What do you carry on "the street"

Never a bag. Always one pocketable camera.

 

With settings done before heading out on one as I have to disable all the buttons on my Panasonic GM5, may just take the Olympus 9mm f8 bodycap fisheye in the other pocket (or vice versa with a pancake lens) with spare battery. Or the Ricoh Gr, with battery. Or the Olympus XA2, i'lI revert to my little iPhone SE with the Filmborn app if run out of film. I wish the GM5 has Fuji color but alas it doesnt, I choose pocketability over color for now, although the Ricoh GR colors are great and it is pocketable, so I dont see myself owning a Fuji like many (perhaps most) street photographers I see have.

I agonized over what to assign all those unmarked function buttons to until I found the perfect solution...nothing! I was always touching something by accident and wondering how I got there and how to get back. (1 or 2 "o's" in that second "to"?)

Sometimes, when I go out shooting in the neighborhood, I'll take one camera, one lens and one roll of film.

 

On the other hand, whenever I go to New Orleans' French Quarter, which is at least twice a week now, I take 3-4 cameras (35mm LOL) and 6-7 lenses. The Quarter is always changing, and there's always something new to photograph.

New to P-net here.

 

I used to carry a full load of multiple cameras lenses and accessories in a back pack, but no more.

 

I'm now trying one SLR camera and a 24-85 AF zoom that I keep ready at about 50mm nominal. I carry the camera on a heavy leather wrist strap. I'm trying to unclutter my mind so I can see better and not spend time with gear. If this gets results, I may switch to a rangefinder with fixed 40mm lens.

Long Story Short: I had back surgery in January 2018 and am still recovering. I'm in physical therapy but also walk every day and always take my camera along. I'm walking in half mile relays, a quarter mile down a path and a quarter mile back, then drive to another spot and repeat. I'm above two miles a day with that method and also do the exercises (I refer to them as homework) from PT.

 

I'm in a rural area and don't have the worries some of you have mentioned: no people bumping into me, no crazies following me around yelling, and no traveling by bus or train or whatever. I'm not walking in an isolated area but then again people are seldom close enough to speak to unless you're in a parking lot or happen to pass someone on a trail or something like that. Plus, the road isn't heavily traveled and there are plenty of wide spots to park off the road so that lessens the chance of meeting people while walking.

 

So I've said all that to say this: I can easily get away with taking only my camera, one lens, and a monopod. Since I stay close to my truck I'm never more than a quarter mile or so away from my equipment bag. Now that I'm walking further and better I'm thinking about carrying a little bit more with me, but for now I can change lenses between walks. I have a flashlight ring-holder that has turned out to be perfect for carrying the monopod hands-free.

 

All of that will change as I get my strength back and return to work,but right now it's working real good.

Sorry, late to this thread, but I've been overseas for several weeks.

 

I've been doing 'street photography' for decades and my kit hasn't changed much over the years: a Leica M—usually an M6 TTL or M7, but can't count out an M2 or M4—with 35mm ƒ/2 Summicron; aperture at ƒ/5·6, hyperfocal distance set to 7 metres, loaded Tri-X and maybe a yellow K2 (Wratten No. 8) filter. Depth of field at that setting extends from 3 metres to infinity! No fumbling to focus, up to the eye, frame and shoot, back down to the waist (and under the jacket)—too quick and unobstrusive for anyone to notice.

Long Story Short: I had back surgery in January 2018 and am still recovering. I'm in physical therapy but also walk every day and always take my camera along. I'm walking in half mile relays, a quarter mile down a path and a quarter mile back, then drive to another spot and repeat. I'm above two miles a day with that method and also do the exercises (I refer to them as homework) from PT.

 

I'm in a rural area and don't have the worries some of you have mentioned: no people bumping into me, no crazies following me around yelling, and no traveling by bus or train or whatever. I'm not walking in an isolated area but then again people are seldom close enough to speak to unless you're in a parking lot or happen to pass someone on a trail or something like that. Plus, the road isn't heavily traveled and there are plenty of wide spots to park off the road so that lessens the chance of meeting people while walking.

 

So I've said all that to say this: I can easily get away with taking only my camera, one lens, and a monopod. Since I stay close to my truck I'm never more than a quarter mile or so away from my equipment bag. Now that I'm walking further and better I'm thinking about carrying a little bit more with me, but for now I can change lenses between walks. I have a flashlight ring-holder that has turned out to be perfect for carrying the monopod hands-free.

 

All of that will change as I get my strength back and return to work,but right now it's working real good.

Ditch all the gear, go minimalist, one camera with one prime lens. I have serious back issues and simply cannot lug a lot of gear, a belly bag at the most.

I am asking, because when i see videos of well known photographers, they rarely carry much. Some of them DO, but a lot seem to just have a camera. Of course, if it is a video about THEM, they are being followed by a cameraman, maybe an assistant, and maybe an interviewer that might carry Gear/Extras for them.

However, that scenario will not apply to 99% of us

 

Do you guys carry a lot of "Stuff".?

When i am doing "Street Photography", i typically park my car, and walk for about 3-4 hours.

I have certainly done it with just the camera and some stuff in my pockets, but sooner or later that technique lets me down.

This is for 35mm.......

I use a backpack, not a shoulder bag.

I typically have :

Extra film.

Batteries.

Small bottle of cleaning fluid and some wipes.

A strap for my wrist in addition to the neck strap on the camera.

Hand meter.

Screw on filters

Cable release

Small tripod on the outside of the bag

Extra eye-cup

Some tape

A Rocket blaster

Pen and small note pad

Bottle of water...and i stuff my wallet, flip-phone and car keys in the bag as well.

I have a 50mm on my camera 90% of the time. But i also carry a 28 and an 85.

Like i say, i do not need this stuff All The Time, but it is very nice to have it when the need arises.

 

Most of you are probably shooting digital, with a zoom lens.?

Maybe you guys mostly worry about an extra battery.?

What do you have in your bag when you are out for the day.?

Thank You

 

One OM body with color film. One OM body with BW film (optional). 28, 50 and 135 mm lenses. Hood for 28 mm lens. One extra film. Varimagni finder for challenging angles. Nothing else. This is the 'maximum' load for me. It all fits in small shoulder bag.

 

But usually OM-1 with 50 mm lens, with strap and its own case + 28 mm lens in my pocket is all I take. Less load = more mileage.

Ditch all the gear, go minimalist, one camera with one prime lens. I have serious back issues and simply cannot lug a lot of gear, a belly bag at the most.

 

That's pretty much how it works out but not a prime lens. The wife and I have made some trips (within 50 miles of home) and each of us totes along a DSLR and a lens. Keep an equipment bag in the car. We have lots of fun together and it's interesting to see how, sometimes, we take pics of the same stuff from the same angle and sometimes our pics are waaaay different.

I carry my Sony A6000 with the kit 18-50mm lens. Set to Shutter priority at about 1/400 sec - Continuous, with ISO set at Auto. I use the LED display/view finder a lot, because I can tilt it, so that it doesn't appear that I am shooting photos. Crops are important, in post processing. Sometimes I didn't realize how good a image might have been when I shot it. It comes to life when I begin to do my crops. Desaturating to Black and White saves many a bad photo, that otherwise would not make it as a color image.

Desaturating to Black and White saves many a bad photo

I haven’t found this to be the case. Converting to black and white often improves a good image but rarely saves a bad one. What I do find is that many photographers mistakenly think this. I see many black and white photos (don’t know your work, so I’m not talking about your work here) that seem to have been converted to black and white to compensate for an otherwise insignificant image, thinking black and what gives off more of a street or art or nostalgic vibe. It’s fairly easy to see right through that. If a shot is truly bad, attempts to “fix” it are very often made in vain and transparent to many a savvy viewer. I hope what you’re talking about are good shots that offer more potential when converted to black and white.

I haven’t found this to be the case. Converting to black and white often improves a good image but rarely saves a bad one. What I do find is that many photographers mistakenly think this. I see many black and white photos (don’t know your work, so I’m not talking about your work here) that seem to have been converted to black and white to compensate for an otherwise insignificant image, thinking black and what gives off more of a street or art or nostalgic vibe. It’s fairly easy to see right through that. If a shot is truly bad, attempts to “fix” it are very often made in vain and transparent to many a savvy viewer. I hope what you’re talking about are good shots that offer more potential when converted to black and white.

I certainly understand the point(s) you are making.....and basically agree with you.

I am just a hack, Street Photographer, but my opinion is, for what i "do", it is harder to shoot in color so i rarely do. It is also much more expensive and time consuming, but for me the main reason i shoot Black and White is because the frames "Look Better". I have a much harder time getting as many good frames with Color as i do with Black and White.

For "snap-shots".....birthday parties, family gatherings, Disneyland, etc etc....i always shoot color.

JMHO, but that has consistently been My Experience over the years.

There are DEFINITELY shots that Look Better in color, and i usually carry a small Point and Shoot that is stuffed with color film, but i shoot the Black and White WAY More often.

Again, just the experience of one, 60 year old, hack, street photog. :)

Denny, just to be clear, I was responding to a post and talking about CONVERTING images to black and white, which I think of as a different animal from shooting in black and white. Obviously, some of the same considerations apply, but many do not. When shooting black and white film, one makes the choice (as you do) in advance, based on many factors. Converting to black and white and, particularly, doing it to turn bad photos into good ones, is quite a bit different.

Right....i understood where you were coming from. I was just commenting, relative to your posts, that for what i do, i often see Color as being "Harder" to do.

For general street photography, from my perspective, it is "easier" to get more frames that are "good" by using the abstract quality of B&W. ;)

i often see Color as being "Harder" to do.

Got it.

 

I like the challenges working in color provides and seem to divide pretty evenly between color and black and white in what I wind up producing.

 

I shoot digitally, so I shoot in color even when I know in advance a shot will ultimatley be black and white, so I have a range of options in the conversion.

There are certain common principles that determine whether a shot is viable and those principles I think are the same whether the shot is in BW or in color, such as camera shake, out of focus areas where not desired, and of course bad composition. Then there are more subtle factors like color harmony (or the lack of) that would determine whether the photo looks good in color or is better off as BW, but those factors (I think) don't have enough prowess to make a shot bad, which was worthwhile to begin with. So, I cannot agree with the statement that a bad shot can be salvaged by converting to BW. I wholeheartedly admit the challenges of shooting color pictures in certain scenarios though, primarily because color is an extra dimension to be factored into the shot that may not always pan out in an otherwise great composition. It takes training and experience to turn the extra dimension of color into something to play with rather than be constrained.

I usually carry one camera, a compact digital zoom with fast aperture, with an extra battery in my pocket. I also use my iPhone at times. If I need tripod, I rest the camera on something, or my wife's head, or whoever's head is available at the moment. I almost never use filters, except the UV filter that is permanently attached to my lens.

 

In the past, when shooting film, I used to carry a shoulder bag containing film rolls and extra lenses.

primarily because color is an extra dimension to be factored into the shot

A bit OT, but I’d never thought of colour photography like that. To me, colour is the norm and B&W is a reduced form.

A bit OT, but I’d never thought of colour photography like that. To me, colour is the norm and B&W is a reduced form.

 

The way I think of a shot is through composition of forms and structures and then see how colors compliment (or distract) that composition. Thats why it acts like a new dimension to me. There may be other ways to approach this, but this is how I think when shooting. I helps me to isolate forms and structures from the associated colors, so that I can decide whether to shoot the scene and convert it later to BW, despite seeing distracting colors.

I think (or feel or intuit) mostly about content, story-telling, and expression when shooting. Composition, forms, shapes, and color usually support those things, though sometimes the more abstract things like shape and color tell the story or at least a story.

 

For me, color and black and white aren’t in an additive/subtractive relationship. They’re two available photographic mediums/choices.

"A bit OT, but I’d never thought of colour photography like that. To me, colour is the norm and B&W is a reduced form "Supriyo.

 

Different palates for the creative to stroke their metaphysical brush on.

 

Many different palates the artist uses...it is the use that matters.

Time for a photo....

We all find our own level with photography. There frequently is NO Right or Wrong.

But my observation, For Me, has been

1. We do not SEE in B&W, but we also do not see at 1/250 of a second. The camera presents its image, to us, differently than our eyes do in "real time".

2. In reality, B&W is an abstract art form. But there is something Clarifying/Simplifying (or there can be) about removing color from a photograph.

3. The right tool for the job. I have seen AWESOME Street Photos, in color, and the first thing i think (usually) is that it would have just been a "Mediocre" frame if i had shot it, because i shoot B&W.........:)

There is lots to consider with photography.

"We do not SEE in B&W" Denny.

 

The seeing is in the art not the process.,

For me, color and black and white aren’t in an additive/subtractive relationship. They’re two available photographic mediums/choices.

Fair enough Fred and I agree wholeheartedly with your second statement but I’m also happy to view B&W and colour as being related to one another and the structure of that relationship (additive/subtractive) is down to the photographer/viewer.