A couple of street photos...

[Bearface]

Took these today at a village festival. The guy with the beard was quite eccentric and kept pushing the end of his beard into his mouth and chewing it as he watched the various acts. I could see he was aware of my camera and he kept glancing at me, presumably because he knew he was a prime candidate for a candid shot.................Anyway, I held the camera by my side and fired off a couple of shots from there, this being the better of the two.

Shot with a Canon 1D Mk 2 and a 50mm f1.8 lens from close range.



The clown was fascinating, not least because he had this incredible profile which reminded me of the man in the moon, with that prominent chin and hook nose. He was also at least 75, but was hopping about and whooping constantly like a man half his age. This particular shot was taken as he rested following a particularly energetic period.

Same camera and lens as before, again from close range. In both cases, the subjects were unaware they had been photographed.




Thanks in anticipation for any constructive feedback

[Mike Parr]

Re: A couple of street photos...

Facinating shots, I am curious about the bricks on the second one how did you manage to get them at that angle in the background I like them.
I havent worked up the courage to photograph people I dont know in such close proximity, I do like how they fill the image though.
regards
Mike

[Bearface]

Re: A couple of street photos...

Facinating shots, I am curious about the bricks on the second one how did you manage to get them at that angle in the background I like them.
I havent worked up the courage to photograph people I dont know in such close proximity, I do like how they fill the image though.
regards
Mike

Hi Mike,

The clown was leaning forwards, so I framed him at an angle to level him out, so to speak

People vary dramatically in terms of how they perceive (and react to) people with cameras - especially conspicuous SLRs - but in the main they get used to you being around, especially in situations where it's expected that photos will be taken, such as in tourist areas or at events like the one I was attending today.

Obviously it's much harder to get a candid shot with a short lens, but it forces you to interact with your subjects, or at least to blend into the immediate environment to the extent that you're not drawing attention to yourself. I was with a group of people, so I was probably less conspicuous than I might have been had I been lurking alone, but I think the best policy is to simply use your common sense. If you can get a candid without being seen, then that's fine, but if you've seen a great opportunity and the only way to get the shot is to ask your subject(s), then approach them and tell them what you're doing; maybe offer to send them a print. Most people are pretty happy to oblige, and even those who aren't generally turn you down in a polite, courteous manner.

Thanks for your feedback

[StuartR]

Re: A couple of street photos...

Nice shots Bearface, I particularly like the mono treatment of the first one, it just seems right for the subject and makes the picture difficult to date - could have been taken at a "Ban The Bomb" rally in the 60s . My dad had a nose like the clown's, he used to refer to it as "Roman", thankfully my mother's genes were a bit stronger in that area

I was also impressed with the sharpness of the pictures and note that you used a 50mm F1.8. If you don't mind me asking, is it the current Canon MkII lens or the Mk I? This lens is on my short-list (mainly for the maximum aperture), for portraits (APS sensor), candids at family gatherings, weddings etc., where I don't want to use flash but I get the impression that the Mk I is considered "better" than the Mk II? I think it may be more about metal v plastic mount than the optics though and, although I'd prefer the metal mount on the Mk I, it's only available on the second-hand market so you take the risk of getting a lens that hasn't been looked after. The price of the MKII puts it in the range of most photographers, even if it doesn't come out of the bag that often.

I already have an EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro which, whilst not quite as fast as the 50mm, is a reasonable alternative (one of the reasons I bought it) but I'm not convinced the results from it are as sharp as yours from the 50mm. (Mind you, having read Stephen's post about the possible affect of filters on optical quality, perhaps I should test this lens without the 10 year old Hoya UV filter I happened to have in a drawer . In fact, I think I'll test that right now...)

[Ian]

Re: A couple of street photos...

Tim - I think the excellence of these two shots needs little additional contribution from me

I noted your point about short lenses and candids. It makes sense - you need to be much closer to fill the frame and it's much more challenging and, therefore, difficult

However, I have interviewed a couple street photographers and they both tended to to use even shorter lenses - 35mm to be precise.

Obviously not all street photography is basic candid work and these photographers often work to earn the trust of their subjects, but some of it is and to get a great candid with a semi-wide lens like a 35mm must be very rewarding.

Ian

Hi Mike,

The clown was leaning forwards, so I framed him at an angle to level him out, so to speak

People vary dramatically in terms of how they perceive (and react to) people with cameras - especially conspicuous SLRs - but in the main they get used to you being around, especially in situations where it's expected that photos will be taken, such as in tourist areas or at events like the one I was attending today.

Obviously it's much harder to get a candid shot with a short lens, but it forces you to interact with your subjects, or at least to blend into the immediate environment to the extent that you're not drawing attention to yourself. I was with a group of people, so I was probably less conspicuous than I might have been had I been lurking alone, but I think the best policy is to simply use your common sense. If you can get a candid without being seen, then that's fine, but if you've seen a great opportunity and the only way to get the shot is to ask your subject(s), then approach them and tell them what you're doing; maybe offer to send them a print. Most people are pretty happy to oblige, and even those who aren't generally turn you down in a polite, courteous manner.

Thanks for your feedback

[DTD]

Re: A couple of street photos...

I really like the first one.

I don't mean this as remark against Bearface, but I am careful to consider people's feelings if I take their picture. I hate having mine taken! I think some people think 'tramp' or 'disabled' or 'old' and think that makes them Martin Parr.

A lot of my candid stuff is actually done with the 28mm lens of my Ricoh GR1s. I really like this camera because it looks so non-descript. It's been the mainstay of a seaside project which mostly features candid shots:

http://www.dunni.co.uk/seaside.html

Anyroadup – as I said nice photos especially the first one.

[Ian]

Re: A couple of street photos...

I really like the first one.

I don't mean this as remark against Bearface, but I am careful to consider people's feelings if I take their picture. I hate having mine taken! I think some people think 'tramp' or 'disabled' or 'old' and think that makes them Martin Parr.

A lot of my candid stuff is actually done with the 28mm lens of my Ricoh GR1s. I really like this camera because it looks so non-descript. It's been the mainstay of a seaside project which mostly features candid shots:

http://www.dunni.co.uk/seaside.html

As 'Mike' Parr is a contributor to this thread, I ought to clarify David's mention of 'Martin' Parr, who is a well known pro photographer

Any relation, Mike?

Ian

[Mike Parr]

Re: A couple of street photos...

I was confused for a moment there Ian, never heard of the fellow. I just googled him, and no not a relation I know of
Mike

[DTD]

Re: A couple of street photos...

I must admit a double take when I first saw Mike's name on the forum!

[StuartR]

Re: A couple of street photos...

I already have an EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro which, whilst not quite as fast as the 50mm, is a reasonable alternative (one of the reasons I bought it) but I'm not convinced the results from it are as sharp as yours from the 50mm. (Mind you, having read Stephen's post about the possible affect of filters on optical quality, perhaps I should test this lens without the 10 year old Hoya UV filter I happened to have in a drawer . In fact, I think I'll test that right now...)

http://dpnow.com/forum2/showthread.p...5017#post15017 and it was a 10 year old Jessops 1A, not a Hoya UV! Memory's not what it was

[Bearface]

Re: A couple of street photos...

Tim - I think the excellence of these two shots needs little additional contribution from me

I noted your point about short lenses and candids. It makes sense - you need to be much closer to fill the frame and it's much more challenging and, therefore, difficult

However, I have interviewed a couple street photographers and they both tended to to use even shorter lenses - 35mm to be precise.

Obviously not all street photography is basic candid work and these photographers often work to earn the trust of their subjects, but some of it is and to get a great candid with a semi-wide lens like a 35mm must be very rewarding.

Ian

Thanks for your comments, Ian. I should point out that although I have done some street photography before, I'm certainly no authority on the subject. In fact I used to use zoom lenses and avoid interaction at all costs for fear of rejection or confrontation

In the two shots I've posted here, I was pretty close to my subjects (about a couple of feet or so), and so to achieve the same results with a 35mm lens would've required a certain degree of intimacy with the subjects; undoubtedly with the result that they'd have seen me and become aware what I was doing.

On the other hand, I think that had I been photographing the same people with their co-operation, a 35mm would've required me to get unbelieveably close, which would indeed have been both challenging and rewarding simultaneously. I'd have been pulling bits of beard from my lens mount for weeks afterwards...

The thing that interests me most about the 35mm thing is how these guys deal with the resulting lens distortion. When shooting people commercially, I often find that even 50mm (even with the 1.3x factor on the 1D MkII, let alone on the full-frame 5D...) causes unwelcome feature changes from certain perspectives and so I often use an 85mm prime for this very reason.

[Bearface]

Re: A couple of street photos...

Nice shots Bearface, I particularly like the mono treatment of the first one, it just seems right for the subject and makes the picture difficult to date - could have been taken at a "Ban The Bomb" rally in the 60s . My dad had a nose like the clown's, he used to refer to it as "Roman", thankfully my mother's genes were a bit stronger in that area

I was also impressed with the sharpness of the pictures and note that you used a 50mm F1.8. If you don't mind me asking, is it the current Canon MkII lens or the Mk I? This lens is on my short-list (mainly for the maximum aperture), for portraits (APS sensor), candids at family gatherings, weddings etc., where I don't want to use flash but I get the impression that the Mk I is considered "better" than the Mk II? I think it may be more about metal v plastic mount than the optics though and, although I'd prefer the metal mount on the Mk I, it's only available on the second-hand market so you take the risk of getting a lens that hasn't been looked after. The price of the MKII puts it in the range of most photographers, even if it doesn't come out of the bag that often.

I already have an EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro which, whilst not quite as fast as the 50mm, is a reasonable alternative (one of the reasons I bought it) but I'm not convinced the results from it are as sharp as yours from the 50mm. (Mind you, having read Stephen's post about the possible affect of filters on optical quality, perhaps I should test this lens without the 10 year old Hoya UV filter I happened to have in a drawer . In fact, I think I'll test that right now...)

Thanks Stuart.

Mine's the plastic, straight-from-a-Christmas-cracker Mk2 version. I keep telling Stephen that for the money, it's probably the best lens in the entire Canon range, but he hasn't seen the light just yet

It's obviously very light, but I've had mine for a couple of years now and it's superb; a great walkabout prime for those who don't want (or need) the versatility of a zoom. Optically it's brilliant, producing naturally sharp and contrasty images with smooth (if not the very smoothest) bokeh. The f1.4 version has more aperture blades (smoother bokeh; highlights don't have that geometric characteristic) and is clearly weightier and more substantial, but it costs three times as much and doesn't appear to be optically superior.

For the money, it's a no-brainer in my opinion

[Blithe]

Re: A couple of street photos...

Of the two I much prefer the clown. The colours and textures jump from my screen, I can almost put my hand on his shoulder, and my eyes are drawn to that frayed material. I like the tilted stonework, it sort of points towards him - there is so much to look at in that face. For all it is a colourful image his downward expression gives it an air of sadness though. I wonder why you have left the purple/white sign (?) in the top left hand corner - covering it up, makes his head stand out even more to me, or was that done deliberately for some reason? Not criticising , just wondered.

[Bearface]

Re: A couple of street photos...

Of the two I much prefer the clown. The colours and textures jump from my screen, I can almost put my hand on his shoulder, and my eyes are drawn to that frayed material. I like the tilted stonework, it sort of points towards him - there is so much to look at in that face. For all it is a colourful image his downward expression gives it an air of sadness though. I wonder why you have left the purple/white sign (?) in the top left hand corner - covering it up, makes his head stand out even more to me, or was that done deliberately for some reason? Not criticising , just wondered.

Thanks for the feedback

I had the same feeling as you when I saw him; he seemed alone with his thoughts and possibly even a little subdued, but then he'd turn on this incredible clown act and happiness would radiate from him. It's regularly observed that those who make people laugh are often tragic figures themselves, so maybe there's some truth in that..?

The sign didn't bother me too much because it's out of the depth of field and not massively intrusive, so I figured I'd leave it alone. Had it been another few inches to the right, I'd have probably cloned it out.

Feel free to criticise any time; thanks again

[Ian]

Re: A couple of street photos...

Thanks for your comments, Ian. I should point out that although I have done some street photography before, I'm certainly no authority on the subject. In fact I used to use zoom lenses and avoid interaction at all costs for fear of rejection or confrontation

In the two shots I've posted here, I was pretty close to my subjects (about a couple of feet or so), and so to achieve the same results with a 35mm lens would've required a certain degree of intimacy with the subjects; undoubtedly with the result that they'd have seen me and become aware what I was doing.

On the other hand, I think that had I been photographing the same people with their co-operation, a 35mm would've required me to get unbelieveably close, which would indeed have been both challenging and rewarding simultaneously. I'd have been pulling bits of beard from my lens mount for weeks afterwards...

The thing that interests me most about the 35mm thing is how these guys deal with the resulting lens distortion. When shooting people commercially, I often find that even 50mm (even with the 1.3x factor on the 1D MkII, let alone on the full-frame 5D...) causes unwelcome feature changes from certain perspectives and so I often use an 85mm prime for this very reason.

Not all street photography requires such close proximity to the subject, I suppose. Your pictures are, in essence, portraits - close in and an 85mm or 100mm would be the most natural choices for such shots.

Ian