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:
