Best format for street shooting

[Anthony D]

I would think this is a matter of film choice over format. A 24" x 36" print was possible from a 135 negative with little grain using the old Kodak Technical Pan rated at ASA 50, hand-held shots where possible on a bright day. Providing there's adequate light I imagine Ilford PAN F PLUS or or FP4 would allow larger prints without noticeable grain, if that's the look your after.

I don't know about color film though.

 

[MDR]

The best format for streetphotography is the format one feels most comfortable with be it 35, 6x6 or 8x10in. I've seen some amazing streephotography from the 19th century done with 5x7in cameras. The limiting factor in every photographic endeavor is the photographer not the filmsize.

Dominik

 

[semi-ambivalent]

He could also "see" like few others since or before... and he had impeccable timing.
Robert Frank is another!

And the work of both refutes the 'no grain is imperative' mantra that continues to plague 35mm shooters. Why does it matter? Look at the 4x5 and bigger world; just how many beached dories can one stand to look at? It's content that matters, and grain is content as much as is its pattern on the film base.

s-a

 

[VaryaV]

That's the problem I have with photography compared to all other art media:

Rules, rules, rules.... sheesh!

 

[semi-ambivalent]

That's the problem I have with photography compared to all other art media:

Rules, rules, rules.... sheesh!

I've always thought photography was delightfully free of rules, mostly because of its past (to the cognoscenti) status as Art's bastard child.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Oskar Barnack tested several formats before going for 35mm format for his Leica: he went for it because that small format can give us inmense DOF with good IQ too.
Smaller, and IQ drops heavily, larger and DOF drops heavily.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Oskar Barnack tested several formats before going for 35mm format for his Leica: he went for it because that small format can give us inmense DOF with good IQ too.
Smaller, and IQ drops heavily, larger and DOF drops heavily.

Use whatever camera you have. I have used 35mm range finders, 35mm slrs, Mamiya C330f, Hasselblad Series V and even a 4"x5" Speed Graphic. I found that the larger the camera, the more people approached me, even more so since people started using cell phones as cameras.

 

[Pieter12]

Oskar Barnack tested several formats before going for 35mm format for his Leica: he went for it because that small format can give us inmense DOF with good IQ too.
Smaller, and IQ drops heavily, larger and DOF drops heavily.

I may be ill-informed, but I thought Barnack was making 35mm motion picture cameras for Leitz and made his still camera to test motion picture film.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I may be ill-informed, but I thought Barnack was making 35mm motion picture cameras for Leitz and made his still camera to test motion picture film.

You are correct. The movie format was 18mmX24mm and Barnack doubled the format. No thinking about 24mmX24, 24mmX30mm, or 24mmX32mm formats. He just started using double frame and thus set the standard.

 

[Evergreen States]

I enjoy using my Fuji GA645 but have yet to print anything from it yet. I like a bit of grain though so I've been mostly using HP5+. Even at ISO 800 in TMAX, scanned with a Noritsu it's surprisingly clean. I shot a roll of Arista Edu 400 on a trip to Walla Walla back in spring that I still need to get developed.

 

[mshchem]

I enjoy using my Fuji GA645 but have yet to print anything from it yet. I like a bit of grain though so I've been mostly using HP5+. Even at ISO 800 in TMAX, scanned with a Noritsu it's surprisingly clean. I shot a roll of Arista Edu 400 on a trip to Walla Walla back in spring that I still need to get developed.

You have a nice 645 camera!

Look for a nice used or better new Paterson (or AP) tank. Rodinal (simplest to use, lasts forever) and a small bottle of rapid fixer. Once you have film processing down maybe try to make a contact print.

I love 645 format!

 

[Evergreen States]

You have a nice 645 camera!

Look for a nice used or better new Paterson (or AP) tank. Rodinal (simplest to use, lasts forever) and a small bottle of rapid fixer. Once you have film processing down maybe try to make a contact print.

I love 645 format!

I have a Paterson tank and have developed 135 and 120 myself with a gallon jug of TMAX. I appreciate your enthusiasm but I have zero interest in taking it back up. And even if I did, it's just not practical for my living situation for the time being. I'm quite content to pay to have professionals take care of it for me.

 

[guangong]

While some amazing street pics have been, and can be taken with practically every format ( Arnold Genthe’s photos of pre earthquake SF Chinatown are a great example), as my late friend Louie Stettner always preached, the 35mm was destined for street photography because it allows for a rapid, almost instinctive way of shooting. Also discreet.
But this isn’t written in stone. Whatever seems to work for you is really the best.
If 35mm results were possible with an 8x11 Minox, that would be my choice. During the Minox heyday there were a select few who produced excellent enlargements from Minox, but I have never been able to come close.

 

[Sirius Glass]

A 4"x5" Graflex Model D would attract people to photograph.

 

[Donald Qualls]

When Cartier-Bresson got a Leica, street photography as we know it was, if not born, certainly cemented to the 35 mm "double frame" format. I would suggest, however, that the ability to advance film without looking at a red window was strongly contributory here.

 

[jtk]

If we don't like grain we are mired in "approved" imagery from a ancient time.

Avedon did wonderful work with a little Minox, which was what he chose to use when he photographed patients in an "insane asylum". The book that documents that is hard to find...I'd guess that's because he may not have obtained permission from his subjects.

 

[Pieter12]

SInce this is not in an analog-only forum, I will state my opinion: the best camera for street photography is a small, digital mirrorless camera. I like the Fuji X100 and XPro2 for street. Both offer manual modes for exposure and focusing. Although the manual focus mode is not very good, I use zone focusing. Autofocus just slows things down and I often shoot from the hip, seldom putting the camera to my eye for more than quick composition, if at all. The Fujinon lenses are superb and the ISO range is impressive for all kinds of light. I convert the RAF files in Camera Raw and use NIK Silver effects pro and can blow up beyond 16x20 easily.

Street — Pieter de Koninck

Street (Candid) PhotographyCick for a larger image

pdekoninck.com

 

[Sirius Glass]

If we don't like grain we are mired in "approved" imagery from a ancient time.

Avedon did wonderful work with a little Minox, which was what he chose to use when he photographed patients in an "insane asylum". The book that documents that is hard to find...I'd guess that's because he may not have obtained permission from his subjects.

One can minimize the grain for single frame 35mm or smaller by using the modern tabular grain films.

 

[Evergreen States]

SInce this is not in an analog-only forum, I will state my opinion: the best camera for street photography is a small, digital mirrorless camera. I like the Fuji X100 and XPro2 for street. Both offer manual modes for exposure and focusing. Although the manual focus mode is not very good, I use zone focusing. Autofocus just slows things down and I often shoot from the hip, seldom putting the camera to my eye for more than quick composition, if at all. The Fujinon lenses are superb and the ISO range is impressive for all kinds of light. I convert the RAF files in Camera Raw and use NIK Silver effects pro and can blow up beyond 16x20 easily.

Street — Pieter de Koninck

Street (Candid) PhotographyCick for a larger image

pdekoninck.com

+1. While I do shoot film, my primary camera for years was a Fuji X-Pro1, which I upgraded to an X-Pro3 about a year ago.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Fuji X-Pro1

Aside from on-the-fly ISO switching, I don't see much there (in your manual modes) that my Canonet QL17 G-III doesn't cover. Preset exposure and zone focus (and load fast enough film to stay between f/8 and f/16). XP2 Super is my favorite, in either C-41 or B&W chemistry.

 

[Evergreen States]

Aside from on-the-fly ISO switching, I don't see much there (in your manual modes) that my Canonet QL17 G-III doesn't cover. Preset exposure and zone focus (and load fast enough film to stay between f/8 and f/16). XP2 Super is my favorite, in either C-41 or B&W chemistry.

As a fellow Canonet QL17 G-III shooter, the advantages of the X-Pro1 are those of any digital camera over a film one. I'm not going to try to persuade anyone. As someone who shoots both film and digital, I have no dog in that fight. It's just what works for me.

 

[jtk]

Aside from on-the-fly ISO switching, I don't see much there (in your manual modes) that my Canonet QL17 G-III doesn't cover. Preset exposure and zone focus (and load fast enough film to stay between f/8 and f/16). XP2 Super is my favorite, in either C-41 or B&W chemistry.

I wonder if you've personally shot a modern digital camera. There's little reason to play with "modes" in most kinds of photography...

IMO the main advantage Vs digital is with large aperture to control background sharpness etc. That's not easy with DSLRs, but horses for courses.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I've always thought that your pictures had to be tack sharp and able to be blown up to 16X20 without much quality loss. But without using medium to large format can you achieve acceptable results.

in this genre high-quality35mm is hard to beat.

 

[Pieter12]

I wonder if you've personally shot a modern digital camera. There's little reason to play with "modes" in most kinds of photography...

IMO the main advantage Vs digital is with large aperture to control background sharpness etc. That's not easy with DSLRs, but horses for courses.

Since I zone focus, I really don't want a wide aperture to begin with. All of my street work is candid, spontaneous and with a wide angle lens. No time for selective focus.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I wonder if you've personally shot a modern digital camera.

I have not. For what a current DSLR or mirrorless (with only the kit lens!) would cost, I could fill out my Nikkormat FT2 kit, duplicate my Kiev 2 kit (with another freshly serviced and tested body) or buy an RB67 with a single lens and film back. Or buy several fixed-lens rangefinder 35 mm cameras.

And then I'd have to start from ground up learning to edit the images, and either subscribe to Photoshop (is it even offered for Linux?) or translate any instructional videos I might find to work in GIMP.

FWIW, I have used a Nikon D70 and D90, and aside from having annoying levels of one menu option, buried four levels deep, making basic functions not work, I don't see much advantage in them over film. Marginal cost of shooting more is the big one, immediate feedback, sure, but for street photography something smaller and less "professional" looking is less threatening to the subjects.