Illegal Rave Project

[eric_arnold]

<p>some impressive work but not 'specially "rave-y" except for the first pic in the grfan set.</p>

<p>the OP's current body is good enough to take the kind of shots she needs. she might have an easier go with a faster lens, but documentary tends to be about being there.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[john_macpherson]

<p>Just to clarify the purpose of my post - I was in no way suggesting that the links I gave were photographically representative of the type of work the OP should do, as seems to be assumed by subsequent posters.</p>

<p>I'll quote the OP</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I am also interested in what medium of photography you believe would be best for my project? My tutor suggested medium format, but I have been discussing this with people of the medium format forum and they disagree and believe I should work primarily in digital, but also experiment with 35mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As there had already been a load of debate over the worthiness of MF and the advantages of 35mm, my response was to direct the OP towards a small but often overlooked digital compact that has ALL the controls she'd need, and to a great extent the image quality required, and can also be configured to do some of the eminently sensible stuff that many mentioned - particularly as Jeff suggested from his own extensive experience - such as minimising the amount of flashing lights with focus assist etc.As I pointed out the Ricoh can do its funky 'snap focus' with zero time lag and no flashing lights so it functions like a big 'proper' dslr in terms of speed (to a point) but without the christmas tree illuminations.</p>

<p>Having extolled the virtues (as I see them) of the Ricoh, it seemed logical to link to some work that illustrated what others are doing, in the boradest sense. The links provided are simply to show a range of work, some 'professional', some not, but all of which will illustrate the capabilities of the little Ricohs, given the fact that the one image posted above that elicted a reponse from Emily was Leslie's taken with a little Ricoh.</p>

<p>Good project, great subject matter, good luck!</p>

<p> </p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Stuff like this has been done in the past with MF; *BUT* in that era the MF user was younger; the MF camera was understood better. A Graflex GL or Graphic Century with 80mm F2.8 Xenotar shooting 6x7cm might have Kodak Royal-X at a real asa 1250. The darn RF's were *bright* as hell; since the cameras were new.</p>

<p>Todays MF user is a grumpy older user; inexperienced often in low light work; the knowledge base on how to use MF in low light is mostly lost; thus newbies say it is impossible; when eons of news folks did it for decades. Todays MF user is an older person who often needs a tripod. MF has gone from a kids toy camera; to a radical sports camera of the 1930's and 1940's; to a Portrait and wedding camera and news camera of the 1950's 1960's; to an old farts camera that requires a tripod; wazoo bright screens for a tlr. MF has a shallow DOF; thus 35mm is easier; plus a fast MF lens might be F2.8; it is F1.4 on a 35mm</p>

<p> 35mm RF with a fast lens has always been a decent low light rig too. Here if not using I used a 50mm F1.2 Canon or a funky Zorki 3C for my Street "do not care" camera for a club; or my 20 buck Canonet F1.9 RF </p>

<p>Today a digital P&S is *way* easier to shoot than film. Get a camera with a fast lens; low noise at a high iso and you are in business. A friend has a Fuji P&S that shoots well on the street at night; it was just a dumb Walmart camera.</p>

<p>It really is not that this work cannot be shot with MF; it just is way harder and one needs a decent MF rig that works well under low light. Many MF cameras have faded RF patches; thus it *IS* harder today with a worn out rig than in past eras.</p>

<p>It really is wrong to say stuff cannot be shot with MF rigs; when it already has been done for decades. Fast glass and a good RF MF camera was *the* way many wedding candids were shot; newspaper work; even night sports' *when 35mm was too small a negative*. </p>

<p>Having shot sports in high school when MF was the camera of choice; threads like these are comical to read. I wonder if in 30 to 40 years folks will say one cannot shoot with a Canon EOS unless one used a tripod?</p>

<p>Really what matters is the images; not dwelling on the tools. Each era has better tools; with time what was hot becomes declared as old hat; then impossible to use. The tools age; the users age. The tricks how to use the older tools get lost.</p>

<p>My brother shot street/night stuff in the 1960's with a Konica Auto S2 35mm and MF Rapid Omega. Both shot well under low light and were easy to focus. Today a 4/3's Olympus digital with fast glass would be easier.</p>

<p>Here I *LIKE* to use one of my 8 buck 35mm Zorki's with a fast lens in "rough areas" ; or my RF MF Russian Folder the Moscow 5' Moscva 5 with 10.5cm F3.5 Industar or boating. It is my 45 buck rig; thus I am *less afraid" of a ruined camera in rough seas and water than when using a 3000 buck dslr. </p>

<p>This fact is rarely mentioned on Photo.net; ie using 20 buck Canonet 35mm RF or 45 buck MF Moscova 5 RF means I might get a shot where I am sacred of loosing a 2000 to 4000 buck camera.</p>

<p>Today this has a lessor debate; even 120 buck Walmart P&S's shoot a decent street shot in low light</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>"As there had already been a load of debate over the worthiness of MF and the advantages of 35mm, my response was to direct the OP towards a small but often overlooked digital compact that has ALL the controls she'd need, and to a great extent the image quality required"</p>

<p>ok, but the OP already has a camera capable of doing what she's trying to do. at this point she'd probably be better off getting another lens for that then buying an entirely new camera with less functionality than a DSLR. i agree the Ricoh's have good IQ and may be more practical than film or MF, but speaking as one who has shot a lot in the exact type of environments she is talking about, the way to go is a DSLR, fast lens, and external flash.</p><div></div>

[Spearhead]

<p>I would add to Eric's response that a fixed focal length camera is difficult for these types of environments. You often have no foreknowledge of where you will be shooting from and what kind of access you will have, and there can be stands with DJs, bands and dancers, even cages with dancers in the air, and you won't get them easily with a 35mm fixed lens. </p>

<p>It's a lot better to have some experience with this when making recommendations. Being a fan of a camera has little to do with what works in a specific situation.<br><center>

<img src="http://spirer.com/fsf2005/images/fsfdander4.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="480" /><br>

<em>Street Rave, Copyright 2005 Jeff Spirer</em></center></p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>jeff is, once again, spot-on here. only two of the shots i posted were taken with primes, and the only reason i even include one in my bag is in case i absolutely need the f/1.4-f/2.2 range and can't get the shot any other way. my favorite lens for this stuff is a tamron 17-50/2.8, used for the trumpetman and handplant shots, which gives me some wideness all the way out to portrait. the bubble people shots was taken with a tamron 28-75/2.8, which is good for concert and band shooting but (obviously) loses some wideness on a DX body, though it's a bit better for head/shoulders portraits. it's also not as good as the 17-50 at 2.8, though 2.8 is still usable.</p>

<p>the reason i like the tamron fast zooms is, besides their affordability, constant fast aperture, and good IQ, they are relatively compact and lightweight. this can be important when you are moving through a crowded area trying to maneuver. the weight is also a factor if you will be walking around and taking pictures for hours and hours, because fatigue will set in if you are using heavy lenses.</p>

<p>for outdoors stuff with large groups of people i might bring a 12-24/4, which i used for the two women at LoveFest. and i also have a 50-150/2.8 which is good when i'm shooting from a pit at a big venue and/or want some reach. i have three fast primes--a sigma 15mm/2.8 fish (actually semi-fish on DX) which took the first pic i posted, of the guitar player in black; a sigma 30/1.4, which took the masked guy pic; and a 50/1.8 which i rarely use since i got the 17-50. i also always take along a flash, and sometimes a flash bracket.</p>

<p>for these types of shots in these kinds of environments, it's important to have the right gear for the job at hand; it is possible to get by with a kit lens if you are using flash, but it will be more difficult. i like to have the option to use flash or go available light, and i can't really do that with an aperture slower than 2.8 in a dimly-lit environment.</p>

<p>IMO there's no real need to be overly discreet at a rave, even an illegal one, as long as people know you are not the police. so a P&S, while stealthy, isnt ideal.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>whoops the sigma fish pic is actually posted here: http://www.photo.net/street-documentary-photography-forum/00WamB</p>

 

[Alex_Es]

<p>Emily,</p>

<p>I had a look at your Rave shots on Flickr. I sense you know what you're about. Enough has been said about equipment. I have just a few thoughts about what you are doing.<br>

*You need to get closer. You are there but its seems like you are keeping a distance. Mingle. Be careful but at the same time do not be intimidated. </p>

<p>*The use of flash is a matter of discretion. I don't you flash when shooting public events. I believe, like HCB, that it is intrusive. HCB likened it to to firing a shotgun in a theater. But a flash at something like a rave event might be okay--just follow your instincts.</p>

<p>*If it is an illegal event do consider what impact your work might have on the people you photograph. A photograph is forever and you cannot know what effect it will in the immediate and far future.</p>

<p>*All I will say about equipemnt is use a camera that feels right for you. Experience will tell you what cameras and lenses work and do not work. I make a list of which lenses I used and did not use after a shoot. I agree that digital is the most practical medium for you.</p>

<p>*As a researcher do take careful notes and consider what is ethically right to publish. </p>