Re: PESO: The Check Out - MMA
On Oct 26, 2005, at 1:17 AM, Marco Alpert wrote: During our SF outing of a few weeks ago, Godfrey and I took a brief afternoon caffeine break at one of the ubiquitous Starbucks, where there is always stuff going on: http://www.alpert.com/marco/pdml/peso28.html You caught a very interesting sight line on that fellow! Nicely done, very nicely. I think I'll have a few more photos from our gathering done today or shortly. I've been rolling on a lot of work the past couple of weeks, and writing up a storm. :-) Godfrey
Re: PESO: The Check Out - MMA
Nice shot. You caught an interesting moment. Seeing these pics from the SF outing has led me to a thought. I believe it's easier to take pictures of people in public places when you're accompanied by at least one other photographer. To oversimplify and exaggerate: Being part of a group taking photos means you're on a photo outing or you're doing this for some particular reason, therefore you're not just a pervert:-). Seriously, at least as part of a group you have the psychological support of others being intrusive right along with you. Perhaps it wouldn't work that way for everyone. But I find that it works that way for me. On Oct 26, 2005, at 1:17 AM, Marco Alpert wrote: During our SF outing of a few weeks ago, Godfrey and I took a brief afternoon caffeine break at one of the ubiquitous Starbucks, where there is always stuff going on: http://www.alpert.com/marco/pdml/peso28.html You caught a very interesting sight line on that fellow! Nicely done, very nicely. I think I'll have a few more photos from our gathering done today or shortly. I've been rolling on a lot of work the past couple of weeks, and writing up a storm. :-) Godfrey
RE: PESO: The Check Out - MMA
Hi Paul If I carry more than one camera body and a monopod and some more stuff with me I seem to look automatically like a photo journalist or professional and not like an amateur. Nowadays I say that I will send the good pictures to the local newspaper when people ask whether I work for the press. That works pretty well so far here... greetings Markus believe it's easier to take pictures of people in public places when you're accompanied by at least one other photographer.
Re: PESO: The Check Out - MMA
At 10:23 AM 10/26/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Seeing these pics from the SF outing has led me to a thought. I believe it's easier to take pictures of people in public places when you're accompanied by at least one other photographer. To oversimplify and exaggerate: Being part of a group taking photos means you're on a photo outing or you're doing this for some particular reason, therefore you're not just a pervert:-). Seriously, at least as part of a group you have the psychological support of others being intrusive right along with you. Perhaps it wouldn't work that way for everyone. But I find that it works that way for me. I agree with you. Having other photographers along does make things easier. Heck, just having another _person_ with you makes things easier, whether the other person has a camera or not. In addition to the thinking you outlined above, there are a couple other potential factors at work here: 1) For members of the general public, it takes more nerve to confront and harass a group of photographers, than to harass a single photographer. Even if they think the photographers are being intrusive, they will be less likely to confront a group than an individual. 2) The more photographers that people see in a given location, the more of a common sight it is. People tend to associate common with normal, and normal with safe or acceptable. This isn't always a valid association, but it does happen. I believe that even many police officers would treat a group of photographers somewhat differently than they would treat a single photographer. It seems that most people mistakenly assume that all perverts and troublemakers are loners. How many times have you heard an FBI criminal profile that described a wanted person as a loner - vs. - a social butterfly, and the life of the party? :) Just because you are by yourself, and the only person taking pictures, this automatically makes you strange in the minds of some people. It isn't fair and it isn't logical, but as someone on this list recently said, the paranoid have no need of logic. ;) take care, Glen
RE: PESO: The Check Out - MMA
I haven't done much street shooting, but I have photographed a lot at music events, indoor and outdoor festivals. My experience is that when I'm carrying my Olympus 5050 people are acting suspicious. When I'm using the DS, and carrying a couple of lenses, people treat me differently. But I do believe the difference is _in_ me. I act with more authority, when carrying what I consider proper tools. When I act like a pro, people treat me like a pro. I occasionally take pictures of children in the festival crowd. When I do, I usually ask the parents for their mail address. When the pictures are done, I send them a mail with a link. Most parents appreciate this. Result: No questions asked. Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) -Original Message- From: Markus Maurer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26. oktober 2005 17:16 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: PESO: The Check Out - MMA Hi Paul If I carry more than one camera body and a monopod and some more stuff with me I seem to look automatically like a photo journalist or professional and not like an amateur. Nowadays I say that I will send the good pictures to the local newspaper when people ask whether I work for the press. That works pretty well so far here... greetings Markus believe it's easier to take pictures of people in public places when you're accompanied by at least one other photographer.
Re: PESO: The Check Out - MMA
This is an interesting thing. I used to get a lot of speeding tickets. Then suddenly I stopped getting them. I could not figure out why. Finally I realized I had gotten married and my wife was in the car with me on most long trips. With two of us in the car it was not as easy to get a conviction if we went to court. While the cop would normally be believed above the driver, when there were two people saying he was lying it would more likely be believed. BTW, all those tickets were in Michigan (24+ years back) the radar the cops were using there back then displayed 72mph when you hit the calibrate button. In every case they said I was doing 72mph, but would write me up for 70 (pre double nickel speed limit) so there would be no points on my license (and incidently making it hard for me to prove they had hit the calibrate button). As with most folks it was cheaper to pay the fine than fight it anyway. Anyway the point here is that when it is more than one persons word against the officer's, he just is not likely to approach you if there is not a real violation going on, and if there is he will most likely call for backup before he does. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Glen wrote: At 10:23 AM 10/26/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Seeing these pics from the SF outing has led me to a thought. I believe it's easier to take pictures of people in public places when you're accompanied by at least one other photographer. To oversimplify and exaggerate: Being part of a group taking photos means you're on a photo outing or you're doing this for some particular reason, therefore you're not just a pervert:-). Seriously, at least as part of a group you have the psychological support of others being intrusive right along with you. Perhaps it wouldn't work that way for everyone. But I find that it works that way for me. I agree with you. Having other photographers along does make things easier. Heck, just having another _person_ with you makes things easier, whether the other person has a camera or not. In addition to the thinking you outlined above, there are a couple other potential factors at work here: 1) For members of the general public, it takes more nerve to confront and harass a group of photographers, than to harass a single photographer. Even if they think the photographers are being intrusive, they will be less likely to confront a group than an individual. 2) The more photographers that people see in a given location, the more of a common sight it is. People tend to associate common with normal, and normal with safe or acceptable. This isn't always a valid association, but it does happen. I believe that even many police officers would treat a group of photographers somewhat differently than they would treat a single photographer. It seems that most people mistakenly assume that all perverts and troublemakers are loners. How many times have you heard an FBI criminal profile that described a wanted person as a loner - vs. - a social butterfly, and the life of the party? :) Just because you are by yourself, and the only person taking pictures, this automatically makes you strange in the minds of some people. It isn't fair and it isn't logical, but as someone on this list recently said, the paranoid have no need of logic. ;) take care, Glen
Re: PESO: The Check Out - MMA
On Oct 26, 2005, at 7:23 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Seeing these pics from the SF outing has led me to a thought. I believe it's easier to take pictures of people in public places when you're accompanied by at least one other photographer. To oversimplify and exaggerate: Being part of a group taking photos means you're on a photo outing or you're doing this for some particular reason, therefore you're not just a pervert:-). Seriously, at least as part of a group you have the psychological support of others being intrusive right along with you. Perhaps it wouldn't work that way for everyone. But I find that it works that way for me. I guess I'm one of the folks for which it goes the other way. When I'm with a group of photographers, I'm more interested in interacting with them which kills my concentration on seeing photographs. I enjoy the interaction, but I don't get many pictures that do it for me. When I'm alone, I interact with my subject matter, with my senses, and get a lot more useful work done. For instance, last Friday I spent the afternoon and evening wandering in the neighborhood of the de Young Museum. A non-photographer friend joined me for a couple of hours, my boyfriend joined me for dinner. We talked about this and that, and I made 130 exposures from when I arrived to when I went home. I worked alone most of the time, neither has much to say about photography. There are probably twice as many, or more, photos I like from that set than from the Norcal PDML gathering set, even though I made more than twice as many exposures that Saturday. Godfrey
Re: PESO: The Check Out - MMA
I'm pretty much with you, Godfrey, although it often depends on who I'm with. I've been with a couple three list members where it's just been the two of us, and with one fellow I was able to photograph pretty much unfettered. We'd do our own thing, come together every now and then, and then go off as individuals. Even when we were in close proximity to one another, for the most part, I felt we were separate. People didn't see us as a couple of photogs merrily snapping away. Heck, for most of the shots we made those days, most people didn't see us at all ;-)) OTOH, with another person I felt that I was out with a conjoined twin, even though we photographed different subjects and spent a fair amount of time physically apart. There was an entirely different dynamic ... Going out with a group and wandering about like a photographic posse looking for pix has never worked well for me. While I enjoyed the first NorCal meeting at Muir Woods several years ago, and I very much enjoyed the people I met, there were just too many people doing too many things for me to concentrate on photography, and to do my own thing. It was more of a social gathering. Plus, having a large group of people with cameras wandering about in an area causes more people to notice the group and individual photogs, and that can often upset the dynamic between the individual photographer and his or her subject. Maybe it's not as big a deal for those who use longer lenses, but for those who like to shoot closer in, the less people wandering around the area with cameras the better - especially cameras with big lenses or which make a lot of noise, or photogs that are carrying a lot of gear, or wearing photographer vests, or even talking amongst themselves. Shel [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi On Oct 26, 2005, at 7:23 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Seeing these pics from the SF outing has led me to a thought. I believe it's easier to take pictures of people in public places when you're accompanied by at least one other photographer. To oversimplify and exaggerate: Being part of a group taking photos means you're on a photo outing or you're doing this for some particular reason, therefore you're not just a pervert:-). Seriously, at least as part of a group you have the psychological support of others being intrusive right along with you. Perhaps it wouldn't work that way for everyone. But I find that it works that way for me. I guess I'm one of the folks for which it goes the other way. When I'm with a group of photographers, I'm more interested in interacting with them which kills my concentration on seeing photographs. I enjoy the interaction, but I don't get many pictures that do it for me. When I'm alone, I interact with my subject matter, with my senses, and get a lot more useful work done. For instance, last Friday I spent the afternoon and evening wandering in the neighborhood of the de Young Museum. A non-photographer friend joined me for a couple of hours, my boyfriend joined me for dinner. We talked about this and that, and I made 130 exposures from when I arrived to when I went home. I worked alone most of the time, neither has much to say about photography. There are probably twice as many, or more, photos I like from that set than from the Norcal PDML gathering set, even though I made more than twice as many exposures that Saturday. Godfrey
Re: PESO: The Check Out - MMA
On 26 Oct 2005 at 12:15, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I'm pretty much with you, Godfrey, although it often depends on who I'm with. I've been with a couple three list members where it's just been the two of us, and with one fellow I was able to photograph pretty much unfettered. We'd do our own thing, come together every now and then, and then go off as individuals. Even when we were in close proximity to one another, for the most part, I felt we were separate. People didn't see us as a couple of photogs merrily snapping away. Heck, for most of the shots we made those days, most people didn't see us at all ;-)) OTOH, with another person I felt that I was out with a conjoined twin, even though we photographed different subjects and spent a fair amount of time physically apart. There was an entirely different dynamic ... I've had it both ways (no Cotty, down boy :-) Some fellow photographers I've found very easy to work along side and in fact in some cases, given their particular skill set, my images have benefited. On other occasions it's been a significantly more social type of coupling. I really expect it just depends on the types of people in the group and most importantly the degree of familiarly and understand that they share. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
