So confused by street

davespics

Hi,

I live in NYC and should do much better with street than I do....The two examples below are not from NYC but illustrate my question well.

The guitar player knew I was taking the picture, and the bible sellers might not have. I say might not have because I did not try to hide myself....I just quickly took the picture because it looked interesting....is this street? Is street really when your subject knows you are shooting?

1pocket

I'd say street photography encompasses the whole gamut. There are various schools of thought within the field, though. Traditionalists go for the anonymous hit-and-run approach (with nothing more tele than a normal lens!) and of course mainly B&W, like Cartier -Bresson and Gary Winogrand. But the field also has grown to include all kinds of variations, some of which are even pretty contrived, like Jeff Wall's elaborate stagings, and Nicki Lee's cultural infiltrations...

I find I get more and more comfortable the more I shoot in the street. If I haven't done it for a while, then I am very intimidated. But once I get started, it gets easier. I guess I am not a purist, because sometimes I engage, although often I do not. It is amazing how close you can get anonymously!

I'm more troubled by the guitar player's feet being cut off than by knowing that he might have been playing to the camera
Funny, I like the sliced-in-half pedestrian on the far right of the guitar shot, because it says something about the street!

Carry on!!

Matt336

While these are good and I applaud you for doing street photography, I think these would be benefitted by less DOF. The backgrounds are distracting to me.

tonichelle

Matt336 wrote:

While these are good and I applaud you for doing street photography, I think these would be benefitted by less DOF. The backgrounds are distracting to me.

I agree... a different angle on the first might help too, but I'm not sure

I'm not a street photog, but am fascinated by it. I just don't have the guts to try it (I have no problem photographing vendors wares but not the vendors or their guests... go figure )

Richard

davespics wrote:

.is this street? Is street really when your subject knows you are shooting?

It doesn't matter what you call it. You end up with an image. That image may or may not be interesting, engaging or pleasing to the viewer. How you create or capture the image might be interesting or instructive to someone who wants to do something similar, but IMO, it is completely irrelevant to the average viewer. If the subject knows you are shooting, this will affect his behavior. That might or might not matter depending on what you are shooting. Street performers are generally accustomed to having their pictures taken, so I wouldn't expect much of a change in their pose or expression.

davespics

Great input everybody, thanks. My confusion is more about taking shots of people who don't know they are being photographed and then posting it on a website. My favorite street shot is below and these women in their fur coats did not know I was shooting them...does anybody on this forum have a problem with this?

1pocket

There is a simple "photographer's legal rights" pdf available here. I'm sure no lawyer, but my general impression is that as long as you are in a public place (like sidewalk or street), or your subject is, then they are fair game (unless there would be a presumption of privacy like a public bathroom for example, or shooting from a sidewalk into someone's private quarters through their window). You can photograph people without their permission in the typical public spaces, and even sell those photos as art, but you cannot use someone's image to advertise without their permission.

The above is not legal advice

Trevlan

1pocket wrote:

There is a simple "photographer's legal rights" pdf available here. I'm sure no lawyer, but my general impression is that as long as you are in a public place (like sidewalk or street), or your subject is, then they are fair game (unless there would be a presumption of privacy like a public bathroom for example, or shooting from a sidewalk into someone's private quarters through their window). You can photograph people without their permission in the typical public spaces, and even sell those photos as art, but you cannot use someone's image to advertise without their permission.

The above is not legal advice

I agree with one pocket. If they are in a public place, they should not complain about being photographed. If they don't like it, they can stay home.

When I first started photography, I was doing assignments here on the Dgrin forum. My moment of clarity came when I was doing the 'Street light' assignment. Nikolai liked the picture and composition but he wanted to see some context of what the street light illuminated. While I was taking the shot, people were complaining and giving me dirty looks, asking me why am I taking photographs of them.

Right in the area where I was shooting were about a dozen cameras (52 and 5th. NYC.) I wish I would have noticed them and point those out to the people complaining about being photographed. They are being photographed regardless.

So I stick with the, "You're in my shot, now I have to reshoot" excuse. But it's critical to get them when they don't know you are shooting. Those are the best pictures.

Blaker

Trevlan wrote:

But it's critical to get them when they don't know you are shooting. Those are the best pictures.

There's a lot more to successful street photography than just grabbing a shot of a subject who doesn't know he's a subject!
The photo still has to have some kind of impact- an expression on the subject's face which exposes their state of mind at that moment, some kind of interesting action going on, or a great composition.
Personally, I don't find any of the above photos have any of these things going for them.

The picture of the bible sellers: there is a lot of clutter in the photo- the pile of books, the pile of boxes,the blue tarp on the chair the writing on the window behind them. There is no interaction between the two men, they are each just gazing off in different directions. The men's faces are kind of generic, you are not in close enough to see their eyes, or to catch their "essence".

Same things go for the guitar player- very generic, very cluttered and uninteresting background, no expression of joy or angst or any indication that the guitar player is moved by the music he is playing.

The women with the furs- again, too far away to see their expressions- perhaps if they were facing you and holding up the garments with a look of real excitement. The women are kind of lost in the rest of the photo. You can't even tell what they are doing. Also, in all of these photos, it looks like they were taken in the middle of the day, so you don't even have any kind of cool lighting working for you.

So , essentially, because of the above components, these photos have no impact, nothing to say to the viewer, nothing that pulls you in and makes you explore the photo or want to know more about the subjects.

Keep these things in mind the next time you go out, and come back and post those! Good luck!

davespics

Blaker wrote:

So , essentially, because of the above components, these photos have no impact, nothing to say to the viewer, nothing that pulls you in and makes you explore the photo or want to know more about the subjects.

Keep these things in mind the next time you go out, and come back and post those! Good luck!

Ouch...but thanks for your honesty....Some people lost sight of this thread. I was wondering if people are successful in Street when their subject does not know they are being shot. The first two pictures I posted were not meant to show good street, but in one the subject knows and in the other they don't.

I also think the women in fur is a little funny even if you can't see their faces....So it wasn't about the pictures themselves but rather if "Subject Not Knowing" vs. "Subject Knowing" is something people consider.

Blaker

davespics wrote:

Ouch...but thanks for your honesty....Some people lost sight of this thread. I was wondering if people are successful in Street when their subject does not know they are being shot. The first two pictures I posted were not meant to show good street, but in one the subject knows and in the other they don't.

I also think the women in fur is a little funny even if you can't see their faces....So it wasn't about the pictures themselves but rather if "Subject Not Knowing" vs. "Subject Knowing" is something people consider.

I think bottom line is that it doesn't matter if the person is aware of being photographed or not, as long as you've got some kind of emotion, tension, or interesting action going on, something that draws you into a moment in time of someone else's life.

Check out this recent thread about street photography.

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=107244&highlight=street+photography

I think the photos here really work well because there is emotion, there is a tension in the photos that really holds you.
In the first one, look at the expression on the girls face, the way she's biting her lip, and then the guy in the background who has turned his head to look back at her ( or at the couple in the middle). There is a tension there that makes me wonder what is going on inside these people's heads- the photographer really caught a moment.
Same thing for the playground shot- there is a tension between the intimate couple and the innocent little kids. It makes me very curious about the relationships between the subjects. This is a great example of well done street photography.