A Small Observation About Camera Size & Public Psychology

[sirius]

Yeah, I agree that how the photographer feels is very important. Bruce Gilden walks up to people and shoots a flash off in their face and he generally gets away with it! I'm sure that it has a lot to do with his demeanor and way of acting around people.

I hear smiling helps too when someone engages you. 😉

 

[sirius]

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.

Yes! it would be!!

 

[bmattock]

I also have strong pangs of guilt, or something such, when capturing people unaware in an intimate moment.

Expectations of privacy in public spaces seem odd to me, so no pangs of guilt. I am more often annoyed by people who express a belief that they have the right to demand I not take their photo when they are in public. I am working on that defect in my personality that allows me to express that annoyance. My preference now is to accede to their wishes, regardless of how it makes me feel.

 

[xayraa33]

you are less of a sneak to most people if you use a larger camera especially if it is not the eye level kind.
I noticed this with using a TLR camera, something about being still, slow and deliberate and old fashioned does not offend people it seems.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

When I was shoved onto a train in Japan for the first time, I was shocked beyond belief. Over time, I became invisible.

Emm... you're not a ghost now, are you? :angel:

 

[BillP]

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.

There are some really excellent observations on this thread, that I think are quite thought provoking for many of us.

I would HATE to see this thread, that has started so well, degenerate as other similar threads have, dashed on the rocks of the "rights or wrongs" of "privacy in public".

That said, I have particularly picked up on Bill's comments, because they found a resonance with me. Last year I was in Hanoi for a while. I am 6'3" and not inconspicuous. I found that if I walked around quickly, trying to avoid eye contact, I got hassled incessantly by street vendors. If I slowed right down, and maintained a steady pace, I was largely ignored. If I made eye contact, or smiled, I was pounced on again.

I came to the following conclusions.

1. Moving quickly, in an uncomfortable manner, indicated an unfamiliarity with my surroundings that marked me as a new arrival.

2. Moving slowly, steadily, indicated that I was not "afraid"; I had assimilated, and was going with the flow, or the grain of the place.

3. Making eye contact was interpreted as an invitation to engage, and most often, to try to sell.

The photos I took (which are mostly with a DSLR so not for posting here) were more considered, and more measured for taking my time. The shots I took on my first day, when I was still in mode 1. above, were crap.

Here are a couple taken with my IIIc, in mode 2.

Regards,

Bill

 

[Rey]

The thing about a Kiev 6 (or 60) is that it looks really unprofessional. I mean that it looks like something your father or grandfather might have brought along to the beach on a weekend outing. it looks big and cheap, so it is not threatening. That is not to demean the camera. We know that it has the capacity (when working correctly) to take outstanding images. It's just FSU styling at its worst, like the Kiev 5, butt ugly! That said, I'm glad your enjoying it Ruben!

 

[bmattock]

Emm... you're not a ghost now, are you? :angel:

Yes, but not the good kind. Bwahahaha!

 

[bmattock]

There are some really excellent observations on this thread, that I think are quite thought provoking for many of us.

I would HATE to see this thread, that has started so well, degenerate as other similar threads have, dashed on the rocks of the "rights or wrongs" of "privacy in public".

Fair enough, and well said.

That said, I have particularly picked up on Bill's comments, because they found a resonance with me. Last year I was in Hanoi for a while. I am 6'3" and not inconspicuous. I found that if I walked around quickly, trying to avoid eye contact, I got hassled incessantly by street vendors. If I slowed right down, and maintained a steady pace, I was largely ignored. If I made eye contact, or smiled, I was pounced on again.

I came to the following conclusions.

1. Moving quickly, in an uncomfortable manner, indicated an unfamiliarity with my surroundings that marked me as a new arrival.

2. Moving slowly, steadily, indicated that I was not "afraid"; I had assimilated, and was going with the flow, or the grain of the place.

3. Making eye contact was interpreted as an invitation to engage, and most often, to try to sell.

I think that the above list probably represents some basic rules of crowd behavior that would be useful anywhere, but I also think that there are specific rules that apply to given cities and crowds. If I behaved in a NYC subway as I did in a Japanese passenger train, I'd be assaulted with a blunt instrument. Each has its own rules, and behavior outside those limits is not only noticed, it is generally not tolerated.

 

[nightfly]

I guess the point is really, that it ain't the gear though the gear might lead you to act one way or another. There are probably cross cultural differences about comfort levels but sneakiness is universal.

Interesting there was an article in the NY Times Science Times yesterday about how people are more likely to react positively to strangers if the stranger subtly emulates their movements, delayed by 2-4 seconds. Mimicry, if undetected, makes people feel a bond and comforted. In their tests people were put in a room for an interview, the interviewer would mimic the persons behavior and then later drop a pen. The subjects who were mimicked were much more likely to bend down and pick up the pen for the interviewer than the subjects in the control group.

There's probably something similar going on here.

Nice shots BillP.

 

[David Goldfarb]

In New York moving quickly in a comfortable manner is the norm. Moving slowly in any manner (barring obvious physical disability) definitely marks one as an outsider.

 

[bmattock]

Interesting there was an article in the NY Times Science Times yesterday about how people are more likely to react positively to strangers if the stranger subtly emulates their movements, delayed by 2-4 seconds. Mimicry, if undetected, makes people feel a bond and comforted. In their tests people were put in a room for an interview, the interviewer would mimic the persons behavior and then later drop a pen. The subjects who were mimicked were much more likely to bend down and pick up the pen for the interviewer than the subjects in the control group.

There's probably something similar going on here.

Now that is really interesting. One of the precepts of NLP is patterning. One picks up a behavior of a person and imitates it - then changes their own behavior. Soon the 'victim' will change their own behavior to match that of their imitator. There's a lot more to NLP, of course, but this is fascinating.

 

[MikeL]

Another believer it's more about the vibe. For example if you've worked in retail, you know people stealing often give off a different vibe. Part of it is they are more interested in the employees than the merchandise, but also just how they move through the store. Something just seems off. I think someone trying to be furtive also seems 'off'. From my limited experience if you have a camera in front of you a lot and "own it" (i.e. I'm taking photographs of stuff around me), people generally don't mind, family, friends, strangers. Most people don't like too much eye contact or body presence (facing them directly), but I think Mermelstein gets away with it since he's so upfront and "owns" what he's doing.

 

[bmattock]

In New York moving quickly in a comfortable manner is the norm. Moving slowly in any manner (barring obvious physical disability) definitely marks one as an outsider.

Here's a fun NY Times story from - get this - 1922. It is a PDF file, but straight from their archives. I hope you can click on this link, I don't know if it will work for everyone. But it's pretty cool.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archiv...61039E133A25754C2A96E9C946395D6CF&oref=slogin

 

[bmattock]

Another believer it's more about the vibe. For example if you've worked in retail, you know people stealing often give off a different vibe. Part of it is they are more interested in the employees than the merchandise, but also just how they move through the store. Something just seems off. I think someone trying to be furtive also seems 'off'. From my limited experience if you have a camera in front of you a lot and "own it" (i.e. I'm taking photographs of stuff around me), people generally don't mind, family, friends, strangers. Most people don't like too much eye contact or body presence (facing them directly), but I think Mermelstein gets away with it since he's so upfront and "owns" what he's doing.

I think it is also quite clear through his body language that he is working. People in crowds ignore others who are "just doing my job, ma'am." If he were emptying a trash can directly in front of them, they would most likely walk around him without even realizing they had done it or that he was there. People at work are 'expected' and they do not disturb the volksgeist of the crowd.

 

[David Goldfarb]

Here's a fun NY Times story from - get this - 1922. It is a PDF file, but straight from their archives. I hope you can click on this link, I don't know if it will work for everyone. But it's pretty cool.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archiv...61039E133A25754C2A96E9C946395D6CF&oref=slogin

That's great. I don't know how fast the NYC subways traveled in 1922, but the idea of people opening and closing the doors themselves and jumping on and off moving trains is pretty frightening.

 

[furcafe]

The article was referring to people doing that on the London Underground in '22. Sounds like Londoners were using behavior that's more common w/streetcars today.

On a side note, I always thought it was neat how most of the Paris Metro trains still have manually activated doors (@ least they did the last time I was there).

That's great. I don't know how fast the NYC subways traveled in 1922, but the idea of people opening and closing the doors themselves and jumping on and off moving trains is pretty frightening.

 

[ruben]

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).

Without implying what is correct and what is mistaken, I would like to say what I would like to.

In my short time since concentrating in street photography, I conclude that there are a lot of very different photo situations. Thus for example, people showing a very serious to bitter facial expression, I wouldn't like to face in the open. If I want a picture in such situation I will sneak it.

On the other hand, people having a joyfull moment, are strong candidates for two pictures if possible to do both. The first sneaked. The second in the open, face to face, blending with their joy and see what will they do in front of me.

But these are just two extreme examples, while in the streets i find an unending number of situations, requiring to be dealt with each one differently. Accordingly, my aspiration is to develope a lot of resources and ways of approach, like a tool box. To be able to judge quickly and respond accordingly.
Of course this emotional and mental dexterousity will require a lot of practice.

So for me at least, it is not where it is comfortable to fish, but where the fishes are, how they moove, what's their mood. Most of the chances I will have to get wet.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[FallisPhoto]

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!

Ignorant = lacking in knowlege (and sometimes used to refer to someone who leaps to conclusions despite this). I base my judgement on the questions asked, not on the fact that they are in my way. The most common FAQs, "What kind of camera is that?" (monorail view camera) "what's she doing?" (asked about an assistant holding a reflector) pretty much define ignorance. During shoots, I've only once had an onlooker suggest something useful. In that case, I was the ignorant one.

I've also had a few budding photographers who wanted to chat about equipment. They are not entirely ignorant, and I enjoy doing that, but not when I am working and need to concentrate.

 

[bmattock]

Ignorant = lacking in knowlege (and sometimes used to refer to someone who leaps to conclusions despite this).

The word 'ignorant' is unfortunately misunderstood by many people, which in itself is ironic - since a lack of understanding of the word 'ignorant' is itself ignorant.

As you state - to be ignorant is to lack information or knowledge. This is neither a crime nor an accusation of stupidity.

Unfortunately, to tell someone they are ignorant is to call them stupid - as far as they are concerned.

I wish this was not the case, but it seems to be. I have no problem with the word myself, and I am quite ignorant of many things, and have only a basic understanding of others. I am not ashamed to be ignorant, because I can cure my ignorance if I so choose, by learning. I am capable of learning because I am intelligent - as are most people, though many would prefer not to execise that particular muscle.

I confess that I have somewhat less than acceptable patience with people whom (I believe) are choosing to remain intentionally ignorant than I do with people who are ignorant and wish to learn. I have nothing but sympathy for the stupid - it is not their fault and there is nothing to be done about it.

But although I am trying to limit my use of the word, I mean no insult if I say to a person that they are ignorant. I only say 'idiot' if I mean 'idiot' and 'ignorant' is not the same word.