Shel,
Since I am brought up in this thread let me respond.
There is a difference in terms of the amount of camouflaging of the
camera. When I reskin a camera it is rather visible. The amount of
area covered by the reskinning is major. I am going from black
(inconspicuous) to rather obvious if people paid attention. And I have
found a few women do notice... :-) Now if I can reskin my *ist D!
I can ask that if someone covers a red dot are they being rather
'obnoxious' in the sense of how many people - not photographers, since
we can sense when a camera is upon us - will actually notice the red dot
as opposed to someone pointing an all black camera at them.
The covering of a logo is more understandable... How many photographers
who cover non-black portions of their camera also make it a point to
wear only black? How many subjects will notice a red dot on a camera as
opposed to a bright-colored shirt or jacket?
Just another point of view, not that it makes a difference to me,
César
Panama City, Florida
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Oh, c'mon Paul ... people customize their cars and I know you don't find
that pretentious or abhorrent. In the fifties and sixties mild customizing
was quite acceptable, and that hasn't changed to this day. Rodders would
remove extraneous chrome trim, nose and deck their cars, maybe French the
headlights. Not a whole lot different than a small square of black tape
over a bright red logo. So what ...
Is it just when a Leica user tapes his or her camera that you find the
practice so obnoxious? A lot of Leica users found the red dot to be so
"abhorrent" that Leica came out with a black dot. Would you find the user
of a black dot to be pretentious? Would you find the user of a black tape
Olympus to be as pretentious? Is a taped Leica any more obnoxious than
Cesar's snakeskin covered LX - a camera that has found champions on this
list and which has caused Cesar to receive a few good natured jibes - but I
don't hear anyone (at least not openly) even suggesting the Cesar's
pretentious or obnoxious. Do you find Cesar to be pretentious and
obnoxious, and his choice of camera covering to be abhorrent?
Long live gaffer tape!
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Paul Stenquist
I agree. A camera is certainly not less noticeable because the logo is
covered with tape. I would guess a big-rep pro who is not getting free
cameras might cover the logo in order not to provide free advertising
for the maker. But an uncelebrated user -- even a highly skilled user
-- is of no real promotional value to the manufacturer. Among some
Leica users the black-out practice seems to be a pretension of sorts.
It's a way of calling attention to the value of their camera. That
alone is enough to make the practice abhorrent to me. But that's just
me.
