Street Photography advise needed

G

GlennBlackPhotos

Suspended / Banned
Messages
65
Name
Glenn
Edit My Images
No
Hi everyone I need some tips on street photography.
I am using a fuji x100 but I am finding around 40% of the time when I raise the camera to a subject walking towards me they spot the camera even if I compose at below chest height so they do a b line out the way and I loose the shot.
The rest of the time I am ok its just with on coming shots.
I am starting to think a need something with a slightly longer lens so what would be an upgrade from my x100?
Any thoughts on the subject and technique please?
 
Street photography with a long lens is sort of missing the point. If some people run away from being photographed then so be it and if in 60% of cases you are getting the shot that sounds good.

Other than that you can shoot from the hip and carry camera by side of you so people don't even know you are taking shots. This is easy with practice but the shots alway have the same look as the camera angle gives it away.
 
Hi Glen, welcome to TP *waves*.

Don't get hung up on the 'correct' way to do street or any other style of photography. The only important thing is if it works. Try a few different methods, find the one that you like, and that works for you. Don't expect stunning results right away. It takes time and there are no short cuts. Practice is all.



ernesto said:
Street photography with a long lens is sort of missing the point.
Click to expand...

And the point is... :shrug:

ernesto said:
Other than that you can shoot from the hip and carry camera by side of you so people don't even know you are taking shots. This is easy with practice but the shots alway have the same look as the camera angle gives it away.
Click to expand...

Um, won't shots from eye-level 'always have the same look and be given away (what is being given away??) by the camera angle'?
 
The point is that you are in the street taking photographs, not on the second floor of a building with a 400mm lens.

And yes eye level shots will have an eye level look to them which is the usual view you expect to see. From the hip they tend to be looking up peoples noses and give away that they are taken by guess work as much as actually composing the shot.
 
What if the shot you need looks best if taken from the second floor of a building with a 400mm lens?

What do you think is being 'given away' by shooting from a low angle? Is it not possible to get a good shot from the hip, or by crouching down a bit?
 
I guess it depends on whether you want to do 'street' or 'candids' (i.e. shots of people in the street).
Street is often (but not always) rushed, angular and/or untidy-looking, whereas 'candids' are generally more well composed, interesting, funny etc.
I tend to do the candid type of shot and as such use a variety of lenses, often my 24-120 f4 but I have used a 70-200 f2.8 with good effect.
If you suddenly stick a camera in someone's face you are likely to get a negative response (surprise/concern/anger) whereas taking a photo that the subject happens to walk through will often have them apologising :)
Whatever, do what you enjoy rather than trying to emulate some of the angular, blown, oddities that you see (unless you actually enjoy that!).
 
Many thanks for the replies guys.
I guess what I am saying is I want to get away with on coming shots so I am thinking maybe a slightly longer lens will give me those few more seconds to get the shot.
I do get the shots from the hip pretending to play with the camera kind of vibe if that makes sense.
I tend to prefer shooting with the camera held length ways rather than horizontal.
thanks.
 
An argument and abuse and he's only got 3 posts - what a welcome! :shake:
Ignore it Glenn and do what you feel comfortable with.
 
ernesto said:
The point is that you are in the street taking photographs, not on the second floor of a building with a 400mm lens.

And yes eye level shots will have an eye level look to them which is the usual view you expect to see. From the hip they tend to be looking up peoples noses and give away that they are taken by guess work as much as actually composing the shot.
Click to expand...

To be fair theres a lot of ground between 35mm and 400mm, the difference between 35mm and 50mm can be quite significant in how close you need to get to a subject.
 
jon ryan said:
What if the shot you need looks best if taken from the second floor of a building with a 400mm lens?

What do you think is being 'given away' by shooting from a low angle? Is it not possible to get a good shot from the hip, or by crouching down a bit?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't know, the longest lens I have is a 50. By the time I have got up to the second floor the shot opportunity would have long gone!

I have already explained what I meant by 'given away' so press the up button a bit
 
Last edited:
GlennBlackPhotos said:
The thing is I couldn't be anymore brave I am walking straight at them but they see the camera and boom b line!
Click to expand...

It does seem to be a natural reaction to think "who does that bloke think he is taking my picture".

Have you thought about a 400mm lens and camping out in an office block :)
 
gramps said:
I guess it depends on whether you want to do 'street' or 'candids' (i.e. shots of people in the street).
Street is often (but not always) rushed, angular and/or untidy-looking, whereas 'candids' are generally more well composed, interesting, funny etc.
I tend to do the candid type of shot and as such use a variety of lenses, often my 24-120 f4 but I have used a 70-200 f2.8 with good effect.
If you suddenly stick a camera in someone's face you are likely to get a negative response (surprise/concern/anger) whereas taking a photo that the subject happens to walk through will often have them apologising :)
Whatever, do what you enjoy rather than trying to emulate some of the angular, blown, oddities that you see (unless you actually enjoy that!).
Click to expand...

Not often I disagree with you gramps, but I enjoy street photography, never sneaky shoots from the hip and often have a blether and a laugh with my targets. Very rarely had any negative outcomes or conflict (a few scowls for sure) but more smiles :thumbs:
 
Another way is to have your camera up to your eye,you can stay in one spot and hope the shot come to you or you can move around with your camera,a lot of the time you will get your shot before your notice.

Also this way after a while you blend in,people begin to take no notice of you,you just become part of what happening in the street.

:)
 
Last edited:
I use a 35mm in London for street but people tend to ignore togs there. I once tried a 50mm but found it too tight.
 
simonblue said:
Another way is to have your camera up to your eye,you can stay in one spot and hope the shot come to you or you can move around with your camera,a lot of the time you will get your shot before your notice.

Also this way after a while you blend in,people begin to take no notice of you,you just become part of what happening in the street.

:)
Click to expand...
I've noticed this when in the city near crossings its a great technique.
Thanks.
 
I do street photography with a 35mm lens and found at first people would dive for cover or give dirty looks when you take their picture. Its something you get used to and seems to happen less the more practice you have at it.
The way I do it is looking for something interesting or people doing something, not just random people walking on the street. I don't want folders full of people shopping. If people are doing something they aren't generally paying attention to you so you can get some quick shot. If I don't think I can get the shot I want then I approach them and ask. The no's really bothered me at first but now I don't care and just find something else.
I did try using a longer lens once and went straight back to the 35mm. You get some cool reactions when your close.
 
Some of the best street photography ever taken was done using fixed lens cameras, and short lenses on small Leicas and other rangefinder cameras.

Look up Garry Winogrand.

Hardly a long lens shot to be seen.

While others may have been less than diplomatic in their replies, I do agree that you have to get in amongst the people. If people are distracted because they are doing something interesting, then they'll not be paying attention to you. If they're just walking down the street, then they will. No one wants to see people just walking down the street though, so try and put yourself in places where people will pay less attention to you: Events, political rallies, fairs and galas, air shows... anything, where you will be generally ignored. Get in close to the action.

Street photography with long lenses is generally quite boring.
 
gramps said:
I guess it depends on whether you want to do 'street' or 'candids' (i.e. shots of people in the street).
Street is often (but not always) rushed, angular and/or untidy-looking, whereas 'candids' are generally more well composed, interesting, funny etc.
Click to expand...

'Street' is candid photography though. Simply defining it by aesthetic approach would be wrong.

OP, it's all about body language. One of my favourite techniques is to spot a subject from far away, walk up to within 2m of them, camera held around chest height as you approach, but as you walk towards them make it look like something behind them has caught your attention so when you raise your camera to focus/compose the shot they'll assume that they aren't really the thing you're interested in. Be quick, and walk around like you have a purpose. Watch how Winogrand shoots, his movement is full of misdirection (constantly looking past people, fiddling with his camera as if there's something wrong with it) and he has a certain bumbling, touristy demeanour that had a disarming effect on his subjects - and then note that he was shooting with a 28mm lens which requires you to be within 1.5m to get anything interesting! Many photographers approach street with the misconception that being invisible to people is something that is done by being very meek and passive when it's very much the opposite - what's more alarming, someone who sneaks about popping shots off here and there or someone who looks like they're exploring and documenting the world around them with a voracious curiosity?
 
No, 'street' and candid are different genres.
 
Check out Flickr. I'm sure they'll have a million and one groups dedicated to it. They prob even have a group dedicated to your setup and street togging.
 
Eric Kim gives good advice on how to shoot from the hip if you want to try this method. Don't pay any attention to people who say this is 'wrong'. That's total rubbish, of course. You shoot how you want to shoot.
 
Use a 28-50mm lens and there's every chance your photos are going to look like everyone else's 'street' photographs.

Try a fisheye, try a telephoto.

Forget about making 'street' or 'candid' photographs and just make pictures.

Just my thoughts. :stir:
 
GlennBlackPhotos said:
Thanks for that but I am talking from the perspective of known names and their approach.
thanks.
Click to expand...


Not a comprehensive list (just listing photographers where you can see videos of them working on YouTube or Vimeo), but in order from unobtrusive to right-in-your face with a flash:

- Daido Moriyama (not really a street photographer but there's a video of him hipshooting in Shinjuku with a point and shoot)
- Joel Meyerowitz
- Garry Winogrand
- Wiliam Klein
- Eric Kim
- Mark Cohen
- Charlie Kirk
- Bruce Gilden

There's also a series of interviews on youtube called 'Everybody Street' that's quite insightful.
 
Last edited:
jon ryan said:
Eric Kim gives good advice on how to shoot from the hip if you want to try this method. Don't pay any attention to people who say this is 'wrong'. That's total rubbish, of course. You shoot how you want to shoot.
Click to expand...

You can no more say it's rubbish than anyone else. Effectively by saying "Pay no attention to...." you're actually saying "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" which is just a wee bit arrogant. Express an opinion by all means, and offer an alternative argument or case in order to let people decide.


Here's an alternative opinion. Decide for yourselves.


I'm not going to say shooting from the hip is wrong, but what does make street photography engaging is the voyeuristic, view by proxy viewpoint of being taken from someone else's "eyes". Shooting from the hip looks like it's shot from the hip... sneakily. Get in people's faces and they interact with the camera, and hence the viewer. Shot from the hip and they'll be passive.. unaware that they are being shot, and hence far less engaging.

You'll not get great images like this or this,or this by shooting from the hip.


FruitFlakes said:
'Street' is candid photography though.
Click to expand...

No it's not.
 
Last edited:
True, but that doesn't mean that street isn't candid photography if you treat 'candid' as an approach, much like there's candid wedding photography or candid documentary photography. Gramps thinks that candid photography is a genre in itself...
 
jon ryan said:
Eric Kim gives good advice on how to shoot from the hip if you want to try this method. Don't pay any attention to people who say this is 'wrong'. That's total rubbish, of course. You shoot how you want to shoot.
Click to expand...

Pookeyhead said:
You can no more say it's rubbish than anyone else. Effectively by saying "Pay no attention to...." you're actually saying "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" which is just a wee bit arrogant. Express an opinion by all means, and offer an alternative argument or case in order to let people decide.
Click to expand...

*sigh*. Did you see the bit where I wrote, quite clearly and in English "You shoot how you want to shoot."? :shrug:

Which means exactly the same as

Pookeyhead said:
Here's an alternative opinion. Decide for yourselves.
Click to expand...

Pookeyhead said:
I'm not going to say shooting from the hip is wrong, but what does make street photography engaging is the voyeuristic, view by proxy viewpoint of being taken from someone else's "eyes". Shooting from the hip looks like it's shot from the hip... sneakily. Get in people's faces and they interact with the camera, and hence the viewer. Shot from the hip and they'll be passive.. unaware that they are being shot, and hence far less engaging.
Click to expand...

So that's what Cartier Bresson was doing wrong! No wonder he shot so much rubbish. :lol::lol::lol:
 
FruitFlakes said:
Can you clarify that for me? As far as I'm familiar with street, it involves a candid, unposed subject.
Click to expand...

Who told you that? Unposed... yes, of course (unless the subject voluntarily plays up to the camera like Lambeth Walk by Bill Brandt, but that doesn't mean it has to be candid.

Look at examples of the very best street photography... it's not necessarily candid. More often than not, what makes it work so well is the interaction between photographer and subject (and therefore, by default, interaction between VIEWER and subject).

William Klein and Garry Winogrand... look at their work. Is it really candid? I'm not saying all street photography CAN'T be candid, but you seem to be implying that it HAS to be candid, which is obviously not true.


jon ryan said:
*sigh*. Did you see the bit where I wrote, quite clearly and in English "You shoot how you want to shoot."? :shrug:
Click to expand...

You also said anyone who says anything different is talking rubbish, which is nonsense. It's one opinion.. once side of an argument. Why not convince people WHY shooting from the hip is actually a good thing to do? What's your rationale for shooting from the hip?



jon ryan said:
So that's what Cartier Bresson was doing wrong! No wonder he shot so much rubbish. :lol::lol::lol:
Click to expand...


Really? Was this taken from the hip? No. This? No... this? No... this?..... This?.... This? no.... I'm sorry, Bresson, like may, may have taken some work shot from the hip, but his street photography as we know it patently is not, and I think you'll have to argue quite strenuously to persuade anyone who knows anything about street photography that shooting from the hip results in images that are as engaging for the viewer than candids (while I acknowledge there will be some who prefer it). Essentially, you shoot from the hip, you're shooting candids, and that is not really the what street photography is about.

People like to defend shooting from the hip because it's an easy way to grab shots of strangers without risk of confrontation.


No pain, no gain.


...All my opinion course... but I'd be interested to hear the opinions of others, rather than say "Anyone who says otherwise is talking rubbish".
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Who told you that?

Look at examples of the very best street photography... it's not necessarily candid. More often than not, what makes it work so well is the interaction between photographer and subject.

William Klein and Garry Winogrand... look at their work. Is it really candid? I'm not saying all street photography CAN'T be candid, but you seem to be implying that it HAS to be candid, which is obviously not true.
Click to expand...

The general impression you get from looking at the work of photographers like HCB, Erwitt, Frank, and Doisneau (the kiss aside) - they generally worked in a way that minimises the photographer's influence on the scene. Or many the books/articles that tend to emphasise the candid aspect of street.

Klein, not really candid yes - though that shot of the couple during the '67 Parisian riots is one of my favourites and that was, Winogrand, yeah much of his work is candid or just before the subject realises they've been snapped. There's also the difference between capturing that initial moment of recognition between photographer and subject, and having the subject spontaneously pose for you. And furthermore, there's a difference between having the subject spontaneously pose for you and you directing them. Perhaps I worded my initial statement a bit too strongly or vaguely, but it was in response to Gramps' assertion that street and candid are two separate genres defined by their aesthetic, which simply isn't the case.

As for hipshooting, yeah don't bother unless you know your framelines and want to get a lower perspective. I also find that it's a very unsatisfying way to shoot due to the sheer amount of luck involved.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top