Re: Art 21: Ann Hamilton

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lisa Reddig" <lisa@julianrichards.com>
>
> There have been a number of well known photographers who have done sneeky
> pictures like that. (My favorite Harry Callahan to name one) The
dillemma
> as always with these kinds of things is the moral one. I know legally
> people in public can be photographed legally. But I would feel paranoid
> doing it secretly. Too much stress.

I just picked up from the post office a polaroid back I bought that I plan
to convert to pinhole camera and use 665 film in it. This camera has a
side-wise pointing lens at a distance of about 100mm from the film with a
mirror at 45 degrees in between
http://members.rogers.com/penate/cameras/polback.jpg , first I thought to
make it more wide angle, something like 50mm, but then I thought I could
leave it as it is (just replace de glass lens with a pinhole) and use for
candid/spy shots. I was surpriced to open my mail and find this thread!

I am also "reluctant" to photograph people in public w/o their consent. I
have done it sometimes with a pinhole/TLR, I look 90 degrees from the people
but point the lens to them, this "technique" would be too obvious for some
people being photographed as the front of the camera with the viewing lens
is aimed to them. I could probably install a "prop" lens in front of the
above polaroid back and the pinhole at the side, that would make it very
effective for the purpose.

> Kind of like stealing a grape at the
> fruit stand, it doen't really matter, but it stresses me out because of
the
> minute possibility of being caught.

I call than "sampling" the grapes. Samplers and non samplers pay for that
cost, as merchants make provisions for certain percentage of the grapes to
never reach the scale/cash register. BTW, I'd recommend not to do it,
hygiene being one of the reasons (but this is a topic for a different list
:-).

Guillermo
Received on Fri Jan 25 13:34:17 2002