Best format for street shooting

guangong · Sep 1, 2022

jtk said:
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.

Jtk, I never heard about Avadon’s Minox story before. Very interesting. Thanks. Do you happen to recall the book’s title?

jtk · Sep 1, 2022

Donald Qualls said:
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.

You're right on many counts...

Yes you'd have to learn a few of the basic things that just about everbody else learns. But learning isn't fun for everybody.

Yes, you'd eventually abandon various old faithfuls (no need to tell you why).

No, you don't have to dig thru menus... (assuming you work with basics, just as you probably do with film,).

No, you don't have to pretend to look like a "professional" (few small digital cameras look fake-professional even though great technically...you can get pocket sized pink ones and white ones).

I've got dozens of great gallery-worthy prints from print exchange people with humble D70s...from twenty years ago.

I'm not at all interested in changing anybody's approach to their photography. They'll do more of what they're already doing if they're happy with their work.

Happy printing (that's the big game for me).
{Formatting cleaned up by moderator - don't know what happened there, but if I accidentally took out some content, feel free to add it later}

Donald Qualls · Sep 1, 2022

~~Wow, that reply got broken a little, but I get what you're saying.~~ I used to enjoy learning new stuff on my computer, but sometime in the past thirty years I've gone from "computer is fun, fascinating hobby in itself" to "computer is a tool that ought to be smart enough I don't need the equivalent of a two credit college course every year just to keep up" with a dash of "this wasn't broken, why do the developers need to keep changing it every release?"

What I need to know about film photography and still don't (after fifty years) is the stuff I still want to learn in photography. And just now, finally, have the equipment and space to learn (like full-on Zone). I'll have the time in at most a couple years...

Pieter12 · Sep 1, 2022

Donald Qualls said:
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.

Sure, cost can be a factor, but if you want the "ideal" camera for street photography that takes images that can easily be enlarged to 16x20, as the OP requested, a small digital mirrorless camera wins hands-down. Not a big pro DSLR with a monstrous zoom lens, but a compact digital camera (preferably with an optical viewfinder, at least for me) with a good prime lens and manual controls.

Donald Qualls · Sep 1, 2022

Pieter12 said:
if you want the "ideal" camera for street photography that takes images that can easily be enlarged to 16x20, as the OP requested, a small digital mirrorless camera wins hands-down.

Not for me. With modern films, one who doesn't have an aversion to a little grain can get very respectable 16x20 from a 35 mm negative. The main use I see for a high resolution digital is for digitizing my negatives, and I have a scanner that does what I need for full frame or larger -- and I haven't had my 16 mm cameras out in years. And honestly, I climbed the film and silver gelatin print learning curve decades ago, I don't really want to get back on at the bottom for digital.

Pieter12 · Sep 1, 2022

Donald Qualls said:
Not for me. With modern films, one who doesn't have an aversion to a little grain can get very respectable 16x20 from a 35 mm negative. The main use I see for a high resolution digital is for digitizing my negatives, and I have a scanner that does what I need for full frame or larger -- and I haven't had my 16 mm cameras out in years. And honestly, I climbed the film and silver gelatin print learning curve decades ago, I don't really want to get back on at the bottom for digital.

But you don't have a nearly unlimited number of frames to shoot without reloading, nor the ability to change ISO on the fly. And 24MP is more than enough for a 16x20 print, no need for higher resolution digital. If you can competently shoot film, digital is a no-brainer. Many of the options and menus on today's digital cameras are really superfluous, the basics are easily set and left alone.

Donald Qualls · Sep 1, 2022

And I have fifty years of experience in not needing either of those things. I shot a vacation with a D70 and my biggest takeaway from that is that I won't live long enough to edit the images if I shoot that way.

I freely admit I haven't kept close track, but there's never been a digital camera that caught my attention and imagination the way a Speed Graphic did in 1970. It took me thirty-five years to get one, but I got one. It's not a street camera -- attracts too much attention, not like when Weejee was around and every third camera you saw was a large format press camera. But IMO something like my Canonet QL17 GIII, Petri 7s, or even my (1941-ish) Welta Weltini is more my speed for street photography than anything that relies on a memory card.

baachitraka · Sep 1, 2022

A small format camera with a 28mm lens.

For me it's Olympus OM-1n + 28mm f/3.5 zuiko

jtk · Sep 1, 2022

Donald Qualls said:
And I have fifty years of experience in not needing either of those things. I shot a vacation with a D70 and my biggest takeaway from that is that I won't live long enough to edit the images if I shoot that way.

I freely admit I haven't kept close track, but there's never been a digital camera that caught my attention and imagination the way a Speed Graphic did in 1970. It took me thirty-five years to get one, but I got one. It's not a street camera -- attracts too much attention, not like when Weejee was around and every third camera you saw was a large format press camera. But IMO something like my Canonet QL17 GIII, Petri 7s, or even my (1941-ish) Welta Weltini is more my speed for street photography than anything that relies on a memory card.

Yes, I fully appreciate. I am certainly becoming bonded with my K70 but that love is second to my my printing.

Pieter12 · Sep 1, 2022

Donald Qualls said:
And I have fifty years of experience in not needing either of those things. I shot a vacation with a D70 and my biggest takeaway from that is that I won't live long enough to edit the images if I shoot that way.

I freely admit I haven't kept close track, but there's never been a digital camera that caught my attention and imagination the way a Speed Graphic did in 1970. It took me thirty-five years to get one, but I got one. It's not a street camera -- attracts too much attention, not like when Weejee was around and every third camera you saw was a large format press camera. But IMO something like my Canonet QL17 GIII, Petri 7s, or even my (1941-ish) Welta Weltini is more my speed for street photography than anything that relies on a memory card.

If you shoot digital like you would film, there wouldn't be a problem with editing the images. Do you print every single frame you shoot with your Canonet QL17 GIII? Which is about the size of a Fuji X100, maybe even a little bigger. Not sure why something with a memory card would make any difference.

Donald Qualls · Sep 2, 2022

Pieter12 said:
If you shoot digital like you would film,

If I shoot digital like I would film, there's no reason to spend money on digital equipment (that I would otherwise spend on heavily discounted, very experienced semi-pro film equipment, film, and chemicals).

Don_ih · Sep 2, 2022

Basic photo editing is built into Windows. A Sony A6000 with a lens can be bought for probably $350 used. There is nothing expensive about digital photography. If you want to go more basic but cheaper, digital point-and-shoot cameras up to 12 mp I see at thrift stores for $5 or $10. A lot of those run of AA batteries and take perfectly fine photos - no one wants them, anymore. You can also buy a 15 year old laptop for $40 and have your very own photo-editing workstation. Keep it off the internet and it'll be just as good as it was when it was new. It'll have the added benefit of having a card reader built in - which most now do not.
Street photos don't need to be blown up to 16x20. I like them best around 5x7. You don't need to be able to count nose hairs for a street photo to be good. I don't think it matters what took the photo - especially since you can make it look however you want later (to a degree).

Alan Edward Klein · Sep 2, 2022

I was impressed by Vivien Maier's TLR which gave her intimate street shots because of the low angle waist shots the camera demands.

Donald Qualls · Sep 2, 2022

@Don Heisz Okay, I'll admit it -- not wanting to spend money is an excuse to stay in my comfort zone. I dropped $1100 on a scanner less than two years ago, spent a bit over a grand over that same time frame on my RB67 kit. I had a Gateway digital P&S as far back as 2004, mostly hated it (not least because the battery, a flat-pack lithium type, swelled and when I bought a replacement, that swelled too). The late 1990s 35 mm P&S my then-wife had made better images for half the money, though it did weigh about twice as much.

And did I mention I don't use Windows? I've been running Linux exclusively since 2011 (my partner is a Mac addict). I've used GIMP since the 1990s, but I don't want to do extensive and complex editing regardless of the software; when I edit my scans it's equivalent to exposure, contrast, and split printing in the darkroom.

Just not interested in changing to digital. This "show your work" section is the only part of Photrio I frequent outside the analog-only section.

Pieter12 · Sep 2, 2022

Honestly, there seems to be a bit of hypocrisy. Many who claim they can't or won't learn or use digital end up digitizing their negatives, investing funds in high-res DSLRs, macro lenses and image editing software to do so. And there might not even be a lot of printing going on, either. I don't care how many Mamiya 67 SLRs you could buy, they won't do much good on the street.

Donald Qualls · Sep 2, 2022

Are you a hypocrite if you eat bacon for breakfast, knowing it's bad for your cholesterol and blood pressure? We don't always do what we know is best, even if there's complete agreement on what's best.

If I don't get into the darkroom because, with my commute, I spend almost fifty hours a week just earning a living (and a substantial fraction of the weekends resting from that), I don't think that makes me a hypocrite. I still digitize my negatives -- as an equivalent to a contact sheet, allowing me to easily see which ones are likely to be worth printing, and because it's much more practical to share my work that way.

And I didn't claim the RB67 is a street rig -- I just admitted I've spent the equivalent of several used, outdated digital cameras on analog and digitizing equipment in the last couple years. I already have all the street cameras I need -- 35 mm rangefinders from vest pocket size on up, a couple Holgas, and if I want to channel Weejee, a 1940-ish Speed Graphic (and three Grafmatics). And for me the right street camera will have film inside. You shoot your way, I'll shoot mine. Quit making this a religious war.

Pieter12 · Sep 2, 2022

Hypocrisy is the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform. Knowing bacon is bad for your health and eating it doesn't mean you are a hypocrite, just that you don't follow your better judgement.

Donald Qualls · Sep 2, 2022

So bacon is only hypocritical if you're a nutritionist.

Sounds like someone like me, who doesn't use digital cameras, can't well be painted with that brush for saying they don't like digital cameras -- even if they digitize their negatives -- unless they're advising others to use digital. Which I'm not.

gone · Sep 2, 2022

Like Donald, I like gathering data off the web, but that's all it is, just data until it's tried out. The web seems to be getting stupider or stupider these days, or I'm getting smarter, which is highly unlikely. Google monetizing it's search results has really messed everything up.

More often than not, I find the info I get is not right anyway. There's nothing better than getting empirical results, but there's a sort of progression to this, as information in and of itself is useless and possibly dangerous. It has to be put into effect, and then it's observed to see if it works or not. That's knowledge. Wisdom is when there's enough logged evidence to say, nah, that may work, but this isn't the place or time for it.

Just don't expect a machine to mimic our brains because at this time and maybe forever, it's impossible. Basically because there are more possible synaptic connections inside a human brain than there are atoms in the known universe. Or at least that's what Dr Richard Restak said, a neurologist who wrote The Brain Has a Mind of it's Own. He would know.

Don_ih · Sep 2, 2022

The fact is, @Donald Qualls , you have a definite preference. And everything should defer to someone's preference. It needs no justification. So you certainly wouldn't be happy with street (or any, likely) photos you took using a digital - it wouldn't have the same feeling for you and it's not your preferred thing. Everyone should accept that and leave it alone.

Really, saying digital is best for street is fine unless the person taking the pictures doesn't value digital photos, for whatever reason - could be as simple as "the file doesn't fit in my enlarger".

MattKing · Sep 2, 2022

I usually avoid "best" designations.
Except when the expression is comparative and personal or more closely defined - "between "A" and "B", "B" worked out best for "me"/narrow city streets or whatever.
I'm not a street photographer usually, but if I am presented with an opportunity, I could choose a cel phone (which I am lousy with), my wife's Olympus M 4/3 DSLR, a Samsung compact DSLR without a viewfinder, a couple of small fixed lens film rangefinders, one of several Olympus OM film bodies and a selection of lenses , a couple of Canon AF film SLRs with either kit zooms or a 40mm lens or some medium format film choices.
Personally, I'd lean to the OM film bodies and a 35mm lens, but that has a lot to do with how much experience I have with that, and the enjoyment I have had from it - plus my preference for darkroom work.

pentaxuser · Sep 2, 2022

Pieter12 said:
Sure, cost can be a factor, but if you want the "ideal" camera for street photography that takes images that can easily be enlarged to 16x20, as the OP requested, a small digital mirrorless camera wins hands-down.

Just a pity perhaps that the OP hasn't visited since Feb 2015. In fact while he stuck around for a good number of years after his thread he only seems to have made one post, the original, on his own thread

pentaxuser

jtk · Sep 2, 2022

Alan Edward Klein said:
I was impressed by Vivien Maier's TLR which gave her intimate street shots because of the low angle waist shots the camera demands.

Yes...and with that in mind my DSLRs (two brands) allow shooting from ground-level as well.

VM did great work from what we see so heavily edited online and in books. I don't mean to denigrate her however I think we'd do her more respect by pursuing our own individual photography...just as she did (with plenty of editing)

jtk · Sep 2, 2022

pentaxuser said:
Just a pity perhaps that the OP hasn't visited since Feb 2015. In fact while he stuck around for a good number of years after his thread he only seems to have made one post, the original, on his own thread

pentaxuser

There's a LOT of his work, virtually all after-film, in "archives."

pentaxuser · Sep 2, 2022

jtk said:
There's a LOT of his work, virtually all after-film, in "archives."

Could you expand on this? I am unsure what you mean

Thanks

pentaxuser

Best format for street shooting

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency