Candid or Street photography?

Most, but not all, street photography is candid. Obviously, there is plenty of candid photography that has nothing to do with street photography.

Woman at Street Fair, Copyright 2003 Jeff Spirer

In my books, that's definately a street shot. It's an unposed shot of life that you've come across on the street.

according to eric's book, i can do street photography from my apartment or car if i had a long lens. as far as *cheating* some will just not respect you shooting street with a tele besides why would you spend the money on a long tele lens when a cheap 35 or 50mm can do? plus you get better dof and a couple of f stops. now go buy the 50mm 1.8 or 35mm f2 get some nerve and hit the street!

Using a long lens for street photography is perfectly reasonable. It results in a different look, and to my eye it's certainly more natural than people shot so that their proportions look distorted due to a wide angle.

and to my eye it's certainly more natural than people shot so that their proportions look distorted due to a wide angle.

This is an issue with close head shots, not street photography. I don't know anyone doing street photography whose goal is to create "undistorted" people. Most work with short lenses because the best way to do street photography is to be part of the "street," not a distant spectator.

Smoker, 35mm lens (hip shot), Copyright 2003 Jeff Spirer

I didn't realize this game had so many stinking rules. Mind if I cash in my chips now?

Here's one of my gold chips.

1. 35mm/28mm/50mm.

advantages: small (discreetness)

cheap (plenty of them)

fast (lowlight handholdability)

dof (hyperfocusing if you like)

larger angle of view (environmental/context)

normal undistorted perspective (tele compresses / ultra wide can distort too much at time imo especially portrait at close distance)

disadvantage: you got to be pretty close to the subject(s) if you consider it a disadvantage.

2. don't worry about subsetting if it's a candid or street photograph or any hard definition, it's no math;<) perhaps borrow a 35mm or a 28mm and it will be a different expereince than shooting from afar.

Peter,

I hope you did not take offense to my use of the word "cheating" in Abbie’s first post (I assume you are quoting me). I did not mean anything personal, it is as I said just my opinion.

My meaning was that it takes some nerve and maybe even some bravery to get within a few feet of a total stranger and to be bold enough to shoot a photo of that person with a wide-angle lens. With a telephoto, a person could stand back in the shadows and click all day without ever interacting or "experiencing" the subject in anyway. Like I said, one type of shooting is intimate, the other voyeuristic. Both are candid, but both are different. That said, I too “cheat” and use a telephoto sometimes (never anything longer than a 105mm), but when the film comes back, I have more “invested” in the tighter wide-angle shots, and they mean more.

If I may… the one thing that is missing from your posted photo here is context. I see the person, I see the clothes, but I don’t know where that person is or what the environment is. I wider lens gets the person, and the surroundings. Again, this is just my opinion, but I prefer the later… the person and something about that person. Tell the story of the person with context. If you want an advantage, this is a big one in my opinion.

Everyone is different. Do what works for you and enjoy.