using a 'big' lens

Juan Valdenebro said:
Hi Roger,

You can't be damn unobtrusive in a silent church with SLRs just because you're used to them. In many cases "nine tenths" can be "one tenth". In other cases I can also use SLRs without problems.

In "nine tenths" of the cases, smaller gear (XA vs. Hasselblad) helps more than how we feel about our gear. It's a visual and auditive reality. People are not blind. People are not deaf.

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

Dear Juan,

True. I was thinking of street. But again this comes back to choosing the best camera available to me.

Cheers,

R.
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
When I started to use my CV 28 3.5 (black on black camera) I was amazed at how people reacted to it: they think it's a toy camera, and they don't see me as a problem... Even if they see me shooting at them quickly... If I use other "small" lenses, like my 40 1.4, or a small SLR, the situation is another one... Not my imagination... That happens just with that lens or with the XA... A flat lens and the camera in hand with no strap is like magic...
Click to expand...

I think all that proves is that for you, stealth means comfort, you feel more comfortable with a smaller camera, and people see that you are at ease and react accordingly.

Just as a counterpoint to that piece of anecdotal evidence, here's another from me. I've been shooting quite a bit with a 13x18 monorail view camera on a huge TV tripod over the last months. Nobody thinks it's a toy camera, but then again nobody thinks I'm stalking anyone or putting them on my Facebook page. The thing takes five minutes to set up, you tinker around with it a lot, you look like you know what you're doing, you smile at people, and they think that you are doing what you're supposed to be doing - like when you see a janitor with a broom. It made me a lot more comfortable than being in the same place with a Leica and a 21mm lens; the latter did get me into a number of uncomfortable situations with nervous people.

I find the size of the gear is secondary. It seems to me that people want to know, above all, that you're exactly where you're supposed to be, that you're doing something you're supposed to be doing and that there is no reason to worry. When you use gear that you're comfortable with, this is something that you simply radiate. Next time you run around with a DSLR and a big lens, wear an orange jacket, carry a clipboard and take a yellow-and-white surveyor's tripod with you, and I guarantee you that nobody will take note of you if you look in any way comfortable at what you're doing.
 
sonofdanang said:
Well, I think your opinion of my opinion of Roger's opinion of Chris's and Lynn's opinion may be suffering from the 'retrograde recursive'.

I think Roger shoots, if only judging by the work on his website, with a rather wide array of equipment. But I don't really think too much about "what gear" and so I'll leave him the final word on that.

But what I understand from his post, unless I have it very wrong, is that is is the how, rather than the what, which makes the difference. Indeed, this is an inference which may, I say may, be made from Back Alley's original post, in which he ponders the difference between the physical object in his hands and the projected conceptualization between subject and object. The question raised by Back Alley is nearly existential: "Is it the object or how I perceive the object?" A profound question.

Most of the pronouncements about a particular camera or size or any other measurable aspect often smack of someone's need to apply a rule set which, in my opinion, causes fixation on the object rather than an awareness of totality. The photograph is about what is in the frame, whether or not it has any relationship or relevance to what is not in the frame, incuding the camera. It is not about the camera. Working in a particular environment, whether one calls it candid, street, or reportage, is about behavior, not equipment. The proof of that is the successful photography achieved by people using the full variety of equipment in that setting.
Click to expand...

Dear Shane,

Exactly. Your point about circularity is also very germane. So is rxmd's point about confidence and what one might call 'inconspicuity through conspicuity', something I've also found. Once you're conspicuous, and clearly not a 'threat' (evolutionary biology), people stop worrying about you. Mind you, that's also why I dislike the term 'stealth', with its undertones of 'steal'. I don't mind whether I'm an inconspicuous non-threat or a conspicuous non-threat: I just don't want people to feel threatened.

Cheers,

R.
 
rxmd said:
I think all that proves is that for you, stealth means comfort, you feel more comfortable with a smaller camera, and people see that you are at ease and react accordingly.

Just as a counterpoint to that piece of anecdotal evidence, here's another from me. I've been shooting quite a bit with a 13x18 monorail view camera on a huge TV tripod over the last months. Nobody thinks it's a toy camera, but then again nobody thinks I'm stalking anyone or putting them on my Facebook page. The thing takes five minutes to set up, you tinker around with it a lot, you look like you know what you're doing, you smile at people, and they think that you are doing what you're supposed to be doing - like when you see a janitor with a broom. It made me a lot more comfortable than being in the same place with a Leica and a 21mm lens; the latter did get me into a number of uncomfortable situations with nervous people.

I find the size of the gear is secondary. It seems to me that people want to know, above all, that you're exactly where you're supposed to be, that you're doing something you're supposed to be doing and that there is no reason to worry. When you use gear that you're comfortable with, this is something that you simply radiate. Next time you run around with a DSLR and a big lens, wear an orange jacket, carry a clipboard and take a yellow-and-white surveyor's tripod with you, and I guarantee you that nobody will take note of you if you look in any way comfortable at what you're doing.
Click to expand...

Take your rail camera up from its tripod and point it against someone while you keep radiating your relaxation about that camera, and you'll see... Of course on a tripod people think you have other reasons (not themselves) to be shooting there...

But for street photography, smaller is better. A LOT BETTER. And no, people's reaction to the very flat 28 3.5 has no relation with how I feel with it, but with what other people consider a small and "not dangerous" lens for a close-up as Bill said... I discovered about the 28 3.5 by accident: I wasn't expecting anything different from people compared to my 40 1.4...

Cheers,

Juan
 
if u have complexes like that, here's my advice:
Get a big slr with a big lens and walk around and shoot with it for a few days. Even better,use a 6x6 slr.
Then going back to your 50/1.1 shooting will seem very sneaky and invisible:)
 
I don't think smaller is better on the street. It's more common place, and it offers it's own opportunities. It's different. Then I've seen some great 4x5 street work, really good work. It's also different, not worse.
You use the gear that gets you the results you want.
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
Take your rail camera up from its tripod and point it against someone while you keep radiating your relaxation about that camera, and you'll see... Of course on a tripod people think you have other reasons (not themselves) to be shooting there...
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what I want them to think.

Of course I don't take the monorail camera off the tripod, like I would not take a loud SLR into a theatre. Again, this is a bit hyperbolic. Tools have their places.

But again, just to give another counterpoint: I've been working in Barcelona regularly. Three times I spent a few hours photographing in the metro, twice with a Leica, a 40/1.4, and a 21/4, the other time this year with a Nikon F2AS and a 24/f2.8. The Nikon is the bigger and louder camera, but I felt much more at ease with it that day for a number of reasons, and I think people were noticing me less.

It's fine that your 28 works better for you than a 40, but I'm a bit hesitant taking this as a basis to recommend to everybody that they should use smaller lenses. In my opinion, people don't feel threatened by cameras as much as they feel threatened by feeling that a photographer is taking a picture of them when he really shouldn't. A photographer not at ease with his tools will make everyone else feel less at ease, too. And in my opinion, that's the main thing.
 
In my experience, everyone associates size with seriousness. If it's big, it has to be good. If it's small, it has to be unprofessional. That's just how it goes.


Wait, we're talking about lenses?
 
rxmd said:
Which is exactly what I want them to think.

Of course I don't take the monorail camera off the tripod, like I would not take a loud SLR into a theatre. Again, this is a bit hyperbolic. Tools have their places.

But again, just to give another counterpoint: I've been working in Barcelona regularly. Three times I spent a few hours photographing in the metro, twice with a Leica, a 40/1.4, and a 21/4, the other time this year with a Nikon F2AS and a 24/f2.8. The Nikon is the bigger and louder camera, but I felt much more at ease with it that day for a number of reasons, and I think people were noticing me less.

It's fine that your 28 works better for you than a 40, but I'm a bit hesitant taking this as a basis to recommend to everybody that they should use smaller lenses. In my opinion, people don't feel threatened by cameras as much as they feel threatened by feeling that a photographer is taking a picture of them when he really shouldn't. A photographer not at ease with his tools will make everyone else feel less at ease, too. And in my opinion, that's the main thing.
Click to expand...

We agree there, but wouldn't you agree that if a photographer does everything very well, it's the Hassy the one that could give more problematic situations than a RF with a flat lens or a very small XA? I don't deny photographer's behavior is relevant, and I don't deny how we feel with our gear is relevant, but I will never pretend common people feel worried just the same after seeing different sized lenses and cameras near them... I know reality and I accept it. If we do things as best as possible, and then consider just size, size matters a lot for street photography.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Neare said:
I don't think smaller is better on the street. It's more common place, and it offers it's own opportunities. It's different. Then I've seen some great 4x5 street work, really good work. It's also different, not worse.
You use the gear that gets you the results you want.
Click to expand...

Again, that's why best street photographers of all times used and use huge gear...:p

Cheers,

Juan
 
back alley said:
when i walk the streets and aim my little rd1 with a little rollei 40 attached...it would seem that on one in particular really cares what i am doing.
if when caught aimimg this rig at someone, they seem to not take me too seriously.
like i'm using a toy or old dinky camera.

but i notice that when i aim my rd1 and 50/1.1 rig at folks that many do notice and have that 'is he taking a pic of me?' look on their face.

is this really happening or am i merely adjusting to using a much bigger than 'normal for me' lens?
Click to expand...


quite the lengthy thread considering the original question...there have been a number of assumptions made that were not part of the original question...about style, and confidence level etc...

i do not work as an invisible shooter nor do i go for a particularly stealthy approach. i just AM on the street. i act 'as if', as if i belong there, as if they are the tourists, as if my job, my mission is to be there photographing.

as to lens size...well, i think it's both, in that i am more aware of this new to me lens and that it is the biggest lens that i own. and people DO look at me more often when i use it as compared to a smaller lens. weather that changes what happens in their heads in relation to me i cannot know...no one has said.
 
Juan, just who are these best street photographers you keep referring to? Is there a list :rolleyes:? Am I on it? Come on, tell me, tell me, tell me ... If not, well, I would like to apply. And oh ya, who is judging these "best street photographers?" One thing I like to do is show my work to my peers. It keeps me honest. Over the last 20 years, I can think of less than half a dozen times when I have actually seen other people actively engaging in the craft of street photography in my area.

I'm really not into the whole big lens/little lens debate. I just think it's great that we are talking about street photography on the RangeFinderForum.

As far as only me being able to judge the quality and success of my pictures :eek:, maybe that works for you, having not posted any samples in this thread, but unlike you (so far anyway) I'm putting my work out there to be looked at, judged, criticized and who knows, maybe even admired in this thread. And I value my peers' opinions on whether or not they think my photography is successful.

For you to say that I'm wrong is confusing since I'm not really sure what I'm wrong about in this thread. Could you clarify?

I get this feeling that you seem to think that the bigger the lens, the more offensive the photographer. And I get the feeling you think I'm about as offensive as it gets :eek:. Truth be told, I couldn't care less what you think about me. Judge the work (something you haven't even commented on, I've noticed) and if I can, I'll back up my opinions. To me it's nothing personal if you think I'm an asshole. I've been called worse ;). The thing is, street photography is not a popularity contest. And the fact is, you're entitled to your opinion about smaller lenses being better, even if you're clearly wrong and have not provided a single example to substantiate your opinion or make me change mine.

Your comment about the Hasselblad is about as far off base as any I have ever read. I used to own a Hassy, the one with the motor, and IMO it was an excellent street camera. Especially with the waist-level finder, with the camera held at the waist and the photographer looking down.

Perhaps not as stealthy as the Rollei Twin which I'm going to be getting back into in the near future. I've given my last few Twins away to students as gifts.

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion.

One thing I would like to mention is that no matter how long a lens I seem to use, people and even dogs seem to know when they are being watched. Call it a sixth sense or intuition but it's there.





















 
Last edited:
No problem: keep thinking gear size is irrelevant for street photography. I don't want to make you think differently.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Here in Paris, I did notice people react differently to my 58mm filter size Hexanon than my 46mm Lux. With a smaller lens on, the M9 almost looks like a compact camera, yet with the Hexanon it becomes DSLR size.

I am sure there is also a self psychological effect with tele. Since you are framing tighter, you also think your subject knows what you are doing, but is he really?

Yet in the end, if one wants to do street photography and does not feel confident to use a 28mm or 35mm an get within 2 meters of subjects, than it is not for him. Whatever the lens size. 99% of shots taken with teles are plain lame and show more the shyness of the photographer than interesting scenes.
 
My personal experience is that size and type of gear do matter.
It's not only size, but what people think you are doing, and what you will use the pictures for.
I have shot with a F-801 with a 28-85 zoom, and my pictures were crappy.
The speed and all the bells and whistles of the AF was useless because the speed of people around me was much greater, all thinking that I am a press photog, or an IRS surveyor, or any function they would not like to use their pictures.
I moved to a leica and a FLAT 35mm and it was like magic. Nobody was taking me seriously.
I was certainly not invisible. Quite the contrary, I was trying even less to be "Stealth" and it worked!
And I notices that it has a great deal to do with the flatness of the lens, because with a flat lens, you can focus on something at the right distance, and then give a slight turn in the camera, and shoot the right picture ridiculously close to people. The subject knows that you are taking a picture, but it works just like if he thinks "I'm not really sure in what direction it's pointed" and it is just enough so that in 99% of the cases, even if you are very obvious in the landscape, you just pass under the "suspicion radar" of the usual folks.
Now of course, if you are into "street portraits", a 300mm is not a problem...
But really, shooting street photography with the 35mm 1.2 seems a serious handicap to me.
the 28 f/3.5 seems to be at the opposite of the "aggressivity" scale.
Just my 2c...
 
Oh, and yes, I think there is a huge difference between a regular camera that obstructs half of my face, and the body language used with a waist level camera.
But this is irrelevant for Joe's RD1...
 
yanidel said:
Here in Paris, I did notice people react differently to my 58mm filter size Hexanon than my 46mm Lux. With a smaller lens on, the M9 almost looks like a compact camera, yet with the Hexanon it becomes DSLR size.

I am sure there is also a self psychological effect with tele. Since you are framing tighter, you also think your subject knows what you are doing, but is he really?

Yet in the end, if one wants to do street photography and does not feel confident to use a 28mm or 35mm an get within 2 meters of subjects, than it is not for him. Whatever the lens size. 99% of shots taken with teles are plain lame and show more the shyness of the photographer than interesting scenes.
Click to expand...

All interesting points...

Cheers,

Juan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom