Using less film. Switching gear.

[Ko.Fe.]

Sorry, I'm at work, short day, still have to do assigned duties. I'll reply to the rest later on.

Agreed. I live further north, and shadow areas with sunshine are ISO 200, F5.6, 1/150

I did some shots at 800 in direct sun, 2 hours before darkness: F7.1, 1/2900 +2/3. Slightly underexposed but no blown highlights with detail in the shadows. Used X-Pro 1.

I'm so glad you have found each other! 🙂

Here is my typical (November to March) morning walk with camera:

f5.6 1/180 ISO1600.

ISO1600 f16 1/500.

And here is the home work for you:
Bill Pierce wrote once about GW and others street photogs pushing TRI-X @1000. In NYC during the day. Find out, why?

 

[robert blu]

After I read all the proposals, and read them again I vote for the M10 solution (of course I'm an happy M10 user!). M4-2 can be used when you are in a film mood, It can happen sometimes. I never tried your lenses but I think they are ok. Your photos are always interesting whatever you use!

And whatever you decide use it and be happy! It will be a good 2020!

 

[jsrockit]

Bill Pierce wrote once about GW and others street photogs pushing TRI-X @1000. In NYC during the day. Find out, why?

I know why... and it makes sense. I'm with Ko.Fe. I live in Santiago, Chile where it is sunny always... yet, I still end up walking through dark tunnels, I still end up between buildings on a darker street, I still photograph in the shadows, I still try to photograph at night handheld, etc. I try to keep my shutter speed to 1/500th-1/1000th of a second because sometimes I have to throw my camera to my eye and take the photo in an instant. Others may not feel a need for it, but I do. High ISO has been the best thing about Digital. I've learned not to listen to others when it comes to what I need.

 

[shawn]

Sorry, I'm at work, short day, still have to do assigned duties. I'll reply to the rest later on.



I'm so glad you have found each other! 🙂

Here is my typical (November to March) morning walk with camera:

f5.6 1/180 ISO1600.

ISO1600 f16 1/500.

And here is the home work for you:
Bill Pierce wrote once about GW and others street photogs pushing TRI-X @1000. In NYC during the day. Find out, why?

There is nothing in any of the shots you have posted the suggests a need for those higher shutter speeds. Most of those shutters are 10x (or more) your focal length and you have almost no moving subjects in your shots. Any hope to 'freeze action' to increase sharpness is lost due to the noise and NR at those ISO settings in your camera. Cut the shutter and ISO two stops and you will have more sharpness (less noise/NR) and more dynamic range.

If you are shooting that high to deal with your own motion you should work on that and consider cameras with built in stabilization.

Shawn

 

[shawn]

I yet, I still end up walking through dark tunnels, I still end up between buildings on a darker street, I still photograph in the shadows, I still try to photograph at night handheld, etc.

None of that is shooting in the day. Those situations are dealt with easily by Auto-ISO or shooting ISO Invariant. Leaving a digital camera set to a high ISO to handle these situations is film based thinking.

Use AutoISO and you handle all of these situations (including the very quick shots) without having to loose IQ for daylight shots. Shoot ISO Invariant and you have the same benefits but with a little more PP work and the benefit of as having as much DR as your camera can ever give you on every shot.

Shawn

 

[jsrockit]

None of that is shooting in the day.

It IS in MY typical day of street shooting in the day in Santiago (except the night example). That is the point. Speaking of film thinking... many people seem to rely on 1/60th of a second wide open on digital in low light. High ISO allows for high shutter speeds with depth of field by using high ISO. The range of shutter speeds and apertures available due to high ISO allows for many choices in how a photo looks. This could mean that people use ISO 3200 in the daytime shadows. Not every city has the same light.

Those situations are dealt with easily by Auto-ISO or shooting ISO Invariant. Leaving a digital camera set to a high ISO to handle these situations is film based thinking.

I agree with that and that is how I shoot. That doesn't mean that I'm not using ISO 3200-6400 when out doing my typical shooting. Your blanket statement was "Something is wrong is you need 3200 or 6400 during the day." I disagreed because light changes and situations change.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

There is nothing in any of the shots you have posted the suggests a need for those higher shutter speeds. Most of those shutters are 10x (or more) your focal length and you have almost no moving subjects in your shots. Any hope to 'freeze action' to increase sharpness is lost due to the noise and NR at those ISO settings in your camera. Cut the shutter and ISO two stops and you will have more sharpness (less noise/NR) and more dynamic range.

If you are shooting that high to deal with your own motion you should work on that and consider cameras with built in stabilization.

Shawn

Sorry, same homework for you:
As Bill Pierce mention once, GW and others were pushing Tri-X @1000 for day street photography, find out why.

Since you are heavy participant 🙂 , hints for you:
Those were not photos, those are screenshots of exposure meter.
Look at GW pedestrians pictures.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

After I read all the proposals, and read them again I vote for the M10 solution (of course I'm an happy M10 user!). M4-2 can be used when you are in a film mood, It can happen sometimes. I never tried your lenses but I think they are ok. Your photos are always interesting whatever you use!

And whatever you decide use it and be happy! It will be a good 2020!

Thank you, Robert.
I looking forward to see more adventures of you both in next year!

 

[Huss]

Kostya, the advice here has been aimed at trying to solve the camera/photography problem that you are feeling that you have. What I am going to say isn’t flippant or dismissive. You don’t have a camera problem, you have a commuting problem. The most precious thing we have is time; life’s too short to spend throwing away even a week of it commuting 4 hours a day. The fact that others do it is irrelevant. No one has to do that, it’s a prison of their own making. There is never only one job one can work at, there is never only one place one can work, there is never only one place one can live. It’s not the Soviet system any more for you. People get tunnel vision and convince themselves that they have fewer choices than the multitude of choices they really have, that everyone has. People convince themselves, or let others convince them, that they have no better options, but that is never true for anyone, not in the long run. No one. People not confined to prisons often make their own, then justify it to themselves.
I enjoy your contributions here, but I don’t hope you get a different camera, nor do I think that a higher ISO capability is going to answer any problem you have. A daily four hour commute is a life destroyer, for real; shooting more digital and less film is an answer to nothing, because the minor camera hardware changes you are considering will prove to be both meaningless and ultimately unhelpful in the face of the overall situation.
Best of luck, sincerely.

Very nicely put Larry. I have said the same thing to my gf who has a 3 hour daily commute. It’s a soul crusher month after month, year after year.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

And now, since I’m on cushy ride via Go train, the answer for our Americans.

My commute is not typical Americans commute.
No car is involved.
I take bicycle or bus, then go train and then I walk and take pictures where I like to take them. Big city. Classic downtown, with crowds and highrises. Extroverts and other big city nice people to photograph.
Twice or more after work I walk extra hour and practice my street photography.
I’m on the work I like.
I’m not a looser who is looking for any job near home, just because commute means car in America.
I fire up bbq on ravine looking lot on weekends and go skiing on evenings.
I hike with kids in the forest and I hike with camera in big city’s jungle.
So, who is the looser?
Our family’s friend who is completing destinations, assignments while on go train for higher paid job?
While on Go train I read, listen, taking pictures, drinking booze or even snoring loud.

My advice, take trip to Europe or even to Moscow. This will help to understand how commute doesn’t mean bad thing. My mother was commuting an hour and half one way in Moscow for forty years. She doesn’t have driving license it is useless in Moscow or any city where civilization has come.
I have no DR on the go train, but I could edit pictures taken digitally and nobody bugs on the go. 🙂

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Yes, I understand that one situation involved film -> film and your situation involves film -> digital. However I thought that the advice you offered still seemed applicable. Perhaps I do not fully understand the issue you are facing. I for one have enjoyed quite a number of the images you've shared that were made using your M4-2. I should state that I am not really familiar with the M-E 220. If you have not used or needed a f1.4 lens or a flash with your M4-2, why would those items be needed with the M-E 220? Is the M-E 220 simply not as sensitive as the film you've been using with the M4-2? Finally, E.Kim?

My apologies for all of the questions — just trying to better understand.

I was not on regular hours for many years. Lots of travel and work in not regular hours. It means... free time for photography during day light.
Very many film pictures I posted were taken this way.
Now it is change. I have opportunity to practice street photography I really like, but not during the day. In November to March it means pushing film @1600 @3200, takes more time and negatives only works on dr prints. Which is much more time I don’t have now. I’m just accumulating negatives without prints now. But I have no bad feelings. I just have to find if M240 sensor is good at iso 6400 or I have to get Monochrom or M10.
Screw the film, I want this job, if I stay I could sell most of the gear I have and get camera which just works as I need.
Then I told my wife what I have to slow down on film, she was glad.
Commute or not, film just takes too much of family time.
Ekim is wanna be B Gulden. Flashy boy.

Got to go, my station and then skiing, with film camera, still. 🙂

 

[shawn]

I agree with that and that is how I shoot. That doesn't mean that I'm not using ISO 3200-6400 when out doing my typical shooting. Your blanket statement was "Something is wrong is you need 3200 or 6400 during the day." I disagreed because light changes and situations change.

Re-read the quote that was responding to. He said ISO400 was fine on film, but he needed 8x or 16x that ISO for digital IN THE SAME CONDITIONs.

Something is wrong if that is the case.

Shawn

 

[shawn]

Sorry, same homework for you:
As Bill Pierce mention once, GW and others were pushing Tri-X @1000 for day street photography, find out why.

Since you are heavy participant 🙂 , hints for you:
Those were not photos, those are screenshots of exposure meter.
Look at GW pedestrians pictures.

Because you are basically stuck with one film speed for the entire roll and pushing Tri-X allows for more flexibility in a variety of shooting conditions/settings, if also used with a ND filter when you don't want the extra film speed.

That thinking doesn't apply to digital. You don't have to leave it set high you can adjust it on demand. Or if you don't want to take the time for that learn to use AutoISO. If the M9 works the same as the M240 it is actually pretty slick and has a nice feature in being able to configure if it stays active (or not) when in manual mode.

Doesn't matter that those are light meter pictures. Same thing, shutter speed is much higher than they need to be for those scenes. Down two stops on the shutter and ISO will increase DR and reduce noise/NR which will improve IQ. At ISO 1600 you only have about 5.5 stops of dynamic range on that camera.

Shawn

 

[jsrockit]

Re-read the quote that was responding to. He said ISO400 was fine on film, but he needed 8x or 16x that ISO for digital IN THE SAME CONDITIONs.

Something is wrong if that is the case.

There is only 3 & 4 stops between ISO 400 and ISO 3200 and 6400. It is nowhere near 8-16 times more...I think this is why you can't believe someone would use these ISO values.

 

[shawn]

There is only 3 & 4 stops between ISO 400 and ISO 3200 and 6400. It is nowhere near 8-16 times more...I think this is why you can't believe someone would use these ISO values.

Yes, I know how many stops it is.

But you know... math....

400 X 8 = 3200
400 X 16 = 6400

What I don't believe is how 400 is fine in one medium (film) but you need 8x or 16x more sensitivity (which is actually what is going on) for the other. Esp. as the other handles shadows better and doesn't handle overexposure as well.

Shawn

 

[jsrockit]

What I don't believe is how 400 is fine in one medium (film) but you need 8x or 16x more sensitivity (which is actually what is going on) for the other. Esp. as the other handles shadows better and doesn't handle overexposure as well.

400 is fine for film because he is used to that. Not many high speed films these days...and depending on your technique, pushing the film might not get the results you want. However, the one thing that digital has an advantage in is High ISO. 3-4 stops isn't as huge as you think in actual use. Instead of using 1/60th of a second, now you can use 1/500th or 1/1000th. It is the difference between freezing motion and not freezing motion in lower light. Add in any depth of field and these stops go away quickly. He's already said he lives in an area that doesn't have bright sunlight for most of the year...and he can't get out during that sunlight due to his job. Seems like a normal request for digital in 2019 (2020). As has been mentioned previously... NYC streetphotographers of the 60s and 70s pushed Tri-X to 1200 just to be able to have 1/1000th of a second available to them.

“We were using Tri-X film pushed to 1200 ASA, whereas the normal rating is 400. The reason was to be able to shoot at 1/1000th of a second as much as possible, because if you made pictures on the street at 1/125th, they were blurry. If you lunged at something, either it would move or else your own motion would mess up the picture. I began to work that way after looking at my pictures and noticing that they had those loose edges, Garry’s were crisp.” – via Joel Meyerowitz From Bystander: A History of Street Photography.

 

[shawn]

3 or 4 stops is exactly 8x or 16x the light. To argue otherwise is to not understand photographic stops.

Yes, you can go faster with more speed, or more DOF or a combination of both. But if 400 was good on film one can shoot the same way with digital. And he already said he is trying to shoot the same way as he was.

"For me film ISO and digital ISO are not the same. I could get usable shot on ISO400 with bw film, but to get the same I need higher ISO on digital camera.
Don't know why. Perhaps, because, digital ISO estimate is less accurate under low light. Even during the day, I could use ISO 400 film and 1/250 or 1/500. And S16. It just doesn't work this way with digital. I have to be on at 3200 and even 6400. During day use!"

I suppose the other possibility was he was underexposed on film and doing the same with digital brought this to light...

Shawn

 

[jsrockit]

3 or 4 stops is exactly 8x or 16x the light. To argue otherwise is to not understand photographic stops.

First, I didn't argue that... BUT I just understand stops... and how to work with those stops while doing photography. I'm sure I'm not alone here. It doesn't matter if it is 8x and 16x the light...I'm not thinking in X times the light when I'm photographing. I get it...one stop doubles (or halves) the light. However, I think in shutter speeds, apertures, and ISO. 3-4 stops just isn't as huge of a difference as many think.

Yes, you can go faster with more speed, or more DOF or a combination of both. But if 400 was good on film one can shoot the same way with digital. And he already said he is trying to shoot the same way as he was.

"For me film ISO and digital ISO are not the same. I could get usable shot on ISO400 with bw film, but to get the same I need higher ISO on digital camera.
Don't know why. Perhaps, because, digital ISO estimate is less accurate under low light. Even during the day, I could use ISO 400 film and 1/250 or 1/500. And S16. It just doesn't work this way with digital. I have to be on at 3200 and even 6400. During day use!"

Ok, ok I see what you mean... seems weird to say that. I get your point. I was thinking he liked using ISO 3200 and ISO 6400 in digital because he got used to using it. But no way he was using 400 speed film the same as 3200 in digital.

I suppose the other possibility was he was underexposed on film and doing the same with digital brought this to light...

Could be...

 

[shawn]

Amount of light and stops are interchangeable to me. I use amount/percentage of light when shooting meterless as I find I estimate shadows a bit better that way and then translate that into stops on the camera. Ditto with flash as mine are all based on fractions of full power. When talking about sensitivity I find amount of light highlights the differences better. And they are big differences that happen with fairly small changes... a click here, a twist there. It is why high ISO goes from acceptable to garbage in only a stop or two on most cameras. Just where that tipping point is varies between cameras.

Glad we agree about ISO400 on film being ISO400 on digital.

Shawn

 

[Guth]

Based on the response to my questions it seems that due to the job change involving a total of 4 hours of time spent commuting each workday, photography activities will now occur primarily at night instead of in the daytime. This was the missing piece of the puzzle for me.