B. D. I'm still so ecstatic to have such a great documentary photographer in our ranks.

I love shooting candid photos but there's obviously a big difference between snaps and going out there with an eye for street shots. This weekend is a huge event in San Fran and I want to get out and shoot the people, faces, lovers, haters, everything.

I usually use whatever gear I have on me, but since I have a few days to prepare I thought I'd ask: is there a particular arsenal of lenses/focal lengths that you find yourself grabbing more often than most?

Originally Posted by schmoo B. D. I'm still so ecstatic to have such a great documentary photographer in our ranks. I love shooting candid photos but there's obviously a big difference between snaps and going out there with an eye for street shots. This weekend is a huge event in San Fran and I want to get out and shoot the people, faces, lovers, haters, everything. I usually use whatever gear I have on me, but since I have a few days to prepare I thought I'd ask: is there a particular arsenal of lenses/focal lengths that you find yourself grabbing more often than most?

Sorry I didn't see this earlier...and respond.

In 'olden times' - read 'when using film'- I'd try to carry a Lecia M with a 28 or 35 mm lens. Now I find myself with either a DSLR with a 28-120 (35 equivalent) zoom, or lately I've been playing a lot with an Olympus E-330 with a 21mm viewfinder taped into the hotshoe and a 22-44 (35 equivalent) zoom which I keep at 22. With autofocus I'm able to use it like a film range finder, just using the big, bright viewfinder I've taped onto it. The E-330 has an excellent - virtually no shutter delay - articulated live view screen on the back, so you can use it like an old twin-lens reflex, shooting from all sorts of positions.

But again - equipment is nothing more than...equipment. A camera is to a photographer as a hammer is to a carpenter, a brush is to a painter, a knife is to a chef - it's a tool - and to each his his or her own.

Originally Posted by bdcolen ... But again - equipment is nothing more than...equipment. A camera is to a photographer as a hammer is to a carpenter, a brush is to a painter, a knife is to a chef - it's a tool - and to each his his or her own.

Mmmmm... ya know, B.D, we already had a little "adjustment" to that philosophy over a rainy wedding...

I put it to you that it's somewhat ingenuous to talk about dslrs and hammers, paintbrushes, knives in the same breath. These latter are technology which is pretty much in stasis. Digital imaging on the other hand has just been born and has a whole lifetime of development in front of it.

Basic tools like those you mention quite likely are inextricable from our evolution as humans. I expect digital technology will also take us to new ways of being in far more emphatic ways.

My point is, that our tools create us, they are part of what make our future. I cannot be the same person with a Box Browny as I am with my 40D, state-of-the-art lenses, my computer and PS and the internet which includes this very discussion!

I think it doesn't help, in fact is counterproductive, to relegate photo technology to the inconsequential. It wasn't so in the "olden days" and it is more definitely not so today.

Most of us here have invested significant amounts in out gear - hardware and software - and that gear stretches us to rise to its potential at least as much as the "classical" photography challenges of capturing, composing and developing an image. The money that we have spent, the yield of experience grown in the field, feed back into R&D, into new technology and products, new steps forward in creativity, achievement and satisfaction. All of that is of the essence of what absorbs us in our hobby and profession of photography in 2009.

The "classic" view of photography which has everything beginning with the object out there in front of the camera, and it could be any kind of camera, is not the only valid one now. Personally, I think everything begins with the imagination, and with our sets of values and priorities. I think the new technology, and the new role of photography in the digital world, has brought imagination, values and priorities forward closer to their proper place in a new photography. There is a feedback mechanism between technology development, imagination, values and priorities. This makes us somewhat different to people long ago.

Sure, we must still learn and be aware of core basics, but I think it is wayward to make of them walls which keep everything outside them invisible, no matter how "enlightened" things are within those walls.

So, I beg to put forward an alternative to your theme that gear is irrelevant, and that is that the development of gear makes us as humans more relevant to photography. What I see from digital imaging now is a view of people and life which makes my childhood Box Brownie, and the snaps in the shoebox, valuable as they are (and there are some "good" images among them), seem so cripplingly limited.

And, yes, I too am happy you are here!

Best.

Neil

Originally Posted by schmoo B. D. I'm still so ecstatic to have such a great documentary photographer in our ranks. I love shooting candid photos but there's obviously a big difference between snaps and going out there with an eye for street shots. This weekend is a huge event in San Fran and I want to get out and shoot the people, faces, lovers, haters, everything. I usually use whatever gear I have on me, but since I have a few days to prepare I thought I'd ask: is there a particular arsenal of lenses/focal lengths that you find yourself grabbing more often than most?

Schmoo is going to have a treasure trove of unique shots. Take a lot of cards.

the trick will be to get folks who are not posing....

Rags

Originally Posted by NeilL So, I beg to put forward an alternative to your theme that gear is irrelevant, and that is that the development of gear makes us as humans more relevant to photography.

A good photograph is still a good photograph regardless of how it was made. Right?

If you agree with that, then the gear becomes irrelevant. What is relevant is your working knowledge of the gear you are using and your ability to process the result.

Thanks B.D. and Rags. I also got some great advice from Richard this morning. I know that your hot tip on shooting is to get close, really close, but I wasn't sure if you tend to use wide for that. I see the answer will be yes, but some amount of zoom wouldn't hurt, either.

Much appreciated, and I hope to be able to post some shots next week. Thank you!

Originally Posted by ian408 A good photograph is still a good photograph regardless of how it was made. Right? If you agree with that, then the gear becomes irrelevant. What is relevant is your working knowledge of the gear you are using and your ability to process the result.

Let me answer by asking: Have we seen all the "good" photographs yet, and if we haven't, where are they going to come from?

Originally Posted by NeilL Let me answer by asking: Have we seen all the "good" photographs yet, and if we haven't, where are they going to come from?

What does that have to do with it? People will continue to make good photographs with the gear they have in hand. Whether it's the latest and greatest or not.

Originally Posted by ian408 What does that have to do with it? People will continue to make good photographs with the gear they have in hand. Whether it's the latest and greatest or not.

Is this a promise that you will never, ever, upgrade?

Originally Posted by NeilL Is this a promise that you will never, ever, upgrade?

Upgrading has nothing to do with anything.

As I said that what is relevant is your working knowledge of your gear. Whether you are using a 1DsMkIII or a Kodak Brownie; go out and make some pictures--that matters more than measurebaiting over whether you have the latest and greatest.

In other words, a camera is just a tool. Learn how to use it.

Cartier-Bresson said, "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." He also said, "Your first 10,000 pictures are your worst."

He did get new models of the same basic Leica rangefinder with 50mm lens, but not often. I think more of a replacement than an upgrade.

He knew a thing or two.

Schmoo, I think a 24-105 F4 IS L ought to work superb for street shooting for you, whether on a full frame 5DMkii, or an APS based 40D. You might want something wider at times, but a 135 f2 would also be a very nice lens to carry for your 5dMk ii. But a 50mm f1.4 might be all you really need.

Have fun - I will look forward to your images!

Originally Posted by rutt Cartier-Bresson said, "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." He also said, "Your first 10,000 pictures are your worst." He did get new models of the same basic Leica rangefinder with 50mm lens, but not often. I think more of a replacement than an upgrade. He knew a thing or two.

If he thought sharpness was a bourgeois concept, I can't imagine he could have found the words for PS!

Well, obviously he had a sense of humor! But he got out just when one was really needed!

Originally Posted by NeilL Mmmmm... ya know, B.D, we already had a little "adjustment" to that philosophy over a rainy wedding... I put it to you that it's somewhat ingenuous to talk about dslrs and hammers, paintbrushes, knives in the same breath. These latter are technology which is pretty much in stasis. Digital imaging on the other hand has just been born and has a whole lifetime of development in front of it. Basic tools like those you mention quite likely are inextricable from our evolution as humans. I expect digital technology will also take us to new ways of being in far more emphatic ways. My point is, that our tools create us, they are part of what make our future. I cannot be the same person with a Box Browny as I am with my 40D, state-of-the-art lenses, my computer and PS and the internet which includes this very discussion! I think it doesn't help, in fact is counterproductive, to relegate photo technology to the inconsequential. It wasn't so in the "olden days" and it is more definitely not so today. And, yes, I too am happy you are here! Best. Neil

Hi, Neil - Thanks for being pleasant, even kind, as you rip me a new one.

Of course technology in photography is evolving at a pace never before experienced. And of course our choices of equipment are extremely important, because what we select to some degree controls what we are able to do as photographers.

However...That degree of control is greatly over emphasized. Far too many people believe that if they don't have this camera or that camera - Nikon? Canon? LEICA! - they can't be good photographers. Conversely, they believe that using, say, a Leica, will turn their crappy snapshots into great art.

Sure, I have particular equipment I like - but I can produce good images with what ever you give me.
I'd argue that this is one of the best images I've ever shot, or ever will shoot...

As I recall, I shot that with a Honeywell Pentax - not even a Spotmatic ;-) - and a Vivitar 28mm f 3.5 lens on old Tri-X. Tell me how my having shot it with a Nikon F, or SP, with a Nikor lens, or a Leica M3 with a Summicron, would have made it better.

I do most of my shooting now not with the latest Canon or Nikon, but with an Olympus E-3, with a 4/3 sensor. That means I'm shooting with a, what, 10.5? 11? mgp sensor when everyone else is shooting with 14s and up? Hell, I also use the E-330 with its 7.5mgp sensor. So what? I can uprez to any size I need or clients need, and if I can there are some commercial outfits that can turn 5mgp images into giant commercial displays or museum quality prints. Will I be 0

Sure equipment's important - it's important to work with the equipment that's right for you . Beyond that though? Equipment discussions tend to detract from discussions of images.

Best

Originally Posted by NeilL If he thought sharpness was a bourgeois concept, I can't imagine he could have found the words for PS! Well, obviously he had a sense of humor! But he got out just when one was really needed!

Keep in mind that the lenses HCB used through most of his career were Coke bottle-bottoms compared to the latest generation of Leica M aspherical lenses. Some of the 'dreamy quality' some people oooo and ah over in images from the 30s, 40s - even into the 60s - is simply the result of seeing the world through crummy glass.

Originally Posted by bdcolen Keep in mind that the lenses HCB used through most of his career were Coke bottle-bottoms compared to the latest generation of Leica M aspherical lenses. Some of the 'dreamy quality' some people oooo and ah over in images from the 30s, 40s - even into the 60s - is simply the result of seeing the world through crummy glass.

But it could be sharp enough when that's what he wanted, even in the 30s. If you have Henri Cartier-Bresson, Photographer, look at the pictures and try to correlate sharpness with when the shot was taken. They did get less grainy as film improved, but he could get sharpness early on and that "dreamy quality" in the 50s and 60s. And, really, it doesn't matter in his shots because the composition and message is always so strong that sharpness or lack of sharpness is really just a detail.

Originally Posted by bdcolen Hi, Neil - Thanks for being pleasant, even kind, as you rip me a new one. Of course technology in photography is evolving at a pace never before experienced. And of course our choices of equipment are extremely important, because what we select to some degree controls what we are able to do as photographers. However...That degree of control is greatly over emphasized. Far too many people believe that if they don't have this camera or that camera - Nikon? Canon? LEICA! - they can't be good photographers. Conversely, they believe that using, say, a Leica, will turn their crappy snapshots into great art. Sure, I have particular equipment I like - but I can produce good images with what ever you give me. I'd argue that this is one of the best images I've ever shot, or ever will shoot... As I recall, I shot that with a Honeywell Pentax - not even a Spotmatic ;-) - and a Vivitar 28mm f 3.5 lens on old Tri-X. Tell me how my having shot it with a Nikon F, or SP, with a Nikor lens, or a Leica M3 with a Summicron, would have made it better. I do most of my shooting now not with the latest Canon or Nikon, but with an Olympus E-3, with a 4/3 sensor. That means I'm shooting with a, what, 10.5? 11? mgp sensor when everyone else is shooting with 14s and up? Hell, I also use the E-330 with its 7.5mgp sensor. So what? I can uprez to any size I need or clients need, and if I can there are some commercial outfits that can turn 5mgp images into giant commercial displays or museum quality prints. Will I be 0 Sure equipment's important - it's important to work with the equipment that's right for you . Beyond that though? Equipment discussions tend to detract from discussions of images. Best

No wonder you have to get close, 10.5 - 11, ouch...

What we have here is ; old school vs new school...

A good discussion and being kept civil...

Originally Posted by torags No wonder you have to get close, 10.5 - 11, ouch... What we have here is ; old school vs new school... A good discussion and being kept civil...

I think you're missing the point entirely.

EDIT: referring to old school vs. new school

And just to weigh in on the side of "it isn't the quality of the tool itself but that of the person using it," I share this gallery from Chase Jarvis's blog today: http://blog.chasejarvis.com/blog/mobile_photo/ He ran a quick contest challenging everyone to submit photos taken with their cell phones, the prize being his old iPhone. Not every shot in there is my cup of tea, but quite a few really struck a cord with me.

Thanks for the dialog, B.D. and all you guys.

And thanks for the pic, B.D. - it's penetrating, both in what it shows, and how it affects me. It looks good too!

I too feel the need sometimes to dive beneath the surface and penetrate a bit, without
splashing anybody too much, I hope. That's the value of your pic, isn't it. I guess you have to hope
that nobody whose face appears there says, "Hang on, you can't publish my photo...!"

It would be stupid for anybody to argue that your photo could have been better with different gear.
However, you yourself readily recognise that it is what it is partly because of the equipment that
you did use. Same with H C-B, and all the rest. We don't try to separate the photographer and their
photographs from their gear. I doubt that all those guys would take quite as indifferent an attitude to
gear as you seem to if they were here now. Does anybody believe that if H C-B were reborn he would search out
his old Leicas and shoot the same stuff?

So, we should definitely not separate ourselves from our gear. How we imagine, approach, capture
and present an image - the photographic possibilities in a situation - are in a very real way dependent on the gear we have available.. It's not that something good cannot be got, but that other possible good things might be out of reach. We don't think of cycling to the moon because we know a pushbike will never get us there. Those higher ingredients in photography, of imagination, revelation, penetration, values - all the things we recognise make photography worthwhile and which we all agree don't come from the gear we use - can yet have no way to happen without enabling technology.

The past has achieved what it has with what it had. The future of photography is in how much our gear can enable our limitless imaginations, our visions, our values. We will never get to the moon on pushbikes, no matter how good those pushbikes are or how servicable they have been here on earth. Don't trivialise the issue with Canon vs Nikon etc. To weekend jaunters it might really not matter a damn. Otherwise, though, equipment is central in a very deep way.