Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Street Photography... iPhone camera vs DSLR
Page <<first <prev 5 of 5
Jul 31, 2016 17:58:49   #
burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC
 
Kiron Kid wrote:
I still do all of my street shooting with a film SLR or rangefinder. Use whatever you are familiar with. In my opinion, a cell phone is much too difficult to compose with. Not to mention the shutter lag time...


The newest high end smart phones have almost no lag. With the right camera app, they're pretty amazing.

That said, I love my LUMIX GH4 and interchangeable pro zoom lenses. The OLED screen and EVF make it very versatile. With the 35-100mm f/2.8 zoom, it's 1/3 the size of a full frame dSLR, so people have NO idea what I'm able to do.

Reply
Jul 31, 2016 18:01:10   #
burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC
 
johneccles wrote:
The major drawback with a camera phone is using one in bright lighting, I find it can virtually impossible to see what's on the screen even when the brightness is set to maximum. If possible I try to move into the shade which can help a bit.
On a different tack you could use a selfie stick but use the back camera of course.
Some one else has suggested using a proper camera at waist height using the swivel screen, if it has one, this method solves the problem of using LCD screens in bright light.
I often use my Olympus M43 in this way, but if taking shots of tall building etc you need to be aware of the increase in perspective.
It is quite surprising what a difference between waist height and eye level shots makes.
The major drawback with a camera phone is using on... (show quote)


Perspective distortion is easily tamed in software such as Lightroom.

Reply
Jul 31, 2016 19:34:20   #
jim '57 Loc: Sacramento, California
 
My Nokia 1020 takes great close ups and records video at 1080. I have had it for about 3 years now and am very happy with it. Apple has a great ad division.

Reply
 
 
Aug 1, 2016 07:21:09   #
PhotoArtsLA Loc: Boynton Beach
 
Street Photography could be called "Candid Photography" where the trick is to learn to blend in to the background to get the shot, unobserved. The problem with any degree of ostentatious presence is that you will affect the scene, making it more "posed" than it should be. That said, any camera is acceptable which is reasonably quiet. The cell phone cameras have taken off since plastic lenses finally shed "plastic junk" from its name. The problem with cell phone cameras is they are a lot of bother in setting everything once you find a phone app with all the control, enough so that you might miss the intended shot. Any camera higher up the chain would suffice and likely be faster in the shooting. The great street/candid photographers of the past were extremely fast, often with the near silent Leica and film.

Reply
Aug 1, 2016 07:35:24   #
travelwp Loc: New Jersey
 
gyroscootus wrote:
Please define "street photography".


Here is my opinion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hClWW0mIfmY&feature=youtu.be

Reply
Aug 1, 2016 08:12:08   #
Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska
 
PhotoArtsLA wrote:
Street Photography could be called "Candid Photography" where the trick is to learn to blend in to the background to get the shot, unobserved. The problem with any degree of ostentatious presence is that you will affect the scene, making it more "posed" than it should be.

Interesting thoughts, but that is not true about Street Photography. Much Street is candid, but much that is candid is not Street and much Street is not candid. Being unobserved has virtually nothing to do with how Street is defined. Note that "posed" when applied to what should not be done with Street does not mean just anything that affects a scene. It means it is not staged, it is not choreographed, it is not setup by the photographer. But one very common style of Street is to get pictures of people reacting to the photographer!

Basically all of these various characteristics (with the exception of it not being staged) are not part of the definition of Street, but rather they are the characteristics of one or another photographer's style of Street Photography. One guy uses only a 35mm lens, another guy uses only a 50mm, and another a 200mm... they all have different styles of Street. When each is asked how they define Street they give a description defining how they do Street, but it is not a universal description of what Street, nor of characteristics that are necessary to call something Street or to exclude it.

Here is the simplest definition that I have come up with, posted in the introduction to the Street Photography Section, and taken verbatim from Wikipedia,

Street photography is photography that features the chance
encounters and random accidents within public places. Street
photography does not necessitate the presence of a street or
even the urban environment. Though people usually feature
directly, street photography might be absent of people and
can be of an object or environment where the image projects a
decidedly human character in facsimile or aesthetic.

In fact, Street Photograph captures life, it records the intangible relationships between humans and their surrounding.
PhotoArtsLA wrote:
That said, any camera is acceptable which is reasonably quiet. The cell phone cameras have taken off since plastic lenses finally shed "plastic junk" from its name. The problem with cell phone cameras is they are a lot of bother in setting everything once you find a phone app with all the control, enough so that you might miss the intended shot. Any camera higher up the chain would suffice and likely be faster in the shooting. The great street/candid photographers of the past were extremely fast, often with the near silent Leica and film.
That said, any camera is acceptable which is reaso... (show quote)

All of that is true.

Reply
Aug 1, 2016 08:32:51   #
Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska
 

Your videos are absolutely entertaining! It's the delivery that makes it so...

Some of the details are wierd, and maybe the organization isn't the best. But your way of talking and saying things is very pleasant.

I've watched your video describing Street Photograph three or four times. And I enjoy it everytime. But suggestions that Street is necessarily candid, spontaneous, with no eye contract, always showing mood or emotion... well, those are characteristics of some styles of Street, but they don't define Street. Think of how any of those fit Bruce Gilden, the pop a flash in your face and grin guy! He does Street, even if it's not what you and I might aspire to.

Street Photography captures life. The subject is not the people, and indeed there need not even be a person in the photograph. The subject is something intangible. It's various relationships between people and what is around them. Life.

Reply
 
 
Aug 1, 2016 09:55:24   #
wj cody Loc: springfield illinois
 
Kiron Kid wrote:
If you feel it necessary to be sneaky, evasive or use long lenses, then perhaps street photography isn't for you.


amen

Reply
Aug 1, 2016 12:12:58   #
travelwp Loc: New Jersey
 
Apaflo wrote:
Your videos are absolutely entertaining! It's the delivery that makes it so...
Street Photography captures life. The subject is not the people, and indeed there need not even be a person in the photograph. The subject is something intangible. It's various relationships between people and what is around them. Life.


Apaflo, thank you very much for your nice comment on my videos.

I also agree with your definition of Street Photography.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 5 of 5
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.