3 ms·

It's interesting to know how Jeff's innocuous camera didn't have autofocus at the time, not to mention how he was doing a lot of the ISO-related math when looki

It's interesting to know how Jeff's innocuous camera didn't have autofocus at the time, not to mention how he was doing a lot of the ISO-related math when looking to take the shot. I've done manual black-and-white photography before with older cameras before, but I take pictures with my smartphone so freely these days it becomes hard to conceptualize the amount of work Jeff had to do.

duxup 5y ago
I prefer a digital camera with the related speed, aperture, iso settings in physical button form. I have an old Fuji x100T that I like to use. It's not so much just getting the math right as much as what you're giving and taking with each setting. Your camera makes the decision about what the right math is, but there's a lot of possible 'right' settings depending on the situation.
- ISL 5y ago
  The X100T is old? So, apparently, am I. :).
  - duxup 5y ago
    6 years old in gadget years is like 60 I think ;) If we were in the age of film it would still be nearly brand new :D
  - mrexroad 5y ago
    I was about to post the same, lol. I use one as a backup camera, and was thinking of gifting it to my daughter but felt it was too new lol.
porphyra 5y ago
The Nikon F3 he used has automatic metering so I don't think he had to do any ISO-related math. And manual focus with its great split prism viewfinder isn't that hard, although obviously more challenging than autofocus.
- rich_sasha 5y ago
  His F3 gets broken the day before the Big Photo and he was shooting with a manual back-up lens, according to the blog post.
  - xuki 5y ago
    He used another FE2, which also had auto metering. Neither the F3 nor FE2 have auto-focus.
  - porphyra 5y ago
    Oh I must have missed that, my bad.
Aunche 5y ago
With street photography, the philosophy is "f8 and be there." Focus doesn't matter with a narrow enough aperture.
- psychomugs 5y ago
  For leisure walks with wide/normal lenses <50mm, sure. For documentary work with an 800mm, with only ~10ft of depth of field from a couple hundreds of feet away [1], focus still matters. [1] https://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html https://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
  - Aunche 5y ago
    Thanks for sharing. I figured that f11, which Jeff used, would provide a deeper depth of field, but it's not as deep as I had imagined. Edit: Turns out the photo was taken a half mile away, so it's still rather forgiving in regards to focus.
    - psychomugs 5y ago
      You can definitely see how deep the DoF was in the shots in the article; it makes sense that Widener was more concerned about the shutter speed than the focus. I was just arguing that the zone/hyperfocal focus techniques just wouldn't be very useful here, considering he's far enough away and using an SLR. Close quarters with a manual rangefinder and "f8 and be there" would suffice.
bentcorner 5y ago
It's astounding how difficult photography must have been back then. Today if you're trying to learn with a digital SLR you can take pictures and change aperture/focus/exposure and see the result and gain an understanding of how changing them impacts the picture. Back then you had to take an entire roll of pictures and it'd be a long time until you could see if you were "off". Equivalent is like the old days of punch-card programming. You'd better hope you didn't have any bugs because you wouldn't find out until much later when your job ran.
- wrs 5y ago
  It wasn’t really that bad. It didn’t take much practice to get reasonably good results. Built-in camera metering worked well, and you got a feel for aperture vs. depth of field (sometimes that’s even marked on the lens). If you were trying for a special effect you might have to do an experimental roll, but ordinary circumstances typically “just worked”. Punch cards, on the other hand, really were that bad. :)
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

duxup 5y ago

I prefer a digital camera with the related speed, aperture, iso settings in physical button form. I have an old Fuji x100T that I like to use. It's not so much just getting the math right as much as what you're giving and taking with each setting. Your camera makes the decision about what the right math is, but there's a lot of possible 'right' settings depending on the situation.

ISL 5y ago
The X100T is old? So, apparently, am I. :).
- duxup 5y ago
  6 years old in gadget years is like 60 I think ;) If we were in the age of film it would still be nearly brand new :D
- mrexroad 5y ago
  I was about to post the same, lol. I use one as a backup camera, and was thinking of gifting it to my daughter but felt it was too new lol.

porphyra 5y ago

The Nikon F3 he used has automatic metering so I don't think he had to do any ISO-related math. And manual focus with its great split prism viewfinder isn't that hard, although obviously more challenging than autofocus.

rich_sasha 5y ago
His F3 gets broken the day before the Big Photo and he was shooting with a manual back-up lens, according to the blog post.
- xuki 5y ago
  He used another FE2, which also had auto metering. Neither the F3 nor FE2 have auto-focus.
- porphyra 5y ago
  Oh I must have missed that, my bad.

Aunche 5y ago

With street photography, the philosophy is "f8 and be there." Focus doesn't matter with a narrow enough aperture.

psychomugs 5y ago
For leisure walks with wide/normal lenses <50mm, sure. For documentary work with an 800mm, with only ~10ft of depth of field from a couple hundreds of feet away [1], focus still matters. [1] https://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html https://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
- Aunche 5y ago
  Thanks for sharing. I figured that f11, which Jeff used, would provide a deeper depth of field, but it's not as deep as I had imagined. Edit: Turns out the photo was taken a half mile away, so it's still rather forgiving in regards to focus.
  - psychomugs 5y ago
    You can definitely see how deep the DoF was in the shots in the article; it makes sense that Widener was more concerned about the shutter speed than the focus. I was just arguing that the zone/hyperfocal focus techniques just wouldn't be very useful here, considering he's far enough away and using an SLR. Close quarters with a manual rangefinder and "f8 and be there" would suffice.

bentcorner 5y ago

It's astounding how difficult photography must have been back then. Today if you're trying to learn with a digital SLR you can take pictures and change aperture/focus/exposure and see the result and gain an understanding of how changing them impacts the picture. Back then you had to take an entire roll of pictures and it'd be a long time until you could see if you were "off". Equivalent is like the old days of punch-card programming. You'd better hope you didn't have any bugs because you wouldn't find out until much later when your job ran.

wrs 5y ago
It wasn’t really that bad. It didn’t take much practice to get reasonably good results. Built-in camera metering worked well, and you got a feel for aperture vs. depth of field (sometimes that’s even marked on the lens). If you were trying for a special effect you might have to do an experimental roll, but ordinary circumstances typically “just worked”. Punch cards, on the other hand, really were that bad. :)

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]