Reportage - Which camera?

Canonite

Canonite

Messages
639
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
Yes
Been using digital since retiring my old Nikon F80. I'm becoming more and more interested in classic style B&W reportage type stuff, i miss the texture of film images and wondered if there are any specific routes to take in terms of camera choice to get the images i'm after.
 
the one you feel most comfortable using, and which takes the lenses that you can a) afford, b)give the style of image you are after

You need to decide if you want SLR, range finder, scale focusing?

Are you ok with relatively modern optics with their sharp, contrasty appearance or would you prefer older, uncoated, less contrasty lenses?

Depending on what reportage you are shooting would you be heartbroken if the camera was destroyed i.e. don't use your grandads camera that is your only link to him to cover a riot

You can go down the motordrive and massive SLR shutter sound for maximum impact, or the silky, quiet sounds of a contax rangefinder with classic zeiss lenses.

I would suggest choice of film, developer, shutter speed and lighting are of greater importance than camera choice. In the end you just need to be comfortable enough to use the camera, and able to quickly change settings to react to events.

I like using my Leica with a 28mm f/2 for what its worth though
 
Personally if I was to do reportage photography with a manual 35mm then it would be either a Leica (as the previous poster) but I'd probably opt for a 35f2 summicron or a Nikon F3 with a smallish wide to telephoto zoom 28-80.

There's so many manual cameras you could use for this that aren't too bulky or noisey to be classed as intrusive.
 
If you want to carry on with your digi camera I would investigate Alien Skin's Exposure 2 program. Allows you to simulate hundreds of film stocks with or without grain and does it bloody well.

heres the link :)
 
Dan man.....you need to shoot some film :D

Reportage isn't really body type specific, I would have thought an slr would be the weapon of choice, and if I'm honest...with metering and AF, unless you're **** hot with manual everything..
 
joxby said:
Dan man.....you need to shoot some film :D
Click to expand...

:D I can imagine the picture editors holding the presses waiting for me to process 700 images* in tanks in the boot of my car before driving them from say Wigan down to Wapping... God that must have been a pain in the backside, we really don't appreciate how easy working with digital is.

I'd love to shoot some MF film again, maybe when time and inclination align.

From a digital perspective I reckon Exposure does a reasonable enough job if texture and grain are something you hanker after.

edit: *before anyone mentions it I realise you wouldn't have taken 700 frames when working with film.. just thought I'd pre-empt the pedants :)
 
Fortunately, editors don't decide what I shoot with.
Time and inclination always align when you want to do something.
If it was only about a synthetic filmy look in a digital file, it would be easy, but it isn't so its back to good old peace and tranquillity..:)
 
To get the "look" the biggest contributor will be the film + development.

Tri-X developed in HC-110 "B" will probably be as near as you're going to get. Unfortunately Tri-X has been reformulated, though by the time you're starting to realise the differences, you'll have more to work with to make better choices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top