Lance !!!! I just clicked your profile to see what gear you have. Good lord!!! That's a dream kit.
Also to those who were upset that I asked Marcus about Street Photography ..
I apologized to him in private and I think we're good. . I had no intention to insult him in any way.
I live in gun-loving country (the midwest) and street photography here usually ends up in physical threats,
so I've always been very curious about it. In fact, as I told Marcus, once a jogger confronted me
while my gf and I were standing right off a jogging path, with a z7ii and Sigma 500 on a tripod,
aimed at an Indigo bunting a few feet down the path on a tree. She demanded that I show her the photos I clicked,
and I showed her a few and told her I had absolutely no interest in her, so she jogged off.
So, I was really curious about how things go in NYC and other places.
Anyhoo .. Marcus, thank you for the private chat and wish you great photographic success sir.
saaketham wrote:
Lance !!!! I just clicked your profile to see what gear you have. Good lord!!! That's a dream kit.
Also to those who were upset that I asked Marcus about Street Photography ..
I apologized to him in private and I think we're good. . I had no intention to insult him in any way.
I live in gun-loving country (the midwest) and street photography here usually ends up in physical threats,
so I've always been very curious about it. In fact, as I told Marcus, once a jogger confronted me
while my gf and I were standing right off a jogging path, with a z7ii and Sigma 500 on a tripod,
aimed at an Indigo bunting a few feet down the path on a tree. She demanded that I show her the photos I clicked,
and I showed her a few and told her I had absolutely no interest in her, so she jogged off.
So, I was really curious about how things go in NYC and other places.
Anyhoo .. Marcus, thank you for the private chat and wish you great photographic success sir. ...Show more →
Over here, a majority of my street photos are either my friends or street vendors, especially food vendors.
Usually I buy something from the vendors then they don't mind me taking photos of them.
So I am getting fat for my street photos. See how much sacrifice I have to make for my hobby
saaketham wrote:
My questions to you (since you post street photos on various threads), if you don't mind
1 - What story are you conveying with each photo?
2 - Do you ever ask for the subject's permission, even after you've clicked?
3 - If someone took your photos and your family's photos and posted them online, would you be ok with it?
One important aspect of street photography is to show "the way we are"; this has a sort of historical importance, since it allows transmitting to next generations the way we were, our habits and so on. For example, imagine a guy in 2070 looking at pictures of people in 2021 wearing masks all around the world!
However, differently from the past decades, today we have an inflation of images (and videos); as a consequence, taking images able to capture our attention is much more complicated than before.
suteetat wrote:
So I am getting fat for my street photos. See how much sacrifice I have to make for my hobby
Ripolini wrote:
For example, imagine a guy in 2070 looking at pictures of people in 2021 wearing masks all around the world! However, differently from the past decades, today we have an inflation of images (and videos); as a consequence, taking images able to capture our attention is much more complicated than before.
It is useful as a record of human history, and I do love photos from decades ago, showing how people before us lived. At this time though, with millions of cell phones capturing nearly every second of life, in the form of images and videos, and being shared constantly on social media, street photography, to me, has to be something more than just people walking or standing. If I were into street photography, I would look for interesting patterns, light, shadow, mood, drama, context etc. But I am not into it, so I respect others' vision.
Yeah a lot of people view street photography as a lot of different things. I don't exactly "see" in shadows so that form of it honestly doesn't interest me that much and it's just not how I shoot. What people gather on their cellphones is honestly just crap 90% of the time and I just have a documentarian kind of style. I have basically been described as Bill Cunnigham like twice, so there's a photographer for every style of street photography. saaketham wrote:
It is useful as a record of human history, and I do love photos from decades ago, showing how people before us lived. At this time though, with millions of cell phones capturing nearly every second of life, in the form of images and videos, and being shared constantly on social media, street photography, to me, has to be something more than just people walking or standing. If I were into street photography, I would look for interesting patterns, light, shadow, mood, drama, context etc. But I am not into it, so I respect others' vision.
I enjoy these regardless, however suspect that in 20 years they'll be a lot more interesting to viewers than they are now. I can just hear my grandkids asking why is everyone wearing a face mask?
JadedWriter wrote:
I just have a documentarian kind of style.
As long as you're happy with it and you're not jumping out and scaring people with a flash
By that measure, how many more birds flying or sitting photos does FM need?
I post way too many bird photos and you could ask me the same thing - Why the heck are you posting so many bird pics?
So .. I respect your images, even though I don't fully understand the genre.
Yeah I'm perfectly happy trying to not disturb/harass people for an image. I come across plenty of images on this site that I don't like, but I never complain or criticize them. I try to have respect for my fellow creatives. We all do our own thing. saaketham wrote:
As long as you're happy with it and you're not jumping out and scaring people with a flash
By that measure, how many more birds flying or sitting photos does FM need?
I post way too many bird photos and you could ask me the same thing - Why the heck are you posting so many bird pics?
So .. I respect your images, even though I don't fully understand the genre.
JadedWriter wrote:
Street photography has been a thing for decades.
It sure has and what it used to amount to was limited run publication in magazines and books, an exhibition or prints shared among peers or friends.
If not following AP style for a caption (who, what, when, where, why) in the publications that require the person be I.D, then your street portraits would be usually limited to personal use or exhibition. Which leaves what a lot of long time professionals in the genre are most irritated by and concerned about: the Internet. It changes everything, especially with women and children. Once you plaster it all over the Internet in a public setting, you have nowhere near the control of use or more importantly, misuse that you would had it only appeared in a publication or a print exhibition.
I did a book project about a decade ago that took about 6 years and brought me to 23 states, a portion of it was street photography. Aside from not using highly identifiable people images online to promote it, I carried a letter of intent to publish from the publisher, a sponsor letter from Kodak and a small flip book of laminated prints to tell the people I was photographing what it was about. I did the latter for two reasons, I was shooting it on film and also because that is what Bruce Davidson did for his book “Subway” in order to not get beat up or killed in the 80’s in NYC.
I know a lot of people do this kind of image making as a hobby and put it on the internet….I just hope they realize that because of the *way* these people in the photos have no say or recourse in terms of where their likeness ends up, we risk losing the legal right to be able to participate in the genre as time goes on.
I think in 20 years or less, photographers having the legal right to do this (in the U.S.) will likely be history…
I'll worry about this when it becomes an issue, until then I'm just going to shoot. Ai_Print wrote:
It sure has and what it used to amount to was limited run publication in magazines and books, an exhibition or prints shared among peers or friends.
If not following AP style for a caption (who, what, when, where, why) in the publications that require the person be I.D, then your street portraits would be usually limited to personal use or exhibition. Which leaves what a lot of long time professionals in the genre are most irritated by and concerned about: the Internet. It changes everything, especially with women and children. Once you plaster it all over the Internet in a public setting, you have nowhere near the control of use or more importantly, misuse that you would had it only appeared in a publication or a print exhibition.
I did a book project about a decade ago that took about 6 years and brought me to 23 states, a portion of it was street photography. Aside from not using highly identifiable people images online to promote it, I carried a letter of intent to publish from the publisher, a sponsor letter from Kodak and a small flip book of laminated prints to tell the people I was photographing what it was about. I did the latter for two reasons, I was shooting it on film and also because that is what Bruce Davidson did for his book “Subway” in order to not get beat up or killed in the 80’s in NYC.
I know a lot of people do this kind of image making as a hobby and put it on the internet….I just hope they realize that because of the *way* these people in the photos have no say or recourse in terms of where their likeness ends up, we risk losing the legal right to be able to participate in the genre as time goes on.
I think in 20 years or less, photographers having the legal right to do this (in the U.S.) will likely be history…...Show more →
Ethics of street photography is a large enough discussion to have its own thread. I am appreciating the discussion but think it could have its own place away from the fantastic 50mm 1.2S lens thread?
urbanwild wrote:
Ethics of street photography is a large enough discussion to have its own thread. I am appreciating the discussion but think it could have its own place away from the fantastic 50mm 1.2S lens thread?
I'm down with that.
I debate getting this lens, it's freaking huge and the 50mm 1.8 S is just phenomenal. I must have spent two hours reading reviews last night and came away with no clear conclusion. One of the reasons is that I have the 105mm 1.4 which is flat out stunning, more flattering for tighter portraits and has some reach that I often utilize.
I suppose I can borrow the 1.2 from NPS and then make the call...
When I'm doing natural light portraits for work I use the 50 1.2 and 105 1.4. They basically complement each other. Ai_Print wrote:
I'm down with that.
I debate getting this lens, it's freaking huge and the 50mm 1.8 S is just phenomenal. I must have spent two hours reading reviews last night and came away with no clear conclusion. One of the reasons is that I have the 105mm 1.4 which is flat out stunning, more flattering for tighter portraits and has some reach that I often utilize.
I suppose I can borrow the 1.2 from NPS and then make the call...
I've now picked up and returned the 50mm f1.2S twice. It's a superb lens and I love it. But it's huge and expensive. I could live with one issue, but not the two of them for a 50mm. The 50mm f1.8S and the 58mm f1.4G are both great lenses too.....at a lower price combined and a lot less weight and size. I love the clean images with the 50mm f1.2S and how it's reliably sharp at f1.2, but it's sure hard to justify over the nice lightweight 58mm f1.4G for casual / mixed-pro shooting. Until I start feeling that troublesome itch again, I think I've decided:
closer portraits - 50mm f1.8S
further back portraits - 58mm f1.4G
The 50mm f1.2S has very little advantage to me for close ups and f1.2 is too narrow of a depth of field in many cases.
The 58mm f1.4G is less sharp but I won't notice this from further back. Plus it's a beautiful image producer and the bokeh is not much different than the 1.2S other than the compression.
Have others done much comparing between these? Curious of their thoughts too.
I've now picked up and returned the 50mm f1.2S twice. It's a superb lens and I love it. But it's huge and expensive. I could live with one issue, but not the two of them for a 50mm. The 50mm f1.8S and the 58mm f1.4G are both great lenses too.....at a lower price combined and a lot less weight and size. I love the clean images with the 50mm f1.2S and how it's reliably sharp at f1.2, but it's sure hard to justify over the nice lightweight 58mm f1.4G for casual / mixed-pro shooting. Until I start feeling that troublesome itch again, I think I've decided:
closer portraits - 50mm f1.8S
further back portraits - 58mm f1.4G
The 50mm f1.2S has very little advantage to me for close ups and f1.2 is too narrow of a depth of field in many cases.
The 58mm f1.4G is less sharp but I won't notice this from further back. Plus it's a beautiful image producer and the bokeh is not much different than the 1.2S other than the compression.
Have others done much comparing between these? Curious of their thoughts too.
