Tech. that will fundamentally change street shooting

<a

href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3111004.stm">Here's</a>

a brief article on something that will have a huge impact on street

shooting. It reminds me of the old covers for Poplular Science

magazine. Only it seems the like the amount of time for concepts

such as this to become a working, affordable by the consumer reality

keeps getting shorter and shorter.

<p>

What are your thoughts on how this will fundamentally change street

photography? What about new reporting and documentary? Is this a

positive change or does this open the a pandoras box of problems?

It's too soon to tell. If the technology simply records everything you look at, that still requires you to look at interesting things and to edit out the useless shots (which will be very many). Those are surely the essential skills of photography anyway.

 

It will also remove the element of embarrasment involved in pointing the camera at strangers, but the widespread use of camera phones is doing that anyway.

Yes, but I think the major difference (if and when it reaches the point of quality that we now have say in some DSLRS) - is that all you have to do is be there with a pair of sunglasses on. Granted it will take some time for it to come up in quality (if it does).

 

In one scenario it's take no more than a glance at a situation to be able to grab it.

The one problem I anticipate is overwhelming popular culture voyeurism. Think of all the times you see old/young men watching young girls walking down the street. Now picture the man wearing sunglasses and doing a major zoom in on her butt. Finding pictures of your own butt on the internet will never be the same.

The main problem with this is that people are getting uptight over privacy, which could result in new legislation that could effectively kill street photography.

 

As far as reporting and documentary, the use of hidden cameras is an ethically shaky area. Generally speaking, I think the use of hidden or concealed cameras is unethical -- we should be honest about what we're up to, and not seek to conceal it.

 

In street shooting this would not be a concern, I suppose.

Miniaturization and ubiquity of electronic technologies are inevitable, as are changes in society resulting from their deployment. I don't think there is any self-evident harm caused by the act of surreptitious photography. A more important aspect of the question is how the pictures are used once they have been acquired. If my hip shots were acquired with the intent of producing embarrassing or demeaning images, then I would certainly expect to be condemned on ethical grounds. Also, it is possible that photography which is not surreptitious can be used unethically after the fact. For instance, people submit to being photographed at automatic teller machines with the expectation that no use will be made of the photos unless there is some illegality in the transaction. However, what if the photos are diverted to some other purpose and combined with other information? Similarly, police and traffic control surveillance cameras are becoming very common. The stated intent of such installations is always laudible, but I believe they have not been shown to have had much real impact on the professed objectives, and the opportunities for civil rights violations are clearly troubling. All of this is rather a gray area in regard to public places where there is no resonable expectation of privacy. Where the issue becomes more clearcut is in situations where expectations of privacy are clearly violated.

It would be fun to try a Heads Up Display plugged into a DSLR. http://www.microopticalcorp.com/

Robert Frank was using a movie camera and pulling frames from his film years ago. If you want digital just use a video cam. Probably easier to blend in with a video cam.

<i>we should be honest about what we're up to, and not

seek to conceal it.</i> <p><div></div>

To expand on my earlier point re the ethics of using hidden cameras in documentary or journalism work, the reason it's ethically shaky isn't that hidden cameras directly cause harm, but that using a hidden camera is inherently disingenuous or sneaky.<p>

 

Journalists aren't supposed to resort to lying to gain information (or pictures), and by using a hidden camera you are essentially doing just that by misrepresenting yourself. The same thinking can be extended to documentary work in general, I think.<p>

 

In general, if you're doing documentary work the question has to be, why conceal the camera? There may be legitimate reasons to do so in some situations, but in most cases you'll lost nothing by working out in the open. Catching people behaving naturally is not really a concern, in my view -- reams of candid photographs have been made over the years using all kinds of cameras. So why pretend that you're not actually taking pictures?<p>

 

<a href="http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=5543" target="_blank">This article on poynter.org</a> goes over some of the arguments, from the perspective of television news. Of course, documentary still photography is a different medium but the article is food for thought.<p>

 

There is a perfectly valid counter-argument, of course: a witness is a witness, regardless of whether he's hanging a big sign around his neck that says, "I'm here to be a witness."<p>

 

The original context here is street photography, of course, and in that context I wouldn't see the same ethical concern -- although I'm still leery of what I see as sneaky behaviour. Possibly that's because I'm not really into street photography -- I'm not a hit-and-run type, and I find the most interesting things come out when I'm engaged with people.

Andrew,

<p>

I'm not so sure about this - if one is in a public place I dunno if it matters if your camera is obvious or not. This differs if it's say an interview on private property or a clothes changing room obviously. But I don't think one has to parade his camera or even make the subject aware of it as long as it's in public.

<p>

Mike,

<p>

I dunno - from what I'd read on the amount of police surveilance cameras in London and the drop in crime (muggings, rapes etc.) and also things like terrorism (primarily IRA stuff) it seems that there is a 'benefit' - I know that the US is not anywhere near the level that the UK is with surveilance cams but one positive effect of the ones at traffic lights in the US is cases where people running red lights are fined/cited/jailed.

<p>

Ed,

<p>

I don't think the point here is to go 'digital' although the tech is definitley digital. Shades with a camera in them would help you blend in far more than carrying around a video cam. As well video stills always look just that. Though I guess since this is still in it's infancy so it's not going to be as sharp as say my Nikon 85mm 1.4

<p>

Ray,

<p>

Do you think it's possible to be 'honest' for a lot of shots? That's almost like it's not a crime if you don't get caught. Many times if people notice you they'll definitely change what they're doing and you lose the moment. To me that's always been the beauty of street shots is the 'stolen' moment kind of a thing - people concentrating on what they're doing completely unaware that they are being documented.

<p>

Well, Lucas, we posted at the same time! As I said, there is a valid counter argument and I really think it depends on the kind of work you're doing.

 

I have a problem with misrepresenting yourself as you interact with people, although there may be some cases when it's necessary. But if you're not interacting with people, then I'm not sure it makes any real difference.

I like Ray's shot. Sometimes, the reaction to the camera is what makes a photo interesting.

 

And I'd submit that at one level it's just as "candid" as those stolen moments everyone loves -- the reaction of passersby is their true, unposed reaction to something they see around them.

Andrew,

 

Interesting points. Though here's where I think this will have a larger effect on 'photography' than it may seem. There is no reason to hide the 'camera' as the 'camera' is now a pair of shades as well. So while up till now we've always thought of cameras in the classic sense of being something is primarily handheld and film based now they are taking many new forms because of digital. Does that make them not cameras? Does it then become an issue of what the primary function of the said object is? And here how would one define the 'primary' function.

 

The word sneaky kills me sometimes. Maybe it's because my Mom who is from the 'old school' (I say that kindly.. lol and looking over my shoulder) was forever harping at us when we were kids not to be 'sneaky'... lol... little did she ever think all the 'sneakin' around' would work itself into a fascination with street photography. Again here I think 'sneaking' is in a way part of it - this ties back in with the 'if they don't see you it isn't sneaking' kind of a thing.

Sometimes it's fun to stand in one spot and just blaze away.<p>

 

<center><img src="http://members.shaw.ca/mywebspace88/robsonst.JPG"></center> </p> <center><i>Nobody looks too worried...</i></center>

I think the idea that one needs to be secretive in street photography sometimes gets a little overblown. Sure, there are times when it's critical to be unseen so as not to lose a shot, and times when the section of town doesn't lend itself to being so out in the open. Many times, however, being a participant with a camera works out well, and can make shooting on the street a more enjoyable and engaging social situation. It's like you just make people watching more of an issue when you have a camera. A camera can energize a scene, shape a scene, or even create a scene.

 

I don't think use of a concealed camera is so much an issue of being unethical. The problem occurs when being "sneaky" is done out of fear. Fear gets interpreted as wrongdoing by subjects, which makes for a poor experience and little in the way of good photography.

I really don't see that this changes too much, per say. But rather like many things digital,

it's more of a streamlining of what's already been around for years. Take photoshop for

instance. Photographic compositing has been around since photography began. What

photoshop does, in this regard, is to simply make it cheaper, easier, faster, higher quality,

and (perhaps most importantly) available to nearly anyone.

 

Mini 'spy cameras' have been around for decades themselves. Cameras shaped like pens,

cigarette packs, etc. All these have been readily available through camera stores, novelty

shops, and comic

books, even. All these digital shades do is to take that concept, and again - make it

cheaper, easier, faster, higher quality, and (perhaps most importantly) available to nearly

anyone.

 

So I don't think this advancement begs any changes in law or ethics. Whatever is illegal or

unethical with a Leica (is a quiet shutter sneaky?) or a super 8mm, will stand with these

specs and whatever else. After

all, HCB was as 'sneaky' as he needed to be, to get the decisive moment. I'm not worried

about how this will ethically effect street photography for the serious minded

photographer. In fact, it seems somewhat exciting to have the potential to catch those 'it

just happened as I rounded the corner' type shots.

 

What will change though is the potential for 'indescriminate use'. This includes everyone

from the wackos to the dangerously ignorant. I'm sure this technology will end up in the

cluttered digital toolboxes of those with less than noble motives. As well, I'm sure that

sooner or later someone who knows not what they do will wear those specs somewhere

they shouldn't, and end up downloading a real problem on the world stage of the internet.

 

In short, I'm not worried about Big Brother getting his hands on these. As an urban

dweller, he's already got between 2-300 photos a day taken of me without my consent. I'm

also not worried about HCB 2.0 getting his hands on these. As a matter of fact, I hope he

does. What I am worried about is those whose intention, regardless of technical

circumstances, is specifically a premeditated invasion of privacy in one way or another. As

well, morons, people who act with little or no thought process at all, will have one more

grand way of screwing up someone elses life without ever realizing it.

<i>"All these digital shades do is to take that concept, and again - make it cheaper, easier, faster, higher quality, and (perhaps most importantly) available to nearly anyone. "</i>

<p>

a matter of relatively little import eh? : )

Is there much else that matters for consumers/amatuers and professionals?

Ray, you're talking about a practical problem rather than an ethical one -- to wit, if you act suspiciously, you'll be treated with suspicion and your pix will probably suck as a result.

 

I don't really disagree. I don't really see a huge problem for street shooting although as I said it bothers me personally, so it wouldn't be my approach.

 

A few people have picked up on the word "sneaky." What I meant by that is being dishonest about what you're doing.

 

So if you're standing there with a camera implanted in your left eyeball, and someone walks up to you and says, "What're ya up to?", what do you say? If you say, "I'm taking pictures," that's one thing. If you say, "Nothin'," that's another thing.

 

Quite apart from all that, I think it's short-sighted not to see how technology such as this will change things. The advent of the Leica (and 35 mm generally) created candid photography as we know it. Further miniaturization will certainly change things. It could lead to a renaissance of sorts in street photography, but on the other hand, it could also lead (and already has in at least one country, as I recall) to new laws restricting candid photography.

Lucas, I don't meant to come off like a cynic with that statement. But, quite honestly, that

seems to me to be the driving force behind so much tech marketing today. For the serious

artist, amateur or professional, there will always be more that matters. But consider this,

as time goes on, do you think that the percentage of serious artists buying tech gear is

going up or down as compared to casual buyers? I guess I'm not too optimistic in that

regard.

 

Andrew, I suppose that what I was trying to get across was that I don't think that it's the

concept or idea behind a miniature or unseen camera that would, or could be a problem,

but rather the rampent proliferation of the technical means of this to any and all

consumers that should be of concern.

 

Also, on the concept of 'sneaky' as I saw it: somewhere in the back of my head is the idea

that when I see someone, the very idea of preventing them from seeing me back isn't sort

of 'fair play'. If my seeing them becomes a permanent record, ie. a photo, it seems that the

stakes are even higher. What I want with street photography is to be able to take the shot

before the person realises it or just as they realise it, but immediately afterward I simply

feel better if it's at least possible for people to know what I'm doing, or just did. Really, I

just like the candidness of the photos. It's my philosophy, I really have no qualms about

how anyone else does it.

Not that the quality on something like this is remotely tempting to me yet, but--

 

Often we need to hide our photography not from those who might have a reasonable beef

with having their picture taken, but with private property owners enforcing photo bans.

Much of the business of life that once took place on the street now takes place in malls

and other places where an obvious camera will generally earn you a stern lecture from a

guard.

 

Documentation of who we were and how we lived will be very incomplete without the

inclusion of these places. Which is ultimately more deceitful, to pull the wool over the eyes

of a rent-a-thug or two, or willfully leave a record with gaping holes?

How does Street Photography differ from Shopping or Hunting? There seems to be some similarity from an anthropological point of view. May be the result of the hunting and gathering impulse that helped us evolve.

Good point Roger. We need to record these places as we see them, and as they are to us.

It would be a shame to let history record them as a few set-up, glossy advertisements for

how they were 'intended'.

When I saw the picture of the prototype I had to snicker. Wearing something like that - with a small box camera attached to the outside of the frame - I imagine you could get lots of pictures. Of people laughing. What I was expecting, from the description above, was a glasses frame with a discreet lens buried somewhere in it - one of those spycam lenses that are sold to be used at home hidden inside a a small digital clock or something. <p>

 

If the final version - the one that goes on sale - works like that; and especially if you can zoom with it; then I'd like to try a pair myself. The next best thing to having Summilux eyes and a spinning digital disk inside your head. Robovision.