A conversation

[JNB_Rare]

I typically use a camera of vintage 1930s to 1950s for street shooting.  I meter with a Minolta IVf.  Since it's not a spot meter (it's incident light) I generally have to rely on experience to fine tune the final exposure.

Kent in SD

Ah, well I've never really been a street shooter. In the film days I used a Gossen Lunasix with the tele-spot attachment (7.5 degrees narrowest if I remember correctly). Nowadays I see the histogram in my electronic viewfinder!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I like the rich tonality...

+1

[RSL]

I typically use a camera of vintage 1930s to 1950s for street shooting.  I meter with a Minolta IVf.  Since it's not a spot meter (it's incident light) I generally have to rely on experience to fine tune the final exposure.


Kent in SD

Hi Kent, If you'll check B&H or Adorama you'll find that there's stuff out there much better suited to street shooting than cameras from the thirties to fifties. Even the Leica M series that came along in the late fifties will beat the pants off the earlier stuff. But digital blows everything else away for street.

[Two23]

Hi Kent, If you'll check B&H or Adorama you'll find that there's stuff out there much better suited to street shooting than cameras from the thirties to fifties. Even the Leica M series that came along in the late fifties will beat the pants off the earlier stuff. But digital blows everything else away for street.

"Blows away" in what regard?  I own and use cameras made from 1880s to 2017, and lenses made from 1845 to 2016.  Each gives images their own look, and each has their strengths.  Digital cameras are faster to use, but the images from them tend to all look the same.  It's also a dramatically different experience using equipment from different ages.  Today I bought a Nikon D500, mostly to photo ice races/rodeos/air shows/wildlife.  I also recently bought a box of glass plates (dry plates), which is 1880s technology.  Each has their place.   The great Brassai used a Voigtlander Bergheil 6.5x9 with dry plates for his ground breaking night street photos in 1930.  (I have a Bergheil too.)


Kent in SD

Below shots: 

(1) Chicago busker, Leica IIIc & Lecia 5cm f3.5, FP4+
(2)  Seattle Pike Place, Nikon D5300 & Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS
                   

[RSL]

By golly, there's a guy with a sax. There's even a street in the picture. Must be street photography. Then, there's a picture of a street at night. Must be street photography.

[Two23]

By golly, there's a guy with a sax. There's even a street in the picture. Must be street photography. Then, there's a picture of a street at night. Must be street photography.

Exactly.


Kent in SD

[Rob C]

"Blows away" in what regard?  I own and use cameras made from 1880s to 2017, and lenses made from 1845 to 2016.  Each gives images their own look, and each has their strengths.  Digital cameras are faster to use, but the images from them tend to all look the same.  It's also a dramatically different experience using equipment from different ages.  Today I bought a Nikon D500, mostly to photo ice races/rodeos/air shows/wildlife.  I also recently bought a box of glass plates (dry plates), which is 1880s technology.  Each has their place.   The great Brassai used a Voigtlander Bergheil 6.5x9 with dry plates for his ground breaking night street photos in 1930.  (I have a Bergheil too.)


Kent in SD

                   

I have a Brassaï tome, which next to the Leibovitz 1990 -2005 one is the least looked at monograph on my shelf. I used to think he had something to express, but in my view, turned out both he and I were mistaken.

Digital all the same? Really? The same camera can give you as many looks as you are able to design in post. In that respect, it is far more flexible than any film camera producing negs for wet prints ever was. And don't forget, the original remark was made in the context of a camera's use for street photography.

;-)

[RSL]

The great Brassai used a Voigtlander Bergheil 6.5x9 with dry plates for his ground breaking night street photos in 1930.  (I have a Bergheil too.)

The Great Brassaï also had to pose his subjects in the Paris whore houses because his equipment was so slow.

[Two23]

The Great Brassaï also had to pose his subjects in the Paris whore houses because his equipment was so slow.

The guy was a genius.  He's really the first night shooter and overcame a lot of difficulties to achieve success.  The emulsion on the plates he was shooting was about ISO 5, and the Heliar lens was usually stopped down to f11.  I have about 10,000ws of flash power and would find it hard to reach that exposure.  (I usually shoot ISO 800 & f5.6).  He was still using magnesium strips for light--someone (Picasso?) nicknamed him the "terrorist" for his bright flashes.  Many of his shots are classics.  Keep in mind the time he lived in:  Matthew Brady's photographers were known to pose bodies they found on battlefields for shots they took.  He later began using a Leica M3 and came to America in the 1950s.  I have that book too, but it just doesn't have the same magic.  It doesn't seem very inspired to me.  At any rate, my point is you can make great photos with any gear if you take the time.


Kent in SD

[RSL]

Yeah. I've been making photos since 1943. Needless to say I've used a wide range of equipment. Wouldn't trade my D800, D750, or Pen-F for anything that uses film.

[Rob C]

The guy was a genius.  He's really the first night shooter and overcame a lot of difficulties to achieve success.  The emulsion on the plates he was shooting was about ISO 5, and the Heliar lens was usually stopped down to f11.  I have about 10,000ws of flash power and would find it hard to reach that exposure.  (I usually shoot ISO 800 & f5.6).  He was still using magnesium strips for light--someone (Picasso?) nicknamed him the "terrorist" for his bright flashes.  Many of his shots are classics.  Keep in mind the time he lived in:  Matthew Brady's photographers were known to pose bodies they found on battlefields for shots they took.  He later began using a Leica M3 and came to America in the 1950s.  I have that book too, but it just doesn't have the same magic.  It doesn't seem very inspired to me.  At any rate, my point is you can make great photos with any gear if you take the time.


Kent in SD

That is half true. Some people can achieve that, many can not, with any gear.

Because somebody overcomes a technical difficulty in the business of image making does not make them a genius. You pretty much say the same thing when you refer to his Leica work. It seems to me that you have conflated overcoming one problem with achieving greatness in another dimension: a classical confusion of technique with artistic merit.

Rob