projects . gallery . team project . forum . search . members . my space

/forum

User Message
10-09-2008
180 post(s)
This site is far too sleepy lately, I think it's time for a DEBATE, you know... an old fashioned, no holds barred DISCUSSION about something central to street shooting, the old Hip SHot or Chest Shot as is sometimes the case. Now I was criticized earlier for a picture which seemed "cold" and just a "chance shot". A little later WIll JAckson was criticized (and in his case "penalized" for a successful hip shot taken in a Korean subway. So let's have this out once and for all. When Magnum's Alex Webb from time to time resorts to hip shots to maintain his cover while very carefully gauging the effect and content of the frame, when Alex Majoli, also of Magnum routinely uses the flexible LCD on his little Olympus digicams to capture intimate scenes at wild angles without the subjects knowing what he's up to, are they to be condemned to? Are only shots taken with the full knowledge of the subject valid, classically composed whatever that means, through the viewfinder every time? SHould that be a criteria on Holik? I will say this: I personally prefer to use the viewfinder most of the time but I can accept that sometimes a hip shot is the best way to go, and yes, it is possible to "practice" hip shooting until you get quite good a "guessing" what is in he frame. To condemn the technique outright strikes me as over simplistic and unfair. Now PLEASE everybody weigh in on this - it could get interesting.
11-09-2008
34 post(s)
Bon... Je vais répondre en français... Si j'ai bien tout compris, le problème est de savoir si les prises sans avoir l'oeil collé au viseur sont autorisées ? Avant toute chose je ne crois pas qu'il faille calibrer photoholik selon des critères pré-établis, noir et blanc, street shoting ou je n'sais trop quoi... Personnellement j'aime les photos d'églises, les portraits d'enfants même ceux pris de très près...(; Concernant ces clichés le long de la hanche, je n'y vois pas d'inconvénient... De la chance ? A la bonne heure, l'exercice de la photo est aussi une question de chance et il me semble qu'à force de pratiquer ce genre il devient possible de savoir à peu près ce que l'on aura sur le cliché sans pour autant avoir pris la peine de viser..... Moi c'est c'que j'en dis.... edited by Bélibaste on 11/09/2008
11-09-2008
290 post(s)
[u]Just few words before this topic go to far.[/u] About hip shot : nobody said it was or not allow on Holik. of course this kind of picture have a place on Photoholik.
11-09-2008
180 post(s)
[quote=flydragon][u]Just few words before this topic go to far.[/u] About hip shot : nobody said it was or not allow on Holik. of course this kind of picture have a place on Photoholik.[/quote] Simon is absolutely correct, and I was just about to make that point: this is not about what is "allowed" but rather about a certain judgement, a personal opinion that I find somewhat "moralistic" and unfair. There are many ways to tackle street situations and many techniques, hip or chest shots being among them. I have worked along professional photojournalists and I can assure you that "over the head" and "chest-high" shots, later "cropped" are very common and can yield perfectly good results. I am talking about professional work here. And the whole debate between those like Cartier-Bresson who preferred to remain invisible and "sneak in the shot" and the David Alan Harveys who absolutely want to be part of whatever scene they're in, is a long and ancient one. I know which side I'm on but that doesn't make me right, or better... I tried some months ago to get a discussion going along those lines: "What kind of shooter are you?" - the response was pathetic, almost no replies, so I gave up on it. Come one, let's hear from everybody: Tom? Luko? Gal? Brian? Steve? Will? Let's have a friendly, spirited debate about something that goes to the heart of what this site stands for, in terms of documenting gthe world around us.
11-09-2008
163 post(s)
Hi The way to take a photograph is anecdotal for me. The most interresting part is the results, and feel the intention of a photographer. Hip shot, head shot, nose shot, foot shot :) ... never mind ... but, I never do that. I'm not fetishist ;) :abuse:
11-09-2008
31 post(s)
Most of my hip shots are in the subway. I'm not too successful with hip shots outside (maybe 'cos I'm so tall). Subways are intimate places, cramped and if you just start whipping out your equipment and snapping away things could turn nasty. Besides I have tried asking people for a shot, but usually they'll put on a big **** eating grin and do they old victory sign or they'll just hurl some abuse my way. This seems to be the general rule in Korea, Taiwan, and Japan (in my case). My point? Hip shots are great in the subway as I want to capture the scene around me. Outside, I don't bother because I'm too crap at it!
11-09-2008
48 post(s)
[quote=Furachan] I tried some months ago to get a discussion going along those lines: "What kind of shooter are you?" - the response was pathetic, almost no replies, so I gave up on it. [/quote] Francis, please spare me the Alzheimmer trick. I, for a fact, did respond to your previous thread. Qualifying it as pathetic is...pathetic in itself, and surely doesn't call for any other response on the same subject. Perhaps if you renew your fundamental doubts, I'll indulge to pop in with an humble point of view. Friendly Gal
11-09-2008
180 post(s)
[b]Gal: I apologize for the offense - very thoughtless of me. You are quite right: I stand corrected. Francis[/b] edited by Furachan on 12/09/2008 edited by Furachan on 12/09/2008
15-09-2008
137 post(s)
Well, I gave up on hip shots long ago: A) because I no longer use autofocus. B) because I'm not good enough (at photography, not just hip shots). Francis, you are right that others use whatever means to obtain shots...that is entirely acceptable. The problem I find is that many people are unable to take photos intimately without resorting to clutching their camera crotch high, wailing off a few frames, then cropping for desired effect. To me the effect is too obvious (much like Gothic themed posed fashion shots) to be stomached through constant repetition. This repetition creates a look that can confine ones creative output. Simply, I walk around (drive around, jog around, fly around...sit, stand, fall) and if I see something that looks interesting, I compose a shot and take the picture....most times they suck, but this what I like. I've found myself intimidated and threatened...I've missed photos...I've also found that the times that I actually immerse myself unseen (or seen if it looks right) into a situation tend to be the most satisfying. Hips shots are ok if it is what you have to do, but a photographer should not have to rely on this type pf photography as a means for photographic expression alone.
15-09-2008
23 post(s)
It's not a technique I've tried and, to be honest, it doesn't really appeal to me. Despite previously having had a rangefinder with prime lenses which I could pre-focus, I prefer to be 'seen' taking my shots - even at the expense of getting that ideal shot of an 'unguarded' moment. It's not a moralistic thing - just that I don't want anyone to be in any doubt what I'm doing and, if they object, to have the opportunity to say so. I also relish the opportunity to frame the shot as I want it rather than take 'pot luck' with whether I my aim of the camera has worked out okay. The main problem with the UK, insofar as photographers are concerned at present, is the media-led paranoia which instantly demonises 'street' photographers into being paedophiles, terrorists or 'snoops' working on behalf of the state social benefits system and trying to catch benefit fraudsters. It is a brave photographer who wields their camera in public - especially at close quarters where 'people' are in the line of sight. Sad but true, I'm afraid to report.
17-09-2008
49 post(s)
[quote=fixed]Hi The way to take a photograph is anecdotal for me. The most interresting part is the results, and feel the intention of a photographer. Hip shot, head shot, nose shot, foot shot :) ... never mind ... but, I never do that. I'm not fetishist ;) :abuse:[/quote] I'm in full agreement (and am not a fetishist either - although I will dream tonight of the 5D II dressed in its black leatherette. . .). Being one who first saw Live View as a gimmick, I now find myself using it as an alternative to the hip shot. Certainly it helps reduce the guess work while allowing a greater degree of discretion than with the nose pushed against the back of a big Canon or Nikon dSLR.
18-09-2008
142 post(s)
Yeah... huh... well, have you had some bad feedbacks recently, Francis? It seems this worry has been a hot topic on your agenda since I can also find traces of it reading through your intro. The answer is cristal clear as far as I'm concerned : depending on the result you want, it can be an invaluably useful technique. It's funny most of the replies have been focused on the photographer's side, never on the viewer's side. Reading the comments, It looks like it is a whole adventure to take a photo of someone, it can be sometimes, but generally street is as far away to war photography than pétanque is to chess. Let's not lie to ourselves : no blood involved there. What bores me to death are portraits where the photographer is much too present, sometimes I 'd like to yell : c'mon step aside buddy and show us something else than your ego, go and catch the moment. So sometimes hipshot is a very good technique in order to shoot close without being noticed, and also a helpful technique to clear the background from uneven details, as you shoot upwards. Aesthetically I can't think of any argument which could ban hipshooting, ethically it is simply ideological as when you regularly use hipshots you KNOW how to compose with this technique. I agree that it is much easier to try hipshot with digital, since you instantly know what is bound to the bin and what is good. Autofocus is absolutely not a requirement for hispshots, it is often a pain in the neck on the contrary since you cannot aim so precisely that you monitor the autofocus point. Chris, if I read your first paragraph this is true for EVERY style of photograhy, you can also say that for someone who claims to shoot people very close having them look straight in the lens. This is not endemic to hipshots. Sticking to a single view is like getting stuck in a ditch, hence hipshots, lose portraits, long lenses, why not since you know the semiotics of the image and you don't repeat the same things forever. ok, going to sleep. Luko
18-09-2008
23 post(s)
Classically the viewfinder was designed within a camera to compose and frame, but with the modern age of digital cameras with swiveling live view LCD's on their backs that twist and turn into any angle things have gotten a bit interesting. I don't think it's cheating to use the hip, chest, or ankle shot but just a different way to use the new technology that's been made to us. Me personally, I try and use the viewfinder as much as I can, but I will take a hip shot when I can if either the situation demands it, or I want a nice surprise later on. All in all, I think it is creative and fun to mix up my photography, and it's nice to break the rules sometimes. I know of a photographer here in NY who's known to shoot from the hip almost exclusively. Have a look. http://www.wnyc.org/streetshots/ http://www.flickr.com/people/75158779@N00/
18-09-2008
290 post(s)
Hi Brian good link from the on on FLickr, good street picture there this one is so good http://www.flickr.com/photos/75158779@N00/397580909/in/set-72157594512421380/
20-09-2008
137 post(s)
As I feel I made clear...hip shots should be part of a persons ability, mainly when it is absolutely called for. And yes Luko, street shooting isn't like war...but some of the places that I find myself can get me shot. Especilally if those people think you're a cop; so it's not outside my ability to understand the need for hip shots. That said, the initial film of Joewig shooting is...well, ugh. I mean, too me it's a laziness usually followed by some sort of justification about how those"GREAT" photographers say you need to bring the viewfinder up to your eyes...well, yes; that's why they're great. Shortly thereafter comes the "I'm an artist" quote and how that person doesn't ascribe to the traditions setforth. For someone whose photos mainly consist of the "people walking by" type, maybe the greater challenge would be going out and not taking one hip shot, but relying on the viewfinder...in that vein, maybe I should go out and shoot only hip shots. But the reality is that I've already done that. This said, Joe is not here to defend himself, so I'm tempted to delete this...but it goes to my point that over reliance on one gimmick, style, look, only backs a photographer into a corner. This I say to acknowledge what luko said earlier, yes it is true of any style whether the straight-into-the-lens type, or the angle-from-the-hip-type. To be honest, Luko, your recent upload is a fantastic example of HOW to do it. I don't mean to be a fluffer here, but you, Luko, mixed what seem to be hip shots (or bartop shots) with more classically composed photos and the turnout was excellent. So I guess my point is, no, hipshots should not be banned by any means. That said, please do not rely on hipshots alone...it becomes tedious when viewing (of course, this is only when viewing through my eyes). :duh: