Taking credit for M8 image capture

[scaryink]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Does anyone using this kit sometimes get the uneasy feeling that the shutter clicker shouldn't take much credit for capturing images on the street?

 

There is fundamentally little in the way of decision making to capture scenes and actions of others. Studio and commercial or artistic shots are typically for more set up and controlled by the photo-person. The vibe, content and end product is typically well considered in pre-production. Street shooting however with a digital M doesn't really even necessitate the most basic choices, ie b&w, high contrast, low saturation etc. Dont get me wrong there are many fabulous images captured with this great camera - it just seems that a big part of it is being in the right place and using your eyes to find that right place.

 

For digital M post production is a just few mouse clicks away.

 

Do you think the level of skill needed to capture images with the kit is minimal? Yes it more than a fully automatic camera, but in the long run, not that much more.

 

I was recently looking at the new work of Sally Mann and the wonderful masters of alternative mediums on the LF forum. There really is so much more control and decision making with these other styles of shooting. There are artists in every sense of the world. The material, format, subject matter. This is precisely the same as a sculptor or any other artist.

 

I love my M8 but often find shooting with LF, MF or M film cameras to be far more satisfying. I have a greater sense of accomplishment.

 

Im interested in your opinions as well. (Also the usual suspects, please don't blast me for having nothing to contribute to the forum. I happen to think this issue to be at the heart of image capture.)

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Nothing wrong with that , you simply like to work harder and more deliberate at your shooting style. Maybe you just like a more slowed down method of working. I shoot MF every day and sometimes it is more work but I enjoy the output from it. Or maybe you just like a challenge, I know I do. Perfectly normal for some folks.

[mat_mcdermott]

I would disagree. Choosing the time of day, location, and the split second where everything or nothing comes together requires a great deal of attention to the environment. You don't directly control each element, but you pick a situation in which something worthwhile is likely to occur, and then wait. Sometimes you come back and back again (and back again) until it all works out.

 

I think the idea that "There is fundamentally little in the way of decision making to capture scenes and actions of others." is actually fundamentally wrong.

 

Knowing when to be in the right place and using your eyes to find that place requires as much skill, albeit admittedly different skill, as studio work.

 

Do we criticize documentary filmmakers for having less skill, or just relying on their equipment, than fiction filmmakers who chose every element in the frame?

 

It's an important issue to discuss, but in some ways its comparing different things, street/documentary v. studio photography.

[microview]

 

I love my M8 but often find shooting with LF, MF or M film cameras to be far more satisfying. I have a greater sense of accomplishment.

 

Or is it merely to do with the delay between clicking the shutter and seeing in some form your processed film images? You see the results and think "Oh yes/no" but with the M8 your fleeting disappointment vanishes with a press of the delete button; you are still 'on site' and can try again. The shutter repeat lets the moving people get together in a satisfying way and you can quickly scrap their more awkward juxtapositions.

[Jamie Roberts]

I actually think there's quite a fine art to seeing what's happening *and* making the most of the light available. Leica's lenses aren't magic (well... you know what I mean ; the moments that come together with great light and gesture and composition--on the street no less--are few and far between IMO.

 

For example, some people do not seem to be capable of seeing what light does or what it can do. photographically, and that's at least important in a great street shot as anything else about the moment.

 

I look at some of the stuff I see in the People forum and it takes my breath away, it's so good (and so well thought out, too).

 

I see this at weddings too: there are so many stories going on all at once and the ability to see them, represent them with the camera, and to use the light at hand (or add light where you need to) isn't easy at all, I don't think.

 

Having said that, if I had a couple of Cooke lenses handy I might agree with you too. And believe me I'm thinking about it

 

So to me studio work and "event / street" work are both expressions of photographic art; one relies on a moment taking place (as the basis for representation) and one relies on creating that moment (as the basis for representation) but they're equally wonderful when done well.

[Jeff S]

So to me studio work and "event / street" work are both expressions of photographic art....but they're equally wonderful when done well.

 

All useful and relevant, Jamie, but his post is as much about digital vs film as about studio vs street. Regarding the former, I think it's all about the photographer. If HCB had digital, I don't think his images would have required any less thought, or been any less compelling.

 

I've done street photography with film and digital, and my thought process at time of capture is not much different. A few technical nuances, but those become second nature. The big difference is now I can do the equivalent of my former darkroom work in far less time, with far less smell and cleanup. Yes, sometimes I miss the magic of the print coming up in the developer, but at the end, the print is still the print. And, the pleasure has not changed...for me.

 

As far as his point about taking less credit for the result...I just don't get it.

 

Jeff

[thompsonkirk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

First of all, good street photography isn't supposed to be subject to control. It's probably best defined as "rendering oneself accident prone" (Chris Rauschenberg).

 

Second, I never make a final print of a photograph, street or other, without spending most of a full day's work on it. It you're just posting to the web, that's easy; if you're printing, a full & deliberate set of skills is involved.

 

Kirk

[zonevt]

In many ways taking a good street or photojournalism photo is much harder than a studio photo. film or digital makes no difference. The photographer is working with available light, a portable hand held camera and has to depend upon experience and skills to capture the right composition, and moment. In the past these images were created using expert experience, film and processes, not just shooting an image. Today these skills are developed using digital cameras and the right software and learned techniques. The studio photographer can have extensive lighting, props, models, medium and large format cameras and assistants working in their favor. Lets give both photographers equal praise and value for their creative process. Those that say it is easy know nothing about the true photographic experience. There are a lot of those photographs taken and shared but not many merit being called great street or journalism photos.

[erl]

Scaryink, you have posed an involved and complicated question in reality, to which there is no single correct answer. I could both agree and disagree with a lot of it.

 

Personally, I believe my skill level required shooting studio work with MF, or any format is equivalent to my skill level required shooting street or theatre. Clearly they are all different skills, but may be equall in level of demand. Now that you have made me think about it, I realize that I use 'street' to practice or train myself for 'theatre' work. Because I mainly shoot theatre 'blind', ie. never having seen the production before, I am literally on the prowl, anticipating, listening, watch for advance cues, anything that will give me the drop on the next shot. I survive on my reflexes and the responsiveness of my gear.

 

Overlaid on all of that is Light. I am always looking at the light. This is a governing factor in all photography. When god said: "Let there be light" ......... I am sure he had phorographers in mind . I find that I need to periodically switch from shooting street etc to shooting something studied or controlled for awhile, and then back again. I barely 'change hats', just subject. My way of thinking remains pretty much the same but I just 'change gears' to use a new set of reflexes.

 

All this seems to confirm the view that the photographer is the image maker, the camera is but the tool for capture. Some of the seemingly 'simple' captures actually involve more input than seemingly difficult captures ever may require. A skilled operator can make the most diificult procedure seem easy. If this happens to you, it is probably an indication that you have a high skill level, rather than that you are doing something easy.

[BerndReini]

Yeah right. I shoot very deliberately in the street using film or digital. I do admit that the M8 frees me up to just take the shot without second-guessing it, which makes the process faster than using film. In general, when you shoot in the studio, you can just replicate the moment. In the street, you usually get one frame and the moment is gone. HCB's "decisive moment" concept still holds true with the M8. I am not sure that the same can be said for a Canon 1d or any other high-speed camera that shoots 40 frames in rapid succession. I shoot maybe three times as many exposures with my M8 in the same time than what I shoot on film, that's it. You cannot replace seeing the shot with just snapping away, that would result in, well, snapshots. I take great pride in my street photography and call it just as much a fine art as nudes or black and white landscapes. You can tell whether a street photograph was taken deliberately or a lucky capture when you look at a series of images.

 

?????

[RSL]

HCB said it most clearly:

 

"To me, photography is the simultaneous recognition, in a fraction of a second, of the significance of an event as well as of a precise organization of forms which give that event its proper expression."

 

And"

 

"By form, I mean a rigorous organization of the interplay of surfaces, lines, and values. It is in this organization alone that our conceptions and emotions become concrete and communicable. In photography, visual organization can stem only from a developed instinct."

 

These ideas mostly are foreign to studio photographers and landscape artists. On the street you're lucky if you have more than a second to frame a shot and shoot. If you're going to succeed you MUST develop an instinctive response to what you see in the viewfinder. You simply don't have time to do the kind of setup ScaryInk sees as artistic. But there's at least as much "decision making." The thing that throws some people off is that the decisions have to be made unconsciously and instantaneously. To a casual observer they don't seem like decisions.

[erl]

Russ, I think you have made your observations too narrow. By apparently excluding 'studio photogs' from the creative talent you are completely wrong. I work both street and studio, and other areas as well. The creative moment, encompassing instinctive and spontaneous reaction is not the preserve of street photographers alone. If you have ever tried a shoot of a young child in an 'intimidating studio', you would realize the 'money shot' appears for but an instant, if at all. You can't re-run the event. It is the definition of an oxymoron. It is both in control and out of control.

 

OTOH, it could be said, with some truth, that street shooting has to be easier because anyone can practice it for ever and will probably develop some skill at it, eventually. However, we all know that 'mountains of rubbish' abound in the street genre, while but a few images may rate as worthy. But of course we also know that 'worthy' is also in the eye of the beholder.

 

On the HCB reference, I don't think he would survive today. He had an almost exclusive domain in his time, and did well for those times. Today, IMO, he would be be swamped by surrounding talent and would be just one of the pack. Purely a consequence of circumstance. There! That should bring a few rabbits out of their burrows.

[xrogers]

On the HCB reference, I don't think he would survive today. He had an almost exclusive domain in his time, and did well for those times. Today, IMO, he would be be swamped by surrounding talent and would be just one of the pack. Purely a consequence of circumstance. There! That should bring a few rabbits out of their burrows.

 

Perhaps true, but in this rabbit's opinion, HCB was one of a few that defined a new domain. Certainly that domain has been refined over the years since, but "the pack" didn't come up with a new way of looking at the world. Without dedicated people like HCB, there could be no pack at all.

 

Same with Ansel Adams and company. There are numerous photographers that shoot Ansel Adams photos better than he did. Fortunately, every now and then one of them manages to break away and start doing their own work.

 

I don't expect to or need to define a domain, but hopefully in some small way, I can find and do my own work!

 

Back down the hole...

 

Later,

 

Clyde

[Jeff S]

On the HCB reference, I don't think he would survive today. He had an almost exclusive domain in his time, and did well for those times. Today, IMO, he would be be swamped by surrounding talent and would be just one of the pack. Purely a consequence of circumstance. There! That should bring a few rabbits out of their burrows.

 

My point was different...if HCB had a digital camera in his time, I don't think he would, or should, have "taken any less credit" for his images, i.e., the general point the OP proposed.

 

Jeff

[jaapv]

I think it depends which photographer, Jeff. With HCB the medium was totally secondary. Content was all that counted. Ansel Adams is a different argument - he used the camera and technique as part of the creative process. In fact, in his old age he is quoted as saying: "If I were to start over I would use digital" remarkably prescient too - at the time a 1 Mp camera was a marvel.

[Jeff S]

I think it depends which photographer, Jeff. With HCB the medium was totally secondary. Content was all that counted. Ansel Adams is a different argument - he used the camera and technique as part of the creative process. In fact, in his old age he is quoted as saying: "If I were to start over I would use digital" remarkably prescient too - at the time a 1 Mp camera was a marvel.

 

I agree only to an extent. For photographers who use digital cameras like a machine gun, for example, the medium has clearly diluted the results. I was referring only to "thoughtful" photographers, and for them, I don't think that digital replaces their brain or eyesight, and that they're somehow less responsible for their images, the OP's premise.

 

The problem with the original post is that it mixes too many concepts....digital vs film...street vs studio...35mm vs MF vs LF...etc. But all of these issues are wrapped under the umbrella title by the OP that the photographer should take less credit for the capture.

 

I fully agree that the tools used help inform the photographer's work. And, the format issue (35 vs MF vs LF) is where I think a case can be better made...with LF in particular, the approach is more contemplative and personal. So, with LF, maybe the photographer is somehow "more responsible." But, I don't buy the argument that the photographer is necessarily less responsible when the issue is street/studio or digital/film.

 

So, regarding Ansel...if LF didn't exist in his day, yes I think he would have done different work. But, if digital existed along with film, I think he would have found a way to use all the tools available to generate his work. And, in that case, I think he could have taken equal "credit for capture."

 

Jeff

[jaapv]

Well, if you put it that way, I must confess that the whole idea of "taking credit for the capture" is quite empty of meaning for me. Credit? In what way? By virtue of the artistic content, which is undefinable in any case? As justification for the technique used? What would be the merit in that? Or maybe it is an allusion to the decisive moment as opposed to an areranged shot - where many examples of DMs have been shown to be arranged in retrospect, without making the photograph less telling. A question like that will only produce quicksand for answers.

[scaryink]

. So, with LF, maybe the photographer is somehow "more responsible." But, I don't buy the argument that the photographer is necessarily less responsible when the issue is street/studio or digital/film.

 

Jeff

 

This post had absolutely nothing to do with film versus digital.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Jeff S]

Well, if you put it that way, I must confess that the whole idea of "taking credit for the capture" is quite empty of meaning for me.

 

Agree...and I didn't put it that way, the OP did:)

Jeff

[Jeff S]

I love my M8 but often find shooting with LF, MF or M film cameras to be far more satisfying. I have a greater sense of accomplishment.

 

Au contraire...you should read your post again.

 

Jeff