OT: An article of a street shooter - Michael Dubiner

[m_.]

Titled "Study of Men", this small aritcle describes the technique

this street shooter uses, with a few images he brought to us from

Cuba. To greatly disappoint you, he uses a Kodak big-a** 14n as his

tool, instead of a Leica. But who cares?

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/member/ProPass/magazine/du

biner.jhtml?prioritycode=00000000516845#

[m_.]

Forgot to mention that he does his own website at: http://www.duby.com/ which is much mature looking than the Kodak one above.

[andrew_lee2]

(Tip: delete the space between "du" and "biner") <p>

 

Nice fotos, but nothing that sets the world on fire. A handful of folks here consistently put out more compelling photography. And, just as a pointless aside, the job could have been done just as well with an el cheap-o Yashica Electro as that $5,000 behemoth.

[m_.]

Andrew:

 

Well thought comments. Without seeing the actual prints, I cannot speak on the quality of his stuff compared to some stuff on PN here.

[jim_a]

Or you could take 5 minutes to learn how to make a link<P>

 

<a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/member/ProPass/magazine/dubiner.jhtml?prioritycode=00000000516845#"><b>Michael Dubiner:

A Surreptitious Study of Man</b></a>

[paul a. roid]

typically blown digi highlights

[akochanowski]

I don't usually rip on other photogs, but this stuff is nothing special at all. Andrew Lee, Ray, M. Schulz, Travis, and Beau, just off the top of my head are much, much better.

[capocheny]

"typically blown digi highlights"

 

But, Markus, wouldn't the blown-out highlights also appear in the same images shot with

film under identical conditions?

 

I realize digital has a few stops less lattitude but I'm not so sure they would hold under a

wide luminance range either. Admittedly, this is akin to a question I posed whereby I was

asking what folks did under really contrasty situations when they're out street shooting.

Typically, you either expose for the highlights and get black, black shadows or, you

expose for the shadows and the highlights get blown.

 

And, of course, I got the traditional, "make the black shadow areas a part of your

composition" or "expose for more of the shadow areas and minimize the highlight areas."

 

So, as much as I agree with your statement.... I have to say that this isn't an issue limited

to digital. But, I do appreciate your comment as it applies to the inability of digital cameras

to handle the contrast range as well as in film. I've heard that the ability of digital to

handle contrasty situations is similar to shooting with slide films. Has this been your

experience?

 

m.

 

Thanks for posting the link... I must agree with one of the posters above (Andrew) who

said that there have been better and more compelling images shot & shown here on this

forum. And, I think that most photographers have to be avid "people watchers" in order to

do what they do. Otherwise, capturing the "decisive moment" would be a challenge.

 

Anyway... good shooting to all!

 

Cheers

[paul a. roid]

HC - I'd think I would photograph with negative film.<br>

also I think it wouldn't be *that* bad with slide film.<p>

 

I have been shooting with a 10D for a year, <br>

didn't bother much with jpg and used RAW for 95%<br>

of my shots. If you expose properly and have a good<br>

post processing workflow you can get very good results.<p>

This is especially true for high contrast situations - where <br>

it is indeed *kind of* similar to slide film.<p>

Also the b/w conversions on the Kodak presentation look <br>

pretty bad - it is possible to get decent results if one puts <br>

some work in it. Not the best way to advertise a 4k camera...

[tim_gruber]

An interesting article and without a doubt some nice PR work by Kodak. Calling the 14n a street photographer's dream machine is a bit of a stretch. I'm not even sure if a studio photographer would call it his/her dream camera and that's where it seems more pratical. But the camera is only a tool after all and if it's working for him great.

[andrew n.bra hrefhttp]

<i><<a href="http://4020.net/">4020.net</a>></i><p>

 

FWIW his "Street Photography" page starts at:

<a href="http://www.duby.com/People.html">

http://www.duby.com/People.html</a><p>

 

I for one don't feel very threatened :?)

[capocheny]

Markus,

 

Thanks for the input... I "normally" shoot with XP2 Super but have shot with a digital on

occassion. They are definitely quite different in their contrast handling capabilities. There

are situations where I've found the digital to be quite acceptable (and herein lies the

parameters) and wish I would have shot neg. However, the converse has also been true.

 

Overall, I am happy with my exposures but have always wondered how others handled the

contrast situations. I don't know that there's really any expedient way to accommodate

those situations where the difference in f-stops between sun and shade is 2,3, or more

stops. It sounds as if it's just the nature of the beast and there's limited influence by what

you can do (even via P/S.) If you have any suggestions... I'm always open and willing to

learning something new. :>) Personally, I just find these situations a challenge.

 

It sounds like you're quite happy using digital... do you do a lot of streetshooting?

 

LOL... I agree with you. The Kodak Presentation doesn't inspire me to run out and buy their

camera!

 

Cheers

[paul a. roid]

<i>It sounds like you're quite happy using digital... do you do a lot of streetshooting?</i

><p>

I do quite a bit street shooting, but I use film ;) <br>

I sold the digital a couple of months back.

[ian_greant]

Not what I would call extraordinary photos.. but it is extraordinary someone would use one of those kodak slugs out in the street. No wonder Kodak is bragging about him ;)

[Landrum Kelly]

The guy does decent shooting. Nothing overwhelming.

 

Re: The Camera

 

When I first got my 14n, everything that can go wrong went wrong. The startup cycle was frustrating, and one spent a lot of time turning off the screen which kept lighting up with irrelevant messages. In low light it caused a painterly effect because the noise reduction function could not be turned off or down down very much. I left the battery on on one trip, and it was dead when I got to my daughter's house to take pictures of her kids because the display had turned on, stayed on, and drawn the battery down. The camera was hot to the touch. I was ready to dump it.

 

What I would say now, six months later?

 

The Kodak 14n weighs 907 g without battery. The Canon 1Ds weighs 1265 g without battery. The upper part of the body is based on the N80, I am told. It's fatter at the bottom. The Kodak frustrated me with its earlier firmware versions, as noted above. With the latest firmware upgrades (v. 5.1.5, available as a free download as of August, 2004), it has turned into a good (not great) camera, although still not something that I would recommend to someone who primarily does street or sports photography. It has a slow startup time, but, once on, it saves raw files very fast. Mine cost $2700 in March when the newer Kodaks started coming out, but I see that the price is back up in the $4,000+ range. By the way, I shoot Nikon, Canon, and Olympus and have no brand loyalty whatsoever, but this is now the camera it should have been when it was first released.

 

Was it worth the trouble and frayed nerves? I'm not sure. I like the 36 x 24 sensor, since I can use my old lenses. It is still not what I would call an action camera, but it is better than it was. As Phil Askey did at dpreview.com, a professional linebacker might have trouble with space for the fingers, but I never have, and I am 6 feet, 225 lbs. Questions have come up about its durability. I hydroplaned into the back of a stationary flatbed trailer on June 21 on I-26 in SC. I went to the ER. The camera slammed into the unpadded door on the glove compartment (60 to 0 mph in 1/40 sec). (I almost never leave any camera on the seat without any protection, but that one time I did.)

 

It works fine. I am still struggling to move around normally, and I was wearing a seat belt.

 

I don't work for Kodak and don't care who buys it or not, but, if high res is your thing and you don't have $6k for the 1Ds, it isn't half bad. I wouldn't think about taking it to Cuba, though. I've spent 32 days there on two separate trips (1995 and 1997), and film is the only thing I would trust on a trip like that.

 

With an 80-200mm Nikkor, I have gotten some very good shots handheld with the 14n in good light. The problems at low light have been ameliorated, but I am told that it still has some noise on long exposures.

 

Given all the new stuff out there, I'm still not sure that I can solidly endorse the camera, even to digital addicts, but it is a lot better than it was.

 

Right now I'm looking for a good point and shoot. . . .

[Landrum Kelly]

CORRECTION: Dubiner shoots the Kodak Pro SLR, not the Kodak DCS Pro 14n, although both are 14 mp cameras. The former is very expensive, but they tell me that it is a better camera.

 

My own resolution test of the 14n is at photo_id=2240433, when I was still excited about the 14n, but had not suffered from some of its defects with earlier firmware. As I said above, most of the problems have been corrected.