Does anyone do Street Photography with LF?

[Rider]

If the "apples" exercise is to photograph people in such a way as to guarantee that you will be asked to leave and not get very many photographs, well, I suppose I'll have to admit to preferring oranges. My definition of "street" does not require the subject to be unhappy - just natural. I prefer to capture people acting natural by habituating them to my presence (i.e. making them forget that I'm there) rather than by ambushing them and inducing them to beat the crap out of me when they figure out what I'm doing.

From my point of view, this "oranges" approach has two advantages: I get more pictures and take fewer trips to the emergency room.

Wouldn't it be fair to say there are different styles of street photography, that produce different results?

Surely, there are excellent photographs where the subjects would have preferred to not have been photographed in such a way.

On the other hand, plenty of excellent street photographs are made after gaining the subject's trust or acquiesence, or where the subject is more or less indifferent to being photographed.

There are examples of Bresson photographs falling into both of these categories.

[r.e.]

blakley,

Didn't I say "without permission"?

Do me a favour. Just stop misrepresenting what I say. Cool?

[blakley]

Wouldn't it be fair to say there are different styles of street photography, that produce different results?

Surely, there are excellent photographs where the subjects would have preferred to not have been photographed in such a way.

On the other hand, plenty of excellent street photographs are made after gaining the subject's trust or acquiesence, or where the subject is more or less indifferent to being photographed.

There are examples of Bresson photographs falling into both of these categories.

I'm sure that's right - I hope that there are as many styles of street as there are photographers doing street (otherwise why bother, right?) I typically throw away photos which I think the subject would find objectionable, as a matter of respect for the subject. But I should say again that I'm not a good source of information about what constitutes "street" since I don't really consider myself a "street" photographer (for this reason you'd probably do better listening to r.e. about what is & isn't "street"). I guess the distinction I draw in my own mind is that I'm documenting people and their personalities more than the events they participate in or their interactions with their environments - which is why I think of what I do as portraiture.

[blakley]

blakley,

Didn't I say "without permission"?

Do me a favour. Just stop misrepresenting what I say. Cool?

My quotation from your post was exact via copy and paste, including the words "without permission", so I fail to see how I've misrepresented anything.

I do not in fact ask for permission when photographing in bars. I just create a nonthreatening environment in which to photograph people.

[r.e.]

blakley, here is what you wrote:

"I am confused, though, about why you would write:

"Here's a suggestion. Go into a pub at night with a press camera and start taking photographs of people, in available light, for which the criterion is that the photograph is unposed. Then let us know how you did it, technically (and hey, if you are running around local pubs at night using a press camera and flash without permission, and getting away with it, I'd love to hear about it)."

...and then object to my describing exactly what you asked for - photographing people, unposed, in a pub, at night, with (among other things) a press camera, in available light."

In your rhetorical confusion about what I am saying, what is missing from your gloss?

You know, this is not useful. Indeed, it is stupid. So do me a favour, and stop using me as a board off which to bounce your views. Just say what you want, and keep me out of it.

[blakley]

You know, this is not useful. Indeed, it is stupid.

Agreed.

So do me a favour, and just stop using me as a board off which you want to express your views.

Done.

[r.e.]

Wouldn't it be fair to say there are different styles of street photography, that produce different results?

Surely, there are excellent photographs where the subjects would have preferred to not have been photographed in such a way.

On the other hand, plenty of excellent street photographs are made after gaining the subject's trust or acquiesence, or where the subject is more or less indifferent to being photographed.

There are examples of Bresson photographs falling into both of these categories.

There is unquestionably an argument for this view, but I have real doubts about it. The history of documentary work about people who have agreed, explicitly or implicitly, to be the subject raises real questions about the degree to which the result is genuine. Before anyone jumps on me about this, I would argue that the question does indeed arise in relation to the work of people like Frederick Wiseman and the Maysles brothers. And certainly in relation to the work of Michael Moore.

I agree that there are Cartier-Bresson photographs that fall into both categories, but most if not all of his photographs that I have seen in the latter category are really best described as portraits. I don't know, I guess that I buy into the idea, at least to some degree, of the "decisive moment" (whoever came up with the phrase, because it apparently may not have been Cartier-Bresson), and I'm not sure how applicable it is to an artificial environment. When I look at work by people like Natchwey and the Bang Bang Club, I have trouble saying that work done in a conditioned environment is the same thing. I have the same problem with Bruce Davidson's Harlem series, as expressed earlier in this thread. This does not mean that I don't admire the work of people like Wiseman and the Maysles and Davidson in that series (in fact, I admire it enormously), but I'm not sure that "street photography" is the right term. And of course, in the end it may not matter. Maybe it is just a matter of semantics.

Yes, you raise an interesting question.

[Michael Graves]

Forgive me for resurrecting an old thread, but I stumbled across this while looking for something else. Oddly enough, after meandering my way through the thread, I forgot what I was originally looking for. Thanks, guys!

Anyway, I wanted to pose this....in your varying definitions of street photography, I see that some use tripods and some don't. I've done some shots in the streets of Boston, Montreal and NYC with my Mamiya 7 that I supposed would qualify as street photography, but would hardly qualify as good. I am developing an interest in trying out my Crown Graphic, using it hand-held with the rangefinder. My question is, will the rangefinder be accurate with any other lens than the 135mm Optar that came with the camera?

[David A. Goldfarb]

If it's a normal side-mounted rangefinder like the Kalart on the Graphic, it can be calibrated for one lens at a time. If it's a top mounted rangefinder that accepts cams, then you can have different cams for different lenses. Go to graflex.org to find out how the different rangefinders for Graphics work.