luke_neher

Im with Leslie here, i would be very careful about UNDER exposing night shots. If the blacks DO turn out too bright that can be fixed, but i expect you'd come out with really thin almost unuseable negs. My method for night shots, usually parties with light from a fireside or a lamp or a cigarette lighter or whatever is neopand 1600 exposed at 2000 (using meter readings) and developed for 16.5-17 minutes in xtol 1:1 at 20 degrees with 3 inversions every 30 seconds. That produces some shadow detail and faces of about zone 6/7/8 depending on conditions. That said, i would reccomend learning to use a flash! because if its really dark you'll be shooting at 8ths 15ths and 30ths and that doesnt go if people are dancing.

Here are some examples:

<a href=" title="simon by neherstreetphoto, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2351/1825398338_dd412388ce.jpg" width="500" height="332" alt="simon" /></a>

<a href=" title="girllap by neherstreetphoto, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2383/1824557461_4c767d526d_o.jpg" width="650" height="439" alt="girllap" /></a>

<a href=" title="Lily's1 by neherstreetphoto, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2103/1727581043_decc44b4a9_o.jpg" width="650" height="436" alt="Lily's1" /></a>

Yeah, I'm not sure about his digital workflow. I'm pretty sure it is not standardized. he experiments it would seem to me after following his photos for a while. Seriously though, if you have a look i'm sure it wouldn't be that hard to get the same effect. get an over all colour scheme with hue and saturation and colour balance, then just use tools like selective colour from there for more specific areas. It's pretty organic.

Man I haven't been on photo.net in ages. Anyway, this seemed like the forum

that would welcome this type of photography, even though it is not typically street-

Jamie Stoker:

http://jamiestoker.com/index.html

very simple spontaneous portraiture of his friends and so forth.

Hope you are all well.

I think you could not be absolutely safe at 1/125th re people blurring. The problem is, if

they blurred it would only be a little which in my mind is horrible as it's not all cool and

motion blurry and it is not dead sharp, just sort of looks out of focus almost.

Anyway, what f you use wont matter to much at 20 feet surely. do you really want

EVERYTHING in focus? that often looks bad, and if you really want it all in focus then:

You shouldnt be downrating your film should you? You should shoot at 400 and use that

extra stop to close your aperture. You can control contrast with the development time or

the aggitation or simply the print.

Bottom line, decide what you want to do as i still have trouble making sense of the post.

Those are my not so humble opinions, im sure someone will agree/disagree/whatever and

we can discuss.

Seems a bit irrelevant to label this digital v analog I think. It's horses for courses really. I

mean, if you wanted to isolate your subjects with DOF, youd use the m6. If you wanted to

have a wideangle photo where its sharp from like 3 feet to infinity, the digital is probably

easier. Shooting at night, trix grain might look nicer, on a print anyway. you can't tell on

JPegs.

Nice series I think, shows you the mood of bangkok (in your eyes at least i guess)

I don't know anything about these lenses. I know I wouldn't choose either of them simply

because i do a lot of low light so i like f 2 r better and I'm not into anything THAT wide

(wait, scratch that, who knows what it is on an APS sensor). But id seriously consider

whether you'll be happy with f4, even with the quality of an L lense. The 24mm sounds

okay if its got to be one of the two, assuming it's bastardised up to around a 35 on your

camera than handholding should still be doable to 1/15 1/8 or 1/4 or whatever. Also,

shooting with a prime offers a lot more in the way of hipshooting and other improv, means

you know your lens damn well after a while.

That said, if you think f 4 is fine, and you dont dig hte night life, get the zoom.

I think that is a vast VAST generalization! You obviously have little idea of the pains it

takes to make a good video. Exposure editing, framing, pacing, lighting what angle to

shoot from. Everything involved in photography and equally had at least.

I didn't read all the previous posts. I like walls work to an extent. It is often very visually

pleasing. But knowing that it is staged does detract from it for me. It is for this reason

that I advise you guys to not underestimate the importance of artists intent and other

factors that lay outside the picture plain. Whether in a normative sense you think these

aspects should have any effect on our perceptions is irrelevant, because they do.

Ive looked at a few threads and never once understood what al gorman was trying to say.

General rule i find is to ignore. Lest you get flamed with something you cannot respond

too as it makes no sense. Anyway al, don't bother responding, couldn't care less.

A few other viewpoints:</P>

- Be direct; don't sneak around or "act guilty" - Many consider invisibility of tantamount

importance.</p>

- Don't take a picture of a total stranger doing nothing particularly interesting- no point

(lousy photo), and arouses suspicion - I thoroughly disagree, a large part of street

photography is capturing the everyday, the ordinary.

I find it's easiest is to not get seen, but no one is infallible so you have to work yourself up

to trying it. Start by taking easy shots, like with lots of people, then get more and more

personal gradually. I stilll have to balls myself up for some shots like on a train when

they are right in front of you. For that situation I use this sentiment: "consider those

crazy guys on trains that mutter under their breath and speak jibberish. Would you have

the cojones to do that?? no. but you see them on the train EVERY day. (in other words,

you are just another freak :P). The language barrier is a plus if they confront you, you are

a tourist, a 'stupid tourist' who can't understand them. Also practising being quick

inconspicuous and silent is helpful. Bottom line is, MOST people I/you/one could point

the camera right at from a meter or so away and they would just stare at you, the only

thing stopping I/you/me from doing that is fear and a desire to avoid ruining the moment.

I dont think the photography's too great. And useless for prints. The portraiture is

allright. But not amazing. I recently got severly, brutally, schooled on Alex Majoli. Look

him up, he goes pro with a Point Shoot.

Seconding PICO.

tmax 3200 is thoroughly horrible compared to other 3200 films. Including Ilford DELTA

3200 and Ilford DELTA 400 pushed to 3200 and TRIX pushed to 2400.

Its tones are fine but what makes i horrible is its massive grain. So unless you really want

grain. Stick to ilford or trix me thinks. HEre is a sample shot:<div></div>

Ignoring Gormans non-sensical and apparently random placement of words. (I joke

Gorman. I'm just saying what you wrote was a little hard to understand, maybe reiterate?)

I think that any shot of graveyards is going to be very cliché unless you really push the

envelope. Do something that really hasn't been done. I have suggestions. But you can

think for yourself.

Hahaha. He'd better watch out for anything by Sally Mann too. I don't get why it's wrong

to post the image...

The golden rule with slides is expose for highlights (if in doubt). Are you sure it's not

tungsten films? that would explain the blue tint. You have to be precise with exposure

with slides. So do a test by shooting something flat and one tone (say pavement in full

sun). That should come out as a perfect zone 5 or middle gray. If it doesn't then it's your

meter. If it does, then just be more precise, learn the film more extensively.

Here here!

I'd say it's pretty hard to beat black and white film at 3200.

Nless you're digging the noise.

The gun one seems a bit bland to me. Aestheically it's not too interesting and in terms of

subject matter, well guns are controversial yes but there isn't much more that it presented

it seems. Mowing the lawn is better, but still not great i think.

I'm going to be brief, hopefully. I assume you know what spherical aberration is and its effects on

focus.

I use an m6 and a cron DR. Now, assuming that the DR is corrected for SA, i should get a strait line of

focus across the image, roughly at least. Meaning that things are in focus if their distance from the

imaginary perpendicular lines running out of the sides of my lens is the same distance i focused for.

This said:

i have persons face that i want sharp at f 2.8

I also want them aligned in the left of frame.

Say that their face is 5.5 meters from the lens

And also say that the straight line of focus (that i talked about earlier) that would intersect with their

face is 5 meters away.

Where do i focus? 5 meters, or 5.5 meters. This is assuming my lens is corrected for SA.

Please shed some light.

This becomes a problem with rangefinders as i can only focus in the center, then recompose, i cant

compose, then twist till they are sharp, as i could with an slr.

IF you need more explanation, i could do a diagram, but this is for people who know optics, and i tried

to be concise.

thanks

Got my leica recently and it rocks, but just a couple of questions. I was caught in the rain today, and i

figured, it's a leica it will take it, but also my heart said, 'no! protect it like a child'. Logically the leica

should be able to take it, but i was wondering what your experiences with rain were.

Also, about slow shutters, I was wondering how far most of you can shoot until. I find im reliable at 1/

8th, and can do 1/4 but not count on it.

Thanks, really just a question out of interest.

Who decides the exposure?

Would you argue that Guernica is too pointy looking?

 

No, because it doesn't look pointy at all. But I'd say that i thought the use of point was

poor, if i thought so.

You've done what's often called, "making a stupid nonsensical comparison, mutilated so

that there is no correct answer, only a nonsensical opinion voiced without any backing"

Luke.

thanks for info! maybe ill use it selectively, and just buy some ddx now, expensive sh*t

though.

Yeah i realise ill get some serious grain, but rodinal is all i gots at the moment and i gotta

at least finish it.

<p>"Luke,

The Abortion protest photo could be a bit brighter, but that's how I took it," </p>

<p>Yeah you took it underexposed.</p>

<p> "I say again that only Telephoto is not the way to go, but it should be part of your

gear. I run into tons of news photogrpahers most carry a 70-200 on one camera and a

wide angle of some kind on the other."</p>

<p> if you are a pj, it should definitely be apart of your gear. But street is very different

to photojournalism. Your subjects don't expect to be photographed, and you need to be

discreet, how can you be discreet with two digital slrs and a massive zoom lens. A zoom

causes far more trouble then its worth. </p>

<p>" have no issue with wide angle lenses but they have their place. Here is a wide shot I

took hope you like it."</p>

What pico and updyke said goes just aswell for me about this shot. It's not really a good

representations of street.