Does anyone do Street Photography with LF?

[Rider]

This test shot made me think that street photography with a view camera might be interesting. It's such an odd sight, the wooden camera, that no one pays attention.

[Ed Richards]

Several of us do it with hand held press cameras.

[Frank Petronio]

Many of the model type shots I do are handheld with a rangefinder equipped 4x5. With Disco music and booze LOL.

[Scott --]

It can be done (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDYkgMk0Cws)...

[MIke Sherck]

There are times when it seems that everyone around me is being polite and considerate and trying to stay away from where they think the camera is pointed, and then there are times when people either don't notice that I'm standing there with a honkin' big camera on a tripod or don't care and walk through the field of view. Voila!

Mike

[j.e.simmons]

I find that most folks think you're taking the photo when you're under the darkcloth. When you're out and standing beside the camera, they think you're not photographing and walk back in front of you.
juan

[Scott Davis]

I've done it a bit when I'm on the road with the 5x7 - it takes a bit more work though, and pre-planning your subjects. I got a nice shot of a band of street musicians performing in Buenos Aires with the 5x7, and a Mime performing over in Colonia, Uruguay. In both cases, the subject was sufficiently involved in what they were doing that I could work in view-camera-time with them. Otherwise, nothing candid is going to work out.

[gregstidham]

Many of the model type shots I do are handheld with a rangefinder equipped 4x5. With Disco music and booze LOL.
Exactly as I envisioned. Thanks for confirming. :)

[Bill_1856]

Horses for courses. What CAN be done is not necessarily the BEST way to do it.

[Brian C. Miller]

Actually, a HECK of a lot of street photography has been done with press cameras. Like, you know, by the press? :)

Rider, look up Naked City by Arthur Fellig (aka Weegee the Magnificent). Fellig is probably #1 for LF street photography.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Here are some that I've posted before. These are night shots, so they're with flash and a handheld 4x5" Tech V and a cammed 210/5.6 Symmar convertible--

http://www.echonyc.com/~goldfarb/halloween/

[Kirk Gittings]

The master??? Check out East 100th Street by Bruce Davidson.

[Bill_1856]

I've always felt that HC-B sets the standard for street photography.

[Mark Sawyer]

Think Weegee, Stieglitz, and Walker Evans in New York...

Atget in Paris...

Sudek in Prague...

The last presidential election was covered by a couple of photographers using 4x5 press cameras...

How you do something depends mostly on how you want to do something.

[Kirk Gittings]

I've always felt that HC-B sets the standard for street photography.

Yes, and his large format work is something you have to see to believe.

[Sylvester Graham]

T
The last presidential election was covered by a couple of photographers using 4x5 press cameras...
.

A couple? By a couple do you mean one, as in David Burnett? I can't think of any other photojournalists who covered that election, or anything else, with a press camera. He also still uses LF for other projects.

[Dirk Rösler]

Here (http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=largeformat&w=22136099%40N00) is some I have done a while back. Some handheld, some tripod, some instant film. It's fun, but challenging, but I would not say it is the "wrong" tool for the job.

[r.e.]

This test shot made me think that street photography with a view camera might be interesting. It's such an odd sight, the wooden camera, that no one pays attention.

In my experience, the larger the camera, the more attention, but also the less nervousness/annoyance about the presence of a camera.

Over the last few months, I've been using an old Leica made in 1955 and a Mamiya 7II to do street photography, by which I mean at a minimum photographing someone in ordinary life (not a crime scene, parade or demonstration) without him or her knowing that he or she is being photographed.

I'm learning that there is a big learning curve to doing street photography. Part of that curve is psychological and part of it is technical. On the technical side, the larger the camera and the longer the focal length, the more difficult it gets. A Leica with a 90mm lens is hard enough, a Mamiya with a 150mm lens is really pushing it. On the other hand, a Leica with a 35mm lens is technically a snap, and a Mamiya with an 80mm lens is more or less manageable. It isn't just a question of zone focusing, but a question of fast and accurate regular focusing.

Then there is the whole question of shooting hand held, light levels, lens speed and pushing development. Someone mentioned Bruce Davidson. Have a look at his New York subway photographs. If one does some light readings in that subway system, one has got to wonder how he managed to make those photographs. My own bet is that most of them were done in above-ground parts of the system and/or when the subway was stopped in a station. His Harlem photos, referred to earlier, are wonderful, but they are not what I would call street photographs. In fact, if I recall correctly, he went through a process of negotiation with the local community before that project was undertaken.

One thing that one figures out quickly from doing street photography is that there are not a whole lot of people actually doing it. The other thing one learns is that there are a lot of people who don't like it. Not a surprise, but something one needs to deal with, on both an ethical and practical level. Such as when someone demands the film from your camera, which has happened to me twice in the last week.

I've decided to do a summer project in which I'll be using a 4x5, the Leica and the Mamiya to photograph my neighbourhood. I'm still working out how the 4x5 is going to fit in, especially since the rule that I've set myself is that there will be people in every photograph, but I do know two things. First, it is completely fantastical to think that the 4x5 can be used the same way as the Leica. Secondly, the 4x5 is likely to generate less suspicion and more curiosity.

P.S. Bruce Davidson is about to do a speaking tour in several US cities. I think that he is in New York in late May. See the Aperture web site.

[Mark Sawyer]

A couple? By a couple do you mean one, as in David Burnett? I can't think of any other photojournalists who covered that election, or anything else, with a press camera. He also still uses LF for other projects.

I remember reading of a female photographer (can't recall her name) also covering it with a press camera, but she had a much lower profile than Burnett.

[jnantz]

street photography is fun with a 4x5 (or bigger) camera ..
on a tripod or handheld, at first people sort of notice
but they have no idea what you are doing and after a glance they just keep walking.

for about 6 or 7 years i documented the streets and city squares of somerville, mass
with a 4x5 (and 5x7 ) camera on a tripod. sometimes early in the am, sometimes
rush hour, sometimes saturday afternoons. i also documented parts of central square
in rush hour, for a few weeks with a 4x5 camera on a tripod. for another library/
archive project ... people don't notice anything, they are just too busy getting to the
next place they have to be ...

in central square ( cambridge mass, a heartbeat away from harvard square )
i even went into some of the shops and offices to photograph that stuff too ...

i guess the shop-stuff was off-street :)
but the others were on the street

[Frank Petronio]

If you go over to the press photogs forums, or the sportshooter.com forum, you'll see that dozens of photojournalists have tried to copy Burnett's Aero Ektar on Speed Graphic approach -- and many are selling their experimental cameras. Burnett was hardly the first to use that camera and lens but he started a trend, and many have followed.

I did too I guess, but I feel kinda dirty for doing so ;-)

Seriously, the standard $250 Crown Graphic outfit with a 127 or 135 press lens is pretty darn good for making practical pictures... the best bang for the buck ever. You hardly need to deal with the expense and hassle of an Aero/Speed unless you really want the effect and are willing to blow more film.

[r.e.]

jananian,

The second photograph (Surman's) appears to have been taken at night. If that is correct, how did you freeze the motion to the degree that you appear to have done? It looks like a shutter speed of 1/30 second or thereabouts, which even with a fairly fast lens suggests a very large push in development.

I went to the Jeff Wall show at MOMA last week, and found it interesting to look at some of his images from the perspective of street photography, such as his "in front of a nightclub" (2006): http://time-blog.com/looking_around/2007/03/photobloggers_like_the_indispe.html Of course, that picture is not a street photograph, but a construction. Indeed, I doubt that it is technically feasible to make an image like that on the street (low light, frozen motion, lots of depth of field, not to mention the intricacy of the composition). Love him or hate him, Wall's work is remarkable - reproductions on the internet and in books do not come close to capturing the actual images.

Speaking of Wall, most of the photographs at MoMA are very large scale backlit transparencies. How is it done while maintaining resolution at acceptable levels? I know that "in front of a nightclub" is a composite of many photographs, but what about the rest?

[r.e.]

Seriously, the standard $250 Crown Graphic outfit with a 127 or 135 press lens is pretty darn good for making practical pictures...

I think that the vast majority of street photographers use 35mm cameras, and occasionally medium format, precisely because using a 4x5 camera imposes, in comparison, significant limitations in terms of bulk, focusing, focal length, lens speed and the ability to disappear into the woodwork. I'd love to be proven wrong, but when it comes to street photography (at least as I am using the term, which goes beyond events such as parades and demonstrations and political campaigns where cameras are not just expected, but encouraged, and where light is usually ample), it seems to me that a 4x5 camera imposes a lot of restrictions. Fine, of course, if one uses a 4x5 in circumstances where the limitations are acceptable.

If one goes to an exhibit of "street photography", such as the current Cartier-Bresson exhibit at the International Center of Photography, and asks the question for each photograph "Could this have been done with a 4x5 camera?", the answers, for me at least, are not encouraging.

[jnantz]

hi r.e. --

i shot that with a speed graphic and a barrel lens at around something like 1/30
(it was using the camera's focal plane shutter so who knows ?)
... it was taken an early spring morning in 1997 ... overcast, windy and rainy,
the lights stayed on late in the mornings when it wasn't bright enough for the
sensors and they didn't realize it was daytime ...

i didn't push development ... i probably used xtol developer 1:2, and processed
as recommend for tmy400 ...

john



jnanian,

The second photograph (Surman's) appears to have been taken at night. If that is correct, how did you freeze the motion to the degree that you appear to have done? It looks like a shutter speed of 1/30 second or thereabouts, which even with a fairly fast lens suggests a very large push in development.

I went to the Jeff Wall show at MOMA last week, and found it interesting to look at some of his images from the perspective of street photography, such as his "in front of a nightclub" (2006): http://time-blog.com/looking_around/2007/03/photobloggers_like_the_indispe.html Of course, that picture is not a street photograph, but a construction. Indeed, I doubt that it is technically feasible to make an image like that on the street (low light, frozen motion, lots of depth of field, not to mention the intricacy of the composition). Love him or hate him, Wall's work is remarkable - reproductions on the internet and in books do not come close to capturing the actual images.

Speaking of Wall, most of the photographs at MoMA are very large scale backlit transparencies. How is it done while maintaining resolution at acceptable levels? I know that "in front of a nightclub" is a composite of many photographs, but what about the rest?

[r.e.]

Thanks, now I get it. I wondered why the lights weren't blown out.

[r.e.]

There are some fun upsides to doing street photography with larger formats. Last weekend, I was out with a Mamiya 7 and 150mm lens (purchased from Ken Lee actually) when I was approached by four teenage boys, aged 15 or 16. One of them did the talking:

He: Sir, we were wondering if you could settle a bet for us. What kind of camera is that?

Me: it's a Mamiya rangefinder.

He: I mean, is it 35mm or what?

Me: Ahh, it's a medium format camera.

He: Thanks.

And then he said to his friends, as they were walking away, in that triumphant inflection peculiar to teenage boys:

Told ya so.

[Gordon Moat]

A few things to consider. I believe it might have been an interview with Joel Meyerwitz about him using a large format camera for some of his New York City street images. Whether him, or someone else equally famous, one thing that stood out is that people largely ignored him and what he was doing. It reminds me a bit of how some people complain about strangers always getting in front of your camera while you are trying to take a photo. Turn that around and use it to your advantage, then you can get people and street life shots off your tripod mounted 4x5.

Note on the backlit large images, you can get DuraTrans or similar prints made at some pro labs. These are often used in the food service industry for signage. I think there is a display life for these before the backlighting creates noticeable fading, though that is something you can ask about. There are a few other names for similar types of prints.

One thing I have considered is the bean bag approach. Basically take one of those photo beanbag things, and use that as a steady rest for a 4x5; this would avoid needing a tripod. Anyone try something like this?

Some well known images termed street photography were set-up shots. Viewers of your images do not need to know whether you happened upon a scene, or created a scene. As long as the result looks spontaneous, it could be convincing. I have always made people aware I was taking photos. Anyone who scowled at me was not photographed; when you are obvious, it can be easier to get shots you might want. Sometimes old looking or vintage gear attracts a different sort of attention, and people might want to be photographed by you . . . this seems almost like performance art.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Mark Sawyer]

A few things to consider. I believe it might have been an interview with Joel Meyerwitz about him using a large format camera for some of his New York City street images. Whether him, or someone else equally famous, one thing that stood out is that people largely ignored him and what he was doing...

What? Commuters ignoring a famous photographer working with a large format camera in their midst?

Why, that's almost as bad as commuters ignoring a famous violinist performing on an heirloom instrument in their midst!

But that could never happen...

[r.e.]

Whether him, or someone else equally famous, one thing that stood out is that people largely ignored him and what he was doing.

Some well known images termed street photography were set-up shots.A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

Yes, if one is using a large format camera on a busy street corner or intersection in a major city, people will ultimately ignore what one is doing. That may be urban landscape photography, with a few people around in the background, but is it really street photography?

Surely it is obvious that photographs that have been set up are not street photographs. To take an obvious example, discussed above, nobody in his right mind would describe Jeff Wall's "in front of a nightclub" as a street photograph.

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 let us know what happened next, especially if you persisted after the first two or three photographs. I'll tell you one thing, from experience with a Leica and a Mamiya Rangefinder, you run a very high risk of being told to stop using your camera and/or to leave. The subject may not know that he or she is being photographed, but a whole lot of other people see what you are doing, and they are quite liable to both notice and complain. Lesson: take five photographs, and you are going to have a problem; so have a lot of patience, and wait for the one right photograph.

Doing this kind of photography is complicated, ethically and practically, and the problems are, or should be, obvious to anyone who has done it for about a week. Which makes me wonder why everybody in this thread seems to think that it is a walk in the park. Because it isn't, which becomes apparent the first time that somebody goes up one side of you and down the other for what you are doing, especially if they start talking about seizing your camera and/or your film. And yes, that happens to anyone who is doing street photography, and as far as I can figure out, it happens regularly. One of the first things that you learn is how to handle things when you get challenged.

Here's a suggestion for someone who wants to try this. It comes from personal experience, a few days ago. Forget the 4x5 press camera. Go into a gay bar with a Leica and a fast lens and some Iflord 3200 and start taking pictures of people. When you are finished, assuming that you last more than a few minutes without being thrown out, I'd love to hear how it went, including from a straight technical perspective. If your conclusion is that you can do the same thing with a 4x5 press camera, believe me, I'd love to hear about it.

And of course the big questions are, what are the ethics of doing this, and does it in fact have an artistic justification.

[Gordon Moat]

I have done nightclub photography. I would never try to sneak photos, which is what I thnk you might be describing. I find it very easy to let people know what you are doing, and avoid problems. Anyone trying to sneak photos quite likely could piss off someone. Does it have to be sneaky to call it street photography? If that is true, then I have no interest in being sneaky; though hopefully that is false.

There are technical issues working with a 4x5 in a nightclub, pub, or bar. I have only done low light and available light with 35mm in such places. Blasting a flash looses some of the effect of the location, though I suppose one could run around like Weegee and do that. E200 pushed 4 2/3 stops was my main choice in the past, though Kodak do not make that in 4x5.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[jnantz]

when i was in college, i spent a year going to places and photographing the night life
... mostly off duty cabbies, drunks, off duty cops and "staff".
never was sneeky, and i used a 35mm, med format and small flash off camera ..

i do the same thing now, with a 4x5 and 5x7,
but not at night, during the day, i just arrive with a camera and ask
... it doesn't pay to be sneeky -- you just get people "not happy"

it is all good practice for working at a newspaper ..
although when i worked for one, i was always told to shoot first, ask later ... something
that nearly got me arrested.

john

[r.e.]

It seems to me to be fairly obvious that many of the great street photographs were taken without the knowedge, let alone permission, of the subject - to take a pretty obvious example, an awful lot of Cartier-Bresson's work. If you want to describe him as sneaky, go ahead. It may be true, in fact as far as I know, it is true, but it is also beside the point.

The idea that one should get permission in advance is based on the premise, entirely erroneous in my admittedly limited experience, that photographic opportunities arise after someone gives consent to be photographed. It just doesn't work that way. The only real issue is, am I going to ask someone on the street, after I have taken his or her photograph, whether he or she wants a print :). Well, there is another issue, which is what I'm going to say to talk my way, if necessary, out of a confrontation.

The situation in pubs, nightclubs and bars is different in that it is private property. In theory, this means that one needs the permission of the owner or manager, and of course his or her willingness to give permission depends in large part on how he or she thinks that the clientele will react. These days, at least where I live, it is a fair bet that some clients won't like it at all. Which of course feeds back to whether one can get permission from the manager. At the end of the day, entering into a negotiation with the establishment is perhaps not the best idea.

Yes, it can make things easier to ask first. But in street photography (as distinct from embedded photography, to use the term that emerged from Iraq and that is perhaps not a bad way of describing the real world of newspaper photojournalism on the night beat), the reality is indeed shoot first, ask later. And maybe, shoot first, don't ask at all. Like it or not, that does seem to be the credo underlying street photography.

What one is really raising, when one uses words like "sneaky", is the question of the ethics of it. That is a different thing than suggesting that the norm for street photographers is to go around asking their subjects, in advance, whether they can be photographed. That is just not how it works. To be honest, I am surprised that on this site people seem to be questioning whether this is how street photography is done.

[Gordon Moat]

If you want to take many images at a place, it an be a good idea to let the owner or manager know that in advance. When you raise a camera to eye level, it should be obvious where it is pointed. See someone through the viewfinder that seems to not want their photo taken, I think it might be good judgement to not take the photo, wait until they are out of the frame. This is very different than walking up to every individual in such a location, and asking everyone if they mind being photographed; that simply is not practical in busy places.

When you are approached and asked what you are photographing, it helps to be honest, whether or not it might be part of a job as a photojournalist. I have found that being conspicuous and obvious tends to get many people ignoring you, which means you can get spontaneous images of people.

Out in public, a different situation. Sometimes just acting like a tourist gets you ignored . . . sure people know you are taking photos, but they largely don't care. That also produces spontaneous images.

Ethics or morals are for each individual to decide. If you consider the only way to get spontaneous or candid images is to hide your camera, or avoid contact or notice, then I suppose that would be a different standard, or set of morals/ehtics than what I practice; this is the choice of some people. It might be simpler to just use a lens focal length long enough that your subjects do not know you are there; are there ethical issues of that?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[r.e.]

If you want to take many images at a place, it an be a good idea to let the owner or manager know that in advance.

Unless you are there to shoot a band, that is tantamount to being told no.

When you raise a camera to eye level, it should be obvious where it is pointed.

That is why God invented barrel marks, 35mm cameras and 24-50mm lenses.

See someone through the viewfinder that seems to not want their photo taken, I think it might be good judgement to not take the photo, wait until they are out of the frame.

If you are doing it right, whether zone focused or viewfinder focused, they don't even know that they are being photographed.

This is very different than walking up to every individual in such a location, and asking everyone if they mind being photographed; that simply is not practical in busy places.

It isn't a matter of practicality, it is a matter of what one wants to achieve as a photographer.

When you are approached and asked what you are photographing, it helps to be honest, whether or not it might be part of a job as a photojournalist.

Yes. As a practical matter, leaving aside the ethics, the easiest way out is to tell the truth and be charming.

I have found that being conspicuous and obvious tends to get many people ignoring you, which means you can get spontaneous images of people.

Yes, at a wedding or a sports event or a demonstration or on a busy street. Not otherwise.

Out in public, a different situation. Sometimes just acting like a tourist gets you ignored . . . sure people know you are taking photos, but they largely don't care. That also produces spontaneous images.

More or less. Pulling this off successfully takes a bit of practice.

Ethics or morals are for each individual to decide. If you consider the only way to get spontaneous or candid images is to hide your camera, or avoid contact or notice, then I suppose that would be a different standard, or set of morals/ehtics than what I practice; this is the choice of some people.

I think that we are talking about a gradation. Also, there is the tricky question about whether this raises a question of morals/ethics. If it does, there is a disconnect between the moral standard and the legal standard, because the latter, in all common law jurisdictions, is that one has a right, when one is in a public place, to photograph anyone or any thing. That does not mean, of course, that it is always right or wise to insist on one's legal rights.

It might be simpler to just use a lens focal length long enough that your subjects do not know you are there; are there ethical issues of that?

There are people who are starting to use digital cameras with big zoom lenses and autofocus to do street photography.

Maybe they understand that street photography and nature photography are the same thing, and that photographing people can be like photographing an unpredictable elephant :)?

Personally, I'm coming to the view that the critical thing in street photography is to find the camera and focal length that works right for your hands and your eyes. This in turn has an impact on what format one uses. In 35mm, the standard is 35-50mm, which greatly simplifies the issue of depth of field. However, in 35mm I am finding that I like 90mm. This forces less reliance on zone focusing. It also means that I'm going through a process of determining what I am more comfortable with, a Leica M3 with a 90mm or a Mamiya 7 with a 150mm. There are pros and cons to both. At the moment, I feel most comfortable with the M3 at 90mm and the Mamiya at 80mm. It is a real learning experience. Especially with the M3 in the mix, which does not have a meter. It kind of pushes one to get comfortable with estimating exposure.

Well, of course there is a more critical thing, which is to develop a vision of what one wants to accomplish. That is harder.

One hundred and eighty degrees removed from digital cameras with big zoom lenses are all those cell phones that take pictures and tiny point and shoot digital cameras, which don't get noticed by anybody.

[Gordon Moat]

I guess r.e. has found a method that works for him. What I found that works for me is being conspicuous. I have also done a great deal of band photography (paid professional work) at many different venues. In those situations, the organizers/managers/owners always knew why I was there. I never had any problems getting images that looked spontaneous/candid, or in which the viewer looks unaware of my presense. I think that unawareness is what works for some images. I never have felt uncomfortable doing this.

If you want to photograph a band for your personal usage, and either the band or the venue did not hire you, nor give permission, then that is a different matter. Maybe someone who is a big fan of a particular band really wants some photos, and figures they will be denied permission. In such a situation, it would be a judgement call whether it would be right/ethical/moral to take the shots. My opinion is that is sneaky, but I understand others might not agree with that.

I would hate to suggest my approach to spontaneous images is the only approach, nor even the best approach. Many people might be more comfortable with the way r.e. does things. When someone finds out that being conspicuous does not work, then perhaps being hidden from your subjects might work.

In 35mm, I was using a 28mm, 35mm, and fast 50mm for most of my nightclub shots (some of which are on my website). When I am doing band photos, I use anywhere from 20mm up to 105mm, and rarely anything longer; most used are a 50mm and 85mm. With medium format, I tend towards an 80mm on 6x4.5 or a 105mm on 6x9. My working distances are often arms length with wider lenses, meaning that I am very likely to be noticed by the subject . . . timing helps here, but it has developed from practice . . . again, this is only my approach, and not a suggestion.

Using large format in public has meant a slightly wide 135mm on 4x5. People definitely notice, but when you are in one spot for a while many people simply ignore you. So I don't end up with smiling people in the middle of my images; everything looks as a viewer might expect it had they stood in the same spot.

[jnantz]

I guess r.e. has found a method that works for him. What I found that works for me is being conspicuous. I have also done a great deal of band photography (paid professional work) at many different venues. In those situations, the organizers/managers/owners always knew why I was there. I never had any problems getting images that looked spontaneous/candid, or in which the viewer looks unaware of my presense. I think that unawareness is what works for some images. I never have felt uncomfortable doing this.


i have found the same system worked/s for me as well.
it was especially helpful when a dive-owner took me aside
and suggested that i don't come back for a while because
"people were talking about me" and he wasn't sure
what they were going to do ... or other times i ran into trouble,
and again someone on staff ran interference for me ...

cops and security can be helpful in the same way ...

--john

[r.e.]

Gordon, jnanian,

I enjoyed reading your comments. For me, a very interesting discussion.

Cheers.

[tim atherton]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDYkgMk0Cws

[cyrus]

Polaroid 4x5 conversion coupled with a few grafmatics = best LF street photography. No tripod.

[Stephan.in.Belgium]

I've started doing some LF street photography, I'd like to do a series of portraits but I need a sturdy tripod of my own, for now I borrow one from a friend.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/205/507827455_e2a6673889_o.jpg

[cyrus]

Street photography with LF = my polaroid conversion job, or a press camera. Can be done, has been done. People react quite differently than to a 35mm camera.

[Stephan.in.Belgium]

Another quick portrait with my wista 45, not really street photography but not posed either...

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/211/514017882_9459bc288e_o.jpg

[cobalt]

I do street photography with a 5x7 Graflex RB from time to time.

[cobalt]

It is addictive...be careful.

[Randy H]

Can someone tell me the diff 'tween "street photography" and shooting "street people"? If the shot you are looking for is just the normal daily pic of the street, (buildings, activity, etc) it would seem the consent, or "permission", if you will, of the persons being photo'd would not be an issue. But, and if, it is the street people you are photo'ing, would you not want their consent? Especially if it is to be published, either in gallery or publication? I had a co-student that was an exceptional street-photog'er. His shots were "people" in "their" environment. Damn good pics. Unposed. Most just didn't give a damn. Cost him a couple cigarettes. However, he learned after having the hell beat out of him a couple times, that it was easier to ask first. The streeter usually does not ask first if he can beat the hell out of you and smash your equip for taking his pic. Moral/ethical issue is degradation of human character. There are a lot of the streeters that feel you are demoralizing them by taking pics of them in that light. My daughter did her photo-essay for school on streeters and mega-churches. (Are we "really" helping the homeless situation, or merely putting a band-aid on it to soothe our own conscience?) We got a lot of "Yeah, I guess so" and a lot of "you do and you die" responses. We actually had one group that ask us if we would take their pic for them. Sitting on a park bench, sharing a 50 cent quart of mouthwash from the dollar store. Got several good pics that day. Only cost dad 4 packs of cigarettes.
As for shooting in night-clubs, ya never know who might be in there with their wive's best friend, and don;t want momma to find out...:rolleyes:

[cyrus]

Can someone tell me the diff 'tween "street photography" and shooting "street people"? If the shot you are looking for is just the normal daily pic of the street, (buildings, activity, etc) it would seem the consent, or "permission",

In my mind, street photography isn't limited to photography of street people - though they are tempting subjects for street photographers - but includes anything that goes on in the average city street. To me, street photography isn't really about a subject but more about a technique: fast, close, candid photography of public places.

In the US, as a general matter a photog will need a signed release if she's going to use a recognizable image of anyone for commercial purposes - a publisher will insist on it.
(In some jurisdictions, the line between what is a "commercial purpose" and what is "art" or "news" is not always quite clear.)

But other than that, you're perfectly free to photograph people in public places where there is no recognized expectation of privacy.

If a photog choose to ask for permission beforehand, that's her choice but it isn't required. It is a "nice" thing to do and may result in some nice posed images (I have often been asked by people to photograph them!) but the photographer has to ask herself this: as a street photographer, is your job to show the world as it is, or to be nice? What takes priority?

I have a bit of indirect experience with photojournalists who work in very tough places - and they don't ask for permission but then again many put their own lives on the line for the shot - so I guess it depends on how dedicated you are to your craft too. Many will accuse you of exploiting the homeless, just as many accuse photojournalists of exploiting the suffering of people in war zones etc. On the other hand, the photojournalist will say that she's performing a necessary job of showing the world what's going on in the world. You'll have to struggle with the moral issues yourself but I suggest taking a look at this famous photo by Kevin Carter and imagine his moral issues: http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/odds_and_oddities/ultimate_in_unfair.htm.

[Larry Kalajainen]

This test shot made me think that street photography with a view camera might be interesting. It's such an odd sight, the wooden camera, that no one pays attention.

Depends what you mean by street photography. If you mean candids of people and life on the street, I suspect not many are using 4X5's to do that anymore. Not when you can get such great results from Mamiya or Fuji rangefinders in 645 or 6X7. (My favorite street camera in Paris was a Fuji GS645 with the fixed 60mm lens.)

If you mean, using a view camera in the city to do "art" shots, then, of course. But when I went out on the streets in Paris with my Wista, I was after something different than the candid "slice of life" shot I went after with my GS645.

Larry

[Tim Hyde]

This thread proves one thing: it's very hard to pin down the definition of "street photography," and that chasing such a definition is probably pointless. Some say that it must be done with a short lens--35mm or wider--so you are in the middle of the action. Others insist that real street photography cannot be clandestine--that would even be unethical for some (and now apparently illegal in France). Some rule Evans and Davidson in, others rule them out. One of the "Groups" I follow on Yahoo is called "Street Photography" and such arguments become almost religious. I sometimes think that street photographers are more petulant and fractious than LF photographers, but then I come back to this forum and realize they are mere children in that department.

[scrichton]

I must admit I am very wary of the French law, my parent have just retired to the south east and my taking pictures always feels like someone may take very badly to it. Thankfully though they are generally accomodating in the villages. More probably to do with the "Scots" being there. ( my parents were in the local press as they were the first Scottish people to ever live in that district, I saw the article and almost wet myself)

[scrichton]

I forgot to add ... with laughter

[eddie]

interesting thread. travel photography is my passion. i shoot all kinds of styles, but i love travel photography. with that said i do not really enjoy shooting in the US cause i do not find it all too interesting. although i do shoot at various venues and festivals. (one of my favs is the renassiance festival in NY. this may not be steet photog for sure.).

i fuind myself shooting street photography in various countries. started using 35mm and now shoot alot of medium format rb67. i was just talking myself into bringing my 4x5 next time out! it is very obvious i am there becuase i am a foriegner. but i find if i hang out long enough everyone forgets i am there. i just find a good spot to sit and bang away.

i am currently in myanmar (burma). i was doing exactly what i just descibed here in yangon and now i am a bit of a celebrity! (oh! i have also given many photos to the people) THE local people are giving me the heads up when they see the type of photos i am looking for. (i am trying to shoot people who are carrying there wares on their heads). they also help attract people's attention so they look the way i want. i have a great unstaged shot of a girl selling mangos that she is carrying on her head that i used my RB for. now after 3-4 days of that i am basically shooting portraits! not really street photog, but i am getting some of the best travel ports of my life!

is it all "street photography" as defined? i do not know. but i am on the street shooting people engaged in all kinds of daily life activities (i even got a few thai cops doing traffic control....read setting up to accept bribes!). if the people act like they do not want to be photographed them i do not do it.

next year i will try it with my crown graphics!

eddie

[cyrus]

Wow carrying an Rb around must be heavy

[JPlomley]

I'm interested in trying a Fotoman for some street work (when I have some spare coin around) but am currently using the Mamiya 7 with 65/80/150 lenses. The 65mm is my most frequently used lens. The 150 mm is a bit tough to focus since the VF mag is approx 0.56x. Overall, the Mamiya 7 is very light system, robust, and with outstanding optics-crisp right to the edges. Absolutely the best camera I have ever used for street work, and I've tried many.

[Lightbender]

Focussing using a kalart rangefinder is not very fun compared to the varied methods of most medium format cameras. The window is downright tiny. Also the focusing method of press cameras is akward. So handheld, LF is in many ways inferior to MF. The one exception would probably be the polaroid variations.

That said, I have used my century graphic quite a bit handheld and found it quite enjoyable. I have a top-rangefinder 4x5 crown graphic but i really havent used it.

[scrichton]

The one exception would probably be the polaroid variations.

With the current NPC and some P/N pack film. An ideal street camera. Near silent and stupidly fast to use. Or I suppose a polaroid 600 with a 5x4 back from NPC does the same deal.

[blakley]

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 let us know what happened next, especially if you persisted after the first two or three photographs. I'll tell you one thing, from experience with a Leica and a Mamiya Rangefinder, you run a very high risk of being told to stop using your camera and/or to leave. The subject may not know that he or she is being photographed, but a whole lot of other people see what you are doing, and they are quite liable to both notice and complain. Lesson: take five photographs, and you are going to have a problem; so have a lot of patience, and wait for the one right photograph.

Doing this kind of photography is complicated, ethically and practically, and the problems are, or should be, obvious to anyone who has done it for about a week. Which makes me wonder why everybody in this thread seems to think that it is a walk in the park. Because it isn't, which becomes apparent the first time that somebody goes up one side of you and down the other for what you are doing, especially if they start talking about seizing your camera and/or your film. And yes, that happens to anyone who is doing street photography, and as far as I can figure out, it happens regularly. One of the first things that you learn is how to handle things when you get challenged.

I do this all the time, with Leicas, Mamiya 6 Rangefinders, Mamiya RZ67 on a tripod, and 4x5 on a tripod.

I've never been asked to leave, and I've almost never been asked to stop. I've been asked what I'm doing, and when I'm asked, I explain that I'm taking pictures for my own use, and that I'm happy to avoid photographing anyone who's sensitive about it and I'm also happy to provide a free print of photos I consider good to the subject of the photo.

I've certainly never had anyone even hint at taking away a camera or film.

When I photograph in bars, I make it a point to find a place I consider interesting, bring a small camera to start with (usually a Leica with just one lens, never a flash, and never a camera bag), and sit down at the bar near the wait station, have a drink or two, and get to know the bartender, the waitstaff, and the managers (if they're there). Then, when everything feels nice & comfortable, I take a few pictures of them (not the customers). Maybe half a roll, maybe a bit less, depending on the mood.

Then I do the magic: I go away, process the film, and make 8x10 prints of only the best photos. I then go BACK to the same place, and give the prints to the subjects. I have never had anyone be anything except thrilled about this. A lot of subjects give the photos to their mothers to frame.

On the second and subsequent trips, I take more photos of the staff, and give them more prints. I also get to know them pretty well. After a while, everyone in the place, including the regular customers, comes to think of me as "the guy who takes pictures in here". Whenever I'm asked to take a picture of someone, or of an event, or to take pictures for the establishment, I do it. I don't charge, even for the prints.

After a fairly short time, if someone asks the staff about me, they tell customers that everything is fine, and that I take great pictures and they should definitely let me photograph them if they're comfortable.

Oh, by the way, if anyone asks me to stop photographing them (it happens very rarely), I stop and apologize for bothering them. And I never, ever publish a photo of someone on the Internet or anywhere else without the subject's explicit permission.

The secret, of course, is that by investing a little time I ensure that I'm not photographing strangers. I'm photographing friends, or friends of friends, and in that context a photograph is non-threatening. Makes the visits to the bar more rewarding, too.

For the record, I consider this "environmental portraiture" rather than "street".

[r.e.]

For the record, I consider this "environmental portraiture" rather than "street".

Maybe because it isn't street?

I ensure that I'm not photographing strangers.

That's a great strategy if you are not doing street photography. In fact, it is the strategy followed for roughly 100 per cent of photography of people outside journalism and street.

I do this all the time

Well actually, what you are saying is that you do it none of the time.

I understand what you are saying, and I respect it, but I am talking about apples and you are talking about oranges.

I don't understand why the idea is complicated. It should be pretty understandable by anyone who has seen Cartier-Bresson's work, such as his photograph during the interrogation of a collaborator (which is most definitely not an "environmental portrait'), or any of James Natchway's work, or Robert Frank's work or the work of the members of the Bang Bang Club.

Honestly, what isn't clear about this?

[blakley]

I understand what you are saying, and I respect it, but I am talking about apples and you are talking about oranges.


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.

[r.e.]

My definition of "street" does not require the subject to be unhappy

Nor does mine. You are entitled to your opinion, but kindly do not misrepresent what I wrote. If I recall, I am the guy who talked earlier in this thread (or perhaps in a related thread) about how Bruce Davidson held meetings with the community before he did his Harlem series.

[blakley]

My definition of "street" does not require the subject to be unhappy

Nor does mine. You are entitled to your opinion, but kindly do not misrepresent mine.

I attributed nothing whatsoever to you; I was quite explicit that I was talking about my own definition.

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.

[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.