large digital slrs have pretty much destroyed the concept of "candid photography" in the news business. Bring out one of those monsters and people automatically perform.
Decades ago the dictum of LIFE photographers was that you had to become invisible -- and with a small Leica or Nikon, both very quiet, you could. It is impossible to do so with a massive lensed DSLR, or even a film SLR, and while they do get a lot of different shots than you can with a small rangefinder, the is an intimacy that is lost. LIFE's brilliant photo story by W. Eugene Smith about a day in the life of a country doctor would have been impossible, or at least a lot harder, to shoot by a photographer loaded down with the usual couple of hulking giant lensed cameras.
Of course, very few photographers today are W. Eugene Smith, too. I keep saying, great photography is 5 percent what yu shoot with, 95 percent you.
http://life.time.com/history/life-classic-eugene-smiths-country-doctor/#1
how much you? The article says that Smith spent several days with the doctor taking pictures with no film in the camera so the doctor could get used to Smith, and he spent several weeks on this one assignment. There is no news publication in the country today that would spend that kind of staff time/money. Maybe a freelancer could do it, I dunno. And then nobody publishes that sort of photo essay any more either, so what does it matter?
ahha) I do get looks, but mainly coz of the unusual skin colour of my cameras!
View attachment 75145
It's a status thing. People are so conditioned to look for labels so they can "rate" you. Nothing more than that imho.
I was accosted by one gentleman who demanded to know what camera I was using. I had all identifying marking covered by black tape. He was incensed that I wouldn't tell him. The point I was trying to make to him was that it's not the camera that makes the photographer (sorry Leica fanboys). Mind you he was wearing highly labelled expensive clothing so brand was very important to him. So sad.
large digital slrs have pretty much destroyed the concept of "candid photography" in the news business. Bring out one of those monsters and people automatically perform.
Decades ago the dictum of LIFE photographers was that you had to become invisible -- and with a small Leica or Nikon, both very quiet, you could. It is impossible to do so with a massive lensed DSLR, or even a film SLR, and while they do get a lot of different shots than you can with a small rangefinder, the is an intimacy that is lost. LIFE's brilliant photo story by W. Eugene Smith about a day in the life of a country doctor would have been impossible, or at least a lot harder, to shoot by a photographer loaded down with the usual couple of hulking giant lensed cameras.
Of course, very few photographers today are W. Eugene Smith, too. I keep saying, great photography is 5 percent what yu shoot with, 95 percent you.
http://life.time.com/history/life-classic-eugene-smiths-country-doctor/#1
how much you? The article says that Smith spent several days with the doctor taking pictures with no film in the camera so the doctor could get used to Smith, and he spent several weeks on this one assignment. There is no news publication in the country today that would spend that kind of staff time/money. Maybe a freelancer could do it, I dunno. And then nobody publishes that sort of photo essay any more either, so what does it matter?
It's a status thing. People are so conditioned to look for labels so they can "rate" you. Nothing more than that imho.
I was accosted by one gentleman who demanded to know what camera I was using. I had all identifying marking covered by black tape. He was incensed that I wouldn't tell him. The point I was trying to make to him was that it's not the camera that makes the photographer (sorry Leica fanboys). Mind you he was wearing highly labelled expensive clothing so brand was very important to him. So sad.
The OP has obviously never used a Hasselblad or 4"x5" camera.
In my case, if I'm shooting an F, F2AS, or F3P without a motor drive, no. If I'm shooting one with a drive, or an F4 or F5, yes. Especially the last two. Partly because they kinda look like DSLR's, even though both have rewind cranks and one still has a somewhat analog interface.
-J
I believe you're correct.
Last summer some yobbo asked me "what is the zoom ratio of that lens?".
I was carrying a Nikkormat FTN with the 28/3.5 Nikkor-H, all circa 1970.
The Yashicamat gets smiles and compliments frequently. People just love TLRs (and I love using it too.)
I have had similar comments when shooting with short telephotos (105mm, 135mm, 180mm): "What's the range of that zoom lens?" "How fast is that zoom?" "Is that an autofocus zoom?" (LOL) The "confusion," I believe, relates, at least in part, to the massive autofocus lenses that seem to hang off every second DSLR one sees.
Insofar as "being on the radar," No one seems to pay any attention if I happen to be shooting with the Leicas; likewise with a motorless Nikon (with sub-85mm lenses). However, if the camera I am shooting with is motorized (especially the F2/MD2) and I happen to have a longer lens on front, I am aware that folks do take notice.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?