ChezLark

There is a really interesting post by Richard Rothstein, and an accompanying discussion, over at Art & Perception about his experience, as an amateur photographer, of being harassed by authority figures in NYC. Here are some excerpts:

[T]o members of the New York City Police Department, several doormen and a couple of security guards, I looked like [...] a terrorist threat. Clearly, a lone man photographing details of buildings from various angles and wanting to enter lobbies of city landmarks to photograph cherubs, statuary and mosaics is now assumed to be a threat to the safety and security of our fair city.

I’m a photographer. I’m an artist. But such explanations no longer fly. I was denied entry to the lobby of the landmark and fantabulous Woolworth Building. I was asked for photo ID in front of a Soho luxury condo. Two of New York’s finest approached me in front of a Prince Street church and asked me to please “move on.” I explained who I was and what I was doing. The response was a second “please move on.” Two security guards asked me why I was photographing crowds shopping the stalls on Canal Street. Why is it any of their business, I asked? “Please move on.”
[...]
Photographing the details of Manhattan used to be a very enriching hobby, now it’s a awkward negotiation through a maze of uniforms.

Coincidentally, the ever-assertive Thomas Hawk also had a post recently about a recent run-in with a security officer. As always, it’s useful to know your rights.

The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs. Absent a specific legal prohibition such as a statute or ordinance, you are legally entitled to take photographs. Examples of places that are traditionally considered public are streets, sidewalks, and public parks.

I think one may be bound to obey an order by a bona fide police officer to vacate an area, but as I understand it, citizens are under no obligation to identify themselves to, or follow the orders of, a private security officer if the citizen is on public property.

In his post, Richard Rothstein offers a talismanic disclaimer:

I was tempted to post my photograph so that you could determine for yourself just how much I resemble a threat to democracy and freedom–but that’s probably not wise. Suffice it to say that I am a 58-year-old very white, bald, Jewish, Gay New Yorker with a very neatly trimmed silver beard. I was wearing an $1,500 Italian dark green leather and fleece coat, a black cashmere scarf and a matching black pull on cashmere cap. I looked like your typical over-paid and perfectly stylish self-indulgent New Yorker on his way to or from a chic brunch. Today’s weapon of choice was my Canon Digital Elph with optical zoom.

This is a common but dangerous way of thinking. The disclaimer offered here is “How could anyone think I am a threat”. The implication is that it’s perfectly clear what kinds of people are dangerous, and that although it’s OK to harass them, that we should be left alone. The outrage is “how dare they bother me; can’t they see I’m not one of them?”

The problem with this line of thinking is that suspicion is not proof, and suspicion is not grounds for lesser rights. There are thousands of people imprisoned around the world by our military, based only on suspicion. Many of them are certainly innocent, something easily extrapolated from the fact that scores have been set free after belated realizations that they posed no threat and were guilty of no crime. Suspicion is no justification for the fact that they were treated unjustly. In fact, proper application of due process would have revealed their innocence.

In the discussion thread, Paul Butzi, a photographer living here in Washington state, takes Richard to task:

You cite your description. Apparently you feel that middle-aged, white, bald, jewish wealthy folks should be exempt from scrutiny. I’m sorry, but as a society, the United States seems to be pretty strongly resistant to the entire idea of racial/ethnic/social status profiling. Why, exactly, do you think that racial/ethnic profiling is a great idea, given the widespread dislike of it especially amongst the urban population in the US?

Paul is being combative here, but I basically agree with his objection.

Social protests often involve rallying cries like “As long as any one of us is not free, none of us is free”. A specific way to understand this idea is to realize that if it’s OK for authority figures to unaccountably hassle people based solely on, say, their appearance, then they are free to hassle any one of us. We may choose, collectively, to allow the authorities to hassle anyone they wish in the name of security, but it’s seductively wrong-headed to try to escape the matter by wishing for the authorities to hassle only those people, and to leave us alone. Richard invokes his appearance hoping to get a free pass. In a perverse way, this way of thinking leads to a world in which he can be hassled with impunity.

A couple more comments:

[...]
The photos are, for me, an escape from the political and social turmoil in which we live and struggle. So the intrusion of politics/uniforms on my time with the city felt like a violation and an invasion of my personal privacy and personal space.
[...]
– Richard (the author)

[...]
I’ve had similar experiences. I used to get harassed by security guards at airports a lot. It took me some time to figure out how I was triggering them. Finally, I saw that I was carrying into civilian life the attitude and mien from my time working for the military. I had to learn to imitate the downcast, submissive, poor eye contact, fearful attitude of the general population.

After that, no more searches.

One security guard actually told me that “they” send through people to test security, and I looked and acted like a cop.

What delicious irony.
– Rex

Again, it’s worth reading through all the comments.

As always, if you are a photographer, I think the best approach is to politely but firmly stick up for your increasingly-encroached right to take pictures in public areas. There’s no sense in being unnecessarily confrontational, but I think it’s important not to take harassment lying down.

Remember: nobody has the right to confiscate your equipment except a police officer in the course of an arrest, and any intimidation, threat of physical force or the use of physical force by a private citizen is likely a criminal offense and/or actionable via lawsuit.

While I’m on the subject of photography, I just discovered Michael Kenna.

Check out the work of Rocket Studio, a creative retouching shop.

Canadian artist Carl Zimmerman has created a series of images of ruined or deserted, but entirely fictional, buildings:

This is apparently accomplished by photographing architectural models and then digitally manipulating the photos (presumably, among other things, to insert the human figures that appear in some of the images)

You can read a longer discussion of the images at BLDG BLOG, and buy prints online either at buynewart or the Stephen Bulger Gallery.

Go look at this image.

Now look at one participant’s effort at post-processing it.

Now, realize: the capture phase and the processing phase are both important, and both have enormous room for creativity.

That is all.

I found this post over on auspiciousdragon very interesting; it refers to an interview with Stephen Johnson, a prominent photographer, about analog vs. digital technology for photography.

Among other things, Johnson makes the interesting observation that film images enlarge better because they have a “grain structure” that can convey the impression of sharpness better, paradoxially, than less-noisy digital images:

Curiously, where silver based photography tends to be perceived as having an edge still, is in its ability to be enlarged. Traditionally, we have based enlargability of a film-based image on perceptual acceptance of the sharpness of the print. This is only natural. But, perceptual acceptance of the print is linked to our acceptance of film grain as the medium through which the photograph was rendered and seen.
[...]
Our expectations of perceptual sharpness based on sharp film grain has allowed us to think that we can blow up a film based image larger than we can blow up a digitally based image, because it does not have that same constituent grain as the very basis for the existence of a file. Because a relatively noise free digital file has no underlying granular texture, the enlargability is largely determined by the level of tolerance by the photographer for making up new pixels from the original pixels that the camera recorded.
[...]
So some might say that where digital technology is lacking with regards the film technology is the ability to blow film up much larger than you can blow up a digital file. I don’t think that’s an accurate statement because we could go back to the digital file , add some noise and “grain” and blow it up sharp and consequently imitating that granular structure that film has rested its inherent perceived sharpness and and imitate that traditional look and feel.

I’ve often added “grain” to digital images shot in low light instead of trying to clean up the digital “noise” that shows up when a digital camera is asked to operate at high sensitivities. The resulting image reminds me of high-speed film. It never occurred to me to add grain to an image in order to improve its “enlargability”. Now that I think of it, though, I have some prints at home from my wedding, made from high-speed black and white film, that look quite good even though, as Johnson says, the only thing sharp about the images is the grain, not the underlying image.

The interview is quite interesting. Well worth reading.

Ruth Bernhard, a photographer Ansel Adams himself one described as “the greatest photographer of the nude”, has died at the age of 101. Wikipedia lists some quotes by her, including:

Never ever say the word shoot when you are taking a picture with a camera because a camera is not a violent weapon.

This is in contrast to Susan Sontag’s take on photography as essentially violent:

[T]here is something predatory in the act of taking a picture. To photograph people is to violate them by seeing them as they never see themselves. By having knowledge of them they can never have. It turns people into objects that can be symbolically possessed. Just as the camera is a sublimation of the gun, to photograph someone is a sublimated murder. A soft murder, appropriate to a sad, frightened time.

Ruth’s vision of photography seems to have been very optimistic and hopeful. She is particularly known for her female nudes, and about the female form, she said:

If I have chosen the female form in particular, it is because beauty has been debased and exploited in our sensual twentieth century. We seem to have a need to turn innocent nature into evil ugliness by the twist of the mind. Woman has been the target of much that is sordid and cheap, especially in photography. To raise, to elevate, to endorse with timeless reverence the image of woman, has been my mission - the reason for my work which you see here.

Feminism everywhere!

The Online Photographer ran this copy of Ruth’s recipe for a happy life, which I will shamelessly reproduce. Worth thinking about as Christmas approaches.

I suspect we all have something to learn from Ruth.

I think I’ve probably posted this before, but I’m so lazy I’m not even going to check (beat that!)

Photographer Glenn Feron has an entire gallery that shows before and after glamor / fashion shots. You can see the extent to which waist and bustlines, skin, makeup, etc., are altered in post-production for the beauty industry.

Mildly risqé material.

Things have been harder for photographers since 9/11; presumably out of misguided security-mindedness, many private security guards and even policepeople will harass photographers for the perfectly legal and harmless activity of taking photos in public spaces. For the record, there are exceedingly few circumstances in which it is not legal to take a picture of anything you can see while standing on public property.

This concise summary of photographers’ rights is worth consulting. It says:

The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs. Absent a specific legal prohibition such as a statute or ordinance, you are legally entitled to take photographs. Examples of places that are traditionally considered public are streets, sidewalks, and public parks.

The guide also explains that it is usually reasonable to assume that you have permission to take photographs while on private property that has been made available to the public (such as, for example, in a shopping mall), although the owner always has the right to refuse or rescind permission, including through representatives such as security guards. On the other hand, no private party may ever seize your film, memory card, or camera, or compel you to erase images, without a court order. A private security guard confiscating your camera likely constitutes theft.

Anyway, in light of all this, a this short article to appear in Wired makes for interesting reading. A reporter went along with Thomas Hawk, a technologist and amateur photographer, on a photo walk. Along the way, they had what Thomas has come to think of as a fairly standard encounter with security personnel:

Hawk (his photo-blogging pseudonym) wanders into the grimy Transbay bus terminal and begins shooting its interior artwork and graffiti. Within 90 seconds, a security guard approaches.

“Can I see a permit, please?” he says.

“I don’t have a permit,” Hawk replies amiably, eye pressed to the viewfinder. “I’m just taking a few pictures. I’ll move along in a minute.”

“You need a permit here, sir.”

“No, I don’t need a permit,” Hawk says, composing a shot.

“Sir, do you understand what I’m telling you?”

“I do. Just taking a few pictures.”

“I’m going to have to call the highway patrol,” the guard huffs and walks off.

Hawk wraps up his photos and wanders out a few minutes later. “Most of the time, that’s what you get,” he says. “Guy comes up, says you can’t take pictures. You have a little back-and-forth and then they go away.” Shooting in public places, as he says he’s forced to point out frequently, is perfectly legal – neither private security guards nor police can prevent anyone from taking photos unless a specific local ordinance prohibits it. (And, legally, no one can seize your memory card without a court order.)

Assuming this incident went off as described, I admire Hawk’s poise here. It’s upsetting to be confronted, and staying relaxed and amiable definitely seems like the best approach.

So, remember your rights, and be nice about it.

If you’re thinking of buying a “good” (that, is, a single-lens reflex) digital camera for Christmas, Thomas Hawk has some thoughtful suggestions that I agree with.

If you’re thinking of buying a point-and-shoot, don’t ask me; I have no idea which are better. All I know is, I want a super-compact walking-around camera that takes CF cards and shoots RAW. This may sound basic, but as far as I can tell this eliminates pretty much all P&Ss Canon is currently producing.

We had a snow day today. A storm dropped a couple inches of snow on Seattle last night, and it froze hard overnight, so we all woke up to streets coated in ice and snow. Seattle isn’t exactly equipped to deal with snowy weather, since it very rarely snows here, so schools and businesses were closed today, and the Department of Transportation told people to stay home if they could.

Tonight, it looks like we might be set to break some temperature records, as the low is forecast at 18F for Seattle. This might not sound to impressive to people living in the northern states or Canada, but it’s pretty darn cold for Seattle.

I took some pictures this morning of all the ice and snow lying around, and have started running them at chromalark. Here’s the first:

It looks like two more days of snow and ice and then we might be out of the woods; it’s supposed to be cold and clear tomorrow, with another storm coming through in the evening. Then, temperatures get back above freezing and it’s back to endless rain.

I like this quote from a commenter at The Online Photographer, about who uses traditional (”wet”) darkroom to produce photographic prints anymore:

I also teach a photo class or two at a university. Like I tell my students, the darkroom is pretty much for artists, cranks and wierdos. I consider myself part of all 3 catagories, but I have not made a silver print in nearly a year.

Progress marches ever onwards.

Here’s a statement that may surprise you. If you use a modern, $1,000 or so digital SLR and a, say, $400 or so digital point-and-shoot camera to take a picture under favorable circumstances, say on a bright sunny day, the more expensive camera may not yield an image that you would find noticeably better.

In general, an inexpensive camera can often take nearly as good a picture as a more-expensive one, assuming circumstances are not challenging.

So, why does anybody spend lots of money on camera gear?

Under favorable circumstances, the more-expensive camera will turn out a sharper, contrastier image, but the edge over the cheaper camera may be minor. Much more importantly, a more expensive camera makes it possible to actually capture images that a point-and-shoot cannot handle.

There are many features of more-expensive cameras that enable them to get shots a cheaper camera can’t:

• Lower sensor noise
• “Faster” lenses
• Longer or wider lenses than would come standard on a P&S
• More accurate and faster auto-focus systems
• Lower shutter latency (faster response)
• Rapid-fire shutter modes
• Deeper data buffers (take more shots in a row)
• Faster, easier access to camera settings via dedicated controls

A physically larger sensor (regardless of the megapixel count) is less sensitive to noise and can be used at higher sensitivities (that is, in less light) than physically-smaller sensors. Of course, larger sensors are harder to make and therefore more expensive. They also require larger, heavier lenses to produce a large enough image circle.

Similarly, high-quality lenses are “faster” than cheap ones, meaning they gather more light. Of course, that makes them larger, heavier and more expensive.

An interchangeable-lens system means you can buy a longer telephoto, or wider-angle lens, than anything that would come standard (and permanent!) on a point-and-shoot. Of course, the complexity of the lens mount makes the camera body larger and heavier.

You get the idea.

If you’re only taking snapshots outdoors in broad daylight, it may not make any sense to buy a heavy, expensive DSLR. On the other hand, a digicam can’t get pictures like this:

This image is not great art. It’s more of a snapshot. But it was shot at the outer edge of my camera’s performance envelope: f/2.8 and 1/30th of a second at ISO 3200.

A cheap point-and-shoot might have, say, an f/4 lens and a sensor that can go to ISO 400. If that’s the case, this scene would have had to have been sixteen times brighter (four stops) for the point-and-shoot to expose it properly. That is, it wouldn’t have gotten the shot. As it turns out, the lens I was using here can open up another stop, to f/2. That means it can capture a scene thirty-two times dimmer than required for our example cheap camera.

Light-gathering ability is just one (important!) example of what I’m talking about. Low shutter lag is for capturing that fleeting expression. Rapid-fire shutter modes are for sports and other fast-action events. Better autofocus is for low light and fast-moving targets. Etc.

I like this sentence about how to develop as a photographer:

What you need is to scale the heights of anonymous generic competence and come down the other side. What’s on the other side? Pictures that are distinctively the photographer’s own, in content and style, maybe even technique.

That’s me, scaling the heights of anonymous generic competence. No word yet on where the summit is.

Go read the whole post at the Online Photographer.

Never having put brush to canvas in my life, I have no idea how one constructs a painting. So I found this post at Art & Perception very interesting; it shows the evolution of a still-life painting from initial sketches to mostly-finished. Several commenters provided feedback, and the artist revised the painting accordingly.

One thing I find particularly interesting is that the commenters talk about many of the things that photographers do when discussing their work: contrast, composition, color balance, etc. However, they’re discussing a constructive / additive medium, where it’s possible to, say, reshape the glass vase, remove the wrinkles in the tablecloth, or revise them wholesale.

There is an eternal debate, of course, about whether significant alterations to a photograph are “OK”. Even if one thinks they’re “OK”, though, photography is still subtractive / distortionary (I’m just making these terms up): you start with a fully rendered scene, and you can only choose to alter it strategically.

Maybe some training in painting would make me a better photographer / graphics artist, since I’m utterly unconcerned about the “OK”ness of drastic alterations to images.

I think this is a genius business model for photographers. However, for some reason, the article seems to be written with a lot of hostility towards the clients. The sub-headline is “Doting parents hire personal photographers…”

Shannon Stauffer can easily take snapshots or get retail studio portraits of her children. But instead, the Harrisburg, Pa., mother paid $1,000 to hire a professional photographer to catch them in action — all year.

What’s with the “these people could easily take their own snapshots, but noooooooooooooooo…. they have to be all fancy” tone?

Professional photographers, hoping to stand out in a crowded market and build loyal clients and more referrals, are pushing year-long contracts and day-in-the-life shoots that capture people inside the hospital’s labor and delivery room, on vacation, at soccer games and even at the office and the classroom.

“pushing”?

“It reminds me of the royal family on a very small scale. They have their own personal photographer,” said Jessie Kimmel, whose Canadian studio, This Moment Now Photographic, started offering first-year-of-life photo sessions this fall
[...]
Consumers increasingly want relaxed, more natural portraits, and the kinds of shots seen in fashion magazines and art galleries

I think this is a great business model for photographers. Young families are a natural audience for this kind of service: kids grow so fast when they’re young, it makes sense to document as much of their first few years as possible. Relaxed, candid portraits are often a lot nicer than cheapo studio work, and, on the plus side for the photographer, having longer-term on-call arrangements like this lets them better predict and manage their revenue.

Not sure why the article writeup was so snarky. I also wonder if there are photographers in Seattle doing this…

This letter, found by an exploring photoblogger, does indeed seem quite sad.

Dove has put out this video as part of their “Campaign for Real Beauty”. It shows the extent of the transformation an image of a model goes through for use on a billboard.

(via Unfogged)

Yesterday was the one year anniversary of the first image being posted on chromalark, my photoblog.

Thanks for the memories, people! I’m looking forward to the next year.

BTW, look at that image for a minute. OK, are you back? Do you notice a latent message in the image? I thought it was obvious but Laura didn’t see it until I pointed it out. I’m not talking about the text in the lower right.

Go look at this image on chromasia (no, not my site, that’s chromalark).

Now compare to the original.

Now tell me, which is more interesting to look at? Which lets the artist’s creativity shine through the most?