Shealth Photography w/ Leica Versus Minox

[alfie wang]

Hi everyone,

 

<p>

 

Well, strangely enough, I was at a photo exhibit of Weegee here in Philly (nice crime photographs there, reminding me of the Godfather series) and thought hard about shealth photography and the art of shooting in silence. I didn't include the Hexar Silver because I haven't experienced it personally.

 

<p>

 

I was shooting photographs in Barnes and Noble and geewhiz, people did notice my FED 2 with Leitz lens as I was moving around for shots. So much for silent work there. I didn't have much to comment about. I did manage to shoot without too much objection. Then I loaded up some hard to find batteries into my Kiev 35a which is a cheap Minox copy and then tried to shoot today with it on the streets of Philly. I got lots of good street shots without anyone really worrying about it. In fact, the cheap plastic construction masked a rather comfortable aperture-priority camera.

 

<p>

 

It made me realize that getting a Leica CL would be ideal with street work. It's a smaller version of the M series and although it isn't as rugged it's not like I would be in situations where such rigor would be necessary. So now the questions/thoughts:

 

<p>

 

1) The minox is rather ideal for shooting because the shutter is very very silent (I hardly notice) relative to a M6 or a FED camera (especially that one). In fact, the only problem shooting long exposure is its light weight which makes it difficult to handhold night shots on slow film.

 

<p>

 

2) Anyone else here favor Minox photography for more difficult situations? Such as very risky situations? What situations does one prefer a Minox over a Leica to shoot?

 

<p>

 

3) I found out that scale focusing is very difficult unless you're doing hyperfocals. The Minox will have a lot of bad shots relative to the Leica but you won't get too much flak for shooting in strangers' faces very much.

 

<p>

 

4) I get away with lots of Minox/Kiev shots since people don't notice that you're fiddling with the focusing ring without shooting using the viewfinder :) At least I shoot looking down sometimes...

 

<p>

 

5) What are the advantages/disadvantages of the Minox relative to the Leica? Apart from optical quality because we all know that Leitz has the trump card there.

 

<p>

 

sincerely, Alfie

[wilhelm]

People are entitled to their personal privacy inside stores,

restaurents, theaters, etc. You have no right to photograph them

surreptitiously under these circumstances. It is irresponsible as

well as illegal.

[alfie wang]

Actually that brings me to another question: What is considered a

public place? Bookstore? I would never photograph in a theater where

photography isn't permitted. Neither malls (don't care for shoppers

although someone did that already). Buses are fine to me. Streets I

know is supposed to be fair game. I don't think that the distinction

between private and public places is evident. Except homes that is a

different story.

 

<p>

 

Alfie

[andrew n.bra hrefhttp]

<I>People are entitled to their personal privacy inside stores,

restaurents, theaters, etc. You have no right to photograph them

surreptitiously under these circumstances. It is irresponsible as well

as illegal.</I><P>

 

This depends on the country. In Australia this is <U>not</U> illegal.

In France and the province of Quebec and Canada, arguably it is.<P>

 

See the "privacy" portion of the essay which accompanies my

<A HREF="http://4020.net/everyday">Everyday Life</A> project - which

BTW comprises in-close, from-the-front candid photos of people in shops

and malls and railway stations.<P>

 

The images were taken with Leicas, a Rollei 35S and now a Konica Hexar

Silver (silence modified). I've found over the 3 years I've been

working on the project that although a quiet camera helps, camera

technique and "attitude" when taking the shots is much more important.

Hell, I've taken a few shots with a Nikon F2A without too much ruckus -

and that baby must have the loudest shutter on earth!

[alfie wang]

That's true. Each country has a different policy on what constitutes

a private vs. public place. I just simply look around to see whether

there is a sign prohibiting photography. If there is, I don't take

out my camera. Simple as that.

 

<p>

 

Alfie

[margaret]

"Shealth" photography? I'm not sure I understand - do you

mean "stealth"?

[margaret]

A precision - here in France where photographers run into trouble is

when they wish to publish their photographs. The question of the

right to one's self image is at stake. That is one thing. What people

outside of France are likely unaware of is a French particularity.

There have been court cases recently of photographers being sued by

architects, painters of fishing boats in picturesque villages, and so

on, when the images of the works in question were published in works

for sale - magazines and also post cards. The courts so far have

given judgments in favour of the authors of the works, regarding them

as "intellectual property" and condemming the photographers to heavy

fines far outweighing whatever recompense their work brought. In the

case of architectural works, for instance, these are "intellectual

properties" that are in the public view. This is a complicated and

thorny issue here - but what issue that goes before the law doesn't

become that? - and photographers are protesting, but are limited in

what they can do. The great Willy Ronis was condemned in court for

publishing a photo he took of a woman several decades ago, with her

permission, and which was published much later. What recourse would

someone have for a photo published in a different country, at least

outside the European Union? I do not know, but the point is, don't

assume just anything goes. And don't shoot me, I'm just the piano

player i.e. I have nothing to do with the French legal system.

[jason]

The whole point of photography for me is to record life and history.

I intend to photograph as I want.I do not care if I am photographed.

There are certain places one cannot take photos due to real privacy

and personal safety concerns.France,Quebec and a number of Moslem

countries can be a problem.I was snapped by a non nudist on a nudist

beach, who crawled thru the undergrowth like "commando joe" with a

huge tele lens.If he had asked me I would have given permission.I

was'nt nude but definitely not wearing male swim attire of North

America.I cannot swim wearing a circus tent. Regarding France, if you

have a serious portfolio,you must declare it on entry....It will be

considered a "work of art" if you are stopped when leaving.I notice

that if I use my Canon Rebel people notice it more than my Leica...

[john_locher]

Alfie,

 

<p>

 

You can basically shoot pictures anywhere where people are allowed to

go as long as it isn't privatly owned if you aren't publishing it for

and ad campaign, etc. In your case you are only publishing it on the

web and in your photobooks (I assume) so I wouldn't have to worry

about that aspect.

 

<p>

 

You can also shoot pictures of things that aren't on public property

as long as you are standing on public property in a reasonable

place. Ex - you can legally shoot pictures of people in their home

through the window (no matter what they are doing)as long as you are

standing on a reasonable public place (a sidewalk - not up in a tree).

 

<p>

 

As for the bookstore and malls, they are private property - if you

have the managers permission, shoot all you want, but they do have a

right to kick you out.

 

<p>

 

In the real world, it can be quite different. I've shot pictures in

malls, private stores and museums all the time, and they usually

don't care. One time it a mall I was told by a security officer to

ask the permission of stores if I shot their storefront, but he

didn't say anyting about the people in the Halls! Most of the time I

walk around with a couple of cameras and they don't say anything. I

someone says anything to you just tell them what you are doing -

you're just taking pictures as a hobby and for fun.

 

<p>

 

On the flip side there are times when you are legally shooting

pictures and told not to. I've been arrested taking pictures in a

public street when I'd heard over the scanner that there were

hundreds of college kids causing a ruckus and they called in all of

the surrounding units because they were afraid they were going to

riot. They later dropped the charges because they knew they were

wrong and the Police had screwed up ( bit of an extreme exampe in

your case, but just to help explain).

 

<p>

 

Anyway, I'd just keep on shooting pictures like you have, and If

someone give you a wierd look - just talk to them and tell them

you're just out having fun taking pictures of what's going on. If a

store person tells you not to take pictures in the store even after

you've told them what you are doing then don't. If some really big

guy and 10 of his large friends tell you not to take their picture

while on the public street, probably best to not do it :^)

 

<p>

 

good luck,

john

[frank_horn]

The large, full-service photo stores all have books on photography

and the law. After reading one, I >almost< sold my Leica! You can

get into major league trouble witha camera! Or, a tape recorder, for

that matter. People have rights to privacy in their image, including

their voice. Do an imitation of someone and publish it and you can

be sued! (Unless you have permish!) And there is a lot of latitude

in what constitutes "publishing".>>>>> I saw a fantastic display of

diamonds in a Chicago Wabash Avenue ("Jeweler's Row") window. I was

focusing on this and the proprietor came out and asked me whay I was

photographing the display. I said that it was quite beautiful and I

was on the public sidewalk and it was my right to photograph it. He

was obviously not happy. A couple days later, I was walking along

the same sidewalk and noticed that NO diamonds were on display-- only

mountings! Also, several other stores had removed their diamond

displays in favor of mountings only! I haven't lived in Chicago for

several years, so I do not know if they have restored diamond

displays.>>>>>Why the paranoia? Was some of that stuff "hot"? (I

mean displays in the front window, facing a public sidewalk.)

[wilhelm]

The point here is not whether it may be illegal, but that ordinary

people have a reasonable expectation of personal privacy. To sneak

pictures of them is reprehensible. Just because you CAN do something

doesn't make it right.

[michael_kastner]

Just because you CAN do something doesn't make it right. -

---

Bill, I almost always agree with you (because I love your irony

and/or sarcasm) but I'm afraid the big point here is that it often

<i>is</i> illegal (as re privacy and sneaking: who cares?). Me not

having been allowed e.g. to photograph during a concert in the

Berliner Philharmonie or to record during a Frank Zappa (Domini

Patri) concert (maybe) doesn't make it wrong. If it <i>does</i> make

it wrong, then they're only interested in making sure they lose no

dough.

[douglas k.]

"People are entitled to their personal privacy inside stores,

restaurents, theaters, etc. You have no right to photograph them

surreptitiously under these circumstances. It is irresponsible as

well as illegal."

 

<p>

 

"The point here is not whether it may be illegal, but that ordinary

people have a reasonable expectation of personal privacy. To sneak

pictures of them is reprehensible. Just because you CAN do something

doesn't make it right."

 

<p>

 

"People have rights to privacy in their image, including their voice."

 

<p>

 

To which I can only respond with "HUH?" While out in public,

including in stores, restaurants, and theaters, we cede many rights to

privacy, and may be photographed, videotaped, and recorded by

strangers at will, at least in the United States. If this were not

so, how would news photo/videographers do their jobs, how would live

concerts before noisy audiences be recorded, how would the ubiquitous

surveillance cameras in stores, gas stations, ATMs, and in other

places, even exist? How would we take innocent vacation snapshots at

the Grand Canyon if we were not allowed to include the occasional

bystander who happened to be at the same overlook? To assert a legal

right to privacy while in public -- as is done in the first and third

excerpts above -- is simply incorrect, at least in the U.S. I have

every legal right to photograph people in public places, whether they

object or not.

 

<p>

 

Suppose there were no legal right to photograph people against their

wishes. Then we wouldn't know that some LAPD cops enjoy beating black

guys (Rodney King) senseless. We wouldn't have the Zapruder film, the

strongest piece of evidence in the JFK assassination. We wouldn't

have investigative journalism, for the most part, and people in power

would have even less reason to behave responsibly.

 

<p>

 

The broader question of whether a photographer SHOULD (rather than

could) surreptitiously snatch images of people in public is a separate

matter on which we may have different judgments. I will only state

that, in my experience, some photographers seem much more troubled by

this than have any of the hundreds of strangers I have photographed in

public over the years, the vast majority of whom seemed to not care or

to be enthused about being photographed.

[ron_buchanan2]

Jason, you said:<p>

Regarding France, if you have a serious portfolio,you must declare it

on entry....It will be considered a "work of art" if you are stopped

when leaving.<p>

Are you saying that if you bring your portfolio to France and don't

declare it, they might not let you take it home? If not, just what

are you saying?<p>

(BTW, I've been to France once and the people were generally friendly

and of what I know about the French they really seem to know how to

live (good food, good wine & a short work week/day). But good God

what's up with the legal system, if you can't take a picture of a

building and sell it. Of course, I suppose it's not just France,

people everywhere seem to be getting awefully prickly about

everything.)

[ron_buchanan2]

This French building thing just reminded me of something else:

Eugene Atget (Frenchman that he was) made his career photographing

buildings and selling them.

[alfie wang]

I can understand why the diamond guys were scared of you

photographing their wares. Most of it is garnered illegally and that

don't want those suckers traced back to the original source... after

all it's a DeBeers monopoly :\... anyways, a lot of diamonds are the

by-products of African genocide... slight guilt trip I guess.

 

<p>

 

I enjoy Atget. I think that he's very much underrated and people

accuse him of being boring. No, I think that he's the forerunner to

Picasso's early cubism to be honest. That's why I enjoy taking

pictures of still lifes and objects just as much as people...

 

<p>

 

Privacy laws are sometimes good in one sense of the word but can be

abused too to cover up actions such as murder and theft and

bribery... it's a double edged sword to be honest :)

 

<p>

 

sincerely,

Alfie

[raymond_tai]

It seems that whenever someone goes to India they come back with the

same pictures of poor people sitting in the streets. These people

probably should have more access to privacy than the Parisian cafe goer

simply because they have no choice but to be there. So if the privacy

advocates are right then is street photography dead?

[mike dixon]

"To sneak pictures of them is reprehensible."

 

<p>

 

Could you provide some justification for that statement? Something

more substantive than "you don't like it." And please, don't base

your argument on non-existent rights to public privacy or made-up

laws.

[msitaraman]

The issue is - Is it OK to take pictures of perfect strangers

sneakily with the hope of creating Great Street Photography.

 

<p>

 

Either you connect and then make pictures, or you become part of the

community, street, block, village, or whatever and take pictures over

time.

 

<p>

 

That is a reasonable starting point, I think.

 

<p>

 

But reasonableness does not create great art...

 

<p>

 

You may say, but what if your vision is an enormously talented one,

as with Cartier-Bresson or Garry Winogrand? What then? Is the

violation of privacy to be tolerated in the pursuit of some high

artistic ideal?

 

<p>

 

Not an easy question to answer, if you value privacy and art equally.

 

But then a solution might be that perhaps those of us with decidedly

mediocre talents and eye should not assume that street pictures

automatically have some great intrinsic value to us, to the subject,

to society or to art or to whatever. Most of us should shun street

photography of the sneaky sort.

 

<p>

 

But, you might interject again, what if you need the street

photography practice to become one of the greats? Did not HC-B

practice when he was learning?

 

<p>

 

Again, I don't know the answer to that...

 

<p>

 

Just the same, photo.net's archives have some really egregious

examples of shameless theft of personal moments and total disregard

of privacy in the guise of Street Photography (from India, where

else?)

[MTC Photography]

Alfie, Minox GT-E and 35ML are my favourite 35mm pocket cameras.

Minox 35 is light, and very quiet. I use them more than my Leica

camera.

 

<p> For more about the world of Minox see

 

<a href="http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=Minox%

20Photography">Minox Photography Forum"</a> and

<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Minox-FAQ">Minox-FAQ</a>

[MTC Photography]

<h3>Andy Warhol Mick Jagger and Minox 35</a>

 

<p>

 

<a href="http://www.rockpix.com/gallery/micandy.html">Andy Warhol,

Mick Jagger </a>

[MTC Photography]

<a href="http://imv.aau.dk/~jfogde/quotes/expose.html">Quotes from

Andy Warhol: Exposures </a>

[geddert]

bold</b></b></b></b></b> be gone.

[geddert]

</h3>lets try this again: "<b>Bold</b> be gone!"

[furcafe]

Funny that Weegee prompted you to think about "stealth"

photography--w/his big press cameras & flash bulbs, he was

about the furthest thing you can get from that concept (unless

you count the infrared shots he took inside movie theaters)!