Street Photography is a subject that comes up a lot on the internet and opinions vary. There really is no authority on the subject or even a clear definition of what street is or is not. The overwhelming response is that we know it when we see it which is very subjective. I don’t claim to be a great or even average street photographer, but it’s something I enjoy when I get the opportunity.
The wiki definition of street photography sites the most classic examples of street were done between 1890 and 1975. During this time black and white film was the most prevalent medium presumably for it’s faster speed and overall economy. The rise is directly attributed to the portable 35mm camera but there is no rule saying that your camera must be 35mm or a Leica, even if that is what the majority of the famous classic street photographers used. Vivian Maier while not well known in her own time, was a great street photographer who used a 6×6 Rollei TLR for the majority of her work.
You can practice street photography in color and lots of people do it well, but in my opinion the best street photography has always been in black and white. Maybe it’s because it strips away all distractions and focuses your attention on the subject, or maybe it’s because I’ve been programmed to recognize it that way. A classic film for street is Kodak Tri-X. The emulsion has changed since the “classic” era but no one can argue that Tri-X processed in D-76 is not a classic combination. It’s a great place to start anyway. As for the camera, again, the classic combination would be a Leica M-3 or M-2 witha lens between 28 and 50mm. There are no rules saying you can’t shoot a Nikon SLR or an Olmpus XA but the reliability and size of the Leica combination have always been a hit with the hardcore street photographers. Keep your shutter speed fast and your f stop at f8 or higher as a general rule. This is why fast film comes in handy. There are times when you’ll need or want to deviate from the fast shutter speed and max DOF but as a starting point fast shutter will reduce camera shake and increased F stops increase the chances of being in focus as well as keeping the environment in focus. You can deviate from that of course, since there are no rules, but I think the majority of what we recognize as street photography falls under those guidelines.
The Ninja Assassin with the invisible Leica is mostly a myth. It’s important to be discreet and in most cases people in the street aren’t going to pay attention to you unless you’re drawing attention to yourself. There will be times when people notice you and look directly at you. Having a camera pointed in your direction is not a natural thing. The majority of people in this world are not walking around looking for a confrontation, they have places to go, people to see so more than likely if they notice they will either smile and go one about their day or they may give you a dirty or confused look. Don’t be a photography dork and yell that you have the legal right to take their photo, even if you do. Just smile and go on about your day. The secret to shooting in the streets is to be courteous and leave your hang ups at home.
Chances are you’re not going to go out on your first street shoot and get a Pulitzer unless you’re really lucky. I’m talking winning the lottery lucky. Start out by taking photos for yourself that have meaning. If the right moment presents itself you may just be the next Pulitzer, but the biggest challenge is to consistently get 1 or 2 keepers in a roll. A great photo is a combination of timing, lighting, subject and luck. Those moments don’t present themselves on a timed interval, you have to be there with a camera, recognize what’s going on and get the shot. It’s one of the most challenging photography disciplines you’ll ever shoot and you may never get a great photo in an entire lifetime. This isn’t to discourage you or to sound jaded, it’s just a reality of the genre. The positive is that you don’t need to get a foot in the door or get your big break to have an opportunity to shoot you only need to get your foot out of the door. In this respect the playing field is very level. You don’t need expensive equipment or a trust fund to travel the world. The only thing you need to do is get out and shoot, look for those moments, those places that have magical lighting and interesting elements etc. and start doing it.
Copyright Laws: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl107.html
http://copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf
I have provided a link to copyright laws in the US. I am not a lawyer or an expert in copyright laws so if you need legal advice I suggest consulting a lawyer who specializes in the matter.
Also in response to the comments this article has received I have done some editing to correct a few things.
In regards to using a photo from Flickr on this or any other blog you can refer to their FAQ. Below is an excerpt from the Flickr FAQ. All photos viewed on this blog that are hosted from Flickr were done so in accordance with Flickr’s guidelines.
The photos hosted in this particular article were taken by the author and uploaded from my personal computer archives. I retain the negatives and all rights are reserved.
I’ve found my photos on someone else’s website, what do I do?
There are a few ways that your photo might be displayed outside of Flickr, but still hosted here. Some of the ways include:
- Blogs
- Tag search applications
- Web-based games (often fun memory based programs)
- Screen savers (displaying most recent uploads, or photos from Explore, etc.)
- Desktop photo display widgets (like Apple’s Dashboard or Yahoo! Widgets)
Through the Flickr API, it is possible to construct such websites and applications that query Flickr’s publicly available photos via tags or user ID and build dynamic content that displays photos in interesting ways. If they are properly using the Flickr API and abiding by the requirements, the photo as seen on the page will link back to the photo page as it is found in your photostream and adhere to the API’s Terms of Use. The actual image itself is not hosted on that site, but the display will probably look different than what you are used to.
Some people are not comfortable with this, and we understand that. To that end, we allow our members to opt-out of API applications that search for text, tags, or your username and email address; your images may still show up in other types of API requests, however, so long as they are public and safe on Flickr. Your photos will still be searchable on Flickr.com and you will still be able to use third party sites for your own stream if you give them permission via the authorization process. Separate from the API search opt-out, we offer the opportunity for members to hide the ‘Blog This’ button above your images. This will prevent people from using Flickr’s integrated blogging feature found above a photo, though it is not a guarantee that your photo will not be blogged manually.
Note: There are a few instances where your image may be hosted on Flickr, but someone has just linked to the static image element and not through to your photostream itself. This is against the Flickr Community Guidelines. If you have questions about that, feel free to drop us a note via Get Help.
Nice post.
I shoot most stuff in digital but love using film. I only have a Nikon EM but enjoy the whole loading, using then developing film, a lot more than taking a memory card out and putting in my computer. I think that film being less practical over digital doesn’t hold true when it comes to Street Photography.
Its the whole experience that comes from analogue Street Photography I love.
copyright/copywright? 😀
Unfortunately Mr. Derek Sikes doesn’t really own any of the images above unless he has garnered model releases from each and every one of people in the photographs. You cannot profit from your work without signed releases. You can’t sell them as fine art, You can’t publish them in a magazine. In fact it’s debatable (and has yet to be legally decided) if putting them on a website constitutes “publication” (after all, you are calling this a ‘Blog’). This is my problem with street photography and why I don’t really do much of it. You can, of course, snap away in any public place and feel free to enjoy the snaps in comforts of your own home. Oh yeah, you can publish photos of ‘public figures’ all you want (hence paparzzi usage is generally legal).
Agree with the above poster. This website/blog is fostering copyright/copywright/copywrite/?? infringement. You can not take someone’s (c)-right protected work off flickr and put it on your website — that is per se copyright infringement. Seek advisement from an attorney because you are opening yourself up to liability. Specifically, there are “statutory damages” under the Copyright Act.
Otherwise, nice website you have here 🙂
I appreciate your support of the website. To date all photos have been shared in accordance with flickr’s sharing guidelines or were the property of the authors.
I think there are 2 issues here:
Rodney is saying that although Derek is putting ‘Copywright Derek Sikes’ on his photos he is not actually allowed to do this.
John is saying that the author of this post is breaking the law by taking the photos off Flicker and putting them here on his blog.
I am not 100% what is and what isn’t breaking the law. All I know is that I am allowed to go out into the street, take my photos and upload them to my (non profit) blog, Google+ account or 500px account.
That is correct James Taylor — you are allowed to take street photos and put them on your non-profit site. However, what this website is doing is taking protected content off Flickr and putting it on his site. That is copyright infringement.
Actually non-profit status will probably only limit the damages in civil liability lawsuit if an unreleased model takes offense to the publication of the photograph. As I alluded to before, some make the argument that *all* websites are, in effect, ‘published magazines’, but this hasn’t been tested in the courts yet. In any case, the photographer cannot assume ownership of any image in which there are recognizable faces (that are not considered ‘public figures’) without model releases and cannot license the image for any sort of publication, nor sell it outright as fine art.
Wikipedia actually has a pretty decent summary of the concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release
Some key phrases to note:
…Publishing an identifiable photo of a person without a model release signed by that person can result in civil liability for whoever publishes the photograph.
…Unless a photo is actually published, the need (or use) of a model release is undefined.
…Note that the issue of model release forms and liability waivers is a legal area related to privacy and is separate from copyright.
…The act of taking a photo of someone in a public setting without a model release, or of viewing or non-commercially showing such a photo in private, generally does not create legal exposure, at least in the United States.
So *doing* street photography is completely legal. But using the images in a public fashion (even for the promotional purposes of the photographer) without model releases is prone to legal issues. So this is why I tend to steer clear of street photography or publishing any recognizable face of someone I don’t personally know (or have gotten a release from).
It looks to me that the images do belong to Derek Sikes and are from his flickr page.
However, they haven’t been linked properly. I am working on getting this resolved.
Perhaps you are correct and Mr. Sikes has garnered model releases from each and every one of the recognizable people in the photographs, otherwise, he doesn’t truly *own* the photographs.
Actually I uploaded those directly from my computer, they are not linked to my Flickr account, where I have also uploaded them. -Derek
Nice swift reply, Thanks!
Becca