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.
 |
| Winter scene on Bow Bridge, Central Park, NYC 2013 |
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.
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 "Father of Street Photography" Henri Cartier-Bresson and his Leica |
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 |
 |
| Ad for Kodak's Folding Roll Film Camera c1910 |
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.
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.
 |
| Bookends Metropolitan Museum of Art, NYC 2013 |
 |
| Shadows Metropolitan Museum of Art, NYC 2013 |
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.
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.
 |
| Reading the Morning Paper Bethesda Underpass, Central Park NYC 2013 |
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 |
 |
| A Private Moment in a Public Place Metropolitan Museum of Art, NYC 2013 |
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.
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.
 |
| Waiting Lobby of Metropolitan Museum of Art, NYC 2013 |
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.
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.
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