Special thanks to `bzed, =crazy1ady, =creativehouse, *darkkavenger, *iamkatia, =knuta, =Obliviou-S, *OlovPhotopov, =panopticum, *pebaline, ~varjag and *zort for inspiring me, letting me use their eminent photos as illustrations and/or proof-reading for me.
In general, people accept to have their pictures taken in public places, in fact many people are happy that you shoot them. Some people actually dress up for people to take pictures of them, you've all seen them (and if not, look for them), especially at weekends.
Treat people with respect, be gentle and smile a lot and you will be fine. I am not kidding. 90%+ are indifferent and most of the remainders are happy that you take their picture. I will go into details later in the text, but conflicts are very very rare, and most people are either happy you take pictures or indifferent. I am still alive, am I not? I'm even out of the breathing machine.
It doesn't. The classical street photographers like Henri Cartier-Bresson (HCB), Robert Frank and Elliott Erwitt and many others use and used black and white. There are two reasons for this:
More recent photographers have used colour to great effect in their street photography, an example is the british photographer Martin Parr who has documented so much of british society the last 30+ years. Although Parr also masters black and white, his depiction of the british would be incomplete without showing the horrid use (some) brits have put colour to. What medium, camera, film, sensor, filters, focal-lengths, ... your use is up to you and what you want to tell, there is no right or wrong.
The reason most of the illustrations in this article are black and white, is to make it easier for people to print it on the bw office printer.
I've done street photography in London and Paris, and they're great for street photography and people are friendly and don't mind cameras. I hope to add New York to my list as well. But truth be told, my best shots have been done in other cities and towns. As we mentioned above, we can call it 'social photograpy' or 'moment photography' and there is most certainly social life and moments happening in small towns and anywhere people, pets and others gather. Many of the most famous streetshots were done far away from streets, yours can as well. In fact, most of the shots in Robert Frank's famous 'Americans' book were done in little towns and places throughout the United States.
Many street photographers live by this code of ethics and they do it well. They capture ordinary, extraordinary and legendary moments this way. "It's real because it happened and there's photographic evidence." Garry Winogrand loved unposed shots, but described photos as "imitations of life" or "the illusion of a literal description of a piece of time and space". Mark his words, because your choice of style, equipment, approach, your skills and plain old luck defines your photo and what you tell. Many of Robert Doisneau's shots were posed, but were they less real than Winogrand's Animals? It doesn't really matter, we love their photos. Just like poets carefully choose their words it's up to you to choose your approach, and you can change whenever you like. You'll be judged by your shots.
Different countries have different laws. Check your local laws, and learn what exactly is off-limit to you, figure out what are the grey zones in the law, and learn when you have to ask permission. An advantage of a digital camera is that you can show people what you just shot and they can give permission right there and then. Just remember that what you shoot is your property, and the people in your shots may object to your later use of the picture, but they can never demand that you delete your shot or hand over your film. And always be friendly, especially to police officers.
Patience, my friend. Erwitt, HCB and others shot for many many years to create their collections of streetshots. They didn't shoot it all in a few weeks, and they certainly didn't make their corpus in their first weeks of streetshooting. It takes a while to master the camera, train the eye, learn to read situations and find out what it is you really want to shoot. And they kept cameras with them at all times for decades, ready to shoot within seconds. Just to get those shots we all love or hate. Patience is the key, as well as good warm clothes, while you wait for the right people to walk into your composition or walk the beat looking for special moments or moods.
All of us want to have the wit of Erwitt, HCB's ability to spot and combine patterns, and the gentle qualities of Doisneau in our shots. But they did their shots, you don't have to do their shots. While I recommend looking at their stuff, I strongly encourage you to shoot what you like. Being in accordance with oneself is all we can hope to do. It's your camera, do your shots.
As mentioned above, streetshooting is all in ones mind, in realising that people don't mind being shot, but it always comes back, even to experienced streetshooters "what if ...", and the evil "but ..." thoughts. If you feel that way, it's ok, we all have that. Some of us are really really shy, but we bite our lips, curse enough to avoid a first-class ticket to heaven and then get that shot. Every streetshooter has his or her methods to combat their shyness, but it's a neverending struggle and sometimes shyness wins. In a way, streetshooting is about breaking mental barriers. Some award themselves with a something nice, like a box of chocolate, a photobook, or a nice lunch if they break barriers.
The first times you do streetshooting you might want to go with a friend, and if the friend is also a photographer, even better. Then you can encourage each other. If you're really nervous, go to a place where many others have cameras, e.g a touristy place, a public event, or something similar where people will pay no mind to an extra camera. Weekends are good because people are more relaxed then. Start shooting what others do, try to find better angles than the others, and then gradually change angle to shooting people. People are the basics of this genre. Either shoot those active in the public event, spectators or maybe try shooting your fellow photographers. Photographers usually don't mind being shot and tend to be so unphotogenic that the shots easily become funny. The lesson is to get familiar shooting in a public place and shooting people. Don't expect frames to be good, just be out snapping away. You might be lucky though, beginner's luck is allowed in this game. Repeat this lesson as many times as you feel you have to. You can do it.
For many streetshooters, contrasts is the most important way to express things. And streetshots along with photojournalism, benefit maybe the most of all genres from efficient use of contrasts. Very few things can touch us as the contrasts between rich and poor, darkness and light, strong and weak, fast and slow, old and new, ... Looking out for contrasts is one of the cleverest things a streetshooter can do, and some of the most legendary streetshots are exactly that, contrasts and parallells. Sometimes contrasts make us laugh, smile and sometimes even cry. Sometimes it's just left to the viewer how they'd react. Remember that when telling a story with a series of shots, arranging the shots with contrasts work equally well. Robert Frank was very good with contrasts, as was HCB, but Erwitt has also had a great eye for contrasts.
Architectural photography tends to be about shooting buildings and buildings details. It's a genre that is bread and butter for many photographers, although real estate brokers with digi-compacts are reducing the income for architectural photographers. What identifies the genre though is that it's usually devoid of people. Well, given that street photography can be seen as 'people in their habitat', it's certainly of interest for us to take an interest in how people live, how people organise their lives in buildings, cities and other shared environments. So where some architectural photographers want shots devoid of people, we want them in the shots. Combining an eye for architecture with how people act and use architecture can give very rewarding results.
While most of us seek literal descriptions or literal illusions of time and space in our streetshots, that isn't the only way to do it. You can do partial shots of a scene and let the viewer fill in the rest, you can use symbols, use lines and geometric shapes, shadows, reflections, colours, water, movement, panning and many other effects to communicate your message. You're responsible for what you shoot and you're the one that puts the messages and meaning in your photos, so leave no stone unturned.
Ethics (or lack of ethics) in photography is always hotly debated, sometimes even by photographers. Street photographers are not rated much higher than papparazzi or crime photojournalists by the general public, and the frequent use of candid shots and frequent lack of approval from subjects doesn't really help the reputation. The candid nature of street photography can give very unflattering pictures of people and some of the "funny" moments captured can easily be at the expense of others. What is seen as 'ok' or 'good' by the street photographer may not be perceived as such by the "subjects". We all work differently, some are more aggressive than others, some more shy than others. There isn't really any right or wrong, getting the shot has to be balanced with courtesy and respect. Sometimes the hunt for the perfect shot will drive people to extremes, just like in photojournalism.
In later years people have grown more and more hostile towards photography, both governments and ordinary people. The politicians' fear of terrorism (and their heartfelt love of photographers) increasingly means new restrictions for photographers. The fear of pedophiles drive people to attack pediatricians because it's spelt almost the same way, and photographers who happen to include kids in their shots may also be treated as suspect. Privately owned "public places" like shopping malls, cafés, clubs, etc introduce new rules banning use of cameras, even parents will be told not to shoot their kids sometimes. The advent of sneaky mobile phone cameras doesn't help the situation either. While we as photographers may feel disgust at the whole thing, we have to find ways to work with it.
We all have different approaches, and streetshooters through the times have had different approaches. There is a big difference between the more passive observer role of HCB and many Magnum photographers, and e.g that of Mary Ellen Mark who gets very close and connects with the people she takes pictures of. Some streetshooters/"social photographers" are social workers first and use photography as a way to communicate fates, stories and images to the rest of society and also to those they help. For some it is easier to relate to ones own situation when you can see it as a photo, because the belief that "a photo never lies" is still fairly strong. Most streetshooters are not social workers though, but many streetshooters are touched by people they meet. They learn more about themselves and others through their pictures. Some streetshooters use photography as their own therapy, sometimes with camera as a shield and sometimes as a way to connect with others.
Especially when facing the grittier and the seemingly hopeless sides of society it can get very depressing and hard for many photographers. Most realise that there is something beyond the photo; there are person, with a history and a future. Some never connect, some stick to having a variety of change ready in the pockets, some stop and talk, some buy food, some make a more long-term effort to help, some become full-time social workers. It is important that we each consider our role beyond taking and publishing the photos. We are allowed to help, become touched and change our own ways. But as we all are from different background, have different experience and are in different photographic phases and shoot different things we are all bound to make different choices.
I knew you weren't happy about the finger-framing, even if I was serious. Most of my good shots were finger-framed and I have them stored in my mind. The short answer is however that all other cameras have advantages and disadvantages. I'll try to explain why.
Very popular cameras and they're pretty automatic, they're small and most of the time deliver very good results. Generally a lot of a scene is in focus with such a camera, so they're really easy to use. Some have fast autofocus or fixed focus, so you just compose and click. They're small and you can shoot unnoticed from the hip or hidden, and especially digital compacts are seen everywhere these days so you'll blend in. The quality is also very good and easily printable as A4/Letter.
Their advantage is however their disadvantage, the ability to keep everything in focus may leave some photos cluttered where you want a more specific focus. They also perform relatively badly in low light, and will react with flash sooner than you might expect, and flash might not be what you want when you want to keep a low profile. Many of them lack the manual control/overriding of more high-end cameras, which you might want.
Another "issue" with compacts is that you'll look like a tourist or a beginning amateur in most places, which might be what you want or might not. They are also quite restricted if you want specialty lenses, filters, etc. You might want to have a backup compact in addition to the other cams listed below though.
Camera of choice for most amateurs and professionals, especially press photographers. They exist in most sizes and weights, but are generally bigger and bulkier than compacts or rangefinders, but typically lighter than most medium format cameras. The main advantage of an SLR is that they're fairly small, incredibly flexible and are filled with sophisticated technology these days. You look through the lens when you focus and compose, and what you see is what you get, roughly. They tend to have very fast autofocus, pro or zoom lenses and the latest of everything. If you need a whiz-bang feature, some SLR has it, whether it's eye-tracking focus, or programmed use of complex flash systems. They also in general support full manual control so you're the boss if you want to be.
Their advantage is however their disadvantage. All the whizbang features can get complex and all you want is to take good pictures. Aperture priority is usually a safe and fairly automatic bet for street shooting though. You look through the lens, so you can't see things outside the field of view suddenly entering into the frame. You look through the lens at maximum aperture, and the least depth-of-field, so what is out-of-focus is sometimes so out-of-focus that you can't really see it clearly. Focusing can also be hard in low light, also with top-of-the-line autofocus. But the most important disadvantage is that they can be bulky and attract attention on a street, especially with long telelenses. You can also in my opinion forget to shoot from the hip, although some streetshooters disagree. You decide what you like.
Another "issue", is that you might be mistaken for press if you have a serious SLR (not the silvery ones that Canikon love to sell to soccer moms), the right age (20-70), look as if you have a bad hangover and some nice lipstick on your shirt. This might be an advantage in some cases as you get access, but other times you'll be turned away for being press. Some people will assume it's ok that you shoot as you're press, others will be extra skeptical because media represents for them "all that is wrong in this world." Kids of all ages may want to know what newspaper they'll be in the next day though, so have an answer ready.
Camera of choice (and Leica in particular) for many of the most famous streetshooters through the times. Purchase of one Leica will cost you more than the yearly GNP for an average citizen in the third world, but what is life without luxury? A lot of rich people think they'll be HCB, Doisneau or Erwitt if they get their hands on one. Chances are they will not. Some people will "be all you can be" with a proper rangefinder. It's a big jump, and expensive as well, so a reality-check for how serious you are is important. Note that you can get (more bulky) russian copies cheaply, to see if this is for you.
Rangefinders work by looking through a viewfinder which has everything in focus (like normal glass) and then the rangefinder patch is imposed over it, and to focus correctly you have to align what you see and the patch. Where you align them is where you focus. You can see people going in and out of a scene clearly, but the focusing can be hard if there aren't any contrasts or people to focus on. Focusing is however a lot easier in low light when you get used to it. Rangefinders also tend to be quieter than SLRs so they can be used quietly where SLRs will be heard. You can cough to hide the sound of SLRs and rangefinders e.g when shooting in a gallery or church. Rangefinders rarely have sophisticated technology or zoom-lenses, and the lenses are expensive (and good), but rangefinders are more complex mechanically than an SLR. They're smaller than SLRs and can fit in a pocket and you can use it quickly when the need arises, which is invaluable for a streetshooter. Rangefinders exist as 35mm or even as medium format. There is currently only one digital rangefinder on the market, the Epson R-D1, which can use 35mm lenses, has comparable digital quality to a digital SLR, but is pricier than consumer dSLRs
Their advantages are however their disadvantage. The complex focusing which is very good, makes them also more expensive to produce. They have become scarce because they are so pricy, and camera collectors (the enemies of those who actually plan to use cameras) are driving up the prices. It also takes some getting used to a rangefinder for people who have just used SLRs, and the rangefinders are not as flexible as an SLR wrt lenses and cannot really be used very well closer than 1 meter due to parallax error. All but the most recent rangefinders lack autofocus or automatic exposure modes. This means you have to learn more technical stuff to shoot than your average run-of-the-mill compact or consumer SLR.
Carrying a rangefinder in public might attract camera collectors or serious amateurs, and you might lose a good moment when unable to get away from camera collectors who want to discuss Summilux and Noctilux, and qualities of bokeh.
The medium format cameras are typcially bulkier than smaller format equipment. Their lenses are in general not as fast, which complicates the available light photography indoors and at night time. The 120 and 220 films provide less exposures than 35mm format while the cost is about the same.
However, a certain share of street photography was done using such equipment. Twin-lens reflex cameras (TLRs) are notably small and not too heavy, the legendary Rolleiflex (still in production today) is a typical example of the breed. A decent TLR can be operated very quickly, their central leaf shutters are whisper quiet and they have no mirror slap issue of SLRs, with all the consequent disavdvantages for hand-held use. You focus the camera on the groundglass in a submissive bow rather than in arrogant straight gaze, which may often make a difference to other people's perceptions. Indeed, many woudn't even have an idea that you're photographing at all.
A system medium format SLR, like Hasselblad or Mamiya are not very convenient for street photography: they're cumbersome to hold, their heavy mirrors slap noticeably. Leave them in the studio.
Mamiya also makes excellent 6 and 7II series medium format rangefinders. They look like overgrown 35mm rangefinder cameras, and are very similar in most respects.
Some people have used large format cameras for street photography, believe it or not. They're big, bulky and hard to use for snapping. But given the recent trend of small digital compacts people might not realise that it is a camera so you might set up a nice scene and wait for people to walk into it. And of course, half-posed/posed shots can work well.
Provided you have a camera-system that allows you to change lenses, you're faced with the question of which lens to use on the camera when doing street. Let me first say that any lens can be used for street, there are no real limits but your creativity. So there are no excuses like "I don't have the right lens". That said, lens choice is maybe one of the things that affect your photos and probably also your approach the most, most likely more than camera-system choice between 35mm rangefinder or 35mm SLR.
In general a wide lens means that you need to be closer to your subjects to get expressions and details, but it makes it easier to include more of surroundings and more people in a frame. A telephoto lens will allow you to keep more distance to subjects, but at the price of not being able to include surroundings because the field of view tends to be too narrow. A wider lens is typically thought of as giving more depth of field than a telephoto lens, and that may also affect your approach.
The ability of a lens to collect light is controlled by the aperture (blender/blende in norwegian/german). The wider aperture the lens is set to (denoted by a small f-number) the more light it can collect in a given time. A lens with wide maximum aperture is called a fast lens, while one with smaller maximum aperture is called a slow lens. What is considered a fast lens depends on focal length and use, but for reasonable focal lengths a lens need to be f/2.8 or faster (lower number) to be considered fast. A wide aperture also gives you a narrow depth-of-field, and a "good" lens will typically render out-of-focus area (bokeh) softly at wide apertures, allowing you to isolate subjects completely. On smaller apertures a lens will render out-of-focus areas in a way that allows more of the out-of-focus areas to be fairly recognizable.
A zoom-lens is a lens that can change focal length. There are wideangle zooms, normalzooms, telezooms and superzooms. Zoom-lenses tend to be slower than lenses with fixed focal lengths (also known as prime lenses), and bokeh (out-of-focus areas) tend to be smoother and softer with prime lenses. The fastest 35mm zoom-lenses you can get are f/2.8, while prime lenses can be gotten cheaply at f/1.8. You can also get f/1.4 lenses for fairly reasonable prices, while f/1.2, or even f/1.0 lenses are also possible to get for those willing to spend. An f/1.4 lens is two stops faster than an f/2.8 zoom-lens, and in low light that is easily the difference between a handheld shot and needing a monopod or tripod. The fastest zoom-lenses typically have a maximum of 3x zoom, and the more zoom you have the more likely is is that the lens has had to compromise on speed and/or optical quality compared to the lens with less zoom.
When you're just starting out, it might be tempting and maybe a good idea to use a telephoto lens, and maybe a telezoom if you have one. A telezoom or a digicompact with superzoom is flexible and you can handle several situations, especially if there is enough light. But they're not very useful indoors because they can be slow, but will give you plenty of chances to practice outside. In general, a normalzoom (roughly 24mm to 75mm) will be more flexible than a telezoom once you've gotten past the first shyness and is able to get closer. When light levels are low, you will probably want a fast normalzoom (f/2.8) or a faster prime lens.
A fast lens will also allow you to use a narrow depth-of-field to isolate scenes from busy surroundings, but all in all give you more creative freedom than a slow lens. A fast lens on an SLR will also give your eye or the camera's autofocus system more light to focus with. But when push comes to shove, you might want to use the photojournalist slogan "f/8 and being there", meaning choose a small fairly aperture to be fairly safe wrt focus and getting enough environment in the frame.
Some thoughts on different 35mm focal lengths that I've collected over time. Digital SLR users should multiply their crop-factor first, so a 20mm lens on a Canon 20D with crop-factor 1.6 will be 32mm when reading this text. A zoom-lens allows you to adjust to your need:
Devious Comments
--
Have some every day: photography.deviantart.com
--
[link] - the gallery
macrophoto
--
MN@ Project Manager
deviantART, Inc.
---
--
High quality photography service!!! Taking shots of nude girls since...... 20 minutes ago!
It was almost shocking to realise that street photography is what I've been doing for most of my photography, without even knowing it. My mom and I would go to public entertainment stuff on the weekends (like buskerfests, or just a city park) so I could take pictures. You're very right, most people don't care if you take pictures.
--
Things aren't as pretty on the inside.
--
It be nice to be able to fav Articals,
--
»» ¹²³Got Duckie?
Peter Griffin | Homer Simpson | Fred Flinstone.
They are all fat with hot wifes, praise big people.
--
--
"If you don't do it this year, you'll be one year older when you do"
Previous Page12345... Next Page