PDA

View Full Version : Extremely close up candid photography


colinh
07-21-2007, 16:43
I had this idea just now on a different thread (street style questions)

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=601208#post601208

So, is anyone interested in trying this? :

Actually, I noticed something interesting. I often raised the camera (an M7) to my eye, just to check the exposure was OK, as I was continually adjusting for smallest aperture. People weren't bothered even if it was pointed straight at them from a couple of feet away! I guess this was because it was really quick (but unhurried) and because *I* knew I wasn't taking a picture. Thus *I* felt totally innocent and at ease.

Now, if I were as fast at focussing as The Great Photographers, I could have taken a lot of photos like that. (I had a very slow film in - so DOF wasn't all that great).

So now I think I'll try that soon: 35mm lens f/22. Everything focussed from 2 (!) to 7 feet. 36 exposures in 15 minutes.



colin

arbib
07-21-2007, 17:18
OK, here is something I tried today.

I loaded my Camera with 400 color film. Put my 28mm lens on it. Then proceeded to walk into Starbucks and buy a Vente Iced Coffee. (setting the stage)....

I went outside and sat at a table in front of the sidewalk and placed my camera on a corner at slight angle. the exposure was preset at 1/250s at f/16. I than set my lens so everything from 2.5' to INF was in focus.

I left camera cocked and ready, and when some people were in the FOV (I looked ahead of time and took note of the Left and Right borders and the high border too).

If I saw a interesting group or expressions, I hovered my hand over the shutter button and waited for the "best" moment to capture the image. I did not take the camera up to my face. I left it on the table corner..

I think I got some good captures (I'll know next week). And I would say that a candid portrait from 3' to 7' away is "Extremely Close" Since I had a coffee, I looked like I was resting or waiting for someone. So, no one knew (I think), I was taking pictures.

I think the 28mm (and 24) is perfect for this close. A 35mm is a bit long. and you can risk cutting off heads if the people are too close. Although, that may make for an instersting photo any way.

colinh
07-21-2007, 18:10
I went outside and sat at a table in front of the sidewalk and placed my camera on a corner at slight angle. the exposure was preset at 1/250s at f/16. I than set my lens so everything from 2.5' to INF was in focus.

No, that's cheating. :)

I mean, you can do that if you like, but it's not what I meant, which is:


raising camera to eye, click, lower camera. Subject, within 2 - 7 feet.

Should take about 1 second.

Maybe "Extremely close candid photography" is the wrong title. Should be "Extremely close street photography", I guess.

colin

07-21-2007, 23:48
Does this count?
Leica M8, CV 28m Ultron (roughly 35mm equivalent) - candid.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/aglimpseoftheworld/580424127/

Or here, with a Rolleiflex:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/aglimpseoftheworld/537003511/

And another M8 shot:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/aglimpseoftheworld/514811131/

payasam
07-22-2007, 00:40
"Close up" and "candid" would ordinarily be a contradiction in terms.

colinh
07-22-2007, 10:04
"Close up" and "candid" would ordinarily be a contradiction in terms.

Ordinarily I suppose. In my previous post I mentioned that maybe "Extremely close street photography" would have been a better title.

The idea is to get unposed portraits I guess.

colin

mickdoesclick
07-22-2007, 13:55
I wanna go deeper into street photography aswell, waiting for my canonet to arrive.

Only decent street shot I made now with my canon 20D (evil dSLR ;)) is this one:

http://mickbenjamins.com/foto/snapshots/IMG_2086.jpg


that was shot with a 17-70. Zoom can be fun, cathing people when they dont know it, giving you the ability to catch funny poses.
More fun it is to be part of the street, interact with people but shoot at the split moment they arent posing :)

arbib
07-22-2007, 14:48
[[email protected]]Does this count?
Leica M8, CV 28m Ultron (roughly 35mm equivalent) - candid.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/aglimpseoftheworld/580424127/quote]


Yes, I see, I haven't got the nerve to try that yet...My first step was to walk around and take waist candids, then sit at a table and and take passers by, next will be a more (less candid) approach.

That is a great candid, or is it....Did his expression change to what you captured. or was that his expression before the capture., he did not change it as you took it?? It is a great candid, no matter. :cool:

mickdoesclick
07-23-2007, 01:40
Does this count?
Leica M8, CV 28m Ultron (roughly 35mm equivalent) - candid.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/aglimpseoftheworld/580424127 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/aglimpseoftheworld/580424127/quote)


Yes, I see, I haven't got the nerve to try that yet...My first step was to walk around and take waist candids, then sit at a table and and take passers by, next will be a more (less candid) approach.

That is a great candid, or is it....Did his expression change to what you captured. or was that his expression before the capture., he did not change it as you took it?? It is a great candid, no matter. :cool: Im not sure if we should call 'em candids. For the sole reason that 'candid' has this negative, almost perverted tone to it. So Im sticking to streetphotography, what defines it much better I think.

mac_wt
07-23-2007, 01:54
Ihttp://mickbenjamins.com/foto/snapshots/IMG_2086.jpg


I'm happy you posted a 'candid' photo with a child in it. Children are a very interesting subject for a photographer. They do all kinds of funny things, show genuine emotions enlarged (crying, laughing,...), and tend to forget about the presence of a photographer very quickly. While adults mostly try to keep their cool and conform to the norm of their environment. Children have featured a lot in photography for most of its existence, but over the last 2 decennia, photographing someone else's children in public has become a big no no. People have even gotten in trouble for photographing their own children. I think this is a sad evolution.

Spider67
07-23-2007, 04:00
Does this count?
Leica M8, CV 28m Ultron (roughly 35mm equivalent) - candid.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/aglimpseoftheworld/580424127/

Or here, with a Rolleiflex:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/aglimpseoftheworld/537003511/

And another M8 shot:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/aglimpseoftheworld/514811131/

Those are great. Those pictures urge me to take my camera and go out on the street the very next Moment.
My respect! You must be quite a charmer to let people allow you to prtray them that way.

Spider67
07-23-2007, 04:07
... photographing someone else's children in public has become a big no no. People have even gotten in trouble for photographing their own children. I think this is a sad evolution.

Right you are. I remember 2 years ago in the Bulgarian Museum for Military History they have some old Tanks lined up. Children were climbing all over those old warmachines and I took some pics. When I stopped their father looked at me an smiled at me in a very friendly manner. That's when I realized that I would have never even thought of taking such photos in Western-/Central Europe

mr_phillip
07-23-2007, 04:37
My favourite technique for grabbing candid shots is to wait until the subject is engrossed in doing something, deep in conversation or lost in thought: people get so oblivious to everything that's going on around them tha they don't even notice a shiny chrome Leica being shoved in their face. Examples:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1283/844677088_873723067f.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1193/843811281_c96d54e3d7.jpg

mickdoesclick
07-23-2007, 13:49
I'm happy you posted a 'candid' photo with a child in it. Children are a very interesting subject for a photographer. They do all kinds of funny things, show genuine emotions enlarged (crying, laughing,...), and tend to forget about the presence of a photographer very quickly. While adults mostly try to keep their cool and conform to the norm of their environment.agreed. Adults are always busy with a zillion things and keeping their 'coolness'. Dito in this case. Parents were all busy talking while the girl was in her own world, with her chocolat milk. Great moment to see.


Children have featured a lot in photography for most of its existence, but over the last 2 decennia, photographing someone else's children in public has become a big no no. People have even gotten in trouble for photographing their own children. I think this is a sad evolution.Ofcourse you have to be protective over your child, especially when they are this young. But they (the parents) have to see the difference between a street photo of a child doing something nice/funny/etc or some phedophilic (sp?) photo (since thats what I think they are afraid of, some other adult getting to close to their child)

colinh
07-23-2007, 14:27
Hofrench's shots are very good, especially the first one - but it's more like a portrait. What I had in mind is a bit more like the third one, and especially Mr Phillip's shots.


Anyway, I did it today! It was actually more like 60 shots in 2 hrs. And I used f/16 instead of f/22. :)


Now I'm too tired to develop and even less inclined to scan. I hope I got at least one good shot... :)

colin


PS. You have all read my first post haven't you? In particular, the quote. That's a challenge, you know.

colinh
07-25-2007, 16:47
Tadaaah!

I'm just scanning the first film (HP5+ in Rodinal 1+50):

This is the very first shot - I haven't even looked at any of the others yet :)

Just cropped to make it a bit squarish, and curves to darken it a bit.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=47865&d=1185407069

What do you think? Should I carry on scanning?

colinh

colinh
07-25-2007, 17:09
...and the second shot...

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=47866&d=1185408520

colin

PS. Now I'll scan the rest, and maybe post another one or two.

colinh
07-26-2007, 05:04
OK, after that underwhelming response, I've created my first gallery here...

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=6989


Comments anyone?


I had the M7 on auto, and so at f/16 on ISO 125 film the shutter speed wasn't quite fast enough (especially when I was swinging the camera around :) )

Also, when people are close up - you need a faster shutter to stop the motion.


colin

mac_wt
07-26-2007, 07:40
I think you figured out the problem yourself. I can be thrilling to make photos in public, but that in itself doesn't make a good photo. It still helps to have a good composition and a subject. All the blur caused by movement, the weird angles, the out of focus people close to the camera don't do the photos much good.
But that being said: I like Ladies (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=66969). The one person in the center, who is looking at you, is in focus. Also the compostition leads my eyes to her. Nice picture.

Wim

colinh
07-26-2007, 11:26
I think you figured out the problem yourself.

I suppose I'll have to try HP5+ next time.

I[t] can be thrilling to make photos in public, but that in itself doesn't make a good photo. It still helps to have a good composition and a subject.

True.

All the blur caused by movement, the weird angles, the out of focus people close to the camera don't do the photos much good.

Ouch. OK, but these pictures I still like. Just because something is (motion) blurred or taken from an odd angle, doesn't make it bad.

But that being said: I like Ladies (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=66969). The one person in the center, who is looking at you, is in focus. Also the compostition leads my eyes to her. Nice picture.

Thanks, I really like that one too.

This was my first outing of this sort. It showed me :

a) getting close can be done. Nobody attacked me :)
b) manual focus was good. Autofocus would have gone hunting and had no idea what I wanted in focus anyway
c) auto exposure was useful
d) need faster film
e) I need to react even quicker
f) 35 mm was a good length

colin

colinh
07-26-2007, 15:01
One funny thing was I'd lifted the camera to my eye and shot just as a couple walked past. The guy turned around and said "Sorry! We walked straight into that one."

My picture of the inane background was ruined :)

It's on the second roll which is just drying now...


colin

mac_wt
07-26-2007, 15:50
Ouch. OK, but these pictures I still like. Just because something is (motion) blurred or taken from an odd angle, doesn't make it bad.

Yes, true. My statement shouldn't have been so absolute. I often find it hard to explain why I like one picture and not the other (that I try to do it in a language that isn't native to me doesn't help it either).

reagan
07-26-2007, 16:05
colinh ~ I like all the shots in the gallery, but one of the favorites for me is the first one you posted here in this thread. The composition makes it for me, I guess. I like the blurry-hurry passers-by on each side "framing" the 3 people seated who seem to be watching, in each direction, all the blurry-hurry passers-by. The [apparent] eye contact of the two ladies in sunglasses seem to include the viewer as part of the shot.

You should be encouraged by these and I hope you'll do more. http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif