Dangerpants Photography will be selling prints, both framed and unframed, at Passiflora Market this coming Saturday, December 1st, at Annex Theatre. Proceeds will go to Annex Theatre, or will be split between Annex and the model, for solo photos. We will have digital and film cameras (including the Korona 5×7 camera) and lights set up for booth portraits.
The 5×7 format is a bit of an odd duck. It’s a surprising amount larger than 4×5, in terms of film area (and makes for a good contact print size), and it’s substantially smaller (and thus easier to carry around; cheaper to purchase) than 8×10. 8×10 is a great choice when gigapixels are required — you can blow up an 8×10 negative to billboard proportions and it’s still quite clean.
However, I have so much experience with 35mm sized lenses that I found myself getting lost thinking about which lens length in 5×7 is equivalent to what length in 35mm. I know, it’s a horrible crutch, but I instinctively know that (for instance) 85-100mm is the length of lens I want for shooting portraits in 35mm.
So, to help get it right in my head, I just sat down and calculated out the actual lens to film relationships between a few different lenses. This of course as I ponder whether I want to find more 5×7 lenses (they’re shockingly expensive for being moribund technology).
Here, then, are the numbers I just worked up, for posterity.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Today, I was photographing some buildings in downtown Seattle, when I was approached by a security guard, told photography on building property was not allowed, and asked to leave. I was set up in a public space (a Privately Owned Public Open Space), a sort of public park contained on the building grounds. The security guard was insistent even after I reminded him that I was in a public space (which Seattle Municipal Code 23.49.017 paragraph F section 2 specifies must be treated as a public park in terms of free speech and access), so I ended up packing up the 5×7 camera while an insolent petty authoritarian stood over me, suspiciously watching everything I did. This process takes about 10 minutes, so the uncomfortable stare lasted for far too long.
Seattle has a law on the books (referenced above), which allows buildings to receive certain perks (notably reduced restrictions on square footage, but presumably also tax breaks and other incentives) if they include some public amenities. In the case of the building in question, they have posted plaques that explain that it offers hill climb amenities (ie, elevators) and a public open space, accessible by elevator. The public open space is not conspicuously marked, and is indeed somewhat hard to find. If you didn’t know it was there, you would probably never suspect it or be able to find it.
Many buildings contain spaces like this (for a list, see this Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections page). The municipal code referenced above, 23.49.017, lays out in paragraph F, section 2, that the public space is effectively a public park:
Hours of Operation. The open space must be open to the general public without charge for reasonable and predictable hours, such as those for a public park, for a minimum of ten (10) hours each day of every week. Within the open space, property owners, tenants and their agents shall allow individuals to engage in activities allowed in public parks of a similar nature. Free speech activities such as hand billing, signature gathering and holding signs, all without obstructing access to the open space, or adjacent buildings or features, and without unreasonably interfering with the enjoyment of the space by others, shall be allowed. While engaged in allowed activities members of the public may not be asked to leave for any reason other than conduct that unreasonably interferes with the enjoyment of the space by others.
I’ve bolded the important part: you can do in these spaces the things you would normally be allowed to do in a park. That includes, among other things, setting up a camera and taking pictures.
After I was forced to pack up my gear, I talked to the building management. They apologized for the security guard’s behavior, and after some conversation, we agreed that photography on building property is actually allowed. Their policy is that photography of the building is not allowed, and of course the drones working in the office aren’t there to set policy, they just have to enforce what their bosses say is the case.
While we were discussing the matter, one of them found a reference to the Federal copyright law, which basically says that buildings built before 1990 have no copyright rights, and can be photographed or reproduced as desired. Buildings built after 1990 have some copyright claims, but only if photographing a part of the building which isn’t publicly-accessible. That is, if you take a picture of the outside of the building where any member of the public is allowed be, the building designers have no copyright claim against you. If you’re photographing something which requires private access, you probably need permission (and good luck getting that).
This article at nolo.com explains the rights of photographers to publicly-viewable buildings pretty clearly, under the rules in 17 U.S. Code § 102 and 17 U.S. Code § 120. The bottom line is that you can photograph the external features of a building and you’re not violating copyright law.
I did the wrong thing today. When the security guard approached me, I allowed him to control my photography, and I lost a pretty cool looking shot. I’ll never know if it was a good shot or not. I wasn’t sufficiently aware of my rights in the easily-confused situation of being on private property which is also a public space. In an era of increasing curtailment of rights, I feel pretty strongly that you should always stand for your rights. I regret now that I wasn’t completely clear in understanding my right to be where I was, doing what I was doing, and I let a petty thug with a rented badge shut me down. What, ultimately, would he have done? Called the police? I suspect they are more clear on the rights of people to be in public spaces.
Because I understand that he was doing what he thought his job was, and the building was pursuing policies which are dictated from on high (the property management company manages many buildings in Seattle, and their policies are surely set by the central office), I’m not going to file a complaint with the city, or name them publicly. If something like this happens again, however, you can rest assured that I will complain and do what little is in my power to force them to comply with the laws as they stand. I will also not allow them to stop me from doing what I was already legally doing, and next time I’ll be getting that shot.
A few weeks ago, I had planned to meet with a friend and fellow photographer to go down to Fisherman’s Wharf in the early morning. We were hoping to catch some low-level fog for some lovely atmospheric shots of fishing boats. She wanted to practice with the large-format camera, and I was happy for any excuse to pull the 5×7 out.
Unfortunately, our outing was only partly successful. We definitely got some 5×7 shots, and they’re pretty good, but the fog was resolutely absent that day. Only a day or two later, the fog was out in full force, and I managed to snap a few DSLR shots, but it’s just not the same. I didn’t have the big camera with me.
Then, this morning, I noticed the fog was pretty thick as I prepared to get breakfast. I put the breakfast dishes back in the cabinet and moved with alacrity to retrieve the camera and load it into the car along with its accessory bags and a hastily assembled tripod. Even as I watched at home, the fog seemed to be lifting slightly, so I didn’t want to delay.
I arrived at Fisherman’s Terminal and things were looking good. I didn’t dally, though, and hastily set up the camera. Even as I worked, I could see a brightening in the sky that suggested the fog was breaking up. I snapped a test-shot with a digital camera, and decided the exposure was close enough. I checked focus, glanced briefly at the framing, gave a mental “Good enough!” and slid the film holder into the camera. One click later, as the fog was melting before my eyes, and I had my one and only shot of the morning. I could only hope it was any good. The fog was completely gone a minute or two after I’d tripped the shutter.
The film has been developed (along with failed batch of prints of a different negative, after I missed some kind of contamination on my contact printing glass), and I should know tomorrow how it turned out. In the mean time, here is the test shot, which was captured with an Olympus OM-D EM-5 set to Monochrome, shooting with a Panasonic 20mm f/1.8 pancake lens. The only processing was to crop the image slightly to 5×7 proportions and scale it down.
