Cropping and Street Photography

[Vaughn]

Lucid observation. I am in your debt.

Nah...still in your debt. Thanks for moderating.

Street photography runs quite a range of types and styles -- I tend towards the Vivian Maier or Cunningham TLR sort of work...working within the square on the street. I could not be a Winogrand -- a style of working that I could not keep up with!

 

[JBrunner]

Nah...still in your debt. Thanks for moderating.

Street photography runs quite a range of types and styles -- I tend towards the Vivian Maier or Cunningham TLR sort of work...working within the square on the street. I could not be a Winogrand -- a style of working that I could not keep up with!

Have you seen "All Things are Photographable"?

 

[CMoore]

Have you seen "All Things are Photographable"?

I have.
It is fabulous..... and a bit sad.

 

[eli griggs]

Get in closer, either physically or by-way-of a longer focal length and do what you can in framing, like finding your focus and then take one step back and refocus for a preset aperture zone shot.

You might consider a larger negative, 4 x 4 cm or 6x6 cm.

Since it's easier to buy 6x6cm films, than cutting them down to 127 for cameras made in that format, and all that comes with that prep. I suggest a Super Ikon or Iskra or similar folder or a Minolta Autocord (export model, 1958, no meter) TLRs, as starters at good quality, sharpness and down to earth prices.

After that, whatever strikes your fancy, that you can afford in 4x4 on 6x6, or 7 or 9 cm medium format camera backs, like for example a Hasselblad model 500 c/cm or other 'small' slr cameras.

Crop if you must, but starting with a larger film, can keep image quality high.

IMO.

 

[BradS]

........most people agree that using film or digital is irrelevant.....

Absolute, total rubbish! I don't think anybody really believes that. People spew it, sure but deep down everybody knows....


EDIT: it's like saying that whether one paints with oils or water colors is irrelevant...I suppose on some level it is but, not on the surface.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Absolute, total rubbish! I don't think anybody really believes that. People spew it, sure but deep down everybody knows....


EDIT: it's like saying that whether one paints with oils or water colors is irrelevant...I suppose on some level it is but, not on the surface.

Well, the problem nowadays is the unquestioned migration of silver image onto digital platform, which nullifies several quality determinants of silver vs. digital. It is similar to trying to record an instrument through a digital interface then listen to it on a speaker, signal having been finally reconverted back to analog path.

Silver prints from a digital file are sort of the same comparison. I have never seen one of these, so some others might have some better input, but I always wondered how that print differs from one that was made from a silver negative? Going back to my audio signal analogy, we can have a negative, scan it into digital file, then have it printed on silver paper. How much of the original negative has been altered by this digital intermediate path? Just don't tell me please it depends on scan quality, because it only does to an infinite and controllable end.

The sole difference between silver vs. digital is really in the number of shots that can be taken with near zero expanse on digital vs. very high cost of each and every shot taken on silver, the latter driving a completely different approach to shooting anything, easily seen as a restrictor thus possibly implying higher level of scene awareness for delivering a high quality image.

 

[NB23]

Digital sucks hairy balls.

i just wanted to say it

 

[BradS]

......
The sole difference between silver vs. digital is really in the number of shots that can be taken with near zero expanse on digital......

The assertion is absurd. It is like saying the sole difference between painting with watercolors and drawing with colored chalk is the expense involved.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

The assertion is absurd. It is like saying the sole difference between painting with watercolors and drawing with colored chalk is the expense involved.

What's absurd again about having to not pay a penny for shooting a thousand takes vs. paying what, close to a buck for each one?

 

[BradS]

What's absurd again about having to not pay a penny for shooting a thousand takes vs. paying what, close to a buck for each one?

First, the cost analysis is incomplete at best - it does not consider the high up-front cost of buying a new digital imaging device and assorted peripherals every three years.
It is also fairly widely recognized that the cost of film and processing is trivial compared to the other costs associated with a photographic endeavor (scouting and getting to a location for example)

More significantly (much, much more significantly, I'd say) are the aesthetic and existential considerations unrelated to cost (eg, the results look vastly different, the process is different, the experience is different, the skills involved are mostly, different and the viewer's experience is often, different.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

First, the cost analysis is incomplete at best - it does not consider the high up-front cost of buying a new digital imaging device and assorted peripherals every three years.
It is also fairly widely recognized that the cost of film and processing is trivial compared to the other costs associated with a photographic endeavor (scouting and getting to a location for example)

More significantly (much, much more significantly, I'd say) are the aesthetic and existential considerations unrelated to cost (eg, the results look vastly different, the process is different, the experience is different, the skills involved are mostly, different and the viewer's experience is often, different.

Now we've got it, you spew absurd one after another. None of it has anything to do with what I said in my last or previous. You start considering up front costs you lost it already, it is a one time acquisition and digital gear can be had for less than film, check out what $500 can get you on either side of the isle. Renewing gear every 3 years? What is that about? Only one who thinks his photographs stink because of gear, not one who knows what that tool is for. And, If anything same applies to film shooting, it's personal choice not a necessity. Digital is way outside of majorities' needs spec wise. After that silver will cost you every time you shoot it, digital will not a penny outside of smal investments in memory card (again considering after initial cost, not a home today that has digital camera without a computer, not one like that, so don't tell me you need to account for that too). Sure, you want to spend $100K or $500k, you can any day, also on film gear, but that is not what I was referring to.

Your oils to watercolor comparison is just plain silly too. Creating a worthy image is indeed irrespective of the medium, there is no medium bias in aesthetics, unless a clueless looks at them. Seems like you would also put a different evaluation on an image shot with a Leica M vs. one from a Canon SureShot.

 

[BradS]

Now we've got it, you spew absurd one after another. None of it has anything to do with what I said in my last or previous. You start considering up front costs you lost it already, it is a one time acquisition and digital gear can be had for less than film, check out what $500 can get you on either side of the isle. Renewing gear every 3 years? What is that about? Only one who thinks his photographs stink because of gear, not one who knows what that tool is for. And, If anything same applies to film shooting, it's personal choice not a necessity. Digital is way outside of majorities' needs spec wise. After that silver will cost you every time you shoot it, digital will not a penny outside of smal investments in memory card (again considering after initial cost, not a home today that has digital camera without a computer, not one like that, so don't tell me you need to account for that too). Sure, you want to spend $100K or $500k, you can any day, also on film gear, but that is not what I was referring to.

Your oils to watercolor comparison is just plain silly too. Creating a worthy image is indeed irrespective of the medium, there is no medium bias in aesthetics, unless a clueless looks at them. Seems like you would also put a different evaluation on an image shot with a Leica M vs. one from a Canon SureShot.

Yeah, whatever.
Spray and pray....it's free!

 

[Pieter12]

the results look vastly different

It can be can be hard for the ordinary person to tell the difference between a good, clean film/silver print and a good, clean digital print from a digital original, Obviously, both media can be manipulated in different extremes for vastly different results.l

 

[Sirius Glass]

Now we've got it, you spew absurd one after another. None of it has anything to do with what I said in my last or previous. You start considering up front costs you lost it already, it is a one time acquisition and digital gear can be had for less than film, check out what $500 can get you on either side of the isle. Renewing gear every 3 years? What is that about? Only one who thinks his photographs stink because of gear, not one who knows what that tool is for. And, If anything same applies to film shooting, it's personal choice not a necessity. Digital is way outside of majorities' needs spec wise. After that silver will cost you every time you shoot it, digital will not a penny outside of smal investments in memory card (again considering after initial cost, not a home today that has digital camera without a computer, not one like that, so don't tell me you need to account for that too). Sure, you want to spend $100K or $500k, you can any day, also on film gear, but that is not what I was referring to.

Your oils to watercolor comparison is just plain silly too. Creating a worthy image is indeed irrespective of the medium, there is no medium bias in aesthetics, unless a clueless looks at them. Seems like you would also put a different evaluation on an image shot with a Leica M vs. one from a Canon SureShot.

Well the start up costs matter to me, especially since the size of the GRBG pixels are so much larger than film grain. But would you please send several liters of what you drink or several kilos of what you smoke?

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Well the start up costs matter to me, especially since the size of the GRBG pixels are so much larger than film grain. But would you please send several liters of what you drink or several kilos of what you smoke?

We're not discussing studio and commercial environment here, not last time I checked. Cropping of street got us here, somehow. Somehow digital vs. film BS got into it too. Perhaps you should check earlier entries, might help. I'm not taking the garbage talk about superiority of film over digital, or how one can be this or that, or some silly analogies from oils vs. watercolors etc. For non commercial set up, digital gear is where anyone needs it to be, since quite a few years now, unless, as I said, new gear has a better chance of fixing crappy images one continues to make.

Enjoy your Hassellblad though, I'm sure it elevated your photography to where none other would.

 

[CMoore]

It seems the Digital Vs Film debate is NOT over.......

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Yeah, whatever.
Spray and pray....it's free!

Nice, elaborate, convincing, eloquent comeback. Have a good day.

 

[BradS]

Nice, elaborate, convincing, eloquent comeback. Have a good day.

There was no need to argue any further.
You lost the argument.
You got all upset and descended to ad hominem attacks.
I walked away laughing.

 

[Pieter12]

There was no need to argue any further.
You lost the argument.
You got all upset and descended to ad hominem attacks.
I walked away laughing.

And that's why one should never crop street photos.

 

[BradS]

And that's why one should never crop street photos.

 

[awty]

He didn't have many options...

Maybe, but I do and am still working my way to give it a try, just need a small 4 wheeled cart and a lens with some better coverage for a 24 x 30 1800's camera, got my set up times to less than a minute (will improve). Then I will make contact prints using my own emulsion and have borderless pictures. Cropping with brush strokes.
Cant be any worse than most peoples 35mm stuff.

 

[Vaughn]

Maybe, but I do and am still working my way to give it a try, just need a small 4 wheeled cart and a lens with some better coverage for a 24 x 30 1800's camera, got my set up times to less than a minute (will improve). Then I will make contact prints using my own emulsion and have borderless pictures. Cropping with brush strokes.
Cant be any worse than most peoples 35mm stuff.

Cool! How about one of the last of my Type 55 in a 4x5 press camera using a cheap magnifying glass for the lens (Pre-Anniversary Speed Graphic) -- whoops, a street photographer's camera, but I guess it is more of a sports image --my son getting a hit (and RBI) in Little League a long while back. Full-frame contact print (silver gelatin).

 

[Sirius Glass]

Well the start up costs matter to me, especially since the size of the GRBG pixels are so much larger than film grain. But would you please send several liters of what you drink or several kilos of what you smoke?

We're not discussing studio and commercial environment here, not last time I checked. Cropping of street got us here, somehow. Somehow digital vs. film BS got into it too. Perhaps you should check earlier entries, might help. I'm not taking the garbage talk about superiority of film over digital, or how one can be this or that, or some silly analogies from oils vs. watercolors etc. For non commercial set up, digital gear is where anyone needs it to be, since quite a few years now, unless, as I said, new gear has a better chance of fixing crappy images one continues to make.

Enjoy your Hassellblad though, I'm sure it elevated your photography to where none other would.

I am no talking about a studio or commercial environment, I am talking about my personal use. You must have missed the now bolded part of my original reply.

 

[DonJ]

It seems the Digital Vs Film debate is NOT over.......

No, but it’s still a waste of time.

 

[awty]

Cool! How about one of the last of my Type 55 in a 4x5 press camera using a cheap magnifying glass for the lens (Pre-Anniversary Speed Graphic) -- whoops, a street photographer's camera, but I guess it is more of a sports image --my son getting a hit (and RBI) in Little League a long while back. Full-frame contact print (silver gelatin).

Nice picture, I have walked the streets using a mamiya rz67 with a 180mm lens as well as a 4x5 press camera (not at the same time), always thought they were a little puny. Its no harder than lugging a big camera around in the bush. As you are aware a big camera negative contact print is something to behold.
Photographers were a lot tougher back in the old days.
The uncropped version.