What lens for street photography

jon ryan said:
Perhaps `candid portraiture` would define it reasonably?
Click to expand...


:D Your having a laugh now right?

I'm pretty sure candid Street photography is already the definition for the type. :)

Like I'm nearly sure this is street ...but who knows. lol

footfall.jpg
 
Last edited:
Forbiddenbiker said:
:D Your having a laugh now right?

I'm pretty sure candid Street photography is already the definition for the type. :)

Like I'm nearly sure this is street ...but who knows. lol

footfall.jpg
Click to expand...
Can `street`only apply if taken on a street in your book? Not on a beach, or a windswept moor, or the middle of a desert? A bit like saying `architectural` photography is that which includes at least part of a building. Suggesting that a shot of Anne Hathaway's Cottage and thousand year old crusader fort are both architectural photos. Could either of those examples be landscapes? If not, why not, and how do you define `landscape`? Why define it? For cataloging sure, a shot often needs key words, but these should be inclusive, not exclusive.

This whole thing of defining genre needs plenty of looseness at the corners. Good photography stems from an ability to think out of the box, not put things in one.

(Nice shot, by the way! :thumbs:)
 
Last edited:
Its really about intent isn't it, if ones shooting architectural photography then the shots would echo architecture not buildings literally. Same for some one intending to shot landscape visas that might include a cottage as part of that landscape. So I agree in a way, its really the intent of the photographer that provides the genre, whether the final image is misunderstood or misclassified or not.

So for me Street can be shot anywhere, if the intention is to tell a Street type story with the resulting photo.
 
Last edited:
Street is restrictive ?
There is no argument as to what constitutes a portrait, yet to not be able stray outside that box must surely be restrictive, could say the same about macro, 1-1 mag requires the use of specific equipment so must also be restrictive.
Everything is restrictive in one way or another, unless we just call the whole thing photography and have no categories/subdivisions/whatever at all.

I find street quite difficult to shoot, it has given me a healthy respect for the street shooting gods of the past and present, are we to lump their genius in with the long lens disconnected tele stuff that purports to be street ?
If we are, are we doing them a disservice by diluting the genre, is that the price we pay for a few loose corners.

:)
 
I've tried a variety of lenses, to not just discover my own style for street but also where I am most comfortable.

In the end it all depends. I was doing a project in November to capture 500 unique stranger portraits with moustaches. My main approach was to actually engage contact and get close. That 30mm sigma I had was perfect for all light conditions.

But on general situations I must say that I prefer one of my cheapest and older lenses the original 24-120 aka "street sweeper". I really like it as depending on where I am it give me the opportunity to travel light and capture nearly anything I spot.
 
I think it is a quite effective composition,
The V board, the Bike, and the boy lead you into the window, it is a pity that there is not a focal point in the window display.
Coming in closer usualy helps, but in this case I can not be sure.
 
joxby said:
Street is restrictive ?
There is no argument as to what constitutes a portrait, yet to not be able stray outside that box must surely be restrictive, could say the same about macro, 1-1 mag requires the use of specific equipment so must also be restrictive.
Everything is restrictive in one way or another, unless we just call the whole thing photography and have no categories/subdivisions/whatever at all.

I find street quite difficult to shoot, it has given me a healthy respect for the street shooting gods of the past and present, are we to lump their genius in with the long lens disconnected tele stuff that purports to be street ?
If we are, are we doing them a disservice by diluting the genre, is that the price we pay for a few loose corners.

:)
Click to expand...

No, and I agree to a great extent, we shouldn't smear the genre to fit all, like macro the subject matter being small decides the lens, the intimacy of street does the same.

Getting the shot though, its still the main aim right, I just can imagine one of the greats, seeing a fabulous moment then refusing to shoot it because they only have a long view point. Would I be wrong to assume their must be a few shots in those greats Street collections that are not short and wide? ... The Street moment being caught is paramount and the close view occasionally has to be secondary I feel.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
I think it is a quite effective composition,
The V board, the Bike, and the boy lead you into the window, it is a pity that there is not a focal point in the window display.
Coming in closer usualy helps, but in this case I can not be sure.
Click to expand...

Kinda easier to think that it would probably be difficult to make it worse, kinda thing!

Is it street, or nearly street do you think Terry
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Getting the shot though, its still the main aim right, I just can imagine one of the greats, seeing a fabulous moment then refusing to shoot it because they only have a long view point. Would I be wrong to assume their must be a few shots in those greats Street collections that are not short and wide? ... The Street moment being caught is paramount and the close view occasionally has to be secondary I feel.
Click to expand...


I can't see how one genre would eclipse another based entirely on the length of the lens used to capture it.
A great photo is a great photo, I would have thought we ought to give great photos the opportunity to exist by shooting them when we see them, with whatever we have at the time.
The photo is everything, without which there is nothing to discuss or form an opinion about..:)
 
joxby said:
I can't see how one genre would eclipse another based entirely on the length of the lens used to capture it.
A great photo is a great photo, I would have thought we ought to give great photos the opportunity to exist by shooting them when we see them, with whatever we have at the time.
The photo is everything, without which there is nothing to discuss or form an opinion about..:)
Click to expand...

:clap:
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Kinda easier to think that it would probably be difficult to make it worse, kinda thing!

Is it street, or nearly street do you think Terry
Click to expand...

It is street to my definition.
there are many styles of street. all OK by me if they work.
 
joxby said:
I can't see how one genre would eclipse another based entirely on the length of the lens used to capture it.
A great photo is a great photo, I would have thought we ought to give great photos the opportunity to exist by shooting them when we see them, with whatever we have at the time.
The photo is everything, without which there is nothing to discuss or form an opinion about..:)
Click to expand...


No thats right. :thumbs:

FB quote bt. I just can imagine one of the greats,
I missed the T from can't

I meant to say, 'I can't imagine one of the greats.... ' soz. ..totally messed the exact same point!

:)
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
It is street to my definition.
there are many styles of street. all OK by me if they work.
Click to expand...

That's how I feel about it, close is an important aspect to Street Photography for bringing the viewer into the scene, but getting a Street shot is the beginning and lens length forgiving, the end also.
 
Getting back to the original question, surely the right lens for the job is the one that enables you to capture the image you wanted. I certainly don't think it's right to get all hung up over focal lengths. Sometimes you want distance, for safety, for perspective, for isolation. Sometimes you want close for inclusion, intimacy and to a certain extent isolation (in this instance isolating external content rather than by focus from a long lens, shallow depth of field etc).

It's really not about the kit, it's about the image and sometimes I think those with an artistic bent tend to forget that. In my humble opinion, if you need a side of A4 to explain the image or the series, then it's not a great image.
 
ndwgolf said:
Guys,
Plan to spend the next month taking pictures and was wanting to try my hand at street photography. What would you recommend as a lens to get started with, as if I am walking about I don’t want to lug around a bag of lens's all day.
Click to expand...

Have a read of this - http://book.85mm.ch/GoingCandid.pdf - and see if it helps your decision.

Oh, and out of interest, would any of these photos fit within the genre of "street photography"? None of the subjects are known to the photographer and none of the shots were set up or posed. Words (pleasant ones) were exchanged in only three of the examples....

(Click for larger version.)


Focal lengths (equivalents) vary widely, with a factor of over 5X between the shortest and longest examples. Does it really matter which lens or focal length you use? Isn't it the content that counts?
 
Last edited:
Some are borderline but tbh only 1 out of the 18 looks like street to me, the rest are street portraits/occupational/photo journ/documentary/voyeuristic observation.....I dunno, that's not to say they don't have merit in their own right, it just means they are not street imo.
 
Byker28i said:
Only if they meet 'the rules' ;) :D
Click to expand...

Can't argue with that.

Goes to look for "rules".

Can't find any.

Doesn't care. :D

joxby said:
Some are borderline but tbh only 1 out of the 18 looks like street to me, the rest are street portraits/occupational/photo journ/documentary/voyeuristic observation.....I dunno, that's not to say they don't have merit in their own right, it just means they are not street imo.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. As I'm none the wiser, which one do you think is the most "street", and what makes it more "street" than the rest, because I really haven't got a clue.

Ah! I think I might have it cracked. How about this....?

20071206_104508_0791_LR.jpg


Maybe that one's more "road" photography, or maybe "avenue". I guess I'm new to all this and still have plenty to learn, but wouldn't it be great to see some "cul-de-sac" photography. That's the direction I sometimes find my photography taking.;)
 
Last edited:
tdodd said:
Can't argue with that.

Goes to look for "rules".

Can't find any.

Doesn't care. :D



Thanks for that. As I'm none the wiser, which one do you think is the most "street", and what makes it more "street" than the rest, because I really haven't got a clue.

Ah! I think I might have it cracked. How about this....?

20071206_104508_0791_LR.jpg


Maybe that one's more "road" photography, or maybe "avenue". I guess I'm new to all this and still have plenty to learn, but wouldn't it be great to see some "cul-de-sac" photography. ;)
Click to expand...

:lol::clap::lol:
 
joxby said:
Some are borderline but tbh only 1 out of the 18 looks like street to me, the rest are street portraits/occupational/photo journ/documentary/voyeuristic observation.....I dunno, that's not to say they don't have merit in their own right, it just means they are not street imo.
Click to expand...

Most Photographs fit into more than one category. That is why most library programmes cater for them.

All these shots are certainly street. And clearly show the preference and style of the photographer as well.

There are no rules as to what is or is not a street photograph. It is an inclusive category. Any one who makes their own rules, for other peoples photography, has lost the plot.
 
tdodd said:
Can't argue with that.

Goes to look for "rules".

Can't find any.

Doesn't care. :D



Thanks for that. As I'm none the wiser, which one do you think is the most "street", and what makes it more "street" than the rest, because I really haven't got a clue.

Ah! I think I might have it cracked. How about this....?

20071206_104508_0791_LR.jpg


Maybe that one's more "road" photography, or maybe "avenue". I guess I'm new to all this and still have plenty to learn, but wouldn't it be great to see some "cul-de-sac" photography. That's the direction I sometimes find my photography taking.;)
Click to expand...

Clearly the wrong make of lens.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Most Photographs fit into more than one category. That is why most library programmes cater for them.

All these shots are certainly street. And clearly show the preference and style of the photographer as well.

There are no rules as to what is or is not a street photograph. It is an inclusive category. Any one who makes their own rules, for other peoples photography, has lost the plot.
Click to expand...


Yeah well, I'm sure a case could be made for a shot of my bare arse being a moonscape, but it ain't necessarily so is it.
Lot easier than fannying about with long teles and the real moon too.
 
looking at your kit you running full frame so go with the 50mm to get the ball rolling, hoever, thats one big ole camera to be roaming the streets with, not very inconspicuous, do you have anything a little more reserved?
i run olympus equipment, ad as good as my E3 is, i wouldnt dream of taking it out to shoot street, i use my epl1, far less of a lump and no loud "clack clack" of the shutter just a gentle "click"
but.... my street shooting has evolved to be using flash, off camera and in the day, ala mark choen, bruce gilden to name two so discrete shutter doesnt really come into it.
5.jpg

4.jpg

3.jpg

2.jpg

1.jpg

8.jpg

these were shot with my epl1 (pen) with a 28mm prime (56mm equivilent on 35mm film) with the zone focusing method, as part of a series i am shooting called "grabbed" they have been adapted here for a college project to do with night and day, basically no one person will ever occupy the same spot in the same way twice, just like you can never take the same photo twice.
and as much of a d**k it may make me seem, none of these were shot with permission and there is no exchange afterwards.
 
Last edited:
Byker28i said:
Hang on I think I've worked out one of the rules.

Street photography has to be in black and white :D
Click to expand...

You may well be right. I just searched Google for "street photography" images. Almost all results were B&W....

I've now created a Lightroom preset so that I can now create that authentic "street" look for just about any photo. I didn't realise it would be so easy. :D Hopefully these are on the money....

 
Last edited:
Simon photo said:
looking at your kit you running full frame so go with the 50mm to get the ball rolling, hoever, thats one big ole camera to be roaming the streets with, not very inconspicuous, do you have anything a little more reserved?
i run olympus equipment, ad as good as my E3 is, i wouldnt dream of taking it out to shoot street, i use my epl1, far less of a lump and no loud "clack clack" of the shutter just a gentle "click"
but.... my street shooting has evolved to be using flash, off camera and in the day, ala mark choen, bruce gilden to name two so discrete shutter doesnt really come into it.
5.jpg

4.jpg

3.jpg

2.jpg

1.jpg

8.jpg

these were shot with my epl1 (pen) with a 28mm prime (56mm equivilent on 35mm film) with the zone focusing method, as part of a series i am shooting called "grabbed" they have been adapted here for a college project to do with night and day, basically no one person will ever occupy the same spot in the same way twice, just like you can never take the same photo twice.
and as much of a d**k it may make me seem, none of these were shot with permission and there is no exchange afterwards.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting project - I'm definitely a fan of Gilden & Cohen, but I can see that their style is very controversial ;)
 
boliston said:
That's an interesting project - I'm definitely a fan of Gilden & Cohen, but I can see that their style is very controversial ;)
Click to expand...

Bruce Gilden I knew of because of Magnum, but I had to google Mark Cohen. An interesting technique and I'll have to look into his style more. It's little gems of knowledge like that which makes TP and it's members invaluable. Thanks

I suppose in defining Street, we could define it by the photographers, so I'd like to put forward Vivian Maier.
 
Last edited:
Byker28i said:
Bruce Gilden I knew of because of Magnum, but I had to google Mark Cohen. An interesting technique and I'll have to look into his style more. It's little gems of knowledge like that which makes TP and it's members invaluable. Thanks

I suppose in defining Street, we could define it by the photographers, so I'd like to put forward Vivian Maier.
Click to expand...

I see your maier and raise you a weegee
 
been reading up on Mark Cohan. He seems to have a healthy interest in legs, which if one tried to repeat today could the photographer find himself in trouble?

I'm liking the dog shots though
m197100380004.jpg
 
Byker28i said:
been reading up on Mark Cohan. He seems to have a healthy interest in legs, which if one tried to repeat today could the photographer find himself in trouble?

I'm liking the dog shots though
m197100380004.jpg
Click to expand...

I seem to remember seeing a video of cohen doing some shooting (youtube possibly) and showing him boldly going up to some women and blatantly bending down and shooting their legs close up with flash - must have taken a bit of nerve but the shots seemed quite different and interesting.
 
Well here is my first attempt, and I used the 24/70m on my D3s, I have picked the best ones here.
1/.
chinatown220120120005ed.jpg

2/.
chinatown220120120011ed.jpg

3/.
chinatown220120120026ed.jpg

4/.
chinatown220120120039ed.jpg

5/.
chinatown220120120053ed.jpg

6/.
chinatown220120120064ed.jpg


# 6 is my favourite with the smoke and look back...............CC welcome
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top