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

[Phil_F_NM]

Maybe I'm being what some have called "too sensitive" or not taking into account how folks in other parts of the world can conduct themselves, but just because one has a rangefinder, does that give them license to shoot and publish what many perceive as bad images?

I'm talking about the butt shots, the high skirts, the near up-skirts, and otherwise all round objectification or women, in particular. It's one thing if the photo is good or has a point but there seem to be a lot of photos that simply demonstrate one's ability to shoot a subversive image of an attractive woman (usually) or her parts, and maybe not get caught doing it.

Often times, these aren't even focused or held still. The camera is shaky, the zone focus from one's lap or wherever the camera sits, is off, the camera is tilted or any number of things that would force an image to be tossed. They say that if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all, right? Sorry. I'm always looking for good critiques of my photos and a good critique will also have the stuff we don't want to hear. My comment isn't even a critique though, it's simply about the subversive objectification photos.

I'm not singling anyone out. I'm guilty of taking garbage images myself but I like to engage my subjects, not just shoot photos of their backsides, et. al. I can guarantee that if some of the photos out there were showed to the people in the subject, the photographer would be anything from yelled at to assaulted.

So, is it the quiet nature of the rangefinder that lends itself to the subversive imagery of a Guy With Camera, looking to collect more parts? On top of that, what about the camera shake, the blur, the out of focus, the bad composition? a lot of these photos tend to serve one purpose.

I don't mean to get people angry with this post, but I do mean to stir up the pot because photographers owe it to their subjects.

Phil Forrest

 

[28mm]

No. What's your data set that you're using to base your judgement?

When I look at someone else's image, I generally don't care what it's shot with.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

I've just seen more of that type of image made by folks with rangefinders and so my exposure to it is more in rangefinder communities. But water will seek to level itself between two different bodies, so perhaps it's because I see more images made from rangefinders.

All that said, is it an excuse to publish such photos as I mentioned?

Phil Forrest

 

[28mm]

I don't mind subversive imagery if it's done right--look at Araki or Terry Richardson. That being said, subversive imagery is probably easier done with a P&S.

I think what a rangefinder might give a guy is the impression that he's HCB, and he's roaming the streets with a velvet hand, a hawk's pervert's eye. Some of the photo threads here are borderline creepy. However, I wouldn't chalk it up to the camera, as to perhaps the user's original intent/personality.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

I don't mind subversive imagery if it's done right--look at Araki or Terry Richardson. That being said, subversive imagery is probably easier done with a P&S.

I think what a rangefinder might give a guy is the impression that he's HCB, and he's roaming the streets with a velvet hand, a hawk's pervert's eye. Some of the photo threads here are borderline creepy.

That's what I'm trying to say but you made it that much more succinct.

Phil Forrest

 

[ruby.monkey]

I don't think you mean subversive; I think you mean furtive. Subversive photography would be a good thing.

 

[28mm]

It probably comes down to this:

Good pervy shot = good
Poor/weak pervy shot = creepy

 

[Roger Hicks]

Maybe I'm being what some have called "too sensitive" or not taking into account how folks in other parts of the world can conduct themselves, but just because one has a rangefinder, does that give them license to shoot and publish what many perceive as bad images?

I'm talking about the butt shots, the high skirts, the near up-skirts, and otherwise all round objectification or women, in particular. It's one thing if the photo is good or has a point but there seem to be a lot of photos that simply demonstrate one's ability to shoot a subversive image of an attractive woman (usually) or her parts, and maybe not get caught doing it.

Often times, these aren't even focused or held still. The camera is shaky, the zone focus from one's lap or wherever the camera sits, is off, the camera is tilted or any number of things that would force an image to be tossed. They say that if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all, right? Sorry. I'm always looking for good critiques of my photos and a good critique will also have the stuff we don't want to hear. My comment isn't even a critique though, it's simply about the subversive objectification photos.

I'm not singling anyone out. I'm guilty of taking garbage images myself but I like to engage my subjects, not just shoot photos of their backsides, et. al. I can guarantee that if some of the photos out there were showed to the people in the subject, the photographer would be anything from yelled at to assaulted.

So, is it the quiet nature of the rangefinder that lends itself to the subversive imagery of a Guy With Camera, looking to collect more parts? On top of that, what about the camera shake, the blur, the out of focus, the bad composition? a lot of these photos tend to serve one purpose.

I don't mean to get people angry with this post, but I do mean to stir up the pot because photographers owe it to their subjects.

Phil Forrest

Dear Phil,

I really don't see it myself, but then, I don't have a very high awareness of "butt shots, the high skirts, the near up-skirts, and otherwise all round objectification of women". Where are you seeing these pictures? Are you perhaps noticing them because they, are, well, more noticeable to you than some other street shots?

Also, why do "photographers owe it to their subjects"? What do they owe? Indeed, what does "engagement" mean?

Without being more aware than I am of such pictures, it's hard to say more, but I'd have thought that the perfect tool for 'creepy' shots (again, without trying to define 'creepy') was the mobile 'phone.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Furtive is even better, yes.

Good pervy v. bad pervy is still pervy though.
That comes around to hurt future photographers, sometimes as far as legislation, but usually only refusals for portraits if one should ask.

Phil Forrest

 

[Sparrow]

Maybe I'm being what some have called "too sensitive" or not taking into account how folks in other parts of the world can conduct themselves, but just because one has a rangefinder, does that give them license to shoot and publish what many perceive as bad images?

I'm talking about the butt shots, the high skirts, the near up-skirts, and otherwise all round objectification or women, in particular. It's one thing if the photo is good or has a point but there seem to be a lot of photos that simply demonstrate one's ability to shoot a subversive image of an attractive woman (usually) or her parts, and maybe not get caught doing it.

Often times, these aren't even focused or held still. The camera is shaky, the zone focus from one's lap or wherever the camera sits, is off, the camera is tilted or any number of things that would force an image to be tossed. They say that if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all, right? Sorry. I'm always looking for good critiques of my photos and a good critique will also have the stuff we don't want to hear. My comment isn't even a critique though, it's simply about the subversive objectification photos.

I'm not singling anyone out. I'm guilty of taking garbage images myself but I like to engage my subjects, not just shoot photos of their backsides, et. al. I can guarantee that if some of the photos out there were showed to the people in the subject, the photographer would be anything from yelled at to assaulted.

So, is it the quiet nature of the rangefinder that lends itself to the subversive imagery of a Guy With Camera, looking to collect more parts? On top of that, what about the camera shake, the blur, the out of focus, the bad composition? a lot of these photos tend to serve one purpose.

I don't mean to get people angry with this post, but I do mean to stir up the pot because photographers owe it to their subjects.

Phil Forrest

.... looks like it's just you then?



🙂

 

[ray*j*gun]

what difference does an RF make? sleezy pics are more likely to be taken by small digi cams anyway IMO.

 

[28mm]

Good pervy v. bad pervy is still pervy though.
That comes around to hurt future photographers, sometimes as far as legislation, but usually only refusals for portraits if one should ask.

I beg to differ. In the end, do the girls think they look hot in the photos? If so, more photos. Look at Merkley for example, or Cobrasnake, or even our venerated Winograd. Winograd was definitely a perv. Cunningham? Perv.

 

[28mm]

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

 

[Gary Sandhu]

Observer bias perhaps? Non-random selection? I have not noticed an association between rangefinder cameras and such photos.

 

[tunalegs]

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.

 

[paradoxbox]

i've never connected the kind of photos you're talking about with rangefinders

japan has a particular subculture of creeps who thrive on taking the kind of photos you mention (or worse) - and they don't use rangefinders

sorry, but i can't agree with anything you wrote

 

[L Collins]

Often times, these aren't even focused or held still. The camera is shaky, the zone focus from one's lap or wherever the camera sits, is off, the camera is tilted or any number of things that would force an image to be tossed. They say that if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all, right?

On top of that, what about the camera shake, the blur, the out of focus, the bad composition? a lot of these photos tend to serve one purpose.


Phil Forrest

I think you are conflating two different issues: 1. "perviness" and 2. Aesthetic choices.

Shaky, out of focus, blurred photos, photos with uneven horizons, are aesthetic issues. Sometimes it's a result of lack of technique of less sophisticated eyes who think all photos should be "picturesque," sometimes it's a conscious choice that reflects the way a photographer wants you to see the world ( see Daido, Winogrand, Frank etc).

Shooting up a woman's skirt is perviness.

 

[BLKRCAT]

this thread has to be a joke...

 

[regularchickens]

I don't know. I see a lot more rangefinder photos that have absolutely nothing going on in them, compared to creepshots taken with RFs.

You can easily make boring or creepy photos with any particular piece of gear, and chances are most photos taken with a certain camera will be more boring or creepy than good. Go search flickr for any particular Leica body or lens for evidence of that.

 

[Sparrow]

this thread has to be a joke...

... I was thinking more of a chortle myself 🙂