Chapter 2

Tools

Primary Considerations

One of the attractions of street photography is that it requires so little equipment. Successful street photographers have been known to use only one camera and one or two lenses during their entire careers. Better yet, unlike more specialized types of photography such as architecture or macro, you have a lot of flexibility in camera choice. I have used everything from a Pentax 67 film SLR (whose body weighs only 1,660 grams and has a mirror that sounds like a door slamming) to a Leica M4 rangefinder (550 grams and whisper quiet) with equal success. The chances are that whatever reasonably portable camera and lens you already own is suitable for street photography, as long as you’re comfortable with it and happy with the results. That being said, most street photographers, myself included, prefer to use cameras and lenses that meet most (if not all) of the following criteria:

Notice how the more gear this photographer carries and the larger it is, the more “serious” he looks?

Small Size and Low Weight

Street photography requires that you carry your gear, often for long periods of time. It’s obviously more comfortable to carry a small, lightweight load than a large, heavy one, even if you’re strong and fit. Heavy cameras tend to get left at home when you’re headed out the door with no specific photographic purpose in mind. A small camera incurs no such burden, which increases the likelihood you’ll have it with you when a serendipitous photo opportunity presents itself.

Another benefit of small cameras is that they generally attract less attention on the street than large ones. People assume—often correctly, I might add—that the larger your camera and lens, the more expensive they are, and therefore the more serious your intent. This makes people self-conscious, possibly even nervous, suspicious, or angry. A small, nondescript camera is much less intimidating. People will generally assume you’re just another tourist or harmless amateur, if they notice you at all.

Small is relative. That said, it should be obvious which camera would be easier to conceal and carry for long periods of time.

By small, I mean a camera and lens you could block from view with the palm of your hand, not one so small that usability and image quality suffer. Remember: You want a balance of features, not one or two at the expense of others.

Speed

One of the constant challenges of street photography is that you often have no more than a few seconds to capture an image. This calls for a camera that does what you need it to, as close to instantly as possible. The last thing you want in this sort of situation is a camera that is slow to turn on, has noticeable shutter lag, or is slow to zoom or focus.

Fast focus, even if it’s not perfectly accurate, improves your ratio of successful photographs. Slow focus results in frequent missed shots. It’s as simple as that. If you take a close look at some of the classic street photography shots, they often are not in perfect focus; there might be some subject or camera motion. However, if the photographer managed to catch the right moment at the right time, none of these “defects” matter. I’ll have more to say about how to reduce focusing time in the chapter on Technique. In any case, the faster your camera is to begin with, the better.

Simple Operation

As with size, simplicity is a relative term. Some cameras have complex menus that allow you to program the camera to your preference. Cameras like these can be quite simple to use once you’ve set them up; it’s just the setting-up that can be difficult. Not only do you have to know the best way to set up your camera, you also have to determine if your camera can, in fact, be set up this way and, if not, how close you can get to those ideal settings.

The benefit of direct controls such as these is that you can see at a glance, even if the camera is off, what aperture, shutter speed, and exposure compensation this camera is set to

Another thing that contributes to simple operation is direct access to key parameters such as focus, shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. This generally means a camera with dedicated, single-function buttons or dials, as opposed to one where you have to scroll through menus. A touchscreen interface with direct access to these parameters should work just as well (in theory). In practice, touchscreens can be difficult to see and use in bright light.

Beware of controls that change function depending on what mode the camera is in; for example, a button that controls ISO when you’re in one mode but exposure compensation when you’re in another. A similar problem is awkwardly placed controls such as a power switch that’s hard to reach or a pop-up flash button that’s too easy to press by accident. Either one can result in confusion and stress when you’re trying to make quick adjustments in the heat of the moment.

Quiet

It stands to reason that a quiet camera will attract less attention than a loud one. In practice however, you’ll often find yourself in environments where there is so much noise and activity that the sound of your camera will be barely noticeable. There are exceptions of course: high-pitched shutters are generally more noticeable than low-pitched ones. Continuous, multiframe exposures are more noticeable than a single exposure. Cameras are easier to hear when they’re close to your ears as opposed to far away. All that being said, I still prefer a quiet shutter, if only because it makes me feel more confident and less self-conscious. You may feel the same way.

So, if quiet is good, is silent even better? Not necessarily: The problem with silent shutters (there are a few mirrorless cameras that have them) is that they provide no auditory feedback. This makes it difficult to know if and when the shutter did, in fact, release. Completely silent cameras have their uses, but they are by no means essential for street photography.

Reliability

A reliable camera is one that either does what you expect it to or gives you fair warning that something is amiss. For example, the battery power display should not indicate 75 % full power one minute and 25 % full power two minutes later. The shutter should release when you press the shutter button, not lock up or misfire. Given the same lighting and composition, the color balance and exposure should be the same from one shot to the next—not changing unpredictably.

This waist-level view-finder swivels to the side. Others are hinged to flip upward from the back of the camera.

Clear Viewfinder

There are many different ways of viewing and framing an image. The most common and easiest to use is the eye-level viewfinder because we view life at eye-level. However, holding a camera at eye-level can present a problem for street photographers because it’s an obvious sign that you intend to photograph whoever or whatever your camera is aimed at. Some street shooters therefore prefer the option of a waist-level viewfinder. Instead of being parallel to the lens axis, a waist-level viewfinder is perpendicular to the lens axis. Assuming your subject is standing in front of you, you will have to look downward to focus and frame, which makes it look to observers as if you’re fiddling with your camera rather than framing and getting ready to shoot. This can be quite a boon to those who prefer a stealthy approach to street photography.

Bright-line viewfinders such as this one indicate the approximate image borders with framelines. Viewfinders with parallax compensation move the framelines downward and to the right as you focus closer.

Most eye-level viewfinders show you the exact framing (or close enough) that you will capture with the image sensor or film. What you see is truly what you get, as least as far as framing is concerned. A dwindling number of cameras, such as the Leica M-series and Voightlander rangefinders, provide a “looser” frame that consists of marked lines or corners within a larger window. Framelines are less precise, but they have the benefit of allowing you to see outside the frame and thereby anticipate when someone or something is about to intrude on your composition.

A third option to consider is the difference between optical and electronic viewfinders. With an optical viewfinder, you’re looking at the actual photons reflected from the subject and transmitted through your camera’s lens or viewfinder. With an electronic viewfinder, you’re looking at how the image sensor and an LCD display inside your camera interpret the photons reflected by your subject. In practice, optical viewfinders are easier to use outdoors in bright light because they aren’t susceptible to being overpowered by direct sunlight. Electronic viewfinders are often better indoors and under available light because they “gain up” (get brighter in low light) to provide a close approximation of how the final image will look.

One of the main benefits of electronic viewfinders is that they “gain up” (become brighter) as the ambient light becomes dimmer. With an optical viewfinder, the lower the ambient light level, the darker the viewfinder.

None of these viewfinder options are inherently better or worse; it’s more a matter of what types of subjects you prefer, and under what conditions you like to shoot. What’s most important is that your camera’s view-finder facilitates the types of shots you take rather than inhibiting them.

Secondary Considerations

Once you’ve satisfied these basic utility factors, you can focus on factors that are more a matter of preference than necessity. In other words, use whatever functions you like and stop using the ones you don’t like. What follows are my opinions on the pros and cons of various available equipment options.

Digital Cameras

Most street photographers use digital cameras these days—and for good reasons. These include:

Instant feedback

You can see immediately after you release the shutter whether you got what you expected or, if not, whether you need to adjust the composition, exposure, focus, ISO, or white balance. Instant feedback greatly reduces the odds that a whole day’s outing will be ruined by one or two easily correctable problems.

Low incremental cost

Once you have everything you need for digital photography—camera, lens, memory card, computer, etc.—you can take literally thousands of photographs without incurring any additional cost. This in turn reduces the cost of failed attempts and learning experiences, which are common even among experienced street photographers.

Exposure flexibility

If you shoot raw files (as opposed to JPEGs) you have a lot of latitude to adjust and enhance your images post-exposure. That means you can shoot quickly if necessary, without having to worry too much about perfect exposure or white balance. You can even use software that gives your images a “film look” as opposed to your camera’s normal rendering. This is especially convenient for photographers who shoot with digital and film cameras and want a consistent look from both.

Ease of sharing

You don’t have to print a digital photograph to show it to someone. You can display it with your camera’s LCD display, on your home computer, or on a tablet. You can upload it to your own website or a photo-sharing site such as Flickr, Smug-Mug, or Picassa.

Custom configurations

Many digital cameras allow you to program the features you want to assign to various controls, and specify how these controls will operate. Assuming you know the best way to configure your camera for street photography, this can greatly increase your shooting speed and accuracy.

Portability

Some digital cameras are literally small enough to fit inside a mobile phone. You’re more likely to carry a pocket-size camera for long outings than a large, heavy one, and small cameras generally draw less attention. The downside is that what you gain in portability you lose in image quality and adaptability. There are plenty of options, from large to tiny. Like Goldilocks in the tale of the three bears, it’s up to you to decide what size is “just right.”

Film Cameras

Given all the advantages of digital, you might wonder why anyone would prefer shooting with film. As it turns out, there are still a lot of good reasons, some of which you may find persuasive:

Store Window, Philadelphia, PA 2010

Shot on Kodak Ultra-max 400 35mm color negative film (now discontinued)

The Film Look

Film has characteristics that, although they may be easy to replicate, are hard to duplicate with digital media. One of them is grain: film images are comprised of tiny random particles of silver halide. The higher the film speed (ISO), the larger these particles will be. Whether the film grain is visible or not will depend on how much you enlarge the image. Smaller formats, such as 35mm, require greater enlargement to reach a given size than larger formats, such as 120. Therefore, assuming all things are equal, smaller formats produce a more obvious film grain than larger formats. For photographers who like the gritty, slightly impressionistic look of large film grain, this is a good thing. Those who don’t like this look have the option of finer-grained (lower ISO) films. Digital cameras can approximate and simulate either look, but the results will never be identical because the look of real film grain varies depending on the film, developer, film processing, enlarger, or scanner being used. This can be an attractive feature for photographers who are looking for a way to give their photographs a unique look.

Another valued characteristic of film is the way it reproduces colors and tones. Some films are high in contrast; others are the exact opposite. Some feature bold, saturated colors while others feature soft, muted colors. Black-and-white films don’t render color at all. You can pick the look you like and know that you’ll get it roll after roll, without having to use computers or software.

Color transparency films are similar to digital sensors in the way they react to over-exposure: once the highlights are overex-posed, you can’t recover them. Negative films are more forgiving than digital media or color transparencies: you can expose two stops over the recommended ISO and not only will you retain the highlights, you’ll generally get finer grain and more shadow detail. This can happen accidentally, or you can do this intentionally to give yourself a safe margin of error. Either way, this flexibility comes in handy for street shooting.

If you’re using black-and-white film and doing your own developing, you have full control over how you process your film and print the results (print in this case refers to JPEGs for viewing on the Internet as well as literal prints). It’s common for two different photographers to both use the same film, such as Kodak Tri-X, and produce results that look completely different.

Economy

Film is not necessarily more expensive than digital. Although you do have to pay for film and processing, you save yourself the potentially considerable expense of buying a digital camera, the associated hardware, software and peripherals, and their periodic upgrades. If you don’t own a film camera, it’s not hard to find someone who is either willing to give you a student model camera for free or sell it at next to nothing. This doesn’t generally apply to professional film cameras such as Leicas, Nikons, Hasselblads, etc., but even these sell for a lot less than their digital equivalents. In any case, there’s a certain comfort in using a camera that’s already technically obsolete. No one is introducing new film cameras any more, so prices have already depreciated. Assuming you take good care of it, there’s little worry that your camera will lose half its value within a year after you’ve bought it, and in the case of used top-of-the-line film cameras, you can often sell them for only slightly less than you originally paid.

A final, often overlooked factor is that the incremental cost of shooting film encourages better shooting discipline. A camera that allows you only 12, 24, or 36 exposures at a time, all of which you have to pay to process, encourages you to be more thoughtful about when to release the shutter button.

Thoughtfulness and restraint alone don’t guarantee better images, but they do reduce your number of throwaways.

Simplicity and Direct Control

Manually operated film cameras have only three or four controls: shutter speed, aperture, focus, and perhaps an ISO setting for the exposure meter. You can’t get much simpler than that. Even if you opt for a film camera with autofocus, there’s still no searching through complicated menus—just a few more buttons, dials, or levers. What you give up in automation you gain in direct control and simplicity. There’s no computer to do your thinking for you, and no setting changes unless you change them yourself. Better yet, many of the older film cameras require batteries only to power the light meter, not the camera itself. This means that even if the battery fails, you’ll still be able to operate the camera and grab that once-in-a-lifetime shot. It’s a different story with the more fully automated film cameras that have LED displays, and options such as metering pattern (spot, center-weighted, matrix, etc.) focus method and film advance mode (single-shot or continuous). You get more features and options at the cost of more battery dependence and complexity.

Lenses

Lens choice is largely a matter of comfort and practicality. As with cameras, you want something reasonably small and light, not only because large, heavy lenses are tiring to carry for long periods, but also because they attract undue attention. Unless you’re doing a lot of shooting indoors or in low light, you generally won’t need a maximum aperture faster than f/4, which also helps minimize size, weight, and cost. If you do plan to shoot in low light, however, then the faster your lens is, the better. A fast maximum aperture allows lower ISOs and/or faster shutter speeds. Although lenses with optical image stabilization (also known as vibration reduction) will reduce the amount of blur caused by camera shake, they will do nothing to prevent blur caused by subject motion.

From left to right, these lenses are an 18.5mm f/1.8 Nikkor for the Nikon V1 mirrorless camera, 85mm f/2 AIS manual focus Nikkor, and 85mm f/1.8 auto focus Canon EF

Focal length is flexible: moderate wide-angle lenses (28–35mm in 35mm film format equivalent) are best for crowded and narrow streets because they provide a useful field of view even at close distances, without causing obvious geometric distortion. Normal focal lengths (45–60mm in 35mm equivalent) are good, general-purpose lenses with a field of view similar to that of the human eye. With practice you should be able to anticipate how an image will be framed even before you raise your camera to your eye.

Telephoto lenses (85mm or more in 35mm format equivalent) are problematic for street photography mainly because of their size, weight, and conspicuousness, but also because their narrow field of view requires you to be further away from your subject for the shot to be successful. Although this might seem to be an advantage, especially for those of you who are nervous about photographing strangers, a greater distance from your subject increases the odds that someone will step in front of your camera at a critical moment.

Zoom lenses have the benefit of speed, convenience, and flexibility. Instead of having to switch lenses to change focal lengths, you can simply zoom in or out to adjust your framing without running the risk of dropping a lens or exposing your image sensor to dust. Unfortunately, this speed, convenience, and flexibility comes at a price: zooms are generally larger, heavier, and more expensive than a prime lens with a similar focal length and aperture. They also encourage a tendency to frame subjects without regard for optimum focal length, distance, and image perspective. Sometimes it’s better to keep the same focal length and step forward or back to change your field of view than to zoom in or out.

Last but not least among lens features is autofocus. Autofocus has obvious benefits for the street photographer. Some cameras, particularly those optimized for sports photography, can focus faster and more accurately than you could ever hope to on your own. This assumes the camera knows exactly what you want in focus, which is not always the case. When you add in the fact that some cameras and lenses focus slowly, inaccurately, or both, it becomes obvious that autofocus is not infallible. That’s why many experienced street photographers prefer lenses that at least provide the option of quick and easy manual focus. This means direct (rather than electronic) manual focus via a focusing ring, printed distance scale, and focusing index mark. You can manually set the distance you expect your subject to be at—4 meters, for example—then set a small enough aperture that depth of field will mask minor focusing errors. This works best with wide-to-normal focal length lenses, which have more depth of field at equal distances than telephoto lenses. You will find more information about this and useful variations in the Techniques chapter.

Electronic Flash

Believe or not, there are many successful street photographers (Bruce Gilden, to name just one) who use electronic flash. They use it at night, as the primary source of illumination, and in broad daylight, for shadow fill. Either way, it provides a distinctive look to your photos that you can’t get any other way. Whether or not you like this look and are willing to do what it takes to get it is purely up to you. But the option is available.

Tripod

I almost never use a tripod for street photography, mainly because they are bulky, limit speed and mobility, and can be hazardous to other pedestrians. When I do use a tripod, it’s mainly at night, when the sidewalks are less crowded and I want to be able to use as slow a shutter speed and as small an aperture as I like without fear of camera movement.

Retrospective 5 shoulder bag from ThinkTank Photo website. If it weren’t for the camera and lenses sitting next to it, this would look like any generic messenger or shoulder bag—which is a good thing.

Camera Bag

In my experience, the best camera bag for street photography is one that holds your camera, one or two lenses, and little else. Anything larger will tempt you to carry more, which will weigh you down and make you more conspicuous to your subjects. Avoid bags with big flashy logos that announce “Camera inside!” Not only will they attract attention from subjects, they may attract the attention of thieves and the authorities, as well. Light padding in your bag will protect against most bumps and abrasions; heavy padding simply adds weight and bulk. Water-resistance, though not essential, definitely comes in handy if you ever find yourself having to carry your equipment in rain or snow.

Camera Carrying Method

How you choose to carry your camera and lenses is mainly a matter of personal preference and convenience. Some prefer a neck or shoulder strap, others prefer a wrist strap, and others prefer no strap at all.

Neck or Shoulder Strap

When you’re not shooting, a neck strap frees both hands to do something other than hold the camera. The camera is not visible when carried over the shoulder and behind the back.

Heavy equipment can cause discomfort and pain in the neck and shoulders. A loose strap can catch on objects such as doorknobs. Leaning forward with a camera around your neck can cause it to swing forward like a pendulum.

Wrist Strap

The camera is always at hand and ready to shoot. The camera is not visible when carried behind the back.

As long as you are carrying the camera, one hand is occupied. Heavy equipment is tiresome to carry.

Comfortable Shoes

Laugh if you will, but after spending a few hours walking the pavement in stiff, tight, uncomfortable shoes, you will be wincing in pain. The more physically comfortable you are, the longer you can wander around and the more enjoyable the experience will be.

Glasses or Contact Lenses

It should be obvious that good vision is a prerequisite to good photography. However, as our eyes age, they lose the ability to focus on nearby objects. You may reach a point in your life where your optometrist can either correct your vision for nearby objects or distant objects, but trying for both becomes a compromise, even with bifocals. This becomes a problem when you need distance vision to see your subjects but close-up vision to see the display and controls on your camera. There is no one solution that is ideal for everyone, so you will simply have to experiment to find out what works best for you and requires the least amount of fumbling.

In Summary and to Reiterate...

You should not get too caught up in worrying about what type of equipment is best for street photography. Practically anything you have will work, as long as it’s reasonably portable and quick. You’ll have much more success with a simple camera and a tireless interest in documenting life on the streets than you will with $10,000 worth of equipment that sits at home under lock and key. It’s all about getting the shot. How you get it and the equipment you use are of secondary importance.