mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
...photographically of course!
Yesterday I went to the big demonstration here in Sydney, occasioned by the APEC meeting that's in town at the moment. The photos I took are here:
(Note that two photos would probably fail the "post on RFF" test, and others contain slogans etc. that may offend some people. If easily offended, please don't look.)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mfunnell/sets/72157601924787455/
The thoughts I want to discuss are as follows...
The first is my choice of equipment.
I chose to use my Contax G2. Why?
At least half the reason was that I spent a bunch of money on the camera, yet had yet to give it a "serious" outing. While I've taken some shots I've liked (and, in the process, learned to really appreciate the quality of the lenses), they'd mostly been taken in the process of testing and familiarisation. But the other half of the reason? That was mostly because of the autofocus issue. I simply don't trust SLR (including dSLR) autofocus at wide apertures at "rangefinder" focal lengths, having found my results using that somewhat problematic. I can frequently do better with a manual focus SLR (my OMs) but not as well as a rangefinder. It might be just me, but I find that RF focus really does achieve its theoretical advantages over SLRs at these focal lengths.
Yet I was reluctant to use one of my M or LTM RF cameras. Why? Because at this kind of event, sometimes you get fast-changing situations where I simply can't achieve manual focus fast enough, with any kind of manual focus camera. That may be lack of skill, ability or practice - but its still true enough. So, I wanted to take advantage of a unique attribute of the Contax G cameras - long-baselength RF accuracy but with AF! The kind of shot I'm talking about can be seen in a shot I did take yesterday:
(NOT child-safe, work-safe, or for those easily offended!)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mfunnell/1348865160/
I may have been able to take this with a manual-focus camera (RF - or not-but-probably) but I would have been using faster film and a much narrower aperture to make up for potential focus errors in a "one opportunity" photograph. Which would have made it a different photograph.
On the other hand: during the course of the event I badly missed focus on a few shots, because of the G2: if you miss with the G2 you miss by a mile! I knew this going in, but figured the improved chance of getting the key shot was worth the known circumstance that I'd badly stuff a few up (partially, I'm sure, my technique - but I think its in the nature of the beast).
I'm glad I used the G2, in the end. I got, overall, better shots than I think I would have with a digital-or-not AF SLR and I nailed the key shot(s). (The quality of the Zeiss 45/2 lens, BTW, should go without saying. But if it doesn't, I've said it.) I think I'll put the missed shots down as a fair trade-off.
But my second point, which may be creating trouble (though its not completely my intention) is the fact that I don't know if I can post the example shot I linked to (but did not "IMG-tag" or upload to RFF) I don't even know if I can link to it (I'm assuming I can). It is entirely on-topic as a rangefinder discussion (as, I hope, I've just outlined above). But it pushes the line as far as the (IMO) harder line being recently taken about what can and can't be posted here on RFF. I even worry (though only marginally) that this post might be out-of-bounds through either linking to a "forbidden" photo or through being seen as "formenting unrest". The latter is not really my intention - but it might be, I suppose, depending on the reaction.
I think the shot is straight legitimate reportage. A video sequence that revealed a similar amount was shown on last-night's TV news (Australia's ABC, which is a government-owned station with, I believe, less restrictive regulation on such matters than our commercial stations, it must be said). It might or might not cross the line as far as RFF regulation goes: on a strict reading, no genitals were shown (near-naked protester arrested, penis-sheath worn, pubic hair showing, scrotum not visible - to nail down the "finer" points).
Until some recent "events" on RFF I wouldn't have thought twice about posting it. But now I have and did. There's a reason people talk about a "chilling effect" of censorship, leading to self-censorship that may be short of the official rules.
Now, I will say that while I personally hold to the more "anything goes" side of the equation in matters of censorship, I also see a very large difference between official government-enforced actual censorship and the private rules of a private forum. But I still think that the "chilling effect" argument applies, and suspect that a good deal more clarity about what's in and what's out might be quite valuable around RFF right now. If nothing else, it might help calm some of the frightened horses... (For the record, I'm not frightened, but I am startled.)
...Mike
Yesterday I went to the big demonstration here in Sydney, occasioned by the APEC meeting that's in town at the moment. The photos I took are here:
(Note that two photos would probably fail the "post on RFF" test, and others contain slogans etc. that may offend some people. If easily offended, please don't look.)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mfunnell/sets/72157601924787455/
The thoughts I want to discuss are as follows...
The first is my choice of equipment.
I chose to use my Contax G2. Why?
At least half the reason was that I spent a bunch of money on the camera, yet had yet to give it a "serious" outing. While I've taken some shots I've liked (and, in the process, learned to really appreciate the quality of the lenses), they'd mostly been taken in the process of testing and familiarisation. But the other half of the reason? That was mostly because of the autofocus issue. I simply don't trust SLR (including dSLR) autofocus at wide apertures at "rangefinder" focal lengths, having found my results using that somewhat problematic. I can frequently do better with a manual focus SLR (my OMs) but not as well as a rangefinder. It might be just me, but I find that RF focus really does achieve its theoretical advantages over SLRs at these focal lengths.
Yet I was reluctant to use one of my M or LTM RF cameras. Why? Because at this kind of event, sometimes you get fast-changing situations where I simply can't achieve manual focus fast enough, with any kind of manual focus camera. That may be lack of skill, ability or practice - but its still true enough. So, I wanted to take advantage of a unique attribute of the Contax G cameras - long-baselength RF accuracy but with AF! The kind of shot I'm talking about can be seen in a shot I did take yesterday:
(NOT child-safe, work-safe, or for those easily offended!)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mfunnell/1348865160/
I may have been able to take this with a manual-focus camera (RF - or not-but-probably) but I would have been using faster film and a much narrower aperture to make up for potential focus errors in a "one opportunity" photograph. Which would have made it a different photograph.
On the other hand: during the course of the event I badly missed focus on a few shots, because of the G2: if you miss with the G2 you miss by a mile! I knew this going in, but figured the improved chance of getting the key shot was worth the known circumstance that I'd badly stuff a few up (partially, I'm sure, my technique - but I think its in the nature of the beast).
I'm glad I used the G2, in the end. I got, overall, better shots than I think I would have with a digital-or-not AF SLR and I nailed the key shot(s). (The quality of the Zeiss 45/2 lens, BTW, should go without saying. But if it doesn't, I've said it.) I think I'll put the missed shots down as a fair trade-off.
But my second point, which may be creating trouble (though its not completely my intention) is the fact that I don't know if I can post the example shot I linked to (but did not "IMG-tag" or upload to RFF) I don't even know if I can link to it (I'm assuming I can). It is entirely on-topic as a rangefinder discussion (as, I hope, I've just outlined above). But it pushes the line as far as the (IMO) harder line being recently taken about what can and can't be posted here on RFF. I even worry (though only marginally) that this post might be out-of-bounds through either linking to a "forbidden" photo or through being seen as "formenting unrest". The latter is not really my intention - but it might be, I suppose, depending on the reaction.
I think the shot is straight legitimate reportage. A video sequence that revealed a similar amount was shown on last-night's TV news (Australia's ABC, which is a government-owned station with, I believe, less restrictive regulation on such matters than our commercial stations, it must be said). It might or might not cross the line as far as RFF regulation goes: on a strict reading, no genitals were shown (near-naked protester arrested, penis-sheath worn, pubic hair showing, scrotum not visible - to nail down the "finer" points).
Until some recent "events" on RFF I wouldn't have thought twice about posting it. But now I have and did. There's a reason people talk about a "chilling effect" of censorship, leading to self-censorship that may be short of the official rules.
Now, I will say that while I personally hold to the more "anything goes" side of the equation in matters of censorship, I also see a very large difference between official government-enforced actual censorship and the private rules of a private forum. But I still think that the "chilling effect" argument applies, and suspect that a good deal more clarity about what's in and what's out might be quite valuable around RFF right now. If nothing else, it might help calm some of the frightened horses... (For the record, I'm not frightened, but I am startled.)
...Mike
Last edited:
steamer
Well-known
I don't think RFFers are that delicate, nothing you wouldn't see on cnn (well almost) though I can understand your feeling. Oh yeah, nice photos with the G2. My last roll with the G2 was an absolute mess, all blurred and like you say when you miss the focus you miss by a mile.
gertf
Established
Looks like you had a good time at the anti-everything protest 
I like several of the photos in your folder very much, and don't see the problem posting them here, but then again I also fall in the 'anything goes' category.
I think you've given ample warning in your post for anyone who might be easily offended, and the photographs are definitely worth posting.
I like several of the photos in your folder very much, and don't see the problem posting them here, but then again I also fall in the 'anything goes' category.
I think you've given ample warning in your post for anyone who might be easily offended, and the photographs are definitely worth posting.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Well, neither do I! However, recent observation suggests that RFF rules are such that they protect people who are rather more delicate than the collective sensibility of the members (if you'll excuse the expression). And I suspect (but may be wrong - please, let me be wrong) that there's a touch of "rules are rules" (even where they're obviously inapplicable) mentality going around, and a little defesiveness.steamer said:
As (I hope) I alluded to above, I do not believe we (collectively here at RFF) should go "open slather", as (IMO) that would lead to a "race to the bottom". I do believe, however, that we need some decent guidelines. Note: "guidelines". It may be that we already have them (in which case, they're more restrictive that I'd prefer), but if that's so then they seem, to me, to be rather "whim-based" as in "how I feel this evening" stuff. I'd prefer things more well defined (allowing more, but not completely, objective assessment) but would not like a "strict rule" regime: even very permissive rules would, if applied strictly, miss far too often.
What I'd prefer is a kind of collective statement on "philosophy of moderation" (if you will) from the Head Bartender and his team of moderators. I suspect I could live with whatever they come up with (or, possibly but not likely, I might not). What I see currently is more "all over the shop" than that. Blind adherence to inappropriate rules on one occasion, yet inconsistent tolerance on the next. I suspect the moderators are (nearly) as frustrated, though, as we are - since they seem to be left to personal reactions rather than any kind of spelled-out guidelines.
...Mike
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
The G2 is working well, nice shots. I always find interesting the signs that people carry in protests. I think that is where the hackles get raised here and elsewhere, but that is their point I guess.
Bob
Bob
Kim Coxon
Moderator
Mike,
I think your post is good and I can see nothing that would lead you to believe that it would cross the line or offend. The topic is entirely photographically related and pertinent. IMHO, it is what this forum should be about. Had you used a photo as a pretext to make a political point about police behaviour or political policy, then that would be different.
The use of such a photo is not an easy call and I think you dealt with it in the best way as it gives the reader the choice if they are on the sensitive side. Yes, there are such images on the TV and indeed some quite harrowing ones. However, I don't know about CNN but on the UK chanels, they usually issue a warning before showing them so that the viewer has a choice. You have used a similar solution to solve the problem.
You do not talk about other members or disparage them for their views. As I said before, this is the sort of thread that the forum should be about.
Kim
I think your post is good and I can see nothing that would lead you to believe that it would cross the line or offend. The topic is entirely photographically related and pertinent. IMHO, it is what this forum should be about. Had you used a photo as a pretext to make a political point about police behaviour or political policy, then that would be different.
The use of such a photo is not an easy call and I think you dealt with it in the best way as it gives the reader the choice if they are on the sensitive side. Yes, there are such images on the TV and indeed some quite harrowing ones. However, I don't know about CNN but on the UK chanels, they usually issue a warning before showing them so that the viewer has a choice. You have used a similar solution to solve the problem.
You do not talk about other members or disparage them for their views. As I said before, this is the sort of thread that the forum should be about.
Kim
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Thanks very much for the kind words, Kim. I do want to do whatever the "right thing" is, and am trying to puzzle my way around that, and whether my thoughts accord with the way this forum works. They have, and I think they should... but I also sense a somewhat heavy (or, perhaps, simply overly paternalistic) hand being applied at the moment:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=636433
It would be nice to know what "the boundaries" are, the reasoning behind them and that they were being enforced with a large dollop of common sense. I must say, though, that I'm getting way too much of a feeling that its more like "because I say so" and "I don't have to explain, I'm just in charge". I'm not at all sure I like thinking that's what's happening.
...Mike
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=636433
It would be nice to know what "the boundaries" are, the reasoning behind them and that they were being enforced with a large dollop of common sense. I must say, though, that I'm getting way too much of a feeling that its more like "because I say so" and "I don't have to explain, I'm just in charge". I'm not at all sure I like thinking that's what's happening.
...Mike
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
I don't have any problem with anyone posting any (legal) photos of body parts... provided that the subject line contains a "content statement" that will help me decide if, where, and under what circumstances it would be most appropriate to view it.
I don't feel that's trampling on the maker's artistic freedom -- it's more like the allergen statement that the federal food agency requires on packaged foods. If I know I've got an "allergy" to a particular kind of content, I'm entitled to know if something contains that content -- so I can decide intelligently how much of it I might consume.
That's my take on the body-parts issue. As to the political content of the demonstration, that's a different touchy area with a controversial RFF history.
Yeah, photos of a public demonstration may be of legitimate photographic interest, as well as legitimate news interest. But just as some news outlets slant their content to reflect their own political agendas, it's possible for individual photographers to do the same.
For a while we had something happening on RFF in which people were photographing the signs demonstrators were holding and posting long threads of them in a way that simply turned the threads themselves into a political demonstration.
I feel this type of thing is not an issue so much of what "the boundaries" are as in what your intentions are. You have to be honest here. Am I posting the photos of my "I Like Ike" signs primarily because they illustrate a legitimate photographic topic, or primarily because I want to encourage people to like Ike?
And if I'm posting them primarily for reasons of advocacy, shouldn't I be honest enough to say so up front? After all, even other people who like Ike may want to allocate their RFF time primarily to photographic issues rather than advocacy issues.
To be fair, I think we also should agree that if you're going to post photos to advocate your views, it's fair game for others to analyze your advocacy as well as your photographic technique. After all, our motivations for making photos are an important ingredient in the photos we make. But the fact that this type of discussion so easily spirals out of control is the main reason many of us want to keep it off RFF!
So, I think you're right to tread warily here, unless you're willing to open a can of worms that you may not be prepared to re-can!
After all, we all know what demonstrators look like, and we all know what body parts look like, so it should be possible to discuss strategies for dealing with the Contax G2's sometimes-erratic focus (substitute targets; watching the LCD; using the parallax mask as a rough guide to focus distance; etc.) without needing to see the evidence. Your choice of describing the photographic issue verbally, while including an offsite link to the photos themselves, strikes me as a prudent and courteous approach.
I don't feel that's trampling on the maker's artistic freedom -- it's more like the allergen statement that the federal food agency requires on packaged foods. If I know I've got an "allergy" to a particular kind of content, I'm entitled to know if something contains that content -- so I can decide intelligently how much of it I might consume.
That's my take on the body-parts issue. As to the political content of the demonstration, that's a different touchy area with a controversial RFF history.
Yeah, photos of a public demonstration may be of legitimate photographic interest, as well as legitimate news interest. But just as some news outlets slant their content to reflect their own political agendas, it's possible for individual photographers to do the same.
For a while we had something happening on RFF in which people were photographing the signs demonstrators were holding and posting long threads of them in a way that simply turned the threads themselves into a political demonstration.
(For what I hope will be a non-offensive example, suppose I made two dozen signs reading "I Like Ike" or "Martians Go Back to Mars," photographed them, and posted them in an RFF thread. Let's also suppose there's absolutely nothing photographically interesting about these images -- they're simply records of what I put on the signs.
If I post these images in a photography-themed RFF thread -- as opposed to "Anything Goes" -- am I really inviting discussion of any photographic topic? Or am I simply hijacking the thread as a way of purveying my political views? And if you feel the political signs are okay, then what's to prevent me from photographing the "For Sale" sign on my car and posting that?)
If I post these images in a photography-themed RFF thread -- as opposed to "Anything Goes" -- am I really inviting discussion of any photographic topic? Or am I simply hijacking the thread as a way of purveying my political views? And if you feel the political signs are okay, then what's to prevent me from photographing the "For Sale" sign on my car and posting that?)
I feel this type of thing is not an issue so much of what "the boundaries" are as in what your intentions are. You have to be honest here. Am I posting the photos of my "I Like Ike" signs primarily because they illustrate a legitimate photographic topic, or primarily because I want to encourage people to like Ike?
And if I'm posting them primarily for reasons of advocacy, shouldn't I be honest enough to say so up front? After all, even other people who like Ike may want to allocate their RFF time primarily to photographic issues rather than advocacy issues.
To be fair, I think we also should agree that if you're going to post photos to advocate your views, it's fair game for others to analyze your advocacy as well as your photographic technique. After all, our motivations for making photos are an important ingredient in the photos we make. But the fact that this type of discussion so easily spirals out of control is the main reason many of us want to keep it off RFF!
So, I think you're right to tread warily here, unless you're willing to open a can of worms that you may not be prepared to re-can!
After all, we all know what demonstrators look like, and we all know what body parts look like, so it should be possible to discuss strategies for dealing with the Contax G2's sometimes-erratic focus (substitute targets; watching the LCD; using the parallax mask as a rough guide to focus distance; etc.) without needing to see the evidence. Your choice of describing the photographic issue verbally, while including an offsite link to the photos themselves, strikes me as a prudent and courteous approach.
Gumby
Veteran
Good shooting!
What lens were you using?
I applaud your courage... it looks like you got right into the action and got some great images.
What lens were you using?
I applaud your courage... it looks like you got right into the action and got some great images.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Good images- looks like you were right there in the thick of it- one sure way to tip the odds in your favor. apec-48-shove-1-web is a favorite of mine- that buzzy background adds a lot to the unease that oof cop in front brings to the frame.
I heard that Bushes handlers had to bring people down from the balconies to fill up the empty seats up front.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2007/09/president_bush_has_tough_day_a_1.html
http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/68048.html
Good to see you like him just as much over there as many of us over here.
I too am of the 'more is better' or 'anything goes' bent, blessed with the thickest of skins, balanced, I hope, with an ability to see that what one says or does can offend others.
But the 'lowest common denominator' trend of society in this last decade bothers me. If anyone might be offended by something should that make it out of bounds? I can't go along with that, for then we lose all of the richness available to us.
Great thread title by the way Mike- especially in light of recent RFF events. I had to laugh
I heard that Bushes handlers had to bring people down from the balconies to fill up the empty seats up front.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2007/09/president_bush_has_tough_day_a_1.html
http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/68048.html
Good to see you like him just as much over there as many of us over here.
I too am of the 'more is better' or 'anything goes' bent, blessed with the thickest of skins, balanced, I hope, with an ability to see that what one says or does can offend others.
But the 'lowest common denominator' trend of society in this last decade bothers me. If anyone might be offended by something should that make it out of bounds? I can't go along with that, for then we lose all of the richness available to us.
Great thread title by the way Mike- especially in light of recent RFF events. I had to laugh
Last edited:
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
sepiareverb said:
I "heard" that every guy from Vermont is a pedophile. And it must be true, isn't it? After all, I heard it...
This kind of thinking sorta reminds me of the 'Dilbert' comic strip the other day:
Unfortunately, this tendency to conflate our congenial beliefs with what's actually in front of us is a constant challenge in photography, and seems to be increasingly common on RFF!
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Guess I'm apologizing for bringing politics into the discussion.:bang:
stesm
Established
sepiareverb said:
Thanks for the links legitimizing your statements and for the unnecessary apology. Now if jlw will link to his sources and apologize for the unnecessary flame all will be right.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
sepiareverb said:
There goes the hackles being raised and I mean the reply to your original comments. These issues pop up every single time this type of photography is commented on. Too bad really, when you can't say your piece for fear of starting something.
Bob
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Hey - hold the bus here! If anyone is going to be offended here by jlw's comments it ought to be me. For the record, I'm not. I didn't take the comments personally, but more as a setting out of some history and some views on why photos of political demonstrations need to be handled carefully, to prevent discussion from moving away from photography, which we might make some progress with, towards actual politics - which is likely to generate a lot more heat than light.
For the record, I don't think anyone could gain any insight at all as to my politics from the photos I posted. I was there to take photos at a demonstration, so you have to figure that it was going to be full of the "usual suspects". I aimed to take scene-setting shots and shots where the signs were weird, witty (even if only half) or unusual (or being carried by pretty girls).
The only "just there for the sign" shot I can recall was someone calling for the re-forming of some ancient socalist relic through, I'm guessing, some failure to realise that the Cold War is rather over. Other's may see it differently but to me it said "hopeless desire to return to a bygone era". In hindsight, perhaps I should have culled that one, as it has no photographic merit.
Hmmm. Doesn't that mean that I've taken one of jlw's points on board? Fair enough, I say.
...Mike
For the record, I don't think anyone could gain any insight at all as to my politics from the photos I posted. I was there to take photos at a demonstration, so you have to figure that it was going to be full of the "usual suspects". I aimed to take scene-setting shots and shots where the signs were weird, witty (even if only half) or unusual (or being carried by pretty girls).
The only "just there for the sign" shot I can recall was someone calling for the re-forming of some ancient socalist relic through, I'm guessing, some failure to realise that the Cold War is rather over. Other's may see it differently but to me it said "hopeless desire to return to a bygone era". In hindsight, perhaps I should have culled that one, as it has no photographic merit.
Hmmm. Doesn't that mean that I've taken one of jlw's points on board? Fair enough, I say.
...Mike
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Nikon Bob said:
Just apologizing for starting something that's all. I'll still speak my mind