can it be street if shot with a 70-210 zoom?

Ok, so Ebino, so you can only call yourself a street photographer if you are good at it, famous photographers like you, your subjects are superior to you, and the establishment recognizes you for your efforts?
 
jsrockit said:
Ok, so Ebino, so you can only call yourself a street photographer if you are good at it, famous photographers like you, your subjects are superior to you, and the establishment recognizes you for your efforts?
Click to expand...

you can call yourself a street photographer if you have worn out a single pair of shoes walking the streets.



And of course, anyone with gear in their forum signature is automatically disqualified. ;)
 
ebino said:
One thing for sure is not street photography, and that is photographing on a sunny Sunday afternoon in your local tourist destination.

Its photographing on a Monday morning in one of the least photogenic places in your city that you finally earn your street photographer stripes.

You may say what about my job, well, you either have called sick or you've quit your job. :)
Click to expand...


I think both places can provide "Street Photography" captures. But, the later will be more challenging. The shot I posted of a store owner reading a book on the sidewalk, was in a very small town, where, if you where lucky, you saw a dozen people on the streets in a 1/2 hour, at different times.
 
DNG said:
I think both places can provide "Street Photography" captures. But, the later will be more challenging. The shot I posted of a store owner reading a book on the sidewalk, was in a very small town, where, if you where lucky, you saw a dozen people on the streets in a 1/2 hour, at different times.
Click to expand...

What i was trying to say is that if its too easy, its probably not, how should i say it, its not compelling enough.
 
ebino said:
you can call yourself a street photographer if you have worn out a single pair of shoes walking the streets.

And of course, anyone with gear in their forum signature is automatically disqualified. ;)
Click to expand...

Thankfully I don't consider myself a street photographer... because I'm starting to see, if this thread is any indication, how ridiculous this genre can be. I simply (and humbly) make photos. I don't live it, because I have a job (which is when I post to this forum) / life outside of photography. However, I take it seriously when I'm doing it and I went to school for Photography in the past.

RFF is a gear oriented forum (among other things), so the gear in my sig helps when speaking about gear (so I don't have to repeat what I use when I give my opinion). :D I'm sure a real street photographer would never be caught on a forum anyway, so that disqualifies everyone here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As Ive said before, Im not the greatest at candid people shooter/street photographer/whatever but I did once try to use a tele out on the street sortve as a personal challenge. It was hard until I learned just to stay in one small area and wait for the pictures to "happen". I used a Canon F1 with a Waist level finder and a FD 100mm f/2.8. Here are a couple that I got:


Untitled by andre dos santos, on Flickr


Untitled by andre dos santos, on Flickr


Untitled by andre dos santos, on Flickr

I may try again sometimes (I normally use 50mm and 35mm lenses).
 
Last edited:
These examples of my pics reflect my philosophy, but don't presume artfulness or "best of," and taken with wider to mid lenses. In each I see a tension between subject and context. Each promotes movement of my eye among different elements and raises a question about the framing.
 

Attachments

  • MOMA 01.jpg
    MOMA 01.jpg
    42.3 KB · Views: 0
  • 308 Shanghai.jpg
    308 Shanghai.jpg
    53.4 KB · Views: 0
  • BrklynBotanical Child.jpg
    BrklynBotanical Child.jpg
    79.9 KB · Views: 0
DNG said:
I think both places can provide "Street Photography" captures. But, the later will be more challenging. The shot I posted of a store owner reading a book on the sidewalk, was in a very small town, where, if you where lucky, you saw a dozen people on the streets in a 1/2 hour, at different times.
Click to expand...

ebino said:
What i was trying to say is that if its too easy, its probably not, how should i say it, its not compelling enough.
Click to expand...

So, what about photographing in NYC or Tokyo, where there are 100s/1000s of people on the sidewalks [all the time]? is that [too easy]?
 
There are 2 issues of contention in this thread. First, Joe's question about lens focal length. I think that has been answered. While certain tools are better for certain photographic genres than others, it is not the gear or focal length of the lens that determines the genre, it is the subject matter/content of the photo that does. This question was about whether there was a rule about this, and the answer is no, there is no rule about street photography and lens focal length.

The second issue is not about rules, it is about the definition of street photography and whether or not one or more people must be in the image in order for it to be described as street photography, as opposed to urban landscape, documentary, or architectural photography for example. My stance is that a human presence is necessary for this genre. Just like a person is necessary for portraiture, and an animal is necessary for pet photography. If there is no human presence, then another genre of photography like urban landscape would be a more accurate description of that image, IMO.

A few statements have been made that I think are just silly and trite. Things like: one shouldn't talk about street photography, if you think you know what street photography is then you are not a street photographer, and the difference between Sunday afternoon and Monday morning- one being street photography and the other not. There are more, but I won't bother.

The most important thing here is that we are able to disagree and discuss differences of opinion.
 
Last edited:
It is actually quite difficult to get an interesting street-photos using long lenses.

The challenge of "being there" is replaced with the demand to skillfully compose visual elements within the same constrain of spontaneity. Very interesting.

Thanks to those who posted Saul Leiter's and Danny Santos' online works.
 
As far as I am concerned, the only important qustion that I want answered is:

Did little Zoo Girl have a happy reunion with her family?

A very emotional shot, and one that leaves you wanting to know the rest of the story. So the image is highly successful.
 
Sorry for not getting back sooner. I had to go to work. And God forbid do a little photography :). Yes, the lost zoo girl found her family and I saw her later walking with them like nothing had happened.

Thanks to everyone for the positive feedback about my work.

It's not easy to be a street photographer these days. The paranoia "out there" is at an all-time high. And at least around these parts, people are not walking as much as they used to. Everyone is in their car driving to the mall :bang:.

Being open about what I do means that I don't have very many problems these days. But I can say that over the years, I've had to defend myself on more than a couple of occasions.
Which is unpleasant but sometimes necessary.

One thing I want to say is that if you think you can hide and use a long lens and never be seen, it's just not possible. People have a sixth sense about being watched and the street has many eyes.
 
Last edited:
Tamron SP 35~105 2.8

Life_imitating_art-Kensington-800.jpg


Joie_de_vivre-600-_Pride_2008.jpg


Nikkor 180 2.8

The_kiss-Kensington-600.jpg


Nikkor 80~200 2.8 ED AIS

After_a_long_day-Niagara_Falls-800.jpg



Tony_Waiting_for_a_Customer-2.jpg


The_Shopkeeper_and_his_Dog.jpg
 
Last edited:
FrankS said:
A few statements have been made that I think are just silly and trite. Things like: one shouldn't talk about street photography, if you think you know what street photography is then you are not a street photographer, and the difference between Sunday afternoon and Monday morning- one being street photography and the other not. There are more, but I won't bother.

The most important thing here is that we are able to disagree and discuss differences of opinion.
Click to expand...

Frank is quite correct. Many of the comments surrounding this second discussion, including my own, are trite and verging on useless. However this discussion ( on this particular genre) often becomes trite due to the many different beliefs as to what constitutes 'street' and how vehemently people will back their personal definition. Perhaps this leads to the cliched comments marching out so regularly and with such ease.

Good moderating Frank. Sense, a light touch and the ability to, hopefully, steer the ship back on course.

In regard to the first query. My initial reaction, possibly due to indoctrination more than free thought, would be no; it's far better to use shorter focal lengths and feel part of the world thats being photographed. However, having read the thoughts of those that do use longer lenses and seeing some examples of these images logic and sense takes over and my opinion would be that both can work. Possibly fewer long shots work, possibly because it's harder to do but I don't think I can discount using long lenses. Especially as I believe, forgive me if this sounds trite, that the end image is more important than how it was achieved.

With regard to the second part of the discussion; I'm happy for people to define it as they see fit. I'm not sure I want to define areas of photography into small sub divisions and preclude myself from participating in photographing what may or may not fall into them simply because I don't solely photograph that kind of subject matter.

I am guilty of, if asked, classifying myself as a street shooter. This is simply because to me, street is such an open term. In Britain the seaside became for many photographers the 'streets' of this country; as a small island with a history of holidays and 'days off' spent at the seaside it seems quite a natural step.

Without wishing to regress to my original post and it's sentiments I do have to stand by it's main point. That my pictures can vary between good and bad but this is due not to whether they can be defined as fitting into a particular genre but by whether they are interesting enough to point to some human characteristic or are at least of some visual interest.

BTW - some interesting examples posted by people, a pleasure to view them.
 
Wow ... take away gear lust and street photography and RFF would be a totally different place.

And I really can't decide if that's a good or a bad thing to be honest!
 
amazingly insightful thread...along with some incredibly dogmatic comments...

my original post was a semi rant and an honest plea for some insight...i see some of the local boys trying to be better street shooters and they use auto dslr rigs and long lenses for the most part.

what they get, in terms of images, are street head and shoulder shots and this has been driving me up the wall. yes, it's my problem that it makes me crazy...but to me it's not street photography...it's portraiture, done on the street.

some of the examples presented here, especially greg's, have shown me that street shooting with a long lens can still tell a story and involve the viewer enough to make brian want to know about the lost little girl...that makes me very happy.

FOR ME, street shooting is also about being a part of the scene that i am shooting and usually means shorter lenses and being physically closer to the people in that scene. i am close enough to many of my subjects to touch them while shooting. (i do try to stay away from the touching part though, ;))

many thanks for the sincere comments and thought put into them.

joe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top