Candid or Posed?

Recently on a forum of distinguished photographers …..I have been having this debate about why street photographers should clarify if a particular image was shot ‘candid’ or ‘posed’….. Most on the forum do not agree with me that we should distinguish the two, but wait….think about it.

I will go to a photo that someone took and ask; how did you get that shot….. their immediate reply is that they had someone (model or whatever) pose for the shot. Sure, the shot looks great but is that really street photography or is that just street portraits or posed street or street modeled …etc etc ? It makes a huge difference.

When I shoot candid photography and I ‘nail my shot’……it is because I have taken the time to analyze the scene and then wait for the shot, if it comes at all. Shooting ‘candid’ implies that I shoot without the subject being aware, although admittedly, like yesterday, awareness might come ‘after the shot’. …When shooting I need to determine based upon the scene, the light….patterns and colors etc…what or who might best fit in a photograph.. One can argue that the same applies to a posed shot but when shooting candid, all of this is done ‘now’…. not pre-planned. A quick decision is needed. If I shoot film, and I do so 100% manual or even digital shots I shoot manual focus… but camera settings change as I passively sit and wait. The sun moves, people or things come into the scene etc. Again, those changes require split thinking too accommodate.

The point is, that shooting candid and getting a good shot is more difficult in ‘it’s own way’ than a posed shot which also requires ‘it’s own way’. But those ways are different. While the end result might look the same (if both are great shots), the process of getting from A-L varies.

That ‘aspect of ‘what varies’, is what needs to be distinguished. There are certain things that simply can’t be captured in the same manner between the two and to pass them all off as ‘street photography’ is not right. Photographers should state their process.

A good example is where I recently saw a photographer take posed shots and represent them as candid shots, or ….implied by the subject matter and the end result. His work was published and everyone stated how great of a photographer he was as he captured the scene. Perhaps…..but if capturing a scene means you bring people into your studio and place them against a ‘green board’ and tel them how to stand and hold their arms and instructs them on their expressions; well…..that is not and should not be considered street work.

Just my two cents…..

Why Black and White

Why Black and White….. Why only grays and contrast….and white and starkness and shadows and mist, or paleness ….Why Black and white?

Number one….it is the essence of who we are when all is taken away. Leave yourself one day and just scan the world as if in a BW film or image. See what comes thru. Raw emotion, if one looks at faces. Impact, if one looks at objects. Take a photo that has both, and you have eaten away at the outer layers of flesh and have forced the abstract upon all else.

That is what Black and White is…..purity. The bottom line, openness ….. vulnerability. Put color in, and your images become like a frolic down the park…. In fact I might argue, you have a circus with color. You have a playground or a game within an arena.

Number two….Black and white not only is abstractness in the end result, but Black and White makes you, you the photographer; think in a different manner. It isn’t just grabbing a gay shot and then taking it back to your computer to enhance the colors beyond fairness. No sir…..not in Black and White. But there you force yourself to look into a world not normal, for you in your eyes, your human lens…..only see colors. So by forcing yourself to think in Black and White, you begin to change your thought, your view…. You are not just looking at a shot, but you are looking at ‘behind the shot’. What makes that shot, a shot and not just a shot to shoot.

Number three….Sharpness. Yes, I hear you……Black and White can be pencil thin sharp too but no….don’t go down that road. Your eyes are not perfect so why should your images be. Look for blur and I don’t imply bokeh. Look for blur and roughness in the subject or focus. Look for blur because it is natural and abstract at the same time. A good Black and White photo is a stunning representation of reality when not in focus. It is your mind, deep in sleep, or perhaps even barely cognitive. It hasn’t quite put forth the image yet and yet, there it lays.

Number four….Black and White leaves an impression upon others…..a color image just plays with their minds,….teases them. It is peripheral in nature as it never quite is lasting. But now think, please think. Take some of the best photographs you have in your memory. Go back as far as you want….. They have left an impression upon you that nothing in color can equate with.

Number Five….black and white is challenging while color is just ….okay, fun photo….now what? Cameras are set up for color and people just think in color, so why not take it in color. But a challenge is black and white. It isn’t just the focal point you need to be aware of but the entire surroundings. What blends….? what doesn’t…. You should be able to walk down the streets and instinctively be aware of what will work and what won’t. You don’t need that with color. In fact instinct doesn’t even come into the picture in many cases. But with Black and White, without instinct….you have cheap shot….

So there….five reasons….there are more and yes, I will talk more to that. But here are five to represent or to ‘start’ the game….

What is Street Photography

It is here that I question what I see the masses doing. I don’t understand them as I see what is classified as street photography. It is more akin to just ‘passing people’ who are photographed on the sly by some digital tool ….snap, snap, snap and more snaps…How many snaps?

I am not stupid enough to think that there is only one definition (mine) for what street photography is….no, it goes way beyond that. It is the manner in which many photos are taken and what they represent, or better yet…what is not represented. The subject matter, the person, the action…etc…is all immaterial. With the advent of digital photography comes the ability to go beyond a 36 frame roll. It is all about pretending to take photo’s , although they are actually taken. It is all about finding the chance to walk across a crosswalk and snap away. Or, to snap someone from behind…..or to snap, snap, snap, snap…knowing that ‘one’ photo will come out looking good amongst the hundreds taken that day.

If you read my blogs…you know I am big into the analog feel. I want that feel for ‘me”….. I feel that my gear (Leica M3, Leica M6, Rioch GR111 and Leica X2) best allow me to maintain an analog feel even though some of those are digital. For instance, the Ricoh and X2 are digital, but by the time I take one shot, the subject in front of me has moved on. A single shot….a long lag time between when I take a shot, and when I can take another shot. That forces me to think like ‘film’…like analog. My Ricoh is pretty easy to manipulate since I do much ‘live’…. The X2 forces me to really think about my settings. It isn’t as forgiving as the Ricoh. In fact the X2 is more like the M6. I think about the F-stop, ….exposure, white balance, ISO. I turn the corner and I have to think again about the same, due to shadows or light or other.

I don’t just roam to roam and shoot and shoot. I have forced myself to slow down and take an image ‘one shot at a time’ so I have to wait sometimes to set up my shot. Today, I waited a good 30 minutes in one place as the ‘right’ situation developed. Today over the course of 4 hours, I took 13 difference scene shots. Now, some of those scenes, such as the one I just spoke of,…had more than one shot, while others (7 of the 13) had just one shot. So I end up with 7 scenes where I had the opportunity to have it right the first and last time. That is what I meant but slowing down….waiting for the shots.

But of ‘what shots’…’what scene’…. Well….does your shot have impact? Does it beg the viewer to ask questions? If so….that is solid street photography. It isn’t about shots in numbers, nor is it about getting cystal clear images. It isn’t about just a shot with no story behind it. It isn’t about random shots taken at hip, (to avoid detection) nor is it about having models working for me to pose in a certain way (the opposite of random hip-made shots). It is about finding that story, that ….question, that impact.

One Month and a few Continents

I have been shooting with the X2 for a month now….my impressions overall.

I love the analog feel. Holding the camera, pulling it up to my eyes…..pressing the shutter and moving on. The pure energy that I get from holding the camera alone wants me to shoot. Admittedly, there is some odd psychological factor at play when shooting a Leica. What is it, I say to myself? Also admittedly, the images alone without some processing to my ‘high contrast’ taste, lack those of the Ricoh. The Ricoh GR has such wonderful high contrast that when viewing, I am blown away every time. So it would seem I have the best of both worlds, or seemingly. I can’t combine the two cameras. I can’t combine that intangible feel of the Leica with the high contrast of the Ricoh GR. They are on two different plains as one is physical and the other mental. Bottom line….have I ‘found it yet”…. with ‘it’ being the camera.I have found “IT” in regards to my images via the Ricoh. What is more important, the intangible of the process of doing or the physical of the images? I know where I want to be, but how to get there in the process of the shoot itself?

Camera wise……I think the answer might lie in the X2 and in the processing stage; just highlight ‘contrast’ more so as I use the digital darkroom. It appears to allow me to obtain that extra contrast as the Ricoh does within the shot / camera itself, as opposed to using the software on the computer to do so. So, perhaps yes….I still might have my Nirvana. Not sure, still experimenting….

Leica X2

If you read my postings you can conclude I have an affair with ‘film’….TriX or possible Fomapan 400. You can say I have duel mistresses.

I find myself in Australia….Melbourne to be exact. While I took my Ricoh GR Film camera and have shot, well….just a bit, I have concentrated more on my Ricoh GR111 or my Leica X2. Up till now, if not film, I shot Ricoh GR111. But I wanted to challenge myself a bit and see how I could turn the Leica X2 into a filmenesque look.

The last time I shot the Leica X2, I shot….viewed, and then laid it down knowing that while it is super sharp and a great digital overall from 2012, it lacked that film feel. But not so fast…I challenged myself to make it so. The past few days I have probably walked 15 miles around Melbourne (not downtown) and have experimented with settings, light….exposure, shutter etc and to my surprise, I feel I have almost more of a film look from the Leica than I do from the Ricoh….wow, go figure.

What is lacking from the Leica is the character within the light/shadows….. I just can’t get the same. But I can get ‘film’ out of digital. I have Character in the blur! … the dark shadows although not the same texture as the Ricoh, still none-the-less….bold, thick blacks which encase a person’s face or play with the edges as the eyes are led down thru the image. I am excited about the Leica. At the moment (and this includes three weeks worth of playing with the camera ‘down under”…) I have 158 shots. Not all are good, but most are acceptable in what I am looking for, just not all in the composition of what is being viewed. But hey, that is okay as that is what photography is all about. Shoot…shoot…shoot…shoot…and continue to do that and perhaps you will find one or two you like. Don’t get disappointed but keep shooting.

But I had presented myself with a challenge….turn the digital Leica X2 into an Analog/film, and I am successful. Now my only problem is when I wake up each day to go for my photo strolls, which camera do I take? Ricoh Film? Ricoh GR111 or Leica X2? ….Decisions, oh the decisions we must make in life.

Strive for Film

Film……..my eyes just long for film….that ‘look’. I suppose I can define that ‘look’ by pointing out technical aspects such as lack of sharpness, too much contrast…..or too little. Noise ….. blurriness. But I allow my eyes to define the look and not the technical aspects of the camera coming in.

What is it about film then that makes me strive for it? Heck, I bought an old Ricoh film camera and although I have taken a few rolls, I have yet to actually develop them to see the quality of my Ricoh film. I will; I will…. Just like Christmas, I postpone those negatives/developing.

I recently bought an old digital Leica X2 and did so purposely so I can compliment by Ricoh GRiii which I feel I have mastered the settings (on the camera and in the field) to match TriX film. The older X2 is just rough around the edges and is going to force me to shoot ‘analog with digital’….. I look forward to it and since it is a 35mm and my Ricoh GrIII is a 28mm, the two will blend for me.

But …..film….. analog….

One can always state that they will take their new DSLR or full frame Fuji or Leica or Nikon etc and although it shoots multiple frames per second (20 or so), they can just slow down and take ‘just one’—-at a time. But you know, it doesn’t work that way.

The camera that someone buys that shoots 20 frames per second or has 50mp or has 50,000 ISO etc, is purchased to USE those features, thus they are. Mentally a person comes onto the streets with an idea of their shooting style in mind, and if you come in with ‘that camera with the latest features’, one tends to use them to the utmost. The same applies to the opposite. If you come onto the streets with a camera that is either ‘film,’ or ‘filminsque’, your frame of mind tends to linger around a slower approach to your capturing process.

My new old Leica digital X2 slows me down. It just doesn’t take ‘fast shots’ ….a slow auto-focus and features not up-to-date. My Ricoh GRiii has settings that digitally I provide myself with a chance to imitate film. That along with how I shoot and what I look for, makes for that ‘filminisque” feel. Of course my Leica M6 and Ricoh GR10 are film…so viola; my images tend to ‘be or appear’ film. And I welcome the Leica S series.

FILM GR

Since I love film……since I love a Ricoh GR….I have decided to mesh the two and buy an old GR film. Oh yes, I still have my Leica’s, (M3 and M6) and will continue to use them. But the other day I was out and about for 5-6 hours walking Philadelphia and just couldn’t see myself lugging along a heavy Leica M6.

My options were my Ricoh GR111, which I did. But I love to listen to You Tuber Brian Lloyd Duckett and his channel Streetshooters. There are so many reasons why film is good and so while I scanned Ebay looking for a good light Ricoh Film Camera, I came across one that I think will work for me. As in all things in this world, the minute anyone starts to' ‘like’ something, the demand drives the prices up, thus the RICOH GR Film, thus the GR 1, GR1s, GRV and the latter GR21….. But after doing some research I opted to get a good, fairly used but in good shape GR10. Not as much money and, the same mechanics as the GR 1 but w/o as many features.

In fact the camera reminds me of an Olympus X A2 that I had….. the same settings. So, will give it a try. Should arrive sometime next week and I will load It up and go out ‘a shooting’….

Stay Tuned….

Gr111 Vs Gr11

I love the GR….it is absolutely the best camera for Street Photography. I am on forums and I read about other cameras, including my Leica’s but in practicality, the Ricoh GR just wins hands down. Yes, one has to get used to the 28mm (equivalent in 35mm mode), but hey, that fits my shooting style. See some of my previous blogs if you are interested in my shooting style.

But the GR is just a beautiful camera that fits the streets well. It is small, quiet…..in fact it almost looks like I am on my phone, which many people now accept as common practice, so it isn’t standing out. While any camera can produce excellent results, it is important to know your camera, regardless of what it is.

This brings me to my posting here….GR11 or GR111. But for months now I have been learning the minor differences between the two versions. For instance, the GR111 has a better and sharper lens so sometimes when I want more of an easy ‘film look’, I will grab the GR11. Since I never use a ‘flash’….the absence of a flash on the GR111 doesn’t bother me. There are also minor differences between function button placement or the approach on how to adjust exposure. Additionally there are a few inner work things that separate the quality of images in some instances. But those are things I am learning.

Each day I go out, I make a decision to either grab the 11 or the 111 or the Leica M6 film. It just depends on the purpose I have for that day. Sometimes I just want to get more analog so my option is the M6. But when shooting digital,….. the 11 or 111? Well, it is a toss-up as I go back and forth. Today I shot with the GR111 and loved the feel and the photos that came from my shoots. Yesterday was a GR11 day with a sprinkling of Lecia M6 towards evening.

The point, I guess……is to simply know your cameras. The photos you capture are a result of your creativity in the field, but also knowing the limits of your gear. The latter is not nearly as important as your ‘creativity in the field’ but it does become icing on the cake when you are not fumbling with buttons and menu issues (doesn’t occur with the Leica).

Anyhow…..I will add to this post or create a new one when things crop up on the differences…..

Oh….listen to this and you will go film too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3KQ8pmR48