What's Your Favorite Street Photography Camera?

[awty]

this person is Master of street photography. https://www.instagram.com/dcim.ru/?hl=en All is shot on the iPhone.
http://www.artfixdaily.com/calendar/details/745-#draft-#russia-by-dmitry-markov

No argument there, brilliant work.....although I would rather use a zenith 3 & helios 44, with a clapped out lever wind than use an Apple.

 

[BradS]

....What is street photography? ......

This interesting video with notable photographer, Thorsten von Overgaard has answered my question.
His definition is, "I was walking down the street and ________ happened".
Simple and easy to understand. What do you think? Is this consistent with your concept of street photography?

 

[awty]

Kiev 3a, with Jupiter 8 my first rangie, bought a couple of years ago. Damn view finder is hard to use while wearing glasses.

 

[awty]

This interesting video with notable photographer, Thorsten von Overgaard has answered my question.
His definition is, "I was walking down the street and ________ happened".
Simple and easy to understand. What do you think? Is this consistent with your concept of street photography?

Im a complete novice, never shot anything remotely "street" before 2017, only run a few dozed rolls, never read a book or vid on street photography and not about to start. My naive view is that to me its no different to any other type of armature photography, mostly its poorly choreographed pictures of people doing nothing particularly interesting. Some people think that following formula and using a fanboy camera will somehow elevate the picture, but it really only has importance to others who use that camera and formula. There are people who can choreograph very well, even a few who can brake formula and make the picture work, but they are few and far between. I like the fluid nature of walking around with a ancient camera trying to find a picture and reacting very quickly to it, mostly Im too slow. People should try it, its fun.......anyway get your f2 out wack on that 28mm lens or 35mm or 50mm and give it a try, you might be good at it, cant be worse than me.

 

[awty]

Or you can use a 105mm lens, who said streets about wide lenses.

Nikon f2 with nikkor 105mm.

 

[BradS]

Im a complete novice, never shot anything remotely "street" before 2017, only run a few dozed rolls, never read a book or vid on street photography and not about to start. My naive view is that to me its no different to any other type of armature photography, mostly its poorly choreographed pictures of people doing nothing particularly interesting. Some people think that following formula and using a fanboy camera will somehow elevate the picture, but it really only has importance to others who use that camera and formula. There are people who can choreograph very well, even a few who can brake formula and make the picture work, but they are few and far between. I like the fluid nature of walking around with a ancient camera trying to find a picture and reacting very quickly to it, mostly Im too slow. People should try it, its fun.......anyway get your f2 out wack on that 28mm lens or 35mm or 50mm and give it a try, you might be good at it, cant be worse than me.

Thanks Paul. I've never really understood Street Photography....what it is, what it isn't, etc...and yet, by this guy's very straightforward and easy to understand definition, it seems that I've been doing it occasionally for more than twenty years and never realized it. I've used all kinds of cameras too...for many years, I carried a Spotmatic with me just about everywhere. I used to love the look of J&C Classic Pan 400.

I thought the talk he gave in the video was very interesting and informative. Well, it helped me.

 

[BradS]

Nikon F2, 24mm f/2.8 Nikkor-S
Pastas Trattoria

Franka Rolfix Jr. Deluxe, 150mm f/4.5 Frankar Anastigmat
Pleasanton, California

 

[awty]

Nikon F2, 24mm f/2.8 Nikkor-S

There you go, should do a book.

 

[BradS]

There you go, should do a book.

Aw, shucks... That's very kind of you. Thanks.

 

[radiant]

Kiev 3a, with Jupiter 8 my first rangie, bought a couple of years ago. Damn view finder is hard to use while wearing glasses.

Awty, you really rock. I like these, goes straight in. I'm pretty sure you have material for a book too..

 

[Smaug01]

Im a complete novice, never shot anything remotely "street" before 2017, only run a few dozed rolls, never read a book or vid on street photography and not about to start. My naive view is that to me its no different to any other type of armature photography, mostly its poorly choreographed pictures of people doing nothing particularly interesting.

I would say more 'narrow-minded' than 'naive'...

There are people who can choreograph very well, even a few who can brake formula and make the picture work, but they are few and far between.

...yet you seem to admit there are those whose street photography you like, on account of them being good choreographers?

I like the fluid nature of walking around with a ancient camera trying to find a picture and reacting very quickly to it, mostly Im too slow. People should try it, its fun.......anyway get your f2 out wack on that 28mm lens or 35mm or 50mm and give it a try, you might be good at it, cant be worse than me.

...and then here, you seem to say you like doing it, but that you're not good at it. But you refuse to read about it to improve your skill. Too bad. Your loss. "Ignorance is bliss" as they say.

 

[logan2z]

Is this consistent with your concept of street photography?

Not really, no. I don't think that sh*t has to happen in order for it to be considered street photography. I think a photograph of an interesting person/group of people and a good composition can be sufficient.

Here's a few examples of what I consider street photographs from Leon Levinstein (who has quickly become one of my favorite photographers):

There's not really anything of note happening in these photographs, but I think their form and content are interesting enough to keep me looking. So, for me at least, I think that 'street photography' can be defined simply as "unposed photographs in public places".

 

[BradS]

Not really, no. I don't think that sh*t has to happen in order for it to be considered street photography. I think a photograph of an interesting person/group of people and a good composition can be sufficient.

Here's a few examples of what I consider street photographs from Leon Levinstein (who has quickly become one of my favorite photographers):

There's not really anything of note happening in these photographs, but I think their form and content are interesting enough to keep me looking. So, for me at least, I think that 'street photography' can be defined simply as "unposed photographs in public places".

Yeah, I think I paraphrased a bit. I don't think he literally meant (and I did not mean to imply) that something had to happen/be happening...he's Danish..English is not his first language and may not even be his second (and yet he does quite well) so, I think a little room needs to be given when interpreting his choice of words sometimes...

I think if you watch the video, you'll see...

 

[BradS]

Not really, no. I don't think that sh*t has to happen in order for it to be considered street photography.

......

...and there's something happening here.

 

[logan2z]

Yeah, I think I paraphrased a bit. I don't think he literally meant (and I did not mean to imply) that something had to happen/be happening...he's Danish..English is not his first language and may not even be his second (and yet he does quite well) so, I think a little room needs to be given when interpreting his choice of words sometimes...

I think if you watch the video, you'll see...

I'm not a big fan of TO but I did manage to watch the first few minutes. A couple of things stood out even in that short time:

1. He says that the term 'street photography' was coined in the last 10-15 years. I recently watched a video on YouTube of Garry Winogrand being interviewed by Barbaralee Diamonstein where they're discussing his hatred of the term 'street photographer'. That video is from the early 80s. So I think the term has been around for much longer than a decade.
   
   
2. His shoes are kick a$$

 

[logan2z]

...and there's something happening here.

You may be right

 

[BradS]

I'm not a big fan of TO but I did manage to watch the first few minutes. A couple of things stood out even in that short time:

1. He says that the term 'street photography' was coined in the last 10-15 years. I recently watched a video on YouTube of Garry Winogrand being interviewed by Barbaralee Diamonstein where they're discussing his hatred of the term 'street photographer'. That video is from the early 80s. So I think the term has been around for much longer than a decade.
   
   
2. His shoes are kick a$$

Have you seen Alec Soth's shoes ? (or, is it the socks with him?, I forget)

 

[CMoore]

I think people worry too much about what street photography "Is".
It is a general description like any other label.
But there seems to be something about "Street Photography" that tips a lot of peoples scales.



Is the back of Yul Brenner's head a "Fashion" shot or a "Portrait".

Is a frame of a deserted highway a "Landscape" or is it "Fine Art".?

When you take pictures of cars at a Car Show, what kind of photography is that.?

It is simply a shotgun term to differentiate from other Major Styles of photography.

With all labels, you frequently have an easier time saying what something Is Not, rather than What It Is.

Shots of a Sea Gull(s) MIGHT be "Bird Photography" or it might be a "Seascape"..... but you would never call it Street Photography.

 

[awty]

Awty, you really rock. I like these, goes straight in. I'm pretty sure you have material for a book too..

It would be a very short book, maybe I could do a pamphlet.

 

[awty]

I've got one word for that mr Moore "Boobies"
Nikon f3 and nikkor 85mm. Hp5 @3200 iso.

 

[BradS]

....of a Sea Gull(s) MIGHT be "Bird Photography" or it might be a "Seascape"..... but you would never call it Street Photography.

What about a black and white photo of a seagull dropping a shit on a red Fiat Spyder just as it drives by a cafe where the Leica toting photographer is seated on the patio, sipping espresso, in Paris?

 

[logan2z]

Have you seen Alec Soth's shoes ? (or, is it the socks with him?, I forget)

I don't know. I don't like him either

 

[Smaug01]

I think people worry too much about what street photography "Is".
It is a general description like any other label.
But there seems to be something about "Street Photography" that tips a lot of peoples scales.



Is the back of Yul Brenner's head a "Fashion" shot or a "Portrait".

Is a frame of a deserted highway a "Landscape" or is it "Fine Art".?

When you take pictures of cars at a Car Show, what kind of photography is that.?

It is simply a shotgun term to differentiate from other Major Styles of photography.

With all labels, you frequently have an easier time saying what something Is Not, rather than What It Is.

Shots of a Sea Gull(s) MIGHT be "Bird Photography" or it might be a "Seascape"..... but you would never call it Street Photography.

This seagull shot of mine, I consider a street photo. But I could see how it might be considered more of a seascape too. Too tight of a definition always seems to fail.

 

[Smaug01]

Re. the earlier discussion on whether stealth is needed for street photography, Cartier-Bresson believed it was.

"Cartier-Bresson almost always used a Leica 35 mm rangefinder camera fitted with a normal 50 mm lens, or occasionally a wide-angle lens for landscapes.[35] He often wrapped black tape around the camera's chrome body to make it less conspicuous. With fast black and white film and sharp lenses, he was able to photograph events unnoticed. No longer bound by a 4×5 press camera or a medium format twin-lens reflex camera, miniature-format cameras gave Cartier-Bresson what he called "the velvet hand...the hawk's eye."[36]"​

^ From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Cartier-Bresson#Death_and_legacy

From the following quote, we can guess that he would not approve of all this thought put into gear:

"Constant new discoveries in chemistry and optics are widening considerably our field of action. It is up to us to apply them to our technique, to improve ourselves, but there is a whole group of fetishes which have developed on the subject of technique. Technique is important only insofar as you must master it in order to communicate what you see... The camera for us is a tool, not a pretty mechanical toy. In the precise functioning of the mechanical object perhaps there is an unconscious compensation for the anxieties and uncertainties of daily endeavor. In any case, people think far too much about techniques and not enough about seeing."
​

— Henri Cartier-Bresson


This little bit is maybe akin to the people shooting brick walls nowadays:

"He started a tradition of testing new camera lenses by taking photographs of ducks in urban parks. He never published the images but referred to them as 'my only superstition' as he considered it a 'baptism' of the lens."​

 

[radiant]

but there is a whole group of fetishes which have developed on the subject of technique

= photrio

In any case, people think far too much about techniques and not enough about seeing.

.. sounds familiar too. I was about to write "sounds like computer photography" but then I realized film photographers are maybe even worse because the whole film photography movement is underlining the word film. Please do not trigger from this statement, put a chill pill in mouth!

This is totally off-topic but is there any ways we could embrace the "seeing" part? A sub-forum where technique (mentioning of camera models, films etc.) is forbidden? Just for kicks? @Sean here is an idea for the forum!