Street Shooting - RF or SLR

[kshapero]

Yesterday I stood at a street corner in NYC for about 2 hours. The mass of characters that walked by was incredible. I shot 3 rolls with my ZI and 2 rolls with my Nikon FM3A. Lots of street noise, so shutter sound was immaterial, even I could not here it on either rig. Anyway I noticed no difference in how people reacted to the RF versus the SLR. It did not seem to matter that the ZI is supposedly more "stealthy". People either gave me a slight stare or none at all regardless of the camera I was using. Man, that city is alive!

[35mmdelux]

The truth is its up to the photographer to decide which works better for him/her. For me RF was far better due to the positive focusing and the stellar lenses. Regards -

[payasam]

They're the same. They take pictures.

[JohnnyT]

My black Leica M6 almost look like a point and shoot... I usually fake a focus on a building over my subject, but in reality i'm guess-focus my distance... Then I finish my focus fastly on my victims and then I go away. :angel:

With a SLR, it's almost impossible to do... I tried to do it with my Bronica 645 SLR, but I really had to hide... the camera is really big...

[Rune]

When you put something in front of your face, you look a bit alien... The SLR will act as a shield for the people looking at you, but the RF will reveal more of your face. I don't think the point is necessarily the size of the camera (the ZI and the FM3a are similar in size), but the placement of the viewfinder: If the ZI had the viewfinder in the middle on top of the body, less of your face would show and you would be perceived as more "threatening". Maybe a bit of the same psychological mechanism that makes a warrior with painted face look less human and more frightening...

[jonmanjiro]

When you put something in front of your face, you look a bit alien... The SLR will act as a shield for the people looking at you, but the RF will reveal more of your face. I don't think the point is necessarily the size of the camera (the ZI and the FM3a are similar in size), but the placement of the viewfinder: If the ZI had the viewfinder in the middle on top of the body, less of your face would show and you would be perceived as more "threatening". Maybe a bit of the same psychological mechanism that makes a warrior with painted face look less human and more frightening...

Irrelevant if you're a left eye shooter.

Photo by Avotius (borrowed from his Biogon 28 f2.8 report thread):
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2015/2516963485_85d1211a98_o.jpg

[btgc]

Continuing theme of "robot face", I guess that TLR's in this respect are even more frightening - imagine, eyes are shifted from horizontal axis to vertical and whole face is somewhere below chin. Louis Carrol had to use idea.

As long as I give a short sight and/or smile, they don't care at all. Personally I'd be bothered if someone after taking my picture would stare at LCD instead of looking at me.

[Dave Wilkinson]

Yesterday I stood at a street corner in NYC for about 2 hours. The mass of characters that walked by was incredible. I shot 3 rolls with my ZI and 2 rolls with my Nikon FM3A. Lots of street noise, so shutter sound was immaterial, even I could not here it on either rig. Anyway I noticed no difference in how people reacted to the RF versus the SLR. It did not seem to matter that the ZI is supposedly more "stealthy". People either gave me a slight stare or none at all regardless of the camera I was using. Man, that city is alive! Please excuse my curiousity - but as you stood on that corner for around two hours, and shot five rolls, that's 180+ shots?....I just wondered what you do with that amount of pictures of total strangers - walking around?. I like to do a little 'street' shooting myself, and am always on the look out for interesting characters, or people doing interesting things, but often go home after an afternoons walk - having only shot about a dozen frames. Personaly, if I felt compelled to shoot hundreds of frames a day, ( most of which would be binned! ) for cost reasons - a digicam would have to be the tool of preferance!.
Dave.

[kshapero]

Please excuse my curiousity - but as you stood on that corner for around two hours, and shot five rolls, that's 180+ shots?....I just wondered what you do with that amount of pictures of total strangers - walking around?. I like to do a little 'street' shooting myself, and am always on the look out for interesting characters, or people doing interesting things, but often go home after an afternoons walk - having only shot about a dozen frames. Personaly, if I felt compelled to shoot hundreds of frames a day, ( most of which would be binned! ) for cost reasons - a digicam would have to be the tool of preferance!.
Dave.Well each to their own. I was so intrigued by the happenings, I just shot away even forgetting the time. You might say I was in a zone. Film or digital, either is fine. On that day it was film.

[Ming The Merciless]

I have come to feel that an slr makes for more of a barrier between me and the subject and that a rangefinder, being small makes for less of a barrier, is quicker and less noticeable in many cases.

[Dave Wilkinson]

Well each to their own. I was so intrigued by the happenings, I just shot away even forgetting the time. You might say I was in a zone. Film or digital, either is fine. On that day it was film.
Good enough!....and no explanation really needed, as I was not being derisive or sarcastic in my post or parallel thread, just interesting to hear the different viewpoints on these topics!
Cheers, Dave.

[Dave Wilkinson]

I have come to feel that an slr makes for more of a barrier between me and the subject and that a rangefinder, being small makes for less of a barrier, is quicker and less noticeable in many cases.Agreed - and the noise factor does come into it, in another thread I mentioned my current affections for a Konica FT1 motor, that I aquired cheaply - lovely camera IMO, and superb lenses, but not suitable for up-close candids, without waking the neighbourhood :D
Dave.

[wgerrard]

You NYC types have all the fun. I could spend a couple of hours at one of my local downtown corners and all that might walk by would be a few dogs, a couple of schoolkids, and maybe a curious cop.

Now, if I was after photos of Soccer Moms in minivans, that'd be different.They'd pass by several times each minute.

[Keith]

I think I can be happy with either ... though I must admit street photography is not really my thing.

I've seen some great work done with TLR's in this situation!

[ruby.monkey]

My black Leica M6 almost look like a point and shoot... I usually fake a focus on a building over my subject, but in reality i'm guess-focus my distance... Then I finish my focus fastly on my victims and then I go away. :angel:

With a SLR, it's almost impossible to do... I tried to do it with my Bronica 645 SLR, but I really had to hide... the camera is really big...
Why hide what you're doing? Is acting in an underhand manner part of the sport? :confused:

[Lilserenity]

Sometimes the biggest thing to get over is your own shyness or fear when street shooting.

The way to get over that is be comfortable on the street taking photos yourself, don't be embarassed, don't be shy. Why should taking a photo in public be any more difficult than say riding your bike or the person skateboarding?

To some regard, SLR or RF, it'll come down to the photographer.

A little trick I played on myself was to purposely load a wider angle lens on the camera (e.g. a 35mm) than a 50mm, this meant you had to forcibly get closer to get a decent picture. Once you got used to that, the 50mm seems a luxury where you can sit back a little and are automatically closer.

I don't always succeed, I do get a bit put off sometimes, just have to play it by ear.

I keep a few cards on me and if anyone asks what I am doing, I explain as briefly as I can that I'm just recording some street life and would like like a copy e-mailed to them or maybe even a print -- not to everyone, just if they approach me in a bit of a bluster.

Also, I tend to sit myself down somewhere, that works because if you're moving and they're moving, that doesn't help matters.

Anyway what I was getting to is I'm a left eye shooter and prefer working with an RF for everything; but using an SLR is no impediment on the street. In quieter locations, a nice quiet shutter can be a boon.

Vicky

[CK Dexter Haven]

None of this matters. How much of a person's face is showing from behind a camera? Seriously? People are now as used to being photographed with dSLRs as with camera phones. This is all in our heads. From too much time spent in forums on interwebs.

[kshapero]

Agreed - and the noise factor does come into it, in another thread I mentioned my current affections for a Konica FT1 motor, that I aquired cheaply - lovely camera IMO, and superb lenses, but not suitable for up-close candids, without waking the neighbourhood :D
Dave.I agree on the noise, but on that particular day the streets were so noisy themselves that it did not really seem to matter.

[35mmdelux]

HCB 2-step method: Up to the eye, snap, back down to his side. Methodical, quick, unobtrusive.

[dfoo]

I find using the my SLRs for street very difficult due to the way focusing works. The focusing tab on my lenses makes all the difference. I know here is 5m, here is 3m, etc.

[bhop73]

I use either depending on my mood, (although ever since I got my M6 about a month and a half ago, i've used it almost exclusively for everything) but usually if i'm shooting at night, I tend to use my F100 because its AF system seems to work well in low light, while it seems harder to focus my manual cameras at night.

[Al Kaplan]

You can put a focusing "tab" on most any lens with a plastic cable tie, only a few cents at your local hardware shop. You can choose from white or "professional" black. The focusing lever on the Minolta Autocord makes it ideal for street type shooting and the younger generation doesn't have a clue that a TLR is even a camera.

http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com

[AgentX]

My belief: While it's true that the gear used can have a significant effect on the image produced, in many ways, any psychological effects are by and large on the photographer more than the subject...regardless of whether the photographer is aware of this.

[MCTuomey]

run what ya brung

i want to try a TLR or equivalent waist-focus body at some point though

[Al Kaplan]

TLR's take some getting used to, what with the right/left reversed image, but produce some great images.

http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com

[Dave Wilkinson]

TLR's take some getting used to, what with the right/left reversed image, but produce some great images.

http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com sounds like you've gotten the Autocord back from your partner!:D

[MartinL]

I just wondered what you do with that amount of pictures of total strangers - walking around?.
This raises a number of questions for me--actually, they're probably closer to opinions:
1. There's a strong element of "sport" involved in street shooting--more so with RF and film than digi, but it's there. Can I react fast-, focused-, and framed well enough to capture what I think might be a shot I want? It's a mild adrenalin thing. I even appreciate the missed shots--those for which I castigate myself for not paying attention or being prepared.

2. Most street shots of strangers are pointless unless there is some added value--an irony, juxtaposition within the context. I have no reason to believe that my strangers are more worth looking at than your strangers. Without that added value I might just as well peruse, print, copy, or link to other people's photos, go to a museum, buy a book or flip through one standing in the aisle.

3. Time and expense taking photos is small stuff compared to that required for selecting, editing, and preparing for presentation--if for no other reason than I don't want my few decent photos to be lost in the dross.

[Roger Hicks]

My belief: While it's true that the gear used can have a significant effect on the image produced, in many ways, any psychological effects are by and large on the photographer more than the subject...regardless of whether the photographer is aware of this.

YES!

Brilliantly put.

Cheers,

R.

[Carlsen Highway]

SLR's over emphasize focusing. The rangefinder viewfinder de emphasizes it. This is there drawback for this kind of street thing.
When you are wondering about, you have to react quickly, and so you have prefocus set and know what aperture you have so you know how much depth of field you have. IF something happens, camera comes up briefly and you take a picture. Sometimes you will have time to refocus befire you lift the camera, but even that will be general andwill rely on depth of field to a certain extent, because its guessing distances quickly.
The SLR you work the same way, and put the camera up to your eye, its out of focus or slightly out of focus, you are compelled to focus before you push the button, which means often you miss the picture.
Any other kind of shooting and the SLR would have the advantage in theory I suppose. Add to that a quieter shutter (for the shy shooters) and generally smaller in size, and the rangefinder is better for candid shots for me.