Hi Shel, Actually, I heard it was a covert as covert can be. Weegee apparently used an IR filter over his flash (opaque to the natural eye) and IR film, so it was more than likely noone knew a photo had been taken. Here's a link to some info http://photonotes.org/articles/ir-myths/#dark - great site, albeit Canon oriented.
:) Ryan From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > First, Weegee used flash, and these kids in the movie theater knew that > their > photo was taken. It's possible, considering the size and obvious nature > of > Weegee's equipment, that the photo was agreed to or even planned > beforehand, or > that these kids, seeing the camera, decided to play towards it. Of > course, > that's just an assumption, a guess. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 2:33 AM Subject: Re: The morality of taking a photograph (Long and if you've got time to pass) :) > Hi Ryan ... > > There was a point in one of my comments to a response where I was about > to bring > up Weegee, but chose to go in a different direction. However, since you > brought > up Weegee and his style of photography, I'd like to suggest that the > photo you > pointed us to is not as voyeuristic as you make it seem, and that has to > do with > several factors. > > First, Weegee used flash, and these kids in the movie theater knew that > their > photo was taken. It's possible, considering the size and obvious nature > of > Weegee's equipment, that the photo was agreed to or even planned > beforehand, or > that these kids, seeing the camera, decided to play towards it. Of > course, > that's just an assumption, a guess. > > In addition, at the time the photo was taken, people generally were less > up > tight about being photographed. There was less fear in the world, > people's > motives weren't automatically suspect as they are so often today, and > being > photographed was still a relatively new and exciting proposition for > many > people, especially young people. Speaking for myself, in those days, > when Dad > got out the camera, it was an event, and we all wanted to participate. > > IMO, a more voyeuristic Weegee shot is this one: > http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/images/weegee.html > > Please forgive the poor quality as it was taken from a small book, and > one hand > was needed to hold open the pages while the other held the camera. > > Here we have an almost naked (fat) guy sleeping outside his apartment of > the > fire escape. He never knew the photo was taken (again, assuming it > wasn't > posed), and, to some eyes, it may be quite unflattering. Not for me, > for it > brings up nice memories of NYC in the late 1940's and early 1950's, and > the > times I spent on the fire escape outside my grandparent's apartment. A > lot of > people spent time on the fire escapes during the hot summer months. > > kind regards, > > shel > > Ryan Lee wrote: > > > > I think the next most relevant photo (to Shel's) to bring up for the sake of > > discussion would be the infamous one Weegee did of the two lovers in the > > palace theatre making out. > > http://www.1earthmedia.com/photography/weegee.html That one's as voyeuristic > > as it gets, with the IR flash filter technique. > > > >
