Best RF for street photography

Both Bill and Kanoot make worthy points. Often street photography requires capturing the moment quickly and candidly. I have found, though, that most of street photos I have found satisfying involved more intimate contact with the subjects. Talking to them, finding out more about them, and getting permission to photograph them, then blending in and taking the photos when they were more relaxed and unmindful of what you were doing. These two methods are not mutually exclusive, IMHO.

As for "crooked shots" or the "Winogrand tilt," there are times when it contributes to the photo.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ray_g said:
Both Bill and Kanoot make worthy points. Often street photography requires capturing the moment quickly and candidly. I have found, though, that most of street photos I have found satisfying involved more intimate contact with the subjects. Talking to them, finding out more about them, and getting permission to photograph them, then blending in and taking the photos when they were more relaxed and unmindful of what you were doing. These two methods are not mutually exclusive, IMHO.

They are not mutually exclusive, as you say. I find it irritating to say the least, when people who prefer 'making contact' and 'gaining approval' suggest that theirs is the only correct way of doing it, and further suggest that candid photography is a form of dishonesty. I don't tell them how to take their photos, even if I think that getting permission is the opposite of candid.

These affect me the same way as people who see a police shooting on TV and then as "Why didn't the cops just shoot the knife out of the guy's hand? Why didn't they just shoot the bank robber in the leg?" They don't understand and never will, because they haven't been there - but they feel free to criticise.

Two schools of thought, but side A finds the others to be somewhat dishonest, side B finds the Side A to be somewhat lacking in comprehension. Probably doesn't make for great esprit de corps.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Ditto. RML also made some good points.

I find it easier to do street photography (actually photography generally) w/small cameras like RFs mainly because they're physically easier to carry around & to shoot (I'm a little guy), not because they're "stealthy." When shooting, I generally walk around w/a camera (almost always chrome) in plain sight & attract no more attention when that camera happens to be a big 1 like a Contarex, Norita, or Kodak Medalist. Unless the streets of your town are the quietest in the world (& I don't recall Amsterdam being unusually quiet!), I seriously doubt that camera noise is an issue for street shooting. It's more likely that you're being noticed because of your demeanor, body language, nervousness about shooting candids, etc. For example, you may simply be taking too long to frame & take your shots. Previsualization is key in street shooting, even when you're using an SLR.

That said, if you really just want to buy a new RF, go for it! :p

back alley said:
didn't doisneau use a large format camera on a tripod?

you guys are way over thinking this.

an oly 35 rc to nikon f6 would work, i would thinnk.
get something you are physically comfortable with and the rest will follow.

it's more about attitude than equipment.

joe
 
bmattock said:
They are not mutually exclusive, as you say. I find it irritating to say the least, when people who prefer 'making contact' and 'gaining approval' suggest that theirs is the only correct way of doing it, and further suggest that candid photography is a form of dishonesty. I don't tell them how to take their photos, even if I think that getting permission is the opposite of candid.

Well I certainly hope you don't think that's what I was suggesting. There is a a place for approval and there is a place for candid. I was simply saying that lately there has been a definition of "street photography" as candids on a street - and these candids tend to be the variety in which that camera is obviously not even to the photogs eye. (Call them what you will - crooked, misaligned, out of focus, blurred)

What I am suggesting, however, is that the photos that draw me in are photos in which the photog is involved and up close. They also typically are using wide angle lenses. Do I think its that "right" way to shoot - hell no - All I am saying is that those tend to be qualities of photos I enjoy looking at and I aspire to take.
 
furcafe said:
When shooting, I generally walk around w/a camera (almost always chrome) in plain sight & attract no more attention when that camera happens to be a big 1 like a Contarex, Norita, or Kodak Medalist.

I agree. I was afraid to take 'street shots' and now I do it without even thinking - it is like breathing to me. When I was afraid, people noticed me. When I tried to hide, they saw me.

Over a long period of time, I found that it is like dealing with animals - if they sense fear, they react. If they sense nervousness, they react. If you are part of the ebb and flow, and know that you are, you fit in and they don't usually notice.

I've stood on top of a bus stop bench and shot photos of people walking by, with someone sitting next to me on the bench. I don't know if they noticed me or not - you'd think they'd have had to. But they didn't react - which was what I wanted.

I still am sometimes approached, questioned, or accosted. But not nearly as much as before I went ninja. All attitude and understanding.

And even when I am approached, I sometimes find that a nonsense answer is quite acceptable. "I'm a photographer" is often accepted when I am asked 'why' I am taking a photo. If they thought about, they'd realize that was no answer. But they don't. I just continue to behave as if I have every right to be doing what I am doing (which I do), and to continue to work even as I am questioned. Behaving like you're 'at work' is very much a part of it, I think. People don't like to interfere with someone who is doing their job.

However, as regards shutter noise. Less is better. When doing photography in a large city, there are times when you are not where there is noise - in a cathedral, in a restaurant, in a foyer, and etc. Yes, body language and professionalism can cover a lot - but I'd prefer a smaller camera to a larger one, a quieter shutter to a louder one. And a fast camera to a better lens.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
kanoot said:
Well I certainly hope you don't think that's what I was suggesting. There is a a place for approval and there is a place for candid. I was simply saying that lately there has been a definition of "street photography" as candids on a street - and these candids tend to be the variety in which that camera is obviously not even to the photogs eye. (Call them what you will - crooked, misaligned, out of focus, blurred)

What I am suggesting, however, is that the photos that draw me in are photos in which the photog is involved and up close. They also typically are using wide angle lenses. Do I think its that "right" way to shoot - hell no - All I am saying is that those tend to be qualities of photos I enjoy looking at and I aspire to take.

In that case, I hope you'll accept my apology. I really read it as a rather scathing attack, followed by a 'I hope no one takes offense.' Hell yeah I take offense when someone says what I do is essentially dishonest.

However, as has been pointed out, it appears that I'm an idiot. Everyone here seems to grok that 'crooked' means 'tilted' instead of 'dishonest'. So I am the moron, and I do humbly ask forgiveness.

With that said - I do not think I can define why 'permission asked and granted' street photos leave me cold - but they tend to in most cases. Yes, I sometimes ask permission, but rarely end up with what I want. So now I just try to take the shot, whether I'm seen or unseen, with or without permission. If I wanted a pose, I'd ask for a pose (and sometimes I do).

The boy on the train in my gallery is an example of what I'm talking about. He knew I was there - I think. I was sitting like two seats away from him. But he was lost in tought - or hung-over - or whatever. I just liked the way the light framed his head and the expression on his face. Any asking for permission would, I feel, have ruined the shot.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=22391&cat=3006

In my mind, this is a 'candid' shot. And I don't think it could have been made any other way and have had the power and impact that I feel it has. Others may disagree.

Again, I apologize for taking offense at the word "crooked" when you meant something other than 'dishonest'.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
well, I am a big guy in a VERY bright yellow wheelchair so I am not too concerned about STEALTH street photography maybe that is why I always prefered longer lenses.... :D and why I tend to ask first, I don't blend well.
 
bmattock said:
Again, I apologize for taking offense at the word "crooked" when you meant something other than 'dishonest'.

To be honest, I was very confused - I couldn't figure out what I had said that was so controversial. I understand now and I will assure you that I was in no way suggesting that candid photos are dishonest. I think they can be wonderful and I certainly do try my hand at it as well.

Apology is fully accepted - I was born and raised in Wilson, I can't have any enemies there! ;)



Just as a juxtoposition to the wonderful photo you shared of the boy on the train (I love it) I will share with you this story and a photo. I found myself in Chicago earlier this year and set out with leica in hand. I tool some street shots of people candidly, I took some architecture shots, etc etc - then, I ran into a protest of the Iraq war and decided to try an experiment. I decided that I was going to take straight-on portraits of folks and get their permission to do so. I have no idea why the thought occurred to me, it wasn't something I was trying to say or prove, I just did it. I approached people I thought were "photogenic" and told them that I wanted to take their portrait as I was making portraits of the "faces of those who opposed the war". A few refused and asked if I worked for the CIA (I quietly said "OK, thanks for your time - no I don't" and made sure to stay away so they wouldn't think more conspiratorially of me), but most accepted and allowed me to shoot. To that end I got this shot of a really pleasant man:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=23572&cat=500&ppuser=3964

its one of my favorite portaits I have taken but with such an expressive face I think it would have been hard not to get a good one.
 
kanoot said:
Apology is fully accepted - I was born and raised in Wilson, I can't have any enemies there! ;)

Mutter, mutter, ever buddy around here is from Wilson. captainslack is from here as well. For a town of 40,000...a lot of photographers. But I'm an interloper - damned Yankee, I guess.

Just as a juxtoposition to the wonderful photo you shared of the boy on the train (I love it) I will share with you this story and a photo. I found myself in Chicago earlier this year and set out with leica in hand. I tool some street shots of people candidly, I took some architecture shots, etc etc - then, I ran into a protest of the Iraq war and decided to try an experiment. I decided that I was going to take straight-on portraits of folks and get their permission to do so. I have no idea why the thought occurred to me, it wasn't something I was trying to say or prove, I just did it. I approached people I thought were "photogenic" and told them that I wanted to take their portrait as I was making portraits of the "faces of those who opposed the war". A few refused and asked if I worked for the CIA (I quietly said "OK, thanks for your time - no I don't" and made sure to stay away so they wouldn't think more conspiratorially of me), but most accepted and allowed me to shoot. To that end I got this shot of a really pleasant man:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=23572&cat=500&ppuser=3964

its one of my favorite portaits I have taken but with such an expressive face I think it would have been hard not to get a good one.

Great shot as well - not what I would call a candid, but definitely street photography.

Here's my shot of Vincent Van Gogh eating a banana:

artsplosure_11.jpg


But I didn't ask first. Maybe it would not have made any difference in this case.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
dostacos said:
well, I am a big guy in a VERY bright yellow wheelchair so I am not too concerned about STEALTH street photography maybe that is why I always prefered longer lenses.... :D and why I tend to ask first, I don't blend well.

I think maybe you could blend in just fine - it's about attitude mostly. Have you tried it?

I'd tell 'em "I'm with Ironsides Photography" if they asked.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Any cam'll do as long as you're comfortable with what you're doing. I've shot street with everything from an EOS 3 to Leica to GR-1v. They all worked fine. I'd just suggest keeping it simple to keep your eye on the action - Hexar AF.
 
bmattock said:
I think maybe you could blend in just fine - it's about attitude mostly. Have you tried it?

I'd tell 'em "I'm with Ironsides Photography" if they asked.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

The only time I really wanted a shot, did not ask and I felt intimidated was a nice young lady having breakfaast [outdoors] at a marina. She was sitting VERY prim and proper, wearing shorts and rollerblades. I was on crutches that day and did not have the nerve to ask and was too slow on the shutter.

and yeah, I like the Ironsides Photography :D
 
I would suggest considering the Hexar AF with its very sharp 35mm/2 lens and quietness of shutter. Its main liability is the max shutter speed of 1/250 sec., but you could always use slower film if the streets are well-lit by sunshine. The other alternatives are endless. There are many useful 35mm rangefinder cameras out there. If considering your max budget of EURO1000, you could get a used combo Leica M plus lens.
 
bmattock said:
Here's my shot of Vincent Van Gogh eating a banana...


But I didn't ask first. Maybe it would not have made any difference in this case.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Nice one, Bill. Here is a candid of *Robin Williams* losing at backgammon.
 
javabean said:
Stealth is a good word to describe it.
Any of the Minox 35 series will give you stealth and excellent results. You can take a shot and have the camera in a pocket before anyone even knows you have a camera.

Peter
 
How about the Pen f Small fairly quite and great lenses or any of the konica auto s range and there are so many 70s compact out there with amazing lenses
 
I am with Gerbil62 — the Oly Pen F is a great little shooter. I have the meterless FV and use a handheld meter. The lenses are top shelf and oh so small.

~hibbs
 
Back
Top Bottom