pmeheut wrote:
I hear your point but on the other hand, I trust Steve Mc Curry to know which gear to use and how to shoot people all around the world.
He managed to take some good pictures during his career as far as I can remember
So maybe this has more to do with the guy using the camera, the kind of pictures he shoot, etc and not the gear which is kind of our obsession sometimes.
I for one know I can shoot street with any camera. I just prefer using a M but also did it with film SLR, DSLR, mirroless... and need to adapt my process when I'm using more obtrusive stuff.
P.S: I've seen a documentary about Salgado and he was shooting his R6.2 in the face of people, something I would never do. But guess what? Salgado is 100 times the photographer I am so I would never criticise his way of working, more see if I can learn from it....Show more →
Salgado spent a long time with groups of people before starting to shoot them. His methods were very different from what we generally do.
pmeheut wrote:
My point exactly: this matters most than the size of lens. Because size does not matter
I think that when folks are tying to be "sneaky" on the street, they perceive themselves as less threatening to others because of a smaller camera. The psychology of what others think about your camera size ... well, that can be just as varied about what they think if you're wearing a "camera vest" ... pro, tourist, hack wannabe, exploitive YouTuber, disrespectful a$$hole, etc.
When you have engaged people sufficiently that they trust you, and you have "de-threatened" them, you could be using the Hubble Telescope, and they wouldn't care. It's you they trust (or not) ... not the size of the camera (in and of itself).
Being able to become genuinely intimate with people, requires more than suddenly splashing a "small" camera in their face (imo).
Small is fine, if you prefer small. But, I'm not entirely sold on the notion of how much it does (or not) play into the reception of folks. I've used medium format, and folks have seen that, and respected it in a way that was "disarming", as well.
I can't guarantee who / how others will respond to their perceptions of my gear. Not so sure it matters ... at least if you have the ability to engage folks in a way that enlists their trust (or diminishes their distrust) of you.
RustyBug wrote:
When you have engaged people sufficiently that they trust you, and you have "de-threatened" them, you could be using the Hubble Telescope, and they wouldn't care. It's you they trust (or not) ... not the size of the camera (in and of itself).
Being able to become genuinely intimate with people, requires more than suddenly splashing a "small" camera in their face (imo).
Indeed. But even when shooting people you do not know, i.e. "on the fly" street photography, you can be non threatening by being in the right mindset, having the correct non verbal communication, etc.
If you need a small camera to do so, that's ok.
Or you can also not care at all about their reactions. I think William Klein was like this, shooting people very close with a 28mm in New-York City and being ok with the agressive looks and sometimes shouting.
The "I am less noticed because I am carrying a slightly smaller black box" is hilarious especially in this era. Everyone is super sensitive to being photographed or filmed, it doesn't matter if you're using a tiny phone or a 400mm great white, the reaction is the same. The great white would actually almost elicit a smaller effect than someone initiating stalker vibes. Female subjects are especially super sensitive to this.
Yes, I personally think the whole "I am less conspicuous" stuff is overblown anyway. People use mobile phones to take pictures constantly. The world has gotten used to that gesture of bringing a device to eye level - they know when pictures are being taken.
Another thing, as an avid Leica fan, is covering the red dot. Please, people who would know the red dot know the form factor. All you're doing by covering the red dot is getting tape residue on your red dot. I can get people who don't like the look of the red dot (I have some P models myself) but you're not fooling anyone who is savvy about Leicas.
crf59 wrote:
Yes, I personally think the whole "I am less conspicuous" stuff is overblown anyway. People use mobile phones to take pictures constantly. The world has gotten used to that gesture of bringing a device to eye level - they know when pictures are being taken.
Another thing, as an avid Leica fan, is covering the red dot. Please, people who would know they red dot know the form factor. All you're doing by covering the red dot is getting tape residue on your red dot. I can get people who don't like the look of the red dot (I have some P models myself) but you're not fooling anyone who is savvy about Leicas....Show more →
Wrt the red dot ... for photographic engagement of others, who cares. For the "steal me sticker" aspect, yeah, I can understand some folks preferring the blackout look. Even, if it is just placebo in their own mind's sake, that puts the photographer "psychologically" at more ease.
That said ... admittedly, I have gone through my own phases of "self-conscious" about the red dot. I think it's a learning curve for some. But, it's not that much different than toting a "big white", or a "red ring" from Canon, wrt to be "self-conscious" about the gear you're toting.
Sometimes folks put camo on their glass to hide it from critters ... sometimes, we are trying to hide things from ourselves, rather than others.
I often shoot in predominantly Islamic cultures, where the mere presence of a camera can cause apoplexy and yet phones are so ubiquitous they remain largely unnoticed and unchallenged.
I choose to cover all branding on all of my cameras regardless of make.
ftllens wrote:
The "I am less noticed because I am carrying a slightly smaller black box" is hilarious especially in this era. Everyone is super sensitive to being photographed or filmed, it doesn't matter if you're using a tiny phone or a 400mm great white, the reaction is the same. The great white would actually almost elicit a smaller effect than someone initiating stalker vibes. Female subjects are especially super sensitive to this.
is that image AI-generated? it looks AI-generated. can you caption it as such, please?
There’s an exhibit featuring Lisette Model here in Vienna. She was an early pioneer of really zoning in on people. Her trick was shooting 6x6 but cropping like crazy. So, in her own way, she was inconspicuous as it looked as if she was shooting a scene, but then in the darkroom she’d blow up an image containing a single person. The museum shows some of her negatives and the crops she made. Nowadays, she’d be considered creepy, but I also feel that we’re losing something by not being able to shoot and/or publish in certain places or certain things.
crf59 wrote:
All you're doing by covering the red dot is getting tape residue on your red dot.
Don't do it this way! I tried, and the gaffer tape glue actually peels away part of the white lettering and the red color of the dot when removing the tape after a while. Best way is to double-tape the area above the red dot that no glue attaches to it (meaning just fixing the gaffer tape on each side next to the dot).
crf59 wrote:
Yes, I personally think the whole "I am less conspicuous" stuff is overblown anyway. People use mobile phones to take pictures constantly. The world has gotten used to that gesture of bringing a device to eye level - they know when pictures are being taken.
Another thing, as an avid Leica fan, is covering the red dot. Please, people who would know the red dot know the form factor. All you're doing by covering the red dot is getting tape residue on your red dot. I can get people who don't like the look of the red dot (I have some P models myself) but you're not fooling anyone who is savvy about Leicas....Show more →
I cover the red dot because I don’t like the red dot. And when doing portraits people look at the dot and not the lens.
philip_pj wrote:
A little comment on FOMO. Steve McCurry was the focus of a Leica YT video last year, using a monster camera and even more monstrous lens - SL3 and 24-90mm. Zooms are, of course, FOMO devices par excellence.
This one is at f3,6 (or smaller, and you never know as you 'zoom') at 50mm and longer, and the photos show it. I thought variable zooms are consumer grade items. And the lens is full of the wrong stuff: 'four aspherical elements and 11 anomalous partial dispersion glass elements'.
I looked the gear up and the combo comes in at 1910 grams! It's the wrong way to go for street (IMO) unless you have a sponsor with deep pockets, an ulterior motive to the main game. I thought he was a hip Magnum dude, but he is setting a bad example here. All his stuff looked pre-arranged too. He should have shown the people their photos in the EVF, like I do - much better than the LCD screen from two feet away.
YT title:
'Steve McCurry with the Leica SL3 - People of Burma'
(even the order here tells you the priorities)
Two bodies and small primes will weigh about the same and be much better for the photographer and especially for the subject. In his video, you can see the smiles fade when he points the huge device at people (82mm filter thread). He seems to like shooting people without teeth.
'And I’m concerned about weight when I go and to shoot.'
I'm glad Leica left off the IBIS, we should want to develop (or keep) the core skills, and they don't come any more core than holding the camera body still. It's not hard and it's good for the mind and spirit, and the camera will probably last longer and be less fussy.
It'll cost them sales though, for the same reason as the base level focus aids will. Buyers feel they ought to get as least as good as the mainstream, for the money. It's a shame to see such tidy, light and effective cameras not get received well. ...Show more →
I spend a day with Mr McCurry on his recent tour in Oz. I asked him why he chose the zoom rather than the SL APO’s. His response was he just wanted to not have to change lenses all the time and he really liked the flexibility of the zoom. Given his age, damaged hand and the simple fact he’s one of the most influential portrait photographers of all time I see zero reason to criticise his choice. He doesn’t always shoot with zooms but he likes the 24-90 a lot.
Steve McCurry is not a street photographer. Never has been.
And I’m not sure where the idea of the 24-90 being a consumer zoom (whatever that means) comes from. It’s one of the best standard zooms ever made. And follows a long history of vario’s from Leica that have been also optically stunning.
RustyBug wrote:
I think that when folks are tying to be "sneaky" on the street, they perceive themselves as less threatening to others because of a smaller camera. The psychology of what others think about your camera size ... well, that can be just as varied about what they think if you're wearing a "camera vest" ... pro, tourist, hack wannabe, exploitive YouTuber, disrespectful a$$hole, etc.
When you have engaged people sufficiently that they trust you, and you have "de-threatened" them, you could be using the Hubble Telescope, and they wouldn't care. It's you they trust (or not) ... not the size of the camera (in and of itself).
Being able to become genuinely intimate with people, requires more than suddenly splashing a "small" camera in their face (imo).
Small is fine, if you prefer small. But, I'm not entirely sold on the notion of how much it does (or not) play into the reception of folks. I've used medium format, and folks have seen that, and respected it in a way that was "disarming", as well.
I can't guarantee who / how others will respond to their perceptions of my gear. Not so sure it matters ... at least if you have the ability to engage folks in a way that enlists their trust (or diminishes their distrust) of you....Show more →
Agreed. The more countries I visit, the more I realise it’s the big fat white guy that’s ALWAYS noticed. Camera or not. It’s your attitude that matters. Sure you can be really stealth and shoot from the hip. K is starting to do this to get less *posed* reactions. But they always know we’re there.
Even in cities that you call home. People do sense the difference between a phone shot and someone bringing a *real* camera to their eye. We’re genetically orientated to sense that *something different* is happening. It’s a survival skill.
K has an innate ability to get into the middle of a group and be accepted. Anywhere we’ve ever been. A few minutes in and she’s free to do what she wants. I still have no idea how she does it so easily and I’m usually there…. I tend to stay back a bit and just stay quiet until I become *invisible*. That’s why she shoots with a 28 and I, with a 43.
I’ve travelled with everything from a RX1rii to a full dslr rig and white lenses and never noticed any difference.
flash wrote:
The more countries I visit, the more I realise it’s the big fat white guy that’s ALWAYS noticed. Camera or not. It’s your attitude that matters
Remind me of an old story: when I was a student, we went to USSR on an exchange program and on a trip.
We end up in market in very small cities with local farmers.
And another student, very tall guy, dressed like a tourist with a Minolta AF SLR explains to me how he shoots people from the hip using a cable release.
Because of his look, the way he is dressed and the fact he uses a camera worth 1 year of local salary, everybody noticed him a mile away but he really thought he was in stealth mode.
BTW, he never noticed the fact that I was shooting pictures too. With a M6
flash wrote:
I spend a day with Mr McCurry on his recent tour in Oz. I asked him why he chose the zoom rather than the SL APO’s. His response was he just wanted to not have to change lenses all the time and he really liked the flexibility of the zoom. Given his age, damaged hand and the simple fact he’s one of the most influential portrait photographers of all time I see zero reason to criticise his choice. He doesn’t always shoot with zooms but he likes the 24-90 a lot.
Steve McCurry is not a street photographer. Never has been.
And I’m not sure where the idea of the 24-90 being a consumer zoom (whatever that means) comes from. It’s one of the best standard zooms ever made. And follows a long history of vario’s from Leica that have been also optically stunning.
Agree 100% Gordon. The 24-90 is a superb lens and has all the attributes you want in a Leica lens - colors, rendering, micro contrast, etc. If it only wasn't so big and heavy....
flash wrote:
Agreed. The more countries I visit, the more I realise it’s the big fat white guy that’s ALWAYS noticed. Camera or not. It’s your attitude that matters. Sure you can be really stealth and shoot from the hip. K is starting to do this to get less *posed* reactions. But they always know we’re there.
Even in cities that you call home. People do sense the difference between a phone shot and someone bringing a *real* camera to their eye. We’re genetically orientated to sense that *something different* is happening. It’s a survival skill.
K has an innate ability to get into the middle of a group and be accepted. Anywhere we’ve ever been. A few minutes in and she’s free to do what she wants. I still have no idea how she does it so easily and I’m usually there…. I tend to stay back a bit and just stay quiet until I become *invisible*. That’s why she shoots with a 28 and I, with a 43.
I’ve travelled with everything from a RX1rii to a full dslr rig and white lenses and never noticed any difference.
I will add that there has been (imo) a cultural shift wrt to folks attitudes about cameras. Used to be ('80's / 90's) folks were "intrigued" by me and my camera work. Fast forward a couple decades and that "intrigue" turned into "distrust" along the way.
Personally, I think this is a byproduct of social media, combined with certain "street" photographers that made it their calling to get in folks personal space and be utterly disregarding of respect for folks. Some folks think that those are to be heralded, who are so "bold" in their work. But, (again, imo) it set in motion a pattern of combative element between the public and the photographer, as more and more "street" photographer wannabe's followed suit. And, the notion of taking a picture of "kid being a kid" ... oh, the horror, that you would shoot some "slice of life" worthy of Norman Rockwell cover.
Thus, we have to overcome that stigma evermore, these days, when we show up with a camera (vs. a phone).
Travel in big cities anywhere with expensive gear will likely always attract unwanted attention, but a phone can/will be snatched too. For the street photographers this is a constant concern. Ms also have a long history of outdoors and expeditions, Barnack himself started with the idea of a hiking camera- to evolve into a M. M cameras went on many historic mountaineering and other adventures in the 20th century- there is even the Everest M model for the Canadian expedition. Too often this has been forgotten because of the deep impact of the famous street photographers, that continues to this day and so often seen with the Leica YouTubers that I also view. My M11 ev1 arriving friday will get a lot of use as a light carry, outdoors camera in Alaska and other places. I am sure I will use it on occasion for travel-street as I have plans for international travel and I guess I'll have to be on my guard. But for me it is the light carry outdoors, no compromise image quality that will be my primary use. With age and health light carry is my priority. I know no weather sealing, there are easy solutions to protect a camera even from immersion- and the bears will not mug me for my camera in Alaska, they however might mug me for my lunch, and it has been attempted ! Maybe you street guys also need to carry bear spray, works for the bears !
