phone camera less of a threat

jonny pallisey

jonny pallisey

Suspended / Banned
Messages
17
Name
jonny
Edit My Images
Yes
why isit that phone cameras are seen as less of a threat in public ? is that an obvious question? last weekend i saw a guy with what looked like a SLR with big lens on my local pier and folk were looking at him big time, he had a creepy vibe well his eyes were flashing everywhere but if hed had a phone cam id not have seen him in the crowd !. Not ten feet away someone was snapping with a phone nobody looked up.I like taking photos outdoors so i can get best images
 
Last edited:
jonny pallisey said:
last weekend i saw a guy with what looked like a SLR with big lens on my local pier and folk were looking at him big time, he had a creepy vibe well his eyes were flashing everywhere but if hed had a phone cam id not have seen him in the crowd !.
Click to expand...
This is the conundrum, and we’ll see it played out in the answers in this thread.
Some relatively rare instances of photographers being singled out and publicly vilified has led to a lot of photographers (by nature a solitary hobby, so attracts introverts) being overly self conscious when carrying their camera.
This in turn leads to them looking ‘suspicious’. It’s a self fulfilling prophecy.

When I’m out and about with a camera, I never get ‘funny looks’ or draw attention. In conversation with people Ive definitely seen the raised eyebrows of photographer = deviant though.

And the clear takeaway is that self confidence changes other peoples behaviour, but we’ll never stamp out the societal discourse that photographer = odd, because like dirty raincoats and thick rimmed glasses, the media / entertainment requires stereotypes and unfortunately that’s where we are.

And if you really want to perv, use a good quality phone cam, no one looks twice at you.
 
Because of the near univerality of mobile phones.

Yea you’ll get people on here saying ‘well I would use one’ but outside the amateur photographer bubble, for most people it’s the only camera they ever need and people taking photos or selfies on the street doesn’t raise an eyebrow. Conventional cameras, outside tourist areas, aren’t exactly commonplace on the street so more likely to stand out especially if the user is acting suspiciously and without discretion - like in your example - and maybe even more so if the individual is on their own.
 
I think it's the psychological factor of the sheer prevalence of mobile phones normalising them for public photography.

A lot of people have never had a traditional form factor camera in their hands and there seems to be an assumption stemming from ignorance that every lens is capable of super telephoto performance and is an immediate privacy invader.

Obviously this isn't the case but ignorance and apathy create some peculiar 'realities' in peoples' minds.
 
Phil V said:
When I’m out and about with a camera, I never get ‘funny looks’ or draw attention.
Click to expand...

Same. The majority of interactions I've had with strangers are fellow photographers asking what lens I'm using.

That being said, most of my photography in public is focused on the people I'm with or if I'm solo, I'm looking for interesting architecture and scenes. If a person becomes an interesting part of that scene it's usually organic and unintentional so I've never had any flak whatsoever.
 
If I'm just taking casual photographs in public, I use a tiny Olympus MFT which seems to be a compromise between a phone camera and a full-sized DSLR. However, if I'm going out with the express purpose of taking photographs, then I'll take my D850. This very often has my 60-600mm Sigma on the front and the only comments I get is about the physical size and how much it would have cost.
I'm not worried about people thinking I'm weird, but I do worry about people thinking they'd like my camera for themselves and don't really care how they get it. This being said, thieves are more likely to try to snatch someone's mobile phone--especially if they are taking a selfie and not looking at potential threats--than to try to pull 3.5kg of Nikon and Sigma from around someone's neck
 
I don't think that much has changed. Henri Cartier-Bresson used a Leica for his "Decisive Moment" street photography, not because it was the best tool for the job but because it was small and inconspicuous, at a time when all "serious" photographers used large plate cameras and when 35mm cameras produced such terrible image quality that they were regarded as little more than expensive toys.

No doubt he would have used a mobile phone if they had existed at that time.
 
Phil V said:
This is the conundrum, and we’ll see it played out in the answers in this thread.
Some relatively rare instances of photographers being singled out and publicly vilified has led to a lot of photographers (by nature a solitary hobby, so attracts introverts) being overly self conscious when carrying their camera.
This in turn leads to them looking ‘suspicious’. It’s a self fulfilling prophecy.

When I’m out and about with a camera, I never get ‘funny looks’ or draw attention. In conversation with people Ive definitely seen the raised eyebrows of photographer = deviant though.

And the clear takeaway is that self confidence changes other peoples behaviour, but we’ll never stamp out the societal discourse that photographer = odd, because like dirty raincoats and thick rimmed glasses, the media / entertainment requires stereotypes and unfortunately that’s where we are.

And if you really want to perv, use a good quality phone cam, no one looks twice at you.
Click to expand...

I would agree that confidence is the most important factor.
Generally the public are unable to distinguish between basic and professional cameras. However they do seem to distinguish between professional and amateur photographers.
A few years ago I was taking some shots of a local event with a small canon G3 digital camera. And was asked several times who was I taking the pictures for, they seemed surprised when I said they were for my own interest., but they would be able to see them on Facebook.
I think that some how professionals look "official" even when off duty. At another local event the police were clearing the public off the road as a band approached. They said nothing to me or a couple of other professional photographers. I suppose they expected us to know how to scoot out of the way in time. However a number of the public had far more impressive looking kit than mine.
I have no idea how a professional is supposed to look.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
When I’m out and about with a camera, I never get ‘funny looks’ or draw attention.
Click to expand...
Likewise never had a problem. The most common thing that happens is being stopped by people asking me to take their pic.
 
Garry Edwards said:
I don't think that much has changed. Henri Cartier-Bresson used a Leica for his "Decisive Moment" street photography, not because it was the best tool for the job but because it was small and inconspicuous, at a time when all "serious" photographers used large plate cameras and when 35mm cameras produced such terrible image quality that they were regarded as little more than expensive toys.

No doubt he would have used a mobile phone if they had existed at that time.
Click to expand...

Regards HC-B; if he was around now the style of photography that made him famous could not be done. He would have to obtain written permission from any person who could be recognised from the photo and the owners of any buildings that are identifiable. Street photography in France is a no-no.
 
Pop a hi-viz vest on and act like you're meant to be there, never had a problem.

GC
 
Act creepy or like a weirdo and then people will stare and approach you like you are one - regardless of camera.

shooting in public and feeling self-conscious? then act like you're supposed to be there
 
I’m reminded of when I used to shoot rallying.

The ‘trick’ for escaping the spectator pens and finding somewhere interesting to shoot from was simply to walk the stage like you ‘belonged’. I even got away with this whilst having kids in tow*.

The only time I ever had problems was when I took my cousin, and he was an idiot and ended up actually being chased by some ‘crowd control Marshals’. He was too daft to look like he knew what he was doing.

*just for clarity I’ve attended hundreds of motor racing events, and I’m well aware of how and where to keep safe and keep my kids in check.
 
Phil V said:
I’m reminded of when I used to shoot rallying.

The ‘trick’ for escaping the spectator pens and finding somewhere interesting to shoot from was simply to walk the stage like you ‘belonged’. I even got away with this whilst having kids in tow*.

The only time I ever had problems was when I took my cousin, and he was an idiot and ended up actually being chased by some ‘crowd control Marshals’. He was too daft to look like he knew what he was doing.

*just for clarity I’ve attended hundreds of motor racing events, and I’m well aware of how and where to keep safe and keep my kids in check.
Click to expand...
I seem to have this effect as well. I've photographed so many bands, comedians etc. in an "Official" capacity that even when I'm snapping as a punter folks assume I'm "Official"...must be the way I carry myself or something!
 
Graham W said:
I seem to have this effect as well. I've photographed so many bands, comedians etc. in an "Official" capacity that even when I'm snapping as a punter folks assume I'm "Official"...must be the way I carry myself or something!
Click to expand...
I remember visiting a friend in hospital some years ago, wearing my striped suit and top coat.
I approached the Ward Receptionist and told her who I wanted to see and she promptly asked me if I needed the surgical notes! :eek:
 
Garry Edwards said:
I don't think that much has changed. Henri Cartier-Bresson used a Leica for his "Decisive Moment" street photography, not because it was the best tool for the job but because it was small and inconspicuous, at a time when all "serious" photographers used large plate cameras and when 35mm cameras produced such terrible image quality that they were regarded as little more than expensive toys.

No doubt he would have used a mobile phone if they had existed at that time.
Click to expand...
I was thinking the same about it's not really changed. When I opened this topic I was reminded of a time back in the mid 2000s when I'd bought a Fuji 4900z bridge camera and went to a local Renault garage to get some pictures of the Avantime, it wasn't there but a sales person said I could go inside the showroom to take pictures of another one. I went inside and this person came storming over to me asking what I was doing who turned out to be the manager and just had this knee jerk reaction to seeing the camera. Even though it was a car designed for its looks he just couldn't seem to understand that I just wanted to take some pictures and that kneejerk reaction to the camera is something I've come across from time to time over the years.
 
gcgraphs said:
Pop a hi-viz vest on and act like you're meant to be there, never had a problem.

GC
Click to expand...
I have two hi Viz vests with photographer across the back, though I don't know what else they might think I would use a camera for. One jacket is a full winterized storm proof job. Like builders use. I also have a surveyors type helmet with no peak, ideal for camera use, also full protection rigger boots. I must look quite the part


(I used to shoot quite a lot construction sites they won't let you on, unless you are geared up, and attend a safety briefing before signing in.)
 
Last edited:
I'm very conscious of this. I've never been threatened as such but I have been called a P**** when stood under a tree with the camera pointed up and obviously taking pictures of the blossoms and I was once asked "Are you from the council?"

I've found that teenage boys can unsurprisingly be the most agressive and the accusing looks are almost exclusively from middle aged women.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top