Photojournalism/ walk around lens

JIP · Nov 30, 2006

It seems silly to buy a 28-105 when you already have a 28-90 I know when I want to buy a piece of equip. the money is burning a hole in my pocket but really if it is an option I would wait and save for a 2.8 why make an almost lateral move in lens quality when you can move up

DeepSpring · Nov 30, 2006

ok thanks for all your replies. I'm going to look into either something more into the 200mm range or a flash or battery grip. I don't really see a need THAT much for flash now but it was nice when I had one. A battery grip seems like the most logical move.

Digital Matt · Nov 30, 2006

It seems like you are just itching to spend money on new equipment, which is something we all fall into sometimes. Most people denounced your idea of the 28-105, so you are searching for something else to buy. Buying a new piece of equipment won't make you a better photographer. If you really need a zoom lens, save up for a good one, like the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L, but in the meantime, I'd just stick to your 50mm and look for some inspiration.

DeepSpring · Nov 30, 2006

lol no I'm not just itching to burn money because really I don't have too much to spend now. I need to sell candy for what I want (kids at school love chocolate for anyone else in highschool you can get 3 for $1 sell em $1 each) But I like the being able to have way more battery life when being out all day and the fact that it has the vertical shutter buttons make portraits easier. Not to mention a more comfortable hold for the smaller xt. I know that the pictures are all me but there are circumstances when I might need more reach like sporting events at school. But the grip seems to be the most practical and it dosnt even help how my pictures look

usayit · Dec 1, 2006

I'm no photojournalist but that type of photography has captured my interest the past few months... almost exclusively.. but Am I the only one here that finds obtrusive cameras, lenses, and equipment (big photo bags) just get in the way. I found that simply pullling out an SLR with a large sized zoom changes the overall feeling of the environment... people react to you different and take notice. Almost as if I just pulled out a big Howitzer out of my bag.

Totally different experience from when I take my small Pentax SLR or Canonet with me instead.

In regards to the first post.. I agree... you have everything you need. Two smallish bodies.. 1 low light 50mm prime and one zoom. I've learned to appreciate high speed film and leave the flash at home so I can't recommend that choice. In past, lots of journalists favored the 35mm focal range as it brought a bit more intimacy to the photography.

markc · Dec 1, 2006

usayit said:
In past, lots of journalists favored the 35mm focal range as it brought a bit more intimacy to the photography.

For me it does the opposite. You can get physically closer, but so much more of the environment is included in the image with a wide angle. If you get too close, you get distortion. With a telephoto, you can get close in the image without being physically close, and you can eliminate many distracting elements. I consider that more intimate, because it's much more exclusionary of anything but the subject.

Don Simon · Dec 1, 2006

True, but sometimes there is an advantage to including more than just the subject, i.e. you can say a lot about them by showing more of their home/work environment.

markc · Dec 1, 2006

Oh absolutely. Environmental portraits at home/work can say more about a person than a straight portrait. I love Henri Cartier-Bresson's environmental portraits. I think he used a normal lens for almost everything. That happens less often on the street, though, where the environment doesn't say as much about the subject.

This isn't street photography, but I find this more intimate than this. Neither one says a lot about her, though.

usayit · Dec 2, 2006

markc said:
Oh absolutely. Environmental portraits at home/work can say more about a person than a straight portrait. I love Henri Cartier-Bresson's environmental portraits. I think he used a normal lens for almost everything. That happens less often on the street, though, where the environment doesn't say as much about the subject.

This isn't street photography, but I find this more intimate than this. Neither one says a lot about her, though.

intimate: Marked by close acquaintance, association, or familiarity

I guess your definition of intimate is different than what I intended. In my mind close-up doesn't necessarily bring intimacy because it doesn't bring a close acquaintance or familiarity with the subject being photographed.

In the portrait of the woman... it sparks thoughts of

"Who is she?"
"What is she like?"
"Why is she smiling?"
"Where is she at the time she was photographed?"
"Why was she being photographed?" (other than being pretty)
"What does she enjoy doing?"
There is lots of substance missing.... substance I feel is most important to photojournalism. Remember the "journalism" portion of photo-journalism.

From my (limited) experience...
* Telephoto lens give that feeling of looking through a telescope... as if spying on the subject. For me it gives that distant feeling.
* 35mm and 50mm are closer to the focal lengths one experiences with their eyes.. "normal vision". I don't notice much distortion...
* Imagine a crowded marketplace. Subjects can be far or near... A telephoto is pretty difficult to frame properly for near subjects. Normal lenses can capture near and far.. crop inward during printing but you can never crop outward.
* Normal focal lengths allow you to be more intimate with the environment... through direct interaction, near observer, or far observer.
* You can take a photo of the market vendor packaging your purchase just across the counter.
* Or be the person next in line taking a photo of money exchanges between the customer in front of you and the vendor...
* Or be the person in the street photographing the really long of people tired of waiting hours to make their purchase.
* The key is to capture a story which is combination of a subject (another person or you) interacting with the environment.
* Use of even wider than normal focal lengths specialize in space... which in of itself can tell a whole story.

There are also technical aspects...

* I find normal lenses for more compact that telephoto/zooms
* Normal lengths can be handheld at slower shutter speeds than telephoto focal ranges. Flashes seem to disturb way too much...
* At similar distances, I can bring more DOF.
* Shorter Hyperfocal distances. 28mm at f/16 is somewhere between 5-6ft. 35mm at f/16 is between 8-9ft. 50mm at f/16 is 17ft. BUT 85mm at f/16 is 49ft and 100mm at f/16 is a beyond 60ft.
* Captures more viewable field... allow for a crop.

One example that comes to mind is www.edkashi.com . (Had a wonderful short exchange of emails with him a while back... he's been published in publications such as National Geographic and seems quite pleasant in person. Purchased my used 1d-markII from him) Look at his photo essays.. all of them.... you'll see almost exclusive use of normal or slightly wider focal lengths.... to capture a subject in their environment... surroundings. Even his "portraits" are done in the same manner just giving you enough background to bring a story into the picture.

My opinion.. you want to learn/experience/taste photojournalism... take a small nonobtrusive camera with a normal focal length. Carry it with you where ever you go ready to shoot. If your camera is manual focus.. prefocus at hyperfocal. I usually leave the strap at home and walk around with the camera in my hand (wrist strap) at my side (brings less attention and is quicker to bring to the eye) As you go through your day... think of composition with just your eyes (remember 35mm an 50mm are close to your normal vision). See something interesting... shoot it..

I know this probably doesn't carry weight here.. but the rangefinder has long been the journalistic photographer's tool for many years. Its no surprise that the most popular frame lines are 35mm and 50mm. The Leica M systems most valuable lenses are the 35mm and 50mm summilux next to the Noctilux. Leica's only "zoom-like" lens, the Tri-Elmar, is considered a very good street lens.... it contains 3 focal lengths; 28, 35, 50.

markc · Dec 2, 2006

I agree with almost everything you wrote. Just a couple of points:

usayit said:
intimate: Marked by close acquaintance, association, or familiarity

That's one part of it. There are other ways to use it: "characterized by or suggesting privacy; warmly cozy", as in "an intimate little cafe".

That first shot was with an 85mm on a 10D, so while I wasn't right in her face, I was still relatively close to her. And the image, while not very intimate in the first meaning, seems more intimate to me than the second image.

I see your point about a wide angle allowing someone to see more of the surroundings. If the surroundings say something about the subject, then it can me more intimate than not including them. But we were talking about street photography, and I personally find that a lot of street doesn't say a lot about the person. When that fails, the second meaning comes more into play for me, which was the case here.

In the portrait of the woman... it sparks thoughts of

"Who is she?"
"What is she like?"
"Why is she smiling?"
"Where is she at the time she was photographed?"
"Why was she being photographed?" (other than being pretty)
"What does she enjoy doing?"
There is lots of substance missing.... substance I feel is most important to photojournalism. Remember the "journalism" portion of photo-journalism.

True, but this also applies to the second, and I never claimed this was photojournalism. It was simple me trying out shooting a model for the first time.

* Telephoto lens give that feeling of looking through a telescope... as if spying on the subject. For me it gives that distant feeling.

I get where you are coming from. If you are familiar with focal lengths, it's hard not to image where the photographer is standing when looking at an image. I guess since I took this, I know just how far away I was. I think the DOF may be making it look more telephoto than it was, since I was at f1.8.

* 35mm and 50mm are closer to the focal lengths one experiences with their eyes.. "normal vision". I don't notice much distortion...

50mm yes, but 35mm is as far from normal as 85mm is in the other direction (on 35mm film). I do notice the large nose/small ears in portraits taken with a lens as wide as 35mm. It's one of my pet peeves (unless there is call for it) and makes me think "snapshot", since so many beginners take them this way. It's not so bad if the subject as farther away from the camera.

On that site, in the Nigera folder, both the shots of Francis Samuel and the man in the black and blue shirt in front of the outhouses have what I call "balloon head". They aren't as the eye sees them. I'm not saying they aren't great photojournalistic shots; I'm only talking about how wide lenses distort.

So I see your point about "intimate", and I guess we each have a rather personal definition for it. For me, those images I just mentioned have some intimacy, as I know something about the person because I know something about their environment, but I don't feel "close" to them. For me, a close cropped shot invokes that feeling much more, like I'm sitting across a table with them sharing conversion over a cuppa. The wider the shot, the less I feel like I'm in their personal space.

As far as using a rangefinder with a 50mm-ish for street/photojournalism, I think you'll find that many people here agree, including me. And yeah, the 35mm lens is great for that too. I was only disagreeing with the "intimate" part, which comes down to how we each use the definition. I rarely find street or journalistic shots to be intimate when I look at them. For me, it takes shots like this and this.

Don Simon · Dec 2, 2006

usayit said:
I know this probably doesn't carry weight here.. but the rangefinder has long been the journalistic photographer's tool for many years.

I suspect rangefinders would be more popular if they were anywhere near the same neighborhood as affordable

. Older uncoupled rangefinders or fixed-lens, largely auto-exposure models can be found and are good, but modern ones with interchangeable lenses, good metering and full manual control, relatively high shutter speeds etc are really not cheap - Cosina's Voigtlanders seem to be the only range that to me look 'affordable' in the way that most SLR systems are.