I've just published two articles on street phtography on my site.

The first piece covers street shooting tools and techniques (Leica)and the second is the beginnings of a portfolio shoot at a country fair's Midway.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/street.htm

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/midway.htm

Equipment used includes M6 with Tri-Elmar and 35mm f/1.4 Summilux ASPH, and also the remarkable new Voigtlander 12mm f/5.6 Heliar.

Finally, there is a new brief review of the M Lens Carrier about half way down the page at...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/leica_m6.htm

Michael Reichmann www.luminous-landscape.com

-- Michael Reichmann (mreichmann@home.com), August 23, 2001

Answers

Nice website! Thanks for the links. Just curious, in your "Tiger Gamblers" shot, the second guy in looks like he is either uncomfortable with, or actually ticked-off by your presence -- although I suspect he could simply be surprised... any further comment?

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), August 23, 2001.

Jack,

Thanks.

Yes, he was not amused. As I wrote on my "The Midway" commentary, "... as I took my second or third frame in quick succession, concentrating on the fellow with the tiger on his back, one of these players looked over at me with a piercing gaze. It was the last frame I took. I smiled, turned, and walked away."

Michael

-- Michael Reichmann (mreichmann@home.com), August 23, 2001.

Seems to me that the risks and legal stuff involved in this day and age delegate this type of photography only to those folks who have a real strong desire for street shooting. I must be way too timid and/or not that much of a people person, as I avoid taking photos of people I don't know and in places I was not invited.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), August 23, 2001.

I used to go shooting at a local fair in south Georgia, only one time did one of the carnys give me a stern warning about not taking his photo, I did any way as he turned to walk away but alas it was more of a revenge shot than one of usable quality. My choice of weapon at the time was an R4s and 50 Summicron. One of these days I'll get around to putting them up on some webpages....

-- Dave Doyle (soilsouth@home.com), August 23, 2001.

Michael,
Interesting and informative article and solid photos. It's interesting to read the prespectives of other people who actually do street/candid photography.

Andrew,
I think the risks of street photography are profoundly overstated on the web. The only "problems" that I've encountered when actually shooting were a few people who asked that I not take their photos (I honored their request even though it was legal for me to photograph them). I've had some people ask me about what I was doing. I've had a lot of people ask me to take their photo. I'm not saying it's an entirely risk-free activity, but neither is crossing the street.

I've been subjected to more insults, accusations, and snide insinuations from a few (very vocal) self-righteous cyber-critics than I have in the real world shooting thousands of people over hundreds of hours.

Of course, you're not under any obligation to do the kind of photography you're not comfortable with, but please don't base your views of street photography solely on what you hear on the internet (especially since many of the people doing the most talking have actually done very little of what they're talking about).

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), August 24, 2001.

I second Mike's comments, above, and would add that I have had some very nice experiences while street shooting. Some people are eager to have their photos taken, while some others seem to be indifferent, and only once in a great while does anyone seem miffed, but never enough to bother me. I've even had moments of true collaboration in which the subject responded to the camera with something wonderful. Most recently it was a young woman in Hyde Park (London) with an interesting tee shirt...As we passed each other, I asked to take a picture, she kept walking but spun around and struck a funny pose as I spun around and shot. The whole thing took two seconds (really!) but was a nice moment (and a nice shot -- I've got to get a scanner and post it!).

-- Douglas Kinnear (douglas.kinnear@colostate.edu), August 24, 2001.

Michael Reichmann is actually an old time news and street photog! Cool!!

If you did not read that far, Michael hits the Leica mystique thing on the head-very credible, coming from someone whose credentials are revealed, by his pictures, to be impeccable.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), August 24, 2001.

On the issue of concerns about street shooting, I'll simply add that from the mid-60's to the late 70's I made my living as a documentary photographer. I probably exposed some 7-10,000 rolls of film during that time, much of it at freedom marches, anti-war demonstations and the like, and on the gritty streets of major cities.

In all that time and over all those frames I never once was physically threatened or felt in danger. Sure, occasionally someone would say "F... off, don't take my picture...", but that's it.

These days I primarily work as a landscape and nature photographer. I feel much more threatened by bears, scorpions and snakes when out in the wild than I ever did by my fellow human beings in cities. :-)

Michael

-- Michael Reichmann (mreichmann@home.com), August 24, 2001.

Oddly enough, I have been threatened for not taking someone's picture on the street. You can read it about it here.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), August 24, 2001.

Last night on Egg: The Art Show on PBS, there was an interesting film on the working methods of 4 photographers, including the NYC street photographer Bruce Gilden. The filmmaker followed him as he snapped on NYC streets. He is incredibly confrontational, suddenly sticking his camera in the face of someone approaching and clicking, usually with a wideangle lens and flash. Literally "in your face." The reactions of his subjects range from bemusement to shock, and he seems to get away with it by keeping up a good-natured chatter while he's at it. You can see a bit at the pbs.org website.

-- Tim Nelson (timothy.nelson@yale.edu), August 24, 2001.

There seems to be a distrust of the telephoto approach to street photography. Personally I find the 75/80/90mm to be very useful for candid portraits "in the street". They will tend to be head and shoulders, or waist up type of shots but they seem to be perfectly valid as shots and do not involve quite the "in your face" style that using a 35mm lens entails. Also, I thought Michael's comment that carrying two bodies with different lenses was a good idea contrasted with one of the purported advantages of Ms in that they do not look big and "professional" as he states earlier. Anyone with two cameras around their neck is very noticeable.

I think that you can take good street shots with any camera actually, there is a fine line betweeen taking the shot "in stealth" and taking it "in full view". The M is great for taking the shot when the subject is unaware of it (small and quiet)- a real candid shot, but I am not convinced that when taking a shot in full view "with the subject's approval" (which seems to be the macho street photog's method) it makes much difference whether you have an M or and R or a Nikon as the tool.

This is no dig at Michael - I admire his website and photos. I do take street shots, but mine are less likely to be taken with the 35mm or wider lens (unless in a large crowd) - the 50 and 80/90 are more useful to me here. I happen to think that Americans are very sensitive to photography and issues of invasion of "personal space". My experience is that Europeans (particularly in the Mediterranean) are less worried about photographers.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), August 24, 2001.

The only time I've been taken to task is when I was shooting kids in a playground. In retrospect it was a very bad idea, and I understand the concerns of the father who confronted me. I was able to defuse the situation by going back the next day armed with a camera club membership card, and a small portfolio of the essay I was working on. I found him, and we arrived at a mutual understanding - he of the fact that I was "legit", and I of his concerns.

I found out that if you're in a dodgy situation, having evidence of legitimacy (membership in a photographically-related organization) and 4x6 samples of some good work tucked into your camera bag goes a long way in public relations.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul_chefurka@pmc-sierra.com), August 24, 2001.

Being somewhat anal and very much a control freak in most of the aspects of my life, street shooting offers me a release from the well planned task. I use a zone focused, wide-angle and a single M body "palmed" and shot mostly blind. After all of the cookie cutter wedding and "grip and grin" shots, street shooting has no quantifiable probability of success. When a shot works, this makes it that much more satisfying. I do have many older blocks of work from when I used a telephoto and voyeuristically stood out of the action looking in, but nothing is as "alive" as a shot where every thing is happening from inches of the lens. You are immersed in life, not passively observing it.

To me the best thing of working this way is that it is not until the film is developed that you see what you captured. I spend more time looking at prints from street shooting sessions shot this way than many other types of photography. Unlike the finely tweaked compositions of considered photography, there are often many surprises on the film.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), August 24, 2001.

Al

I guess I object to the word "voyeuristic". It implies somehow this is bad or poor. I prefer the word "candid". After all people react totally differently whether they think they are being observed or not. Sometimes you might feel that the photographer should be involved with the subject, sometimes not. You look to me to be doing the same thing when you take shots when the camera is effectively concealed. There is little difference in philosophy. Your shots will be from a lower angle and with a wider lens, compared to say a shot taken with a 50 or 90mm and so have a different look - but the principle is the same.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), August 24, 2001.

Robin,

No offense was intended. The look (to me) is not bad or poor...just different. The wide angle shots seem to have more layers of things, near, mid and long range, which to me add context to the main candid subject. having done both types of shooting, I would choose to use the wide-angle lens. There are however times when I still use the long lens, stand back technique, but the resulting shots look kind of sterile to me.

I guess that rather than voyeuristic, I should have used detached. Even when trying to remain unnoticed, stepping into the center of a scene with a wide-angle takes a certain boldness that shows up in the photo. But to be honest, I would never let anyone see my trash can after burning several rolls of film. The "hit and miss" ratio is heavily weighted towards the "miss", which make the winners that much more of a pay-off.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), August 24, 2001.

Robin (and others):

I think rangefinders do have one small advantage even when someone knows you're taking their picture. I've mentioned it before, but it seems appropriate to this thread as well.

An SLR, with its centered viewfinder, hides most of the photographer's face, and especially the expressive parts (eyes, mouth, forehead muscles). Your subject can't 'read' the nonverbal cues that tell them you are trustworthy and friendly (or not). The rangefinder with its corner viewfinder and lens off to one side, (at least for right-eyed photographers) leaves 80% of the face visible to the subject, including the expressive bits, and allows for a more open interchange between photographer and subject.

It's a small thing, but it can have a big impact depending on the situtation. I know that I can get very close to complete strangers with an RF and not get the startled, suspicious reaction that I used to with an SLR. And I've photographed lots of strange kids, in situations similar to the one described above, and never been challenged by a parent/adult, because I can make eye contact with them and let them see who I am and what I'm about.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), August 25, 2001.

Sorry if my comments came off as some kind of judgement about this type of photography. I actually respect those who have the ability to do this without feeling self conscious about invading peoples space. After I though about it some, I realized that several times people have taken pictures of my family while we were out in public, and did it in a good natured way that I didn't find offensive. I guess I need to loosen up some!

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), August 25, 2001.