Helen Levitt apparently had a prism finder form her leica so she could shoot without disturbing her subjects. That really isn't any different from an ethical perspective than this gizmo. Similarly, waist level finders, live view backs, &etc are all steps in this direction.
People have been telling me for a long time that they get better street pictures with P&S cameras than with big SLRs. I've had a lot of trouble with people noticing me on the street, but recently I've been shooting with a Panasonic GF1 and find it attracts a lot less attention.
Stepping back, I'll paraphrase B.D. There are no rules. Honesty is ethical. But not all good art is ethical or even honest. Think about some great Rolling Stones songs. How ethical is the message of "Under My Thumb"? We can admire honest, ethical, photographers (HCB), but we can't ignore the work of Robert Capa or Weegee who were not above staging P.J. images.
We live in a big complicated world. There are some facts: In the US, photographers may shoot anyone in a public place. But there are really no artistic generalizations with no exceptions.
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
I think you misunderstood something. You are correct about it being nothing more than a mirror, basically. However, you need a certain focal length of the lens that the 'spy lens' is attached to for the 'spy lens' not to cause a vignet (see below).
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.
50mm is not going to cut it, for sure :nah
I just took this (sorry for the boring subject, it's raining) on a FullFrame camera with the 24-105 @ 105mm (about 66mm on a 1.6 crop camera):
People have been telling me for a long time that they get better street pictures with P&S cameras than with big SLRs. I've had a lot of trouble with people noticing me on the street, but recently I've been shooting with a Panasonic GF1 and find it attracts a lot less attention.
Glad to hear this. I have a GF1 on order for exactly this reason.
I think that Street photography can include situations where the subject knows you’re there.
<<< Do NOT ask your subject's permission- because the instant you do, you are taking POSED photographs. You are no longer shooting what you saw. You are NOT doing street photography. >>>
BD, two of your favorites come to mind, Eugene Smith and Eugene Richards. I would guess that most of their best images were taken with the knowledge of the subjects. The Minamata subjects knew Smith was there, as did the Country Doctor and the Spanish Weaving Women and the Spanish Funeral people and on and on. With Richards, most of his work is done with the knowledge that he is there. Those two guys did pretty well at integrating themselves into the scene and disappearing into the woodwork. This is an important skill for PJ shooters, and I would think, for “street” shooters too.
<<< because at that instant the photo, the shoot, becomes theirs not yours;>>>
I have to respectfully disagree with this. Would you have said this to Smith or Richards? Would they have said this?
<<< But there are really no artistic generalizations with no exceptions.>>>
I completely agree with Rutt. Which is why I disagree, respectfully, with BD when he says:
<<< Do NOT ask your subject's permission- because the instant you do, you are taking POSED photographs. You are no longer shooting what you saw. You are NOT doing street photography>>>
That is an artistic generalization allowing NO exceptions.
(I think Sara has made some good points and made them well, and I agree with her approach. To each his own.)
Good discussion
Jim
I don't want the cheese, I just want to get out of the trap.
Helen Levitt apparently had a prism finder form her leica so she could shoot without disturbing her subjects. That really isn't any different from an ethical perspective than this gizmo. Similarly, waist level finders, live view backs, &etc are all steps in this direction.
People have been telling me for a long time that they get better street pictures with P&S cameras than with big SLRs. I've had a lot of trouble with people noticing me on the street, but recently I've been shooting with a Panasonic GF1 and find it attracts a lot less attention.
Stepping back, I'll paraphrase B.D. There are no rules. Honesty is ethical. But not all good art is ethical or even honest. Think about some great Rolling Stones songs. How ethical is the message of "Under My Thumb"? We can admire honest, ethical, photographers (HCB), but we can't ignore the work of Robert Capa or Weegee who were not above staging P.J. images.
We live in a big complicated world. There are some facts: In the US, photographers may shoot anyone in a public place. But there are really no artistic generalizations with no exceptions.
True.
I would definitely stress the requirement for honesty. And I'd also add something - respect. Yes, you can stand outside a hospital to shoot the grief-stricken - assuming that you are respectful of their grieving. And the test there might be what your motive for shooting is (Yes, I realize I'm skating on the thinnest of ice here, and am some of you are going to play 'Whack-A-Mole' with my head. ) But are you attempting to show grief, or are you just trying to make people look bad? The first is fine; the second is not...in my book. True, in terms of photo journalism, the only real rule seems to be get the shot and come back alive - assuming that the image isn't somehow faked. But even there, everyone has their limits. There's an interesting scene in "War Photographer," the documentary about James Nachtwey, in which he backs off and does not force his way closer to a subject he's trying to shoot. And in the documentary, he speaks a great deal about the need to show respect for the subject.
While I certainly urge pushing envelopes to get the shot, or the story, there were any number of occasions as a reporter in which I gave interview subjects chances to pull back from what they were saying. My doing that violated all sorts of rules, and probably could have gotten me fired. But I was dealing with emotionally raw, media 'virgins,' who had given no thought to the implications of what they were saying at the time. Admittedly, giving them the latitude I gave them was not going to ruin my story. It might take a couple of great lines out of it, but it would still be strong. But there were certainly times when I didn't not follow the advice I so blithely give.
I think that Street photography can include situations where the subject knows you’re there.
<<< Do NOT ask your subject's permission- because the instant you do, you are taking POSED photographs. You are no longer shooting what you saw. You are NOT doing street photography. >>>
BD, two of your favorites come to mind, Eugene Smith and Eugene Richards. I would guess that most of their best images were taken with the knowledge of the subjects. The Minamata subjects knew Smith was there, as did the Country Doctor and the Spanish Weaving Women and the Spanish Funeral people and on and on. With Richards, most of his work is done with the knowledge that he is there. Those two guys did pretty well at integrating themselves into the scene and disappearing into the woodwork. This is an important skill for PJ shooters, and I would think, for “street” shooters too.
<<< because at that instant the photo, the shoot, becomes theirs not yours;>>>
I have to respectfully disagree with this. Would you have said this to Smith or Richards? Would they have said this?
<<< But there are really no artistic generalizations with no exceptions.>>>
I completely agree with Rutt. Which is why I disagree, respectfully, with BD when he says:
<<< Do NOT ask your subject's permission- because the instant you do, you are taking POSED photographs. You are no longer shooting what you saw. You are NOT doing street photography>>>
That is an artistic generalization allowing NO exceptions.
(I think Sara has made some good points and made them well, and I agree with her approach. To each his own.)
Good discussion
Jim
This is an excellent discussion, Jim -
First off, I'd suggest that Smith and Richards are two very different photographic animals. While he was the inventor of the modern picture story, and was a visual genius, Smith was also someone who posed any number of iconic images. That Minimata bath scene? He set it up and lit it for Gds sake! Gorgeous, gorgeous, iconic image - but posed. His Life cover of Albert Schwitzer (sp?) - two negatives sandwiched together. Smith spent his life doing things anyone on a local paper would be fired for today.
Gene Richards is another story. His subjects do indeed know that he is shooting. But he does integrate himself into the situations. He spends hours, days, weeks, and months with them. And when he is shooting, he is shooting what's really going on, he is not shooting scenes being played out for him.
The work I do with families is an interesting example - albeit on a much more mundane scale.
When I first show up, everyone is very much aware of me and my camera, and some family members - particularly kids and - for some inexplicable reason - grandparents if they're around - pose. But within about 30 minutes to an hour, I am part of the woodwork, and life resumes what is quite obviously its natural rhythm. Invariably there is one kid in the family who is a total ham, who from time to time will do something hammy, but I am able to shoot the reality of the family's life.
So how do the Smith, Richards, and my examples relate to the street? They don't. When you are doing street photography you are taking one or a most a few shots of an instant scene. Working that way, if you ask permission, the scene is gone. Poof! You've made it go away by asking the person if you could photograph them. You will not be shooting long enough, you will not engage them enough, for reality to resume.
So if you want to shoot life on the street - reality on the street - you do not ask permission to shoot.
Poof! You've made it go away by asking the person if you could photograph them. You will not be shooting long enough, you will not engage them enough, for reality to resume.
So if you want to shoot life on the street - reality on the street - you do not ask permission to shoot.
I agree - great discussion.
And here we go, sorry to throw a curve ball, B.D., but I think one of the truest things that has been said so far is, there are no rules (well, except for moral and ethical rules, perhaps, for some of us) - no absolutes.
Here is an example from yesterday, Boston Common. I saw this fellow, loved the light, the shadows. We made eye contact, he noticed my camera (and it is absolutely true that I get away with MUCH more with my G9 than I would with my DSLRs - to address that point). I made a very subtle gesture indicating I would like to take his picture. He smiled and nodded and went right back to what he was doing - taking in the glory of the day. If anything, his smile reflects - ever-so-subtly - the fact that he had made contact with another human being, and that human had being found him interesting/attractive enough to want to take his picture (as we all know, this does not always happen, but it also does happen, more frequently than you would imagine). Was the moment altered? Only very slightly, and if anything, was improved by my having asked.
I think perhaps what helped sparked the "controversy" here was my initial reaction, the way I called the super-spy lens dishonest. I think it is more accurate to say, "it is not *my* truth to take photos in a sideways, sneaky manner."
Here is an example from yesterday, Boston Common. I saw this fellow, loved the light, the shadows. We made eye contact, he noticed my camera... I made a very subtle gesture indicating I would like to take his picture. He smiled and nodded and went right back to what he was doing - taking in the glory of the day. If anything, his smile reflects - ever-so-subtly - the fact that he had made contact with another human being, and that human had being found him interesting/attractive enough to want to take his picture...
I suspect that method works better for female photographers, especially attractive ones, than it does for middle-aged men. Not that it can't or shouldn't be done by guys, but people feel less threatened by women, and guys in particular like having women pay attention to them.
I think perhaps what helped sparked the "controversy" here was my initial reaction, the way I called the super-spy lens dishonest. I think it is more accurate to say, "it is not *my* truth to take photos in a sideways, sneaky manner."
Yes, though at the same time, we might not have had such a lively discussion if you hadn't come out so strongly against it. There is value in provocation at times. Conversation gets very dull when everyone qualifies everything they say to avoid the possibility of upsetting anyone.
I suspect that method works better for female photographers, especially attractive ones, than it does for middle-aged men. Not that it can't or shouldn't be done by guys, but people feel less threatened by women, and guys in particular like having women pay attention to them.
some truth to this, I suspect...having never been a guy, I don't know for sure
......There is value in provocation at times. Conversation gets very dull when everyone qualifies everything they say to avoid the possibility of upsetting anyone.
Oh, I absolutely agree.
And we owe it all to Elaine for her innocent sharing of the cute little spy lens.
I agree - great discussion.
And here we go, sorry to throw a curve ball, B.D., but I think one of the truest things that has been said so far is, there are no rules (well, except for moral and ethical rules, perhaps, for some of us) - no absolutes.
Here is an example from yesterday, Boston Common. I saw this fellow, loved the light, the shadows. We made eye contact, he noticed my camera (and it is absolutely true that I get away with MUCH more with my G9 than I would with my DSLRs - to address that point). I made a very subtle gesture indicating I would like to take his picture. He smiled and nodded and went right back to what he was doing - taking in the glory of the day. If anything, his smile reflects - ever-so-subtly - the fact that he had made contact with another human being, and that human had being found him interesting/attractive enough to want to take his picture (as we all know, this does not always happen, but it also does happen, more frequently than you would imagine). Was the moment altered? Only very slightly, and if anything, was improved by my having asked.
I think perhaps what helped sparked the "controversy" here was my initial reaction, the way I called the super-spy lens dishonest. I think it is more accurate to say, "it is not *my* truth to take photos in a sideways, sneaky manner."
No curve at all, Sara...:D Looking at that photo - great light and shadow, btw - I'd find his expression quite odd - at least quite unusual - along with the position of his feet - were it not for the fact that I now know that he knew that he was being photographed. I think it's wonderful to make contact with people, to put a smile in their day. But I'm not interested in putting that smile in their day to photograph them. I want to shoot them as I find them.
No curve at all, Sara...:D Looking at that photo - great light and shadow, btw - I'd find his expression quite odd - at least quite unusual - along with the position of his feet - were it not for the fact that I now know that he knew that he was being photographed. I think it's wonderful to make contact with people, to put a smile in their day. But I'm not interested in putting that smile in their day to photograph them. I want to shoot them as I find them.
B.D. - that's how I found him. He barely moved a muscle, except to nod in my direction.
Nothing against my "personal ethics" in using such a device. I used one to shoot some phases of a wedding a few years ago. None of the images belong to me, as I was shooting for a friend, so I can't show you, but in fact, the wedding couple really liked a lot of the candids that came from it. After everyone figured out what it was, it became more funny than productive. I gave it back to my boss and put my 70-200 back on and just got the candids from afar, like I prefer..
And alas, I wasn't doing anyting "globally unethical" with it, such as pointing it down someone's blouse or up a skirt, or through the curtain of a dressing room ... That would have been unethical.. Just taking pictures of people in a room, in a situation in which most everyone is expecting to get pictures taken of them..
"And alas, I wasn't doing anyting "globally unethical" with it, such as pointing it down someone's blouse or up a skirt, or through the curtain of a dressing room ... That would have been unethical.."
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.
Is it illegal? No. Is it unethical? Maybe. Is it in poor taste? Likely.
The use of a camera is similar to that of a knife. You can use it to peel potatoes, or carve a flute. ~ E. Kahlmeyer
... I'm still peeling potatoes.
Comments
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
People have been telling me for a long time that they get better street pictures with P&S cameras than with big SLRs. I've had a lot of trouble with people noticing me on the street, but recently I've been shooting with a Panasonic GF1 and find it attracts a lot less attention.
Stepping back, I'll paraphrase B.D. There are no rules. Honesty is ethical. But not all good art is ethical or even honest. Think about some great Rolling Stones songs. How ethical is the message of "Under My Thumb"? We can admire honest, ethical, photographers (HCB), but we can't ignore the work of Robert Capa or Weegee who were not above staging P.J. images.
We live in a big complicated world. There are some facts: In the US, photographers may shoot anyone in a public place. But there are really no artistic generalizations with no exceptions.
50mm is not going to cut it, for sure :nah
I just took this (sorry for the boring subject, it's raining) on a FullFrame camera with the 24-105 @ 105mm (about 66mm on a 1.6 crop camera):
www.ivarborst.nl & smugmug
Glad to hear this. I have a GF1 on order for exactly this reason.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
<<< Do NOT ask your subject's permission- because the instant you do, you are taking POSED photographs. You are no longer shooting what you saw. You are NOT doing street photography. >>>
BD, two of your favorites come to mind, Eugene Smith and Eugene Richards. I would guess that most of their best images were taken with the knowledge of the subjects. The Minamata subjects knew Smith was there, as did the Country Doctor and the Spanish Weaving Women and the Spanish Funeral people and on and on. With Richards, most of his work is done with the knowledge that he is there. Those two guys did pretty well at integrating themselves into the scene and disappearing into the woodwork. This is an important skill for PJ shooters, and I would think, for “street” shooters too.
<<< because at that instant the photo, the shoot, becomes theirs not yours;>>>
I have to respectfully disagree with this. Would you have said this to Smith or Richards? Would they have said this?
<<< But there are really no artistic generalizations with no exceptions.>>>
I completely agree with Rutt. Which is why I disagree, respectfully, with BD when he says:
<<< Do NOT ask your subject's permission- because the instant you do, you are taking POSED photographs. You are no longer shooting what you saw. You are NOT doing street photography>>>
That is an artistic generalization allowing NO exceptions.
(I think Sara has made some good points and made them well, and I agree with her approach. To each his own.)
Good discussion
Jim
I don't want the cheese, I just want to get out of the trap.
http://www.jimwhitakerphotography.com/
And here we do agree, Andy. Sure, there are times to use telephotos. But if we're talking street photography; shoot wide and close.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
True.
I would definitely stress the requirement for honesty. And I'd also add something - respect. Yes, you can stand outside a hospital to shoot the grief-stricken - assuming that you are respectful of their grieving. And the test there might be what your motive for shooting is (Yes, I realize I'm skating on the thinnest of ice here, and am some of you are going to play 'Whack-A-Mole' with my head.
While I certainly urge pushing envelopes to get the shot, or the story, there were any number of occasions as a reporter in which I gave interview subjects chances to pull back from what they were saying. My doing that violated all sorts of rules, and probably could have gotten me fired. But I was dealing with emotionally raw, media 'virgins,' who had given no thought to the implications of what they were saying at the time. Admittedly, giving them the latitude I gave them was not going to ruin my story. It might take a couple of great lines out of it, but it would still be strong. But there were certainly times when I didn't not follow the advice I so blithely give.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
This is an excellent discussion, Jim -
First off, I'd suggest that Smith and Richards are two very different photographic animals. While he was the inventor of the modern picture story, and was a visual genius, Smith was also someone who posed any number of iconic images. That Minimata bath scene? He set it up and lit it for Gds sake! Gorgeous, gorgeous, iconic image - but posed. His Life cover of Albert Schwitzer (sp?) - two negatives sandwiched together. Smith spent his life doing things anyone on a local paper would be fired for today.
Gene Richards is another story. His subjects do indeed know that he is shooting. But he does integrate himself into the situations. He spends hours, days, weeks, and months with them. And when he is shooting, he is shooting what's really going on, he is not shooting scenes being played out for him.
The work I do with families is an interesting example - albeit on a much more mundane scale.
When I first show up, everyone is very much aware of me and my camera, and some family members - particularly kids and - for some inexplicable reason - grandparents if they're around - pose. But within about 30 minutes to an hour, I am part of the woodwork, and life resumes what is quite obviously its natural rhythm. Invariably there is one kid in the family who is a total ham, who from time to time will do something hammy, but I am able to shoot the reality of the family's life.
So how do the Smith, Richards, and my examples relate to the street? They don't. When you are doing street photography you are taking one or a most a few shots of an instant scene. Working that way, if you ask permission, the scene is gone. Poof! You've made it go away by asking the person if you could photograph them. You will not be shooting long enough, you will not engage them enough, for reality to resume.
So if you want to shoot life on the street - reality on the street - you do not ask permission to shoot.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
Don't give it up BD, stick with it. Don't let these young cockers sway you..:D
I agree - great discussion.
And here we go, sorry to throw a curve ball, B.D., but I think one of the truest things that has been said so far is, there are no rules (well, except for moral and ethical rules, perhaps, for some of us) - no absolutes.
Here is an example from yesterday, Boston Common. I saw this fellow, loved the light, the shadows. We made eye contact, he noticed my camera (and it is absolutely true that I get away with MUCH more with my G9 than I would with my DSLRs - to address that point). I made a very subtle gesture indicating I would like to take his picture. He smiled and nodded and went right back to what he was doing - taking in the glory of the day. If anything, his smile reflects - ever-so-subtly - the fact that he had made contact with another human being, and that human had being found him interesting/attractive enough to want to take his picture (as we all know, this does not always happen, but it also does happen, more frequently than you would imagine). Was the moment altered? Only very slightly, and if anything, was improved by my having asked.
The photo is here.
I think perhaps what helped sparked the "controversy" here was my initial reaction, the way I called the super-spy lens dishonest. I think it is more accurate to say, "it is not *my* truth to take photos in a sideways, sneaky manner."
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
I suspect that method works better for female photographers, especially attractive ones, than it does for middle-aged men. Not that it can't or shouldn't be done by guys, but people feel less threatened by women, and guys in particular like having women pay attention to them.
Yes, though at the same time, we might not have had such a lively discussion if you hadn't come out so strongly against it. There is value in provocation at times. Conversation gets very dull when everyone qualifies everything they say to avoid the possibility of upsetting anyone.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
some truth to this, I suspect...having never been a guy, I don't know for sure
Oh, I absolutely agree.
And we owe it all to Elaine for her innocent sharing of the cute little spy lens.
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
…the price of living in such a "PC" society
- sa
No curve at all, Sara...:D Looking at that photo - great light and shadow, btw - I'd find his expression quite odd - at least quite unusual - along with the position of his feet - were it not for the fact that I now know that he knew that he was being photographed. I think it's wonderful to make contact with people, to put a smile in their day. But I'm not interested in putting that smile in their day to photograph them. I want to shoot them as I find them.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
B.D. - that's how I found him. He barely moved a muscle, except to nod in my direction.
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
And alas, I wasn't doing anyting "globally unethical" with it, such as pointing it down someone's blouse or up a skirt, or through the curtain of a dressing room ... That would have been unethical.. Just taking pictures of people in a room, in a situation in which most everyone is expecting to get pictures taken of them..
www.HoofClix.com / Personal Facebook / Facebook Page
and I do believe its true.. that there are roads left in both of our shoes..
Nah... that's lechical...
Yeah but that's because you're a charmer Andy
Great discussion folks. Thanks.
... I'm still peeling potatoes.
patti hinton photography
Is it illegal? No. Is it unethical? Maybe. Is it in poor taste? Likely.
... I'm still peeling potatoes.
patti hinton photography