DSLR Cinematography - the future of "Street"?

NickTrop

NickTrop

Veteran
Local time
5:09 AM
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
3,077
I walked around the boardwalk last weekend with a DSLR on a small stabilizer. Swear, I could have gone up to anyone or shot everything. People seemed to smile. The beauty is you have near-35mm cinematography quality if you can manage "jello effect"...

Is this the future? I was playing around with some added digital "trip" fx on this but you get the idear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHt_N8QG3vU
 
Guess they were so agreable since they did not see you hit that shutter button! :D

That video is only fully appreciated when acid is in the equasion! Cool effect though.

I guess you would have big issues with people claiming portrait rights if you would put the movie up with recognisable, real people!
 
A while back I had a portrait shoot at an outdoor classic car cruise night here in Michigan, and when I got done with the shoot I walked around to photograph some of the cars that interest me, and I noticed a gentleman using a DSLR with a wide lens on a rail, taking video while carefully sliding the camera along the length of the rail to do a shot of the car. I thought it was pretty neat. Later on that afternoon, he was doing the same thing, but with a telephoto lens from a distance to get footage of the crowd.
 
My guess is "movie thing" originates from MTV as many people nowadays aren't able to make mental effort and need to be stimulated by sequences like video clips (they superseeded comics). Looking at still picture requires brain to stop and work, not so with video clip which takes over and drives attention of viewer.
 
btgc said:
My guess is "movie thing" originates from MTV as many people nowadays aren't able to make mental effort and need to be stimulated by sequences like video clips (they superseeded comics). Looking at still picture requires brain to stop and work, not so with video clip which takes over and drives attention of viewer.
Click to expand...
It's just a different medium, no better nor worse, just different. Professional cinematographers are quite amazing! There are some movies where it seems like almost every frame can exist as a still photograph on its own.
 
It feels strangely disrespectful to shoot candid street shots digitally. I have no idea why, but I've had to come to terms with the fact that I'll never stop feeling this way. Digital feels cheap, and if I'm going to shoot complete strangers I almost feel like I owe them better than a dSLR.

I guess this is my way of saying that the future of street might actually be the same as the past: which is, primarily with unimposing gear on b&w film.

But that's my opinion. I hope everyone has a blast with whichever medium they choose.
 
tapesonthefloor said:
It feels strangely disrespectful to shoot candid street shots digitally. I have no idea why, but I've had to come to terms with the fact that I'll never stop feeling this way. Digital feels cheap, and if I'm going to shoot complete strangers I almost feel like I owe them better than a dSLR.

I guess this is my way of saying that the future of street might actually be the same as the past: which is, primarily with unimposing gear on b&w film.

But that's my opinion. I hope everyone has a blast with whichever medium they choose.
Click to expand...

Man, that's one warped opinion... ;)
 
yep

yep

hxpham said:
It's just a different medium, no better nor worse, just different. Professional cinematographers are quite amazing! There are some movies where it seems like almost every frame can exist as a still photograph on its own.
Click to expand...

for confirmation of your commentary, check out the film "Midnight in Paris." Unbelievable cinematography, each frame of which could be a still. But then, I'm gonna disappear in Paris next month :D
 
btgc said:
My guess is "movie thing" originates from MTV as many people nowadays aren't able to make mental effort and need to be stimulated by sequences like video clips (they superseeded comics). Looking at still picture requires brain to stop and work, not so with video clip which takes over and drives attention of viewer.
Click to expand...


I must agree; and yet I think of all those times that people who are on the opposite of the pendulum who find many things "distracting" (I believe the use of the word "distracting" is in itself "distracting" given its buy-one-get-ten-free overuse, and it really derails enjoyment of any photo). Some people can't get enough visual stimulation (given lack of imagination) and others can't handle the slightest --why, even color is "distracting".
 
tapesonthefloor said:
It feels strangely disrespectful to shoot candid street shots digitally. I have no idea why, but I've had to come to terms with the fact that I'll never stop feeling this way. Digital feels cheap
Click to expand...


Said on an online forum. Oh, to write in the letters to the editor, lick the stamps, deposit the envelope, and wait later in the month for the response!
 
jsrockit said:
Man, that's one warped opinion... ;)
Click to expand...

Second that... The odd thing is, that as I was walking around with this DSLR bolted on to a stabilizer contraption, I drew less attention than trying to "sneak a shot" with an old 35mm rangefinder. People seemed to smile? There wasn't that "air of suspicion" that sometimes accompanies taking candids of strangers. This was more "in your face".

As for the above comments? Even in my most "digital sucks - film forever" days, I wouldn't have thought to this extreme. DSLRs take fine pics, arguably as good as 35mm over the last couple years. And the video they shoot is about as close as you're gonna get to 35mm movie film.

Thanks for giving my clip a look, all!
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
Said on an online forum. Oh, to write in the letters to the editor, lick the stamps, deposit the envelope, and wait later in the month for the response!
Click to expand...

I make my living by being a digital professional. There's all sorts of irony here, and little of it is lost. Perhaps my passion for film street photography is a way of keeping my life in balance.

...or it's just simply better. :D
 
Looking at still picture requires brain to stop and work, not so with video clip which takes over and drives attention of viewer.
Click to expand...

I would have made the same argument about reading. Words require the brain to stop and work, not so with pictures which take over and drive the attention of viewers.
 
People tend to smile and wave for a 'video' camera, but more often duck and cover from what is obviously a stills camera. Especially if you've got something that approaches what the public thinks of as a professional rig, with a large lens and a stabilizer.

I think that perceived activity plays a part in this. If people see what they think is a potentially pro video setup, they think of news, television and documentaries. Especially as it is ongoing and out in the open. Stills photography has been getting a bad rap of late, what with all the terrorist and pervert hoohaa, and even before that, many people shied away from suddenly having a camera pointed at them. Video seems more friendly, somehow.

I think location would be a factor as well. You'll probably get more friendly attention in shopping strips and the CBD than in suburban streets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom