Street photography

Gary Kinghorn

Gary Kinghorn

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,505
Edit My Images
No
How acceptable is it to rattle shots off while wandering through the streets of London. When I say this I mean of people going about their everyday life. I'm not talking about getting right in their faces, but general shots as you are walking by etc?
 
Gary, there are so many people walking around central London taking photos, that no-one will give you a second look.:thumbs:
 
Gary Kinghorn said:
How acceptable is it to rattle shots off while wandering through the streets of London. When I say this I mean of people going about their everyday life. I'm not talking about getting right in their faces, but general shots as you are walking by etc?
Click to expand...


Perfectly acceptable.. it's a free country.
 
Last edited:
Not sure what you mean by 'acceptable'. It is legal so you are free to do it but do you mean is it morally acceptable?
Any moral aspect has certainly not entered my thoughts when taking shots around the streets.
 
POAH said:
Did you see the latest budget lol
Click to expand...


Good point... :)

No increase on fuel and beer though... so not a total loss for a stout drinking Ford Mustang owner like myself :lol:
 
It's london everyone's taking photos. Not like your doing it in reading or Peterborough (no offence)
 
feek said:
Gary, there are so many people walking around central London taking photos, that no-one will give you a second look.:thumbs:
Click to expand...

:plusone:

Nobody wants to make eye contact, and you will be just one of the many jumping around with a camera in their hand. Just enjoy it, if you hear a "Oi You" just run :D
 
As it's perfectly legal, only you can determine what is acceptable.


Steve.
 
darelmiler said:
Street photography is a very interesting and amazing type of photography that includes various public places like street, parks etc. People should set their camera lens at its hyperfocal distance. One of the most effective techniques for street photography is pre-focusing the lens.
Click to expand...

Pre focus yes, hyper focal surely not?
 
You can shoot what you like publicly thankfully. Morally for me though I will often not publish or date a 'worthy of viewing' shot for a few years if I think it could harm someone,in the long-term like, not too worried if they are just angry at that moment. I also don't go for homeless or drug users as I consider them easy pray and im inevitably just using their predicament for my own sick reward, the challenge soon fades I found.
 
Rapscallion said:
On a very, very long street?!
Click to expand...

Even then why would you want front to back sharpness and not a zone around your subject so they stand out? Pre focus for a zone, yes as it let's you shoot quickly but still get nice separation. Hyper focal focus, no you don't see many great street shots ar f11 for a reason.
 
I personally like shallow DOF for street shots. I've never pre focused [I'd judge the distance wrong anyway :) lol ] so just point at the subject, focus & shoot.

The busier it is the better really. Never been to London but I'd imagine as said there are loads of people wandering with cameras so you'd not look out of place.
 
Been doing it for many years,on my trips to London never had a problem,had a few local problems,but nothing that didn't get sorted out,mine I do tend to work quite close :D
 
Keebsuk said:
Haha!:thumbs:

And whilst on the subject of budgets, how long before we see a "spare toilet tax" to go with the "spare bedroom tax"?:cuckoo:

Andy
Click to expand...

Be careful what you wish for, before we know it, Osborne will be looking at bringing back some old tax legislation ;) you'll be bricking up your windows before you know it :lol:.
 
You don't need an L lens to get fast focusing though do you. I make do with a DSLR and a cheap prime and find the focusing fast enough to use AF all the time.
I think people with no AF are going to be in the under 1% category, it is not 1967 after all.
 
Just keep your wits about you, you are potentially carrying thousands of pounds in your hand depending on body and lens combination.

In the same way you wouldnt wave a big wad of £20's around in full view be mindful of brandishing an expensive looking camera.
 
shaylou said:
With an L lens the focus time is a fraction of a second in most cases.
Click to expand...

Wow! So by that, anyone who doesn't have L lenses has naff AF on their camera?

I knew their was something wrong with all those Nikons, they can't use L glass, so their AF is useless ;).

Would an L lens focus in this magic way on a Nikon if you used an adapter? :p
 
Dave1 said:
Wow! So by that, anyone who doesn't have L lenses has naff AF on their camera?

I knew their was something wrong with all those Nikons, they can't use L glass, so their AF is useless ;).

Would an L lens focus in this magic way on a Nikon if you used an adapter? :p
Click to expand...

A bit defensive don't you think Dave? The words "naff, useless, are your words not mine. Wow!
 
shaylou said:
The words "naff, useless, are your words not mine. Wow!
Click to expand...

No, they were as facetious as the idea that an L lens is somehow endowed with magical AF. I have had L lenses that focused slower than normal lenses, generally dependent on the body that the lens was attached to at the time.

Do you think that magic red ring makes you a better photographer as well?
 
Dave1 said:
No, they were as facetious as the idea that an L lens is somehow endowed with magical AF. I have had L lenses that focused slower than normal lenses, generally dependent on the body that the lens was attached to at the time.

Do you think that magic red ring makes you a better photographer as well?
Click to expand...

Now you are just being a smart ass.... Why don't you keep your smart remarks to yourself. I'm sure the rest of the op's don't care to hear it any more than I do.
 
Pretty sure that I've never used an AF lens that took over a second to snap into focus, so all of them have focussed in a fraction of a second (although a few have taken rather large fractions!). And L lenses are useless. ;) <<<
 
Nod said:
Pretty sure that I've never used an AF lens that took over a second to snap into focus, so all of them have focussed in a fraction of a second (although a few have taken rather large fractions!). And L lenses are useless. ;) <<<
Click to expand...

Haha I should of just said fast lens. That was my point. I didn't really understand the prefocus thing.
 
shaylou said:
Haha I should of just said fast lens. That was my point. I didn't really understand the prefocus thing.
Click to expand...

Even with a super fast AF the camera still needs to focus on something, whereas pre-focusing on a zone from say 3m to 20m means you don't need to worry about focus points, focus recompose etc,.
 
NeilMc said:
Just keep your wits about you, you are potentially carrying thousands of pounds in your hand depending on body and lens combination.

In the same way you wouldnt wave a big wad of £20's around in full view be mindful of brandishing an expensive looking camera.
Click to expand...

And watch where your walking, it's easy to end up walking down the "wrong road" when your looking for things to point a camera at. I know people who've lost expensive mountain bikes, by simply taking a wrong turn.

Also when walking around busy towns/cities I tend to screw a hook/loop into the tripod mount and tie the camera to my wrist with paracord. It only takes seconds to cut a camera strap and run.
 
shaylou said:
Now you are just being a smart ass.... Why don't you keep your smart remarks to yourself.
Click to expand...

No, your comment was stupid (to be blunt), and something a brand snob would say. Why would the fact the lens was an L make it better to AF? When AF speed is more influenced by the body than the lens, any old USM lens on a 1Dx will focus faster than an L on a D30.

And your statement has even less relevance on a person using Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Olympus etc, how fast does the L lens focus on a D7100?

Sometimes it isn't necessary to try and show your superiority by how much an item costs, and while it might be beneficial to own L glass if you are a Canon user for other reasons, to make the statement that you need L lenses to focus accurately or quickly is absurd.
 
Dave1 said:
No, your comment was stupid (to be blunt), and something a brand snob would say. Why would the fact the lens was an L make it better to AF? When AF speed is more influenced by the body than the lens, any old USM lens on a 1Dx will focus faster than an L on a D30.

.
Click to expand...

Af speed is both the camera and the lens - An L version would/should focus faster than the equivalent non-L.
 
POAH said:
Af speed is both the camera and the lens - An L version would/should focus faster than the equivalent non-L.
Click to expand...

That isn't what he said, his statement was you need an L lens to focus in a fraction of a second.

My point being that a 17-40L on a D30 or 10D isn't going to be a fast focus, whereas an 85 f1.8 on a 7D or 1Dx would be.

That is without trying to work out how well the L lens will focus on a Nikon body :cuckoo:

Sometimes people get lost with an idea that having the most expensive glass makes you a good photographer, and conversely anything but the best (in this case the example was L lenses) means you are useless.
 
ernesto said:
Even with a super fast AF the camera still needs to focus on something, whereas pre-focusing on a zone from say 3m to 20m means you don't need to worry about focus points, focus recompose etc,.
Click to expand...

It seems that the focus would not be that accurate that way. I guess it must work if you all are doing it.
 
Dave1 said:
No, your comment was stupid (to be blunt), and something a brand snob would say. Why would the fact the lens was an L make it better to AF? When AF speed is more influenced by the body than the lens, any old USM lens on a 1Dx will focus faster than an L on a D30.

And your statement has even less relevance on a person using Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Olympus etc, how fast does the L lens focus on a D7100?

Sometimes it isn't necessary to try and show your superiority by how much an item costs, and while it might be beneficial to own L glass if you are a Canon user for other reasons, to make the statement that you need L lenses to focus accurately or quickly is absurd.
Click to expand...

You took what I said and put your own foolish brand on it just to be an obnoxious twit. Now that's stupid ( to be blunt).
 
Dave1 said:
That isn't what he said, his statement was you need an L lens to focus in a fraction of a second.

My point being that a 17-40L on a D30 or 10D isn't going to be a fast focus, whereas an 85 f1.8 on a 7D or 1Dx would be.

That is without trying to work out how well the L lens will focus on a Nikon body :cuckoo:

Sometimes people get lost with an idea that having the most expensive glass makes you a good photographer, and conversely anything but the best (in this case the example was L lenses) means you are useless.
Click to expand...

Wow Dave that's not what I said at all. That is what you heard but is in no way what I said. I said,

"Why bother with either? With an L lens the focus time is a fraction of a second in most cases.".

Tell me where it say "you need L lens to focus in a fraction of a second". I keep looking at it but I just can't see it. Could you please point it out for me,

I only stated the part about L lens because that is what I have, sorry if you are offended by my use of L glass. (And I'm cuckoo)!

And this is the part that really gets me, you took that simple statement and twisted it so screwy that somehow you got to the point that I think I am a better photographer because of owning L glass. BACK AWAY FROM THE BONG DAVE......
 
shaylou said:
It seems that the focus would not be that accurate that way. I guess it must work if you all are doing it.
Click to expand...

There is no guessing, it is just getting a huge DoF. Pretty easy on a compact, more difficult on a DSLR as need to use smallish apertures. Look up zone focusing if you want to see how it works.
There were even cameras that didn't have any ability to focus on specific things and only worked in zones, for example the Olympus Trip which sold rather well in it's day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top