Re: red dots and thieves

[Alistair_Stewart_at_LC4001@ccmailgw.mcgawpark.baxter.com]

- --IMA.Boundary.312603078
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: cc:Mail note part

     Hi Patrick,
     
     As a confirmed dot-taper (and incidentally, name-eraser/taper), I'm in 
     complete agreement with you about the brand snobbery, or rather lack 
     thereof, amongst thieves.
     
     I do it because when shooting under marginal conditions, it is one 
     less way of signalling that you're a serious photographer...The M body 
     becomes just an old fashioned black camera (held together) with tape.
     
     I think if I was better at this kind of work (pick your hero{ine}, 
     Eugene Richards, Mary Ellen Mark, etc), and worked on the human 
     sensitivity/relationship thing, I would be less concerned. I remember 
     one little MEM story, I think it was about her husband filming in 
     Seattle, where the subject suddenly reacted against being filmed. As a 
     disarming technique, the camera operator ripped the film out and gave 
     it to the subject, thus rebuilding the trust.
     
     
     For me 'marginal' is a lone white guy in crack houses...
     
     I don't have any fantasy about the value of Leicas. Value is what 
     someone else is prepared to pay. Call Don Chatterton/Tamarkin etc., to 
     ask about value. My fantasies are reserved for more organic things...

     Best of light,

Alistair


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: red dots and thieves
Author:  pgs@thillana.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick Sobalvarro) at Internet
Date:    7/30/97 5:57 PM


Every time I read about people covering the red dots on their cameras 
to avoid attracting the attention of thieves, I find it a little 
bizarre.  The snatch-and-run thieves I've encountered or heard about 
do not seem to be brand chauvinists -- usually they're not very good 
at fine distinctions like Leica vs. other brands.  One sees Leicas so 
infrequently that it seems unlikely it'd be worth a thief's time to 
learn about this particular obscure brand, especially because stolen 
examples are not worth much more than top-end Canon or Nikon hardware.
     
Of course, my experiences with snatch-and-run thieves have mostly been 
in North Africa and the Americas.  I haven't encountered them in other 
parts of the world.  Perhaps snatch-and-run thieves in other parts of 
the world are better educated?  Maybe the whole cover-the-red-dot- 
with-black-tape thing is a relic of an earlier era when Leica sold more 
cameras?  Or possibly it's just inspired by a fantasy of the special 
value of Leicas as compared to other brands?
- --IMA.Boundary.312603078
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; name="RFC822 message headers"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: cc:Mail note part
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="RFC822 message headers"

Received: from ns2.baxter.com (159.198.1.38) by ccmailgw.mcgawpark.baxter.com
with SMTP
  (IMA Internet Exchange 2.1 Enterprise) id 00165C0F; Wed, 30 Jul 97 17:28:33
- -0500
Received: from mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [192.147.236.1]) by
ns2.baxter.com (8.8.0/8.8.0) with ESMTP id RAA23889 for <stewara@baxter.com>;
Wed, 30 Jul 1997 17:35:37 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us id AA14218; Wed, 30 Jul 97 14:55:15 -0700
Received: by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us id AA14212; Wed, 30 Jul 97 14:55:11 -0700
Received: by thillana.lcs.mit.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3)
	id AA21842; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 17:57:02 -0400
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 17:57:02 -0400
From: pgs@thillana.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick Sobalvarro)
Message-Id: <9707302157.AA21842@thillana.lcs.mit.edu>
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: red dots and thieves
Sender: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
- --IMA.Boundary.312603078--