Do black cameras still have an edge in stealth?

[Jubb Jubb]

the whole stealth thing is bullish*t, it's a camera, everyone knows its a camera, everyone knows you're taking a picture...

 

[oftheherd]

My recollection from years ago was that black cameras were for some reason considered "pro" cameras. They cost more, presumably because adding the black cost more, and perhaps the ability to look more like a "pro." I don't know that it ever had anything to do with steath.

As to black being better for combat photographers, perhaps, but I don't recall ever hearing that. When I was an infantryman, it wasn't just that things were some darker color, but did they have shine to them.

But any way, for the OP, there is lots of advice worth considering above. Just try things out and see what works for you.

 

[L Collins]

I tend to use black cameras because I prefer black over silver (X100 aside.)

I have tried taping my Leica logos in the past and one M6 I bought came with a black (M8.2) logo....neither made the slightest difference to me. I pulled the tape off my cameras when, whilst stopping for a coffee, a young (and very pretty as I remember) Asian tourist asked me why I had taped my camera up, she'd seen it done before but didn't understand the purpose. My failure to find an adequate answer made me decide to stop wasting money on tape.

After listening to so many photographers (via books, Youtube clips, documentaries and internet forums - ok, this internet forum) talk about stealth I decided it wasn't for me. The stealthiest thing I do these days is I may stand so I'm not directly square on to my subject but that has more to do with avoiding the Bruce Gilden 'In Your Face' approach that I couldn't pull off in a decade of Sundays.

However, just because I no longer see any value or point in taping up my cameras or buying black cameras for a perceived 'stealth advantage' I really don't care if anyone else wishes to and if they feel they benefit, even only psychologically, then good luck to them.

Taken from around 5 or 6 feet with an un-taped camera. Not an amazing pic but they remind me of the 'Les Dawson' women I grew up surrounded by in the NE of England; strong, gossip loving, warm hearted and slightly melancholic when caught off guard. As if wondering what wonders life would have had in store for them if only my Uncle Fred hadn't marked their card the night Spillers factory was bombed in 1940.

Your photo is exceptional.

 

[jsrockit]

I find that when in a snow storm, black is less stealthy... 😉

 

[dcsang]

Only if they look like a smartphone...

^^^^^^^
Yep

I don't care what camera you use nowadays or who you are - the moment you raise a camera to your eye (i.e. a standard viewfinder) you draw attention to yourself.

People are hyper aware these days of all cameras - except phones and/or armslength point and shoots.

Sure, a "person" can be "stealthy" but in the end, the moment they bring a black box with a lens on it up to their eyes - people take notice - why? because you can't walk around or engage people 'normally' when you're doing that. If you shoot from the hip you certainly can but then that takes practice.. lots of it.

We should give up on the idea that a camera, and specifically a rangefinder (Leica, Contax, Konica, what have you) is "more discreet" than other cameras.

Forget it.

You want to be discreet?
You want to blend into a crowd?
You want people to think you're not a "real" photographer?
Grab a smart phone or a non-viewfinder based point and shoot - the ubiquity of those devices allows you to hide in plain sight.

Cheers,
Dave

 

[cpc]

No matter what is the color of your camera it will never beat a smartphone in terms of invisibility. As long as you don't raise the phone to face level. A person playing with a phone in their hands is virtually invisible. 🙂

 

[Timmyjoe]

We should give up on the idea that a camera, and specifically a rangefinder (Leica, Contax, Konica, what have you) is "more discreet" than other cameras.

While I agree with much of what Dave says, in my experience, the rangefinder doesn't "get in the way" like a DSLR when I am working in close with folks.

I'm not a "street photographer" and though I make images of people on the street, it is not until I have introduced myself and talked with them for a while, and asked if I can photograph them. At that time, with the rangefinder, I can be carrying on a conversation, bring the camera up to my eye, click the shutter, bring it back down, without interrupting the flow of the conversation (I think it has something to do with the rangefinder only blocking part of my face and one eye, whereas a DSLR blocks your whole face and both eyes, momentarily cutting the connection between you and the subject).

So while I don't think my rangefinder camera is "stealthy", I do find it much less intrusive than my DSLR when it comes to the connection between me and my subject.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Timmyjoe]

No matter what is the color of your camera it will never beat a smartphone in terms of invisibility. As long as you don't raise the phone to face level. A person playing with a phone in their hands is virtually invisible. 🙂

On jobs where I have been forbidden to take pictures, I have had pretty good success with the iPhone, pretending like I am texting, while actually silently snapping away.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Frontman]

the whole stealth thing is bullish*t, it's a camera, everyone knows its a camera, everyone knows you're taking a picture...

People are often oblivious to what is going on around them, that's why pickpockets seldom go hungry.

In some places I simply fiddle around with the camera, like I just got it and am trying to figure out how it works, and all the while I am taking pictures.

Ironically enough, one day I was fiddling around with a camera which had stopped working, and someone came up to me and accused me of taking his picture without asking permission. I opened the camera and showed that there was no film in it, but he was still adamant.

Most times I don't bother to hide the fact that I am taking pictures. I am a western foreigner living in Japan, everyone assumes I am a tourist, and tourists are always taking pictures. Often people smile and strike a pose for me.

When one really wants to be stealthy, some tools are better than others,

 

[rbsinto]

I agree that it is the photographer and not the camera that is stealthy,
but I prefer black cameras over chrome or whatever color just because I like the way black bodies look.

 

[dbarnes]

Most cameras that we talk about on RFF are small enough that I don't think it matters what color they are. Chrome's shinier, but not a big deal in small amounts. None of these cameras are very threatening to a subject. Most of them look quaint today. I mean -- really? -- you have to look through a viewfinder?

That said, my X100s is covered in black masking tape. I don't mind if it somehow, sometimes manages to be a little stealthier. Mostly I want it (a) perceived to be a little less valuable and (b) staying shiny and new under the tape despite it being treated as a tool rather than as jewelry.

When I was a semi-pro news photographer, my own Nikons were black. But I still have fond memories of using the two not-very-pretty, meterless, motorless chrome F2 bodies that my employer provided. The fact that those cameras weren't black never got in the way of anything, and they went everywhere.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . When one really wants to be stealthy, some tools are better than others,

Ah!The scabbiest black paint I've EVER encountered! Yours is less scabby than mine, but still pretty scabby. And mine's newer: S/N 120813.

Lovely little cameras, though, aren't they (apart from the scabby paint)?

Cheers,

R.

 

[mrmeadows]

I agree with the opinion that any stealth resides in a photographer's behavior, not his/her equipment. However, there's another rationale for taping up a camera. The reason that I always tape the logos on my cameras (or use black nail polish) is that I greatly dislike the idea of being turned into a billboard for any brand. I don't paste bumper stickers on my car (common in the US). I don't stitch my national flag to my backpack. I don't buy clothes that feature prominent logos. I don't wear T-shirts that display messages about my enthusiasms. I don't allow logos on my cameras to show. I would regard doing any such things as a surrender of my privacy and an invitation to unwanted conversations regarding my choices and activities. It's just a small idiosyncrasy of mine, possibly shared by others. But it has advantages, too. I have traveled for years by public transport in numerous countries, and only once has someone recognized my taped Leica and wanted to talk about it. Even when I shoot with a logo-less chrome M2 sporting black lenses, people just ignore that silly tourist who shoots street scenes with them "ruining his picture".

--- Mike

 

[JohnTF]

Makes 'em look MORE obvious to me. If I notice someone's camera at all, and it's got tape on it, my immediate reaction is "pretentious twerp", "wannabee" or "hipster". Not always true, of course.

Perhaps we could turn it around. I've been taking "street" pictures for over 40 years. I've very, very seldom been challenged. On those few occasions I have, I really, sincerely doubt that it would have made a blind bit of difference whether I'd taped up my Leicas or Nikons. Who here is convinced that taping up their cameras has made the slightest difference to their being noticed?

Cheers,

R.

Couple of reasons for tape and camera color.

I bought two Nikon Fs which had been taped and were in perfect condition, the guy had taped them for use in the Arctic, and had them serviced each season. I also saw chrome that was pulled off by the use of the wrong tape in other instances.

When most cameras were silver, at the shop I met pros who were shooting commercial close ups, the idea was that slr cameras were black to avoid reflections on the subject.

Most of my film Leicas have been chrome, as I felt that the finish was more durable. I eventually began to buy new cameras in black, as the folks selling off any cameras I traded or sold found them easier to sell if they were black. Styles had changed.

Silly as it might seem, appearance, and the presence of boxes, greatly affect ease and price of resale. Recently, I had a very nice GL 17, fresh foam, adjustment for battery, cla-- and the buyer noticed a very small, neat, (< .5mm) engraving of the PO's SS number near an edge, and said no.

There was a time I did not consider the resale value of cameras at purchase, I bought them solely to use for years, perhaps not so much now as I have changed what I use more often, and been around many camera shows where the slightest strap marks, etc. have grossly lowered the prices and increased the difficulty of sale at any price. Trick is to label it patina.

As far as steath, a smaller zone focused Leica, Bessa L with suitable lens, or even a Fuji folder- and technique will fill the bill, regardless of finish. If you are prepared to shoot.

Regards, John

 

[JohnTF]

Where you are shooting matters, I went out with an excellent Mexican artist, Florencio Pozias, and he used SLRs with various non stealthy lenses, while I was shooting G2s and sometimes an M7 with several prime lenses.

I asked him about photographing people, which he did very very well, -- he said with larger equipment he found the subjects accepted he was a serious artist and for the most part acted naturally.

About the opposite much of the time in the US.

Color, brand, or steath was not much of a factor over all.

Regards, John

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . I don't wear T-shirts that display messages about my enthusiasms. . .

Desr Mike,

Ooooh, I do: I'm an enthusiastic patron of Redmolotov, http://www.redmolotov.com/

Some of my favourites include

War is Peace/Freedom is Slavery/Ignorance is Strength (1984)

Freedom with out Socialism is Privilege and Injustice/Socialism without Freedom is Slavery and Brutality (Bakunin)

Trust in God. She will provide. (Emmeline Pankhurst)

And... Well, go to the site. You can even get one which says,

BEEN THERE
DONE THAT
THIS IS THE T-SHIRT

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Couple of reasons for tape and camera color.

I bought two Nikon Fs which had been taped and were in perfect condition, the guy had taped them for use in the Arctic, and had them serviced each season. I also saw chrome that was pulled off by the use of the wrong tape in other instances.

When most cameras were silver, at the shop I met pros who were shooting commercial close ups, the idea was that slr cameras were black to avoid reflections on the subject.

Most of my film Leicas have been chrome, as I felt that the finish was more durable. I eventually began to buy new cameras in black, as the folks selling off any cameras I traded or sold found them easier to sell if they were black. Styles had changed.

Silly as it might seem, appearance, and the presence of boxes, greatly affect ease and price of resale. Recently, I had a very nice GL 17, fresh foam, adjustment for battery, cla-- and the buyer noticed a very small, neat, (< .5mm) engraving of the PO's SS number near an edge, and said no.

There was a time I did not consider the resale value of cameras at purchase, I bought them solely to use for years, perhaps not so much now as I have changed what I use more often, and been around many camera shows where the slightest strap marks, etc. have grossly lowered the prices and increased the difficulty of sale at any price. Trick is to label it patina.

As far as steath, a smaller zone focused Leica, Bessa L with suitable lens, or even a Fuji folder- and technique will fill the bill, regardless of finish. If you are prepared to shoot.

Regards, John

Dear John,

Yeah, but I don't buy usable cameras to resell. With seriously rare stuff such as the Mecaflex, (a) condition is less important and (b) it's less likely to have been used much anyway.

Cheers,

R.

 

[JohnTF]

Ah!The scabbiest black paint I've EVER encountered! Yours is less scabby than mine, but still pretty scabby. And mine's newer: S/N 120813.

Lovely little cameras, though, aren't they (apart from the scabby paint)?

Cheers,

R.

Roger, who was it who used to say there was "no such thing as a scruffy Leica, just some more experienced" Am afraid it was a long time ago in a forum far far away?

My long time shop drop shipped me an M2 with some lenses, the guy trading them in had scratched up the top fiddling with the meter, lenses had some haze and they considered it less than what they would wish to display in the shop, --they knew I wanted one to use, so they billed me for the guys trade in value.

It is scratched on top, but it had been CLA'd, with an M4 finder installed, I had the lenses cleaned and sold one to cover the lot.

Price is not going to go down, and I never have to worry about nicking it up, as it arrived experienced.

Odd how these little finds are pleasing, after this thread, I will look for some tape so those scratches are preserved as original patina.

Tape might remove some of the scabs on the Olympus?

John

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Where you are shooting matters, I went out with an excellent Mexican artist, Florencio Pozias, and he used SLRs with various non stealthy lenses, while I was shooting G2s and sometimes an M7 with several prime lenses.

I asked him about photographing people, which he did very very well, -- he said with larger equipment he found the subjects accepted he was a serious artist and for the most part acted naturally.

About the opposite much of the time in the US.

Color, brand, or steath was not much of a factor over all.

Regards, John

I don't have anything remarkable in my street photography which I practice as part of my walking exercise since 2009.
The only time I was noticed big time was in Montreal (2010). It was some road work, I walked in holding my small DSLR at chest level. I looked at construction guy and before I was going to say "hi" he was running away and screaming - "paparazzi-paparazzi!" 😱

I switched to film in 2012. Took TLR on streets couple of times with me.
Same thing as you describe, people notice, but no conflicts.
But I don't think they were giving to me Pro status, most likely I was just a goof for them. 🙂 Setting TLR camera on tripod and trying to frame it is weird act these days.

I have switched to folders after TLR. Less exercise and people are saying - "vintage camera, sure!'


Chess. by Ko.Fe., on Flickr

 

[JohnTF]

Dear John,

Yeah, but I don't buy usable cameras to resell. With seriously rare stuff such as the Mecaflex, (a) condition is less important and (b) it's less likely to have been used much anyway.

Cheers,

R.

Roger,

I really never did, feeling that wear on equipment was far less important than capturing an image, but the more recent reality is, I do find cameras I prefer more after I try them, and I should become better at managing the ones who need to be used by someone else.

I am so terrible at selling, I rely on friends, and they have my ear in these regards. It is a recent development.

Do you still get to try neat stuff to evaluate? I am out of town, with the magazines piling up to the point I just stopped when I had them tripping me in the living room. I was really mostly reading a few articles and putting off the rest, like for years? Wonky knees and all, easier to trip.

John