STREET SHOOT OUT: Lessons learned?

[fotografz]

I, for one, gained a big bag full of respect for street shooters who

consistantly deliver insightful and thought provoking work.

 

Even in the short time I shot, I got to know some of the street

icons in Detroit a little better than just a passing glance, a nod

and a buck in the basket. In particular was the man called

"Traveling Blues", articulate, interesting, and one hell of a singer.

Asking only if passer-bys would show him some love (cash) for

his efforts, he asked why I was shooting so many photos. I told

him I was trying to get just one good one...which wasn't easy if

even possible. He smiled, and I knew he understood. I am

making him a print of the one posted above (not shown in my

thread), and will give it to him because he was good enough to

ask. It was shot with the M7/50 combo...which leads me to the

other lesson learned:

 

While I managed a few passable shots with all of the cameras

used, the prints are another matter. None had the look to match

the Leica. The P&Ss were fun, but I do wish the one or two shots

I may consider for keepers were shot with the Leica and film.

Just a subjective opinion, but a passionate one for me.<div></div>

[djl251]

He'll be pleased with that print. Good job Marc.

[john_van_rosendaal]

Marc, are you talking about wet prints versus inkjet prints or inkjet prints of Leica scans versus digicam files?

[roger_michel]

perhaps it would fit better in this thread, but my response is

contained in the post directly below this one.

[fotografz]

John, digital output printed on an Epson 2200 verses a Leica

neg. scanned at 4000 dpi and printed on the same printer.

 

The comparison isn't one of which is empirically better, but that

they look and feel different. The B&W digital capture prints look

to smooth IMO, kind of "plastic" if that's the term. It's subtile and

subjective to be sure, but a perception that I still have. The Leica

prints have many of the qualities I have come to expect from my

darkroom days. A less easily explained feel to the collective

impression of a finished print.

 

It may simply be the random characteristics of grain verses the

absolute precision of pixels. Sometimes that perfection on an

almost "molecular" level is advantageous, like when using a

mathematical interpolation program such as Genuine Fractals to

increase a smaller file for making a larger print. Yet, it seems

that level of relentless organization at micro levels, collectively

viewed as a print, leaves something to be desired. It's a purely

personal interpretation of beauty, and has nothing to do with

picture content as far as content means subject matter and

timing.

[john_van_rosendaal]

Thanks Marc. I understand the subjectivity of your observations. I'm one of those people who firmly believe Leica and Carl Zeiss make better lenses than Canon and Nikon, despite the fact that tests show barely any difference. That's a subtle feeling as well.<P>

And I used to have a M6 plus Summicron and a Contax G plus a whole bunch of lenses for a while. I traded it all in to go completely digital (Canon 1D and 10D) and find myself staring at some of the 'special' prints I made of Leica and Contax files and missing the manual nature of the Leica. Despite the fact that logically it doesn't make much sense, I'm considering getting rid of the 10D and going for either a M6 TTL or M7. Still debating that question. Your observation helps.

[john_van_rosendaal]

Yes, Peter. I'll definitely keep the 1D. That's an awesome camera for what's it meant to do. Use it once and you're hooked. Plus, I'll stick with SLRs and digital. They both have their advantages.<P>

I'm also not totally sure yet about the move away from the 10D to a Leica M. In the best of both worlds, I keep the 10D as well and buy the Leica anyway. The 10D is a great camera for the price and much more portable than the 1D. Plus having two bodies with my Canon lenses has its advantages.<P>

[jackflesher]

Marc:

 

No offense, but I think the look you're after can be achieved with a bit more PS time on the image...

 

I suggest you try converting your digital image to monotone via the channel sliders -- red at about 70%, green at about 50%, and blue at about -20% assuming the initial exposure is correct to begin with :)

 

Then after this looks right sharpen, then add a small of (gausian) noise -- usually about 8% with the 1Ds, less with the smaller digicams. THEN add about the same amount of blur that you did sharpening. The final look should have a bit of "grit" and the silvery highlights similar to Tri-X :)))

 

Cheers,

[jay_.]

Glad to know that for people who can stand digital cameras and all the post-shooting rigormorole entailed, there'll be a way to achieve the look of film after the last roll is gone...even if it means hours indoors in front of the computer instead of outdoors making more images.

[jackflesher]

Jay: Good point! :)))) However, I would like to also point out that all the aforementioned post-processing I do to get that Tri-X look from my 1Ds images takes about two minutes in Photoshop :)

 

Cheers,

[jay_.]

It took me longer than 2 minutes to read your instructions ;>)

[fotografz]

Thanks Jack, I'll give it a try...after Jay elbows me out of the way to

buy the last roll of Tri-X . : - )