have any style at all, I am not good enough for it.
> ...



I agree with this. But being not an extrovert myself to say the least, I just thought if I can do it, probably just about everyone can do it. It does not mean they WANT to do it, of course.


----------



## sashbar (Sep 27, 2013)

limr said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> > manaheim said:
> ...



Yes, if you read my posts carefully, this is exactly what I am saying.


----------



## limr (Sep 27, 2013)

sashbar said:


> Yes, if you read my posts carefully, this is exactly what I am saying.



Sorry, I'm not being a smartass, but...which part? I mean, when you say "this" - what part of my post does this refer to?


----------



## rexbobcat (Sep 27, 2013)

sashbar said:


> And that means you simply can not take photos of anyone of the opposite sex in Texas.. o, wait a minute, it means you can not take photos of anyone full stop.. Tough.



Like I said, the law is super broad, and I think it has recently been challenged because of that fact.

I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying that's how it is, so the whole "who cares" argument can kind of be dependent on where you live.

Certain actions also increase your odds of being arrested for that such as....taking photos of young children in a bathroom, which was a case a few years ago that happened at the county fair.


----------



## sashbar (Sep 27, 2013)

limr said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, if you read my posts carefully, this is exactly what I am saying.
> ...



I referred to this: 
_
I don't think talking to someone after taking the picture is influencing anything, but engaging first and shooting second is influencing the shot. I prefer to get the shots when people are unaware. It feels more...truthful in a way. Like they're not trying to perform or put on their "I'm talking to a stranger" persona. This is just my feeling, truly, and it will be different for everyone who even vaguely likes to try their hand at street photography. 
_
I will quote myself here if you do not mind, that's probably the best way to explain what I meant:



_I think it is just an excuse. *The street photography is mostly unstaged, so the scene* ( or the world, if the photographer thinks that he has the whole world in his frame) *is not influenced before the shot*, he captures it "as is". *And I agree that shouting to people before the shot to provoke a reaction and doing similar things is inappropriate. This is influencing the scene. Planting objects or rearranging them to improve the composition or impact can also be considered as influencing the scene.* Some purists are aginst it, some established great photographers do it every day. So one can argue here. But if a photographer thinks that by communicatiing to people *after the shot was taken* he is "influencing the world", then he probably thinks a little bit too much of himself.  
_
Also:_ But there are situations when the choice is simple - just to ignore a great shot, because the negative reaction will be most likely, *to ask for a permission and take a picture ( which in most cases makes no sense at all, because the scene is gone)* or to shoot and then explain if needed. 
_
So nowhere I am talking about the need to engage a person *before *taking a shot.  I am totally with you here. This is not the point at all. Probably the photos I posted have misled you. In my opinion these photos are a sub-genre of street photography, I would call it street portraits. But in two out of three of these portraits there was no involvement with the subject prior to the shot, it was the straight "in your face" close-up shot that initially provoked a negative reaction. My point is - how to get away with it *after *you have taken a shot that can annoy a person. And I am arguing that the best way is not to shy away from communicating or making believe that you were shooting the brick wall, but to get involved in the most positive, honest and polite way.  And this is (*in my experience*, I bear in mind the Traveller's remark) is all about the mindset. If you think that it is about "sneaking", "hunting" etc. you are in the wrong state of mind to communicate effectively with the people and defend your action. You have to embrace it, feel positive, treat them like friends and be sure that what you are doing is the right thing. There is nothing wrong about it. And then you will be surprised how quickly (most) people change their initial attitude.​


​


----------



## limr (Sep 27, 2013)

Okay, yes we are saying the same thing in many ways. I guess where I diverge is the situation where you say that my choices are to ignore a great shot to avoid the interaction, or to take the shot and interact. It's an easy choice for me. I'd rather miss the shot. In a way, I feel that if I'm already close enough to provoke a certain reaction (whether positive or negative), then I may have already lost my shot anyway. So I wouldn't regret not firing the shutter because somewhere in my mind, I might think, "Great shot, just not mine."

This is not to say I have never interacted with strangers and I can do it naturally enough to a point. After that point I just get cagey


----------



## sashbar (Sep 27, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Exactly the same superstition applies when kids are in play, and it's equally nonsensical but even more deeply ingrained in society.
> 
> Laws against photographing kids/women for "sexual gratification" come out of a social desire to prosecute people for thought crimes, combined with a superstition about "picture stealing souls". Since here in America we pretend to not actually criminalize thinking, we instead apply outlandish punishments to whatever actual act strikes as as most closely allied to the BadThink we're actually trying to punish.
> 
> ...



And this is happening in the world where porn sites have 30% of internet traffic, and the largest porn site XVideo gets 4,5 BILLION page visits per month - several times more than CNN.


----------



## rexbobcat (Sep 27, 2013)

I take street photos by going around and throwing water balloons at hot women in skimpy t-shirts. Then I photograph their reactions.

My coffee table photo book is coming out soon if anyone is interested. It would make a great talking point at family dinners. It's called "Wet n' Wild," and it'll be out in early October.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 27, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> I take street photos by going around and throwing water balloons at hot women in skimpy t-shirts. Then I photograph their reactions.
> 
> My coffee table photo book is coming out soon if anyone is interested. It would make a great talking point at family dinners. It's called "Wet n' Wild," and it'll be out in early October.



They allow computers in your cell?


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 27, 2013)

I have been thinking of a trying to start a streetshooter circle with its own website.
Every member of the circle would contribute a goodly of email addresses for their contacts.
Every member would have a separate page with links back to their home page.
Every member would have a 'show' on the site in rotation and this would be publicized to all the combined email contacts.

comments?


----------



## rexbobcat (Sep 27, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > I take street photos by going around and throwing water balloons at hot women in skimpy t-shirts. Then I photograph their reactions.
> ...



If they didn't want me to throw a water balloon at them they should have been less hot. Geez, so many haters.

[video]http://tosh.comedycentral.com/video-clips/ppvj6r/unexpected-wet-t-shirt-contest[/video]


----------



## amolitor (Sep 27, 2013)

Wow. I have no problem with T-shirts, wet or otherwise, or their contents, but that video compressed so much crappiness into so little time it kind of took my breath away.


----------



## sashbar (Sep 27, 2013)

rexbobcat - I think I recognise the master behind this masterpiece ...


----------



## sashbar (Sep 27, 2013)

Just to keep the conversation going... actually the idea of influencing the shot is more subtle if you start to think about it. It is not nessessary black and white (not intended). I have a picture here, which is not a 100% illustration of what I mean, but you will have the idea. The scene is basically unchanged: the girl in the middle is communicating with the seller, the other guy is watching his reaction, and the "peace" earring is a great focal point. But the other girl is looking at me. Does this eye contact mean "influencing the shot"? Has it become staged or posed? To a degree yes, I think. Will it look uninfluenced if I cut her out? Probably yes.  It just illustrates that there are different degrees of influencing the shot..


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 27, 2013)

I think simplifying it add a lot more emphasis to the 'chocolate' sign.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 28, 2013)

I think that good street photographs should show the photographer's intent. Either in the original composition of the re-framing in post, what the photographer is trying to make you look at should become obvious. 
If not, then a street photograph becomes not too much more than a random set of things that the viewer must sort out rather than a statement of some sort.
In the original of the picture above, there are three interactions that are unrelated, not really in any hierarchy and aren't at all similar (so they don't work in synchrony to make a coherent point.) So, for me, I don't know what the photographer's point is. 

In the crop, I chose to frame around the interaction that seemed the most important.


----------



## sashbar (Sep 28, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> I think that good street photographs should show the photographer's intent. Either in the original composition of the re-framing in post, what the photographer is trying to make you look at should become obvious.
> If not, then a street photograph becomes not too much more than a random set of things that the viewer must sort out rather than a statement of some sort.
> In the original of the picture above, there are three interactions that are unrelated, not really in any hierarchy and aren't at all similar (so they don't work in synchrony to make a coherent point.) So, for me, I don't know what the photographer's point is.
> 
> In the crop, I chose to frame around the interaction that seemed the most important.



Yes , I hear what you are saying. 
I do not think that even really good street photographers are always consciously analysing the scene in order for it to represent their intent in the best possible way. I doubt it is possible in a fast moving environment. I think a lot of it is instinctive or subconscious , and some of us are just lucky to be able to see things more clearly than others. Of course, some styles of street shooting, like the one of Pascal R. allow for more meticulous preparation, framing etc. So yes, probably a lot of it is cropped or corrected in PP. 
With the photo above I just saw the girl 'peace' earring lit by the sun and this gesture and just took a shot, there was no time for anything.  I was thinking of cropping the other girl out and leaving just the three of them. I feel the other guy is a part of main interaction: the girl is provoking the front guys reaction and the other guy is watching for his reaction. To me the guy on the left is serving as a mirror: we do not see the front guys face, but we see the emotion of the other guy looking at him... It kind of becomes 3-dimentional and not as flat as just the two of them.
But that girl on the right looked like an absolute doll with unbelievable amount of makeup on her face. Let her stay there  And the other reason why i would like her to stay is her white dress - it just expands the scale of black and white range of the photo and in my view balances the whole scene. Otherwise the white background spot on the left looks like the odd one out.
As for the "Chocolate" sign, I saw it, but the idea of a relation to the scene never crossed my mind..


----------



## usayit (Sep 28, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> OK, someone has to disagree or agree - am I talking in an empty room?



Well.....

Anyone who states the "definite", a "must", a "rule", etc ..  in photography... is almost always wrong.     

Its all about what the final intention and preference of the photographer.   I also don't recall a lot of threads stating the "myths" you address... maybe I just missed them.   

So as interesting the read is... it almost feels like its simply pointing out the obvious.




I personally like journalistic photos that tell a story.... I find it easier to do with wide and normal focal lengths to bring in the surroundings and atmosphere with a sense of space rather than a tight distant shot that isolates and feels as if the viewer is from afar.



oh yes... I HATE the term Street photography.... but that's a different topic.


----------



## usayit (Sep 28, 2013)

Derrel said:


> We used to have a regular poster here on TPF....He lived in a big, western USA city...basically 9 out of 10 of his "street pictures" were of young females on the street, almost always with big, prominent bosoms, and skimpy skirts or shorts. When I mentioned that to him, that almost all of his shots seemed to be,well, basically "Hey, that young girl has some nice t*ts!" type of shots, he got pretty bent out of shape. Said that wasn't what his work was about. And yet...that what it was, over and over and over and over, for months on end...Stalking the streets for young females in short skirts, tight tank tops, or short-shorts, basically random girls and women, who happened to be walking around the city sidewalks when he came by with his camera.



Yes.. I remember that... very creepy.   We also had a post or two from a member who turned out to be a cannibalistic killer.....   he too claimed good intentions..


----------



## sashbar (Sep 28, 2013)

usayit said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > OK, someone has to disagree or agree - am I talking in an empty room?
> ...



I hope you are aware that the best street photography and journalistic photos often are completely different genres. I am just saying it because we may hate the term, but street photography definetely merits one. It can not be described as journalism.


----------



## usayit (Sep 28, 2013)

sashbar said:


> I hope you are aware that the best street photography and journalistic photos often are completely different genres. I am just saying it because we may hate the term, but street photography definetely merits one. It can not be described as journalism.



Agree to disagree.... there are two sides of that and from years past experience.. it will never be agreed upon.   Some of the most well known "street" photos are taken by photographers that always referred to themselves as journalists.   V-J Day photo for example.  I'm not old and I never heard the term in wide use when I started as a young kid.


----------



## sashbar (Sep 28, 2013)

usayit said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> > I hope you are aware that the best street photography and journalistic photos often are completely different genres. I am just saying it because we may hate the term, but street photography definetely merits one. It can not be described as journalism.
> ...




Sure. Simply because it is so broad and diverse we can always find reasons to disagree or agree, depending on what we mean by "Street photography". I am personally with the great man himself here (HCB), who as you know was in love with his street photography, even though he may never heard the term, but had no interest whatsoever in photo journalism. He said he had no interest at all in a real story, the real story is boring. It just struck me when I heard it first time - how true. And I have 30 years of professional journalism behind my back. I have coined the difference for myself: a photo journalism does not GIVE you a story - it presents a story, the story is there and it is not yours, it is set in stone and belongs to the people in the frame. A street photography in HCB mould is presenting you with stories of your own. You can invent your own story, because there is always something uncertain, untold, unfinished, it just opens your imagination. And that's why you would come back to these images again and again, unlike even the best photo journalism. Photo journalism does not allow any space for your imagination, the more definite and complete the story is, the better is a photo journalists image. You may again, disagree, but this is how I personally separate these two genres at their best.


----------



## usayit (Sep 28, 2013)

"You invent your story" == failure to tell one.

Sorry... couldn't help myself... must move on and avoid a pending debate on an unrelated topic.   Been through this debate, nothing you present is new to me.   I know what you are saying.. heard it before... but many self claimed "street photographers" would have a different definition which is part of the issue.   In the struggle to differentiate from modern photojournlism, the term is unspecific and thus definition vary widely from person to person.

I study HCB quite a bit... I find a lot of inspiration from his work.  He never referred to himself as anything than a photojournalist or just plain photographer.


----------



## sashbar (Sep 28, 2013)

usayit said:


> "You invent your story" == failure to tell one.



Yes, that is a perfect journalistic approach. From that point of view Henry Cartier Bresson was an epic failure.


----------



## usayit (Sep 28, 2013)

Far from epic failure.... just you use of his work to your "coined" definition.

""To me, photography is the simultaneous recognition, in a fraction of a second, of the significance of an event as well as of a precise organization of forms which give that event its proper expression." - HCB

"event its proper expression"... story.


By your definition, André Kertész is a street photographer of sorts.   The key here, is that the distinction is so loose that you have to coin your own definition... and pretty much every self proclaimed street photographer finds a need to do the same.    What many boil it down to is documenting human behavior versus situational.   I'm not convinced that human behavior is not situational.


<< note to self... you already said agree to disagree....  stop.


----------



## sashbar (Sep 28, 2013)

usayit said:


> Far from epic failure.... just you use of his work to your "coined" definition.
> 
> ""To me, photography is the simultaneous recognition, in a fraction of a second, of the significance of an event as well as of a precise organization of forms which give that event its proper expression." - HCB
> 
> ...



Thanks usayit, yours are very valid points. As for "situational" - I still think it is a bit deeper than that. Yes it is situational, but different people behave differently in similar situations. And this is exactly the reason why they are so interesting.


----------



## usayit (Sep 28, 2013)

And thank you for probably the most civilized discussion on the topic.....   agree to disagree in a very openly minded way.


----------



## gsgary (Sep 28, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> I think that good street photographs should show the photographer's intent. Either in the original composition of the re-framing in post, what the photographer is trying to make you look at should become obvious.
> If not, then a street photograph becomes not too much more than a random set of things that the viewer must sort out rather than a statement of some sort.
> In the original of the picture above, there are three interactions that are unrelated, not really in any hierarchy and aren't at all similar (so they don't work in synchrony to make a coherent point.) So, for me, I don't know what the photographer's point is.
> 
> In the crop, I chose to frame around the interaction that seemed the most important.



This is where we differ i never crop my street photos

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 28, 2013)

gsgary said:


> This is where we differ i never crop my street photos



I never pick my nose.


----------



## gsgary (Sep 28, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > This is where we differ i never crop my street photos
> ...



I do

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 28, 2013)

But you do edit in other ways, yes.
So not cropping is a sort of artificial hurdle you pose on yourself and you would rather have a less good image than touch those sacrosanct borders.

OK, I understand how it works.
For myself, I refuse to use the least significant bit.
Where others might make images with 14 bits, I only use 13.
But if I post 8 bit images, I make a decision based on the time the picture was actually taken - in minutes.
If the minute is even, I spin around clockwise, before pressing the carriage return.
If the minute is odd, I don't spin at all but I stand on my left foot - and tehn press the carriage return.
That's my rule.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 28, 2013)

^ wtf?


----------



## DanOstergren (Sep 28, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> But you do edit in other ways, yes.
> So not cropping is a sort of artificial hurdle you pose on yourself and you would rather have a less good image than touch those sacrosanct borders.
> 
> OK, I understand how it works.
> ...


Clearly we all have our own opinions and ways of doing things. If we all did it by what one person says is the right way then everybody's photos would look the same.


----------



## gsgary (Sep 29, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> But you do edit in other ways, yes.
> So not cropping is a sort of artificial hurdle you pose on yourself and you would rather have a less good image than touch those sacrosanct borders.
> 
> OK, I understand how it works.
> ...



Anything that i see in my rangefinder should be there even legs and feet going in and out of frame

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## gsgary (Sep 29, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> But you do edit in other ways, yes.
> So not cropping is a sort of artificial hurdle you pose on yourself and you would rather have a less good image than touch those sacrosanct borders.
> 
> OK, I understand how it works.
> ...




This is one of my latest shots how would you crop it


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 29, 2013)

We all make choices in how we make images. Some shoot film, some shoot large format, some make platinum prints, some shoot rangefinders, some shoot certain focal lengths only, some convert everything to B&W, some display SOOC, some don't crop, some always use additional light   - 

These are all only choices and no special value attaches to any of the resulting images because of the way one chooses to get images. 
The images are what they are and any choice by the maker doesn't make them any better or worse.


----------



## DanOstergren (Sep 29, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> We all make choices in how we make images. Some shoot film, some shoot large format, some make platinum prints, some shoot rangefinders, some shoot certain focal lengths only, some convert everything to B&W, some display SOOC, some don't crop, some always use additional light   -
> 
> These are all only choices and no special value attaches to any of the resulting images because of the way one chooses to get images.
> The images are what they are and any choice by the maker doesn't make them any better or worse.


I completely disagree.


----------



## kundalini (Sep 29, 2013)

DanOstergren said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > We all make choices in how we make images. Some shoot film, some shoot large format, some make platinum prints, some shoot rangefinders, some shoot certain focal lengths only, some convert everything to B&W, some display SOOC, some don't crop, some always use additional light -
> ...


In what manner?  I haven"t read the previous page to see if this is a run-on dialogue, but the staement "I completely disagree." leaves a void.  Many images I've taken are enhanced to some degree by post production.  The choices I make in post are usually minimal, but an adjustment of tilt or a slight crop to enhance the Subject has often yielded a better final result.  I would show an example of a severe crop to add to the discussion, but the original is not close at hand.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 29, 2013)

DanOstergren said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > We all make choices in how we make images. Some shoot film, some shoot large format, some make platinum prints, some shoot rangefinders, some shoot certain focal lengths only, some convert everything to B&W, some display SOOC, some don't crop, some always use additional light   -
> ...



I have no idea what you are disagreeing with.


----------



## DanOstergren (Sep 29, 2013)

Allow me to rephrase. 


The_Traveler said:


> We all make choices in how we make images.  Some shoot film, some shoot large format, some make platinum prints,  some shoot rangefinders, some shoot certain focal lengths only, some  convert everything to B&W, some display SOOC, some don't crop, some  always use additional light   -
> 
> These are all only choices and no special value attaches to any of the resulting images because of the way one chooses to get images.
> The images are what they are and any choice by the maker doesn't make them any better or worse.


I disagree with this statement. 

I put a lot of thought into how I create an image, such as the direction of light, the amount and type of light, what focal length I use on my camera, the model/subject, the styling, the location, the shutter speed, ISO and aperture I choose to set my camera at, or even the time of day that I choose to shoot. All of these decisions on my part effect the final outcome of the image with or without post production, and these decisions on my part in fact do have a large part in whether the image is no good or great in my opinion. These decisions by myself or any other photographer make our art unique to the artist, and are why clients seek out individual photographers for their style or talent in being able to make the choices that result in better images. Even in street photography the artist can make the simple choice to position himself in a spot where he or she will have better light on their potential subjects, in turn resulting in a better image. 
I just don't see how the choices we make in how we capture these images don't have any result in the image being any better or worse, because in my experience these decisions have every part in making the photo better or worse.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 29, 2013)

DanOstergren said:


> Allow me to rephrase.
> 
> 
> The_Traveler said:
> ...



Whoa,whoa,whoa Dan...ease up on all the logic buddy! Stop making so much sense. You're being far too rational dude!


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 29, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> We all make choices in how we make images. Some shoot film, some shoot large format, some make platinum prints, some shoot rangefinders, some shoot certain focal lengths only, some convert everything to B&W, some display SOOC, some don't crop, some always use additional light   -
> 
> These are all only choices and no special value attaches to any of the resulting images because of the way one chooses to get images.
> The images are what they are and any choice by the maker doesn't make them any better or worse.



Perhaps I can be a little clearer and more easy to understand.

When you show an image, to any person, that image has some final level of quality.
Should it make any difference in the evaluation that you chose to use film or chose to use platinum printing or chose to go without cropping?

I think not.
The quality of an image should be judged  without regard to how it was produced.

Yes photographers seem to think that their choices in production should somehow count extra; if the picture is good, somehow knowing that it was done without any cropping (for example), should somehow make it extra good.

How it was created should only be of importance to the photographer as he/she works; the 'how' should be irrelevant to the viewer in judging the image.

I don't care why people do certain things, make certain choices, and I certainly don't think that my impression of their work should be affected by the manner in which it was done.


Understand now?


----------



## C4n0n.Fan (Sep 29, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> > JacaRanda said:
> ...



Agreed! That goes for every photo on that site. Absolutely Amazing!


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 1, 2013)

C4n0n.Fan said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > sashbar said:
> ...



For those who, like me, are fans of Peter Turnley, he is self publishing a book of pictures of Paris.
If you buy direct by Dec 1, he will send a signed copy.
This is a chance for those of us who like this kind of photography to support an artist directly and minimize the profits taken by bookstores

Peter Turnley - French Kiss


----------

