The Myths of Streetshooting - explained and mostly busted

[The_Traveler]

I was incited to write this post because of a question posted on an Internet forum and the several answers that followed. The question had to do with the suitability of certain equipment for portraits of people – and the poster named three photographers specifically,Henri Cartier-Bresson, William Klein, Richard Avedon.

Besides the fact that these three, while they all shot people, areas different in chalk and cheese and so their favored equipment wasdifferent, the kinds of statements that came out about street photography seem to cling to the same few myths that seem to prevail.

Before I get into the myth-busting stuff, a bit about myself. I think of myself as a street shooter; the spirit of street shooting is to capture something unique and interesting and present that to be seen. I think that good street shooting has something emotional and intense about it and I try to shoot and process that way no matter what subject I am shooting. I don't claim to be great or even good but only a practitioner with some opinions developed over the few years on effort.

OK, back to the myths I'd like to address.


Myth 1 – to shoot street photography you must have asmall camera body and a relatively short focal length lens, generally in the 30-40 mm
range.

This kind of statement is like saying that all novels must be written on a yellow, lined pad with a number 2 pencil.

Shoot what you have, shoot what gets you the pictures you want and, most importantly, shoot a camera setup that you are intimatelyfamiliar with.

For years I shot with a big, clunky Nikon dslr usually with a 24-70 lens, often with a 50 or a 70-200. This is alarge bulky setup but, in my opinion, it worked for me. Yes, it was large and bulky and obvious but the trade-offs were superb image quality and very, very fast autofocus.

Three or four months ago I switched to the much smaller, lighter Olympus OMD 5 with equivalent lenses. My reason for switching was that the bigger cameras and lenses were just getting to be too much of a physical burden. I came back from 3 weeks hiking around SEA with two bodies, four lenses, backup hard drive and I made a vow to either get a smaller system or to stay in bed.

Now I do have all the advantages of a lighter outfit with adequate image quality and speed but on balance I lost a system I could usewithout thinking and I'm still learning the new one – and not being particularly productive yet.

My point is that it isn't the equipment that is the overriding factor in success but your ability to handle it in the time that you have to get your camera into play.

____________________________________________________________________________________

If this is interesting, the rest of the article, along with alluring pictures is at

The Myths of Streetshooting - explained and mostly busted

even if you don't read the entire piece, here is an important couple of paragraphs.
______________________________________________________________________

One of my consistent disappointments is to cruise around on the web, looking at websites, hoping to admire and find inspiration in others' work.

This last week, however, I came across the work of two shooters I liked a lot who deserve some mention separately.

First I heard Kay Chernush speak and it was a minor revelation. Her work, although it was usually done on assignment, was beautifully composed and executed with an artist's touch. She worked at the shots but each one seemed just spontaneous light and lovely. In all that, she was relatively unconcerned with the technical aspects, assuming that technical competence goes without saying. Lovely work, nice person. Kay Chernush Photography

Second, I saw the Peter Turnley's site and was bowled over with his use of color and composition. This link is directly to one of the most beautiful pictures I have seen in my memory. Peter Turnley's site and the photo mentioned. Actually, Peter Turnley gave me permission to show the image but I want to force as many of you as possible to see his site.

These photographers both shoot, in what I consider, a 'street shooter' sensibility, using the image to capture and project the emotion and, to use Kay Chernush's phrase, a 'sense of place.'

 

[The_Traveler]

OK, someone has to disagree or agree - am I talking in an empty room?

 

[amolitor]

Naw, I read it. Good stuff

 

[Designer]

I agree with your points.

What gets me is all the people who think that it is:

1. Something everyone must aspire to.
2. Something substantially different than any other type of photography.
3. Therefore requiring specialized equipment and techniques.

 

[sashbar]

OK, someone has to disagree or agree - am I talking in an empty room?

OK, you asked about it To be honest, with my epic 3 months street shooting experience I find your 1st Myth chapter a bit obvious.
If you want my (experts :salute opinion, the camera matters less than the number of shots a street shooter takes to get an image.
With your first shot you are noticed. With the second you are silently questioned. With the third they are alarmed (the shot is gone here, but you do not realize it yet)
With the fourth shot they get seriously annoyed. And with the fifth they get demonstrably angry. And you better spare your sixth click.
So do your stuff quickly and preferably with one shot. As HCB famously said, you have to kill your pray with one perfect shot, do not let it suffer and die from multiple wounds somewhere in the woods.
As soon as you are good enough to do it, camera does not really matter much as long as it is capable of producing half-decent quality images.

 

[The_Traveler]

I agree with your points.

What gets me is all the people who think that it is:

1. Something everyone must aspire to.
2. Something substantially different than any other type of photography.
3. Therefore requiring specialized equipment and techniques.

Street photography has, in common with any action photography, that one must think substantially ahead and anticipate what the shot will look like.
It is my opinion that it separates people into two groups, those who can do this and those who can't do it - successfully.
(success in my terms being shots that do transmit some meaning/emotion and aren't just in focus and well exposed.)

 

[The_Traveler]

OK, someone has to disagree or agree - am I talking in an empty room?

OK, you asked about it To be honest, with my epic 3 months street shooting experience I find your 1st Myth chapter a bit obvious.

I can point you to people who aver that small bodies and shorter focal length - and even film - are the right way.'
(ignoring Vivian Meier and Frank Oscar Lawrence who both used twin lens reflex.)

 

[sashbar]

OK, someone has to disagree or agree - am I talking in an empty room?

OK, you asked about it To be honest, with my epic 3 months street shooting experience I find your 1st Myth chapter a bit obvious.

I can point you to people who aver that small bodies and shorter focal length - and even film - are the right way.'
(ignoring Vivian Meier and Frank Oscar Lawrence who both used twin lens reflex.)

This kind of people is not limited to photography. Sadly.

 

[gsgary]

I will disagree, with the equipment i use i can get shots quicker than your OM or your DSLR and they will not hear the shutter fire and i shoot with a 28mm on film

 

[The_Traveler]

I will disagree, with the equipment i use i can get shots quicker than your OM or your DSLR and they will not hear the shutter fire and i shoot with a 28mm on film

is quicker always better?

 

[DiskoJoe]

I agree with your points.

What gets me is all the people who think that it is:

1. Something everyone must aspire to.
2. Something substantially different than any other type of photography.
3. Therefore requiring specialized equipment and techniques.

Street photography has, in common with any action photography, that one must think substantially ahead and anticipate what the shot will look like.
It is my opinion that it separates people into two groups, those who can do this and those who can't do it - successfully.
(success in my terms being shots that do transmit some meaning/emotion and aren't just in focus and well exposed.)

I have taken a lot of what I learned doing street photography and applied it in events I have worked. In street you have to be quick and anticipate the action, same in event photography.

 

[JacaRanda]

Peter Turnley - Moments of the Human Condition

Riveting!

 

[sashbar]

Peter Turnley - Moments of the Human Condition

Riveting!

Yes, he is great and an amazingly hard worker. But his mentor was a true genius.

Atelier Robert Doisneau |*Galeries virtuelles des*photographies de Doisneau - Clochards

 

[pixmedic]

I will disagree, with the equipment i use i can get shots quicker than your OM or your DSLR and they will not hear the shutter fire and i shoot with a 28mm on film

is quicker always better?

not according to my wife. :er:

seriously though...
I dont do street photography, but with weddings, even though it is a constantly moving event, it isn't always about getting the shot as fast as possible.
Its about looking at the scene and "seeing" the shot you want to get. sometimes that shot is right now, sometimes it is a second or two from now.
its just as important for the photographer to know "when" to take the shot as it is for them to know "how" to take the shot.

 

[The_Traveler]

Peter Turnley - Moments of the Human Condition

Riveting!

Yes, he is great and an amazingly hard worker. But his mentor was a true genius.

Atelier Robert Doisneau |*Galeries virtuelles des*photographies de Doisneau - Clochards

turnley is a master on his own, nothing against his mentor, but turnley is wonderful.
if I had taken the pic I linked to, I'd probably retire my camera and spend the rest of my life looking at a print of it