keith alan sprouse

1) documentary, street, people

 

2) I use either AP matrix or manual spot metering, depending on what type of shooting I'm doing, and either AF or MF, once again depending

 

3) I have an F100 and like the fast shutter speed, fast AF, great build quality, and the accurate meter. Everything thing else is extra...

I have been in Paris a couple of times over the last couple of years and had no negative reactions, even when shooting on the Metro. In fact, when I was shooting in the marches, folks even mugged for the camera. But, I do speak French fluently, I never tried to be sneaky, and I simply raised my camera and shot discreetly. When people saw me and made eye contact, I made a point of engaging them to make sure they didn't mind if I took photos, and they usually either nodded (sometimes curtly) or simply ignored me.

Of these photos, I would say that I think "Standing for the Son" shows some promise, but the rest just aren't compelling images: I respect your committment, and I'm a firm believer in protest photography, but at the end of the day, the images must be able to stand alone and capture the viewer's attention. The majority of these, IMHO, don't succeed.

 

Keep it up, though, as you have an important story to tell.

It's a great lens; I had one for quite a while, then sold it when I moved over to just primes. If you want a zoom in that range, you just can't go wrong, if you can find a used one for a good price.

 

Keith

Never having tried Canon, I cannot make a comparison between the two brands. What I can say, however, is that my Nikon flash (SB-80DX on my F100) does a fine job: good power, very responsive and dependable. The only complaint that I would have, and I don't know that it's really a COMPLAINT as much as a consideration, is that for daylight fill-flash I like to dial down a stop and a half to better blend the ambient light and the flash, despite Nikon's claims that this is unnecessary with the 3-D multi-matrix-yadda-yadda flash metering.

Put me in the group with those who tend to have a strong preference for a particular focal length, in my case the 35mm. I will occasionally opt for a 28mm for tight spaces or either a 50mm or an 85mm for portraits, but the 35mm just feels right to see the way that I do.

Thanks for the link!

 

One thing that I should point out about this discussion, however, is that it's one thing to point out that the Geographic has finally used digital for one entire story and quite another to make the claim that the Geographic has "gone digital." The Geographic hasn't at all abandoned film and it's hard to imagine that happening any time soon, not only due to the superior image quality of film over digital, but also for other reasons related to individual preferences (i.e., some Geographic shooters prefer Leicas for the type of shooting they do, etc.).

I would say that some of the Sigmas are quite good and some less so. In my case, I bought one of the Sigma 28mm f/1.8 lenses, since I didn't have the money for the Nikkor f/1.4 AFD and f/2.8 AFD didn't interest me. So far, I've been pretty pleased with it, especially since I only paid about $100 or $150 bucks (excellent + condition from KEH) for a used version, although I'll be glad when I get the extra cash to step up to the Nikkor f/1.4 AFD.

Basically, IMHO, it all boils down to whether or not you think you'll need that extra fraction of a stop that the f/1.4 offers. If you think that you'll do enough low-light shooting or will be shooting wide open to decrease DOF often enough, then you'll definitely want the f/1.4 verion. If not, then you'll be happy with the f/1.8 version and have some extra cash to spend on film. I currently have the f/1.8 verion and am going to be picking up the f/1.4 version for low-light shooting, and I expect to be plenty pleased with it's performance.

 

In terms of comparative sharpness, from what I gather, at f/1.8 the f/1.8 version is a little sharper than the f/1.4 version is, and that the f/1.4 version catches up at either f/2.8 or f/4. From there on, it's pretty much a dead heat. But keep in mind that if you're shooting at f/1.4 or f/2, though, image sharpness is obviously not your main concern (otherwise you'd use a tripod and stop down to increase sharpness) and enough of your image will be out of focus that a tiny bit of softness shouldn't really be a problem.

 

And, on a related note, it's worth taking the time to mention that not only does the f/1.4 let you throw more of the image out of focus, the bokeh (that is, the appearance of the out of focus elements) is markedly nicer on the f/1.4 version throughout the range.

 

If you mostly shoot landscapes or architecture, I'd imagine that the f/1.8 would be the way to go for you, as it's cheaper, lighter, and you aren't likely to be doing too much shooting at f/1.4. If you mostly prefer low-light and people photography, then you would probably be very happy with the f/1.4.

While the most accurate definition of "pro" has to do with how much of your income derives from photography, I suspect that the more pertinent definition here has to do with the notion of "high quality" equipment, right? Most folks would put cameras like the D100 or the N80 in the "prosumer" range (between pro and consumer), and I think that probably fair, since neither camera has all of the truly top-notch features that would distinguish a pro camera from a consumer camera (1/3 stop exposure settings, fast AF, fast flash sync, high fps rate, etc.) nor does either camera have the build quality and weatherproofing that one expects a pro camera to have in order to stand up to super-heavy use, which matters less if you are very careful with your cameras. So I would say that one could be a pro and use an N80 or a D100, if one was careful with one's use of the camera. I've published plenty of photos taken with an N80 (used with pro zooms and primes), for example, although I no longer use one. You will find that most pros who shoot Nikon are more likely to use an F100 (a favorite of National Geographic photographers, for example) or an F5 (a former favorite of newspaper photographers and sports shooters until digital came along).

 

The lenses you mention are not up to even the prosumer standard, though, in terms of image quality. And this might be a problem for you, as soft images with lower contrast and less accurate color rendition are simply not going to look as professional as sharper, more contrasty images with good color rendition, regardless of your talent as a photographer. If you want to take a step toward having pro gear, this would be the place to do it, IMHO.

You've gotten some very good advice, with which I agree completely. First off, it's a good idea to go ahead and get one fast prime, either a 35mm, a 50mm, or an 85mm, depending on your particular style of shooting (i.e., do you find yourself using the low end of your zoom, the middle, or the long end?). After that, I'd wait until you have learned, through experience, that you actually NEED something before you go shopping. In the meantime, shoot a lot, paying very close attention to what you shoot, how you shoot it, and what the results look like.

Thanks for the feedback; I appreciate it.

 

I did consider the Konica, but decided against it because of the auto-rewind, which I didn't need or want and which also added some pretty serious noise. And if I do get a Bessa R2, it would be so that I could use Leica glass, although I do understand the recommendation to consider the CV lenses.

 

I'm going to have to find a way to get my hands on one of these (in black, as the idea of an olive drab camera strikes me as odd for anyone not in the military) and play around with it a bit.

I've been thinking about putting together a rangefinder kit to go

along with my Nikon F100, and after doing some research (and taking

a long, hard look at my bank balance), I've been thinking that the

best way for me to go might be to get a Bessa R2 and then some Leica

glass to go with it. Perhaps later on I'd want to move up to a Leica

M6 or M7, but then again maybe I wouldn't. I'd appreciate any

comments that those familiar with the camera could share. (i.e., do

Leica M-mount lenses work well? how do you like the viewfinder? is

the construction solid enough to stand up to normal use? is the

shutter loud and/or could you compare the shutter noise to a

Leica/SLR/etc. are there any problems with shutter lag? what else

do/don't you like about the camera? etc.)

 

Thanks, in advance, for any responses!

Jeff wrote: <i>However, it's odd how HCB is almost always the name that comes up when street photography is referenced. I know that some people here do have a good knowledge of the genre.</i><br>

<br>

I'm not surprised to hear that, of course--folks like HC-B are much more accessible than somebody like Winogrand (whom I would more likely expect to be the first name to come up when street photography is referenced) or Friedlander or Eggleston.<br>

<br>

As much as I like and appreciate HC-B, I understand that for some peope he is almost too easy, a sort of safe bet who lacks any edge. I think that judgement doesn't do him justice and would be selling him far too short, but I do understand how some folks might feel that way.

Back on the topic of my favorite lens(es) for street photography, one thing that I would point out is that not only does a 35mm or wider lens give a feeling of depth and energy to a photo, it can also allow you to shoot without worrying so much about focusing issues--you can get by with just zone focusing and know that everything that you want to be in focus will be. This allows everything from taking hipshots without framing to actually bringing the camera up to your eye very quickly to frame your shot and then immediately bring it back down.

OK, I don't know Jeff or his past posts, so maybe there is some history here of which I am unaware, but I wouldn't see his comments as "attacking." First off, I agree with him that most of the photos posted on this thread wouldn't fall within the genre of street photography. And the book he mentions is a good resource for anyone unsure of the genre described by the term "street photography."

 

I do think that he could have worded his comment about people needing to get beyond HC-B more clearly, as his comment suggests that our praise of HC-B somehow indicates that we know the work of no other street shooters, which would be factually wrong and could appear consescending. Until I see differently, though, I'll assume that the comment was just hastily worded and not meant to be offensive.

 

At any rate, let's get back to the discussion...

I think that both Todd and Shun have given you some great advice: as Shun says, I think that one should buy lenses to fit their shooting needs, so I would always recommend against buying a lens until you find that you have some specific need for it. Since you mention that already have lenses covering up to 200mm and you don't have any particular subject that you like to shoot that would require more, I'd advise against the 70-300mm. And as Todd points out, a fast prime might be the way to go if you are just hankerin' for a new lens, since having the low-light capability and a light-weight option might be good reasons to buy a new lens. I would suggest that you think about which prime you would most use for low-light or normal shooting (since you'd only be getting one prime, I'd stick within the more "normal" range--35mm, 50mm, 85mm). If you don't think that having a fast prime would be helpful to you, then you might consider either replacing one of the consumer zooms you have with a higher quality zoom or maybe even just buying a bunch of film and taking more photos.

On the topic of lens choice and Henri Cartier-Bresson (one of my favorite photographers), HC-B is known for his almost fanatical devotion to the 50mm lens, although he did (very rarely) shoot with other focal lengths. FWIW, he was a Leica-shooter, as many of the great street shooters have been.

 

One of the most impressive thing about his work, for me, is how clean his compositions are; everything in the frame belongs and nothing distracts the viewer from his subject, yet he avoids creating sterile, posed compositions. I saw the retrospective exhibition at the French national library in Paris last summer, and it was an amazing experience. I need to get the book...

My normal lens for street photography is a 35mm, but from time to time I do use a 28mm (occasionally) or a 50mm (rarely) to get a particular shot. I have a 24mm on my lens wish list, and I know some folks who regularly shoot with 21mm or 20mm lenses. I suspect that 24mm is as wide as I'd every need, though, considering my shooting style.

 

Since one of the defining elements of much street photography is the dynamic created by shooting up close to your subjects, it's very hard for me to imagine using a telephoto for street photography.

Well, this is a case where your shooting style, your image quality requirements, and your personal preferences will determine your answer. To make your decision, you have to keep in mind the benefits and drawbacks of digital.

 

I'll start with the drawbacks first:

 

* image quality--a 6MP sensor cannot produce the quality of film at sizes larger than 8 X 10. You can do the math yourself on this one: you need 300dpi to get something similar to film, which means that 6MP can only get you to 8 X 10 without requiring you to start inventing pixels (upsampling), at which point the image begins to suffer. When done well, with certain kinds of images, if the planets are all in the proper alignment, etc., you can get away with some upsampling without much loss in image quality, but you have to keep in mind that anytime you are creating pixels out of thin air, you are degrading your image.

 

*hardware issues, part I--if you already have a top-of-the-line computer system, with loads of RAM, you can skip this one. If not, then you have to figure all of this into your digital start-up costs. And toss in the cost of calibration software and a spyder, as you'll need those in order to try to control the color issues.

 

*hardware issues, part II--if you already have a top-of-the-line photo printer, you can skip this one. If not, once again, you'll be adding substantially to your digital start-up costs. And figure in some change for some professional printer calibration, as you will need to struggle with the color issues here, as well.

 

*storage issues--from the cost of the flashcards or other storage media in camera to the cost of all of the CD-RW or DVD-RW that you'll be needing to store all of your images, with at least a couple of back-ups in case your computer crashes. And, of course, as the years go by and the file formats change, you'll be going back over all of these to update them. If they're still there...

 

*time spent processing images--every single image that you want to keep with require at least some time downloading from your camera (which takes a bit if you shoot RAW, which you'll want to in order to maximize your image quality), then to do color correction, sharpening, etc. Do you want to drastically increase the amount of time you spend at your computer? If not, then digital might not be for you...

 

*camera body features--unless you have the money for a D1X or a D2H, you will end up with a D100, which is basically an N80 body, for quite a bit more money. AF speed, shooting rate, exposure steps (1/2 stop), etc. will all be less impressive than with an F100 or an F5.

 

Actually, I've got to run, so I'll have to stop here... but you get the idea--digital isn't necessarily for everyone.

Let us know how it goes, and if you scan some of your images, post a link.

 

Good luck!

I'm assuming that by ethnophotography you means some sort of thick description via photography, or basically doing documentary of some cultural practices?

 

At any rate, I would think that you would want to draw the least amount of attention to yourself as possible--you don't want to be the spectacle, you want to be the observer of the spectacle--so I would opt for small, fast primes, and avoid the use of a flash whenever possible. Ideally, I would want two bodies (preferably small ones like an N80 without MB-15, an F100, a manual focus without speed winder, etc.) one with a wide-angle (24mm, 28mm, or 35mm, depending on your usual preferences) for establishing shots, performance context, etc., and one with something longer (50mm, 85mm, or 105mm, depending on your preferences) on it to isolate individuals, compress elements in a composition, etc.

 

And btw, I saw a fairly interesting photo book on Dia de los muertos at the local Barnes and Noble recently that was trying for a more ethnographic approach, complete with essays on the significance of the various cultural practices and objects that play a part of the festival(s).

 

Good luck!

Last summer I spend three weeks in Paris and was quite happy with my kit: my Nikon (I don't have a Leica yet), a 28mm (for narrow streets, tight markets, interiors, etc.), a 35mm (my normal lens), and an 85mm. Next time, I'll probably bring a 50mm, as well. On any given day, I would leave one or more of the lenses back in the apartment (usually the 85mm), depending on what I was planning on shooting. I don't like photo bags, as they tend to look like photo bags, and instead I usually carry a small black leather messenger-style bag that I got, as it would happen, in Paris. I find that one body and a couple of primes make a light and compact kit, easy to carry with me whenever I go out.

 

As far as film goes, I shoot more black and white than color, and next time I plan on taking it in the other direction. Either way, I'd always want to be able to shoot both.

Put me into the "no MB-15" camp--one of the very serious advantages to the F100, for me, is the smaller size and lighter weight vis-a-vis the F5. But then, the great thing about it is, as was already mentioned, if you want the extra size and weight, you can always put one on... and then take it off again if you don't like it or need it.

I'm with those who point out that it's a bit off the mark to equate being capable of attaining good exposures without automation with being a "good photographer," and for many reasons, not the least of which is that so many "fully manual" regularly dial in the exposure suggested to them by their in-camera light meter, which means that they are doing exactly the same thing as those who regularly shoot shutter-priority or aperture-priority (who use the exposure setting suggested to them by their in-camera light meter), except that it takes them a fraction of a second more time to do so. Those who shoot in full program mode are, of course, a different case.

 

For someone to make a truly meaningful distinction between himself and those who shoot in SP or AP mode, he would have to use an external light meter or none whatsoever; otherwise, he would be doing nothing particularly different.

 

Finally, proper exposure itself is only one relatively small element of a compelling photo--I, for one, rarely hear folks say "Wow, that image has no visual interest whatsoever, but the exposure is wonderful. I'll take two prints!"

 

Just my two cents...