Simplifying travel photography

[William W]

Originally Posted by William W (I would have liked the time to have chosen an higher ISO to make faster Tv to nail girl at background camera right)

If you had used Auto ISO, that would have happened automatically.

Yes, good point.

I think generally I underutilize Auto ISO: that's a bad habit.

The EXIF was probably removed when I minimized the image for posting.

For that particular shot it was not as simple as just applying Auto ISO, the shot was pulled at: F/4 @1/34sec @ ISO3200. I selected ISO3200 when I walked in - I should have also opened to F/2, when I walked in - I was in Aperture Priority Mode.

On the x100s, Auto ISO has three parameters (Base ISO / Limit ISO / Trigger Slowest Shutter Speed) and those three sub-menus are neither easy nor quick to access.

I have ISO selection hot-keyed to the "Fn" button; so selecting a particular ISO (including "Auto") is quite quick.

When activated, Auto ISO will jump only in full-stops (i.e. not thirds even though Default ISO and Trigger Shutter Speed can be set in thirds/halves respectively): that's not unliveable but annoying because I do use third stops.

***

After considering your comments I have set the three AUTO ISO parameters to:

BASE: ISO800
MAX: ISO6400 (the maximum set-able because I capture RAF + JPEG (FINE))
TRIGGER: 1/80th second

I'll select "Auto ISO" for the next few days for any low light candid work.

Then I reset to BASE ISO400 and use it that way for street work, in daylight.

I'll evaluate how it goes.

Thank you, Mike.

Bill

[Mike Buckley]

Bill,

I see no reason to set the minimum ISO to anything other than the camera's base ISO, which in my camera's case is ISO 100. Doing so ensures that you will use the lowest possible ISO given the aperture and shutter settings you use.

So, I leave my minimum ISO set to 100 and the mode set to Aperture Priority. That means the only thing I need to change using a menu to take advantage of a particular situation is the minimum shutter speed. If I want to be ready to shoot people in normal, everyday situations (as opposed to athletic situations), I'll set the minimum shutter speed to 1/250 unless I'm using a focal length that requires a faster shutter speed to ensure steady hand holding. Even if I'm not expecting to shoot people, I might leave it at that shutter speed just in case I suddenly come upon people I want to shoot. That's because my camera requires that I dig deeply into the menus to change the Auto ISO's minimum shutter speed, which is too time-consuming to be able to react quickly to an unexpected scene.

[pnodrog]

I am another oldie that does not utilize Auto ISO enough. Just old working habits that have served me well over the years but should now be discarded. Maybe I have at last found a News Years resolution that I have a reasonable chance of keeping.

[William W]

Mike, Thanks.

Something more to think about.

The x100s has a selection of Trigger Shutter Speeds from: 1/4s to 1/125 (in halves). I am not really impressed that a faster Shutter Speed, cannot be set.

I think for the moment I would rather keep the two BASE ISO's as mentioned, because, for so many years not using AUTO ISO, I have a good feel for the range of Shutter Speeds that I have available at the typical Apertures I generally use (either F/8~F/5.6 OR F/4~F2), for either daylight candid street work or indoor candid work.

The x100s has ISO200 as the lowest BASE for AUTO ISO.

Bill

[William W]

I am another oldie . . .

hahahahaha

[Mike Buckley]

The x100s has a selection of Trigger Shutter Speeds from: 1/4s to 1/125 (in halves).

That limitation would definitely change how I would think about using Auto ISO when trying to ensure that I'm stopping the action of people.

[Mike Buckley]

I am another oldie

Considering that you called me a youngster just a couple of days ago, I assume it's okay that I exempt myself from your group of oldies.

[pnodrog]

Considering that you called me a youngster just a couple of days ago, I assume it's okay that I exempt myself from your group of oldies.

You have reached that cantankerous age where you will do what you like but it will not alter the facts.

[Mike Buckley]

You have reached that cantankerous age where you will do what you like but it will not alter the facts.

You sound exactly like my wife.

[IzzieK]

This conversation started as a serious question and now getting more interesting...My new walkabout camera is a P&S and suits me well on simple things, but I would rather use my FF one for other shots that requires more than a simple scene. And yes, I have utilized Auto ISO last year and it was great until I realized I need to not rely on it too much.

[casper]

The gear you are using is incidental.

The first photograph more or less does it, the second does it well but the last two are confusing. Road, car, artist? I did not even notice the blue sculpture until I read your comment. In the last I was interested in seeing the activity on the platform but it is largely blocked by a sign which helps with the setting but is given far too much significant.

There needs to be only two things on the check list.

1. Does the subject matter dominate the photograph? - by dominate I mean in getting the viewers attention not necessarily in size.
2. Have I reduced distracting elements as much as possible?

Hello Paul. Thank you for the feedback, two great tips for any photography. For #3, I was across a wide road with only a wide angle lens - a case of bad shot or no shot, but enough to zoom into on screen for a closer look at the artwork. #4 was really for my own indulgence. We were on our way to a musical based on English band, The Kinks (we're 60's tragics). We got there via the dirty old river, Waterloo Underground, Waterloo Station, and Waterloo Bridge - retracing and photographing the lyrics of one of their hits "Waterloo Sunset". Agreed, the station shot is a strange composition, but for us the sign was the subject.

[casper]

Three vitally important steps before taking photos of anything whilst on holidays:
1. determine if there is a convenient store nearby with postcards of the same scene,
2. check pocket for correct change to cover cost of said postcard,
3. purchase said postcard.
Extra time and trouble saved can be used to enjoy holiday with spouse and children.

Thanks Robert. No problems here, I know tongue in cheek when I see it. But not really such a bad suggestion. I don't have a problem with purchasing post cards of places that interest me. Those guys have better gear, greater talent, and access to better viewpoints than I do. I still like to have a crack myself where possible, but if I am out of my league I would rather have a postcard to remember it by. I tried to visit structures connected with the engineer, I.K.Brunel, and was thrilled to travel across the Saltash rail bridge near Plymouth - difficult to get a good shot of a bridge when you are on it, inside a train, so I was very thankful for a postcard at Plymouth station.

[pnodrog]

Hello Paul. Thank you for the feedback, two great tips for any photography. For #3, I was across a wide road with only a wide angle lens - a case of bad shot or no shot, but enough to zoom into on screen for a closer look at the artwork. #4 was really for my own indulgence. We were on our way to a musical based on English band, The Kinks (we're 60's tragics). We got there via the dirty old river, Waterloo Underground, Waterloo Station, and Waterloo Bridge - retracing and photographing the lyrics of one of their hits "Waterloo Sunset". Agreed, the station shot is a strange composition, but for us the sign was the subject.

Yes there can be many reasons for taking a photograph. My wife insists I always take a photograph of the accommodation we stay at. Most of these photographs have no, what I would class as photographic merit, at all but form a useful part of the holiday album.

The Kinks - I have not forgotten them but I have forgotten whether it makes you a mod or a rocker?

[Tronhard]

"Furthermore the bigger the gear the more people will react to your photos, perhaps impacting on your candid shots."

Disagree.

Most places in the world are used to ‘tourists’ carrying a camera sometimes more than one. The OP is discussing being on 'holidays'.

In my experience photographing people - even when not 'on holidays' or not in common 'tourist destinations' - people will tend to react more to the way the PHOTOGRAPHER acts, rather than the gear that the photographer is carrying.

The shot above of the Soldier was made with a 5D - that 5D has a Battery Grip on it - and I had a second camera slung on me. In this case the Subject is a trained professional and it was anticipated that he would act accordingly – he was aware of me when I was walking up from behind him at a fast pace and he was all over the camera gear as I passed him and he probably worked out where I was headed and why – but he was not reacting to the gear I was carrying – but he was very aware of my actions.

Similarly, these shots below are all made with a 5D Series Camera sporting a battery grip and a very big diameter lens – the camera gear didn’t worry any of the Subjects:

---------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Bill:

Sorry for not responding earlier to your response (this can get complicated!)

I appreciate your view on the images you have taken of people who were not disturbed by your gear, and I appreciate your comment about the inquiry relating to holidays and tourist destinations. I did have one vicarious experience in Italy when a chap I sometimes travel with was on his own in Naples, taking images of locals. He was lured into a spot where he was relieved of his camera gear and valuables and roughed up. The local Polizia Municipale elegantly shrugged their collective shoulders, gave him a police report for his insurance and told him to be careful where he flashed his cameras.

Other places that may offer more risk are in Russia (particularly Moscow), Albania, Croatia, Latvia and Turkey.

Although I am on vacation I don't always do the normal tourist route and I have been to some fairly "interesting" places outside Europe (such as the Middle East) where anyone with a camera is observed with suspicion, and the bigger the camera the greater the suspicion. I always get a briefing from law enforcement officers in these places who caution against pulling out the big guns as the gear fetches a good price on the black market. Apparently there may be associations with government agencies in some cases, and in others thinking you might be a journalist and have value as of possible kidnap target.

It's a diverse and interesting world out there - it all depends where one goes!

[Mike Buckley]

Other places that may offer more risk are in Russia (particularly Moscow), Albania, Croatia, Latvia and Turkey...I have been to some fairly "interesting" places outside Europe (such as the Middle East) where anyone with a camera is observed with suspicion

Sorry, Trevor, but I simply can't let those generalizations go uncontested. I've been to Croatia, Turkey and the Middle East and I've never felt that I or anyone with me with a camera has been observed with suspicion. That's despite that I always use a backpack that puts a spotlight on me as carrying relatively expensive camera gear.

We're all subject to our world experiences. If your and my experiences are different, it's understandable that we're going to have different lasting impressions of attitudes in the places we've traveled to. To be clear, my impressions of the areas both of us have traveled to are most definitely different from yours.

it all depends where one goes!

I believe it instead depends on the experiences we have when we go there.

[Tronhard]

Hi Mike

I respect, and would never dispute your experience as I hope you would not do mine. That they may have been different I think that is the point really. The thing is that we may both have had individual experiences of our own so perhaps neither of us could claim to generalize. We could discuss in detail where and when we have been to, but our experiences would remain just that, our experiences.

I took the list I mentioned on the information from compilation table of data in FBI, CIA and EU police publications on the subject of robberies (as opposed to burglaries and homicides for example) and their rankings, the most common list available being 2014. I compile this and other stuff as part of my IT work. I have not been robbed in these countries myself, and I might add that Croatia I would take out of that list in any case as I misread the data (mia culpa). Neither of us can say that an individual is, or is not safe in any place. There are too many variables and it's really a matter of risk management.

There are obviously safer places than others to go to in any city or country and that alone is probably the most important thing to take away.

[Mike Buckley]

I took the list I mentioned on the information from compilation table of data in FBI, CIA and EU police publications on the subject of robberies (as opposed to burglaries and homicides for example) and their rankings, the most common list available being 2014.

Sorry, Trev, but I have absolutely no faith in government statistics or information. I have personally witnessed too many lies by government agencies over the decades to think otherwise. Some of the agencies you cite are at the top of my list for documented lies. Ironically, one of those agencies is well documented for having put photographers' careers on the line for no apparent reason other than to protect its own turf and further its own political ideologies. Be very thankful that I'm not going to waste your or anybody's time going into any detail.

[William W]

Trev,

Thanks for the comprehensive reply.

For clarity my disagreement was to the definitive statement, which I quoted: "the bigger the gear the more people will react to your photos".

I do not doubt that you and your friend have had bad experiences.

I have been to the middle east and had the whole contents of my slingback searched and also a body search by the local authorities upon arrival to some areas: but I had no problem when taking photos; I ensured that I knew and understood the laws of the land and that I had an appreciation of local customs. (probably the latter more important).

Similar applied to a job that I did in Papua.

For example, if I were in many of the areas of the middle east four days ago, I would not have executed a shot similar to the street shot of the Soldier in Lyon that I made - no matter if I were using a cell phone or a view camera. (In Post #20 , this thread)

Again, my point being that generally reactions from Subjects is much more to do with the person's (photographer's) actions than the gear s/he is carrying - and that's the point of view I wished to convey to the OP - in concert with my agreement to the other two points:

1. that it is pointless taking any camera on holiday if one is not prepared to carry it

2. that the type of camera taken is incidental.

WW


BTW I view with suspicion all statistics: not just government statistics and irrespective of the government concerned. I prefer first sources/data.

[Tronhard]

Hi Mike

I am grateful! and will leave this one at that. Have a good one...