@ Fulvio : … but.. this is why (I think) there is some differences between “everyday photography”, “documentary” and pure street photography “Pure” means for me that unique instant, second, stolen in the movement, when nobody knows that “an eye” is here to catch it (for others, to remember it, one day). Well, this is just my personal opinion (perhaps an artist statement too, so not a “rule”). Kind regards
@ Fulvio & Laurence
There was a good reason for posting this small video. Indeed the original idea of HCB was to be invisible to catch life on the street as it is, in B&W. Many photographers adjusted the original idea along their sensitivities. Some would give more attention to architecture or graphical appearances. But here I wanted to emphasize that culture plays an important role to adjust the approach. What fits very well to the culture of Europe by the stolen captures as an invisible observer of life as well an engaged approach, cinematographic in color, fits more lively in harmony of a Tamil culture, which avoid the feel of touristic shots and brings you a lot more close and involved to the life of people there. You can call it an evolved adapted interpretation of street photography to the environment. This opens the discussion of course of the question: should we stay to the original idea or can we adept and evolve the original idea along our sensitivities or environment?
A thought for you … Regards
It could appear strange but I agree with you both. If you look at my portolio(very small in this kind of photography) you can see very simply that I decide to use Laurence’s approach. Secret, unique and external shot in which the author try to establish his/her position in the drama and catch his/her essence by the scene. It is a perfect style in our own culture and use of camera (as You know not always and not for each) ..among the photographers here ..of coourse
Oochapan shows a different way more coherent (just my opininon that went in similar countries many years ago without any photographying skills) with a different contest as regard to feeling, cultural differences between the author and the subject. So I think that sometimes one is more useful and “correct” than another one…or, and this is a reasons of my double agreeing on you Oochapan shows the possibility to take pictures with a relation with a street actors involved in the sceene. ..and I liked it but never (or almost never) used it…Just for one thought
@Laurence your opinion on documentary, everyday and street solution is very interesting and I think is the core question. We need sometimes to define questions and distinctions. Maybe, as usually happens among a lot of different experiences and points of view, we can differ discussing on the border….Sometimes I have to think to an “eye contact” taken with my 200mm lens ). It represents an added value for the shot but taken/obtained in a different form of a relation with the subject.
Excellent !
Love it.
Story of a “reportage”…
I like your approach so far from a stolen pic
@ Fulvio : … but.. this is why (I think) there is some differences between “everyday photography”, “documentary” and pure street photography
“Pure” means for me that unique instant, second, stolen in the movement, when nobody knows that “an eye” is here to catch it (for others, to remember it, one day). Well, this is just my personal opinion (perhaps an artist statement too, so not a “rule”). Kind regards 
@ Fulvio & Laurence
There was a good reason for posting this small video. Indeed the original idea of HCB was to be invisible to catch life on the street as it is, in B&W. Many photographers adjusted the original idea along their sensitivities. Some would give more attention to architecture or graphical appearances. But here I wanted to emphasize that culture plays an important role to adjust the approach. What fits very well to the culture of Europe by the stolen captures as an invisible observer of life as well an engaged approach, cinematographic in color, fits more lively in harmony of a Tamil culture, which avoid the feel of touristic shots and brings you a lot more close and involved to the life of people there. You can call it an evolved adapted interpretation of street photography to the environment. This opens the discussion of course of the question: should we stay to the original idea or can we adept and evolve the original idea along our sensitivities or environment?
A thought for you … Regards
It could appear strange but I agree with you both. If you look at my portolio(very small in this kind of photography) you can see very simply that I decide to use Laurence’s approach. Secret, unique and external shot in which the author try to establish his/her position in the drama and catch his/her essence by the scene. It is a perfect style in our own culture and use of camera (as You know not always and not for each) ..among the photographers here ..of coourse
Oochapan shows a different way more coherent (just my opininon that went in similar countries many years ago without any photographying skills) with a different contest as regard to feeling, cultural differences between the author and the subject. So I think that sometimes one is more useful and “correct” than another one…or, and this is a reasons of my double agreeing on you Oochapan shows the possibility to take pictures with a relation with a street actors involved in the sceene. ..and I liked it but never (or almost never) used it…Just for one thought
@Laurence your opinion on documentary, everyday and street solution is very interesting and I think is the core question. We need sometimes to define questions and distinctions. Maybe, as usually happens among a lot of different experiences and points of view, we can differ discussing on the border….Sometimes I have to think to an “eye contact” taken with my 200mm lens
). It represents an added value for the shot but taken/obtained in a different form of a relation with the subject.
great, Henk! i love your work and attitude