Telephoto is for cowards II

Sorry I don't mean to keep this thread going but I wanted to add my 2 cents. I keyed in the response below and couldn't post because of the 150 limit. Please forgive..

I thought you might be interested in someone who is not interested in photography. My wife.

I explained to her the premise and some of the discussion of this thread. Then I asked her "what she would prefer someone from a long distance taking her photo with a telephoto or someone with a small lens shooting her from a close distance and which the photographer may or may not catch her attention.

Her response was she would prefer the telephoto. I then asked but what about the spying factor. Would you feel violated? She responsed as long as it was in a public place she would not have a problem with it. On the other hand no matter how discrete the photographer with a short lens is behaving she would feel uncomfortable if she knew of their presence.

My opinion is the shorter FL provides better composition and context to candids but if one chooses to use a TP in good taste and respects privacy then what is the big deal. The term cowards seems a bit harsh.

Personally I think both have their good and bad points. Both can be very effective so I don’t see the point in knocking one or the other. I certainly don’t want to be spied on and I sure as heck don’t want some stranger getting up in my face with a wide-angle lens. I will say that if someone did, even if they asked permission I would get extremely offended and provoked.

I think it is really silly to write a big article ranting on about such things but to each his own.

Greg

--

Petteri sure opened up a can of...something!

Although he overstated the point for dramatic effect, I agree with him to the extent that people shots taken with a long tele lens have a voyeuristic feel, which--quite apart from whether you think this presents an ethical problem--detracts from the sense of being in the middle of the action. You may or may not like this effect. My favorite people pictures are actually those taken with a very wide-angle, such as a fisheye. This has great immediacy, but it's obviously not well-suited to taking unobtrusive candids.

Bob

This is an odd (to me) reaction, but I would not argue that it isn't a common feeling. What she's actually saying is, "I don't want to be photographed, but if I am and I can't do anything about it (being in a public area), then I don't want to know."

I think I'd rather know. But then, I always watch the needle when they do blood tests on me, and I'd rather have surgery with a local rather than a general anesthetic.

I just prefer to know what people are doing to me, whether I can do anything about it or not.

As a photographer of people, I personally prefer to engage them in some kind of conversation (even if it's purely hand gestures) and then photograph them with their cooperation. That's because my personal goal is to enable my audience to "get to know them as persons."

Spencer said:

Sorry I don't mean to keep this thread going but I wanted to add my
2 cents. I keyed in the response below and couldn't post because of
the 150 limit. Please forgive..

I thought you might be interested in someone who is not interested
in photography. My wife.

I explained to her the premise and some of the discussion of this
thread. Then I asked her "what she would prefer someone from a long
distance taking her photo with a telephoto or someone with a small
lens shooting her from a close distance and which the photographer
may or may not catch her attention.

Her response was she would prefer the telephoto. I then asked but
what about the spying factor. Would you feel violated? She
responsed as long as it was in a public place she would not have a
problem with it. On the other hand no matter how discrete the
photographer with a short lens is behaving she would feel
uncomfortable if she knew of their presence.

My opinion is the shorter FL provides better composition and
context to candids but if one chooses to use a TP in good taste and
respects privacy then what is the big deal. The term cowards seems
a bit harsh.

Click to expand...

--
RDKirk

'I know you're smarter than I am. But I think you're making up some of those words.' Rocky Rooster from 'Chicken Run'

Spencer said:

[snip]
My opinion is the shorter FL provides better composition and
context to candids but if one chooses to use a TP in good taste and
respects privacy then what is the big deal. The term cowards seems a bit harsh.

Click to expand...

Spencer,

I, too, thought coward was harsh until he said that use of telephoto lenses was "morally reprehensible". I wonder what he would call murder, ****, treason.......?

Perhaps he is shooting with no CF card.

Dave

--

'However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.' -- Winston Churchill

DigitalDave wrote:
[snip]

DigitalDave said:

I, too, thought coward was harsh until he said that use of
telephoto lenses was "morally reprehensible". I wonder what he
would call murder, ****, treason.......?

Click to expand...

I believe the terms are "crime, atrocity, monstrosity, perversion." If you feel that **** and murder are merely reprehensible, I'm going to have to start worrying here.

I have to ask, though, Dave: why take this so personally? I certainly wasn't thinking of you when I wrote the piece. I just re-read your original response to my article [ http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=9156561 ], and I think it should be pretty clear that I wasn't thinking of the kinds of situations you mention; in fact, I specifically excluded some of them. In other words, while I'm sure I'd expect some people to be offended, I wouldn't expect you to be in that group.

DigitalDave said:

Perhaps he is shooting with no CF card.

Click to expand...

Nah. I have my CF02 set.

Petteri
--



[ http://www.prime-junta.tk ]

RDKirk, you hit the nail on the head! I thought it was a bit odd myself but if you think about it is logical. She does not want her immediate space violated by a stranger with a camera. But if the photographer is at a distance where it has no impact to her space then she is not bothered. It's not about having her picture taken but rather not being affected by the photographer. I thought her response was interesting..

Okay enough on this thread!

RDKirk said:

I think I'd rather know. But then, I always watch the needle when
they do blood tests on me, and I'd rather have surgery with a local
rather than a general anesthetic.

I just prefer to know what people are doing to me, whether I can do
anything about it or not.

As a photographer of people, I personally prefer to engage them in
some kind of conversation (even if it's purely hand gestures) and
then photograph them with their cooperation. That's because my
personal goal is to enable my audience to "get to know them as
persons."

Spencer said:

Sorry I don't mean to keep this thread going but I wanted to add my
2 cents. I keyed in the response below and couldn't post because of
the 150 limit. Please forgive..

I thought you might be interested in someone who is not interested
in photography. My wife.

I explained to her the premise and some of the discussion of this
thread. Then I asked her "what she would prefer someone from a long
distance taking her photo with a telephoto or someone with a small
lens shooting her from a close distance and which the photographer
may or may not catch her attention.

Her response was she would prefer the telephoto. I then asked but
what about the spying factor. Would you feel violated? She
responsed as long as it was in a public place she would not have a
problem with it. On the other hand no matter how discrete the
photographer with a short lens is behaving she would feel
uncomfortable if she knew of their presence.

My opinion is the shorter FL provides better composition and
context to candids but if one chooses to use a TP in good taste and
respects privacy then what is the big deal. The term cowards seems
a bit harsh.

Click to expand...

--
RDKirk
'I know you're smarter than I am. But I think you're making up
some of those words.' Rocky Rooster from 'Chicken Run'

Click to expand...

I enjoyed Thread I immensely, although I think that it wore us (and the topic) out a bit, and I suspect that Thread II is likely to take us well into the realm of fatigue.

Of course, all such discussions get the most off track when they drift away from photography itself and when disputes flare up because person A uses a word to mean one thing, while person B uses the same word to mean something else.

However, the question of how much stealth should be practiced in making a photograph did make me re-think the way I use the word "candid." Specifically, one question that the previous thread prompted was whether we can call a photo in which the subject has any awareness of the photograher a true candid.

After mentally surrounding the issue, I've concluded (for myself, anyway) that it's not the manner in which the photo was made that determines whether it should be called a candid. That depends on the behaviour of the subject. If he acts naturally, spontaneously, and seems entirely to be himself--whether or not he is unaware of the camera, or even looking directly at it--then the photo has the quality of being a candid. It's the unnatural, overly-posed photo, I think, that strikes us as unsuccessful and ultimately untrue.

All of which was probably completely obvious to everyone else about 150 messages ago, but the discussion helped that realization to click for me.

A final editorial note. Many mentions have been made about respecting the subject. I hope we also think in terms of respecting ourselves as photographers. I think something very special can be happening when we make a photograph,

Spencer said:

Sorry I don't mean to keep this thread going but I wanted to add my
2 cents. I keyed in the response below and couldn't post because of
the 150 limit. Please forgive..

I thought you might be interested in someone who is not interested
in photography. My wife.

I explained to her the premise and some of the discussion of this
thread. Then I asked her "what she would prefer someone from a long
distance taking her photo with a telephoto or someone with a small
lens shooting her from a close distance and which the photographer
may or may not catch her attention.

Her response was she would prefer the telephoto. I then asked but
what about the spying factor. Would you feel violated? She
responsed as long as it was in a public place she would not have a
problem with it. On the other hand no matter how discrete the
photographer with a short lens is behaving she would feel
uncomfortable if she knew of their presence.

My opinion is the shorter FL provides better composition and
context to candids but if one chooses to use a TP in good taste and
respects privacy then what is the big deal. The term cowards seems
a bit harsh.

Click to expand...

--
jnat
http://www.pbase.com/jnat
Equipment history listed in profile.

These are opinions, not absolutes. The title is catchy enough to get you to read. I think the article was interesting and represented a personal preference. To make assumptions about all other photographers who have their own personal preferences about lenses and situations is overreaching a bit. For example, there are occasions, such as at a funeral, when getting in someone's face is not practical or appropriate, but getting the image is. Also, when storekeepers are dealing with customers, it's not nice to get so close as to disturb the transaction.

It's really inconsequential that Petteri brings up the downside mentioning sleazeball photographers, and what others might or might not think. You either do, or do not, fit into that category. We all have to live with our own consciousnesses and do what we consider best.

I always get as close as I can without ruing the shot or the opportunity, and sometimes, I simply have to telephoto in.

Alashi

PS: I think it's more an issue of what one might miss if they've never tried using shorter lenses for candids, forcing them to get more into the action.

Spencer said:

Sorry I don't mean to keep this thread going but I wanted to add my
2 cents. I keyed in the response below and couldn't post because of
the 150 limit. Please forgive..

I thought you might be interested in someone who is not interested
in photography. My wife.

I explained to her the premise and some of the discussion of this
thread. Then I asked her "what she would prefer someone from a long
distance taking her photo with a telephoto or someone with a small
lens shooting her from a close distance and which the photographer
may or may not catch her attention.

Her response was she would prefer the telephoto. I then asked but
what about the spying factor. Would you feel violated? She
responsed as long as it was in a public place she would not have a
problem with it. On the other hand no matter how discrete the
photographer with a short lens is behaving she would feel
uncomfortable if she knew of their presence.

My opinion is the shorter FL provides better composition and
context to candids but if one chooses to use a TP in good taste and
respects privacy then what is the big deal. The term cowards seems
a bit harsh.

Click to expand...

Robert Deutsch said:

Petteri sure opened up a can of...something!

Although he overstated the point for dramatic effect, I agree with
him to the extent that people shots taken with a long tele lens
have a voyeuristic feel, which--quite apart from whether you think
this presents an ethical problem--detracts from the sense of being
in the middle of the action. You may or may not like this effect.
My favorite people pictures are actually those taken with a very
wide-angle, such as a fisheye. This has great immediacy, but it's
obviously not well-suited to taking unobtrusive candids.

Click to expand...

Or maybe it is. You can be in the immediate presence of people, hold the camera at chest or waist level, and snap without them being aware that you're doing it. I've done that in cases that people were aware that I was present and taking pictures, but not aware that I'd snapped them at that particular moment.
--
RDKirk

'I know you're smarter than I am. But I think you're making up some of those words.' Rocky Rooster from 'Chicken Run'

You bring up a good point of subject respect. When I display images, it's with the thought of having a certain respect for the subject. If for some reason the shot was embarrassing or compromising, then I would first seek permission. Course, I attempt to steer from the "compromising" shots. The embarrassing shots are ok so long as the subject doesn't mind and if you share it with them all in the realm of having fun.

Another aspect of respect is really noticeable in certain venues such as Powwows. There are certain times during the event that photography is not allowed. To violate that tenant is to show disrespect to those in the event and their culture. It may even lead to being escorted out of the event. But, there are still many times when photography is allowed so the photographer needs to seek verification of when pictures can be taken.

Personally, I like the different views and takes both of these threads have taken. The original poster does have some valid and useful information and provided it in a way to prompt a good discussion.

Thank you Petteri for prompting this useful discussion.

Gary T

jnat said:

A final editorial note. Many mentions have been made about
respecting the subject. I hope we also think in terms of
respecting ourselves as photographers. I think something very
special can be happening when we make a photograph,

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/winterfire
http://www.goldfrost.net

Petteri Sulonen said:

Petteri Sulonen said:

I, too, thought coward was harsh until he said that use of
telephoto lenses was "morally reprehensible". I wonder what he
would call murder, ****, treason.......?

Click to expand...

I believe the terms are "crime, atrocity, monstrosity, perversion."
If you feel that **** and murder are merely reprehensible, I'm
going to have to start worrying here.

Click to expand...

Petteri,

I suppose this is why you and I are at odds over your language: you said that use of telephoto lens(es) for candids was MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE (not merely). Those were YOUR words, not mine. And why would you think that morals are at issue when one is selecting a lens? I did not choose to say that murder, ****, treason were "merely reprehensible" (your words, not mine). I put the question to try and figure out what YOU would choose to describe murder, ****, treason.

Petteri Sulonen said:

I have to ask, though, Dave: why take this so personally? I
certainly wasn't thinking of you when I wrote the piece. I just
re-read your original response to my article [

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=9156561 ], and I think it should be pretty clear that I wasn't thinking of the kinds of situations you mention; in fact, I specifically excluded some of them. In other words, while I'm sure I'd expect some people to be offended, I wouldn't expect you to be in that group.

Click to expand...

Surely you understand that anyone who is the recipient of an unjust label might be offended. I believe my morals and ethics to be unquestionable. I can only tell you that I am offended when I encounter extremists. I consider that anyone who brands people who think differently [about such an minor issue as the use of telephoto lenses] as MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE is over the edge, or extremist if you will.

I believe that extremism is one of our current world's major problems. There seems to be a detachment of reality common to extremism. Statements such as yours are extremist, IMHO. I believe that extremists should be watched carefully and cautiously. Who knows what extreme avenue they may choose next?

Let's not assign moral or ethical characteristics as the basis for selection (or use) of lenses, or camera brand, or make of automobile..... Differing opinions are healthy unless they become too extreme. There are those who think that death is a proper "punishment" for ethical or "moral" violations. And that is almost too scary to think about.

Think about it.

Dave

--

'However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.' -- Winston Churchill

DigitalDave wrote:
[snip]

DigitalDave said:

Surely you understand that anyone who is the recipient of an unjust
label might be offended. I believe my morals and ethics to be
unquestionable. I can only tell you that I am offended when I
encounter extremists. I consider that anyone who brands people who
think differently [about such an minor issue as the use of
telephoto lenses] as MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE is over the edge, or
extremist if you will.

Click to expand...

Dave -- if you really think the article was about telephoto lenses, I do suggest that you read it a third time. Many people on the thread (and this one) did parse it quite as I intended. That piece of writing had more than one level. The surface level did contain sweeping generalizations, hyperbole, exaggerations, and what have you. The very topmost level, the title, was the most sweeping of all. However, I believe that if you calmed down and read it again, you would discover the underlying levels of meaning. As I said, many people did catch them.

The trouble is that these levels of meaning are very hard to convey in "straight" language, at least without excessive wordiness. If I could express them that way, I would have; as it is, I could only suggest at them via that surface level. Some concepts I had in mind were responsibility, the image of the photographer-as-stalker, what choice actually means and how it is constrained, and the rights of individuals vis a vis each other and society. You appear to have missed all of that, and fixated on the surface level.

DigitalDave said:

I believe that extremism is one of our current world's major
problems. There seems to be a detachment of reality common to
extremism. Statements such as yours are extremist, IMHO. I
believe that extremists should be watched carefully and cautiously.
Who knows what extreme avenue they may choose next?

Let's not assign moral or ethical characteristics as the basis for
selection (or use) of lenses, or camera brand, or make of
automobile..... Differing opinions are healthy unless they become
too extreme. There are those who think that death is a proper
"punishment" for ethical or "moral" violations. And that is almost
too scary to think about.

Click to expand...

Let me reassure you, Dave: I'm not about to take an axe to someone who uses the wrong focal length for my tastes.

But again -- why so personal, Dave? Do you fly off the handle if you read an op-ed piece in the Times that you disagree with?

Petteri
--



[ http://www.prime-junta.tk ]

Dave

agree with you.

We have too many extremists in this world already and we all know what they are capable of ...

Sad thing but not much we can do about it.

--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com

RDKirk said:

Robert Deutsch said:

Petteri sure opened up a can of...something!

Although he overstated the point for dramatic effect, I agree with
him to the extent that people shots taken with a long tele lens
have a voyeuristic feel, which--quite apart from whether you think
this presents an ethical problem--detracts from the sense of being
in the middle of the action. You may or may not like this effect.
My favorite people pictures are actually those taken with a very
wide-angle, such as a fisheye. This has great immediacy, but it's
obviously not well-suited to taking unobtrusive candids.

Click to expand...

Or maybe it is. You can be in the immediate presence of people,
hold the camera at chest or waist level, and snap without them
being aware that you're doing it. I've done that in cases that
people were aware that I was present and taking pictures, but not
aware that I'd snapped them at that particular moment.
--
RDKirk
'I know you're smarter than I am. But I think you're making up
some of those words.' Rocky Rooster from 'Chicken Run'

Click to expand...

The wide field of view does mean that some people who think they're outside the shot are actually in it!

Bob

I just read a bit of the early thread, I wish I had caught it when it was still sub-150.

Anyway, I shot with a normal lens for years before getting a telephoto. I LIKE to go into a hunter-predatory mode when photographing people. I LIKE to stalk them and I'm not one bit ashamed, and will tell people that I'm stalking them.

I like to go to the social gatherings, drum circles, various parties, anywhere, and hunt like a wild animal. I get the same sort of thrill, getting what I feel is a good picture, as what ferocious animals probably feel when they are ripping into the flesh of their prey.

Anyway, this is a great topic, and one that churns inside me a bit. Even though I am a decadent lecherous misanthrope, I still have a blast taking pictures and don't have a problem approaching and talking to anyone.

Petteri Sulonen said:

Dave -- if you really think the article was about telephoto lenses,
I do suggest that you read it a third time. Many people on the
thread (and this one) did parse it quite as I intended. That piece
of writing had more than one level. The surface level did contain
sweeping generalizations, hyperbole, exaggerations, and what have
you. The very topmost level, the title, was the most sweeping of
all. However, I believe that if you calmed down and read it again,
you would discover the underlying levels of meaning. As I said,
many people did catch them.

The trouble is that these levels of meaning are very hard to convey
in "straight" language, at least without excessive wordiness. If I
could express them that way, I would have; as it is, I could only
suggest at them via that surface level. Some concepts I had in mind
were responsibility, the image of the photographer-as-stalker, what
choice actually means and how it is constrained, and the rights of
individuals vis a vis each other and society. You appear to have
missed all of that, and fixated on the surface level.

Click to expand...

Petteri, if you really don't understand what my posts are about then you are not capable of writing using the techniques you claim to have used.

You used sensational "headlines" to shock readers into reading your article which was about your personal view of photographic techniques as they relate to candid photos. You insulted their morals. Now you would have us believe that your article was of such literary merit that it should be analyzed for your deep "underlying levels of meaning". I'm sorry, Petteri, it just isn't that good; it does not deserve the time and effort you seem to think that it is worth. If you really want to communicate "responsibility, the image of the photographer-as-stalker...." then address them directly, without using tawdry techniques which insult your readers. In case you forgot, your initial post read: "I wrote up a rant about a pet peeve of mine: the use of telephoto for candid photography. I believe it's both morally reprehensible and bad photography. To find out why, read here: ...." I should have keyed on your words: rant, pet peeve, etc. and known that I was in store for a deep, philosophical treatise on the moral and ethical duties of photographers as they relate to the plight of man in the infinite stretch of time and the universe! [Yes, the previous sentence was sarcasm.] Your past inputs to the DPReview site were what led me to read your article, to my sorrow.

BTW, I really don't need to calm down. I believe that labeling extremism is a clear and present duty. I'm not upset; I am offended. I have told you several times now that I, and I believe, others, were offended by your "sweeping generalizations" and calling my morals into question.

I believe that you need to stop trying to defend an indefensible attack on decent people and apologize. You've made a mistake; acknowledge it. Realize that people do not like to have their morals questioned as a way of communicating something as mundane and relatively unimportant as photographic technique and your views of same. I believe that many of the people who use this site are not looking for literary works of art, photographic possibly, literary no. Do you think that it might be all right for you to question my morals based upon my race, my ethnic background, my religion and label it "literary technique"?

Petteri Sulonen said:

Let me reassure you, Dave: I'm not about to take an axe to someone
who uses the wrong focal length for my tastes.

Click to expand...

Based upon what I read and hear, most extemists don't have the courage to use an axe; they seek sensationalism.

Petteri Sulonen said:

But again -- why so personal, Dave? Do you fly off the handle if
you read an op-ed piece in the Times that you disagree with?

Click to expand...

Why so personal, Petteri? Indeed! Didn't you write the article; start the thread? Are you responsible for its content? Or does your 'literary license' allow you to absolve yourself of it?

I really don't think that I have flown off the handle, Petteri. As I have posted to you several times now, I get progressively more offended as you try harder to defend the 'literary techniques' you have used. Do I fly off the handle if I read an op-ed piece in the Times that I disagree with? No, I do not; I consider the source and usually silently shake my head. I rarely fall for such techniques and avoid reading sensationalistic falderal. I thought that a person of your stature would be above the use of those techniques ... my mistake.

I remain offended,
Dave

--

'However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.' -- Winston Churchill

DigitalDave wrote:
[snip]

I still think you're misreading me (whether because of my lack of skill as a writer or yours as a reader is beside the point), and no, I'm not about to apologize.

So, how about this: would you consider agreeing to disagree about this?

One thing we all are going to have to come to terms with is people who don't share our morals 100%, you know. The alternative would be... what's the term... yeah, "extremism."

Please let me know if you want to pursue this conversation after you've calmed down. Over e-mail, if you like. As it is, it's going nowhere.

Petteri
--



[ http://www.prime-junta.tk ]

DigitalDave wrote:
[snip]

...just wait 'til you see the one I'm working on now. It's titled "Boring Photographs." > :-}

Seriously, Dave -- you need to take a chill pill. There's no way a piece of bad writing on some geek's website should upset you like that.

Petteri
--



[ http://www.prime-junta.tk ]

Petteri Sulonen said:

I still think you're misreading me (whether because of my lack of
skill as a writer or yours as a reader is beside the point), and
no, I'm not about to apologize.

Click to expand...

You apparently do not understand how offensive your words are to me. And please stop your insistance that I am angry, or mad, or whatever. As far as I know you are not a qualified psychoanalyst. I am none of those; you have made me sad, very sad, and I pity you.

With no apology forthcoming from you, I see no need to continue this interchange.

Dave

--

Give to us clear vision that we may know where to stand and what to stand for--because unless we stand for something, we shall fall for anything.

• Peter Marshall