Lemures-Ex
Jared S
For quite some time I have been looking for a way to get out of 35mm film while still retaining the quality and stealth of a rangefinder, as I am primarily a street shooter. I have a Pentax K10D but it is not stealthy in the least, as much as I love it. As some of you may know I just purchased a Ricoh GR Digital and it fits the bill pretty darn well. Not perfect, but it will be more than adequate until something better comes along. So now, aside from large format which I will never let go, I am entirely digital. This little writeup will explain my reasons for doing so and what street photography means to me.
First, but not really foremost, are the obvious reasons. Ease and speed of using/display of the images, cost per image, lack of film to carry, previewing/reshooting images to a small exent, etc. Now as nice as these features are they are not all that important. These features are really just conveniences and a lot of people (myself often included) would argue that these actually hinder the "seeing" process and teach photographers to shoot lots of photos and hope for a good one, as opposed to seeing the good one prior to shooting and then capturing it with the camera.
My solution to the "problems" of shooting digital is to shoot with a film mindset. I think all aspiring photographers should learn to shoot film, and shoot it well, before getting into digital. Learn to observe the world through the viewfinder. Walk around or sit in a busy place for hours on end with a camera that has no film in it. Look through the viewfinder and make compositions, capture instances and find that moment and then save it all in your mind. Learn to see first and then learn to preserve the image with the camera. Purposefully miss perfect photos.
With digital I think it is very important to get away from the habit of viewing the images on the LCD. My absolute favourite feature of the GR-D is the ability to turn off the LCD and the post shooting image review. Sure, while I'm sitting having coffee I may look at the images I have just shot, but while shooting the LCD remains off. I compose through the viewfinder and do not review the image. Doing so forces me to pay more attention to what I am shooting and how I am shooting it. Shoot with the mindset that every shot is important and you really only have one chance to get it right. You will make mistakes and you will delete a lot of shots, but your ability to see and capture instances of life will improve dramatically.
Photography is a way of life for most of us here and we would gladly give up everything else in life that is important to us in order to keep taking photos. The idea of street photography is to preserve forever that one instance that will never be repeated, however ordinary or mundane or original or spectacular it may be. We capture these images with our mind and transfer them to the camera via the shutter release. The camera is simply the tool we use to preserve what our mind captures, same as paint on canvas or graphite on paper.
Some people feel that digital photography is not as "real" because the image is just a series of 1's and 0's stored in a solid state medium. To an extent this is true, but the thing that matters most is what you do with this binary code. I feel that it is important to make prints of your digital images. Learn to use the traditional photographic tools in Photoshop to do what is done in a darkroom. Try making digital negatives and printing them in traditional methods. Anything to get you more involved in the printmaking process. I belive it was Mr. Adams who compared photography to a classical music piece. The negative (or whatever medium you use to record the image you see in your mind) is like the composition of a song. The print is the performance of the song. Through printing you show the image as your mind, not the film or sensor, sees it. A photograph is nothing without a print. In this way only is digital justified as a viable medium for photography.
That said, I don't think it necessary to make prints of every digital photo, just as you wouldn't spend time printing every negative. The point is that a photo, no matter how it is captured, is not truly complete until it has been made into a print.
Your level of awareness is probably a more important tool than your camera. There are four basic levels of awareness: Unconscious Unawarenss: You don't know what is going on around you and you don't know that you don't know. Conscious Unawareness: You know that you don't know. You are probably trying to improve your awareness if you are at this point. Conscious Awareness: You are aware of your surroundings and are making an effort to be in that mindset. Lastly is Unconscious Awareness: You are passively aware of everything around you. This is the highest level of awareness and functions in your subconscious mind. Most people are in the first level and will never go beyond it. I think most of us in this forum are in the third level, possibly bordering the fourth. It is possible that our photography has increased our awareness, but it's also possible that we photograph because of our awareness level. This isn't a measure of intelligence by any means. Awareness is independant of intelligence and can be achieved by a genius or a total moron.
My apologies for being long winded (worded?) but I hope a few of you will take the time to read through all of this. I probably have much more to write on the subject but this is all for now. Please feel free (in fact I urge you) to discuss, disagree with or back up anything I have said here.
Thanks for your time,
Jared
BTW, some good reading material:
God's Debris by Scott Adams (the writer of Dilbert)
The Tao of Photography: Seeing Beyond Seeing by Philippe L. Gross and S. I. Shapiro
Any other suggestions?
First, but not really foremost, are the obvious reasons. Ease and speed of using/display of the images, cost per image, lack of film to carry, previewing/reshooting images to a small exent, etc. Now as nice as these features are they are not all that important. These features are really just conveniences and a lot of people (myself often included) would argue that these actually hinder the "seeing" process and teach photographers to shoot lots of photos and hope for a good one, as opposed to seeing the good one prior to shooting and then capturing it with the camera.
My solution to the "problems" of shooting digital is to shoot with a film mindset. I think all aspiring photographers should learn to shoot film, and shoot it well, before getting into digital. Learn to observe the world through the viewfinder. Walk around or sit in a busy place for hours on end with a camera that has no film in it. Look through the viewfinder and make compositions, capture instances and find that moment and then save it all in your mind. Learn to see first and then learn to preserve the image with the camera. Purposefully miss perfect photos.
With digital I think it is very important to get away from the habit of viewing the images on the LCD. My absolute favourite feature of the GR-D is the ability to turn off the LCD and the post shooting image review. Sure, while I'm sitting having coffee I may look at the images I have just shot, but while shooting the LCD remains off. I compose through the viewfinder and do not review the image. Doing so forces me to pay more attention to what I am shooting and how I am shooting it. Shoot with the mindset that every shot is important and you really only have one chance to get it right. You will make mistakes and you will delete a lot of shots, but your ability to see and capture instances of life will improve dramatically.
Photography is a way of life for most of us here and we would gladly give up everything else in life that is important to us in order to keep taking photos. The idea of street photography is to preserve forever that one instance that will never be repeated, however ordinary or mundane or original or spectacular it may be. We capture these images with our mind and transfer them to the camera via the shutter release. The camera is simply the tool we use to preserve what our mind captures, same as paint on canvas or graphite on paper.
Some people feel that digital photography is not as "real" because the image is just a series of 1's and 0's stored in a solid state medium. To an extent this is true, but the thing that matters most is what you do with this binary code. I feel that it is important to make prints of your digital images. Learn to use the traditional photographic tools in Photoshop to do what is done in a darkroom. Try making digital negatives and printing them in traditional methods. Anything to get you more involved in the printmaking process. I belive it was Mr. Adams who compared photography to a classical music piece. The negative (or whatever medium you use to record the image you see in your mind) is like the composition of a song. The print is the performance of the song. Through printing you show the image as your mind, not the film or sensor, sees it. A photograph is nothing without a print. In this way only is digital justified as a viable medium for photography.
That said, I don't think it necessary to make prints of every digital photo, just as you wouldn't spend time printing every negative. The point is that a photo, no matter how it is captured, is not truly complete until it has been made into a print.
Your level of awareness is probably a more important tool than your camera. There are four basic levels of awareness: Unconscious Unawarenss: You don't know what is going on around you and you don't know that you don't know. Conscious Unawareness: You know that you don't know. You are probably trying to improve your awareness if you are at this point. Conscious Awareness: You are aware of your surroundings and are making an effort to be in that mindset. Lastly is Unconscious Awareness: You are passively aware of everything around you. This is the highest level of awareness and functions in your subconscious mind. Most people are in the first level and will never go beyond it. I think most of us in this forum are in the third level, possibly bordering the fourth. It is possible that our photography has increased our awareness, but it's also possible that we photograph because of our awareness level. This isn't a measure of intelligence by any means. Awareness is independant of intelligence and can be achieved by a genius or a total moron.
My apologies for being long winded (worded?) but I hope a few of you will take the time to read through all of this. I probably have much more to write on the subject but this is all for now. Please feel free (in fact I urge you) to discuss, disagree with or back up anything I have said here.
Thanks for your time,
Jared
BTW, some good reading material:
God's Debris by Scott Adams (the writer of Dilbert)
The Tao of Photography: Seeing Beyond Seeing by Philippe L. Gross and S. I. Shapiro
Any other suggestions?
Last edited:
