idk its kindof hard to just start taking photos of ppl tho right?

Please don't judge this too harshly as it's a) just 4 fund and a few years old, b) a horrible contrasty crusty DIY transfer, and c) has corny music which I recorded on location and slapped down just to have sound to cut to. It was just a street magician with a boombox. This is really an exercise I set myself in order to feel more comfortable shooting people-first using shadows, mirrors and reflections and then going straight for the body. For obvious reasons, Latinos in LA get nervous around cameras, so I tried to be respectful. I also really like it when people look directly into the camera.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDdfY2CnUgA&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I don't take many photos of strangers, but I can't stand it when people I'm with freak out about having their picture taken. Usually they seem worried that they won't look good... Well, if I'm going to make a good picture of you, I might have to make several dozen bad ones. No, I am not obsessing over you. I am not hitting on you. I am not creeping. I'm not asking you to pose or smile, and I'm not using a flash, so hush.

i tell ppl that my camera is super flattering, like it makes ppls skin look really good.

For some reason, I don't find shooting people I know very interesting. I actually find people to be more interesting when they are not entirely comfortable.

yah i guess the diff b/w me and most of u guys is that im not really interested in photography for its own sake, i just want photos of my friends. its just snapshots i guess.

another trick i stumbled upon is that u can make photos look really moody by only shooting the backs of ppls heads

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs1379.snc4/163165_478458735828_530205828_6332475_1947558_n.jpg

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs048.ash2/35779_411504675828_530205828_5018730_4702412_n.jpg

Ah I see. Yeah I don't really like my friends.

perusing flickr has finally proved that the best kinds of photos are photos of the back of girls heads

I did shoot some stuff of my friend ben the cranial osteopath, but it's in my fridge until I can afford to process it.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/katherinesquier/3077292125
http://www.flickr.com/photos/anakras/3651512527
http://www.flickr.com/photos/anakras/4167235976

i took photos of my cattle looking depressed by the snow today (their silage has frozen bits in it, it is kindof grim for them but like there is only so much that heatlamps can do)

xp im glad my friends comb their hair

there were better egs. of what im thinking of but this sortof has the kindof distortion of space im thinking of. mine tends to preserve the squareness of space much more if that makes sense.

― plax (ico), 2010年12月26日 星期日 上午12:19 (7 hours ago) Bookmark

yeah the 50mm lens def has a 'flatter' look since it's actually a short telephoto on a 35mm cam. that does seem like an atypical HCB shot because of the great depth of field. would be interested to see more of those examples

there was one ive seen before of three womens legs but googling it just gives you "martine's legs" bc it is so famous i guess

Hmm. I think basically the reason I have a camera or pursue photography at all is to take photos of people. I don't think I'm especially good at it but I find it much more rewarding that trying (usually unsuccessfully) to find a new way to capture a building or interior space or natural environment.

Practically all my favourite photos are casual portraits of my friends (or their kids), implicit in the execution of which is the agreement that I'm not going to splash them all over the Web for just anyone to see, so I can't post them here.

I'm pretty chickenshit when it comes to street photography too - street performers are just asking for it though...

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4142/4753450980_8d93996615.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3653/3501521103_68f2818410.jpg

another trick i stumbled upon is that u can make photos look really moody by only shooting the backs of ppls heads

Up close and personal documentary work (Eugene Richards, etc.) winds up being much more powerful in the long run than most 'surrealistic juxtapositions.'

well they were both of two of my best friends, really i dont mean strangers here. i mean i clam up when i have a camera in front of me.

Ah, right on. With friends I'll usually drop the camera below eye level, shooting a bit blind, hoping autofocus and scale-focus take care of it. (I'm also taller than most of my friends/family, so shooting them from my eye level can be awkward.) Hope the next iteration of the D700 has an articulating live-view screen.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4115/4868115052_f6bd06e783_b.jpg
DSC_2292.jpg by celluloidpropaganda, on Flickr

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4121/4867511461_84600299cb_b.jpg
DSC_2288.jpg by celluloidpropaganda, on Flickr

I have ethical issues with most amateur street photography, tbh - I've just seen way too much "here's a sad homeless guy I ran into while on vacation!" type of shit.

yeah I really hate that kind of street photography that just focuses on 'easy' targets. I try to consciously avoid doing that when I'm out on the street.

I guess the final answer is that photography is ultimately a numbers game, and you just gotta be willing to take a lot of pix to hopefully get that one good one. also having a camera with a quiet shutter helps (at least for me) as it makes me feel a lot less 'instrusive.'

omg my camera is so loud, but i like that about it. i'm always showing ppl like "listen to how satisfying that sounds!!!"

I'm never really so sure about the ethics question, since everyone has completely different ideas of what's ok. Whether it's bad to take photos of something obvious, or it's bad to hide your camera, or it's bad to use a telephoto and stand far away, or whether it's bad to be overly intrusive with a flash and a wide lens, or etc. etc. No matter how you look at it the end result is equally intrusive in the picture that results, regardless of how awkward or aware the subject was made to feel, or whether they are privileged or not, or whether they are looking at the camera or not. I mean no matter how boldly you present yourself, it's not like you've solicited greater agreement to be photographed from those who see you coming. As far as I can tell there's nothing inherently worse about taking a sneaky telephoto shot of someone than taking a sneaky wide shot other than the fact that the telephoto shot will generally probably be boring, flat, and usually way too tight on it's subject.
Uh, so for that reason I feel that it's important to learn how to get close to subjects to make them *interesting* more than anything. I'm talking too much since I'm a little buzzed tonight, but I think too much is made sometimes of the heroics of photographers who advertise their intrusion. I do think that a healthy confidence allows for good photos, but some of the street photography mythos is some macho nonsense. Never understood why it's more ethical to take unsolicited photos of strangers if they see you before or after the fact than it is to take unsolicited photos of strangers if they never know.

Have you guys seen this guys work http://www.flickr.com/photos/dannysantos/ ?

my trick is to introduce myself or to ask ppl if they will pose for a photo, earn their trust, then take like 1000 candids w/o asking for any further permission.

this only really works at parties or other situations where ppl are drunk/ having fun/ socializing. for street photography u just gotta "go for it" i guess

ya but you are gr80

i won't argue that fact

Locate hookers, use flash and run...
http://completelyinthedark.com/main.php?g2_itemId=2651
Otherwise everyone does this.
http://completelyinthedark.com/main.php?g2_itemId=1937
http://completelyinthedark.com/main.php?g2_itemId=1906

or get them asleep
http://completelyinthedark.com/main.php?g2_itemId=13269
http://completelyinthedark.com/main.php?g2_itemId=1943

Or take them when they are posing for someone else
http://completelyinthedark.com/main.php?g2_itemId=13249

Or choose vain folk who love having their pics taken.

http://completelyinthedark.com/main.php?g2_itemId=13252
http://completelyinthedark.com/main.php?g2_itemId=1466

And if all else fails, get a bit drunk so you do not mind being up in people's faces, but not so drunk you lose your camera
http://completelyinthedark.com/main.php?g2_itemId=4565

or so drunk that pics are out of focus, like that one.

I think that I got some good ones today, but as I only took my film camera out, and am skint, no doubt this film will sit in my fridge until I have enough money to develop them. Anyway, there was a drunk chap outside asking where I was going, in his hand a fag that he did not have the means to light. I popped into the shop and got him a lighter and asked for some pics, saying I wanted to take photos of people on the street. Took 4 before he stoppped me; It was only a lighter after all. But I felt very shitty. It is okay to get drunk to take pics of people when you would not normally do so. But to take pics of drunks is not the same at all. Everyone has their own story and most don't want it to be on a camera.

I apologise for the bad writing,
If the pics come out, I will post them.

Found a new way today, Basically, bang your headphones on, blast the music up and keep snapping away. People my get annoyed but you are barely there; just some person snapping away with headphones on. Bob Dylan is good to snap to.

Great in a place where you do not speak the lingo, but usual rules apply. People tend to let you know if they do not want pics taken via gestures, headphones let you deal with the ones who are okay with it. Music can distract from remembering your camera settings too. Keep a track on WB, ISO, etc.

If anything comes of today's 400 pics I will let you see.

I love those old photos that were taken by street photographers. This is one of my grandfather with my grandmother and his mother in Mexico City in the 1940s. I wouldn't mind having my photo taken this way. If it was good, sure I'd pay for it. I love to shoot people with my Polaroid Land camera in black and white.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tera/4734310614/in/set-72157624357532506

picture doesn't load for me, alas

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tera/4734310614/in/set-72157624357532506

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1203/4734310614_515fd2042e.jpg

You never got your ass kicked for taking a picture?

Occasionally I will. But usually what I’ll say is, [in an overtly upbeat, ingenuous voice] ‘May I take your picture? I’m from Memphis!’ I have found that always works. They say, ‘Oh, sure’. There’s some magic about that, ‘I’m from Memphis!’ I just stumbled on it. Nobody told me that secret. You can use it yourself. Just say, ‘Hey, I’m from Memphis!’ For some reason they know that word ‘Memphis’. You could say some other city, I don’t think it would have the same ring to it. Say, ‘I’m from Savannah’, I don’t think that would work.

i'd imagine Saskatoon would be hard to say no to as well!

winnipeg imo

But the most difficult thing for me is not street photography. It’s a portrait. The difference between a portrait and a snapshot is that in a portrait, a person agreed to be photographed. But certainly it’s like a biologist and his microscope. When you study the thing, it doesn’t react as when it’s not studied. And you have to try and put your camera between the skin of a person and his shirt, which is not an easy thing, because you steal something. The strange thing is that you see people naked through your viewfinder. And it’s sometimes very embarrassing.

I’m always nervous when I go to take a portrait, because it’s a new experience. Usually when taking a portrait, I feel like putting a few questions just to get the reaction of a person. It’s difficult to talk at the same time that you observe with intensity the face of somebody. But still, you must establish a contact of some sort. Whereas with Ezra Pound, I stood in front of him for maybe an hour and a half in utter silence. We were looking at each other in the eye. He was rubbing his fingers. I took maybe altogether one good photograph, four other possible, and two which were not interesting. That makes about six pictures in an hour and a half. And no embarrassment on either side.

-- terry richardson

Ha ha!