Kupepe
Member
Thanx for the input. I currently use a GRD2 as an always-with-me camera. 28mm is hard for me. If I am not too close then composition is really messy. And cannot be in arm's length all the time ... yet at least
Going "serious" : Fuji x100f or Leica M6
- Thread starter Kupepe
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 77
- Views 9K
Thanx for the input. I currently use a GRD2 as an always-with-me camera. 28mm is hard for me. If I am not too close then composition is really messy. And cannot be in arm's length all the time ... yet at least
FujiLove
Well-known
If you're talking B&W chemicals, the laundry products are almost certainly more dangerous...and any commercial products you use to clean the bathroom will be a hundred times more likely to cause harm.
If your other half is paranoid about 'chemicals', use caffenol: instant coffee, washing soda and vitamin C. Xtol is one of the most eco-friendly developers if you're concerned about toxic effects to the general environment. Use dilute white vinegar for a stop bath, or plain water.
Fixer based on sodium thiosulfate is mostly harmless unless you drink a gallon of it. Sodium thiosulfate is a medicine used in cancer treatment, cyanide poisoning etc. and has no significant toxic effects.
Get processing! 🙂
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I have three kids at home currently. One was born and at home with all kind of chemicals including BW, ECn-2, C-41 and E6 since birthday. It was four kids at home back then. It is not about kids, but elder ones.
Yokosuka Mike
Abstract Clarity
Get an X-Pro2 and forget about all this other stuff.
My goodness, what a lot of ****.
Mike
My goodness, what a lot of ****.
Mike
FujiLove
Well-known
Paul T.
Veteran
I do love these threads, where someone posts with a fairly clear idea of the options and their various implications, and doubtless walks away muddled and confused.
olifaunt
Well-known
I concur. I have some good photo from my digital GR-ii, but most are bad because of (what I thought was) a combination of 28mm and lack of VF. Images from my film CLE are much fewer, but lightyears better, many more keepers per day of shooting.
When it became clear I will never do 28mm well for street, I tried an X100 (35mm and VF) but returned it, so it's not just FOV and VF. Images just didn't sing like my film images do. They in fact were inferior to my digital GR's or even my clamshell 35mm film Olympus's.
But if you search on Flickr you will find many good street photgraphers using X100 series cameras, so YMMV.
ForestCap
Well-known
Well, this is the kind of threads that would get a lot of "my way or the highway" replies. It's quite fun to see them every now and then.
ernstk
Retro Renaissance
I don't think street photography is about film or digital. It's about an attitude and a way of working. I also disagree that shooting film will make you a better street photographer.
I think that shooting digital will allow you to review your work more quickly and will let you chart your progress more easily, therefore helping you to improve.
I do agree that using a Ricoh GR or Leica M will help, based on ease of use, portability and being unobtrusive if that's your choice.
Ernst
Kupepe
Member
Thank you all for the input ...
I think I start having a plan formed in my mind now ...
I think I start having a plan formed in my mind now ...
jvo
Established
bulk load short rolls....
Ste_S
Well-known
I'd disagree with that. Just sounds like you're lacking in inspiration and aren't shooting enough.
I'd go and buy some inspiration (ie photobooks) and try and have a look at the city with new eyes. I'd recommend Sergio Larrain, Robert Frank, Daido Moriyama and Bernard Plossu; especially if you've been shooting Tri-X.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Wanting new gear is an itch that only new gear can scratch.
But there is no real upgrade from what you already have. The X100 isn't much better than the GRD. You're going to have to get into a much newer processor, faster lens and better high ISOs if you want perfectly still images at night.
That said...
Your MX and 50/1.4 are an amazing kit. Get a light meter and expose for the highlights at night. Its a little more film noir but you'll be surprised how bright it is at night. In Philly my night time shooting is about 1/30 to 1/15 using a 28mm f/2.8 at 2.8. I shot this way ever since I got an RD1 years ago and didn't want to dial the ISO above 800. Which is well within the latitude of 400 ISO black and white film to shoot on the same roll. Especially if your mode of output is through a negative scanner. One stop is nothing.
Phil Forrest
But there is no real upgrade from what you already have. The X100 isn't much better than the GRD. You're going to have to get into a much newer processor, faster lens and better high ISOs if you want perfectly still images at night.
That said...
Your MX and 50/1.4 are an amazing kit. Get a light meter and expose for the highlights at night. Its a little more film noir but you'll be surprised how bright it is at night. In Philly my night time shooting is about 1/30 to 1/15 using a 28mm f/2.8 at 2.8. I shot this way ever since I got an RD1 years ago and didn't want to dial the ISO above 800. Which is well within the latitude of 400 ISO black and white film to shoot on the same roll. Especially if your mode of output is through a negative scanner. One stop is nothing.
Phil Forrest
olifaunt
Well-known
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
It is not 0 and 1. It is 00000..000000000.... and 11111...111111111...
I was talking from my and else experience.
My experience in street photography started with earlier cameras in mobile phones, then moved to earlier advanced digital P&S, then to crop DSLR, then to FF DLSR shooting from the hip on UWA zoom.
Progress I made in several years was ... zero.
Then I had project in Vancouver and BD Visa gift card from my daughter and her exBF. I went to camera store and purchased Oly XA. This is how street photography started for me for real. Then it crapped out I came to film M. Feel free to check my progress in street photography on Flickr.
It is documented from DSLR to Film M.
Here is one known internationally photog who has started with street by M9 and only became who he is after switching to M3 with J3 on it.
OP is on early stage of street photography, but he is on the right way. Backs and mobile zombies are dross. Next stage is snapshots of random strangers with faces close. Pro 2 guy is on this stage and active. 🙂
We were all on these stages. Mobile zombies, then feeling cool how we took it close. But no cigar.
The argument how digital camera gives you more is not an argument if you are into certain type of street photography. From one point it is primitive set if film is used. ISO is your shutter speed and you are changing sun and shadow with one aperture click. If it is not Zeiss ZM 1/3 it is fairy easy to do 🙂.
But another point is how long your subject lasts in your alignment, situation. Take Pro 2 guy photos as example, he has no time for second shot of people walking close. You can't retake it. So, reviewing will do nothing for you. But of course you need to know what the exposure is.
If you don't know what the exposure is, digital camera will help. I personally only learned about exposure with digital camera. And if you want good street photos you need to learn about exposure before going on the street. IMO.
I took with me M-E on Manhattan 2016 trip only because it was more simple for many family images. But for street photography for me and this known internationally street photos film M is better tool. Because it is primitive. And because of it, it is easy to have full control of it. Both of us are using meter less Leica and I can't recall major failures on street photography. I spend more time trying to make digital cameras work for the street. And often ending up getting most accurate exposure by switching to M and S16.
Here is another recent street photog I'm aware of with FED-2, it was his personal choice, again because it is primitive. But his pictures are much better from what I see from digital street photogs.
Again, different approach. I saw recently an interview with photog who is using M240 and Heliar 50/2.
He was going on and on and on how he took two hundreds shots of same basker to have slowmo effect. But to me it was not worth it on result.
willie_901
Veteran
This is inaccurate.
olifaunt
Well-known
My street photography also improved greatly when moving from digital to film. But it had very little to do with exposure (besides maybe negative film being much more forgiving than digital). I use my film camera almost always on aperture priority auto, just adjusting aperture and exposure compensation according to light direction and to keep reasonable shutter speeds. This pretty much worked perfectly (and better than digital) from the first time I used the camera so exposure has been a nonissue.
For some reason I get much better composition and decisive moments with my film camera. This was pretty much immediate, not much of a learning curve. I haven't quite got to the bottom of why, but I feel things like digital autofocus can bad for layered compositions, making you miss shots, so manual helps there. Digital bursts seem to create very obviously lazy and bad street photography for the most part. I think the fact that with digital you are taking more thoughtless shots (because it is "cheap") will actually make you a worse photographer, ingraining the wrong reactions and muscle memories.
Faster feedback might help with learning exposure but once that issue goes away I'm not sure faster feedback will really help you get good compositions and moments. For me the only thing that helps that is getting out there and taking photos when moments present themselves. Either you capture it or you don't; it really doesn't matter how long you wait to develop the film IME.
Archlich
Well-known
The X100F (not the original X100) has a faster lens (f/2 vs f/2.4), a much much newer and larger set of sensor & processor and light years better high ISO performance than the GRD2. ISO 3200 is perfectly usable and 12800 is OK, while with the GRD2 you barely get past ISO 200. The X100F also focuses much faster under any conditions except SNAP. 10 years in camera evolution does show some heft here.
You might have confused the 2005 GRD2 with the 2015 GR2.
Ste_S
Well-known
Have to disagree here. Street Photography has always been to some extent about firing off a lot of shots, even in the film days.
Robert Frank shot 28,000 photos over two years which was narrowed down to 83 for the Americans book. Moriyama was recommending his students shoot something like 18 rolls of film a week (may even have been a day...).
Vivian Maier and Gary Winogrand left behind stacks of undeveloped film after they passed away
I think firing off a lot of shots at stuff that may be interesting, and then discarding the ones that didn't work is part of the process of a being a better photographer. Experience doesn't change this, just means the quality of your discard pile is higher.
Yokosuka Mike
Abstract Clarity
Well, from my point of view street photography is very dynamic - you've got one shot to get it right, after that the moment has passed and it's all over. Period. Be prepared, know what you want, look at the light, the background, the potential subject/object/person/target the thing that will make your photo work and then step up to the plate and do it! One second after that and it's all over. You've got it or you don't.
That's my opinion. That's how I do it.
Mike
That's my opinion. That's how I do it.
Mike
