I wasn't going to comment on the photos, but since a discussion of sorts has opened up around them maybe I can add a thought or two. One of the biggest problems I see when using long lenses is that the photographer loses contact - or never even establishes contact - with the people s/he's photographing. I don't mean that you have to become intimate with the subjects, although getting close enough to establish some intimacy, even for only a portion of a moment, can only improve one's photographs. By being physically closer the photographer is better able to "feel" the scene, to see small details that may enhance a photograph, and to get a greater sense of what's taking place between subjects (if there's more than one in a scene) or the subject and his/her environment.
Being a sniper (I like that term) distances the photographer to the extent that there's nothing personal about the photos, and, for the most part, places the photographer so far out of the photographic environment that there's often more of a voyeuristic feel or sense to the photos than anything really meaningful. If you're trying to tell a story with your camera, which is what I think good photography - certainly good "people" and portrait photography - is all about, you've got to be close enough to understand the story yourself, and maybe even close enough that your subjects can share that story with you. What Capa said years ago holds true today: "If your photos aren't good enough, you're not close enough." Shel > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Date: 6/27/2005 6:23:56 AM > Subject: Long lenses-- was Street Dancers > > In a message dated 6/27/2005 7:15:16 A.M. Central Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > On 6/26/05, David Volkert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I don't normally do street photography (at least I think this can be > > considered street photography but the lens is a bit on the large side > > and it was an event) but the opportunity presented itself today. > > > > http://flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/21768115/ > > *Ist D, Sigma 135-400mm @ 135mm, F/9.5, and 1/500th > > Yesterday in my comments about the Porto shots, I mentioned that using a > longer lens tends to get us into a sniper mood when we take to the streets. > > Now, I am definitely not an expert in Street Photography, and lots of what > passes for that "genre" I do not get, but before you dismiss the concept, maybe > you should look at the problems of using a long lens on the streets have > caused in this "nearly there" shot. > > First of all, the horizon is tilted more than 2 degrees. When working with > a long lens, it is hard to make framing judgements, as the very act of > holding the glass steady is a triumph. > > The next problem I see is that relying on the autofocus on the two dancers > has lost the focus on the foreground boy, (an important element, IMHO) and the > compression brings the folks walking in the near background right up to the > dancers. > > In the case of the smiling woman, this isn't too much of a problem, but the > tall guy in the black shirt, the guy with his back to us, and the woman on the > right verge become distracting elements (Ditto, the red fringe in right > frame.) These elements would be no problem at all if we were shooting with, say > a 50mm from lots closer. > > Long lenses have their place, certainly they do. Football games, air shows, > birding, Olympics, auto racing, volcano eruptions, good looking bikinied > women with big burley boyfriends; these are all places I would use a lens > longer than 90 mm. > > > Regards, > Sonny > http://www.sonc.com > Natchitoches, Louisiana > Oldest continuous settlement in La Louisiane > égalité, liberté, crawfish >
