A Small Observation About Camera Size & Public Psychology

R

ruben

Guest
Since three days ago, I am sporting in the streets a Kiev 6c (former ancestor of the Kiev 60). For three days I am noticing something unusual according to my beliefs, mistaken beliefs pending to be changed accordingly.

The Kiev 6c, or 60, are big mamipherous escaped into our times from the Flinstones comics.

No one in the streets is giving a damn.

I admit, I feel somewhat offended, as the kit price was somewhat higher than a good working Kiev rangefinder. And when I walked and still walk with the Kiev rangefinder - every one, except for those highly immersed in something else, are looking at my smaller black Kievs.

How to explain this curious phenomena ? I think I can.

When I walk with my Kiev rangefinder, the camera is wristed to my right hand, and my hand hiding some third of the camera. Within my head, I happened to suppose that this way no one will straightforwardly see I am holding a camera.

And this is exactly what happens. But it seems that it is precisely this what attracts public attention. What this guy is holding in his hand ?

In shocking contrast, whenever I am with my new Kiev Medium Format, I cannot wrist it to one hand, due to its weight, and since I am now in a transitional period of getting used to the camera, I am holding it either from my neck (for short times) or from my shoulder, most of the times, but always the camera is before my body, not hidden behind.

So it seems that once a stranger has "scanned me" without necessarily watching at me, and nothing strange arises his/her curiousity, including being a guy with a camera, so I pass the uncouncious check up as a guy of no special interest to look at.

But when I walk with a small device in my right hand, whose nature is not clear to the scanning person, then curiousity arises.

Conclusion? Very big camera doesn't attract attention, provided it looks like a camera. (I imagine this will not work with a TLR)

Secondly, from now on, with my small Kiev rangefinder I will stop the wristing, and start to use a strap, camera pending from my neck, at chest height.

As for the Kiev Medium Format, the next question will be how the public will react when seeing it being pointed at them. The old assumption is they should feel threatened. Let's see.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ruben said:
Since three days ago, I am sporting in the streets a Kiev 6c (former ancestor of the Kiev 60). For three days I am noticing something unusual according to my beliefs, mistaken beliefs pending to be changed accordingly.

The Kiev 6c, or 60, are big mamipherous escaped into our times from the Flinstones comics.

No one in the streets is giving a damn.

I admit, I feel somewhat offended, as the kit price was somewhat higher than a good working Kiev rangefinder. And when I walked and still walk with the Kiev rangefinder - every one, except for those highly immersed in something else, are looking at my smaller black Kievs.

How to explain this curious phenomena ? I think I can.

When I walk with my Kiev rangefinder, the camera is wristed to my right hand, and my hand hiding some third of the camera. Within my head, I happened to suppose that this way no one will straightforwardly see I am holding a camera.

And this is exactly what happens. But it seems that it is precisely this what attracts public attention. What this guy is holding in his hand ?

In shocking contrast, whenever I am with my new Kiev Medium Format, I cannot wrist it to one hand, due to its weight, and since I am now in a transitional period of getting used to the camera, I am holding it either from my neck (for short times) or from my shoulder, most of the times, but always the camera is before my body, not hidden behind.

So it seems that once a stranger has "scanned me" without necessarily watching at me, and nothing strange arise his/her curiousity, including being a guy with a camera, so I pass the uncouncious check up as a guy of no special interest to look at.

When I walked with a small device in my right hand, whose nature is not clear to the scanner person, then curiousity arises.

Conclusion? Very big camera doesn't attract attention, provided it looks like a camera. (I imagine this will not work with a TLR)

Secondly, from now on, with my small Kiev rangefinder I will stop the wristing, and start to use a strap, camera pending from my neck, at chest height.

Cheers,
Ruben
Click to expand...

On the other hand, if I really want to be bothered by ignorant people coming up to me and asking questions, my monorail will do the job.
 
I can understand your logic, and I think it makes some sense. A palmed camera gives a "furtive" impression. People have to focus on it more directly to identify it, and thus determine it is a camera, and then lose interest again. Whereas a larger camera, or any camera wielded openly requires less attention to identify, and thus more quickly becomes uninteresting.

I think that is the essence of the argument that street shooters can "blend in" most effectively if the're open about their photographic intentions. As opposed to the photographing-on-the-sly approach.
 
It might be that a camera in your hand tips people that you're about to take photo. Try holding your 6c as if you're going to shoot away, and see if the attitude changes.
 
On the other hand, if I really want to be bothered by ignorant people coming up to me and asking questions,

People may just be curious, why call them ignorant? Too judgemental for me!
 
I imagine that people seeing you with a black metalic object partially hidden in your hand wonder whether or not it is a pistol.
 
Yep, that's what happens when I carry my Graphic 2x3 down the street and stop to take pictures. No one cares.

On the other hand, when a tourist stops, holds out a tiny point-and-shoot digital at arms' length, people know a picture is being taken and might show up on the Internet.

I wouldn't think of using my Minox B in today's day and age.
 
In the late 1980s I was doing a lot of street photography in Poland. My Canon New F-1 always attracted attention, since it was foreign and exotic, though it was the camera of choice for professional photojournalists in Poland at the time, because there was good Canon service in Warsaw.

I bought a big clunky Pentacon 6 (with four CZJ lenses for about $135, which would have been about 4 months average worker's salary then), and it was like I was invisible. I could easily pass for a local student photographer. Here's a scan of a Cibachrome print from that era, probably shot with black-market Agfachrome 100 on the Pentacon--

mcross.jpg


The cross has since been restored. When I came back to New York, I traded the Pentacon setup for studio lighting gear at Ken Hansen. They were mainly interested in the 50mm Flektagon, which was the nicest lens in the kit.
 
David Goldfarb said:
.........In the late 1980s I was doing a lot of street photography in Poland. My Canon New F-1 always attracted attention, since it was foreign and exotic, though it was the camera of choice for professional photojournalists in Poland at the time, because there was good Canon service in Warsaw.......
Click to expand...


I think that there is much truth here as well. Had I be holding a highly high tech digi camera of the size of the Kiev 60 would attract, I suppose, a lot of attention.

Being the Kiev 60 an analog and "basic" camera, adds much to the loss of attention. It seems to be easy to cathegorize in the uncounscious side of the bypasser.

Now kindly take note, that when I refered to the small Kiev rangefinder wristed to my right hand, and said I attracts attention, I meant people turning their heads, some of them just their eyes.

With the Medium format, people don't turn even their eyes ! This is incredible, a "Ruben story" like, but this is happening before my eyes.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
My Rd1 gets big attention from DSLR users ;) Looks like they tried to determine what type is the camera. Also rewind lever and LCD display add more confusion, lol
 
It makes sense that the Homeland Security

It makes sense that the Homeland Security

boys are probably not profiling someone walking around with a Speed Graphic or a Tachihara as a threat to our Nation. Likewise, the paranoia that people are suffering from on various personal and security threats is probably more easily aroused with a small camera partially hidden at one's side, over a big honkin' Medium Format that's just out there exposed to view.

I don't care much for street shooting, and on that score, I've always been reluctant to use small cameras in a concealing manner.

I will be fair however and admit that where I live, street photography is the least available type of photography. So, if I lived in the big city, maybe that would be the only real shooting style available.

But I think I would do it with reasonably obvious equipment.
 
Interesting...

I think there are three levels of "recognition":

1. "That person is carrying a thing"
2. "That person is carrying a camera"
3. "That person is carrying a Leica/Nikon/Canon etc"

The level of recognition both informs and triggers the level of reaction.

a. "Is that person a threat?"
b. "Is that person going to take a photograph (of me)?"
c. "I want to know more about that Leica/Nikon/Canon etc"

So.

The reaction you get is proportionate to the level of recognition.

Thoughts?

Regards,

Bill
 
I posted something on this recently. I do not think it has to do with the camera, as such. It has to do with breaking through the wall of privacy that people build around themselves in cities so that we can manage to be around each other without going into convulsions.

In other words, we build a coping mechanism into ourselves such that we simply do not 'see' many things that might otherwise disturb us.

It is not unlike a person who sleeps soundly through a thunderstorm, but who wakes when the doorknob is jiggled by persons unknown. One represents an event which his subconscious believes he need not be concerned about, and the other represents a potential threat.

It is for this reason that people can walk down a metropolitan street and not 'see' homeless people, beggers, and others who live on the fringes of society - we scarcely 'see' those standing next to us at the crossing signal. First, they are not a direct threat to us, and second, we do not wish to see them.

A study was once done which I learned about in college - it stuck with me through the years, and it points to this issue. A number of college students were told to go downtown in a major city and to pose as beggers. One group was told to simply solicit money. The other was told to solicit a specific amount - with no explanation. Just a specific amount.

At the end of the study, the group asking for a specific amount had taken in double what the students who asked merely for money had taken in. And the amounts given to the students who asked for a specific amount was in no way related to the amount they had asked for.

The conclusion was that by asking for a specific amount, the 'begger' broke through - if only for a moment - the wall of invisibility and privacy that the solicited passer-by had built around themselves. They were forced to address the so-called 'begger' because they were no longer 'invisible'.

I believe this relates to your statement about camera size and type. However, I don't think it is the size of the camera or the shape, color, or style. I think it has to do with what attracts the subconscious of the average person-in-the-street to 'notice' you. Generally, this involves a perception of danger. The perception is incorrect of course, but once you've attracted notice, you're nicked.

This also helps to explain why a photographer in the past might wander through a playground taking photos and simply not be paid attention to - most people didn't even 'see' the photographer. In today's society, people's sensibilities are tuned to potential predator danger to their children - and they zero in on a person who carries a camera into an area where there are children as if he were carrying six Uzis and a rocket-launcher.

Being invisible in public is often just a matter of not crossing the 'I might be dangerous' threshold of people's perceptions. Until that moment, you don't exist, regardless of what camera you carry.

Just my observations, I could be wrong.
 
BillP said:
Interesting...

I think there are three levels of "recognition":

1. "That person is carrying a thing"
2. "That person is carrying a camera"
3. "That person is carrying a Leica/Nikon/Canon etc"

The level of recognition both informs and triggers the level of reaction.

a. "Is that person a threat?"
b. "Is that person going to take a photograph (of me)?"
c. "I want to know more about that Leica/Nikon/Canon etc"

So.

The reaction you get is proportionate to the level of recognition.

Thoughts?

Regards,

Bill
Click to expand...
I'll refine this list to point out that we're assuming it's a male doing the carrying. If it's a female, people's reactions are altogether different. Reaction "a" would have to be redefined. :)
 
Bill sums it up nicely. So it could be either difference with Ruben's camera, or with his behavior.
 
This came up last night at the street photography forum at the Museum of the The City of New York, with Mermelstein, Gus Powell and Ben Stout. The basic idea was that it's really the vibe you give off and what you're doing. Sometimes you are invisible but other times if people perceive a threat to their privacy or their children, they will confront you. Mermelstein told a story that he had been accosted on Madison Avenue by some guy who he didn't even see, much less take a picture of, who walked across the street to threaten him. Powell said he often resorts to convoluted and long winded stories about what he was taking a picture of and people get bored and walk away and they all agreed that a smile and compliment usually diffuses the situation ("I was admiring your hat").

I don't really think it's the camera honestly, it's more what you're doing with it. I always have my camera in my hand at my side when I'm shooting and no one ever notices me. I used to feel "sneaky" but I don't anymore and I shoot with relative comfort. I find that often if I'm thinking of taking a shot and trying to figure out how to sneak it, the person will often look at me directly as if they know, whereas if I'm walking and shooting spontaneously, this never happens.
 
Pitxu said:
It's not just the camera but personal attitude too. Watch the video of Jeff Mermelstein on the NY streets, nobody takes much notice of him.
Click to expand...

It's not just the photographer the people are trying to ignore, it is more signaificantly the video crew entourage!
 
I think it depends how you like to work. Some street photographers like to be noticed and obvious. It makes them relax and not feel furtive. Everyone sees what they are doing and will therefore indicate if they are unhappy with a camera being pointed at them. Hence, more freedom to sensitively "take" "candid" shots of people.

Others like to be less obvious and blend into the background more. I'm not sure where I fall. I like to not influence what is happening, but I also have strong pangs of guilt, or something such, when capturing people unaware in an intimate moment.

David Alan Harvey says there are two types of photographers, those who like to be in the middle of the scene and actively engaged with it (him as an example) and those who like to disappear and stay at the fringes (HCB is the classic example of that way of working).
 
nightfly said:
I don't really think it's the camera honestly, it's more what you're doing with it. I always have my camera in my hand at my side when I'm shooting and no one ever notices me. I used to feel "sneaky" but I don't anymore and I shoot with relative comfort. I find that often if I'm thinking of taking a shot and trying to figure out how to sneak it, the person will often look at me directly as if they know, whereas if I'm walking and shooting spontaneously, this never happens.
Click to expand...

I would love to get a group of sociologists together with a group of street photographers and let them talk about this - I think the result would be fascinating.

Consider this - when an outsider comes to town, everybody knows it right away. It is not necessarily the way he dresses, or the way he talks. He just doesn't fit in. He looks the wrong places, he gives off - as you say - the 'wrong vibe'. He is not going along with the norms of the crowd. He does not know how to behave.

When I was shoved onto a train in Japan for the first time, I was shocked beyond belief. Over time, I became invisible. Even though I was a foot taller than most of the others there, and vastly different-looking, I had learned to move with the crowd and I could not get a spare glance from passers-by if I my head had been on fire.

Every large city has its unwritten rules for pedestrian movement downtown. People who obey those rules fit in and are not noticed. People who do not are noticed immediately. This has been my observation. Initially, I took this for a 'zen' thing - I tried to emulate the behavior I saw, and noted that it worked for the most part. But it is not 'zen' as much as it is simply dropping below the threshold for conscious notice by the crowd. You're not actually invisible - you're just fitting into the rule by which the crowd has agreed to treat you as if you were.

Living in crowded societies requires complex rules of behavior, just as driving on crowded highways does. Like a hive of bees - we don't have to be 'polite' but we all have to behave as the group expects us to behave - within certain parameters - or we attract attention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom