The more that I look at the Vivian Maier images, the more I feel the urge to do something that I haven't done in quite a while – street photography with a Twin Lens Reflex camera.
If you've only ever done street photography with a range finder, or SLR type camera, doing street photography with a TLR is quite a different experience.
The most significant difference while using a TLR is the waist level viewfinder. When I shoot with a camera that needs to be at eye level to compose, I often feel that the motion of bringing the camera up to my eye to compose the photo is extremely unsubtle, and highly noticeable to anyone who may be a subject. There are even times where my weakness as a photographer shines through as someone will make eye contact with me before I raise the camera for the shot. In this situation, it is very likely that I never bring myself raise the camera and pull the trigger.
With a TLR, the motion of bringing a camera up to my face is replaced with the much more subtle motion of glancing downwards. The eye contact that would often make me hesitate to take the shot is eliminated. I find that it is very liberating when all of the camera operation can be done without having to do anything but appear to be staring at the ground.
The waist level finder also has the awesome advantage of allowing you to shoot, and still compose your photo from angles where composition would be left to luck with an SLR or range finder camera. Ground level, overhead to peer above a crowd, and at right angles from the direction which you are facing are all significantly easier with a TLR.
 |  |  |
Hell, even if you found yourself pinned down under gun fire and were willing to risk a few fingers for a photo, the handy TLR has you covered as well.
*High res image of the zombie drawing in the background can be found here.
While I think the disconnect of using a waist level finder is an advantage, I have noticed at least one big disadvantage to using a TLR in modern times. The disadvantage is that the camera looks like nothing most people have ever seen. Shooting with a TLR in the twenty first century results in good number of photos where people are staring directly at the camera, often with a confused look on their face as they don't know what exactly it is that they are looking at. I've seen it on my negatives, and I've seen it on contact sheets that other street photographer's have posted on various web forums after taking a TLR out for a spin. Being able to move into position while remaining inconspicuous is a big plus when shooting with a Twin Lens Reflex camera.
I also happen to think that the vintage appearance of TLR cameras results in a lot of images weakened by people starting directly at it, there is also a plus side to the appearance. Even though the snick of a TLR's leaf shutter is one of the quietest I've ever heard, I still get busted while shooting with it from time to time. It seems to me though that the old fashioned look of the cameras does take the edge off of people who have just gotten their photo taken. From my experience, people either appear to not really take me seriously, or else it intrigues them into an honest discussion about the camera. I'm yet to get any sort of hostile reaction, but that could always change. 
Finally, TLRs are also quite compact for their film format. The weight of the twin lens reflex cameras that I own is only marginally heavier than my Nikon FE with lens, while not being much larger in physical dimensions. And being fixed lens cameras, I never will feel the need to bring a bunch of different lenses with me to take up space and add more weight to my camera bag. The savings in space & weight I can then allocate towards the storage of more rolls of film. I see no reason why a TLR couldn't be a camera that I could carry with me every day. Perhaps I'll do something like choosing one day a week where instead of slinging my Leica M6 over my shoulder as I do my daily three mile round trip to work and back, I'll grab one of my TLRs instead. I can then call it something cute like TLR Tuesday.
I'll finish off this post with a couple of TLR street photos I've never published before. Thank you Vivian Maier, you've inspired me to start wielding my twin lens reflex cameras once again.
 |  |
Yashica!
Own a TLR Camera? Get a Lens Hood.
Using Side Mount Range Finders on Press Cameras
Yashica Mat 124G
October 16th, 2009 at 8:12 am
My thoughts on TLRs:
TLRs eat lots of expensive film. Why not just use a 35mm camera with a waist level finder?
As I recall, you have a Nikon F-series (with interchangeable prisms). It would probably do the job well.
Jason
October 16th, 2009 at 8:31 am
Because then the images will look like 35mm images shot from the waist.
The images between the formats do look very different to me, and once the frame size gets past 35mm, the so called 3D effect that I love is far more likely to rear its little head.
If it was all about cost per frame, I'd go digital and not care about what was in the viewfinder.
October 16th, 2009 at 9:07 am
"Because then the images will look like 35mm images shot from the waist."
Shit if the bull. The "3D" effect is probably a result of high lens quality, the acutance effect of your film/developer combination and depth of field. Easily replicated in 35mm; I've seen 35mm images come from your own camera that are indistinguishable from MF.
In my opinion, TLRs are roll film cameras with all the convenience of LF cameras.
Jason
October 16th, 2009 at 9:33 am
I haven't had my YashicaMat 124G out on the street yet. I should try it.
I could use the Kiev 60 in the same way, but it is a loud and heavy beast that offers little advantage.
October 16th, 2009 at 9:38 am
To each his own. I've always felt TLRs more to be closer to LF cameras with the convenience of 35mm.
And yes, I've seen the 3D effect from 35mm photos. I just see it more in the larger negative formats. It is just well placed shallow depth of field, which I find easier to accomplish with the longer focal lengths required for the same field of view of medium format.
October 16th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
I was dumb enough to sell my YashicaMat years ago and I miss that unique look-down experience and the square format. There may not be a mystic technical difference, but the type of camera you use surely affects how you see. Lately of been using my digital P&S and Kodak Duaflex to take "thought the viewfinder" pictures in an attempt to recapture that TLR way of seeing.
October 26th, 2009 at 8:59 am
I laughed at the smugness,and yet the uncertainty of Jason's response; his attempt first to raise the cost per frame issue and suggesting an F with prism removed as an alternative to a TLR, and then his "probably" suggestions of lens quality,acutance of film/developer combo, and depth of field, and then the suggestion that everything could be, "easily replicated in 35mm", and then the final bit of fallacy, that a TLR has the convenience of a LF camera! Jason sounds like a college kid who has absolutely no real-world basis for any of his assertions; Jay, why not try lugging a Sinar P2 with you on a spin around the block, and then see what a LF camera is really like? Oh, and add enough film holders to make 24 exposures--that means a backpack, not a shirt pocket. I have to love the internet--it allows the uninformed a place to post their narrow experience on blogs.
October 26th, 2009 at 9:07 am
Really, Derrel? Because I laughed at your mother.
Jason
October 26th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Derrel,
I forgot to mention: I regularly shoot 4x5. Actually, I use a monstrous over-the-shoulder bag, it looks sort of like a piece of luggage. It is true that I usually prefer 35mm, though.
May a I recommend that you read the book "The Film Developing Cookbook" by Anchell and Troop? It will allow you to learn some big words, like "acutence"!
I did get the opportunity to observe that you love the smell of your own farts. You wrote "why not try lugging a Sinar P2", most likely indicating that you have purchased an expensive piece of equipment. As we all know from the digital SLR treadmill, the more expensive the gear that you own, the better at photography you are!
So, Darrel, do you want to tell me about your new $3000 silver-bullet lens that you purchased? Or perhaps show my those hot landscapes or pictures of local landmarks that you shot on your Sinar P2?
Anyway, Darrel, perhaps you should clean the sand out of your vagina and consider the possibility that just because you disagree with someone doesn't make them instantly stupid.
Jason
October 26th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
I keep sand in my vagina just in case I need a makeshift hourglass.
October 26th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Just out of curiosity; what is the dry weight of sand required to time one hour from your vagina?
October 26th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Whitney,
That's so wise! I bet that's really useful when playing Boggle or Scattegories.
Jason
October 27th, 2009 at 3:01 am
Sorry folks, I assumed Jason was a college kid, but his juvenile retorts make it clear, he's a junior high school boy. I love the way Jason misspelled "acutence" with an e in it! Hilarious my boy, hilarious. I don't own a Sinar P2 Jay-jay. No disagreeing with somebody does not make one instantly stupid, but misspelling the word "acutence" does!
Little tip Jay-boy,next time you try a retort, make sure you spell your big words correctly! Oh, and Jason, the next time your mom catches you beating your meat in the family basement where you live, tell her that it's what your long-absent father told you he had *always* wished he had done that drunken night at the truck stop, instead of bending your mom over the bumper of his 1959 Kenworth out in the parking lot. Buh-bye little junior high schooler Jay-jay.
October 27th, 2009 at 4:51 am
Um...you guys are fighting over camera preferences. I'm just putting this ridiculous debate in perspective before someone freaks out even more. Derrel, nitpicking grammar or spelling is the poorest way to attempt to win an argument.
Just think if us painters got into a silly fight over mediums.
"I like oil, assface!"
"Oh yeah?! I like watercolor, idiot!"
October 27th, 2009 at 8:04 am
Thanks for the spelling lesson!
Well, this was fun and refreshing.
Derrel, did you have any real arguments to support your opinions, or are we done here?
Oh! You never showed me your shitty landscapes and photos of local landmarks. And pictures of your cat, which are usually marked "LENS TEST" in your profile on whatever online repository of photography you frequent.
Jason
October 27th, 2009 at 8:05 am
Whitney,
I'm not fighting over anything. I'm just making fun of someone who has a very high opinion of himself.
Jason
October 27th, 2009 at 8:40 am
But, I am fighting over something. . . Tempera paint is the only way to capture the zeitgeist of the 2000's. Keep those oils & watercolors in your toybox at the day car center your mom leaves you at very day.
October 27th, 2009 at 8:48 am
I'm sorry, Kip, but if you had read my posts above, you would realize that I do not use oils and watercolors -- I work exclusively in caustics.
Also, I couldn't help but notice that you misspelled the word "every". I thought I was talking to a college kid, but clearly I'm talking to a fetus. And by fetus, I mean alien fetus!
Jason
November 1st, 2009 at 9:25 pm
May I also bring to your attention that it is Scattergories, and not this slack-jawed "Scattegories" BS. I thought I was talking to a fetus, but clearly I'm talking to someone who doesn't appreciate the subtle genius of Scattergories.
We'll cool on the Boggle front though. ::chest bumps::