|
thpook posted:The security grate in the lower right of this shot causes your OOF areas to look aliased. That's more or less a coincidence from tilting the lens over an area that responds that way. I could fix it in post but I don't really care about it. quote:I love this photo, except for the way the neon signs become big bright blobs of colour. You needed a bit more depth of field on that shot. Yeah. The other problem is that I missed focus sort of. It's not quite dead-on. I wasn't really happy with any of the shots I took that day. ..... 
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 04:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 10:32 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 04:19
|
|
|
I really enjoy doing street photography at wide apertures. It's a good venue to practice isolating a subject quickly, and it gives me some beautiful bokeh to boot. It's made me realize I need to get a camera with faster AF, though. Also made me realize how great it would be to live in a real city. Here's some stuff I shot on Saturday (click here for the full set):     For the record, these are all 100% candid (yes, even the last one; she was looking past me and I happened to snap the shutter at the right moment).
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 05:21
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:This makes me miss Manhattan. What did you use to get that colour on digital?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 13:16
|
|
|
People always end up staring at me like I had this dangerous weapon in my hands when I try street photography. How do you guys manage to keep it ... not so obvious?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 14:40
|
|
|
Shoot from the hip, or raise the camera when you see the shot. Alternatively, stop giving a poo poo 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 14:49
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Shoot from the hip, or raise the camera when you see the shot. Stop giving a poo poo. It's far easier said than done, but that's it in a nutshell.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 14:59
|
|
|
Just to be clear: it doesn't mean you have to start acting like a grade A rear end in a top hat. Be polite, be firm, be on your way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 15:14
|
|
|
thpook posted:Stop giving a poo poo. That's what I thought really. Just have to give it some tries I guess. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 15:25
|
|
|
Be a (short) girl. It would be like getting angry at a baby
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 16:55
|
|
|
It helps a lot if you have an easy smile. I think it has a lot to do with monkey poo poo, i.e. we see direct eye contact as threatening. A camera is kind of a surrogate eye in some people's view, and they tend to react to cameras as if they were you, and you were staring them down. You can defuse a lot of potential situations with nothing more than a smile, since a smile in essence says "Hey, not only am I not a threat, I am a peaceful, friendly non-threat". Like evil_bunny said, don't be a jerk. Remember, you're not doing anything wrong, not only that, it's not even illegal! Don't act like you're masturbating in public and people will be less likely to notice you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 17:16
|
|
|
You'll learn to cope with it. I've once had a woman nearly breathing down my neck because I was taking pictures of her. Only thing it was with my 50mm and she was about 50 metres away from me when I took the picture. What helps is walking a fast pace and only bringing up the camera when you see something, spend a few seconds taking several pictures, smile and walk further before they say anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 20:22
|
|
|
Just have a smile on your face and be generally courteous, if someone looks at you and ruins your photo or something, don't look frustrated and immediately turn away, smile and nod or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 21:08
|
|
|
Posting this in both this thread and Photographers and the Law. http://www.7dvt.com/2010photographer-banned-taking-pictures-church-street I love the part where the aggrieved party describes what he did...and it sounds not just legal, but perfectly normal street photography. quote:“If I had been drunk and gone into Uncommon Grounds and created a loud scene, I can understand why they wouldn’t want me in there,” Scott says. “But I wasn’t even in the store. I wasn’t even in front of the store.”
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 18:53
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Posting this in both this thread and Photographers and the Law. Thats insane. If this happened in my area I would be the first one to go out there and start taking pictures myself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 19:02
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Posting this in both this thread and Photographers and the Law.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 19:13
|
|
|
He's in the legal clear, but I really wonder if the guy being stubborn about deleting the photo made the thing bigger? I checked out the guy's Flickr and he's got good subjects but the scenes just feel flat (does anyone else agree with me here?). So maybe I'm biased against him. Unless the photo was of some amazing caliber, what is deleting one of those photos going to do? He could have been courteous and even fake deleted if it really mattered to him so much. I think it's part of street photography to not just get good shots but also sell yourself to people, be non-intrusive, etc. It calls for being really personable and charismatic when taking street photos. Again, before anyone jumps on me, I understand he was in the legal clear. I'm just saying it's part of taking these kind of photos to deal with people more than you would in taking landscapes or something like that. I get the impression he could have handled that a bit better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 22:14
|
|
|
No. 9 posted:He's in the legal clear, but I really wonder if the guy being stubborn about deleting the photo made the thing bigger? I will not delete an image if someone asks or demands that I do but I will stop taking their photo if they ask. You certainly have to deal with people if you are in public shooting even if you are not shooting people. You just have to be polite.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 22:28
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:I will not delete an image if someone asks or demands that I do but I will stop taking their photo if they ask. You certainly have to deal with people if you are in public shooting even if you are not shooting people. You just have to be polite. I think if she'd been friendly, and polite herself and asked, he may well have...but she "demanded" he delete it. gently caress that noise. When I'm asked about what I'm doing, I'm friendly and open. When people demand info/action, I'm completely and totally non-cooperative.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 22:34
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:I think if she'd been friendly, and polite herself and asked, he may well have...but she "demanded" he delete it. gently caress that noise. When I'm asked about what I'm doing, I'm friendly and open. When people demand info/action, I'm completely and totally non-cooperative. Exactly. I'm nice when people are nice to me and will talk to them for an hour about what I am doing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 22:39
|
|
|
We'll never know how he actually reacted to people. I'm betting he probably could have been more personable, despite what he says. I was out taking photos in rural Oklahoma yesterday. I stopped off to take a photo of a farm house. As I was packing up a lady drove by very slowly and I met her eye. She smiled and I smiled back. Then she turned around and drove back by as I was about to get in the car. She asked "So what are you doing around here," very politely. I said I was just taking photos, I live in OKC. She asked if I was was the census. I played dumb and said "No mam, I'm not doing a survey." She said she knew the people who owned the house and just wanted to see what was going on. I said to tell her friends they had a nice house and friendly horses. By that point she was tired of the conversation and said goodbye. Just be nice, even if the person addressing you is not. Start talking about photography and random poo poo; even in the country where people talk about corn and rodeos for hours they'll decide "Eh okay, he's not doing anything, now I need to get away before he keeps talking." Giving terse answers and seeming skittish gives them time to wonder about what you're up to and what you might do with your photos. Yes yes it's your right whatever. Feel uppity and smug about your knowledge of the law on the internet. Be nice when you're shooting. If it gets serious (cops bring out the cuffs), just get a lawyer. e: and if someone is being abusive and yelling, leave. Come back later. JAY ZERO SUM GAME fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Mar 16, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 22:40
|
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:We'll never know how he actually reacted to people. I'm betting he probably could have been more personable, despite what he says. Sure, we'll likely not get the whole story ever. However, the one person who has complained makes the same complaint again and again, that is, "he was taking pictures without permission." In fact, she says he was "creepy", but agrees none of the pictures was lewd, and goes back to, "I didn't want him to take my picture, and he did anyway." Given that, and that his story matches that really well, I suspect she's one of those people that loudly complains about poo poo like this, but is a "patron of the arts" at the coffee shop with no idea of the irony.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 22:49
|
|
|
No. 9 posted:Again, before anyone jumps on me, I understand he was in the legal clear. I'm just saying it's part of taking these kind of photos to deal with people more than you would in taking landscapes or something like that. I get the impression he could have handled that a bit better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 23:16
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Watch Bruce Gilden at work, you'll be amazed. I've seen him. I know a lot of people disagree with his style and to say his style is analogous with this is unfair. Gilden shoots busy people in NYC, take a photo and these people are on their way. It's sure to piss people off but NYC is a different environment from any other US city. Can't any of you put yourself in the woman's position, though? Maybe you weren't having a good day, looked bad, etc. -- just go out for a smoke to relieve stress and 50 ft. away there's a guy taking photos of you. All you can do in that position is ask to kindly stop and delete the photo. What I'm saying is sometimes photographers get a little too possessive about their photos and not the subject itself. What did that photo accomplish? An addition to Flickr account but ruined a person's day. That's not being professional, I don't care about the law in that regard. It's nice to take photos of anything in open space, as a photographer that is a great right to have. As a person, I wouldn't appreciate a photographer being so defensive if I didn't want my likeness used in his portfolio. I understand the whole philosophy of "my best shot is the one I'm taking" and the freedom to take photographs in an open space, but I don't know if this guy is using any sense. He gets plenty of shots of people, what loss is his portfolio by deleting the photo and sparing the woman added stress? I think there's an overemphasis on her demanding. This guy is being labeled as a creep by the public because he probably doesn't broach the person after taking a candid shot when he's noticed. That's drat creepy and really unprofessional -- any legal or photo freedom beliefs aside. No. 9 fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Mar 17, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 00:53
|
|
|
No. 9 posted:He could have been courteous and even fake deleted if it really mattered to him so much. I think that a perfect use for the Direct Print button, on every camera the CHDK people get their hands on, would be to make a screen pop up that says "IMAGE DELETED!" for about 3 seconds and then quickly cycles to the previous image on the card. Why does Canon insist on including that thing, anyway? It's got to be a running joke around the engineering and design labs by now. Powershot team: "Hey EOS guys! How's that direct print button going? Found a good place for it yet? Baahahahaha"
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 01:33
|
|
|
orange lime posted:I think that a perfect use for the Direct Print button, on every camera the CHDK people get their hands on, would be to make a screen pop up that says "IMAGE DELETED!" for about 3 seconds and then quickly cycles to the previous image on the card. I actually used it with a Dell Wasabi in the last month or so. (Don't pay $100 for one, Dell had them on sale for $30 with two 48-packs of paper). I was initially kinda pissed how they came out streaky, but apparently you have to run the calibration sheet through it once or twice to make sure the heads are all in alignment or something. I'll probably pack it along with me for trips to remote areas; kids are always jumping around and hamming it up to be in pictures, I show them on the camera LCD and they're happy... and then that's it. It'd be really cool to be able to print some out for them to keep, even if it's crappy little business-card sized prints/stickers. It runs off a rechargeable battery and isn't very big/heavy. I'll admit it's niche as hell, but I think I just lost my ability to "Direct Print Button?  "
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 03:30
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Posting this in both this thread and Photographers and the Law. I think this quote:However, he admits that much of the time, his pictures are candid shots taken from a distance with a telephoto lens so his subjects aren’t aware they’re being photographed. might be part of the problem. Having someone take your picture from a distance with a big telephoto lens is a lot more creepy than someone taking a photo five feet away with a 50mm. Also, if someone asks me to delete a photo I took of them, I will. I just feel it's common courtesy to people that a stranger shouldn't have a photo of them if that person doesn't want them to. Oh, and if people ask why you're taking photos, I find this one works really well, "I'm just doing an assignment for my photography class. The assignment is called People in the City". Just be sure you know which photography school you're going to, and which class you're supposed to be in. Koth fucked around with this message at 05:14 on Mar 17, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 05:11
|
|
|
Speaking of controversial covert photography... :nsfw: http://www.radio.cz/en/article/81346 http://www.tichyfotograf.cz/miroslavtichy-dilo.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 05:25
|
|
|
Further to that article posted. He was banned from entering the business on Church street, but he wasn't banned from the street... so what's the point? I really don't understand that part.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 05:33
|
|
|
Koth posted:Further to that article posted. He was banned from entering the business on Church street, but he wasn't banned from the street... so what's the point? I really don't understand that part. The point is to intimidate the photographer...there can be no other reason, since they admit he was never in the shops when taking pictures. And, the telephoto in question is 135mm, so hardly a giant. Take a look at his photostream.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 12:55
|
|
|
The follow-up is hilarious too. Instead of having any kind of debate, let's just threaten the gently caress out of anyvbody involved.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 13:22
|
|
|
Are any of you guys into Hamburger Eyes, I just got #13 in the mail and it rules. A video about their photographers: http://vimeo.com/1632608 A Flickr set preview of the new one:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/hamburger_eyes/sets/72157622023208524/show/ http://www.hamburgereyes.com/ http://hamburgereyes.tumblr.com They also run one of the last darkrooms in SF, cool dudes + their zines rule.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 00:13
|
|
|
i don't if this qualifies as street since i took it from the car but whatever,
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2010 23:48
|
|
|
Emoticon Breakdown posted:i don't if this qualifies as street since i took it from the car but whatever, No! Street photography must be taken on the street  .Eh, my definition of "street photography" is basically the human equivalent of wildlife photography: Taking pictures of people in their natural habitat.   
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 17:46
|
|
|
dik-dik posted:Eh, my definition of "street photography" is basically the human equivalent of wildlife photography: Taking pictures of people in their natural habitat. That's about the best description of street photography I've seen in ages. I like it better than that whole "documenting the human condition" hootenany.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 18:01
|
|
|
HPL posted:
YOU CAN ONLY DO THAT WITH A RANGEFINDER!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 18:06
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:YOU CAN ONLY DO THAT WITH A RANGEFINDER!! A LEICA! PAINTED BLACK!
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 18:17
|
|
|
F8! 50 MILLIMETERS! DIE DIE DIE DIE
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 18:31
|
|
|
Frankly, if it's not made of plastic, to include the lens, it's not "street" as you "kids" with your "hippity hop" music and baggy denim trousers call it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 18:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 10:32 |
|
|
torgeaux posted:Frankly, if it's not made of plastic, to include the lens, it's not "street" as you "kids" with your "hippity hop" music and baggy denim trousers call it. The film's gotta be made out of plastic too. HPL posted:That's about the best description of street photography I've seen in ages. I like it better than that whole "documenting the human condition" hootenany. Oh man when you remind me of that sort of wannabe highbrow bullshit, it makes me want to simplify my definition even more. I'd be happy with the definition that street photography is photography taken on, of, or near streets. That said, it's usually not that interesting unless there are people in it. I do like the wildlife analogy though, because it very accurately describes how I go about taking shots. It feels quite predatory. I'm out on the street for some reason, and while I'm there I'm taking advantage of these people by snapping photos of them they won't ever know about. Kinda hosed up really. dik-dik fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Mar 22, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 22:51
|
|