I've heard all the narrow, pretentious definitions of "street shooting" before. I think anything that defines a genre too narrowly is merely limiting. Yes, HCB shot with normal lenses, and I frequently shoot with normal to wide lenses as well. But that's not all I do. I care not a hoot for definitions. By the way, I find nothing intimate about shooting people with their backs turned to the camera. But that's just me. Each to his own. Paul
> Paul, > > That's a nice tele-portrait of a man and child, but street shooting > to me captures the environmental context of the street and the people > who populate it. The perspective in such a tele-portrait is not > intimate, nor does it capture the context of the street at all. > > Photos like these two from my "PAW: People & Portaits 2005" series > are a little closer to the notion of street shooting as I see it: > > http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/13.htm > http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/15.htm > > There's nothing wrong with portraits on the street like the one you > display, but that's certainly nothing like the established aesthetic > of street photography as I have seen it characterized in the work of > Robert Frank, HCB and others. > > Godfrey > > > On Jun 17, 2005, at 3:57 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > > > How does one do "street shooting" with a 200mm lens? You get out on > > the street and trip the shutter <vbg>. Yes, I frequently shoot on > > the street with a 35/2, but I don't always like "intimacy" in > > street shooting. Sometimes I like to catch people unawares. Here's > > a shot with the VS1 70-210/3.5 at 210 mm. It may not fit your > > definition of "street shooting," which is a fuzzy term to begin > > with, but it's on the street, and it's a shot. > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3322436 >
