SDN Photography Talk Thread

[The Grim Squeaker]

I've mostly spent my time scanning - I wrapped up the first 14 years' worth at the end of the year, so now I finally get a crack at the more recent and therefore more likely material. I did get out three rolls between Thanksgiving and the new year and just got the last two of those developed today; I'm pretty happy with some of the results. Shooting indoors with ambient light is a bit of a bear, but it feels good to open up that aperture.

Ambient light shooting is the way to go . (I love the flexibility of zooms, but for that particular field, a prime is pretty much essential to really get cracking).

I'm playing around with meaningless self-promotion as well, part of which being that weblog I've linked in my sig. Even if nothing comes of it, I'm awfully fond of that header image.

Nice looking blog.
(Dammit, I need to get around to setting up my own website. Sometime. When I have the time. After I have time to get back to photography. Next decade? ).

[Simplicius]

Polaroid's now officially pretentious:

Lady Gaga has an unexpected new collaborator: the instant-photography brand Polaroid, it was announced at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, where the feisty pop sensation is scheduled to appear in person Thursday. Her newly developed title: creative director and inventor of specialty products.

"The Haus of Gaga has been developing prototypes in the vein of fashion /technology /photography innovation — blending the iconic history of Polaroid and instant film with the digital era – and we are excited to collaborate on these ventures with the Polaroid brand," Gaga, 23, said in a statement.

"Lifestyle, music, art, fashion: I am so excited to extend myself behind the scenes as a designer and to — as my father puts it — finally, have a real job."

Financial terms were not disclosed.

Founded in 1937, Polaroid hit its peak in the '60s with film that the consumer didn't have to send out to be developed, though modern digital cameras rendered the process obsolete. Last May, private equity firms took the company out of bankruptcy and plan to launch new products using the Polaroid name.

The campaign with Gaga, who is said to be a fan of Polaroid, will apparently see her star in the company's marketing campaigns as well as on social networking channels. In turn, Polaroid is expected to be a presence at her concerts.

Without elaborating, a spokeswoman for the company tells the Wall Street Journal that Gaga will help develop retail "imaging products" that span both the company's instant classic film category and its digital-imaging line.

Of course, one of the guys backing the effort to reinvent instant integral film is Florian Kaps of Lomographic fame, soooooo...

[RedImperator]

So, question for you guys, especially architecture photographers: how often do you get hassled for taking pictures of buildings? I was in New York on Saturday and I managed to find an angle where I could get the entire Lever House (from the plaza of the Seagram Buildings across Park Avenue; I was shooing one Modernist icon practically from the front door of another). I had just finished shooting when some fat goon in plainclothes (I suspect he was a security guard and not a cop; he looked too sloppy to be a cop, and frankly, big-city cops don't usually come off like belligerant jumped-up pricks to me) came over and started asking me questions--"What are you doing?" "Where are you from?", that kind of thing. I answered honestly and politely and he seemed to accept it--it probably helped a lot that I was 1) dressed in a jacket and tie (I'd just come from a bar mitzvah ceremony), and 2) white, with an American accent--but the whole incident...I dunno, it's hanging around in my head, flicking at something. I'm a lot more pissed off about it than I feel like the incident warrants.

[The Grim Squeaker]

So, question for you guys, especially architecture photographers: how often do you get hassled for taking pictures of buildings?

Never had any real problems withit, even in the center of Tel Aviv outside of lots of private rich people's residences (it's a big Bauhause style area).
Only problem's I have had with it that I can recall is outside the prime minister's offices (where the guard asked to see the pictures, saw that I was focusing on artsy style pictures of the fence and such then left me alone. It's a high security area for obvious reasons, so it's understandable). And there are some areas that are very clearly marked as "no photography allowed" zones (The Knesset/Parliament for example). I solved that by taking pictures from the nearby rose garden, where the injunction doesn't apply .

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Quick question: Has anyone played with the Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm f/1.4? I am wondering about getting it for my GF-1.

EDIT: Comments on this photo I took on the GF-1? Taken with the 20mm f/1.7 pancake.

[phongn]

Quick question: Has anyone played with the Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm f/1.4? I am wondering about getting it for my GF-1.

No, but I hear it's a very fine lens. It's a bit long for an M43 camera, though?

EDIT: Comments on this photo I took on the GF-1? Taken with the 20mm f/1.7 pancake.

http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb2/ ... 000887.jpg

Well, the background is kind of busy (and the left and right segments have such wildly different exposure that it's a bit distracting). Focus more on the flower?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

No, but I hear it's a very fine lens. It's a bit long for an M43 camera, though?

It doesn't seem much bigger than the 14-45mm kit lens though.

Well, the background is kind of busy (and the left and right segments have such wildly different exposure that it's a bit distracting). Focus more on the flower?

I have another shot of the same flower:



Admittedly, maybe I should have moved a bit closer to get a better shot of the flower, this being a prime lens which I'm still learning to fiddle with.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Second version is better. First is badly overexposed, the second is good.
Problem is, it's not very interesting - you have a lot of green and a flower taking up a seventh of your frame in the drop dead boring middle.

The Zeiss lens are supposed to be drop dead spectacular, you do know that they don't have automatic focus though, right? (and only some of the newer ones support exposure readings if you need that as well ).

[phongn]

No, but I hear it's a very fine lens. It's a bit long for an M43 camera, though?

It doesn't seem much bigger than the 14-45mm kit lens though.

Wait - do they even have an M43 mount? If you have to use an adapter you'll probably lose autoexposure and have to do stop-down metering.

IGNORE: EDIT: Checking the size, the 14-42 kit is 62x43.5mm and 150g; the Zeiss 501/4 is 66x69mm and 350g. That's not insubstantial.

I have another shot of the same flower:

Admittedly, maybe I should have moved a bit closer to get a better shot of the flower, this being a prime lens which I'm still learning to fiddle with.

As GS mentions, the exposure is much better but issue of subject-background remains.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Wait - do they even have an M43 mount? If you have to use an adapter you'll probably lose autoexposure and have to do stop-down metering.

There's a M43 mount yes, for the Contax/Yashita and Leica M mount. In general, this is a manual lens however. So I guess everything has to be done with some tweaking.

As GS mentions, the exposure is much better but issue of subject-background remains.

Hmm.. I guess I should really have moved closer to get better focus.

[phongn]

There's a M43 mount yes, for the Contax/Yashita and Leica M mount. In general, this is a manual lens however. So I guess everything has to be done with some tweaking.

Oh, the rangefinder lens; I thought you were referring to the SLR one! It should be a fine little lens; you might also want to look at the Voigtlander lenses, too (the 40/1.4 is suppose to be quite fine).

[Simplicius]

So, question for you guys, especially architecture photographers: how often do you get hassled for taking pictures of buildings?

It's never happened to me personally - not surprising for all the time I've spent in rural areas, but I wasn't hassled shooting trains in DC either.

Unjust harassment of photographers is enough of an issue to get media coverage (even more in the UK, where there's a petition launched), and there's a growing backlash against it in the US. There's obviously a fine line between appearing like a smug know-it-all and confidently asserting your rights, but because often times officers and security guards don't have a solid grasp of the rights and laws in play when they stop a photographer, or they just don't care, it's a good idea to be prepared to do so. There's a guideline prepared by a US attorney here, and other online info elsewhere.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

There's a M43 mount yes, for the Contax/Yashita and Leica M mount. In general, this is a manual lens however. So I guess everything has to be done with some tweaking.

Oh, the rangefinder lens; I thought you were referring to the SLR one! It should be a fine little lens; you might also want to look at the Voigtlander lenses, too (the 40/1.4 is suppose to be quite fine).

I noticed Voigtlander lenses are sometimes either single or multi-coated. What does it mean?

I'm kind of shopping around for a rangefinder lens I guess, just to take advantage of the relative small size of the GF-1.

[phongn]

I noticed Voigtlander lenses are sometimes either single or multi-coated. What does it mean?

Supposedly the SC version is better for B&W film. I'd just get the MC version.

I'm kind of shopping around for a rangefinder lens I guess, just to take advantage of the relative small size of the GF-1.

There may be some issues with sharpness away from the center but it's unlikely to be a big deal.

[aerius]

So, question for you guys, especially architecture photographers: how often do you get hassled for taking pictures of buildings?

That's happened to me once, but I wasn't really supposed to be inside that particular building in the first place so I couldn't really complain. I told the security guy I was taking some photos for an art project and he requested that I not take too long or he'd have to come back and kick me out of there. Yes sir, thank you sir, I'll be done in a few minutes, waved to him on the way out, no problem. I've never had any problems taking pictures of buildings from the outside, but I can sorta understand that being a problem in NYC after 9/11 and all the security concerns.

Quick question: Has anyone played with the Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm f/1.4? I am wondering about getting it for my GF-1.

Haven't seen one in my life, but it's said to be great. Just keep in mind that it'll be a 100mm equivalent when mounted on a micro 4/3 camera so it's gonna be more a short telephoto lens. If this is what you want then great, otherwise, keep looking.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Haven't seen one in my life, but it's said to be great. Just keep in mind that it'll be a 100mm equivalent when mounted on a micro 4/3 camera so it's gonna be more a short telephoto lens. If this is what you want then great, otherwise, keep looking.

Does this apply to rangefinder lens? Of which rangefinders incidentally don't have a Single Reflex Mirror too.

[phongn]

Haven't seen one in my life, but it's said to be great. Just keep in mind that it'll be a 100mm equivalent when mounted on a micro 4/3 camera so it's gonna be more a short telephoto lens. If this is what you want then great, otherwise, keep looking.

Does this apply to rangefinder lens?

It applies to all lenses. Smaller sensors mean reduced field of view for a given focal length.

[aerius]

For a quick overview, see crop factor. The short version is you take the diagonal of the frame size and compare it to that of a 35mm film camera, then divide or multiply the focal length of the lens to get the equivalent focal length.

The micro 4/3 sensor is conveniently 1/4 the area of a 35mm camera film frame, with a diagonal that's half as big. So when you stick a lens for a 35mm film camera on a MFT camera, you multiply the focal length by 2.

[The Grim Squeaker]

So....Teach me about street photography .

From my reading, there are two approaches, one is a wide angle lens shot at a hyperfocal focus distance, which works best with rangefinders, the other recomends a good telephoto and being more surreptitious. (I lean towards the latter to be honest, shooting from the hip doesn't work that well for me, the camera clicks too obviously).

There's also the general notion of "Get a 50mm lens or 70-200" (I'm getting a 50mm 1.5 EF next week , and a 70-200 is way out of my price range, and seems stupidly conspicious and heavy to me).
What focus modes do you usually use? AI servo? AI drive? preset manual focus distance (/hyperfocal?).

Do you try not to be noticed by people, talk to people you're taking pictures of (before or after the shot?), pretend not to be taking pictures of the people?
Do you work alone more, or with an innocent looking accomplice? (I find photographing with a girl photographer makes people less aggressive, but it's all but impossible not to get noticed).
Help me further my research, and who knows, one day I might take embarrassing photos of you picking your nose/pants/other orifice.

[phongn]

From my reading, there are two approaches, one is a wide angle lens shot at a hyperfocal focus distance, which works best with rangefinders, the other recomends a good telephoto and being more surreptitious. (I lean towards the latter to be honest, shooting from the hip doesn't work that well for me, the camera clicks too obviously).

Don't do approach two. Didn't we tell you this earlier?

There's also the general notion of "Get a 50mm lens or 70-200" (I'm getting a 50mm 1.5 EF next week , and a 70-200 is way out of my price range, and seems stupidly conspicious and heavy to me). What focus modes do you usually use? AI servo? AI drive? preset manual focus distance (/hyperfocal?).

I bring a film rangefinder along (40mm/1.7) and either set to hyperfocal distance with higher depth-of-field (if possible) or on my AF SLRs use center-point focusing.

Do you try not to be noticed by people, talk to people you're taking pictures of (before or after the shot?), pretend not to be taking pictures of the people? Do you work alone more, or with an innocent looking accomplice? (I find photographing with a girl photographer makes people less aggressive, but it's all but impossible not to get noticed). Help me further my research, and who knows, one day I might take embarrassing photos of you picking your nose/pants/other orifice.

Bringing along a friend (especially a girl) can help. The key is to simply become part of a crowd. Does anyone notice when some tourist whips out a little P&S digital camera? No. Does anyone notice when some Asian tourist is snapping eight million shots with his SLR? No. Do people notice when some guy is acting highly self-conscious with a camera? Yes.

[Simplicius]

So....Teach me about street photography .

Take camera. Go outside. Take pictures of people. If you don't like the results, figure out why. If you can't figure out why, find a style of photography that suits you better.

Really, that's how it is - for street or any other style. Unless you are absolutely devoid of inspiration or creativity and you are perfectly happy aping what other people have done or what is currently popular with the audience, don't say "Tell me hoooowwwww..." Go make some pictures, then start evaluating. There is no royal road to photography.

You shouldn't even have to go to us to ask - you have posted photos on this very board that could be fairly called 'street.' Revisit them. Recall your approach when you took them, try to remember what inspired you about them, or - more importantly - what frame of mind you were in that left you open to that inspiration. Then go out and try to recreate it.

Tell me hoooowwwww

The correct answer is whatever works for you. Full stop. Start with whatever equipment and knowledge you have, use it, and build on it. Whatever gives you the results you want is the correct approach.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Do you try not to be noticed by people, talk to people you're taking pictures of (before or after the shot?), pretend not to be taking pictures of the people? Do you work alone more, or with an innocent looking accomplice? (I find photographing with a girl photographer makes people less aggressive, but it's all but impossible not to get noticed). Help me further my research, and who knows, one day I might take embarrassing photos of you picking your nose/pants/other orifice.

Bringing along a friend (especially a girl) can help. The key is to simply become part of a crowd. Does anyone notice when some tourist whips out a little P&S digital camera? No. Does anyone notice when some Asian tourist is snapping eight million shots with his SLR? No. Do people notice when some guy is acting highly self-conscious with a camera? Yes.

I don't act very highly self conscious . (And there's a reason i'm asking about something to do with social skills/camouflage).
Thing is, i'm just curious as to which approach various people take, being unobtrusive or being friendly. (Obviously it comes down greatly to the person in question and local culture). Research! Anecdotes! Improved strategy formulation .

So....Teach me about street photography .

Take camera. Go outside. Take pictures of people. If you don't like the results, figure out why. If you can't figure out why, find a style of photography that suits you better.

I'm more of the practice makes perfect school of thought .

Really, that's how it is - for street or any other style. Unless you are absolutely devoid of inspiration or creativity and you are perfectly happy aping what other people have done or what is currently popular with the audience, don't say "Tell me hoooowwwww..." Go make some pictures, then start evaluating. There is no royal road to photography.

I like to gather as much research, ideas, inspirations and information about anything as I can to help me supplement my own efforts or to give me new ideas, bases or insights.

You shouldn't even have to go to us to ask - you have posted photos on this very board that could be fairly called 'street.'

Quite a lot even . But there's so much to learn, and I haven't done it in quite a while. There's always someone better or with a good suggestion, and sometimes it's not even me .

Revisit them. Recall your approach when you took them, try to remember what inspired you about them, or - more importantly - what frame of mind you were in that left you open to that inspiration. Then go out and try to recreate it.

"Hey, that's interesting "click"". "She's interesting "Click"". "Cool, they haven't seen me yet, and that looks weird "click, then quickly turn around"". .

Tell me hoooowwwww

The correct answer is whatever works for you. Full stop. Start with whatever equipment and knowledge you have, use it, and build on it. Whatever gives you the results you want is the correct approach.

Dude, you just quoted yourself .

[J]

So....Teach me about street photography .

Ok, that's easy, read everything you can about Jacques Henri Lartigue, and you too, can take pictures of people sitting on a toilet with their pants down.

[Bounty]

There is a very nice documentary about Henri Cartier-Bresson where he says that they key ability required to take a perfect street photograph is to press your finger down on the shutter button when you see something you like.

[Simplicius]

There is a very nice documentary about Henri Cartier-Bresson where he says that they key ability required to take a perfect street photograph is to press your finger down on the shutter button when you see something you like.

He could not have said it any better. I've seen 'street' photos taken in black and white and in color; with wide, medium, and long lenses; with all types of camera and in all formats; from far(ish) away, intermingling distance, and shoving a camera & flash right in someone's face and blasting away.

Street photography is a question of where, not how.

"Hey, that's interesting "click"". "She's interesting "Click"". "Cool, they haven't seen me yet, and that looks weird "click, then quickly turn around"". .

There you go. You're equipped with the fundamentals. All the rest is honing your eye and reflexes, and to do that you go out and shoot.