Photography Equipment & Software Thread

[PeteJ]

I'm trying to post more images to Instagram - is there a better way to post portrait or panoramic images? Their limited crop is really irritating as I just end up slicing off part of the image.

[Sidewaysbob]

Not that I've ever found. Their cropping is a right bugger.

 

[idiwa]

10 hours ago, PeteJ said:

I'm trying to post more images to Instagram - is there a better way to post portrait or panoramic images? Their limited crop is really irritating as I just end up slicing off part of the image.

 

No, you're better cropping for Instagram specifically. For landscape shots you can crop as a carousel of 3 imahes. IMG 1 is half the main IMG, IMG 2 the other half and then have IMG 3 as the full image. With that added bonus that it's more engagement in the arch god Insta if someone views all three images. 

 

This post demonstrates it better than I can explain 🤧

 

https://www.instagram.com/p/B-CPDdVD5HZ/?utm_medium=copy_link

[davadvice1]

This is the reason I don't use Instagram to view images as I like to pixel peep and it doesn't alow it. I feel, particularly with landscapes (mainly what I like to view) that Instagram doesn't allow it so chose not to.

 

I think they only recently allowed users to view outside the app this too was a big issue for me as I don't want to have to have an app and all the crap that goes with especially Facebooks apps. 

 

This workaround seems quite a faff, I assume it allows the crop in app so your not spinning out 3 jpgs from lightroom? 

 

 

On 08/11/2021 at 22:35, idiwa said:

 

No, you're better cropping for Instagram specifically. For landscape shots you can crop as a carousel of 3 imahes. IMG 1 is half the main IMG, IMG 2 the other half and then have IMG 3 as the full image. With that added bonus that it's more engagement in the arch god Insta if someone views all three images. 

 

This post demonstrates it better than I can explain 🤧

 

https://www.instagram.com/p/B-CPDdVD5HZ/?utm_medium=copy_link

 

[Loik V credern]

Thought I might as well ask here...I'm looking for a camera for use at night, and possibly as a replacement in the day. My fz300 bridge is limited and I lean into the rawness but there's always a fine line between horrific and just about working. Just at 5pm last Saturday when it wasn't even dark, no zooming, my camera struggling. At that point I look for light from screens, and any one source of light. I also have a Panasonic Lx7 which I don't use anymore and isn't better in low light either. I don't want super bright night shots obviously, but I can only judge based on the cameras I've used, if I buy something it has to be meaningfully better. 

 

Unless a replacement for day I don't want to spend £1000 or even £800, also I'm so used to an articulated screen I wouldn't want that option off, few offer that. I asked a night time specialist professional and he said Fuji X-T20 which I've always looked at, the Ricoh GR2 which I bought 10 years ago, the body heated up quickly in use and I wasn't sure what I wanted but realised it wasn't that, and the RX100. I had the Nex 5 and don't like Sony menus at all, Panasonic are near perfect in this way. But I've found a Rx100 used for just over £100 and if I'm just using at night and have a tendancy to keep dropping cameras and breaking them as they slip out of my bag when putting on a jumper then I might as well go used. The Rx100 has a flip down screen than out which is probably better, I take shots from the hip looking down, I don't raise to eye level. I could I guess, just not reached that point of being comfortable.

 

Just any suggestions I'll look at, any cameras or cheap sites. 

[Loik V credern]

I'm looking at the Fujifilm xa7, it's a bit hard to judge what I'll like, I do want to be able to change exposure and shutter speed on the dials and I know Fujifilm cameras allow that. Sony I'm not sure. I like the zoom of my bridge but not how plastic and crappy shots can look, I'm trying to think how much zoom I use, that I'm way more noticed than I think and if that's the case I might as well accept it.

 

Yesterday I was looking at a shot of a kid walking across a road, No Entry on the ground to the left, lit up against the buildings in the background, but I can't escape the plastic look no how matter what grain I apply. I know I get stuff I wouldn't without a zoom but other times, unless I need to tinker with the settings more, it lets me down. Just whether I've reached the end of this aesthetic or whether there's more there, it can still be fresh or whether I'm bored of it.

 

There's always a picture vibe to them, but I think it makes for distinctive one off shots where it's more about another way of forming and framing a shot than the 'decisive moment', because I'd take a lot then sift through and try to find the expression that most jumps out and the whole is more than the sum of its parts. And there is usually just one or two shots that do that, if the framing is wonky it won't work. 

 

I don't want to do stuff that looks like other peoples because the quality of the camera begins to take over, but at the same time I don't want it to be lesser always. 

 

There are a lot of situations where I feel like it's impossible. Then others where if I was just super upbeat and approached something with positivity it'd be better than taking it like I'm unreasonably snatching. There was one in London on a cloudy day of a bus driver smoking, the smoke in the reflection. But as soon as I saw it I shot, I didn't walk closer. As though it's a wild animal and it's dangerous. Another reason is I think the second is it. Or if I am noticed the person will simply turn around, move away. That is definitely true. This is a large bus park, there was a wall, he was below, except to walk up to ask a question, simply walking up makes you a threat. 

 

Unfortunately I generally come across like I resent existence so my presence is never a positive one. If you can just be visibly enthusiastic and endearing I think that will disarm most people. Like I could have gone; 'hi, the smoke in the reflection, do you mind if take a photo?'

 

I'm not like that, it takes energy I don’t have, I'm lazy, walking around is tiring enough. That solution is buried so deep it's only accessed as a possibility months later. I still haven't gone through that burst either, can't just expect to take a shot so far away in that bad light and get something. 

 

Also looking at the x100v which is (to me) expensive. The V because it has a flip screen. But no circle button clicker on the camera, just a touch screen. No zoom but a digital zoom. I've never lifted my camera to head height and got close, took one and moved on. But I don't think nervously shifting closer and standing still taking a lot waiting for something else in the frame is better.

 

There's a sitting space in market street Manchester underneath the escalator where people on the fringes of society hang around, I've got a few there, but getting close, lifting my camera, taking and moving on, I can't do it. With me not trusting my bridge much, I need to see the frame and think there's a good chance with how I'm blocking it that I can get something. Maybe with a better camera I'd be more optimistic one off shots can give something. 

 

Thinking maybe handheld always then over my neck then bridge out of the bag for zoom. A recent one with the woman stood in front of the jewellery store was across the road. Not a busy road but I don't stand in roads. The 'other shot' would be someone rushing past that I got eventually and wanted the possibility to get, but again being so far away there's a limit, it's placing subjects on a flat plane and making an image.

 

The strongest one was just the simplest, head within the blocks of the store. A few minutes later she got on a bus, but in the moment you can't know you have minutes. She saw despite me being across the road and only when going through on my laptop could I tell.

 

Maybe I could have walked across, stood a yard away, framed and shot, it's still just so weird. If you're moving or stood still I a light spot and people walk by it's different. If you walk over specifically and aim it's like you're reducing them completely when engagement is expected, and I want to be invisible, I want candid. No one will realise it's the background, or the light, or a combination of things where in the moment it's a shot and I can't leave it or else temporary severe depression occurs immediately after that disables me for about ten minutes, I crouch by a wall, hands to my head and rock back and forth, heavy breathing and swearing, 'that's literally why I'm here, just take the shot!' etc. do people realise that, no. I'm exaggerating, obviously, but also..not. dunno will keep looking. Obviously I don't expect any replies and info/suggestions but the number of views my thread has hasn't escaped me. 

[Naysonymous]

With regards to the new body thing, I shoot with a Fujifilm X-T2 which is basically an X-T20 with a few extra bells and whistles.  The sensor and processor (and therefore image quality) are identical.   It will definitely work at night, the camera is rock solid up to 3200 ISO and you can get away with 6400 or higher easily on social media, especially with one of the f/2 or f/1.4 primes Fuji do.  I'll throw up some sample images. 

 

The other side? I think that's a confidence thing.  The best zoom lens is a good pair of shoes, and getting in closer is always the way to go.   You've just got to do it at some point in street photography I guess, for every negative reaction there will be a ton of positive interactions and untold great photos.  Do you ever go out and shoot with others?  Would you like to? 

[Naysonymous]

Oh, and I’ve dipped my toe back into the world of analogue.  Picked up a Yashica Electro 35.  It’s Aperture Priority only, but it was cheap and I’ve always had a soft spot for rangefinders. I’ll run a roll of HP5 through it and see if it works or not. Hopefully it does, though I’m not sure I’m prepared financially to go down the rabbit hole of film photography. 
 

Spoiler

So obviously shoot me if I make a post in six months saying I’ve just bought a Rolleiflex and am looking for a good deal on 120 film. 🤪

 

[Loik V credern]

On 16/03/2022 at 15:15, Naysonymous said:

With regards to the new body thing, I shoot with a Fujifilm X-T2 which is basically an X-T2 with a few extra bells and whistles.  The sensor and processor (and therefore image quality) are identical.   It will definitely work at night, the camera is rock solid up to 3200 ISO and you can get away with 6400 or higher easily on social media, especially with one of the f/2 or f/1.4 primes Fuji do.  I'll throw up some sample images. 

 

The other side? I think that's a confidence thing.  The best zoom lens is a good pair of shoes, and getting in closer is always the way to go.   You've just got to do it at some point in street photography I guess, for every negative reaction there will be a ton of positive interactions and untold great photos.  Do you ever go out and shoot with others?  Would you like to? 

 

I think i just need to become a millionaire and buy loads that i can try.

 

I kind of left it late to look, because it was sunny i went out every weekend and then just end up spending ages going through shots. All i know are the absolute things i need, tilt screen and silent shutter. They're the most important things, then weight, other stuff like dials for quick exposure tinkering and shutter speed i've only just set up because i just make do. I don't have a lot of time so i better get to my point...i decided on a Fujifilm xa5, excellent condition for £320 with a 15-45 lens. It's basically brand new, and it's beautiful, it really is, immediately got the dials set as i want, the tilt screen is perfect. I tried it out and can immediately see a difference in how sharp and vivid the most rubbish shot became compared to my bridges. I went with Fujifilm because i like that sharpness and it's the street camera brand of choice for many. Unless i can try out different cameras i can't really know, and i don't mess around in settings anyway so i'm only covering the basics. So I'm watching videos of 50mm lens and like the closeness as I see it. I'm not sure i like 28mm, and wonder if 35mm would be ideal. I dunno. There's a dullness and limitation to using a bridge but i've been happy about recent shots, it's just wanting to escape the sameyness a bit.

 

tldr the xa5 is beautiful but i've encountered an issue i didn't know about, which is the wavey distortion when using the completely silent electronic shutter. I'm not zooming in or anything, and...nearly every time i buy a camera i encounter some issue I'd never thought of. Mechanical is too loud for me, i'd never use it. There's the mechanical+electronic shutter but i don't know what that means. I was looking at getting a 50mm to 250mm lens for it, then it'd replace my bridge because that's enough zoom, but i need to make sense of this now.

 

There's another xa5 in good, not excellent condition on Stock Must Go for £543 with a 50-230mm lens, if anyone didn't know and was interested.

 

The wavey distortion i've only seen with my 300 bridge (not the fz200 or fz150) when i'm zooming in as far as possible into digital zoom on a subject that i dunno, it can't deal with, it just bends. I did read an article on this, didn't understand much of it. I don't care really, it looks shit, it happens with xa5 when i'm moving the camera around, which i do a lot. Maybe there's some setting to counter this, i have no idea.

 

Not just a night camera, i'm thinking about for the day, only using my bridge when i really need the zoom. I even bought a new bigger bag. Thinking about the x30 for the same price, fixed lens but that passable digital zoom.

 

Seems like Stock Must Go have a generous return policy so that's good.

 

comments elsewhere about distortion on 4k burst. I'm using the 6fps burst.

[FishyFish]

1 hour ago, Loik V credern said:

 

I think i just need to become a millionaire and buy loads that i can try.

 

I kind of left it late to look, because it was sunny i went out every weekend and then just end up spending ages going through shots. All i know are the absolute things i need, tilt screen and silent shutter. They're the most important things, then weight, other stuff like dials for quick exposure tinkering and shutter speed i've only just set up because i just make do. I don't have a lot of time so i better get to my point...i decided on a Fujifilm xa5, excellent condition for £320 with a 15-45 lens. It's basically brand new, and it's beautiful, it really is, immediately got the dials set as i want, the tilt screen is perfect. I tried it out and can immediately see a difference in how sharp and vivid the most rubbish shot became compared to my bridges. I went with Fujifilm because i like that sharpness and it's the street camera brand of choice for many. Unless i can try out different cameras i can't really know, and i don't mess around in settings anyway so i'm only covering the basics. So I'm watching videos of 50mm lens and like the closeness as I see it. I'm not sure i like 28mm, and wonder if 35mm would be ideal. I dunno. There's a dullness and limitation to using a bridge but i've been happy about recent shots, it's just wanting to escape the sameyness a bit.

 

tldr the xa5 is beautiful but i've encountered an issue i didn't know about, which is the wavey distortion when using the completely silent electronic shutter. I'm not zooming in or anything, and...nearly every time i buy a camera i encounter some issue I'd never thought of. Mechanical is too loud for me, i'd never use it. There's the mechanical+electronic shutter but i don't know what that means. I was looking at getting a 50mm to 250mm lens for it, then it'd replace my bridge because that's enough zoom, but i need to make sense of this now.

 

There's another xa5 in good, not excellent condition on Stock Must Go for £543 with a 50-230mm lens, if anyone didn't know and was interested.

 

The wavey distortion i've only seen with my 300 bridge (not the fz200 or fz150) when i'm zooming in as far as possible into digital zoom on a subject that i dunno, it can't deal with, it just bends. I did read an article on this, didn't understand much of it. I don't care really, it looks shit, it happens with xa5 when i'm moving the camera around, which i do a lot. Maybe there's some setting to counter this, i have no idea.

 

Not just a night camera, i'm thinking about for the day, only using my bridge when i really need the zoom. I even bought a new bigger bag. Thinking about the x30 for the same price, fixed lens but that passable digital zoom.

 

Seems like Stock Must Go have a generous return policy so that's good.

 

comments elsewhere about distortion on 4k burst. I'm using the 6fps burst.

 

I don't think there's any way around the distortion that can happen with electronic shutters. It's a factor of how they work with the pixels being switched on and off . Shooting a subject that is still or moving slowly tends to be fine, but fast moving subjects, or if you're panning the camera, can result in those objects leaning to one side. Some types of lighting will affect the electronic shutter too, with the frequency of the flickering resulting in bands of brightness in the picture. This page explains why it happens: https://www.jmpeltier.com/disadvantages-silent-electronic-shutter/

 

e.g. in this shot I took using silent shutter on my Panasonic GX7, the closest windows of the bus are raked back at an angle.

 

 

...and in this one there is banding due to the lighting flickering at a rate that was caught by the shutter process.

 

I think that, unless you're somewhere especially quiet, then the shutter on a mirrorless camera tends to be relatively quiet and probably won't be noticed in a street environment unless you're really up close to the subject, so it might be worth using the mechanical shutter in those situations.

[Loik V credern]

1 hour ago, FishyFish said:

 

I don't think there's any way around the distortion that can happen with electronic shutters. It's a factor of how they work with the pixels being switched on and off . Shooting a subject that is still or moving slowly tends to be fine, but fast moving subjects, or if you're panning the camera, can result in those objects leaning to one side. Some types of lighting will affect the electronic shutter too, with the frequency of the flickering resulting in bands of brightness in the picture. This page explains why it happens: https://www.jmpeltier.com/disadvantages-silent-electronic-shutter/

 

e.g. in this shot I took using silent shutter on my Panasonic GX7, the closest windows of the bus are raked back at an angle.

 

 

...and in this one there is banding due to the lighting flickering at a rate that was caught by the shutter process.

 

I think that, unless you're somewhere especially quiet, then the shutter on a mirrorless camera tends to be relatively quiet and probably won't be noticed in a street environment unless you're really up close to the subject, so it might be worth using the mechanical shutter in those situations.

 

Thanks for the reply, i did a firmware update for body and lens and...i get that distortion is a thing but it's proper warped when i merely slowly move around. Like walls bending. The banding i always get with my fz300, i hate it, i just assumed it was poor in low light, the previous fz200 and 150 i thought were better without that, i don't know what's going on underneath.

 

I really like the old guy reading a newspaper shot btw, the framing and how he's creeping into the darkness on the right, why don't people put more subject based stuff up here?

 

I had a mirrorless before, the sony nex 5 which i thought looked really cool. I didn't know what i wanted then and didn't do street. The bridges i used from 2013 to September 8th 2019 weren't silent but much quieter than the mechanical and when it's quiet even in public places people can here. I take a lot, bursts that sound like machine guns...i already put myself in awkward situations that would be made worse if people knew i was taking so much. I take a lot to get just one shot when i can't know what will happen next.

 

here's a photo, because i'm not picky, the warping is substantial

 

 

that's not normal right??

 

 

Of course i was moving around to see what will happen, but i noticed it first just testing on a guy outside walking down a path. He was ahead of me, so i wasn't spinning.

 

Just i bought a bigger bag to fit two cameras in and maybe a better camera will encourage me to do more macro and get closer...so still want something....the x30 at the same price is what i might go for, just checking how silent it is and this distortion thing which...that can't be normal. Using it is producing stuff like i'm in a hall of mirrors at a funfair.

[Naysonymous]

Electronic (silent) shutters will do that because they still expose the sensor line by line.  As time goes by and chips get more powerful the read speed increases and at some point in the not too distant future we will get the much fabled "global shutter" which will expose all pixels on the sensor at the same time and mechanical shutters will be redundant.  Nikon put out a flagship camera, the Z9, just a couple of months ago which reads the sensor so quickly they decided it didn't need a mechanical shutter but it wasn't global and it was released firmly in the "I shoot sports events for a living" price bracket where people will drop five grand on a body if it helps them get more work. 

 

As for the XA5?  One of my besties has one, it's a nice camera.  It doesn't use an X-Trans sensor like most other Fuji cameras but a Bayer one like all the other manufacturers.  Fujifilm have a decent line of lenses too, you need to be aware of the crop factor you get with APS-C bodies (23 is 35, 35 is 50, 50 is 75 and so on) but if you are looking for street primes then the most popular ones are the "Fujicron" trio of f/2 lenses (23/35/50) which owe more than a passing nod to the Leica f/2 Summicron lenses.  They have very good autofocus, are weather sealed and excellent. Some people don't like the 23 f/2 wide open, but it's sharp as fuck stopped down to f/4 and beyond.  I've got the 35 f/2 and it's lovely.   Your other options are the little pancake lenses, there's an 18 f/2 which a lot of people don't like because it's an old design with noisy and slow AF motors and isn't weather sealed, but you can get excellent results with it if you know what you are doing:  https://www.instagram.com/p/Cb16QC8NYSR/ 

 

 

There is a 27 f/2.8 too,  it's tiny.  I found one on the grey market for £110 a few years ago but realistically you'll be looking at £250-300 for a decent used one.   It's a 40mm equivalent, can be a bit prone to flare as it doesn't have a hood (third party ones are available, I just never bothered picking one up) but the size and weight of the thing defy belief. It's practically a lens cap:

 

 

 

XF27 - f/4 1/1250th  ISO400

[Loik V credern]

I was all ready to go for the x30 until i saw how you turn it on...cap off, twist lens and thought i can't be bothered with that...i've missed some shots because i was putting my gloves on or eating food, i don't delicately use the camera like it's a precious thing..it's the bridge in my hand, cord wrapped around...turn off, tilt screen back,into bag, smaller camera out. I know fujifilm lean into vintage, the metal, the weight, but i was just being quickly annoyed by the on/off on the xa5 being a switch on the shutter, given i've spent so much time moving that about on my bridge to zoom in and out you can imagine how many times i did that just today alone..i really just prefer a button out of the way. I'm not a geek, or into tech, i didn't grow up with cameras, couldn't care less until 2008...there's a but...aesthetically i get a lot of pleasure just looking at the tightness of compact cameras, the big lens attached. I get pleasure just picking a camera up. Being able to take passing chaos and distill it into an image you can look at and edit years later is a miracle to me. The miracle of games growing up, that interaction, it's what photography very much is, interacting and transforming on a screen but dealing with something real so it can never lose value.

 

anyway..I went for the rx100 III for £309, again used but excellent condition, though doubt it'll be new. Maybe i'll just sway my hand around like a dancer with the camera in my hand and get up close that way. All the companies stopped making bridges really, except ones that focus on video, and Sonys are really expensive.

 

The clarity and detail on the xa5 on just ordinary things like bins and rubbish outside was different to my fz300 bridge, i'm looking for that sharpness, freshness. I think the rx100iii is great in low light so there's that at least.

[FishyFish]

3 hours ago, Loik V credern said:

 

Thanks for the reply, i did a firmware update for body and lens and...i get that distortion is a thing but it's proper warped when i merely slowly move around. Like walls bending. The banding i always get with my fz300, i hate it, i just assumed it was poor in low light, the previous fz200 and 150 i thought were better without that, i don't know what's going on underneath.

 

I really like the old guy reading a newspaper shot btw, the framing and how he's creeping into the darkness on the right, why don't people put more subject based stuff up here?

 

I had a mirrorless before, the sony nex 5 which i thought looked really cool. I didn't know what i wanted then and didn't do street. The bridges i used from 2013 to September 8th 2019 weren't silent but much quieter than the mechanical and when it's quiet even in public places people can here. I take a lot, bursts that sound like machine guns...i already put myself in awkward situations that would be made worse if people knew i was taking so much. I take a lot to get just one shot when i can't know what will happen next.

 

here's a photo, because i'm not picky, the warping is substantial

 

 

that's not normal right??

 

 

Of course i was moving around to see what will happen, but i noticed it first just testing on a guy outside walking down a path. He was ahead of me, so i wasn't spinning.

 

Just i bought a bigger bag to fit two cameras in and maybe a better camera will encourage me to do more macro and get closer...so still want something....the x30 at the same price is what i might go for, just checking how silent it is and this distortion thing which...that can't be normal. Using it is producing stuff like i'm in a hall of mirrors at a funfair.

 

I've not noticed the distortion anything like as severely as your example there. I guess it may be more prevalent on some cameras than others - I've only noticed it on the GX7 when a fast moving object has moved across the frame. Most of the street shots I've made with that camera have been where I've found a spot I liked and then waited stationary for something interesting to enter the frame, rather than me being in motion when taking the shot.

 

Here's nother shot of that same fella with the newspaper at the tube station. No banding on this one either so, bonus!

 

 

[Loik V credern]

Very cinematic! Perfect lightning on him. Less landscapes, more old men reading newspapers pls.. That backlit. Nothing more cinematic than that really, in real life you don't see it, nor the Fincher moody greens, cut well against the stairs. 

 

I think my love of graphic design, of pop art, of big shapes in space in the frame isn't shared by others..the tones and colours of landscapes can be beautiful but without a figure cutting up the space it's always distanced away. 

 

I guess, because the suitcase holding man in the background is also in a good right foot planted looking left into the distance pose you'd want for the other two people to leave the frame and also the black figure behind the paper. That suitcase holding guy despite being squeezed between the two phone holding ruiners and secondary to paper holding old man is strong enough and evocative enough that I'm almost drawn to him more, if he could be a lone figure in another scene. Rich business men, it's not people on the fringes of society I want to capture but those who reflect our financial centric work obsessed modern world. May they look in confusion at the weirdo taking shots as they're just trying to survive the scrape of the commute home. 

 

People on phones are pose killers, ruins silhouettes, heads scrunched down. I can't think of anything phones have provided photographers doing street stuff (in terms of subjects, not the discreetness of the phone itself making it good to shoot with) except maybe you can feel more invisible with more people distracted by their phone. Opposite end is the smoker with after every puff their head arching usually in the opposite direction of the cigarette. 

 

er sorry this has turned into an essay. You don't have an instagram do you? 

 

And the highlights of the lights, but I wouldn't know how to rectify that. I think my bridges would cripple themselves in that light, I don't know. Blotchy lights I just end up editing out. 

 

I've started waiting more in spots, just because the amount of walking means I end up sitting down knackered too much. I'm skinny and light, I think maybe a lifetime of fat has gone to my thighs, but then burn fat for energy I don’t know, my legs are tired now and I'm in bed. Doing about 12 miles on photo days, consecutively that's too much. 

[FishyFish]

2 hours ago, Loik V credern said:

Very cinematic! Perfect lightning on him. Less landscapes, more old men reading newspapers pls.. That backlit. Nothing more cinematic than that really, in real life you don't see it, nor the Fincher moody greens, cut well against the stairs. 

 

I think my love of graphic design, of pop art, of big shapes in space in the frame isn't shared by others..the tones and colours of landscapes can be beautiful but without a figure cutting up the space it's always distanced away. 

 

I guess, because the suitcase holding man in the background is also in a good right foot planted looking left into the distance pose you'd want for the other two people to leave the frame and also the black figure behind the paper. That suitcase holding guy despite being squeezed between the two phone holding ruiners and secondary to paper holding old man is strong enough and evocative enough that I'm almost drawn to him more, if he could be a lone figure in another scene. Rich business men, it's not people on the fringes of society I want to capture but those who reflect our financial centric work obsessed modern world. May they look in confusion at the weirdo taking shots as they're just trying to survive the scrape of the commute home. 

 

People on phones are pose killers, ruins silhouettes, heads scrunched down. I can't think of anything phones have provided photographers doing street stuff (in terms of subjects, not the discreetness of the phone itself making it good to shoot with) except maybe you can feel more invisible with more people distracted by their phone. Opposite end is the smoker with after every puff their head arching usually in the opposite direction of the cigarette. 

 

er sorry not meant to be an essay, where did all those words come from. You don't have an instagram do you? 

 

And the highlights of the lights, but I wouldn't know how to rectify that. I think my bridges would cripple themselves in that light, I don't know. Blotchy lights I just end up editing out. 

 

I've started waiting more in spots, just because the amount of walking means I end up sitting down knackered too much. I'm skinny and light, I think maybe a lifetime of fat has gone to my thighs, but then burn fat for energy I don’t know, my legs are tired now and I'm in bed. Doing about 12 miles on photo days, consecutively that's too much. 

 

Thanks.

 

I think you're right to suggest that it would be a better picture if it were just newspaper guy, briefcase guy, and maybe the distant folks in the background. It was a pretty impromptu set of shots as I had to get the tube to catch a train home, so in those situations you just take what you can get I guess. I'm hoping to get a trip to London at some point just for the purposes of street photography. I used to grab opportunities when I had to attend meetings in the capital, taking shots between the station and the meeting location, but I've not had any meetings in London since Covid started, and I expect they will not return to the same level even now restrictions have lifted.

 

I have an Instagram account but I only tend to post to it in fits and starts, and haven't posted anything there for months. Most of my stuff goes on Flickr still, as I like the fact that you can see photos at good resolution.

 

Instagram is here: https://www.instagram.com/fishyfisharcade/?hl=en

My Flickr street photography album is here (although be aware that most of it is distinctly average at best - I love street photography but it's not something I find easy to do well!): Flickr

 

I've loads of other stuff on Flickr, but it's mostly just that: stuff. I tend to shoot along the lines of Garry Winogrand's quote: "I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed.", which basically means I'll photograph almost anything.

[HarryBizzle]

My D3100 is ancient and bulky. If I want something compact with a fast piece of glass (not necessarily interchangeable, but preferred), where should I be looking ?

[Laters]

5 hours ago, HarryBizzle said:

My D3100 is ancient and bulky. If I want something compact with a fast piece of glass (not necessarily interchangeable, but preferred), where should I be looking ?

 

First thought would be Fuji  Really comes down to usage and budget though.

[FishyFish]

6 hours ago, HarryBizzle said:

My D3100 is ancient and bulky. If I want something compact with a fast piece of glass (not necessarily interchangeable, but preferred), where should I be looking ?

 

Are you wanting a DSLR / Mirrorless interchangeable lens setup or would something like a Fuji X100 or Ricoh GR III be OK?

 

I have a GR III and it's tiny - I can fit it in a trouser pocket - but it still has an APS-C sensor and an f/2.8 lens (either fixed 28mm or 40mm equivalent depending on which version of the camera you choose). It's incredibly sharp.It doesn't have an EVF though, so you have to use the LCD.

 

It's great for a lot of things, but the fixed lens is a limitation, as is the lack of viewfinder. It'd probably be next to useless for wildlife photography for instance. It all comes down to what you need I guess.

[HarryBizzle]

Thanks, both. I think I’ll have a look at the X100 and the Ricoh and see if I think I can live with the fixed lens. 90% of the time I have a fixed 50mm f1.8 on my D3100, so think I would be fine not having something interchangeable, but will have a look at the size of them and how much bulk/expense an interchangeable system brings and go from there. 
 

Probably most going to be used for portraits and travel photos. 

[FishyFish]

1 hour ago, HarryBizzle said:

Thanks, both. I think I’ll have a look at the X100 and the Ricoh and see if I think I can live with the fixed lens. 90% of the time I have a fixed 50mm f1.8 on my D3100, so think I would be fine not having something interchangeable, but will have a look at the size of them and how much bulk/expense an interchangeable system brings and go from there. 
 

Probably most going to be used for portraits and travel photos. 

 

An MFT camera could be another option. They have the benefit of small size with a wide range of camera and lenses available. They're smaller sensors, but the image quality is still great. I had (well, still have) a D3200 and pretty much stopped using it when I bought a Lumix GX7 MFT camera. The GX7 was much smaller and it meant I was much more likely to take it out than the bulkier DSLR. The GX7 has long since been superceded, but Olympus and Panasonic have a whole bunch of different bodies to choose from.

 

e.g. here's a comparison of a D3100 with 50mm lens, compared to an MFT equivalent:

 

Comparison from here: https://pxlmag.com/db/camera-size-comparison/323fa1b9_508b178e-00069bc4_8137dd9e-t60

[Naysonymous]

Fuji X-T20 or X-T30 might be an idea too.  They are tiny, not X100 or Ricoh GR tiny, but still capable of fitting in a jacket pocket or very small bag when paired with one of the pancake lenses.  The X-E4 is even smaller, but I've never had  play with one of those things so I don't have any first hand experience. 

[Naysonymous]

Messing around with the new ‘AI denoise’ feature in Lightroom.  It’s cool, but I wonder if it’s just one of those things that’s cool at 100% zoom.  This is a before and after of a snapshot. 

[Monkeyspill]

I think I already know the answer to this question, but are Photoshop jpg qualities 11 and 12 (is there a Lightroom equivalent?) completely pointless?

 

Does anyone bother with them?

[FishyFish]

9 minutes ago, Monkeyspill said:

I think I already know the answer to this question, but are Photoshop jpg qualities 11 and 12 (is there a Lightroom equivalent?) completely pointless?

 

Does anyone bother with them?

 

I do, but only on assumption that they're somehow better. I've not compared with lower quality files.

 

[Monkeyspill]

6 minutes ago, FishyFish said:

 

I do, but only on assumption that they're somehow better. I've not compared with lower quality files.

 

I used to as well but I’ve switched to 11 (sometimes 10) and don’t see any difference at all. 

[Nicky]

After falling out of love with photography about 10 years ago with a messy breakup with an ex, selling my Nikon D3s, D700 and my trinity, trying to hold onto that love with an X100, and deciding i had to take a full break from it. I've recently got the itch. I have a GH5 that i mostly use for video work with streaming etc for my job, and never got on with its ISO performance for stills, its lack of decent subject isolation etc, I went back to what i know and love(d). managed to grab a bargain on a Nikon D800e, a 50 1.4, and a 16-35 f4. Yes it's big, yes it's heavy, yes it's about 10 years old, but i don't give a fuck. it's wonderful and the images are beautiful.

 

We seem to be at a point in digital photography where we're most definitley in the age of diminishing returns on image quality as new models come out. I can't justify jumping for a mirrorless body in the thousands at the moment and if someone said "hey you can get a D800 for £400" back when they were £2500 you'd laugh at them. Now to save up another years free money for a 105DC... I'm so happy to be back.

[Naysonymous]

Bit more of that noise reduction from the Lightroom update.