Does a rangefinder somehow give us license to make less than good photos?

[Clint Troy]

Klaus,
The car really distracts. But even without the car, it's nothing special.
But I'm different then many others as I only value extraordinary photography.

To answer the OP's title, yes I agree. Too many people think that a rangefinder goves them automatic artisic powers.

 

[Highway 61]

To answer the OP's title, yes I agree. Too many people think that a rangefinder gives them automatic artistic powers.

Good point - but this is not what he was saying...

 

[MarylandBill]

Dear Bill,

True, but this is quite separate from being a photographer. We all owe this to our fellow human beings, as fellow human beings, whether we are photographers or not.

I never claimed otherwise 🙂. I always find a basic rule of thumb in any activity is to ask whether it would be moral/ethical for a regular person (i.e., someone for whom it is not a hobby or profession). If the answer is no, then I would think really long and hard about whether it is immoral for me as well.

Except, sometimes, perhaps, when we are giving arrogant, thoughtless, selfish, unpleasant people a modest taste (and only a modest taste) of their own medicine. Politicians, actors, certain kinds of preacher: that sort of person.

Cheers,

R.

The problem with that thought is that we are all guilty of being thoughtless , selfish, unpleasant etc. Its just better (IMHO) just to strive to treat people decently regardless of what we think about them.

--
Bill

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . The problem with that thought is that we are all guilty of being thoughtless , selfish, unpleasant etc. Its just better (IMHO) just to strive to treat people decently regardless of what we think about them. . . .

Dear Bill,

Oh, indeed. It's just that sometimes it's so damn' hard to resist. I salute you if you do better than I.

We are not in disagreement. In the para I cropped out, I was agreeing with you: just pointing out that 'photography' is part of 'life', a point which seems to have been overlooked in some others' responses. For example, as a young man, I had less sex than I might have done because I always believed that 'no' meant 'no'. Since getting married (even for the first time, in 1977) it's been less of an issue...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Girl (I think) on a bicycle, Times Square. Not especially pervy...

Though I strongly suspect that 'pervy' is at least often in the eye of the beholder as in the eye of the photographer.

Cheers,

R.

 

[furcafe]

Ha! My response would be that HCB didn't have many alternatives to RFs back in his day. Can't see him using Exaktas or other big, clunky SLRs that were available during his peak years. I suspect if the young HCB were teleported to today, he would love the RX1, etc.

Please quickly remove "composition" off that assessment or the HCB fans crowd will call you a perv... 😀

 

[hausen]

I really don't get this thread, I have always thought you should live and let live.

 

[Roger Hicks]

"This is one bizarre thread."

True, but there are plenty of others to choose from, some even more bizarre.

Cheers,

R.

 

[noisycheese]

Everybody has as much "right" to make bad photos as they do to make good photos. Assuming they're not breaking any laws in their efforts to do so.

I would have to agree.

That having been said, photographing with a camera such as a Leica M raises the bar of image quality; it certainly does not lower it. Working with am M camera also raises the bar in terms of subject matter selection in my view.

The redoubtable Leica M has an iconic and historic reputation. Those who are fortunate to own and use a legendary camera such as an M should seek to uphold that reputation and aspire to a higher level of image making.

Just my opinion...

 

[seakayaker1]

I see more photographs of streets, buildings, art work, boats, benches, trees, portraits, beaches, cars, statues and other subjects on the RFF threads then I do perv shots made by owners of range finders.

I just do not see the connection you are talking about Phil.

. . . . . perhaps you can provide some links to the threads here or elsewhere that demonstrate/illustrate the point you are making.

 

[Ronald M]

I take as much care as with any other camera.

 

[icebear]

Klaus,
The car really distracts. But even without the car, it's nothing special.
But I'm different then many others as I only value extraordinary photography.

To answer the OP's title, yes I agree. Too many people think that a rangefinder goves them automatic artisic powers.

Thanks for your opinion on my non-extraordinary shot.🙄
Sometimes traffic just happens to be there on the streets of NYC.😉

As for the OP's title:
Does a rangefinder somehow give us license to make less than good photos?

As others already mentioned your ref to 'artistic powers' built in certain types of cameras (here RF's) was not what the OP was shooting at but stealthy pervy photography of women. And obviously that depends more on the point of view of the photographer, his general attitude and state of mind. The camera has little to do but capture the reflection of light.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

I've been out all day helping out a friend with her diesel Benz.

As for the photos I'm speaking of, there are a few folks here and far more folks on other forums and in other lists who do what I'm talking about.

I could link about 20 or so photos right now but like I said, I don't want to directly point fingers. There are folks out there with collections of images like this that otherwise have no point other than to demonstrate the point of objectification yet that behavior is encouraged even when the images are not even technically good.

While it is indeed legal to take and publish photos like I've mentioned (aside from the upskirt) perhaps it isn't really right? I'm certainly no prude but what can be seen in many of these photos is definitely pure objectification. I used to be shy to the point I was terrified. I also never took photos of people. Now I love taking photos of people but it's not camera swinging at my side, getting a shot of a rump or some legs or otherwise. On another list, I'd always respond to the OP by asking, "what is her name?" then I'd get shot down by people talking about the shadows or movement or whatnot and how it's one man's art.

You know what you're getting in this kind of work. Dead center. Butt. Thighs. Maybe some breasts, even. Again, perhaps I'm too sensitive but has it become simply right in our culture to do this?

Like I said earlier, my sample space is skewed to the RF set since I shoot with an RF when I can afford to process film, so that's what I see. Please, just because I asked the question about rangefinders and this type of work doesn't mean I ever used absolutes like all or none.

Phil Forrest

 

[paradoxbox]

i think that in photos like you're describing, full of uh, curves, the subject of the photo may not mind the kind of attention she's getting. and while they may detest the idea of being photographed, i think that the idea of slightly pervy photographs is to either share or convey the exhilaration the photographer felt when seeing the subject.

more often i see slightly pervy shots online made in an ironic or comedic sense rather than as a form of exploitation or objectification.

i think the rangefinder connection comes in because the cameras and lenses themselves are smaller and are the last bastion for actually printing/engraving depth of field and focusing scales on the lenses allowing for such shots to actually be made, rather than depending on the AF of a DSLR which would probably miss the shot.

 

[Spicy]

Says more about your interpretation than the shooters intent, I'd say.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Says more about your interpretation than the shooters intent, I'd say.

Do you know the old joke about the fellow who was being shown a series of Rorschach ink blots, and reckoned that every single one was to do with sex? Eventually the psychologist said, "Well, the problem seems to be that you're obsessed with sex."

The patient was indignant. "ME? YOU'RE the one who's been showing me all these filthy pictures."

This is NOT aimed at the OP: it was just that your comment reminded me of an old, well-loved joke. I think my mother told it me, maybe 50 years ago.

Cheers,

R.

 

[bonatto]

I think, ultimately, you will see poor work produced by any type of person with any type of camera. Whether the work is intrusive, of poor taste, of poor technical execution or objectifying, like others have said, is the realm of highly subjective interpretation (the photo of the woman in burka shopping at a lingerie store posted on the forum recently and the discussion that ensued comes to mind).

The thing is, I think this is an incredibly diversified community, with photography as its centerpiece. You have exposure to material from guys with big view cameras, all the way to mobile phone photographers and every sort of combination/variation in between. Bottom line is, the community is a passionate one, and the discussion of gear, the classifieds, the gallery, all achieve a common result: the stimulation of a craft that is constantly shaped, influenced, and re-oriented by the realities of market and technologies.

I feel what you raise is not necessarily direct objectification, but simply the experimentation of vision that this whole diversity of discussion generates. Like anything in life, there will be a vast mass of material, produced by a collective of passionate professionals, hobbyists, and curious individuals, and out of this collective you will see more than a few excellent photographs - from photographers old and new.

The rangefinder community is a lively one, maybe we're all "hipsters", maybe not, depends on who's talking. The work of the site's administrators, the vast volume of resources provided by the contributors, and the criticisms of butt shots, back of head shots, and blurry shots, are all part of this niche. It's good to see this type of discussion because it leads to self-questioning and debate. That's the whole point, isn't it?

Anyone with a camera can make a "bad" picture, but what is "bad"?

Maybe Moriyama's blurry shots? How about Winogrand's women? Maybe Bruce Gilden's expressive and surprised faces?

Having a rangefinder does not simply give you the licence to make "bad" pictures, it gives you a licence to take photographs, and that's a good thing.

Cheers,

 

[MikeAUS]

btw, I'm not giving all you pervs reading this a license to make creepy images, but if you do: make 'em hot.

Thanks. 🙂