File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
I have seen /p/ talking about street photography for a while now, and you guys are seriously a bunch of faggots. When you shoot people on the street, you have to fucking ask them! Do you understand how incredibly rude it is to sneak around taking pictures of strangers? If I saw some stupid 17 year old taking pictures of me without permission I would fucking rage. Its unpolite, and VERY unroffesional. Also, if you dont ask them you will never be able to get close enough to get a proper portrait. There is no way you will get a good shot sitting 10 meters away from your subject.

Then there is the good old "people dont act natural when they are aware of me shooting. Well, there are a lot of things you can do about that. Most of the time people would say no/ be uncomfortable because you approach them in a wrong way. If you come lurking up, nervous and scared with your big camera, of course they wont be comfortable around you either. Just dive right into it, smile, act like you are confident and know what you are doing.

Give them a compliment! Have a little talk with them before you take up the camera. That way it will be much easier to get accepted among strangers. Talk about the weather or whatever when you shoot, just make sure youre nice and polite. That way you will get the best shots, and you will get some new friends too.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS-1DSCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image Width2704Image Height4064Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2006:04:04 16:39:08White Point Chromaticity0.3Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/11.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/11.3Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo FlashFocal Length85.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width2704Image Height4064RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kkIWW6vwrvM
Yeah, bruce gilden is so fucking unroffesional!
>> Anonymous
oh noes, a fucking typo. Better kill yourself now.
>> Anonymous
And yeah, that guy is a total cocksucker. Walking around putting his camera right into peoples faces without notice. Total fucking idiot.
>> noclue !!2yUmAID3520
i h8 to feed trolls, BUT:
it can't be too hard to tell the differece between street-photography in general and street-portriature. nah, really when talking about street /p/ usually means candid-photography. portraiture is something completely different.

/troll feeding
>> Anonymous
I think there has to be a recognised difference between taking pictures of a scene on the street that happens to have a person in shot and taking a picture of a specific person.

Taking snaps around London I've sometimes shot characters I find on the streets, usually wacky homeless guys and buskers and always had their permission and given them some pocket change for their time.

There is one guy, however, that I wish I had photographed when I had the chance. He was a street bum that walked about dressed as a wizard. He had a magical walking cane and a black cat on his shoulders!
>> Anonymous
>>225736
>>street photography
>>you have to fucking ask them!

Jesus H. Christ. Either you're a troll, fucking dumb, or both.
>> Anonymous
>>225744
Ofc I agree with that. There is nothing wrong about shooting a a scene on the street, as long as there is something more to the scene than an interesting person you want to shoot. What makes me rage are guys is guys like "bruce gilden".
>> Anonymous
I am not a troll and I am not stupid. Im simply trying to start a discussion, but you're more interested in throwing shit at me rather than coming up with some arguments.
>> beethy !vW/UaE6zYU
>>225736
OP is not a photographer
Get out
>> Anonymous
Because it's one of the most stupid arguments ever raised in /p/.

Street photography deals about, no matter how cliche it may sound, the decisive moment- not about the decisive pose. Candid moments where the photographer is an active observer recording things as it happens, not the way he wants them to happen.

What you want are portraits.
>> Macheath !8b4g0BkNZg
0/10
>> noclue !!2yUmAID3520
>>225751
exactly. can we stop this now. it's getting pointless. OP. get it in your head, or GTFO. also: sage.
>> Anonymous
You guys are a bunch of cocksucker. Watch the video the guy linked. The photographer puts his fucking camera one inch away from the guys face and then just walk away. What the fuck is so ""Candid moments where the photographer is an active observer recording things as it happens"" about that.

To all the 0/10/cocksucker/faggot guys: I dont give a shit about you, becouse all you do is acting like 17 year old idiots being cool on the internet.
>> beethy !vW/UaE6zYU
     File :-(, x)
>>225756
>You guys are a bunch of cocksucker.
>from the guys face
>becouse
>> Anonymous
What bruce gilden does may be considered street photography because he's on the street. It's far from polite, though - you could get arrested for harassment in many places. The flash and the range he shoots at, in particular, are terrible. It's exploitation at its best, and the emotions you're most likely to capture are surprise, anxiety or anger. Watch the video: in the first shot the lady looks terrified.

Good street photography doesn't need to involve getting into the person's face, flash usage, or anything else like that. I personally like to sit in an out of the way spot with a 105mm lens and shoot people who are about 10-30 feet away. From that distance you can get laughter, sadness, pensiveness, people doing funny little actions (picking their nose, rocking on their feet)...all the best emotions. If someone sees me taking a picture I just smile, nod, wave -- something that shows that I'm not a creepy stalker; just an artist, or an at least an eccentric.

If you're going to use a 24mm lens like Gilden does, then you're pretty much screwed from the outset. In that case, I say, get permission from the subject and if they say no then politely leave.

As a caveat, I will say that in that video I love the photo at 1:03. That captures a great emotion and a lot of dynamism, and that shot couldn't be taken the way I shoot (without permission, of course).
>> Anonymous
>>225756
>>225736

I don't fucking get this person. He makes almost no typos (I noticed two), uses roughly proper capitalization and punctuation, but NEVER LEARNED ABOUT FUCKING APOSTROPHES.

Or are you trying to be fucking creative? Or are you "speaking out" against the use of apostrophes? In both cases, gtfo and get with the program. They are generally relevant to the meaning you want to convey, and in cases where they might be considered redundant, they at least have some aesthetic value.
>> Haddock !!xREx2m9lgBs
I lol'd at da OP
>> Anonymous
>>225773
Oh hi OP


sage
>> Anonymous
>>225773
I will try to work on my English.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
Define: Candid
'Generally a photograph that is taken of an individual who is not aware that the photo is being taken. Usually is unposed and can be spontaneous.'

Source: http://www.photocritique.us/

Op, get out.
>> Anonymous
People who go around snapping pictures of people without their consent are assholes.

If someone came up to me and snapped a picture 3 inches away from my face, I'd grab the camera out of their hands and smash it.
>> Anonymous
OP: look at the definition of street photography

I prefer to use a 28mm lens... a lot of the people who've bought prints say it makes them feel like they're actually in the middle of the picture... but lens choice is just one other thing that dictates your style and behaviour.

If you really want, I've written a 3,500 essay on whether street photography is really an invasion of privacy, which I'll link to at some time.... if Anonymous wills it!
>> Anonymous
I believe true street photography is candid, but Bruce takes it WAY too far with the flash, and getting extremely close to his subjects. You have to have respect for your subjects, and he does not. You can take candid photography without getting right in someone's face and especially without using flash. I'm sure people wouldn't mind him taking pictures of them if he would just take it easy. Also, he seems like a cocky motherfucker
>> Anonymous
>>225877
+1

>>225870
You're a cunt (and the OP in disguise). Faggot.
>> Anonymous
I am perfectly aware of the meaning of the word, you don't have to explain that for me. I still think walking up on someone taking a picture of them is unappropriate and rude. As I've said earlier, in my opinion it's only okay if the person you're shooting is a part of a larger scene; if there is something more to it than just an interesting person. They have to do something, sing, laugh, dance, bike, whatever.

Also, fuck off. There are so many imature idiots around here it makes me sick.

>>225773
Yeye, I'm using them now.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
ah yes, i'm sure he asked permission before taking this shot.
>> Anonymous
>>225898
the guy in the picture is my dad, and yes he did ask for permission...
>> Anonymous
you can delete my posts, but you know I'm right ass hole.
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
     File :-(, x)
This whole thread is now about shit.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 30DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsPhotographerLauri KosonenMaximum Lens Aperturef/4.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:07:02 05:06:32Exposure Time1/180 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/8.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length85.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width427Image Height640RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
as someone who _has_ gotten right in someones face before to take a street picture; the majority of people don't care if you don't ask permission as long as you don't look dangerous or mischievious. If you're stalking around in a trenchcoat or something and hide your camera all the time then it will tick them off, but just taking a picture of somebody isn't going to piss them off on its own, its probably not the first time its happened. If they ask why you took their picture, just say you thought they looked unique so you wanted a picture of them. Smile when youre taking it though, just look like you're an eccentric tourist if youre shooting somewhere big.

I really lol'd at the last line of OPs rant though; the best street shots are scenes where something is happening, maybe even something illegal or dangerous to involve yourself in, go ahead and ask for permission to take a picture and get noticed by them and enjoy your forced picture.
>> Anonymous
Well what the fuck, am I supposed to carry model release forms with me wherever I go?
>> Anonymous
>>225915

and then we remember all your pictures are terrible.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>225955
irrelevant
>> Anonymous
>>225965

Not really.. You're trying to give advice on something you're not good at.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>225970
so, like, the majority of /p/?
>> Anonymous
>>225971

Please.. /p/ is made of trolling and overly defensive tripfags. But when someone actually gives some genuine advice (read: serenar, vincent, etc..) like you're trying to do, it's not just bullshit they got by reading an article on google.

But lets hear it, sage.. Please go on about how everyone who dislikes your photos is samefag and trolling.
>> Anonymous
If taking pictures without permission was illegal, the paparazzi would be out of their jobs.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
     File :-(, x)
>>225973
'Overly defensive?' Please, I didn't argue with you, if anything I acknowledged that my pictures aren't great, just that it doesn't really matter when giving advice on how to approach a person. I didn't get anything from reading off of Google, I gave advice that I was given (some of it by the kind of people youre talking about) and things that I've learned. If you really have to have tons of skill leaking out everywhere to critique and provide advice, then hardly anyone here should _ever_ critique anything. You or myself included.

But oh yeah, you don't actually have to produce nice pictures to recognize nice pictures. Hurr.

I'm sure I'll get yelled at for the "samefag" stuff, but people say that anyway so I'm just going to outright say it; you're the guy from HeavyWeathers thread aren't you? the dinnerfag?

Also, I've hardly posted any street stuff on /p/, 9 times out of 10 I post something like this, not street. The only street I've posted was the first time I tried it with my DSLR, which was pretty much a failure, and they were a watermelon vendor, a guy on a motorcycle, and an old VW bug. The only other thing anywhere close to street I've posted was the first roll of film I shot with my Bessa when I was getting used to using it having never used a rangefinder before.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.8Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:07:12 19:34:09Exposure Time1/10 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>225973
also, the fact that you think I call samefag or troll on everyone who criticizes my pictures shows that you actually don't follow any of my threads at all. I'm usually indifferent to c&c and I very rarely get hostile about it, but whatever...you obviously know better, right? I'd love to hear an example of me doing that that isn't from several month old topics; inb4 toned down dave hill look, in other words.
>> Srs Critique Fag !2y1il5Qy0g
     File :-(, x)
>>225736
No.


Now everyone remember their fucking sage.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>225985I'm sure I'll get yelled at for the "samefag" stuff, but people say that anyway so I'm just going to outright say it; you're the guy from HeavyWeathers thread aren't you? the dinnerfag?

Nope, I'm right here.

I never derail threads that need no derailing. This is clearly a troll thread yet people still post in them anyway. There is absolutely no need for me to join in on the clusterfuck when someone else wants to do it.

That guy clearly attacked you directly, I would never do something petty like that, specially in the middle of a thread not started by you.

I have way more class than that. I like to think I'm a nice guy.

Aside from that, there's no real way to prove it's not me. But he types differently than I do.

He uses "..", says tripfags when I say name user, and I wouldn't omit the capitals in Vincent and Serenar.

But I am glad I still haunt you enough to get called out. It makes me feel well liked.

Have some hilarious Butterfly quote from my vast /p/ archive.
>> Anonymous
>>225736Camera Model Canon EOS-1DS

HOLY SHIT I CAN SEE THE CLOTH FIBRE
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>226009
Not so much that you haunt me, that was just recent and his "/p/ is made of trolling and overly defensive tripfags" seemed like something you'd say.

Go eat dinner, plx?
>> Anonymous
>>226009

lowercasefag here.. i posted>>225955

but not>>225973.

typical sage assuming only one person thinks your stuff is garbage. please continue.
>> Anonymous
>>226022

I can order fast food on weekends :D then it's off to see the Dark Knight with my parents!
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>226023
Hurr, because I totally posted a picture and got critiqued in here, right?

I thought two people trolling me were the same person, nothing to do with anyone not liking my work.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>226025
Your parents limit when and what you eat? Bummer...how old are you?

And yay, Dark Knight. I wanna see that.
>> Anonymous
Candid street photography is perfectly legal. The fact that it's some sort of infringement or invasion of personal privacy is only justified in a case where the photographer is behaving in an aggressive or pestering manner, or in an environment where you would be expected (by general consensus) to have privacy.

The subject of the photo does have the right to ask for either a copy of said photograph, or for it to be deleted.

The comment that you'd smash the camera up would class as vandalism and you'd be forced to pay damages.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>226110
they have the right to ask, but as far as I know they do not have the right to demand a print or that it be deleted/destroyed. publishing it without their consent if they're clearly identifiable in the picture is a no-no though
>> Anonymous
>>226113
Are we discussing legally? Outside of France, you can of course legally publish a picture if someone's face is clearly indentifiable. Bruce Gilden and many others would not be able to put out a single book if that was the case.

A court case (Rossenweig, IIRC, vs. DiCorcia) settled this in American law.
>> Anonymous
Fuck, remembered it wrong. Nussenzweig.
>> Anonymous
I AM SO RONERY AN UNROFFESSIONAL.
>> Anonymous
>>226113
It's only illegal to use someone's picture to advertise something (a product, service, etc.) without their permission.
>> beethy !vW/UaE6zYU
lol this thread is still here
/p/ got trolled
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>226121
I meant publishing it after they directly asked for it not to be published. again Im not positive on it though, and I may be mistaken.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>226163
gotcha
>> Anonymous
>>226166

Nussenzweig vs. DiCorcia was pretty much that. Nussenzweig objected to having his photograph published, he sued DiCorcia over its publication and exhibition, and the court ruled that all artistic use of images is protected, even if said art is subsequently sold as art, and regardless of the profit made. If it's usd to sell something else, a model release is needed, like the other guy said.

It's the only real contribution Phillip Lorca DiCorcia's made to photography, IMO, but let's not go there unless someone wants to have an actually interesting discussion in this wreck of a thread.
>> Anonymous
http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/photographers-rights-and-photography-privacy-advice/

learn it. live it.

/thread
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>226191
Of course, this varies place to place.

In Canada's provinces of Alberta and Ontario, you actually _can_ take someone's picture and then use it commercially/artistically/editorially/whatever without permission providing that two criteria are met: It does not violate their reasonable expectation of privacy (eg. show their prescription/confidential information/be of them in the bathroom or other private area) and does not show them in an inaccurately negative light (eg. making it look like somebody is about to enter a brothel when they're walking by, etc).
>> Anonymous
>>226196
See, this sounds cool, but then you realize there's a shitload of companies you don't want to help sell in any way, shape, or form.
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>226198
Hey, I think it's messed up. I'm sorta glad from the perspective of photographer's rights, but free-for-all commercial use? Nasty.

You're still protected from having your likeness used to advertise embarrassing, controversial or adult products. But I am distinctly uncomfortable with the idea of my face on a billboard advertising, well, anything.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
HAAAEYYYYY GUYS!!!!!!!
>> Anonymous
>>225760
Go search for Gilden's book "Go". I don't think the photos in that book would've been any better if he took them differently.