|
These are all a little old, but I never posted them here so they're new to you!   
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2010 03:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 21:46 |
|
|
I really enjoy doing street photography at wide apertures. It's a good venue to practice isolating a subject quickly, and it gives me some beautiful bokeh to boot. It's made me realize I need to get a camera with faster AF, though. Also made me realize how great it would be to live in a real city. Here's some stuff I shot on Saturday (click here for the full set):     For the record, these are all 100% candid (yes, even the last one; she was looking past me and I happened to snap the shutter at the right moment).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2010 05:21
|
|
|
Emoticon Breakdown posted:i don't if this qualifies as street since i took it from the car but whatever, No! Street photography must be taken on the street  .Eh, my definition of "street photography" is basically the human equivalent of wildlife photography: Taking pictures of people in their natural habitat.   
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2010 17:46
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Frankly, if it's not made of plastic, to include the lens, it's not "street" as you "kids" with your "hippity hop" music and baggy denim trousers call it. The film's gotta be made out of plastic too. HPL posted:That's about the best description of street photography I've seen in ages. I like it better than that whole "documenting the human condition" hootenany. Oh man when you remind me of that sort of wannabe highbrow bullshit, it makes me want to simplify my definition even more. I'd be happy with the definition that street photography is photography taken on, of, or near streets. That said, it's usually not that interesting unless there are people in it. I do like the wildlife analogy though, because it very accurately describes how I go about taking shots. It feels quite predatory. I'm out on the street for some reason, and while I'm there I'm taking advantage of these people by snapping photos of them they won't ever know about. Kinda hosed up really. dik-dik fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Mar 22, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2010 22:51
|
|
|
orange lime posted:Unless you're shooting on glass plates, you're going to have trouble finding film that isn't made of plastic. Sure, the strip is plastic, but the actual photo-sensitive materials (e.g. silver halide) are not.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2010 04:41
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:That picture is a perfect example of why no matter what camera you use, most of the time street photographers look like dicks, myself included, people are always saying and thinking "what is he doing with that camera, why would he want a picture of that?" so everyone should just forget about getting noticed with an slr. Yeah, I'd say the best way to not get noticed is to simply pretend you're a tourist, and point your camera at buildings and poo poo. Then when they're not looking, point it at people
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2010 18:47
|
|
|
orange lime posted:Or you could just buy a lens hood with a 45 degree mirror in it, and shoot out the side of your lens! Oh man this reminds me of those waterguns you can get with directional nozzles so you can point them to the side. Awesome. HPL posted:Wide angles are good for that because you can get a person in the frame while not necessarily pointing the camera at them. It does have a few drawbacks though. Beware of taking photos of women with wide angle lenses because they think you're taking a photo of their boobs. Alternately you can just go the super-tele route and shoot photos of people from too far away for them to see you. Or you could go the "non-scumbag" route: http://www.wired.com/video/street-portrait-photo-how-to/27609165001
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2010 19:06
|
|
|
Henker posted:I have decided to go shoot solicitors. I feel that if give them a couple bucks or sign their lovely petition or whatever, it gives me blache carte to do whatever I want. Plus, the whole reversal of being bothered in public thing. Nice. Reminds me of the $2 portraits idea. I like that photo a lot, not only because of the glaringly obvious juxtaposition of the sign and the solicitor, but also because of the way her white and red outfit compliments the sign's colors. thpook posted:The reason street photographers like rangefinders is because gently caress carrying a 20 pound hunk of camera and glass while you're taking photos of people. I frequently end up walking over 10 km when I'm out shooting, and sore shoulders aren't fun at all. It helps that leica makes incredible lenses. A DSLR with a short prime lens will weigh a half pound, maybe a full pound at most, more than what a Leica does when fitted with a comparable lens. As a quick comparison, the Canon 7D weighs 29 oz, and the 28mm f/1.8 weighs 11 oz, which comes out to 40z. The Leica M9 (actually lighter than the M7 and MP) weighs 21 oz and the Leica 50mm SummiLux / f1.4 weighs 11 oz, coming out to 32 oz. That's a difference of 8 oz, or half a pound. Percentage-wise, the 7D + 28 weighs 25% more than the Leica. The 5D weighs 29 oz, and the 50mm f/1.4 USM weighs 10 oz, for a total of 49 oz. Sure, the 1D series gets heavy (42 oz), but those are really for sports shooters anyway. I've spent days walking around cities downtown with SLRs and never had any shoulder pain from it. The shoulder pain comes when you try to lug a bunch of gear around with you, or maybe if your camera spends too much time hanging on your shoulder, instead of in your hand, where it belongs. dik-dik fucked around with this message at 03:03 on Mar 29, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2010 02:42
|
|
|
Henker posted:Thanks. I had never heard of the $2 portraits idea, but after reading about it it's pretty much what I was planning on doing. I'm a big chicken, and I find strangers easier to photograph when they approach you with something first. Yeah, I've been thinking of doing it too. I was planning on trying the 100 strangers project, but when I've tried, I tend to clam up when asking for a photo and then end up taking a lovely photo of them in a rush instead of taking my time to put them in a good place for the ambient light, frame it properly, etc. Or, I end up just talking to them for a half hour and losing the light that I was there for  . With the $2 portraits, I've bought a little bit of their time. Even if it takes 5 minutes, that's like $24/hour, which is way more than I'm making.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2010 04:44
|
|
|
No. 9 posted:So how does one get the photo to the person? Email, I'm assuming? Printing would only result to like .50/photo profit. No, no, no. The way it works is, someone approaches you asking you for cash. You say "I'll give you $2 if you let me take your picture." You take their picture, give them $2.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2010 05:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 21:46 |
|
|
Silly idea that came to mind while I was driving today. If you were to use a shift lens, standing on the side of the road, could you make it look like you were standing in the middle of the road and get some badass shots of cars coming straight at you?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2010 23:03
|
|