Re: Long lenses-- was Street Dancers
In defense of long lenses (and in a way in defense of my photo) I would add that longer lenses have a way of working around other people in a imperfect shooting environment. For example in my photo I was trying to crop out the boy's brother who was drawing on the asphalt on all fours which would of been viable with a shorter lens. I could of moved froward to a position where a 50mm would of worked but that would of meant stepping over people in front of me and probably breaking the boy's focus on the dancers. Going back to my original comment about whether the long lens excludes my photo and many others from being part of the street photography genre I think I would exclude at least my photo from this genre because of the lens. It seems to me that street photography has more to do with the personality of the person(s) photographed than thiner interactions with the world around them. After thinking about it a while it seems to me my photo is more nature photography. I don't think I captured the personality of any of the people in my photo, rather I captured a scene that integrates the interactions between them. But then again that is just my lowly opinion. -david [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 6/27/2005 2:02:42 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 15:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the Porto shots, it is amusing that in this one the subject has spotted the sniper. http://x64.com/joaquim/photo/photo03/index-Pages/Image19.html The father hasn't, he kept talking to the woman woman on the left, the kid I don't know. I was talking about the kid. He definitely made the camera. Can't fool a kid. Regards, Sonny http://www.sonc.com Natchitoches, Louisiana Oldest continuous settlement in La Louisiane égalité, liberté, crawfish
Re: Long lenses-- was Street Dancers
In a message dated 6/27/2005 2:02:42 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 15:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In the Porto shots, it is amusing that in this one the subject has spotted > the sniper. > > http://x64.com/joaquim/photo/photo03/index-Pages/Image19.html >The father hasn't, he kept talking to the woman woman on the left, the >kid I don't know. I was talking about the kid. He definitely made the camera. Can't fool a kid. Regards, Sonny http://www.sonc.com Natchitoches, Louisiana Oldest continuous settlement in La Louisiane égalité, liberté, crawfish
Re: Long lenses-- was Street Dancers
On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 15:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In the Porto shots, it is amusing that in this one the subject has spotted > the sniper. > > http://x64.com/joaquim/photo/photo03/index-Pages/Image19.html The father hasn't, he kept talking to the woman woman on the left, the kid I don't know.
Re: Long lenses-- was Street Dancers
That's not been my experience. Invariably the people I photograph loosen up, react and express themselves freely, and, even when deciding to pose, show their true personalities (I think the recent PESO "The Poser" shows that clearly). Sometimes they just go on about their business. However, I'm very good at relating to people when photographing them. That may have something to do with my "street" personality, or just the way I amble along in a non-threatening manner and let people know that I respect and appreciate them ... often we talk a bit. Perhaps it's as much a matter of being comfortable behind the camera in such situations, and keeping things fluid, moving, and interactive. If you're gonna stick a camera in someone's face, you better know that they approve, and, better yet, embrace the idea. It's the photographer's job, as it were, to make their subjects feel comfortable and relaxed. Often my people will suggest situations in which they want to be photographed, and these situations, or poses, show aspects of their character and personality that might take hours or days to discover had they not been willing to open up and share something of who they are. Perhaps what YOU want is a snapshot of what they were doing before you were observed. What I want, and maybe what many photographers want, is to photograph them and get something of their soul and their heart and their personality - a portrait or a character study. Sure, it's kind of nice to get a candid of someone doing something interesting while they are oblivious to the camera and the photographer - Juan does that pretty well - but he usually works pretty close to the people he's photographing. He's developed a good skill. Shel > [Original Message] > From: keithw > Most adults, too, unless they have significantly better things to think > about at the moment. But usually, I do think it has an effect on their > behavior. They stiffen up, or change position, or frown, or otherwise > lose the looseness and spontaneity they had before they noticed > you...which is what we wanted in the first place!
Re: Long lenses-- was Street Dancers
Shel Belinkoff wrote: Not always - and so what if it does? Do you think hunting with a long lens results in more interesting or compelling photographs? I guess it depends on what you want to photograph. You can learn to be unobtrusive and accepted when photographing closer in - it may take a little practice and certainly you may need to develop some sensitivity to the people and the environment, but, imo, the results become much better. Look at your photos with a critical eye, compare them, perhaps, to the results obtained by others (Capa, Lange, Salgado, Nachtwey, Smith, Chim, Morath, Arbus, Erwitt, Dickey Chapelle, Barbey, Richards). You might consider taking a look at this page: http://tinyurl.com/4495z and see if the work of any of these photographers represents what you want to do, then get yourself a 50mm lens and go out a make some photos. Shel I love the superior quality of my several 50mm lenses, but (quite frankly) haven't mounted one for literally years! Almost embarassing! Until forced to think about it, I suppose I didn't pay much attention to it! But yes, the 50/55 does require you get closer. Maybe I ought to take that as a harbinger of change, and start using them once again! Might change my entire outlook! ;-) keith [Original Message] From: Joaquim Carvalho Yes but don't you think that when people feel the presence of a photographer they immediately change the way they behave?
Re: Long lenses-- was Street Dancers
Joaquim Carvalho wrote: On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 15:22, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I wasn't going to comment on the photos, but since a discussion of sorts has opened up around them maybe I can add a thought or two. One of the biggest problems I see when using long lenses is that the photographer loses contact - or never even establishes contact - with the people s/he's photographing. I don't mean that you have to become intimate with the subjects, although getting close enough to establish some intimacy, even for only a portion of a moment, can only improve one's photographs. By being physically closer the photographer is better able to "feel" the scene, to see small details that may enhance a photograph, and to get a greater sense of what's taking place between subjects (if there's more than one in a scene) or the subject and his/her environment. Yes but don't you think that when people feel the presence of a photographer they immediately change the way they behave? [...] Yes. Especially kids. Most adults, too, unless they have significantly better things to think about at the moment. But usually, I do think it has an effect on their behavior. They stiffen up, or change position, or frown, or otherwise lose the looseness and spontaneity they had before they noticed you...which is what we wanted in the first place! 99% of all my photos never see print or public exposure, so I don't feel at all bad with 'snoop' photography. A frozen segment in time, and never disrespectful...so if it had been ME in the frame, I wouldn't be embarrassed. The demeanor of the photog makes a tremendous difference, as we all know and have experienced. Our appearance and demeanor instantly charges the subject...to the good or the bad. Depends, doesn't it. keith
Re: Long lenses-- was Street Dancers
Shel Belinkoff wrote: I wasn't going to comment on the photos, but since a discussion of sorts has opened up around them maybe I can add a thought or two. [...] What Capa said years ago holds true today: "If your photos aren't good enough, you're not close enough." Shel Thanks, Shel! While reading your post, I had that exact quote in mind, but my "mind" is not all that responsive to selective recall these days. Years ago I totally agreed and identified with Frank's comment. Makes all the difference in the world. Sort of a "You Are There!" feeling... ;-) I guess if I don't pack my Pentax A 35-70 all purpose lens with me, that's why I carry an 85 or 100/105mm lens when I street walk! Yes, it's true, I'm a street photog at heart... keith
RE: Long lenses-- was Street Dancers
Not always - and so what if it does? Do you think hunting with a long lens results in more interesting or compelling photographs? I guess it depends on what you want to photograph. You can learn to be unobtrusive and accepted when photographing closer in - it may take a little practice and certainly you may need to develop some sensitivity to the people and the environment, but, imo, the results become much better. Look at your photos with a critical eye, compare them, perhaps, to the results obtained by others (Capa, Lange, Salgado, Nachtwey, Smith, Chim, Morath, Arbus, Erwitt, Dickey Chapelle, Barbey, Richards). You might consider taking a look at this page: http://tinyurl.com/4495z and see if the work of any of these photographers represents what you want to do, then get yourself a 50mm lens and go out a make some photos. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Joaquim Carvalho > > Yes but don't you think that when people feel the presence of a > photographer they immediately change the way they behave?
Re: Long lenses-- was Street Dancers
In a message dated 6/27/2005 10:41:28 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >>Yes but don't you think that when people feel the presence of a >>photographer they immediately change the way they behave? Not really, if the photographer acts natural. Just refuse to shoot shots that seemed posed to you, if that's what you want. Sometimes though, especially in cases of youngsters and good looking women, interaction makes for a far better shot than a sniped candid. In the Porto shots, it is amusing that in this one the subject has spotted the sniper. http://x64.com/joaquim/photo/photo03/index-Pages/Image19.html Regards, Sonny http://www.sonc.com Natchitoches, Louisiana Oldest continuous settlement in La Louisiane égalité, liberté, crawfish
RE: Long lenses-- was Street Dancers
On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 15:22, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > I wasn't going to comment on the photos, but since a discussion of sorts > has opened up around them maybe I can add a thought or two. One of the > biggest problems I see when using long lenses is that the photographer > loses contact - or never even establishes contact - with the people s/he's > photographing. I don't mean that you have to become intimate with the > subjects, although getting close enough to establish some intimacy, even > for only a portion of a moment, can only improve one's photographs. By > being physically closer the photographer is better able to "feel" the > scene, to see small details that may enhance a photograph, and to get a > greater sense of what's taking place between subjects (if there's more than > one in a scene) or the subject and his/her environment. Yes but don't you think that when people feel the presence of a photographer they immediately change the way they behave? > Being a sniper (I like that term) distances the photographer to the extent > that there's nothing personal about the photos, and, for the most part, > places the photographer so far out of the photographic environment that > there's often more of a voyeuristic feel or sense to the photos than > anything really meaningful. If you're trying to tell a story with your > camera, which is what I think good photography - certainly good "people" > and portrait photography - is all about, you've got to be close enough to > understand the story yourself, and maybe even close enough that your > subjects can share that story with you. > > What Capa said years ago holds true today: "If your photos aren't good > enough, you're not close enough." > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: > > Date: 6/27/2005 6:23:56 AM > > Subject: Long lenses-- was Street Dancers > > > > In a message dated 6/27/2005 7:15:16 A.M. Central Daylight Time, > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > On 6/26/05, David Volkert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I don't normally do street photography (at least I think this can be > > > considered street photography but the lens is a bit on the large side > > > and it was an event) but the opportunity presented itself today. > > > > > > http://flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/21768115/ > > > *Ist D, Sigma 135-400mm @ 135mm, F/9.5, and 1/500th > > > > Yesterday in my comments about the Porto shots, I mentioned that using a > > longer lens tends to get us into a sniper mood when we take to the > streets. > > > > Now, I am definitely not an expert in Street Photography, and lots of > what > > passes for that "genre" I do not get, but before you dismiss the concept, > maybe > > you should look at the problems of using a long lens on the streets have > > caused in this "nearly there" shot. > > > > First of all, the horizon is tilted more than 2 degrees. When working > with > > a long lens, it is hard to make framing judgements, as the very act of > > holding the glass steady is a triumph. > > > > The next problem I see is that relying on the autofocus on the two > dancers > > has lost the focus on the foreground boy, (an important element, IMHO) > and the > > compression brings the folks walking in the near background right up to > the > > dancers. > > > > In the case of the smiling woman, this isn't too much of a problem, but > the > > tall guy in the black shirt, the guy with his back to us, and the woman > on the > > right verge become distracting elements (Ditto, the red fringe in right > > frame.) These elements would be no problem at all if we were shooting > with, say > > a 50mm from lots closer. > > > > Long lenses have their place, certainly they do. Football games, air > shows, > > birding, Olympics, auto racing, volcano eruptions, good looking > bikinied > > women with big burley boyfriends; these are all places I would use a > lens > > longer than 90 mm. > > > > > > Regards, > > Sonny > > http://www.sonc.com > > Natchitoches, Louisiana > > Oldest continuous settlement in La Louisiane > > galit, libert, crawfish > > > > >
RE: Long lenses-- was Street Dancers
I wasn't going to comment on the photos, but since a discussion of sorts has opened up around them maybe I can add a thought or two. One of the biggest problems I see when using long lenses is that the photographer loses contact - or never even establishes contact - with the people s/he's photographing. I don't mean that you have to become intimate with the subjects, although getting close enough to establish some intimacy, even for only a portion of a moment, can only improve one's photographs. By being physically closer the photographer is better able to "feel" the scene, to see small details that may enhance a photograph, and to get a greater sense of what's taking place between subjects (if there's more than one in a scene) or the subject and his/her environment. Being a sniper (I like that term) distances the photographer to the extent that there's nothing personal about the photos, and, for the most part, places the photographer so far out of the photographic environment that there's often more of a voyeuristic feel or sense to the photos than anything really meaningful. If you're trying to tell a story with your camera, which is what I think good photography - certainly good "people" and portrait photography - is all about, you've got to be close enough to understand the story yourself, and maybe even close enough that your subjects can share that story with you. What Capa said years ago holds true today: "If your photos aren't good enough, you're not close enough." Shel > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Date: 6/27/2005 6:23:56 AM > Subject: Long lenses-- was Street Dancers > > In a message dated 6/27/2005 7:15:16 A.M. Central Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > On 6/26/05, David Volkert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I don't normally do street photography (at least I think this can be > > considered street photography but the lens is a bit on the large side > > and it was an event) but the opportunity presented itself today. > > > > http://flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/21768115/ > > *Ist D, Sigma 135-400mm @ 135mm, F/9.5, and 1/500th > > Yesterday in my comments about the Porto shots, I mentioned that using a > longer lens tends to get us into a sniper mood when we take to the streets. > > Now, I am definitely not an expert in Street Photography, and lots of what > passes for that "genre" I do not get, but before you dismiss the concept, maybe > you should look at the problems of using a long lens on the streets have > caused in this "nearly there" shot. > > First of all, the horizon is tilted more than 2 degrees. When working with > a long lens, it is hard to make framing judgements, as the very act of > holding the glass steady is a triumph. > > The next problem I see is that relying on the autofocus on the two dancers > has lost the focus on the foreground boy, (an important element, IMHO) and the > compression brings the folks walking in the near background right up to the > dancers. > > In the case of the smiling woman, this isn't too much of a problem, but the > tall guy in the black shirt, the guy with his back to us, and the woman on the > right verge become distracting elements (Ditto, the red fringe in right > frame.) These elements would be no problem at all if we were shooting with, say > a 50mm from lots closer. > > Long lenses have their place, certainly they do. Football games, air shows, > birding, Olympics, auto racing, volcano eruptions, good looking bikinied > women with big burley boyfriends; these are all places I would use a lens > longer than 90 mm. > > > Regards, > Sonny > http://www.sonc.com > Natchitoches, Louisiana > Oldest continuous settlement in La Louisiane > égalité, liberté, crawfish >
Re: Long lenses-- was Street Dancers
On Jun 27, 2005, at 6:17 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yesterday in my comments about the Porto shots, I mentioned that using a longer lens tends to get us into a sniper mood when we take to the streets. ... Yes, I agree. While walking through the SF Pride festivities yesterday, I fitted the 80-320mm lens that I have on loan for a bit. While it returned me some good shots, they are of a fundamentally different nature from the photos made with the 20-35 or 35-70 lenses ... they can obtain quite a bit of context with proper attention to framing, but when photographing people I feel quite a bit of the intimacy and the sense of connection is lost. The Street Dancers photo is wonderful in its own way ... a tableau with some flaws but establishes the connections between events and people well. What it doesn't have is intimacy: it seems we are peering on the scene from afar, which we are. The same goes for the Porto set. The three I liked I felt more connection, more context and involvement. The others seemed just good catches of people at a distance. Godfrey
Long lenses-- was Street Dancers
In a message dated 6/27/2005 7:15:16 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 6/26/05, David Volkert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't normally do street photography (at least I think this can be > considered street photography but the lens is a bit on the large side > and it was an event) but the opportunity presented itself today. > > http://flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/21768115/ > *Ist D, Sigma 135-400mm @ 135mm, F/9.5, and 1/500th Yesterday in my comments about the Porto shots, I mentioned that using a longer lens tends to get us into a sniper mood when we take to the streets. Now, I am definitely not an expert in Street Photography, and lots of what passes for that "genre" I do not get, but before you dismiss the concept, maybe you should look at the problems of using a long lens on the streets have caused in this "nearly there" shot. First of all, the horizon is tilted more than 2 degrees. When working with a long lens, it is hard to make framing judgements, as the very act of holding the glass steady is a triumph. The next problem I see is that relying on the autofocus on the two dancers has lost the focus on the foreground boy, (an important element, IMHO) and the compression brings the folks walking in the near background right up to the dancers. In the case of the smiling woman, this isn't too much of a problem, but the tall guy in the black shirt, the guy with his back to us, and the woman on the right verge become distracting elements (Ditto, the red fringe in right frame.) These elements would be no problem at all if we were shooting with, say a 50mm from lots closer. Long lenses have their place, certainly they do. Football games, air shows, birding, Olympics, auto racing, volcano eruptions, good looking bikinied women with big burley boyfriends; these are all places I would use a lens longer than 90 mm. Regards, Sonny http://www.sonc.com Natchitoches, Louisiana Oldest continuous settlement in La Louisiane égalité, liberté, crawfish
