Saturday, February 9, 2013

Some thoughts on Street Photography . . .


Winter scene on Bow Bridge, Central Park, NYC 2013
I am a member of the Westchester Photographic Society, a group of photographers ranging in skill level from beginner to seasoned professional. At a recent meeting the club announced it would be holding a themed competition. The subject matter? Street Photography. My first thought was “Wow! What a great topic for a blog post!” Memories of an earlier time in my life began to surface, when on a typical day I would grab my Leica M4, walk the streets of NYC, snapping pictures of random subjects along the way. I could remember the anticipation I felt as I rushed home as fast as I could to develop the film and print my pictures in my darkroom.
Back in 1969 I was just a novice. When I wasn't out taking pictures, I was devouring the photo magazines of the day - Modern Photography, Popular Photography, US Camera. All provided the latest tips and tricks from the experts. These publications also featured numerous in-depth articles that discussed the classic images shot by the current and earlier masters. Yet, as much as I enjoyed learning about the images of Weston, Adams, Steiglitz, Lartigue, Avedon and others, it was the work of French photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson that attracted me the most.

The "Father of Street Photography"
Henri Cartier-Bresson and his Leica
Henri Cartier-Bresson's tool of choice was the 35mm Leica camera. His specialty was Candid Street Photography or, as he coined it, life reportage. Cartier-Bresson captured life in the streets as it was unfolding, as an observer. He took great pains to ensure that his presence with his camera did not exert any influence on the final image. He even covered his chrome-colored camera in black tape to disguise the fact it was a camera. Trained as an artist, he used his sense of composition and understanding of tonal values to bring form and balance to his images, yet he was able to capture, with great precision, the fleeting moments that make his work so unique. He was a master of capturing the "Decisive Moment." His images bore witness life as HE saw it, but not in the same fashion that a photojournalist might. Cartier-Bresson’s images reflected a highly personal point of view. Documentary or photojournalistic photography tends to be less about the point of view of the shooter and more about recording an image for an employer and a specific target audience. Understandably, either kind of image can sometimes straddle that often fuzzy line between the two disciplines.
The technical aspects of Henri Cartier-Bresson's images were secondary to the content. The images reflected a lot of rule breaking when it came to exposure, focus and framing. He was the master at combining a raw "feel" with a finished "look" in his images. His approach to photography was something both the amateur with a Kodak Brownie camera as well as the pro with the high end gear could embrace. His work became a source of inspiration to scores of photographers, photojournalists and just about anyone with a camera. One cannot talk about street photography without bringing up his name - clearly his ground-breaking work was the cutting edge at the time, and has earned him the reputation of "Father of Street Photography."
Henri Cartier-Bresson's Original Leica
Street photography as a discipline is as old as 35mm film itself. An optical engineer and designer at Ernst Leitz Microscope Company in Wetzlar, Germany named Oscar Bernack, really kicked things off when he invented the 35mm Leica camera and the film to go with it back in 1913. Up until then cameras were large, heavy and required a crew to set up, pose the subjects and shoot a picture. The media was typically glass plate or large piece of sheet film in a film holder. Shooting a picture was a painstakingly slow process. If an image had the appearance of a candid capture, more than likely it was staged to look that way.
Ad for Kodak's Folding Roll Film Camera c1910
Kodak had been toying with smaller roll film folding cameras, but you can see that they were large, and needed to be unfolded before use - hardly a quick grab and shoot situation. But once  Bernack’s tiny Leica showed up it changed everything, "miniaturizing" both the equipment and the medium and eliminating the bulky tripod, camera and boxes of plates or film holders. Being able to reach in one’s pocket, whip out a camera, quickly snap a picture was ground-breaking. To be able to do so repeatedly 24 or 36 times before needing to reload the film was a wonderful thing. And being able to carry multiple rolls of film to capture hundreds of images really opened up a multitude of creative possibilities.
Street photography, unlike any other specialty, provides both the photographer and the viewer with an extraordinary window into the ordinary daily routine of average, and sometimes not so average subjects. When executed correctly, effective street photography draws the viewer into the image, allowing the viewer to experience something unusual and making a lasting visual impression.

Bookends Metropolitan Museum of Art, NYC 2013
Shadows
Metropolitan Museum of Art, NYC 2013
One of the joys of this kind of photography was that one could never really be quite sure of what exactly was going to turn up on the roll of film. It was not uncommon for a photographer to concentrate on a particular element, often unaware of elements in the background or off to the sides. Sometimes a picture would end up being a combination of unexpected elements within that image; often times unnoticed and unplanned for.

The photo above and the one to the left were taken within seconds of one another, from the same vantage point. After looking at my captures, I realized that there were at least two images, each very different in feel. Totally unplanned, this was a pleasant surprise. 
For almost the same reasons, computers and digital technology have done for street photography what Bernack’s little camera did 100 years ago. Digital technology has made possible instantly viewable results, providing high quality images, and comparatively more convenience. The Internet allows anyone who is interested the ability to view what other photographers have created, and an almost endless supply of articles and blog posts on the subject of taking pictures.
There are at least two popular schools of thought relating to street photos - hands off and hands on. The average street photographer will use mostly a hands-off, candid approach. However, many photographers are quite successful at creating wonderful portraits after a brief interaction with their subjects. People are the typical subject, but a good street photo can include an animal, vehicle, doorway, shadows, silhouettes, etc - and will often depict some type of involvement between the subject and his/her/it's environment. It is in the randomness of an event or juxtaposition of visual elements, or the unusual way in which the subject is reacting to or with the environment that can make a great street photograph.
Using Cartier-Bresson’s work as a prime example - you don't need a big, fancy, expensive camera to take great images. The Leica rangefinder camera was the camera of choice because it was light and very quiet - and due to its exceptionally good optics, it could record images of great quality on 35mm film. Yet it was tiny enough that could be carried in a pocket, and when used it was seldom noticed.
Today's equivalent would be a camera phone or a point and shoot camera. Small and inconspicuous and completely ubiquitous, one of these hardly raises an eyebrow when used. On the other hand, a digital SLR can be used but it is big and attracts far more attention. The better the lens and body quality, the bigger and more impressive they are to look at, and people do look. This is not to say that you cannot take good street photos with a big DSLR. But you should be aware that when you carry a professional quality camera it is harder to be “stealthy” and you will lose the element of surprise in some situations. Modern DSLRs are also quite loud, so you may only be able to get one or two pics before the subject is aware and moves on, especially if you are in a quiet venue. This “feature” will have a definite impact on how you will shoot your candids, not to mention how many images of a particular subject you will be able to get before you are “made.”
My personal preference is to simply observe the subject and capture purely candid shots, often with the camera at my hip or some other position where I am not bringing the camera to my eye and alerting subjects that their picture is about to be taken. This technique results in completely unposed, casual captures and many pleasant surprises. I seldom interact with the subject, ask their permission or create a “less than candid” situation. While I recognize that interaction permits you to get great shots of very interesting people up close and personal, along with a story to enhance the viewer's experience, I can also miss a totally candid moment or worse - my request to photograph a subject can be refused. A benefit of interaction, however, is that when you encounter a particularly interesting subject, you may get additional future opportunities to take their picture. Both approaches are perfectly valid and will provide wonderful images. In using the stealth mode I really enjoy finding the cool, unplanned "stuff" that shows up in my pictures.
Technique-wise, there are no big secrets.
High ISO settings will provide fast shutter speeds and smaller lens openings for greater depth of field. If you are using a camera capable of full manual operation, set the ISO as high as possible and still be able to produce a decent quality image. On my D700 that would be an ISO 1600 in average, not too-contrasty light, or as high as ISO 3200 in flat light. This will enable you to set a shutter speed to minimize camera and or subject movement, and a small enough f/stop so that you have enough depth of field for just about any shot.
Hyper-focal distance, wide angle lenses and pre-focusing will eliminate the need to focus at the time of capture. You can use a wide-angle-capable point and shoot, or a larger DSLR with a lens that ideally offers a 75 degree or greater angle of view. This would mean a 28mm lens on a full frame camera or a 18 mm lens on an APS-C cropped sensor camera. A small advanced point and shoot like the Fujifilm F600EXR has a 4.4mm lens, which is equivalent to 24 mm, while the Nikon P7100 and Canon G12 have a zoom lens that can get you to 75 degree angle of view as well.
For those of you unfamiliar with these terms I will explain them one at a time.
Depth of Field is the front to back distance in which the subject you are focusing on will be in reasonably sharp focus. This is determined by the focal length of the lens, the lens f/stop, and the distant between you and the subject, (image magnification on the sensor). The closer you are (bigger the image is on the sensor) the shorter the depth of field and vice versa. Using a smaller lens opening will increase the depth of field. Using a shorter (wider angle) lens will also increase depth of field at a given distance. One of the best resources I have found is Don Fleming's wonderful website DOF Master. Here you will find the answers to all of your focus and depth of field questions, as well as an online calculator with an up-to-date camera database, purchasable phone apps, a printable rotary calculator, and tons of useful information and links to other sites. I use the iPhone app all the time. Cambridge in Colour also has a wonderful, easy to understand discussion on depth of field that is worth a read.
Hyper-focal Distance is defined as the distance that you would set your focus to in order to achieve the greatest depth of field. At this setting, the distant objects (infinity distance away) would be in focus, as well as objects at the shortest distance (half the camera to subject distance). In the example above, a 4.4 mm lens on the Fuji F600EXR would have a hyper-focal distance of 12 inches, which results in a near limit of 6 inches and a far limit of infinity.
On a D700 with its much larger sensor, you would need a 24 mm lens in order to provide the same angle of view. However, at 24mm there would be less depth of field compared to the Fuji with its 4.4mm lens. The hyper-focal distance would also be greater. At F11, the 24mm lens would have a hyper-focal distance of 67.8 inches, and total maximum depth of field would be from 33.9 inches to infinity. If it weren’t for image quality considerations, the ideal camera would be that one in your telephone, with its tiny sensor, since just about everything would be in focus all the time. But 33.9 inches to infinity is still very easy to work with.
There is some confusion about sensor cropping and how it affects depth of field. The short answer is that it doesn't. The long answer has to do with circles of confusion, airy disk, the printed image size, viewing distance etc. and is beyond the scope of this blogpost.
Logically, when you use a cropped sensor camera, all you are doing is using less than the full sensor on a 35mm camera. The depth of field that existed before you "masked off" part of the sensor remains, just as if you enlarged the center 5x7 section of an 8x10 print to 8x10. What you do affect is the angle of view, which will give you more "reach" in telephoto situations, and less "wide" when using wide angle lenses. Cropping a sensor will diminish sharpness and expose the "granular" quality (pixels) of an image. Here is something to keep in mind that illustrates the above points. Take two images, at the same sensor resolution, lets say a 12 mp image taken with a full sized sensor (D700) and a 150mm lens, and the equivalent image taken with a cropped sensor (D300) and a 100mm lens (the equivalent focal length), keeping the same ISO, lens opening shutter speed, etc. The image taken with the D700 will show less granularity (pixelation), better pixel-level detail (assuming similar lens quality), and less depth of field - after all, you are using a longer focal length. When printed, this will apparent loss of sharpness and increase in granularity on the image taken with the cropped sensor will diminish as you increase the viewing distance.

Reading the Morning Paper
Bethesda Underpass, Central Park NYC 2013
Focusing. You have some choices here. The hyper-focal distance is the one-size-fits-all approach to focusing in street photographs. Images will have a similar look, with just about everything in the frame in reasonable focus. Those objects/subjects closest to the hyper-focal distance will be sharpest, and those that are up to half the camera-subject distance to infinity will look pretty good. One tends to see the world this way. But with a camera you have the option to direct the viewer's attention to a particular element in the image using focus to separate what is important from what isn't. Here is where you might want to set your camera at a different focus point, maybe open the lens up a stop or two, and try to keep your camera to subject distance within the depth of field determined by your camera settings.
Here is an example of how you might approach all of this. Let's say you are using a D700 with a 28mm lens. At F11 the hyper-focal distance would be 7.67 ft, the near focus point would be 3.8 ft and the far point would be infinity. However, if you open the lens to f8, the hyperfocal becomes 10.8 ft, and the near limit is 5.2 ft. If you want to blur the background to provide some separation, you will need to do two things - open the lens further and shorten the focusing distance. Opening the lens to F5.6 will move the hyper-focal to 15.2 ft and the near limit to 7.1 ft, but the backgound will appear fairly sharp. If your subject is more than 7.5 ft away, everything in the frame starting at the subject's position on backward will be pretty sharp. Moving the focus point closer you will be selecting a narrower zone of focus. If your subject is going to be around 8 ft away, and you set your focus to 8 ft, then your depth of field becomes 11.5 ft. so that anything closer than 5.3 ft or further away than 16.7 ft will be soft - but within that zone things will have good detail and sharpness. You can more or less gauge how far 8 ft is and try to ensure that what is important in the image stays within that zone.
One way you can be precise about all of this is to station yourself somewhere, measure up your distances and focus points, and just wait for people to come by as you surreptitiously snap their pictures.
Framing your shot. It is unlikely that you will have the opportunity to bring the camera to your eye. If you are fortunate enough you might have a camera with an articulated preview screen, allowing you to tilt it up for a waist-level view through the camera. However, looking down at a camera's preview screen is only slightly less obvious than holding it to your eye. If the element of surprise is important, it's best to learn how to shoot from the hip. Not only will you be stealthier, but your point of view will be lower, providing a more natural perspective.
Black Rapid RS-7
I use a Black Rapid brand strap which slings the camera across your shoulder to the opposite hip. The strap attaches to the tripod mounting socket on the camera, allowing the camera to hang upside down. Tilting the camera up for a picture is easy to do and the strap will offer a little extra stability when you pull the camera tight against it. I use a wide angle lens so that I can crop a bit later. The image below is an example where I used this technique.

A Private Moment in a Public Place
Metropolitan Museum of Art, NYC 2013
Legal and Safety Considerations. It is hard to imagine someone can make a case for invasion of privacy in a public setting, but it can happen. There are other reasons why you might want to think about the subjects you will be shooting. The list below is far from exhaustive, but it should give you a good sense of what constitutes a good idea vs a bad idea. It’s always best to use good judgment and common sense – if there is any doubt, don’t take the picture. Be smart and stay safe.

Color vs Black and White. Black and white is the traditional medium for street photographs. This is not to say that you can’t use color. I have seen some excellent images in color. However,monochrome images tend to have a more contemplative feel to them and less distraction from the color factor. Below is an example of an image I took that I feel is more effective in color than B&W.

Waiting
Lobby of Metropolitan Museum of Art,
NYC 2013
1.      Children. You can take pics of kids, but it would appear very creepy if you sat on a playground park bench day after day
shooting images of children. Bad Idea.
2.      Bridges and other points of interest. In today’s times in the United States, the taking
of pictures or videos of bridges and tunnels
can get you arrested. You could be a terrorist, and photographs would provide what you would need to commit an act of terrorism.
Bad idea if you are shooting the bridge, not
as much if it is being incidentally included
in the image.
3.      Illegal activities. Unless you are a private investigator or working for one, stay away
from photographing this stuff. The criminal element will see you long before you take that picture. Just walking through certain areas will get you noticed. Carry a camera and more will notice. The camera can be stolen, or worse, you could end up in an altercation or at the wrong end of a gun. Bad idea.
4.      Law enforcement actions. You are legally permitted to take pictures, from a distance of a cop doing his job. However, not every policeman knows this, and you open yourself to a confrontation with the officer if you do. Use your judgement. If you are across the street and up the block with a long telephoto lens, I suppose you can get away with it. If you are close and looking to get an up close look of the action, you are going to be noticed. If an officer approaches you and demands your camera, be polite and do whatever the officer wants you to do. It will not end well if the cop feels his authority is being undermined. Somewhat ok idea if done with care.
5.      Embarrassing moments. Pictures taken at the beach where nudity is permitted, pictures taken in toilet stalls, changing rooms, cameras looking up women’s skirts or down their blouses – strictly verboten! People do have a reasonable expectation of privacy here. I know it sounds silly, but if it was your picture, you would not want it to go viral on the Internet. Bad idea.
6.      Subways and buses. Nothing wrong with taking pictures in these places. You would be doing nothing illegal. Ok idea.
7.      Museums, restaurants, parks where you pay admission, ski areas, and other paid public venues. Technically you are no longer in public, and the price of admission makes you subject to the property owner’s terms and conditions. It’s always best to check to be sure. Ok idea, with conditions.


8.      Pics taken of buildings where people can be plainly seen through windows. Technically ok if it is a wide angle shot and the view is incidental – this would be considered an urban landscape. It would be considered an invasion of privacy if you are using a 600mm lens with a 2x extender – this would classify you as a peeping tom. The former is an ok idea as long as you use your head.
Here is a blog post by James Estrin entitled Criminalizing Photography that dicusses, in Q&A format, a disturbing trend in the area of street photography vs law enforcement.
Creative considerations: What makes a great street shot? Like any great picture, it’s an image that will slowly reveal itself to you, like a page in a book. It invites more than a casual glance. The viewer may end up imagining a story about it, or simply admiring its visual organization, odd juxtapositions, color or lack thereof - but regardless – a good image is more likely to have an impact and be remembered than one of lesser quality.

If you click on this link, you can view a video where Dr. Shana Gallagher-Lindsay, Dr. Beth Harristhat discuss Henri Cartier-Bresson and the the technological and artistic considerations of his work, in particular as it pertains to his most iconic image. Probably more than any other of his images, this one embodies the concept of the Decisive Moment, a central theme in is work.

Derrière la Gare Saint-Lazare, Paris 1932

 Yeah, I know – this has been a long post with a lot of information, and I have used a very broad paintbrush to describe the essence of a good street photograph. Such is the nature of the beast. Hopefully I have demystified some of the technical aspects of street photography, clarified some misconceptions about how and where you can take pictures, and provided some inspiration to you. So now all that is left is to grab your camera, go out and start taking pictures and start enjoying your results.















No comments:

Post a Comment