canon rumors FORUM

Image & Video Galleries => Street & City => Topic started by: dancook on March 14, 2014, 11:28:12 AM

Title: Voyeurism
Post by: dancook on March 14, 2014, 11:28:12 AM
I was reading some threads, one post which suggested anything over 50mm was not street photography - it was voyeurism. Albeit, tongue in cheek - but some people seem to be really opinionated about focal lengths.

I have only recently started to try my hand at 'street photography' or 'voyeurism'. Using a 5dm3, I felt most comfortable with my 135L (The 85mm is a bit slow in gaining focus). I did try to go back to my 35mm - but instantly felt lost. I would probably need more time with it, change my thinking, but I enjoyed having a good radius to with the 135mm.

My 5dm3 is gripped and my 35mm is the same size as my 135mm! So it's rather conspicuous. I've been saving up for a 200mm (white beast) - and whilst I might go back to the 135mm, I'm very interested in giving it a go on the street!



First of all the gentleman on the right took my interest, reminded me of Gene Wilder (although I first thought Eric Idle.. I get confused by those two) - maybe the little girl was trying to figure it out herself.

(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2132/13110909754_d19cebf9a8_b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/62198876@N02/13110909754/)
Curious Girl (http://www.flickr.com/photos/62198876@N02/13110909754/#) by dancook1982 (http://www.flickr.com/people/62198876@N02/), on Flickr


This gentleman in Covent gardens, who's reflection appears on the shoulders of the mannequin

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7459/13111993914_510c4ccc71_b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/62198876@N02/13111993914/)
Spiffy Reflection (http://www.flickr.com/photos/62198876@N02/13111993914/#) by dancook1982 (http://www.flickr.com/people/62198876@N02/), on Flickr

(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2399/13111816123_3081df808f_b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/62198876@N02/13111816123/)
FQ2A8874 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/62198876@N02/13111816123/#) by dancook1982 (http://www.flickr.com/people/62198876@N02/), on Flickr

(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3750/13111789093_6cdc91a29a_b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/62198876@N02/13111789093/)
Papped (http://www.flickr.com/photos/62198876@N02/13111789093/#) by dancook1982 (http://www.flickr.com/people/62198876@N02/), on Flickr

(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2859/13111787633_26990556e5_c.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/62198876@N02/13111787633/)
Feeling Blue (http://www.flickr.com/photos/62198876@N02/13111787633/#) by dancook1982 (http://www.flickr.com/people/62198876@N02/), on Flickr

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7303/13111969924_00200962f0_b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/62198876@N02/13111969924/)
Taking in the sights (http://www.flickr.com/photos/62198876@N02/13111969924/#) by dancook1982 (http://www.flickr.com/people/62198876@N02/), on Flickr

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7459/13111679495_048c0fb8db_b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/62198876@N02/13111679495/)
Sunset walk (http://www.flickr.com/photos/62198876@N02/13111679495/#) by dancook1982 (http://www.flickr.com/people/62198876@N02/), on Flickr

(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3815/13111699205_c6e44c6bd5_c.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/62198876@N02/13111699205/)
Don't be stingy (http://www.flickr.com/photos/62198876@N02/13111699205/#) by dancook1982 (http://www.flickr.com/people/62198876@N02/), on Flickr

The following are more portrait, but I found them to be interesting people

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7429/13111808513_d2c899b12f_b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/62198876@N02/13111808513/)
Coolest of the Cool (http://www.flickr.com/photos/62198876@N02/13111808513/#) by dancook1982 (http://www.flickr.com/people/62198876@N02/), on Flickr

(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2891/13111806423_4052732c46_c.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/62198876@N02/13111806423/)
Making a statement (http://www.flickr.com/photos/62198876@N02/13111806423/#) by dancook1982 (http://www.flickr.com/people/62198876@N02/), on Flickr

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7327/13111701175_7c2f72ca24_c.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/62198876@N02/13111701175/)
Model Quality (http://www.flickr.com/photos/62198876@N02/13111701175/#) by dancook1982 (http://www.flickr.com/people/62198876@N02/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Voyeurism
Post by: candyman on March 14, 2014, 12:03:45 PM
The 135mL is an excellent lens for street photography. And, not so strong presence unlike the white beast (200)


Some great shots you did here!
Thanks for sharing

Title: Re: Voyeurism
Post by: Click on March 14, 2014, 12:57:21 PM
Very nice series. Welcome to cr  :)
Title: Re: Voyeurism
Post by: privatebydesign on March 14, 2014, 01:56:21 PM
I didn't see the other thread but the thing I find detached from using the longer focal lengths is, the detached feeling! There is no communication with the subject so you are just framing juxtapositions, it is far more difficult to get a compelling image from mere juxtaposition.

Having said that I am all in favour of more photographers and fewer theorists on the forum so welcome  :)
Title: Re: Voyeurism
Post by: Stig on March 14, 2014, 03:32:14 PM
some really nice and interesting pictures  :)

I got my 135L last September while on vacation in NY and in the evening I was walking through Times square with it. Originaly just some test shots and my first small street photo attempt turned into one of my best and most interesting photo experiences, I got some pictures I really like, and the lens even surpassed my expectations, I really like it (and CR made me look at it more in the first place, so thanks guys for that  ;) ).
Title: Re: Voyeurism
Post by: dancook on March 14, 2014, 04:09:26 PM
Thanks all,

Until I started getting into street photography (a couple of weeks ago!) I was starting to get concerned about the lack of use my 135L gets - I'm glad it has now found it's place!
Title: Re: Voyeurism
Post by: Sporgon on March 14, 2014, 05:39:14 PM
I enjoyed these pictures; I think Spiffy Reflection and Feeling Blue are top notch.
Title: Re: Voyeurism
Post by: distant.star on March 14, 2014, 08:57:10 PM
I was reading some threads, one post which suggested anything over 50mm was not street photography - it was voyeurism. Albeit, tongue in cheek - but some people seem to be really opinionated about focal lengths.

I have only recently started to try my hand at 'street photography' or 'voyeurism'. Using a 5dm3, I felt most comfortable with my 135L (The 85mm is a bit slow in gaining focus). I did try to go back to my 35mm - but instantly felt lost. I would probably need more time with it, change my thinking, but I enjoyed having a good radius to with the 135mm.

Thanks, I really like your work. You've got a great eye for this, and I'm amazed that you've only been at it a few weeks.

I suggest you believe very little of what you read about "street photography." It's become a term that means something different to everyone, hence it really means nothing. Scads of people who've never taken a picture of someone they don't know will beat you down about how they think it's supposed to be. And many of the so called masters of the "genre" basically stink. I've been doing what I call "public photography" for many years, and my best advice is to define yourself. Understand what it is you want to show through your images and pick your equipment based on that. If what you're doing satisfies you and fulfills your vision, the rest of them can piss off.

The Canon 135mm and the Sigma 35mm are my two preferred lenses on a 5D3; back in the film era I mostly used a 50mm. In my experience the 35mm gets me close enough to show an impression of what's going on (human interactions, typically), and the 135mm I use more for candid portraits. Sometimes in crowded places I'll use a 17-40 and not even raise it to my eye -- just point and shoot (and crop when needed). Since I'm using the 35mm so much nowadays, I'm probably going to get a Fujifilm X100S this spring; it seems to deliver great IQ and it's far less obtrusive. Then I can keep the 135mm on the 5D3 and be ready for anything.

Thanks again for showing your fine work. I'll hope to see more.
Title: Re: Voyeurism
Post by: dancook on March 15, 2014, 05:34:18 AM
Thanks a lot.

I was starting to think about another body, but it might just be GAS.

My 35mm is the Carl Zeiss 35mm 1.4 distagon - and I'm afraid to let it go for the Sig. I got thinking about the Sony A7R which I believe would give me a little help with manual focus lenses. Since I've got a wedding later in the year, I was trying to justify the second body would be handy..

When I popped the 35mm on, I tried to hipshoot - my wife sarcastically said 'smooth'.. not using a strap, so holding it facing forward lower down the body can be quite awkward.

Well whatever category my photos fall under, I was elated for having taken them - so that's what counts :)
Title: Re: Voyeurism
Post by: Sporgon on March 15, 2014, 05:44:37 AM
If you're going to get a second body and you're serious then get the same as you have now. This means that you can have different lenses on different bodies: the most common in weddings 24-70 + 70-200 for instance.
Title: Re: Voyeurism
Post by: dancook on March 15, 2014, 07:21:32 AM
If you're going to get a second body and you're serious then get the same as you have now. This means that you can have different lenses on different bodies: the most common in weddings 24-70 + 70-200 for instance.

thanks, it would mean I can use my flash equipment with the Canon too - so in that way makes sense.

Lenses wise, I have 35mm 1.4, 85mm 1.2, 135mm 2, and saving up for the 200 2 - I know people rave about zooms for weddings, but I hope I can manage with my primes
Title: Re: Voyeurism
Post by: Sporgon on March 15, 2014, 10:08:31 AM
Primes are fine, but I wouldn't want to shoot a wedding without a 50 mm focal length.
Title: Re: Voyeurism
Post by: candyman on March 15, 2014, 10:12:55 AM
Primes are fine, but I wouldn't want to shoot a wedding without a 50 mm focal length.


Hi Sporgon,
I love to hear why? I am currently looking for adding 50 or 85mm and like to hear your arguments.

Title: Re: Voyeurism
Post by: Sporgon on March 15, 2014, 01:48:58 PM
Primes are fine, but I wouldn't want to shoot a wedding without a 50 mm focal length.


Hi Sporgon,
I love to hear why? I am currently looking for adding 50 or 85mm and like to hear your arguments.

Space, distance and perspective are my reasons for this. 85mm gives a pleasant perspective but you need to be able to get far enough away. You also need more light one way or another to keep more depth of field. 35mm will result in an undesired perspective when used close; to reduce depth of field you're going to be very close = undesired perspective. In these situations the 50mm (on FF) gives you a pleasant, neutral perspective even when close, and you have good control over depth of field. That's why I say I wouldn't like to shoot a wedding without access to the 50mm focal length.

I don't know what you shoot or your style but I see you have the 135 so if deciding between a 50 and 85 prime, I'd go for the 50. You hear people say it's a 'boring' focal length because it doesn't give an exaggerated perspective either side of neutral, but I have found that relying on extreme perspective to make a picture good is a mistake.
Title: Re: Voyeurism
Post by: candyman on March 15, 2014, 02:01:21 PM
Primes are fine, but I wouldn't want to shoot a wedding without a 50 mm focal length.


Hi Sporgon,
I love to hear why? I am currently looking for adding 50 or 85mm and like to hear your arguments.

Space, distance and perspective are my reasons for this. 85mm gives a pleasant perspective but you need to be able to get far enough away. You also need more light one way or another to keep more depth of field. 35mm will result in an undesired perspective when used close; to reduce depth of field you're going to be very close = undesired perspective. In these situations the 50mm (on FF) gives you a pleasant, neutral perspective even when close, and you have good control over depth of field. That's why I say I wouldn't like to shoot a wedding without access to the 50mm focal length.

I don't know what you shoot or your style but I see you have the 135 so if deciding between a 50 and 85 prime, I'd go for the 50. You hear people say it's a 'boring' focal length because it doesn't give an exaggerated perspective either side of neutral, but I have found that relying on extreme perspective to make a picture good is a mistake.


Thanks for taking the time to write down your agurments. I appreciate it


I thought that when using the 50mm it would be too much stepping into the comfort zone of people. I used to own the sigma 50mm f/1.4 and used it on the crop (7D). I felt not comfortable with the 50mm on FF (besides the fact that the quality on the FF was less than on the 7D)

I think I must rent a 50mm (Canon or Sigma) and try it again.

Title: Re: Voyeurism
Post by: dancook on March 15, 2014, 08:05:25 PM
I have serious GAS issues, all this talk of 'needing' a 50mm - and all I can think of is the otus.. I feel sick  :o - the crisps and coke might not have helped though.

I had been yearning for the 200mm f2 so long, and second hand it's about the same price as the otus...

I could sell the 35mm Zeiss and get the 21mm..  - have 21mm 2.8, 55mm 1.4, 85mm 1.2, 135mm 2...oh GAS sucks :D
Title: Re: Voyeurism
Post by: dancook on March 31, 2014, 06:10:02 AM
I didn't see the other thread but the thing I find detached from using the longer focal lengths is, the detached feeling! There is no communication with the subject so you are just framing juxtapositions, it is far more difficult to get a compelling image from mere juxtaposition.

Having said that I am all in favour of more photographers and fewer theorists on the forum so welcome  :)

I happened upon the thread again actually.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=13782.15

That is akin to sniping.
Find yourself a good place to hide and wait?
Sorry mate, but this voyeurism, not street photography.
Having the balls to get up close and personal to take the shot in the first place is the whole point of street photography...

ET

Wasn't so tongue-in-cheek I guess :)
Title: Re: Voyeurism
Post by: dancook on September 24, 2014, 05:07:32 PM


6,7 photo where is that?

Waterloo bridge
Title: Re: Voyeurism
Post by: canon_guy on September 27, 2014, 04:07:13 PM


6,7 photo where is that?

Waterloo bridge
hm, thank you!
Title: Re: Voyeurism
Post by: AcutancePhotography on September 29, 2014, 08:15:14 AM
Like most things in photography, it is a balancing act.

With shorter FL's the photographer is part of the street scene and therefore influences the scene.
With longer FL's the photographer is not part of the street scene and has a lower influence of the scene.

It all depends on what the photographer is looking for.  Each will generate a different type of photograph.   

Quote
Having the balls to get up close and personal to take the shot in the first place is the whole point of street photography...

Ugh.  More "if you don't do it my way you are wrong" viewpoints.  Do we really need that in art of photography?
Title: Re: Voyeurism
Post by: sanj on September 29, 2014, 10:26:19 AM
Some really cool pictures.
Title: Re: Voyeurism
Post by: Besisika on September 29, 2014, 10:31:22 AM
Having said that I am all in favour of more photographers and fewer theorists on the forum so welcome  :)
+1
Like the film said, not because you talked alot about Kung Fu that makes you a Sifu.
Nice series there.
Title: Re: Voyeurism
Post by: yorgasor on January 03, 2015, 07:29:41 AM
What I like about the "voyerism" style of photos is that the photographer isn't influencing the person being photographed.  You're catching the person as they really are, they're not posing for you.  People get self conscious when you point a camera right at them, whether they know you or not.
 
This one, I wasn't sitting 5 feet away from this woman, on the steps on a river bank in Singapore.  I had the camera set up on a tripod and I used live view to set up the composition and focus (I was using a 40 yr old 180mm Nikon on my 5D3), but I made as if I was just tinkering with the camera, never getting into a position behind the camera where a normal photographer would be taking a picture.
 
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3870/14855270322_4e8c2e28e3.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/oCH9jo)5D3_7387 (https://flic.kr/p/oCH9jo) by yorgasor (https://www.flickr.com/people/98400159@N08/), on Flickr

It worked so well, I tried it again for these two shots:

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3842/14706646590_79619c9e7b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/opzpEf)5D3_8158 (https://flic.kr/p/opzpEf) by yorgasor (https://www.flickr.com/people/98400159@N08/), on Flickr

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5564/14706662009_6e16c0a754.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/opzuf6)5D3_9117 (https://flic.kr/p/opzuf6) by yorgasor (https://www.flickr.com/people/98400159@N08/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Voyeurism
Post by: bholliman on January 03, 2015, 08:14:56 AM
What I like about the "voyerism" style of photos is that the photographer isn't influencing the person being photographed.  You're catching the person as they really are, they're not posing for you.  People get self conscious when you point a camera right at them, whether they know you or not.
 
This one, I wasn't sitting 5 feet away from this woman, on the steps on a river bank in Singapore.  I had the camera set up on a tripod and I used live view to set up the composition and focus (I was using a 40 yr old 180mm Nikon on my 5D3), but I made as if I was just tinkering with the camera, never getting into a position behind the camera where a normal photographer would be taking a picture.
Great shots!  I especially like the first one.  As you pointed out, if the subjects had been aware you were taking a picture, you would not have gotten these terrific, candid pictures.