Street Photography

 I started on this post sometime ago and didn't get it finished. Figured as I restart this blog for the winter I might as well make this the first offering.

A few days ago I was reading this post and got to thinking about street photography. I imagine there are some definitions for what street photography is, however I tend to think of it as photos of people out in public going about their business. My version of street photography doesn't mean that the subjects have to actually be along a street.  And around here as in most places streets aren't what they used to be. There are a lot of cars, however not many people walking on the sidewalks.

So I got to wondering about the photos that I have taken in the last few years that might fall into a broad definition of street photography. What I found is that most of my pictures of this type where taken at events like festivals and flea markets.  The one above is from a flea market. I took it using a Canon 50-250 lens on one of my Canon digital SLRs.

The ones above also were with the Canon 50-250.  I think I get the best results with this lens since it lets me get close without sticking a camera in someone's face.

A couple more from when I had a phase of liking to put frames around things.

The two below are with a Holga lens for Canon.  Since this lens is around 50mm it makes me get closer.  I like the soft look of this lens.  I wish I could remember where I put it.

The last one is with a Sony DSC TX7.  I usually carry this one in my pocket. I took this one at Flesor's Candy Store in Tuscola IL. I thought it looked much better converted to B&W. Hope that no one is offended that my first post in a while is digital. Plan to be back with more film cameras soon.

Some things I have been working on

The other day I was reminded of an item that I bought some time ago.  It is a thing that attaches to the filter part of a lens and it lets me take a picture of a slide or negative.  I don't remember when or why I bought it.  Although it must have been some time ago since I have had a scanner for slides and negative for a long time.  Anyway I decided to take another look at it.

This one is from an Ektachrome slide from around 1975.  I used a standard Canon 50mm to mount the slide copier.  This is the first one that I have processed from the slides that I copied and I am satisfied with the result.  As I get time I plan to experiment with this thing a little more. I may do a longer post when I have more results.

I also have been working some on doing a post about the Canon 24mm f/2.8 lens.  I was struck by this image.  When I finished working on it I was thinking that I would probably have to use some kind of hdr technique to get such a result in digital.  The film was Legacy Pro 100 stand developed in Rodinal.

Canon FTb

I remember in the 1970's when I was first looking to buy an SLR that the Canon F1 was the professional camera while the FTb was for the amateur or for use as a backup camera. Without a doubt a lot of Canon F1s were sold to professionals, and I imagine that a large number were sold to people like myself who had no real aspiration to become a professional. I do think that I fell somewhat for the allure of thinking that top of the line equipment would make me a better photographer.  I have never regretted buying the F1, however there is little that I have done with the F1 over the years that I couldn't have done with the FTb. 

A lot of the difference in expense with the two cameras has to do with the use of more durable materials for the F1.  For example, the F1 has a titanium shutter whereas the FTb has a rubberized silk shutter. Overall the F1 was made to stand up to heavy use and hazardous conditions and that costs more.  Most of us are never going to subject a camera to the kind of use that the F1 was built to endure. And the FTb has nothing to be ashamed of concerning toughness.  I think it says a lot about the quality of Canon products of that era that the FTb was considered an economy camera.  If you can get your hands on an FTb I think you will be impressed with its quality look and feel.  And by all accounts it is a remarkably durable camera.  I have read countless reports of people using the FTb for decades with no complaints.

Anyway my point in comparing the F1 and the FTb is that many times we pay for professional equipment when the lower priced models may serve our needs just as well.  I think that may be more true in the digital age where I don't think that current cameras will have anything like the lifespan of an F1 or FTb. At least if you payed for more camera than you needed in the 1970's you could still count on it for decades of use.  I don't think that will happen with today's digital cameras. 

Now the FTb also lacked a lot of the features and options of the F1.  Still it has everything that I would need most of the time. And it does have useful features like mirror lock-up and a nice depth of field preview that many cameras in its class lack. I haven't checked out how well its exposure meter works since I find it easier to use a hand-held meter than to mess with battery issues.

I have only recently gotten first-hand experience with the FTb.  I just happened to come across a nice looking FTb body for a good price on Ebay.  I actually didn't expect to be so impressed with this camera.  My thinking mostly was that I should at least have one of what as become one of the iconic Canons.

Canon FTb Gallery

Here are some of the details for the FTb.
At Wikepedia
Canon Camera Museum

Holga Lens for Canon Digital in Downtown Champaign Illinois

I don't have any kind of ideological preference for film or digital. I think both have their place in image-making. I do think it is unfortunate that many photographers do have some prejudices or just a lack of curiosity that inhibits their range of image-making tools. Myself I like going using both film and digital.  I also like using different lenses even if they are cheap plastic ones. Many times I have been happily surprised by such exploration.

Yesterday was the kind of bright sunny day that the Holga lens for Canon does well with. If you haven't heard of this lens I wrote about it here.

Radio Maria is a restaurant in downtown Champaign.  The name is my current favorite local restaurant name.

Photomatix has an option to make a HDR image from a single raw file.  Here I used that to add some pop to the Holga HL-C image.  The seating is for the Blind Pig in downtown Champaign.  The building in the background is the Champaign City Building.

Sometimes a digital image doesn't need color.  I used Topaz BW Effects to convert this image.






















Overall I was pleased with how things came out with using the Holga HL-C.  The time of day when I took these images is one where the light is still fairly harsh around here.  I think the Holga HL-C softened and diffused the light well.
Holga HL-C in Champaign Illinois Gallery

Canon SURESHOT Owl

Introduced: 1997
Lens:  Canon 35mm f/4.5, 3 elements in 3 groups.
Shutter: Auto/Flash ON mode:(ISO 100) 1/100,f/4.5 to 1/180,f/11, Flash OFF mode: 1/45,f/4.5 to 1/180,f/11
Battery: Two AA








Haven't done a point & shoot for a while so here is the Canon SURESHOT Owl.  The main feature with this camera is the big viewfinder. Canon says it is three times the size of a conventional viewfinder and can easily be used by someone wearing eyeglasses.  All the modes are on one fairly large sized dial.

The Owl seems like it was a pretty okay camera for taking pictures of your  cats or kids.

I thought this was an interesting picture.  I didn't see the bird when I took it.














I can't think of much else to say about this camera other then in its day it did its job. I will add that I think that it is one of the more appealing looking plastic point & shoots.  I don't think it comes through that well in my photo, however in person the camera does have the look and feel of a little owl.
Canon SURESHOT Gallery

Asahi Super-Takumar 1:4/150

Mounted on my old Canon XSi using an M42 adapter.
Manufactured: 1965—1967
Lens Elements: 5 
Groups: 5
Maximum Aperture: f/4
Minimum Aperture: f/22
Minimum Focus: 6 ft
Weight: 324 g







I got this lens last summer when I was in a mania about getting M42 lens.  It was an odd focal length, however it was also a Super Takumar going for what seemed like a low price.  I have to admit that I haven't used it much.  And that is not a knock on the lens.  The build quality is excellent and it functions as smoothly as any lens that I have.  The pictures it takes are also pretty sharp and I like the color rendition.  Still it is a focal length that I don't use much. 

I have been impressed by the color I get with the Asahi Super-Takumar 1:4/150.












In theory I like it that I can get a focal length of 240mm when using the Asahi Super-Takumar 1:4/150 with an APS camera.  That is especially nice considering how small and light the lens is. Even at my advanced age it is easy to keep this lens steady handheld. So while I haven't used it much I do think this is a fine lens.  It is certainly worth what they are selling for these days. And after writing this post I think I will use the Asahi Super-Takumar 1:4/150 a little more.  I have been stuck on wide to standard lenses for a while so it might be good to get to know more about what I can do with a lens like the Asahi Super-Takumar 1:4/150.
Asahi Super-Takumar 1:4/150 Gallery

Canon T70

Introduced in 1984 the Canon T70 is probably one of the first film cameras that would not seem alien to someone who had only used digital cameras. The T70 has three daylight programmed exposure modes along with shutter-priority AE, and manual mode.







I was totally unaware of this camera when it came out.  I was still happy shooting with my Canon F1 and thought the only people who needed what cameras like the T70 offered were those who couldn't learn to use a real camera.  It wasn't until I was exposed to such features when I started using digital that I realized that they can be helpful. 

I don't find the T70 very appealing aesthetically, however it does feel comfortable in the hands and is fairly light.  The viewfinder is big and bright.  And with my eyesight I find the split-image rangefinder helpful.  While not as full-featured as the Canon T90, the T70 does have all that you should need most of the time.  And usually the T70 costs much less than a working T90.  For a nice camera to use with FD lenses the T70 deserves consideration if you feel the need for things like multiple exposure modes and auto-winding.  Right now Canon FD lenses are probably the best you can get for the money.  Since Canon decided to abandon the FD system when it introduced EF lenses and because it is not easy to adapt FD lenses to digital cameras FD lenses are mostly limited to film shooters. Which is good if you are a film shooter.  Today it is fairly easy to find a Canon body like the T70 with a lens like the f/1.8 50mm for under $50.  Such a combination can give you excellent results with film.

If you would like to read more about the Canon T70:
Additional information on Canon T70 Camera, 1984
Canon T70 From Wikipedia

The images in the gallery were all taken using the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens. The film is Legacy Pro 100 developed in HC-110 solution B at 68 for 5:30.
Canon T70 Gallery

Canon T50

Canon T50 next to the last in the T series the Canon T90












I would guess that of all the SLR cameras that Canon has made that The T50 may be the one that gets the least respect.  I think that is because exposure-wise this is, with one exception, an auto only camera.  The exception is that you can set the camera on flash mode and that allows you to select your aperture.  However in that mode your shutter speed is limited to 1/60.  So definitely if you are looking to have any creative control over your camera settings the Canon T50 would not be the camera for you. 

On the other hand if you look at the T50 as a very advanced point & shoot than I think it fares better.  In my experience the auto exposure on the T50 is excellent.  There also is the advantage of the large bright through the lens viewfinder.  Certainly much better that you'd find in most point & shoots.  Then there also is the fact that this camera can use dozens of excellent fd series lenses. Of course since there is no auto focus in this camera it is not purely a point & shoot as we see such cameras today.  Still the focusing is pretty easy with this camera. Price-wise the point & shoot comparison holds up.  You could buy the T50 with a standard 50 f/1.8 lens for around $150.  If you already had a lens then the body sold for around $100. That's in line with what the Canon Sure Shots of the time were selling for.  And I can say from personal experience that you are likely to get much better results from the T50 than you would from the Sure Shots. 

Of course this isn't the 1980's anymore.  Today a T50 body rarely sells for more than $20.  I got mine from KEH for $6.  So its the kind of camera that you won't be out much if you end up not liking it.  For myself I appreciate the quality results that it is capable of and I think it is good value for the money.  Still I do have to admit that most of the time I want more control over the settings I am using. 

The Canon T50 does have some historical interest.  It was the first Canon SLR with a molded plastic body.  Canon had used a lot of plastic with cameras like the AE-1, however these cameras still had metal frames.  The metal frames required some machine finishing that added expense.  The molded plastic did not need the finishing.  The plastic look of the T50 was off-putting to many, however it seems to be a reasonably durable camera.  The main killer is that eventually the LED will give out.  Still for what the T50 costs it is not a big risk to give it a chance.

I mentioned earlier that I got this camera at KEH.  If you haven't heard of them I would recommend checking them out. They have reasonable prices and the quality is much better than you generally find on the auction site.

Here are some specifications for the T50.

My Canon T50 Gallery.

Holga lens for digital cameras.

The Holga is a cheap plastic film camera that has been made in China since the early 1980's.  The Holga is valued for the dreamy, and somewhat unpredictable images it makes. I have a film Holga and do enjoy using it.  So when I saw that there was an inexpensive Holga lens availiable for Canon digital I had to try it out.

The Holga HL-C is a Holga lens with an adapter for mounting it on your Canon digital camera.                                           
                                                     

The lens is the same as the film Holga with the exception of the aperture. The aperture on Holga HL-C is made of one center hole surrounded by a ring as smaller holes.

Not the best image, however this is what the aperture looks like.












The ring of holes is there to produce vignetting. The vignetting effect is supposed to work best with a fullframe sensor.  With the APS-C sensor that I use vignetting is inconsistent.  Still even with the APS sensor the Holga HL-C does produce increased softness to the edges and gives images an often lovely diffused glow.

I think the main issue with the Holga HL-C is that due to the small aperture it is difficult to see much through the viewfinder.  I do believe that the effective aperture for this lens is much smaller than f8.  I usually need to use an ISO of 800 even in fairly bright light to get an effective hand-held shutter speed.  Still with practice it is possible to get some nice images with this lens.  One time when I very much like to use this lens is when there is harsh sunlight of the type that we get here in Illinois at mid-day.  The Holga HL-C is effective in diffusing the harsh sunlight and giving a soft glow to bright light.

In actual practice I use the Holga HL-C most often with a fish-eye attachment that I had for use with the film Holga.  Due to the smaller sensor size there is no fish-eye effect, however there is a slight curvature that I like.  Also the wider angle increases vignetting. 

The main thing that I miss with the Holga HL-C when compared to the film Holga is the square format of the film Holga.  However I tend to think that it might be most useful to not compare the two and to learn to use the Holga HL-C as a thing of its own and not as a digital subsitute for a Holga. The Holga HL-C for Canon is usually sold for between $25 and $30. I believe I got mine from HolgaDirect. There also are versions of the Holga lens for Nikon, Pentax and Sony.

Most of the images in the first gallery were taken with the fish-eye attachment.

Holga HL-C Image Gallery

My Flickr set for this lens.
Holga HL-C Set

Camera ads from 1949 and 1955

I was using ABBYY FineReader yesterday to see how well it would copy items from some old photo magazines.  I think it works reasonably well.  So I decided to share a few things that I copied.  I also wanted to test putting the resulting pdfs on Google Docs. 

In 1955 Geiss-America offered a modification to the Argus C4 which allowed it to use interchangeable lenses.  Geiss-America Ad

Also in the same 1955 Photography Directory were some short descriptions and prices for most of the cameras made at the time.  Here is one page for box cameras.
Box Cameras

Also there was a nice early ad for Canon cameras.
Canon

The ad above is from the September 1949 issue of US Camera.  You can get a larger view with the pdf.  Ciro-Flex Model F

Lastly from the same issue is an ad for Bloom's Camera Center in Springfield MA.  Like most independent camera stores Bloom's is long defunct. The ad does list a nice variety of new and used still and movie cameras.
Bloom's

Hopefully, the links to Google Docs work okay.  If there are any problems let me know.