The Online Photographer

I hope you stopped and got him to sign a model release, Mike. You know how those bikers can get when they see their mug on a photo blog without permission.

PS: So bike helmets aren't mandatory in Wisconsin?

"PS: So bike helmets aren't mandatory in Wisconsin?"

I think BIKE helmets are, but motorcycle helmets aren't. Loud pipes save lives, too. Don't ask.

Mike

Wisconsin, America!

I suspect the unobtrusive camera is as much a myth as the perfect DMD. Maybe it is the photographer that makes the difference. For my sins, I am drawn to street photography (although I am pretty darn hopeless at it). It does not matter whether I use a big Canon dSLR, a small-ish Leica R7 or an even smaller Contax G2, I am always SEEN. My conclusion - it's down to self-confidence. I'm quite shy and no doubt it shows, even when I am behind the viewfinder. Compare and contrast with Bruce Gilden, confidence personified, who is not seen even when he pushes his Summicron in his subject's face. . .

Strange culture where "outlaws" are gasoline consumers right along with commuters. Nothing better to do than sit on an oil burner. Wonder what'll happen to that culture when fuel consumption stops being subsidized.

Is that a ready made (store bought) bike or one he built himself?

Nice crop, though.

"In principle, we're against mandatory helmet laws. At the same time, any motorcyclist that doesn't wear one probably doesn't have a head worth protecting."

A quote I still remember from an editorial in a motorcycle magazine when I was a rider back in the late 70s.

So, what do you reckon? Is the stealth camera a state of mind rather than something you can pick off the shelf?

He's still busted for not wearing his eye protection correctly!

MS

"Famous Last Pictures"

He's probably just wondering why that driver doesn't have both hands on the wheel. ;)

"And after spending a month as a mall Santa when I was still in high school, it's pretty much impossible for anyone to take MY picture without a certain finger in the frame."

Keith, Me Too. But hey, I was making a buck an hour and it prepared me emotionally for walking around downtown Port Jervis NY dressed as George Washington during the holiday weekend. Yep, I'd do just about anything for a buck an hour when I was 16.

I'm going to disagree with Damen, those bikes aren't cheap, and the riders are probably MDs.

That guy was probably thinking "hey, sweet, is that the M9? oh, no, it's just the GF1. Pffft."

So many condratiction, one lucky shot. Can I use those two pictures for that website about motorcycles I'm writing for?
It is indeed America.

Thanks

Robert Harshman wrote: The biker just wanted to see what he was passing so he would know if he needed to pull the clutch in and open up the throttle to make those loud biker noises that so impress the opposite gender...?

So Robert, what you're saying is that Mike drives a chick car...? :-p

Even if we think of unobtrusiveness, the size thing is not directly proportional in my opinion. Animals and people (preys and predators in general) have a very strong embedded urge to recognize the eye graphic pattern. I was studying a few days ago what would be good bird scaring shapes for crops, and the simplest is an eye painted on a plastic sheet, even better if it moves with the wind.
We are all conditioned to recognize it and pay attention to it. Probably the "eye" being on, and orientated in the same direction as, the face is part of the pattern, that's why TLRs and articulated viewfinders attract a lot less attention.

At least yer man popped up his shades to make eye contact--I thibk it made for a better picture.

Waukesha's water supply polluted? Let me guess: Degreaser/solvents from the Briggs & Stratton plant? I remember that factory from when I visited my cousins there in 1968.

We might need to start a "Don't Chimp and Drive" campaign.

The upshot for me is that the details in the file are pretty darned good, even when editing severely. I think the only thing Mike is being sneaky about is his desire to show us the quality of the file without actually saying so.

There is one infallible solution to this, for both photographer and subject. Here's a perfect example at work: "Ninja Parade Slips By Town Unnoticed Once Again" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtR2m20C2YM

On the motorcycle shot, why is the white balance so blue?

David Adam Edelstein-
good golly I sure hope he's not an MD. Most of us have enough sense to wear a helmet even where it's not mandated. Has something to do with seeing the results of helmet-less crashes up close and personal.

I'm in Guatemala traveling with a new K7 attached to a 16-50 zoom, hood always on - not exactly something I can tuck away in my man-purse. But is pretending we're not photographers the route to good candid pictures, anyway? I don't think so.

Anyone observing us is going to see someone with their hands up around their eyes, adopting a certain posture. That's the tell, not the camera we're using. So a DMD makes quality more portable, but it won't make you disappear.

I'm having only middling success with my candids (he declared modestly), but since I'm presently seeking the decisive moment in a strange culture every single day, I might be qualified to give a few pointers (in no real order):

Anticipate, pre-focus and wait. Sometimes you need to let the subject come to you.

Hide in plain sight. Look as if you`ve been there for hours. Fiddle with your camera.
People will soon stop noticing you.

Lean on something. A relaxed posture reduces subject anxiety.

Take yourself seriously. Then others will. Stand your ground.

At the same time, respect the person who really doesn`t want their picture taken.

Talk to people. Ask permission. Show your results (the beauty of a digital camera).

It`s a constant process, this blending in, because you`re always moving on to a new situation. I still get the gigglers, the wavers, the hiders and the scowlers. Either I didn't approach them properly or they weren't good subjects in the first place.

I suppose if anyone wanted to see how I was doing, they could always click my handle.

A thought and a correction:

He's probably not looking at your GF1, but your GTO. Right? Right.

Oh, and the Chicago Fair was in 1893 (planned for 1892, the 400th anniversary of Columbus' discovery.) I did some research on it, back in the day.

"Strange culture where 'outlaws' are gasoline consumers right along with commuters."

I'm not sure I follow your comment. Motorcycles, for obvious reasons, are a significantly more efficient mode of transportation that cars/truck, at least from a gasoline-usage standpoint.

Ahhhh...the days of the 400! How I wish that I could have seen the 400 battling the Milwaukee Road's Hiawatha! There was a famous curve on the latter's run with a sign that said "Slow to 90." It's a shame that America had decent high speed rail in the days of steam, but can't say the same for today.

Hello Mike,
Now that you're a bike rider be SURE to light yourself up. I used to think my helmet and blinking tail light was all I needed until a motorist ran a stop sign at dawn and saw me at the very last second. A pretty frightful feeling knowing you are about to get hit by a minivan. Now when I ride I look like the Electric Horseman.

"It occurs to me that a small part of the success of the pioneering candid photographers was that their subjects were, in general, unaware of the possibility that someone was making photographs. To most people in the 1920s and 30s, a camera was a big box operated by a professional in formal circumstances."

Mark S+,
That's very true, but I think it was more true of the 1880s and early 1890s. At that time, people who were familiar with cameras at all would have expected them to be larger stand cameras on tripods. By the mid to late 1890s, though, hand cameras were a "craze" and people must have gotten used to them pretty quickly, at least in more populated and urban areas. Although photographers using small hand cameras probably benefited from the same "he can't be that serious" response that people with point-and-shoots get now.

Another thing that was different back then is that people hadn't been conditioned by SEEING pictures of themselves. Nowadays, everyone has seen lots of unflattering random snapshots of themselves, so it's very common to point a camera at someone and get this reaction: "Oh, no! Don't take my picture! I look awful! I hate having my picture taken!" or some variant. We've all gotten that. People a century ago had seen many fewer pictures of themselves, and the pictures they did see were more likely taken more deliberately, so they hadn't yet been conditioned to have adverse responses to being photographed.

Mike