Street photographers.... what lenses?

[VirtualRain]

There's context, and then there's just acres of space!

Now you've posted some of your experiments with "Street Photography" it's possible to see what you like and an idea of what you want to achieve. I wouldn't really call what you are presenting Street Photography. I think what interests you more are Street Portraits?

Look around on Google for examples of Street Portraits and the various techniques people employ in this field. Keep experimenting until you find what works for you.

I have to say it. Originally you asked about lenses, and for me these Paris shots clearly show the 135 is just too long, you're just too far away. I find the bokeh, especially in the shot with the older guy in the street really distracting too.

The last shot of the bench I think is very commercial. I can see it being used for an article, the space on the left is good for text.

You know how to take a photo, that is clear from other work you have posted. This is just a new area for you, outside your comfort zone, and you need to keep experimenting.

I don't think I was going for any particular style or look... I was definitely experimenting with a variety of different compositions. I was trying to capture a bit of the essence of the Streets of Paris (beyond just taking photos of the normal landmarks). For example, here are a couple of different shots that are very different compositions (on the extreme ends)...

5DM32572 by Chris-VirtualRain, on Flickr

5DM32677 by Chris-VirtualRain, on Flickr

----------

This last photo is one of the better ones for me. My problem with the shallow depth of field in street photography is illustrated clearly by this shot too. Look an the red neon Cafe sign above the subjects head. Have you ever seen a neon sign that looks like that? A red blur. I haven't. Again, what you have here is more a Street Portrait, and in my view, one of you better ones, this shot is much stronger.

This now illustrates why Street Photography is so difficult. The skill is to capture the frame in such a way that your main subject(s) are clear to the viewer without using gimmicks like shallow depth of field. The background needs to be part of the frame too, and the middle and foreground. It's really really difficult. I wrote earlier in the thread about why deeper DoF is used in Street Photography so won't repeat everything here.

Cropping.
I'm totally against cropping for Street Photography. The frame is the frame. It is your job as a Street Photographer to control the frame, be aware of what is happening, moving in and out of the frame. Timing. Again, very difficult to do.

Thanks, I'll have a look back through the thread to see what you said about DoF however, I'm liking the look of these photos regardless of whether I'm defying street photo conventions or not.

I agree with you about cropping or retouching... however when shooting with primes, sometimes it's unavoidable to crop the odd shot since zooming with your feet doesn't always work perfectly when trying to catch a subject/moment.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

----------

[/COLOR]

Do you think the photo benefits from cropping the woman out?

[url=https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7388/16228278809_e9ae74ba7a_b.jpg]Image[/url]5DM32612 by Chris-VirtualRain, on Flickr

Oh yes that is much better.

Unfortunately I agree regarding the shallow dof. To me if this had a bit more depth it would be really really nice. It is a trap I fall in many a time myself with fast glass. I think it works to shoot wide open when you are nearer with a wider angle lense for these kind of shots.

 

[Attonine]

I agree with you about cropping or retouching... however when shooting with primes, sometimes it's unavoidable to crop the odd shot since zooming with your feet doesn't always work perfectly when trying to catch a subject/moment.

Someone should have told Cartier Bresson! He shot pretty much exclusively with a 50mm! Those outlying things on the edge of the frame are sometimes the details that make the image! I must admit I'm a prime only guy, for me either 24mm or 35mm. They're the only 2 lenses I have and I really hate spending money on equipment, so it will probably stay that way!

I've been looking for some Paris photos for you as a reference. the only working photographer I know there is Peter Turnley. He recently published a book of (mainly) Street Photography in Paris. His personal work is a bit sentimental for my taste, but for reference I think everything in the link below was shot on a 35mm prime (various Leicas as I know someone will be interested). Take a look and see what you think.

http://www.peterturnley.com/french-kiss-a-love-letter-to-paris

 

[Psychopulse]

My personal fav is the 35mm 1.4 from Canon, in a full frame camera.

Some examples of my street photography: http://www.vogue.it/en/photovogue/Profilo/3326638c-4833-4e8d-9b4d-36e4d1c16431/User

i think 24mm might be often too wide and 50mm too narrow, but it's mostly about personal preferences i guess

All the best and happy shooting!

 

[paolo-]

I personally don't mind the shallow depth of field and large negative space. Heaven forbid someone try something different in art.

I think we're seeing the long focal length work with and against you. The second shot and the guy smoking are working. The compressed field of view works nicely with the one point perspective. The shallow depth of field on the man smoking works as well, he's taking a break while the world a buzzing blur around him (though it might be too blurry).

It might be a bit much in both cases, going a bit wider would give more context without making the subjects super small. We see the problem in some of the other shots where you are so far away from the subjects to get some context that subject becomes a bit disconnected. I guess you could make it work in a situation where an interesting part of the background is far away from the subject and you want both to be large in the frame.

Bottom line, I think using the 135mm needs more forethought than wider lenses. If you can find a situations where it works, it'll shine otherwise it can look a bit wonky.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

I personally don't mind the shallow depth of field and large negative space. Heaven forbid someone try something different in art.

Not sure why this dig was necessary. Heaven forbid someone is allowed to comment honestly when invited to do so.

 

[v3rlon]

I like the use of DOF as opposed to B&W.

To me, B&W is a loss of information, like you cropped all the color out, so to speak. I really like the colors - perhaps not as much as Ken Rockwell, but I do like them. I think B&W (including color isolation) is abused to the point that it doesn't carry the impact it is meant to most of the time.

Obviously, removing the colors won't make a bad photograph into a good one, artistically speaking.

This is purely a subjective matter, though. If it looks good then it is good: to you, to your neighbor, to me, to the person paying you for the image. Shoot for your audience. If that is you, then who cares what I think about it?

 

[VirtualRain]

I like the use of DOF as opposed to B&W.

To me, B&W is a loss of information, like you cropped all the color out, so to speak. I really like the colors - perhaps not as much as Ken Rockwell, but I do like them. I think B&W (including color isolation) is abused to the point that it doesn't carry the impact it is meant to most of the time.

Obviously, removing the colors won't make a bad photograph into a good one, artistically speaking.

This is purely a subjective matter, though. If it looks good then it is good: to you, to your neighbor, to me, to the person paying you for the image. Shoot for your audience. If that is you, then who cares what I think about it?

I agree with you.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

This last photo is one of the better ones for me. My problem with the shallow depth of field in street photography is illustrated clearly by this shot too. Look an the red neon Cafe sign above the subjects head. Have you ever seen a neon sign that looks like that? A red blur. I haven't. Again, what you have here is more a Street Portrait, and in my view, one of you better ones, this shot is much stronger.

This now illustrates why Street Photography is so difficult. The skill is to capture the frame in such a way that your main subject(s) are clear to the viewer without using gimmicks like shallow depth of field. The background needs to be part of the frame too, and the middle and foreground. It's really really difficult. I wrote earlier in the thread about why deeper DoF is used in Street Photography so won't repeat everything here.

Cropping.
I'm totally against cropping for Street Photography. The frame is the frame. It is your job as a Street Photographer to control the frame, be aware of what is happening, moving in and out of the frame. Timing. Again, very difficult to do.

I hadn't visited this thread for quite some days, and so missed a number of the posts.

I'm actually laughing reading that sentence, because that is exactly how I see the world all day everyday if I do not wear my glasses. It is a blurry world out there, a world that is very very blurred, but with colour extraordinarily sharp, even in the bleak light of winter in northern Europe.

Again, it does serve to bring the discussion back to lenses and to the question of sharpness, and the whole idea of being in focus.

 

[Attonine]

My point here was not about sharpness. My point is about the use of bokeh to isolate a subject. In Street Photography, I strongly feel that the skill of the photographer is demonstrated by the ability to draw the viewers attention to the subject of the frame by using good framing and composition, and not gimmicks like bokeh. Bokeh is easy, anyone can do it.

 

[Edge100]

Cropping.
I'm totally against cropping for Street Photography. The frame is the frame. It is your job as a Street Photographer to control the frame, be aware of what is happening, moving in and out of the frame. Timing. Again, very difficult to do.

This photo was cropped:

http://www.alexcoghe.com/henri-cartier-bresson-derriere-la-gare-saint-lazare/

And if it's ok for this photo (one of the finest ever taken, IMO), then it's ok for me.

 

[Attonine]

Yes, and that is one of the very, very few photos Cartier Bresson ever cropped as he was strongly against cropping too, hence the black frame showing the edge of the frame on all of his photos!

 

[VirtualRain]

My point here was not about sharpness. My point is about the use of bokeh to isolate a subject. In Street Photography, I strongly feel that the skill of the photographer is demonstrated by the ability to draw the viewers attention to the subject of the frame by using good framing and composition, and not gimmicks like bokeh. Bokeh is easy, anyone can do it.

I think the use of B&W to draw attention to a subject can be just as much a gimmick as DoF. Both are removing information from the image in different ways with the intent of drawing attention to something.

In the old days, B&W wasn't a choice. Now it's a gimmick IMHO.

If there's one thing I've learned over the last couple of months, it's that street photography is a very broad subject and there are a variety of different styles and approaches. Wide angle, up close, deep DoF, B&W street photography is just one such style and probably more a consequence of historic gear limitations than any conscious choice.

 

[Attonine]

With B&W or Colour, I guess it depends how you do it. I've written before in a thread with you that the choice of B&W or colour should be made before the shot is taken, not in post. If your working in B&W you should be seeing in B&W, and of course, seeing in colour if you are working in colour.


I think one of the major, if not the major problem we see nowadays is too much choice. Everyone seems to have loads of lenses and more than one camera, everyone has photoshop. I think for many, the best thing they could possibly do is reduce their choice. Choose 1 camera body and 1 lens, if it's a zoom take some tape and wrap it around the barrel to fix the lens to 1 focal length. Choose either B&W or colour. Do no post processing at all. Learn the craft. Learn the limitations, learn to work within them or around them. Learn what is a good photograph and what is not, be able to say why you think it's a good or bad photograph. Most importantly spend your free time looking at good photography! You will never be able to improve if you don't know what is good or bad!

 

[VirtualRain]

Choose 1 camera body and 1 lens, if it's a zoom take some tape and wrap it around the barrel to fix the lens to 1 focal length. Choose either B&W or colour. Do no post processing at all. Learn the craft. Learn the limitations, learn to work within them or around them.

I did just that. I took my 5D3 with 135mm and shot at f/2 for two days in Paris. No other gear (for street subjects). No post processing. It worked well and I got lots of nice shots (nice to my eye anyway). All of my friends think my Paris street album is the best photography I've ever done - easy crowd!

I know I'm just getting started in this genre and I have much to learn, but the images are interesting enough and pleasing enough for me to want to carry on and improve. For now, at least, I'm going to stick with colour and the 135mm and shoot with narrow DoF where it makes sense.

It's clear you have strong feelings about what street photography is and isn't, and that's fine... you're probably right about what makes good street photography and what classic street photography is, but I think calling shallow DoF a gimmick in street photography is unnecessary... It's a tool just like many others.

 

[Attonine]

Nah, bokah's a gimmick. Bokeh is easy and can be done by anyone. It doesn't take any skill what so ever. Composing a frame that isolates the subject and clearly draws the viewer to the subject, despite the noise going on around, in front of and behind the subject, that takes skill, that is hard, that is one of the elements that defines a good photographer. Not spinning the aperture dial to f1.4 - f2 etc, a 3 yr old or someone whose holding a camera for the first time can do that.

 

[Razeus]

With respect to the crop, no crop issue, I say this. Respect the art form, but don't be afraid to use today's digital tools.

If you say, don't crop, then you also should be saying no additional post processing and show your straight out of camera jpegs.

My take is that if I have to crop more 30% of my pixels, I botched the shot. It gets discarded.

 

[Attonine]

I think part of the task is to achieve a perfect frame. For me cropping doesn't even come into the equation.

With regard to post processing tools, I use the rule to only use what is available in a traditional dark room. It's interesting to note that 20% of the finalists in this years World Press Photo awards were disqualified because of excessive post processing - this means materially adding or subtracting from the image (according to the rules). So it's something pros are fighting with too.

We must remember that the eye is a much better sensor than either digital or film. These cannot capture exactly what the eye sees, so it seems natural that some form of correction may be needed and is acceptable, just don't go over the top!

 

[Razeus]

I think part of the task is to achieve a perfect frame. For me cropping doesn't even come into the equation.

With regard to post processing tools, I use the rule to only use what is available in a traditional dark room. It's interesting to note that 20% of the finalists in this years World Press Photo awards were disqualified because of excessive post processing - this means materially adding or subtracting from the image (according to the rules). So it's something pros are fighting with too.

We must remember that the eye is a much better sensor than either digital or film. These cannot capture exactly what the eye sees, so it seems natural that some form of correction may be needed and is acceptable, just don't go over the top!

Traditional dark rooms were able to crop too. Cropping is not a sin. You're not a better photographer if you don't crop. You're not a bad photographer if you do. These are just tools. Tools to create an interesting image.

 

[Attonine]

True, but the challenge is to get the frame. Cropping is a last resort. The image posted earlier by Edge100, Cartier Bresson's jumping man, is one of only a very few images he ever cropped. This ideal is still strong within the Street Photography community. I don't know any pros, emerging talents or serious amateurs within this field that crop.

I've just thought to look through a copy of Magnum's Contact Sheets book. Can't find any cropping going on there either!

 

[cyb3rdud3]

Nah, bokah's a gimmick. Bokeh is easy and can be done by anyone. It doesn't take any skill what so ever. Composing a frame that isolates the subject and clearly draws the viewer to the subject, despite the noise going on around, in front of and behind the subject, that takes skill, that is hard, that is one of the elements that defines a good photographer. Not spinning the aperture dial to f1.4 - f2 etc, a 3 yr old or someone whose holding a camera for the first time can do that.

Unfortunately I do agree. A comment I made early on in this thread. All too often owners of fast glass only seem to shoot it wide open. There is definitely a time and place to do that and can be beautiful. A whole series like that just doesn't do anything for me just like with the earlier samples. Subject separation is good when it serves a purpose. Depth is important as well in street in my opinion.


But hey ultimately anything goes, albeit I would never rely on friends and family for honest feedback.

 

[UniDoubleU]

35mm is my go-to lenses for everything, I shoot travel portrait semi-professionally and it works great on the streets and in nature, allowing you to get a good sense of the atmosphere around the subject. While, 35mm is my workhorse, I do feel 50mm is more charming with the intimacy it creates around the subject.

Try many lenses to see what comes natural to you!

 

[FieldingMellish]

Cropping is just another tool to enhance an image. Whether or not to crop is photographer dependent. Employing cropping is not a sign of weakness or lack of skill. One might as well say that dodging and burning is a weakness.

 

[Attonine]

Cropping is just another tool to enhance an image. Whether or not to crop is photographer dependent. Employing cropping is not a sign of weakness or lack of skill. One might as well say that dodging and burning is a weakness.

If you are speaking about the general sphere of photography, yes I agree. If you are speaking about Street Photography in particular, then I disagree. Part of the challenge is to control the frame. A photographer who consistently gets great frames without cropping is demonstrating greater skill than one who is cropping. A photographer who is able to frame and compose shots in such a way that the viewers eye is drawn to the main subject despite all the noise that is going on around the frame, without cropping, is a better photographer Despite what many believe, Street Photography is not just random shots in the street, there is a great deal of control to good Street Photography.

Earlier on I threw out the challenge for someone to post some links to great street photography using a tele lens (named photographer, unquestionably great work, not just "photos in the street"). There was one put forward. I'll throw another challenge, someone please post a link of great Street Photography that is cropped. We can rule anyone from Magnum out, the same for In Public, Garry Winogrand, Joel Meyerowitz, William Klein too, in fact all the greats. This is going to be harder as I'm guessing most don't have access to the contact sheets to check for cropping, but the challenge is there, lets see some great street work that is cropped.

 

[FieldingMellish]

If you are speaking about the general sphere of photography, yes I agree. If you are speaking about Street Photography in particular, then I disagree. Part of the challenge is to control the frame. A photographer who consistently gets great frames without cropping is demonstrating greater skill than one who is cropping. A photographer who is able to frame and compose shots in such a way that the viewers eye is drawn to the main subject despite all the noise that is going on around the frame, without cropping, is a better photographer Despite what many believe, Street Photography is not just random shots in the street, there is a great deal of control to good Street Photography.

Earlier on I threw out the challenge for someone to post some links to great street photography using a tele lens (named photographer, unquestionably great work, not just "photos in the street"). There was one put forward. I'll throw another challenge, someone please post a link of great Street Photography that is cropped. We can rule anyone from Magnum out, the same for In Public, Garry Winogrand, Joel Meyerowitz, William Klein too, in fact all the greats. This is going to be harder as I'm guessing most don't have access to the contact sheets to check for cropping, but the challenge is there, lets see some great street work that is cropped.

That's the luck of the draw in many cases. Subject and scene dependent.

If a photographer's got plenty of time and a subject that's not moving all that quickly; or a scene that's relatively static, getting it in frame is trivial.

As far as your example of great photographers that show scenes as shot, know that for each scene they show as shot, there's an incredibly large quantity of scenes they shot that will never see the light of day.