I've been in a fight over a public photo. So, if you don't like fights, perhaps get a telephoto lens. (Saw accident, took picture, man that caused accident decided he was Bruce Lee. Turned out he wasn't.)
Personally I wouldn't want to rely on telephoto lenses. They feel kind of disconnected with the subject and are more creepy than using a short focal lense.
Yes, but its nice not having blood on your camera and wondering where the battery and door that used to hold it in went. I think 85mm is the perfect street photography lens. Or a 35 pancake for discreet, or a 24-70 or 24-105 if you don't like changing lenses. 70-200 is just too heavy.
Not what most people think of as telephoto. 24-70/24-105 are standard full-frame kit lengths.
I returned a 70-200 after trying to lug it around for 4 hours. It's just too tiring and too silly for general use, and it's certainly not inconspicuous if you're going to be in public.
I have a 24-105 f/4L that I use for day time and a 35 f/1.4L that I like to use at night. I do own a few other lenses but the two mentioned make up 99% of my usage.
Each to their own! I love my 70-200 f/2.8, and it is pretty much my every-day lens. Sure it is heavier than I'd prefer, but damn it makes beautiful images.
I'm a street photographer and I loathe long lenses. Every time I see a photo with a telephoto I instantly recognize it. Telephotos give a very cold and distant emotional look to your photos. 85mm is fine in some cases, but 90% of the stuff you'll see, and what I shoot on, would be 35 or 28.
I would never advise the use of a zoom or telephoto on the street.
What's totally missing: Inform yourself where/when you are allowed to take pictures and what you are allowed to do with them afterwards. Helps both to affirm yourself that what you are doing is ok and to not look totally clueless if challenged. (but don't be an ass about "but it is my RIGHT", either)
And repeat that process when traveling, with added emphasis on cultural aspects.
Generally speaking, people should feel as free as Japanese tourists to snap photos. There are some caveats --France is a bit funny about some buildings (like Eiffel tower at night because the operator owns the rights to the likeness enhanced by the lights. Military installations are typically a no-no as well.
But, if we went ahead and were timid about pictures in this place or that place, no photojournalism would take place, if we took it to extreme. I give photography a pass when it comes to cultural awareness. Otherwise we'd have people say things like "Robert Frank had no right to portray "The Americans" the way he did, he wasn't American and didn't understand us". Of course, have personal awareness --some people are weary of strangers taking their pictures --say Bruce Gilden taking pictures of the Yakuza in Japan.
On the other hand, be decent and don't take gratuitous pictures just for the yucks (someone in very embarrassing/compromising position that really don't add anything --a drunk/homeless in the street in their vomit, for example.
>And repeat that process when traveling, with added emphasis on cultural aspects.
Here in Norway it is allowed to take photos in public of groups of people without asking but it is not allowed to single out a person in specific and take their photo without permission. I think cropping a photo to produce a portrait would also fall under the latter btw.
So yes, it's absolutely important to be aware of local laws.
You should be more concerned about that social network bar that floats on the left of the page on mobile and literally prevented me from reading your article.
Here in the UK you're allowed by law to take photos in public but you will get hassled by the police if they feel like it an no amount of being right will help you then. You cannot win. It's OK if you take photos with your phone but owning an SLR is basically terrorism.
I took a picture of a busy Street in a large city,only to be approached 10 seconds later by some lady telling me she's a teacher and her group of pupils is in my picture,and she doesn't feel comfortable with it and she wants me to delete it. I remember the intense embarrassment I felt that moment, like she was calling me a pedophile in public or something,even though in hindsight I should have told her to just fuck off, this was a public space and the shot was of the entire street. I'm really worried about taking pictures in public places now because of that one incident.
I have some sympathy for a teacher in that situation. If someone takes a picture of her students and publishes it, it can hurt them or her depending on context. That risk disappears if the picture disappears.
And I do think it's generally OK to ask people not to exercise their rights as a favor: I might ask a neighbor to move their car to free up a legally occupied parking spot for a disabled relative; someone with children might ask adults not to use legal but racist or misogynist language in front of their kids.
I agree it's a slippery slope, especially if she's a public school teacher and bound by your countries' free speech, etc., laws (and more likely to have the advantage if she calls police).
I've been shooting street photography for almost two years now and I guarantee you that the fear all come from inside. In two years of shooting on the street I've never once had a bad encounter with a person I was photographing.
Hesitation and fear are the number one enemies of new street photographers. The reality of it is you can shoot just fine and not worry about it, but that only comes with time and experience.
Another part of it is learning to read the subtleties of the atmosphere and your potential subjects to know when and when not to take a photo. Some people very obviously should not be photographed, some you should ask permission, most you can just fire away. These days I don't even think about it unless the picture I want is quickly approaching Bruce Gilden levels of in-your-face shooting, which I rarely do.
Street is one of the most difficult forms of photography even for the experienced photographer. Adding the fear on top of it really hinders people.
This fear no longer exists like how it used to. Digital has changed that, cameras are ubiquitous and not just for tourists. This has also changed how we participate, people record important events and watch through the lens rather than live for the moment.
There was a time when you could have a very large event, e.g. an 'illegal rave' and, despite hundreds attending, there would be no evidence of the event ever happened unless someone was a keen photographer and happened to attend. Back then people who took a lot of photos were sort of social misfits that could not enjoy the 'now' properly, as if they had to freeze in time some definitive proof that they once had fun. The taking pictures took them out of being a participant to being an observer. Cameras on phones has blurred that distinction, it is okay to take pictures of stuff. Of people, it is how you do it.
I think that the actual technical parts of photography and getting things like timing right can be done using animals as test subjects. Birds fly away, big animals like cows can make unwelcome advances. You can snap away knowing that no animal is going to be offended. Then take photos the same way but nearer to town. Keep going and then you can take pictures of people in the city without feeling so awkward about it as you are used to people seeing you taking photos and are happy with that part of it. Also, with countryside snaps it is clear that the subject is the view rather than those people walking through the field. Those people are assumed to be in shot rather than the subject. It is all easy in the world where everyone has a camera.
25 comments
[ 5.4 ms ] story [ 65.8 ms ] threadI returned a 70-200 after trying to lug it around for 4 hours. It's just too tiring and too silly for general use, and it's certainly not inconspicuous if you're going to be in public.
I have a 24-105 f/4L that I use for day time and a 35 f/1.4L that I like to use at night. I do own a few other lenses but the two mentioned make up 99% of my usage.
I would never advise the use of a zoom or telephoto on the street.
And repeat that process when traveling, with added emphasis on cultural aspects.
To expand on that, you should do this even when travelling to another state in most countries. In the US for example, Arkansas nearly outlawed street photography: https://petapixel.com/2015/03/31/arkansas-privacy-bill-vetoe...
But, if we went ahead and were timid about pictures in this place or that place, no photojournalism would take place, if we took it to extreme. I give photography a pass when it comes to cultural awareness. Otherwise we'd have people say things like "Robert Frank had no right to portray "The Americans" the way he did, he wasn't American and didn't understand us". Of course, have personal awareness --some people are weary of strangers taking their pictures --say Bruce Gilden taking pictures of the Yakuza in Japan.
On the other hand, be decent and don't take gratuitous pictures just for the yucks (someone in very embarrassing/compromising position that really don't add anything --a drunk/homeless in the street in their vomit, for example.
Here in Norway it is allowed to take photos in public of groups of people without asking but it is not allowed to single out a person in specific and take their photo without permission. I think cropping a photo to produce a portrait would also fall under the latter btw.
So yes, it's absolutely important to be aware of local laws.
I have some sympathy for a teacher in that situation. If someone takes a picture of her students and publishes it, it can hurt them or her depending on context. That risk disappears if the picture disappears.
And I do think it's generally OK to ask people not to exercise their rights as a favor: I might ask a neighbor to move their car to free up a legally occupied parking spot for a disabled relative; someone with children might ask adults not to use legal but racist or misogynist language in front of their kids.
I agree it's a slippery slope, especially if she's a public school teacher and bound by your countries' free speech, etc., laws (and more likely to have the advantage if she calls police).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-J_Day_in_Times_Square
Hesitation and fear are the number one enemies of new street photographers. The reality of it is you can shoot just fine and not worry about it, but that only comes with time and experience.
Another part of it is learning to read the subtleties of the atmosphere and your potential subjects to know when and when not to take a photo. Some people very obviously should not be photographed, some you should ask permission, most you can just fire away. These days I don't even think about it unless the picture I want is quickly approaching Bruce Gilden levels of in-your-face shooting, which I rarely do.
Street is one of the most difficult forms of photography even for the experienced photographer. Adding the fear on top of it really hinders people.
There was a time when you could have a very large event, e.g. an 'illegal rave' and, despite hundreds attending, there would be no evidence of the event ever happened unless someone was a keen photographer and happened to attend. Back then people who took a lot of photos were sort of social misfits that could not enjoy the 'now' properly, as if they had to freeze in time some definitive proof that they once had fun. The taking pictures took them out of being a participant to being an observer. Cameras on phones has blurred that distinction, it is okay to take pictures of stuff. Of people, it is how you do it.
I think that the actual technical parts of photography and getting things like timing right can be done using animals as test subjects. Birds fly away, big animals like cows can make unwelcome advances. You can snap away knowing that no animal is going to be offended. Then take photos the same way but nearer to town. Keep going and then you can take pictures of people in the city without feeling so awkward about it as you are used to people seeing you taking photos and are happy with that part of it. Also, with countryside snaps it is clear that the subject is the view rather than those people walking through the field. Those people are assumed to be in shot rather than the subject. It is all easy in the world where everyone has a camera.
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm