Sigh. "To each his own" means "what the fsck do I care about your
opinion?" which basically means 'end of discussion' to me. But I'll try.
Definitions are important, Paul: they're the foundation of
categorization and judgement. Otherwise the only comment you can make
in the discussion of photography as an aesthetic pursuit is "that's a
pretty picture, mate".
'Street shooting' is about context, not portraiture, although notions
of portraiture influence the establishment of context. This is by no
means a "narrow" definition, in my opinion, and the books of photos
published which establish the aesthetic grounds of street photography
present a huge diversity of photographs. It doesn't matter what focal
length lens is used (note that #13 was made with a 100mm focal
length, #15 was made with a 50mm focal length) as long as the photo
is attempting to establish, create, highlight or express a
connection, a context in the scene with the street environment.
I chose those two photos to demonstrate this concept of a street
photo ... both establish a connection between people in/on/about/with
the street/public/etc ... read 'context' ... and I specifically chose
two with longer than wide focal lengths (since I was questioning the
use of a 50-200m lens in the context of street photography) to
illustrate the point of how this notion of street shooting differs
from a telephoto portrait.
Further discussion is invited.
Godfrey
On Jun 17, 2005, at 7:58 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
