nathaniel_pearson

Wayne, I'm looking to sell my Canon 50/1.5, in bargain/ugly condition (I'm being conservative -- no fungus or anything, but glass has some marks). It takes wonderful pics, but I'm sticking with 35mm these days. Get in touch if interested.

Your Konica AR lenses have too short a 'register' (flange-to-focal plane distance) to adapt to

KM/Sony A-mount while preserving infinity focus. However, AR lenses can be readily

adapted for use on 4:3-standard (e.g., Olympus) dSLR bodies. Search the web, and you'll

find a couple pages describing the needed modification.

I'm not sure how many 'n' is (as in 'n number of opportunities'), given that the cop we hear

the most from appears to be hectoring the videographers (demanding 'now!' etc.) several

times within just a few seconds; by such a standard, calling the police several times within

5 seconds could be construed as putting in 'n number of requests for police assistance'.

Anyway, by my count (and of course there are apparently gaps in the final edit we see) the

videographer(s) get exactly one clear conditional request from the officers: 'Shut it off, or

you're gonna be arrested.'

 

In not complying, the videographers extended the footage we get as evidence now --

including the now absurdity of an apparently handcuffed(?) person being commanded by

police to help turn off a camera. That stretch of now well publicized tape also apparently

includes an officer's vague (and perhaps unlawful) threat to break the arrestee's camera.

So it's unclear to me who 'loses' in the long run here.

 

At any rate, I'm curious, John, as to whether your concern (in the 8:24 post) that the

posted video account is 'one-sided' and lacks information might undercut your own

inferences (in the 2:30 p.m. post) about what happened.

The cop's pushy, patronizing manner on the video -- i.e., the rapid-fire, purely rhetorical questions like 'How about that ['option' of shooting from distant off-screen spot]?'; the refusal to listen to the videographer without cutting him off; &c. -- strike me as typical tactics calculated to intimidate and quickly induce obediance. There is no suggestive evidence in the cops' own words, however, of any immediate danger posed by the photographers' presence (no mention of personal or public safety, &c.). Thus, while I agree that our access to relevant information is (inevitably) incomplete, I think the onus is on the Tacoma police or other witnesses to tell us about any mitigating factors that were missing from this 'one-sided' account. Until then, the video is all we have -- and we should take the evidence it provides seriously.

Pico, I think we agree that a chat with an angry subject should generally be brief, and

should convey a sympathetic understanding that (s)he may have felt threatened or violated

by our action, as well as our intent to not exploit the image we've made. Where we seem

to differ is in whether it's ok for the photographer to a) use the image taken (or at least

not promise to not use it), and/or b) convey any justification for our having taken the

picture in the first place.

 

I grant that some folks may be too angry to absorb a reasoned argument, but I think that,

in many cases, people fear the photographer's intent moreso than the mere fact that an

image of them has been taken. Someone else rightly noted that many 'photophobes'

already know that they are being frequently recorded by public security cameras, and yet

still appear publicly without much objection -- in that case, they know -why- (ostensibly)

the images are being recorded. So, yes, an apology can help mitigate the subject's

resentment...but so can, at least sometimes, an explanation.

Pico wrote: "you are not going to convert a person who is pumped, prejudiced and aggressive

about his/her feeling about being photographed."

 

If so, Pico, then I don't understand your earlier argument that a doomed attempt to 'convert'

a suspicious stranger to see street photography as valid could 'mess it up for the rest of us'.

That is, if the subject is already so intransigent on the question, and will continue to always

be sour toward any stranger who might point a camera their way, then what difference would

it make how or whether one talks to them? How could doing so ruin the prospects for other

public photographers in future?

Also, at risk of fanning the flames here, I think ad hominems like 'a friggin embarrassment'/'all ego'/'no smarts' are more hostile and needlessly argumentative than it is to tell a misinformed stranger that public photography is legal.

 

At any rate, I dispute the claim that doing the latter tends to 'mess it up for the rest of us' -- on the contrary, I think calmly engaging with people to briefly chat about the benign intent, art-historical precedent, personal passion, and, yes, legality of taking pictures in public can, in the long run, reduce the frequency of such angry confrontations. In such cases, people often leave with a better understanding of why the erstwhile blank slate behind the lens is doing what they're doing, and may be less suspicious next time.

Justin, you've gotten some static on whether the picture was 'worth it' (it being, variously, the hassle for you, the emotional distress for the subject, &c.). Judging from your description of the scene, it would have been hard to know ahead of time that your pressing a button (the shutter release) would have triggered major emotional distress in your passerby subject.

 

Moreover, though it may or may not have ended up as a banal shot (certainly you might have captured some compelling emotion if you shot another during the discussion!), but anyone who has ever wasted frame one should understand that not every shot is a keeper, and that by such a criterion most of us should be fraught with contrition for >90% of our button-pressings.

 

Overall, I think you handled the situation graciously, and the jogger may have actually learned something (namely, that public photography is legal). Maybe she'll even think more deeply on how any street photographs (in coffee-table books &c.) that she enjoys were actually made. And, though there may be no way to slice such an all-too-familiar occasion into a really pleasant one, hopefully you'll get more comfortable in both avoiding and enduring such confrontations.

Chema, 16.6mm/4 = ~4mm.

Summing my belated comments on the moribund second DP1 thread:

 

1) Why do 'they' seem to have such a hard time making a fast fixed lens for a

digicam? Many c-mount optics were/are f/1.2 or faster. Hell, even the 24/1.9 in the

Fuji Natura could have served as a super ~40mm/1.9 on this thing. Is there some

aberration or light path reflection issue that distinguishes the c-mount case from the

digicam case? Or is it that the af systems they put in these little cameras are glaringly

imprecise when used at apertures larger than -- grrr -- 4mm?

 

and

 

2) Why does the DP1 have a rocker button on the back marked W ('wide'?) on the left

and T ('tele'?) on the right? Sounds awfully zoomlike for a prime-lensed digicam.

Maybe the demo unit is a hasty mockup.

Also, why does the DP1 have a rocker button on the back marked W ('wide'?) on the left and T

('tele'?) on the right? Sounds awfully zoomlike for a prime-lensed digicam!

 

Maybe the demo unit is a very hasty mockup.

"the project is dedicated to his father..."

 

Incidentally, abu ghraib means 'father of [the] west' -- a fact which many Iraqis may treat as a

bitter irony.

Why do 'they' seem to have such a hard time making a fast fixed lens for a digicam?!

 

Many c-mount optics were/are f/1.2 or faster. Hell, even the 24/1.9 in the Fuji

Natura could have served as a super ~40mm/1.9 on this thing. Is there some

aberration or light path reflection issue that distinguishes the c-mount case from the

digicam case? Or is it that the af systems they put in these little cameras are glaringly

imprecise when used at apertures larger than -- grrr -- 4mm?

A mildly interesting info swap going on here. But, as the candidates listed vary so greatly in

format, shouldn't we be specifying 'fastest lens for infinity-focused, air-transmitted

panchromatic (~380-760nm?) images with diagonal view angle x'?...

 

All of which makes me wonder: if we put all this collective energy into persuading someone

to make an aps-sensor digicam with a C-mount, all those old 17mm/1.2's &c. might actually

see some good new use!

Weasel, this is dangerously off-topic, but let's be clear. Genetic variation, in humans

as well as other organisms, is indeed quantitatively clumped, just as our senses

clearly tell us. But such clumping actually defies any attempt to rigorously,

unambiguously, and non-arbitrarily classify individuals into qualitatively discrete

groups. Concepts like race, and species too, thus have no rigorous definition that

trumps our intuitive (and subjective, meaning inherently subject to disagreement)

classifications of individuals.

 

We biologists may, however, speak rigorously of a 'clade' -- a group consisting of one

individual and all its descendants. But the clade concept is, crucially, scale-

independent -- that is, it doesn't distinguish (or even try to distinguish) a 'kingdom'

from a 'phylum' from an 'order' from a 'species' from a 'race', etc. Moreover, the clade

concept, while useful, is complicated by so-called 'reticulation' (meaning the fusion of

lineages by sex) in sexual breeders like us.

Bee, thanks for catching my error; sorry for putting words in Hong's mouth there.

 

As to why biology is relevant here: we humans are indeed social (in the ethological

sense) animals. As such, we often resort to group warfare -- conducted mostly by

young males, as is the case for many other social mammals too -- in perceived

territorial struggles.

 

And hey, in fomenting such conflict, we sometimes even stack the deck in perceived

cost/benefit terms, by promising b.s. inclusive fitness benefits, like access to 72

virgins...

Hong, I'm not sure where you heard that rumor about withholding publication re. the

genetic affinity of Jews and Arabs. Your report sounds wrong on several fronts (I speak as

a human evolutionary geneticist here). First, 'one race apart' is a meaningless measure of

genetic distance -- there are no discrete, non-arbitrarily defined `races' in human

populations (or in any other populations), and such an assertion would never appear in a

modern peer-reviewed journal. Second, there have already been several papers published

in relevant peer-reviewed journals that do indeed show particularly close genetic affinity

both among Jewish populations, and between Jews and other eastern Mediterranean

populations.

 

Save for your allegation, I've never heard rumor of any such study being delayed or

withheld due to political pressure. Third, it seems to me that the findings in question may

be far more troubling to many Arabs than to many Jews (especially Israelis): among the

former, Israel is widely viewed as a colonial presence foisted on the region by settlers who

ostensibly lacked ancestral roots in the land in question -- a view starkly at odds with the

genetic evidence.

Here we go...

 

Jamie, it's interesting how you leave the rest of Jordan gray, rather than green. That, and

interesting how you don't show the whole 1946 map as a third color: British control.

 

At any rate, the photos in question are a solid set of color documentary work.

Eric, sadly, you may be right. And the irony of the reported charge ('obstruction of

justice') is downright kafkaesque.

 

If American photographers fail to vocally prosecute this kind of bullshit, we risk seeing the

phantom laws invoked against us get enacted by increasingly paranoid municipal, state,

and federal lawmakers. The policy trick du jour (see: indefinite Guantánamo detentions,

NSA wiretapping, &c.) seems to be: violate constitutional right first, then foot-drag

investigation (while twisting legislative arms) long enough to get a law passed to make

your abusive 'facts-on-the-ground' action retroactively -- as well as prospectively --

legal.

 

Charge up your phones.

Re. Fuji/other parties, are patents behind 665 and 55 still in force? It sure would be nice if

Fuji would pick up the ball on 665, if that were legal.

 

Switching to 55 entails not just a jump in format and cost per shot, but loss of the pack's

convenience (though, in my experience, shooting 665 often involves several minutes

between successive shots anyway).

 

My converted 110A has always struck me as a potentially great travel camera, in that it

folds into a tough clamshell, and I could give immediate hard copies of pics to subjects I

meet -- a nice gesture that also encourages more friendly interaction between folks.

Maybe I'll have to eventually convert it to a larger format...

Oops, just noticed the date limit for this forum. In 1970, my Contax T was just a

twinkle in some Kyocera engineer's eye. But help would still be appreciated...

Does anyone know how to adjust the rangefinder on the T? I've had the top off to clean the VF

optics, and would like to tweak the RF (focuses a bit too far out at close range). But I see no way

to access the RF housing, short of unscrewing the electronics board (which I would not risk doing).

 

One would think there'd be an easy-access set screw somewhere, as on most RF cameras. Anyone

know?

Dan wrote:

 

"Has anyone here ever tried to argue with a cop?"

 

Hmm...well, trying to convince fellow p-netters of anything has offered me some good

practice ;->

Leslie Cheung wrote:

 

"There will always be ill informed security personels out there regardless of what the

law is, are you going to engage in a discussion of your rights to shoot in public with

every single one of them every time you happened to bump into one?"

 

In my book, not 'every' time, but most of the time, yes. If getting hassled is simply a

rare 'bad apple' phenomenon, then engaging your hassler to disabuse them of

misunderstanding the law shouldn't take too much time out of your work week. If

such misunderstanding is more widespread, then, yes, engaging each hassler will

take more time -- but each interaction will promise more headway in terms of

increasing the proportion of well-informed cops.

 

I guess this is the crux of the matter: do you simply wave off the person who hassles

you (perhaps increasing their antagonism toward photographers), or do you actively

engage them so they won't hassle the next person?

Concern is a passive romance euphemism for worry (the quibbles over usage are beside

the point anyway). Moreover, I suspect that active pro photographers may encounter

these hassles less often (per 'sortie') than amateurs -- partly as a matter of personal

bearing, partly thanks to experienced strategic avoidance of trouble, and partly owing to

the kind of equipment carried. E.g. photo vest and world-weary demeanor must mean pro

likely means person already has permission may mean I'd get in trouble with superiors for

bothering them, &c.

 

At any rate, poo-pooing Marc for over-reacting misses a bigger, hardly deniable point: the

misconception that public photography is illegal is too common in American officialdom.

One approach is too treat this misconception as a nuisance to be grinned-and-borne, as

long as it doesn't result in outright jailing or confiscation; an alternative is to try to

positively spread the word on photographers' behalf. At any rate, I think Marc has been

lectured enough here about cultivating a piss-off demeanor in order to elude would-be

meddlers in future. Let's talk about how we can pro-actively reduce the ignorance that

underlies such would-be meddling in the first place.