For me, no, the image is not the bottom line. Have I invaded someone's privacy? Insulted or demeaned someone?
If I need to resort to being invisible, or using a secret spy-glass lens, chances are, it is not appropriate to be taking the picture, at least, it's not the way I want to take pictures.
Well, one can always misbehave, and I don't care for that either. My only point is that it is not a matter of equipment or technique.
Well, one can always misbehave, and I don't care for that either. My only point is that it is not a matter of equipment or technique.
What you're saying is, one could take a perfectly ethical and honest photo with the spy camera, and by the same token, take an offensive photo with a straight-on camera?
I take photographs as a way of engaging with the world around me, and sometimes even getting a reaction - right, wrong, good, or bad. At the very least, using a secret spy camera would put me outside of the world I'm trying to engage with, rather than in it. With the potential of sliding down the slippery ethical slope. It just doesn't appeal to me.
I guess I come from the old school, where I was taught to take off the long lens and "get in there!"
What you're saying is, one could take a perfectly ethical and honest photo with the spy camera, and by the same token, take an offensive photo with a straight-on camera?
Precisely.
Engaging with the world is great. I just don't see anything unethical about being disengaged. Different strokes, different folks.
For me, no, the image is not the bottom line. Have I invaded someone's privacy? Insulted or demeaned someone?
If they're in public, you haven't invaded their privacy, by definition. We're not talking about shooting through windows into private homes, nor are we talking about using special filters that see through people's clothes.
Taking someone's picture is not an insulting or demeaning action. If you happen to catch someone in the act of demeaning themselves, that's their problem. People do not have a right not to be embarrassed by their own actions, even if, unknown to them, their actions happen to end up being permanently documented.
If they're in public, you haven't invaded their privacy, by definition. We're not talking about shooting through windows into private homes, nor are we talking about using special filters that see through people's clothes.
Taking someone's picture is not an insulting or demeaning action. If you happen to catch someone in the act of demeaning themselves, that's their problem. People do not have a right not to be embarrassed by their own actions, even if, unknown to them, their actions happen to end up being permanently documented.
Then maybe you shouldn't be using the word "ethics", which implies a universal standard. Personal preferences are not ethics.
I disagree. Ethics can be personal or global. My personal ethics would not allow me to take or display an embarrassing or demeaning photo of another human being.
We invade someone's privacy - even in public - when we take from that person his or her dignity.
Thank you, BD. You'd think some people around here had never heard of Paul Strand or his fake-out view camera -- which I bring up only because it's the most glaringly obvious example of one of the true greats of street photography using a method equivalent to this mirror gadget. Shouldn't everyone who aspires to be a "serious photographer" know enough about the history of the art to be familiar with Strand's work and methods? Alfred Steiglitz knew Strand, knew about the fake-out camera, and doesn't seem to have seen anything wrong with it; he even published some of those pictures in Camera Work. (Off-topic: If you haven't yet seen the Taschen edition of Camera Work: The Complete Photographs, I highly, highly recommend it!) I've read several books that mention Strand's fake-out camera and not one of them even hints at any disapproval or ethical concern about it. This sort of thing has been an accepted means of getting truly candid street shots for nearly a century, even if we assume Strand was the first to do something like it.
I would also point out Walker Evans iconic New York City subway project - "Many Are Called", photos he took of New York City subway passengers with a camera sewn inside his coat. (James Agee, of "Let Us Now Praise Famous Men" and "A Death In The Family" fame, wrote the introduction.)
Ivar your two photos to show how the spy lens works are awesome. The legs sure had me laughing
Looks like it goes together pretty easily. How is it when you look through your eyepiece? Clear? Or is there a shadowing because of the opening in the spy lens?
Ivar your two photos to show how the spy lens works are awesome. The legs sure had me laughing
Looks like it goes together pretty easily. How is it when you look through your eyepiece? Clear? Or is there a shadowing because of the opening in the spy lens?
Yeah, it goes together easily, no problem. It's like adding a filter, really.
Looking through the viewfinder is no different from any other lens/view, providing the focal length is long enough; What is different though is trying to change the composition while looking through the viewfinder :uhoh
If they're in public, you haven't invaded their privacy, by definition. We're not talking about shooting through windows into private homes, nor are we talking about using special filters that see through people's clothes.
Taking someone's picture is not an insulting or demeaning action. If you happen to catch someone in the act of demeaning themselves, that's their problem. People do not have a right not to be embarrassed by their own actions, even if, unknown to them, their actions happen to end up being permanently documented.
Then maybe you shouldn't be using the word "ethics", which implies a universal standard. Personal preferences are not ethics.
Lets get back to basics.
Our eyes saw something (the invisible camera - that can remember - but doesn't print well). Our camera simply recorded it.
Did we see it in a public place? Was the potential subject aware of other people seeing them in a public place?
Did the potential subject waive his rights to privacy?
Our eyes saw something (the invisible camera - that can remember - but doesn't print well). Our camera simply recorded it.
Did we see it in a public place? Was the potential subject aware of other people seeing them in a public place?
Did the potential subject waive his rights to privacy?
I think yes.
Well, in legalistic terms you are certainly correct. But Sara does make a valid point. Would you hang around outside a hospital on the off chance that you could capture the faces of people grieving because a loved one had died? Pretty tacky behavior, I'd say, even if it is legal. Unethical? Some might think so. It's a tricky business, I think.
Our eyes saw something (the invisible camera - that can remember - but doesn't print well). Our camera simply recorded it.
Did we see it in a public place? Was the potential subject aware of other people seeing them in a public place?
Did the potential subject waive his rights to privacy?
I think yes.
I agree with most of that, but there was no right to privacy in the first place. That's a crucial difference between being out in public and being in a private place. The subject is not "waiving his right to privacy" because there is no right to privacy in that situation.
That I'm not saying that at all should be obvious to anyone who's been paying attention, but the rules don't seem to be what some people on this thread think they are. B.D. and I have both given significant historical examples that ought to give you food for thought.
Sure, you and Andy can call Paul Strand and Walker Evans unethical chickens if you like, but at the end of the day, their work is in museums, and their names are in every history of photography, and yours isn't.
That I'm not saying that at all should be obvious to anyone who's been paying attention, but the rules don't seem to be what some people on this thread think they are. B.D. and I have both given significant historical examples that ought to give you food for thought.
Sure, you and Andy can call Paul Strand and Walker Evans unethical chickens if you like, but at the end of the day, their work is in museums, and their names are in every history of photography, and yours isn't.
I just think that long-lens, and sideways trickery are not cool, that's all.
Approach your scene, shoot your subjects (no, I do not ask permission before I shoot)... my subjects all know what I did, there's no sneaking around.
Well, in legalistic terms you are certainly correct. But Sara does make a valid point. Would you hang around outside a hospital on the off chance that you could capture the faces of people grieving because a loved one had died? Pretty tacky behavior, I'd say, even if it is legal. Unethical? Some might think so. It's a tricky business, I think.
Well that's photo journalism, as morbid as that sounds. If the loved one had been killed, the grieving people would knock others over to get in front of a camera to display their grief. I see it every night on my local TV. We live in a couple of the murder capitals of the US.
The tackey behavior part is a personal choice, the imposition of those values should be suggestive (except in your case as a moderator... ).
That said, I saw a still photog (on TV) push Bernie Maddoff back so he could get a clear shot and I believe that's over the line.
I just think that long-lens, and sideways trickery are not cool, that's all.
Approach your scene, shoot your subjects (no, I do not ask permission before I shoot)... my subjects all know what I did, there's no sneaking around.
I think fundamentally there is a difference of values here that is kind of interesting.
Some people think getting the shot is the most important thing. Other people think how they get the shot is more important, and they won't even try to get the shot if they can't do it the "right" way.
People who think getting the shot is most important will do just about anything necessary to get it. Being sneaky is not a problem for them. Weegee once took a picture of a fat guy who, due to the heat, was sleeping on his fire escape in his undershorts. You think Weegee asked his permission, either before or after? I doubt it. You can see this picture today at the J. Paul Getty Museum in Southern California. The fat guy, whoever he was, has probably been dead for decades at this point. What he thought of the picture, if he ever knew it existed, is totally unimportant.
Street photographers and photojournalists who worry about how they get the shot tend not to have their work in museums because there is usually some "ethical" reason why they shouldn't take the best shots that come their way.
I am intentionally being a bit provocative here, and one can certainly point to "nice guy" photographers who did great work. But still, the issue remains that the work will long outlive the subject. A picture continues to exist when the subject is dead, and a hundred years later nobody cares what the subject thought about the picture, if it is even known who the subject was (and in the case of street photography, often it is not known, nor is there really any reason to know, because the picture, if it has value at all, represents a truth of the world that goes beyond that person). So why bother asking permission? The subject is basically just raw material. If anything, he should feel flattered that some total stranger thought that a moment of his life was worth recording.
That's over a line that has nothing to do with photography. It's called "assault and battery" if Bernie feels like pressing charges.
Craig..... he was a photographer practicing his craft in a way that was criminal. It certainly has to do with photography since we are discussing how we think the shot should be taken.
Yes it is assault and battery and getting the pic is no defense.
Has anyone tried this?
Looks kinda fun for street photography!
I used one throughout all 4 years of high school and filled our yearbook with the best candid shots. I'm a big fan of this adapter. Feels dishonest? Point your camera at them to let them know you're shooting and then turn away to see what they do when you're not looking. All's fair.
Yeah, it goes together easily, no problem. It's like adding a filter, really.
Looking through the viewfinder is no different from any other lens/view, providing the focal length is long enough; What is different though is trying to change the composition while looking through the viewfinder :uhoh
Those are great photos Ivar. I bought this with 3 reasons in mind. 1- my son who refuses to give me any pose but a complete profile; 2- to catch the little kids in my family in candid moments without them looking directly at the lens and saying "cheese"; and 3- my dogs who immediately upon seeing the lens pointed at them.....leave the room.
I've only used it once and found it entirely unintuitive for me. Changing your composition is really quite hard. Have you ever tried to cut the back of your hair with scissors while looking in a hand-held mirror in front of another mirror? You have to move the lens up when you think it needs to go down and left when it needs to go right......it's totally weird. By the time you figure it out you've missed the shot entirely! And no......I never had any intention of using it for 'stealth' street photography, although I don't have anything against the idea of someone using one if they so chose to do so. I'll probably never use it again as it is, it's really only usable in a fairly controlled shot where you don't have to change the lens position much.
I've only used it once and found it entirely unintuitive for me. Changing your composition is really quite hard. Have you ever tried to cut the back of your hair with scissors while looking in a hand-held mirror in front of another mirror? You have to move the lens up when you think it needs to go down and left when it needs to go right......it's totally weird. By the time you figure it out you've missed the shot entirely!
It is very unintuitive, especially in the beginning. I did find that if I use it for a while it does become easier, actually. I'd definitely would want to do some practicing before I start chasing kids around with it
It is very unintuitive, especially in the beginning. I did find that if I use it for a while it does become easier, actually. I'd definitely would want to do some practicing before I start chasing kids around with it
The images you posted look good. But if you need a minimum of 100mm on a crop body before it can be used, then I don't see it as being terribly useful for street work. One can be fairly inconspicuous in a crowd shooting at 100mm or more with a normal zoom lens and not have to deal with the disorientation that the mirror causes. If it were wider it might be more useful, I think.
The images you posted look good. But if you need a minimum of 100mm on a crop body before it can be used, then I don't see it as being terribly useful for street work. One can be fairly inconspicuous in a crowd shooting at 100mm or more with a normal zoom lens and not have to deal with the disorientation that the mirror causes. If it were wider it might be more useful, I think.
Isn't the device just a mirror, basically, that attaches to whatever lens it fits (like any other filter)? So wouldn't the wide/tele mm be whatever your lens was? As I understand it, its a mirror, not a lens of any sort... so, if you want wider, start with a wider lens
Isn't the device just a mirror, basically, that attaches to whatever lens it fits (like any other filter)? So wouldn't the wide/tele mm be whatever your lens was? As I understand it, its a mirror, not a lens of any sort... so, if you want wider, start with a wider lens
According to the FAQ, it's 52mm wide and they recommend using at least a 50mm lens. Anything wider than that is guaranteed to have vignetting problems. That might be OK or might not. If Ivar says 100mm on a crop, I would believe him rather than the sales pitch.
I remember reading in photog history about those old masters that dabbled in right angle tricks. I would think it would take a whole lot to get used to though, to the point that you could actually compose quickly -- which seems to me a big part of street work -- quickness.
An interesting thing to me -- timidity in street work invites a long lens, yet with a long lens you really do have to point the barrel directly at your subject, albeit from further away. Yet, one of the curious things about a wide lens is that you can be very close to your subject, but not point your lens directly at them, yet still include them -- because of the wideness. Win-win
Comments
Well, one can always misbehave, and I don't care for that either. My only point is that it is not a matter of equipment or technique.
What you're saying is, one could take a perfectly ethical and honest photo with the spy camera, and by the same token, take an offensive photo with a straight-on camera?
I take photographs as a way of engaging with the world around me, and sometimes even getting a reaction - right, wrong, good, or bad. At the very least, using a secret spy camera would put me outside of the world I'm trying to engage with, rather than in it. With the potential of sliding down the slippery ethical slope. It just doesn't appeal to me.
I guess I come from the old school, where I was taught to take off the long lens and "get in there!"
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
Engaging with the world is great. I just don't see anything unethical about being disengaged. Different strokes, different folks.
If they're in public, you haven't invaded their privacy, by definition. We're not talking about shooting through windows into private homes, nor are we talking about using special filters that see through people's clothes.
Taking someone's picture is not an insulting or demeaning action. If you happen to catch someone in the act of demeaning themselves, that's their problem. People do not have a right not to be embarrassed by their own actions, even if, unknown to them, their actions happen to end up being permanently documented.
Then maybe you shouldn't be using the word "ethics", which implies a universal standard. Personal preferences are not ethics.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
I disagree. Ethics can be personal or global. My personal ethics would not allow me to take or display an embarrassing or demeaning photo of another human being.
We invade someone's privacy - even in public - when we take from that person his or her dignity.
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
You can't take away someone's dignity. At most, you can catch them in the act of throwing it away, but that's their problem.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
I disagree.
But that's what makes the world go 'round.
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
I would also point out Walker Evans iconic New York City subway project - "Many Are Called", photos he took of New York City subway passengers with a camera sewn inside his coat. (James Agee, of "Let Us Now Praise Famous Men" and "A Death In The Family" fame, wrote the introduction.)
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
Looks like it goes together pretty easily. How is it when you look through your eyepiece? Clear? Or is there a shadowing because of the opening in the spy lens?
www.Dogdotsphotography.com
Yeah, it goes together easily, no problem. It's like adding a filter, really.
Looking through the viewfinder is no different from any other lens/view, providing the focal length is long enough; What is different though is trying to change the composition while looking through the viewfinder :uhoh
www.ivarborst.nl & smugmug
Lets get back to basics.
Our eyes saw something (the invisible camera - that can remember - but doesn't print well). Our camera simply recorded it.
Did we see it in a public place? Was the potential subject aware of other people seeing them in a public place?
Did the potential subject waive his rights to privacy?
I think yes.
Well, in legalistic terms you are certainly correct. But Sara does make a valid point. Would you hang around outside a hospital on the off chance that you could capture the faces of people grieving because a loved one had died? Pretty tacky behavior, I'd say, even if it is legal. Unethical? Some might think so. It's a tricky business, I think.
I agree with most of that, but there was no right to privacy in the first place. That's a crucial difference between being out in public and being in a private place. The subject is not "waiving his right to privacy" because there is no right to privacy in that situation.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
It's called photojournalism.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
Sorry, but that's no defense, IMO.
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
That I'm not saying that at all should be obvious to anyone who's been paying attention, but the rules don't seem to be what some people on this thread think they are. B.D. and I have both given significant historical examples that ought to give you food for thought.
Sure, you and Andy can call Paul Strand and Walker Evans unethical chickens if you like, but at the end of the day, their work is in museums, and their names are in every history of photography, and yours isn't.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
Approach your scene, shoot your subjects (no, I do not ask permission before I shoot)... my subjects all know what I did, there's no sneaking around.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I'm just sayin'.......
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Well that's photo journalism, as morbid as that sounds. If the loved one had been killed, the grieving people would knock others over to get in front of a camera to display their grief. I see it every night on my local TV. We live in a couple of the murder capitals of the US.
The tackey behavior part is a personal choice, the imposition of those values should be suggestive (except in your case as a moderator...
That said, I saw a still photog (on TV) push Bernie Maddoff back so he could get a clear shot and I believe that's over the line.
I think fundamentally there is a difference of values here that is kind of interesting.
Some people think getting the shot is the most important thing. Other people think how they get the shot is more important, and they won't even try to get the shot if they can't do it the "right" way.
People who think getting the shot is most important will do just about anything necessary to get it. Being sneaky is not a problem for them. Weegee once took a picture of a fat guy who, due to the heat, was sleeping on his fire escape in his undershorts. You think Weegee asked his permission, either before or after? I doubt it. You can see this picture today at the J. Paul Getty Museum in Southern California. The fat guy, whoever he was, has probably been dead for decades at this point. What he thought of the picture, if he ever knew it existed, is totally unimportant.
Street photographers and photojournalists who worry about how they get the shot tend not to have their work in museums because there is usually some "ethical" reason why they shouldn't take the best shots that come their way.
I am intentionally being a bit provocative here, and one can certainly point to "nice guy" photographers who did great work. But still, the issue remains that the work will long outlive the subject. A picture continues to exist when the subject is dead, and a hundred years later nobody cares what the subject thought about the picture, if it is even known who the subject was (and in the case of street photography, often it is not known, nor is there really any reason to know, because the picture, if it has value at all, represents a truth of the world that goes beyond that person). So why bother asking permission? The subject is basically just raw material. If anything, he should feel flattered that some total stranger thought that a moment of his life was worth recording.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
That's over a line that has nothing to do with photography. It's called "assault and battery" if Bernie feels like pressing charges.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
Craig..... he was a photographer practicing his craft in a way that was criminal. It certainly has to do with photography since we are discussing how we think the shot should be taken.
Yes it is assault and battery and getting the pic is no defense.
I used one throughout all 4 years of high school and filled our yearbook with the best candid shots. I'm a big fan of this adapter. Feels dishonest? Point your camera at them to let them know you're shooting and then turn away to see what they do when you're not looking. All's fair.
Those are great photos Ivar. I bought this with 3 reasons in mind. 1- my son who refuses to give me any pose but a complete profile; 2- to catch the little kids in my family in candid moments without them looking directly at the lens and saying "cheese"; and 3- my dogs who immediately upon seeing the lens pointed at them.....leave the room.
I've only used it once and found it entirely unintuitive for me. Changing your composition is really quite hard. Have you ever tried to cut the back of your hair with scissors while looking in a hand-held mirror in front of another mirror? You have to move the lens up when you think it needs to go down and left when it needs to go right......it's totally weird. By the time you figure it out you've missed the shot entirely! And no......I never had any intention of using it for 'stealth' street photography, although I don't have anything against the idea of someone using one if they so chose to do so. I'll probably never use it again as it is, it's really only usable in a fairly controlled shot where you don't have to change the lens position much.
www.ivarborst.nl & smugmug
The images you posted look good. But if you need a minimum of 100mm on a crop body before it can be used, then I don't see it as being terribly useful for street work. One can be fairly inconspicuous in a crowd shooting at 100mm or more with a normal zoom lens and not have to deal with the disorientation that the mirror causes. If it were wider it might be more useful, I think.
www.steveboothphotography.com
Pool/Billiards specific...
www.poolinaction.com
According to the FAQ, it's 52mm wide and they recommend using at least a 50mm lens. Anything wider than that is guaranteed to have vignetting problems. That might be OK or might not. If Ivar says 100mm on a crop, I would believe him rather than the sales pitch.
An interesting thing to me -- timidity in street work invites a long lens, yet with a long lens you really do have to point the barrel directly at your subject, albeit from further away. Yet, one of the curious things about a wide lens is that you can be very close to your subject, but not point your lens directly at them, yet still include them -- because of the wideness. Win-win
www.steveboothphotography.com
Pool/Billiards specific...
www.poolinaction.com