I'm pretty much with you, Godfrey, although it often depends on who I'm with. I've been with a couple three list members where it's just been the two of us, and with one fellow I was able to photograph pretty much unfettered. We'd do our own thing, come together every now and then, and then go off as individuals. Even when we were in close proximity to one another, for the most part, I felt we were "separate." People didn't see us as a couple of photogs merrily snapping away. Heck, for most of the shots we made those days, most people didn't see us at all ;-))
OTOH, with another person I felt that I was out with a conjoined twin, even though we photographed different subjects and spent a fair amount of time physically apart. There was an entirely different dynamic ... Going out with a group and wandering about like a "photographic posse" looking for pix has never worked well for me. While I enjoyed the first NorCal meeting at Muir Woods several years ago, and I very much enjoyed the people I met, there were just too many people doing too many things for me to concentrate on photography, and to do my own thing. It was more of a social gathering. Plus, having a large group of people with cameras wandering about in an area causes more people to notice the group and individual photogs, and that can often upset the dynamic between the individual photographer and his or her subject. Maybe it's not as big a deal for those who use longer lenses, but for those who like to shoot closer in, the less people wandering around the area with cameras the better - especially cameras with big lenses or which make a lot of noise, or photogs that are carrying a lot of gear, or wearing photographer vests, or even talking amongst themselves. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Godfrey DiGiorgi > On Oct 26, 2005, at 7:23 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Seeing these pics from the SF outing has led me to a thought. I > > believe it's easier to take pictures of people in public places > > when you're accompanied by at least one other photographer. To > > oversimplify and exaggerate: Being part of a group taking photos > > means you're on a photo outing or you're doing this for some > > particular reason, therefore you're not just a pervert:-). > > Seriously, at least as part of a group you have the psychological > > support of others being intrusive right along with you. Perhaps it > > wouldn't work that way for everyone. But I find that it works that > > way for me. > > I guess I'm one of the folks for which it goes the other way. When > I'm with a group of photographers, I'm more interested in interacting > with them which kills my concentration on seeing photographs. I enjoy > the interaction, but I don't get many pictures that do it for me. > > When I'm alone, I interact with my subject matter, with my senses, > and get a lot more useful work done. For instance, last Friday I > spent the afternoon and evening wandering in the neighborhood of the > de Young Museum. A non-photographer friend joined me for a couple of > hours, my boyfriend joined me for dinner. We talked about this and > that, and I made 130 exposures from when I arrived to when I went > home. I worked alone most of the time, neither has much to say about > photography. There are probably twice as many, or more, photos I like > from that set than from the Norcal PDML gathering set, even though I > made more than twice as many exposures that Saturday. > > Godfrey
