The Myth of Stealth

I agree with Godfrey statement: it's not so much the camera is the behavior.

I'm not so much into street photography but anyway when I have to train myself to be relaxed, slightly smiling (sometimes I tend to be to serious concentrating on all the tech. aspects, aperture, RF, time, composition) and the most important is after the shot not to look around to check if anybody has seen or noticed you.

robert
 
There are a few reasons to cover logos on cameras.

1. Manufacturer does not pay photographer to advertise camera.

2. Basic graphic design knowledge teaches us that eyes are drawn to highest brightness and then highest contrast. If you are doing candid work, even with participatory subjects, every little bit might help. Maybe. Perhaps.

3. With formal portraits, the logo may cause just enough deflection of the eyes upward such that convergence (crossed eyes) may, depending on camera-to-subject distance and lens-to-logo distance, become apparent. Maybe. Perhaps.

I prefer the first option. I have removed similar dealer decals and brand/model markings from vehicles, clothing, etc... I paid enough - I don't need to subsidize their advertizing program.
 
This all sounds like the talk of a sniper. You have to be camouflaged, in a "blind", or have weapons, er...cameras, no one recognizes. If you want to take sneak shots that badly, why not get a GoPro camera and wear it trough your shirt button? Or some other spy camera? If what you are doing feels wrong to most people, and a polite person wouldn't do it, or risk a confrontation, that should tell you something.

And to the lecturer above that tried to admonish you for not being "here yet" and not holding your camera "right".... get a grip. Who appointed you the ruler of all?
 
goamules said:
This all sounds like the talk of a sniper. You have to be camouflaged, in a "blind", or have weapons, er...cameras, no one recognizes. If you want to take sneak shots that badly, why not get a GoPro camera and wear it trough your shirt button? Or some other spy camera? If what you are doing feels wrong to most people, and a polite person wouldn't do it, or risk a confrontation, that should tell you something.

And to the lecturer above that tried to admonish you for not being "here yet" and not holding your camera "right".... get a grip. Who appointed you the ruler of all?
Click to expand...

Yeah, Go Pro is too weird like body cameras. Might not want to be in some places with one running!:D

As far as holding the camera right, I think it was more humor than anything with the lens cap in the other eye. But I totally agree with demeanor, clothing, physical look/presence and many more attributes for a photographer. Just be yourself! Ned does fine his way. I seem to be fine my way.

Gear talk gets in the way. I could not care less about brand names or such. M3 and M6 take the same photos and both look nice to me.

:cool:
 
kxl said:
Yup. I'm probably the least stealthy person on RFF, but I do prefer to be discrete when I shoot, so I roost. I park my butt somewhere, get a feel for what's happening in front of me, shoot for a few minutes then move on.

BTW, here in LA, no one cares about anyone carrying a camera (in fact, you almost expect it around some parts of town). The only exception might be that whole celebrity/paparazzi dynamic.
Click to expand...

You folks are just pointing out the different between unobtrusive and covert. Stealth implies covert, unobtrusive isn't covert.

When I'm walking with a small camera, I wear it on a 52" neckstrap so that it's under my left elbow. When I'm walking with something as big as a Nikon F6, it's either in a bag or in my hand. Draping anything like a camera around my neck and bouncing on my belly as I walk is annoying as heck to me, never mind what it telegraphs to others. ;-)

I know when I'm doing it right with people when I finish a set of six or seven photos and the person I've been photographing turns to me and says, "So when are you going to take my picture?"
My usual response is to say, "I've been waiting until you had the best smile, like right now...!" and take another. Then I show them the whole set...

Sometimes you want to interact with the subject, sometimes you don't, and sometimes you just have to do whatever the situation calls for. This is independent of being unobtrusive when using a camera.

G
 
Peoples responses are extremely regional.

I have people routinely ask me what model Leica I'm using when I'm out with my M4. Probably once every 10 hours of shooting (and much more frequently if I'm in one of the more artistic/hippy neighborhoods). Using a TLR generally prompts people to come up and ask if its a Hasselblad. I've recently been having more senior people approach me to reminiscence about Rolleis they or their parents used.

On photographing a scene without people reacting to me our changing it (what I assume we mean by stealthy), I've found TLRs to be great tools. The camera gets noticed but people don't seem to mind being photographed. I don't know if its the fact that they're obviously film, that people tend to view them either as professional or art cameras or what but at least around here people are much more relaxed about them.

Older looking cameras in general tend to get less aggressive responses. I've used Barnacks, Retinas and a Vito III... they all seem to be perceived more as quaint than threatening for people who get jumpy when SLRs are pointed at them.

The Medalist II just confuses people.
 
Oscuro said:
There are a few reasons to cover logos on cameras.

1. Manufacturer does not pay photographer to advertise camera.

2. Basic graphic design knowledge teaches us that eyes are drawn to highest brightness and then highest contrast. If you are doing candid work, even with participatory subjects, every little bit might help. Maybe. Perhaps.

3. With formal portraits, the logo may cause just enough deflection of the eyes upward such that convergence (crossed eyes) may, depending on camera-to-subject distance and lens-to-logo distance, become apparent. Maybe. Perhaps.

I prefer the first option. I have removed similar dealer decals and brand/model markings from vehicles, clothing, etc... I paid enough - I don't need to subsidize their advertizing program.
Click to expand...

Sometimes, covering up the logos and such draws more attention to the camera. than if you just left it alone. Just like with cars ... When I see a car go by with no logo on it, I know it's been mucked with and become curious. Any notion of stealth or unobtrusiveness is then lost.

G
 
A slightly different approach -

I know a photographer who took a slightly Tichy-esque approach and mounted a small digital camera on top of a Kodak No 3A. People thought he was using the Kodak prompting all sorts of curious looks. He was ignored as an eccentric... all the way getting shots with the digital camera.
 
Dang, I wish I could remember but two things stick out in my mind from years past:

1. The tin type photographers who used to walk up to people and get their photos. Is there anyone still doing that? I would love to know because that is a great way to get noticed on the street!! :p

2. There was a guy who had a "birdie" pop out of his hat or even one mounted on his hot shoe and while not getting true candids, he got true laughter and smiles!:eek:

Anyways, I like Godfrey's slicing the difference between unobtrusive and doing something sneaky. I like unobtrusive!:cool:
 
Mostly it is the talk of armchair photographers. You look at many people working in the field - many don't change the camera or anything else, but some do.

Ultimately to a photographer it doesn't matter - what they do is what they do and if there is tape on someone's camera they don't really give a $hit. Only the pictures matter.

But many here see the camera as a primary pursuit, the extreme of which is a respect or even worship of industrial design and function. Some have a portion of the Walter Mitty in them and accessorize the life so that it more resembles some road not taken. Perhaps these people are good in community theatre also.

None of these perspectives are bad as long as they are by the actor recognized. This is very important. To examine one's motives and state of mind is really the most important work of life. More important than the photograph, especially as the photographer-hobbyist or photographer-professional must absolutely constantly question their motivation for taking picture.
 
Godfrey said:
Sometimes, covering up the logos and such draws more attention to the camera. than if you just left it alone. Just like with cars ... When I see a car go by with no logo on it, I know it's been mucked with and become curious. Any notion of stealth or unobtrusiveness is then lost.

G
Click to expand...

Yes, quite true. It can especially in this very brand aware society. It becomes perhaps political, no? Your writer Naomi Klein (a highly intelligent and lovely individual who is an exceptional conversationalist) wrote a book called No Logo. Excellent premise very well argued.
 
Oscuro said:
But many here see the camera as a primary pursuit, the extreme of which is a respect or even worship of industrial design and function. Some have a portion of the Walter Mitty in them and accessorize the life so that it more resembles some road not taken. Perhaps these people are good in community theatre also.

None of these perspectives are bad as long as they are by the actor recognized. This is very important. To examine one's motives and state of mind is really the most important work of life. More important than the photograph, especially as the photographer-hobbyist or photographer-professional must absolutely constantly question their motivation for taking picture.
Click to expand...

Glad to see that you have seen deeply into their lives and judged them ok if they have motivational recognition.

Who would have thought that cameras would be a primary pursuit on a camera forum.
 
dave lackey said:
Okay, I found a willing motif...:rolleyes:

M6 shooter. Stealthy? I don't think so.


Cropped:
attachment.php


F6 Shooter. Stealthy? I don't think so.

Eastman 5222:
attachment.php
Click to expand...

I want to get to know the artist holding that beautiful camera in the first pic.

I want to shield my face in horror at the creeper holding the big black camera in the second pic.
 
I don't try to be stealthy or even unobtrusive, just not obnoxious! I do present as a harmless friendly old geezer with an amusing shirt graphic and distinctive hat. Smiles!

I'll go for permission, if only tacit, and interact with the "victim".

At the end of a medical appointment recently the doc said "what's up with the antique camera?" and I showed him the back of my M240. One of the M advantages? Had a similar comment from a lady reporter smoking out back of the newspaper office.

I only have one camera with the name/logo taped over, and that's more a matter of embarrassment... It's the Leica S2 which looks like a largish but generic dSLR. But for those who would recognize the name/logo and know how much it cost, I'd like it more anonymous with tape.

An acquaintance was selling prints in his farmers' market booth and as I walked in he remarked to the other gent there that "here comes a guy still using film!" and then looked at my S2, stopped, turned it to see the back, and laughed.

Just a few weeks ago on vacation I was carrying the taped S2 when a guy passing asked me what kind of camera it was. I answered that it was just an SLR, he said "cool" and walked off. Just as well.

As someone mentioned above, I too find it uncomfortable to have a camera bouncing off my front, so I carry over a shoulder with a strap adjusted so that the camera is at my elbow and thus kept from swinging around... also perhaps less "front and center" that way.
 
Huss said:
I want to get to know the artist holding that beautiful camera in the first pic.

I want to shield my face in horror at the creeper holding the big black camera in the second pic.
Click to expand...

:p:p:p

(...Ten characters...)

It seems that black is sinister and chrome old stuff is artistic!:). So much for black and stealthy.
 
I must be an old geezer...
2 comments about neck straps....
I do wear mine with a neck strap... and I hold the camera with my right hand at the same time...

I tried (still have) a wrist strap, but, when I need buy some water, or such, the wrist strap makes it difficult to grab my wallet and such..
Don't like placing my camera down for that...I don't carry a camera bag, so no place for a water bottle.

Oh well, works for me... I do 'cup' my camera if I do just let it hang...
but, I do get nice waist level shots from a hanging camera.(no squatting required)

I prefer blue jeans, dark tee shirt, sneakers, maybe a black do-rag

Unobstructive is more of how walk you about, and blend in with others walking around you.

covered logos.... Na, the Fuji X series don't really have a logo in front that is annoying at a distance, or close up...
BIG RED DOT... Ummmm Could be attention gathering. Depends also "where" you shot.. areas in a city that may be more dangerous.... ya,
but, a thief knows a Leica RF with or w/o a showing logo, if they worth anything as a thief.
 
SLR or not, black or not, any camera held up to the eye, especially one
with a large diameter or long lens is immediately identifiable as a camera.

OTOH my friend Bob Hickey would wander around peering down into his
Rolleiflex "on a stick" (monopod) and never draw any attention to himself.

Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom