"To each his own" merely means that different people interpret different things -- or art forms-- in their own way. "Street shooting" is a very fuzzy term. It doesn't clearly define a genre. If you prefer, you don't have to refer to tight, long lens street shots as "street shots." I'm not concerned about categorization. I make photographs, narrow and tight, on the street and off. Definitions, Godfrey, have historically proven to be limiting and stifling. I can go far beyond "that's a pretty picutre" without resorting to categorization. Paul
> 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 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
