Second that.[Without the luger]Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Egan
Can anyone point me to the `street photography' rulebook?
Printable View
Second that.[Without the luger]Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Egan
Can anyone point me to the `street photography' rulebook?
While there certainly aren't "rules" for street photography, there also isn't any shortcuts either. The use of telephoto lenses in the street is generally frowned upon for a couple of reasons. One is that the resulting photographs taken with long lenses just don't seem to be as esthetically pleasing as those taken with normal to wide lenses. Case in point the link you provided. I also didn't care for Struellis work. Telephoto lenses can also result in the kind of negative attention that shy photographs are trying to avoid by using them in the first place.
So stick with wide to normal lenes. I shoot both 35mm and 6x7 film in the streets. I use a 35mm lens for my Nikon F2 and a 50mm and 110mm (wide and standard) with my RZ67. Doing so puts you in the mix of things which is where you want to be when shooting street. If you still find yourself uncomfortable then perhaps street just isn't for you. Nothing wrong with that; street isn't easy and many people try it only to discover it just isn't a good match for them. Good luck and most of all have fun! If it's not fun, it's not worth doing!
All I have to hear is "telephoto" and I instantly know it's crap.
Engage or get the F out.
That's exactly what this is, John. Spying, with all the skill involved in being a stationary camera mount.Quote:
Originally Posted by jnanian
Jarter, I mean no offense as you're certainly welcome to enjoy his photos, but to me these are absolutely terrible. Even if they weren't shot with telephoto there just seems to be no thought at all behind them, no attempt at composition. The car series is even worse than the Cape Town series. Gussied-up iPhone commute photos.
Telephoto street photos are pretty annoying in and of themselves, though. He needs to order some internet balls more than you do :).
Strangely, I have yet to find any prostatic balls available online:mad:
I take it that the post by Shaggy was intended as a piece of advice and sarcastic humor.
Concerning Strueli's work, I did say that I had 'mixed' feeling about them. When you view them as a whole slideshow or thumbnails, there are quite interesting indeed as it shows variation between individuals.
The problem comes when people view those pictures individually, there's nothing........extraordinary so to speak.
marcmarc's post made me question my own interest in street photography. Perhaps it isn't for me at all. It's just that I get this instant jeaulosy when viewing someone's street photos.Oh well.
P/s: naugastyle, I really love your photos. I am definitely bookmarking it:)
You have to grow some I think :D you could buy some but I think they are only spunge and will not help much.
i think the paparazzi style should be restricted to certain parts of J.Lo"s anatomy....
I could be wrong, but paparazzi nowdays seem to be much bolder using short lenses and utilizing 'right up' your face shot at close distance.
At least thats how it looks to me in some magazine I browsed in K-mart or any supermarket.
Depends if the subject is in his property or in the police car once arrested ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarter
Thanks, Jarter.
I have a healthy appreciation for beautiful landscape photography, and it took me a while to realize I'm not really any good at it, particularly if there are no people to include somewhere in the frame. I needed some time to get used to the idea that just because I like seeing someone else's landscapes, doesn't mean I need to try to make them too. It's possible that street photography isn't for you, and there's nothing wrong with that :).