 Eric Lent |
Candid shots I have been doing a series of candid shots involving street scenes/people. this has resulted in several great compositions --with most of them weak in technical. slightly blurred, insufficient resolution, etc. So, gradually moved from low pixel camera to a e330 and e300. Looking for help in how to keep a stable shot (some need to be blown up to capture the element of the picture). Been playing with ISO and shutter speed (tripods would be nice, but not enought time). Any help would be grand. Oh, usually out with the stock 14 to45 3.5 5.6.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
WHAT?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
We might need Sam to translate here, but I think I've got the gist of what Eric is asking. It sounds like you're working in low light and getting slow shutter speeds. If you're stuck with shooting at a certain time of day, then try this: Start with your camera set to ISO 100 and set your camera to Aperture priority (Av on some cameras). Set your aperture to f/3.5 and see what shutter speed is indicated when you press the shutter halfway. If your shutter speed is 1/60 or faster, then you should be good. Most people can hand-hold a camera with a short lens at that speed, unless your hands are very shaky. If your shutter speed is slower, increase your ISO to get a faster speed. If your shutter speed is much faster than 1/60, you can shift to a smaller aperture (higher f/number) to get more depth of field. Post some samples so we can get a better idea of what is happening. Good luck, Chris A. Vedros
|
|
|
|
||
|
Samuel Smith |
ok. oh the faithful. eric,it's hard to get candid,useful photos of street people with a wide angle lens.they know they're being photographed... you want candid,use at least 200mm and find a place that no one knows what your up to.lamp post or around a corner and inconspicious. go ahead and set it to 400 iso.a compromise but yet I think better results since we don't know your handholding capabilities.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Samuel Smith |
oh the love.somebodys buying my next box of kleenex.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
I think Chris knows my basic philosophy on shooting street photos and I'm in complete disagreement with what Sam offered here in terms of technique, unless of course you're training to be a sniper with a rifle rather than a photographer with a camera. What I propose (and I have experience at) is that your subjects actually know you're photographing them if it's even remotely possible. And, you shouldn't lurk behind lamp posts, corners, etc., but be up front about what you're doing for a lot of reasons. Most importantly, without a release, you can't do much with your photographs other than hang them in your livingroom. You'll likely never have the opportunity to meet your subjects and talk to them and get more photographs of them. If you're afraid of meeting your subjects, find a different subject or take the plunge. You might find it enlightening on a lot of levels. And, btw Chris, with all due respect, I think asking Sam to translate Eric's question is like hiring Jaws to go down to the beach and work as a lifeguard. LOL !!!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Raymond H. Kemp |
And just why would you need a release of someone if it was for anything else other than hanging it in your living room? Is that fact or just your opinion?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Brendan Knell |
No, Raymond, it is not just his opinion. It is the law. Mostly for privacy, but among others, it is against the law to sell photos without a release. By all means, you can take them, but you really can't do anything with them. "And, you shouldn't lurk behind lamp posts, corners, etc., but be up front about what you're doing for a lot of reasons." I have to agree with Mark here, as especially if your subjects are childern, people may start to get nervous of what you're doing and call the cops.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Samuel Smith |
well mark, I will gladly slide sideways into my grave and say wow what a ride.as to pull over,put that baby into park and say here I am. eric never said publication. eric never said money or release. just candid. and even as a lifeguard,i think chris v knows I would save even you. lurk?tends to be associated with pedifiles and stalkers. maybe a slight scar or abrasion and not your intent. trust me with your life,and it will be yours at the end of the day,or I shall be dead. the law is not my life. and yes I have had that training.didn't like it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Eric Lent |
Thanks. the hand holding issue is always a problem at my age -- I always think I'm steady until I look at the shot. I'm definately going to try the Aperature priority and, as usual, it never occurred to me to look at the shutter speed after the other settings were in. LIve and learn. New hobby, so I find your help ...well, helpful. I'll try the 1 over Lens setting and, maybe, even up it some to take out the blur. The candid arena sort of fits with my occupation -- teaches me to pay more attention to people and how they act and are. Anyhow -- thanks again.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Raymond H. Kemp |
"No, Raymond, it is not just his opinion. It is the law. Mostly for privacy, but among others, it is against the law to sell photos without a release. By all means, you can take them, but you really can't do anything with them." What law are you refering to here? What law says I can't sell any photos of people on the street without a release? I'm going somewhere here with this but I would like to see if you can qualify what you are stating in your response.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Brendan Knell |
Mark can elaborate, but I'll have a go. I'm not sure if there is an actual law that says you can not. But if you don't get a release and then sell it, the subject can then sue you for all you are worth. Here's some stuff from ASMP: "A release is a written agreement between you and the person you are photographing, or the person who owns the property you are photographing. The purpose of the release is to protect you from any future lawsuits the person might file for claims such as defamation and invasion of privacy." "An article in the Los Angeles Times for Feb. 1, 2005 describes how Nestlé got slapped with a $15 million jury award because it used a model’s picture without taking care of the paperwork." http://www.asmp.org/commerce/legal/releases/
|
|
|
|
||
|
Samuel Smith |
eric, after you get the shots you want,from a distance,of course go over and inform your subjects of your goal,your intent. this ain't no cloak and dagger my friends.only innocent candid.and after the fact full disclosure. if your photos don't portray an indivdual in less than appropriate light or setting,big deal. brendan you are quoting corporate crap.very high paid corporate lawyers,in what I consider a board game.technicalities vs technicalities.millions of dollars to decide a right.yet not a right a decision.and they all drive home in their mercedes or bmw?so which side lost?i know I did... only if you have compromised your honor,should you question some else's. your good to go eric,sam
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||