Not so serious thread : surveillance still camera in the movie

[MFstooges]

Whenever there's a scene involving taking photo of someone secretly by law enforcement or private investigator, most of the time the actors use 35mm with tele lens that looks like F4.5 or F3.5 and often without motordrive.
I assume renting a F2.8 lens for a day wouldn't be so expensive considering the movie budget.
So why? Any ex cop or private investigator or movie folks here?

 

[ic-racer]

Are you suggesting to portray taking pictures in secret with this???

 

[Chuck1]

Very inconspicuous

 

[MFstooges]

Are you suggesting to portray taking pictures in secret with this???

View attachment 372991

That will be the better choice.

I assume you're familiar with this kind of surveillance --> Scene

 

[Mamiya_Repair]

Whenever there's a scene involving taking photo of someone secretly by law enforcement or private investigator, most of the time the actors use 35mm with tele lens that looks like F4.5 or F3.5 and often without motordrive.
I assume renting a F2.8 lens for a day wouldn't be so expensive considering the movie budget.
So why? Any ex cop or private investigator or movie folks here?

A long time ago in what seems like another life, I worked for a Federal gov agency in the photography department. On surveillance, we used Topcon (and later Canon) cameras with modest telephoto/zoom lenses of maximum aperture of f/3.5. This kept the size down to something manageable. Most of the photography was done during daylight hours so we did not need the fast lenses as they would be stopped down anyway in use. For night time we used high speed Kodak 2475 recording film.

Later in life when I owned a camera store in Las Vegas, Nevada, I supplied most of the prop cameras and flashbulbs used in the movie "Casino". In one scene of two FBI agents doing surveillance, I set them up with a Nikon F and a nondescript lens, probably a zoom (this was around 30 years ago so I don't remember exactly) of f/3.5 - f4.5. And this was not an inaccurate portrayal.

 

[MFstooges]

A long time ago in what seems like another life, I worked for a Federal gov agency in the photography department. On surveillance, we used Topcon (and later Canon) cameras with modest telephoto/zoom lenses of maximum aperture of f/3.5. This kept the size down to something manageable. Most of the photography was done during daylight hours so we did not need the fast lenses as they would be stopped down anyway in use. For night time we used high speed Kodak 2475 recording film.

Later in life when I owned a camera store in Las Vegas, Nevada, I supplied most of the prop cameras and flashbulbs used in the movie "Casino". In one scene of two FBI agents doing surveillance, I set them up with a Nikon F and a nondescript lens, probably a zoom (this was around 30 years ago so I don't remember exactly) of f/3.5 - f4.5. And this was not an inaccurate portrayal.

I see. So the ease of handling takes priority. I thought since most take pictures from car/room that they will go with largest aperture just in case insufficient light.

 

[eli griggs]

I see. So the ease of handling takes priority. I thought since most take pictures from car/room that they will go with largest aperture just in case insufficient light.

Think about it.

Most L.E.O. officers that might use cameras likely have just a basic understanding of cameras, lenses, film performance, metering, or being discrete in public.

For best use of quality, fast lenses, experienced photographers with enough knowledge of what is possible would be any department's best option but the expense, and budgeting for full time photographers is in most cases, not ever an option.

It would be interesting to compare analog to digital usage in today's run of the mill police departments and learn if analog photography is still the most activetly used photographic approach to L.E.O.s day to day surveillance.

 

[Niglyn]

There was a 70's (or 80's) UK TV series following the Belgium resistance in WW2, called Secret Army. It was parodied by a series called Allo Allo.

The head Nazi, called Kessler then went on to feature in a sequel (called Kessler), where he had not been captured by the allies & was on the run.

The Nazi hunter was taking covert photos using a Zenit Photo Sniper. First thing was the view through the lens, was certainly noy a Photo sniper.

Second thing for anyone who has ever used a photo sniper will know the pre-charged aperture slamming closed makes the most god-awful noise and any Nazi on the run would here it from miles away )

Needless to say the photo sniper noise was dubbed to the sound of Swiss-clockwork.

 

[loccdor]

Don't know about long range surveillance, but the popular choice for recording crime scenes was medium format with a flash.

 

[MattKing]

It would be interesting to compare analog to digital usage in today's run of the mill police departments and learn if analog photography is still the most activetly used photographic approach to L.E.O.s day to day surveillance.

As far as I can tell, no police forces around here (in Canada?) are using film any more.
If they come upon any third party evidence that is film based, I expect that they have to hire independent contractors to assist them with it.

 

[MFstooges]

There was a 70's (or 80's) UK TV series following the Belgium resistance in WW2, called Secret Army. It was parodied by a series called Allo Allo.

The head Nazi, called Kessler then went on to feature in a sequel (called Kessler), where he had not been captured by the allies & was on the run.

The Nazi hunter was taking covert photos using a Zenit Photo Sniper. First thing was the view through the lens, was certainly noy a Photo sniper.

Second thing for anyone who has ever used a photo sniper will know the pre-charged aperture slamming closed makes the most god-awful noise and any Nazi on the run would here it from miles away )

Needless to say the photo sniper noise was dubbed to the sound of Swiss-clockwork.

Are you referring to that gunstock Zenit setup? That thing today could probably get photographer arrested in some part of the world

 

[Chuck1]

The novoflex shoulder stock too

 

[abruzzi]

The only cameras the Sheriff department I work with have in inventory are a few 15 year old digital point-and-shoots. Most officers just use their phone.

 

[Kino]

As far as I can tell, no police forces around here (in Canada?) are using film any more.
If they come upon any third party evidence that is film based, I expect that they have to hire independent contractors to assist them with it.

I was called at work a few years ago by a local police department that needed a roll of film developed in some case.

Found a lab in a nearby town that was familiar with the required "chain of custody" procedures and they took it there.

The lab had been in business for over 35 years, but shut down shortly before I retired. Bet it would be much harder to find a similar lab today...

 

[Rrrgcy]

IME, from huge agency and offices, nobody cared to consider or note the f# - nobody was into cameras enough to contemplate that - usually always a Zoom was necessary and included w the film kit (always in a soft manufacture camera bag, w flash and a prime and batteries, and instruction manual!). Signed out on your inventory from the photo unit, and sometimes turned in if demanded due to others demand. Sometimes numerous signed out to the supervisor and you informally signed the kit out from him/her. To the OP, no one rented anything - run w what you got. These were always middle-road Nikon. Not most expensive not least. Ask for X number of rolls of film from the photo unit, film is disposable stuff never signed for. Kits were passed about signed out as needed for an operation. For a specialty static surveillance need, could checkout a super long lens, as in a three foot long hard case and w a tripod. Once did from a condo unit on about the 15th floor shooting across the intracoastal far away. Film sent away out of state for processing by govt or contracted photo lab, on return all negatives and photos maintained in evidence but each photo had to be initialed by photographer on back. Negs, original and copies of each picture maintained for discovery. Don’t ask which is the “original”. - ok, it’s simply the one you chose and rest are copies of the same picture.

The objective was to photograph persons to compose up to at least 50% of the image. It’s funny how one could actually get such better photos. For overt work and searches etc., primes usually used. Call out the photo unit “pros” to do heavier search and studio work as needed for special evidence or significant case. Evidence recovery unit, specialized, used Mamiya 645’s. No longer of course once went digital. By around 2002, all went digital, including using video. Then maybe five years later, acceptably via cellphone w transfer of imaging to storage. Was actually issued a point-and-shoot film Nikon from graduation for “get-by” use in the field as an emergency. Signed out to use NVGs (or if on property inventory w you) for night work but no film/camera work unless there was sufficient light. Results from attempts always crap so everyone quickly learned - no one took night surv photos. Many tried.

Was never challenged in court about surveillance photos, no matter their quality, the official records (paper or files) went w them and were always stipulated to by defense. For video street surveillance work, there wasn’t any policy how-to, at least early on. Same w digital images from cellphone but since all was documented and in discovery about the process and not cropping/playing w it digitally all flowed through fine. Standardization, policy and documentation protect the LEO. However, I’m sure some cases led to slaughter on cross about something to do with the imaging.

By end, most all just used phones - and could share imaging contemporaneously across all surveillance members for intel. Nightmare for team leader to collect up all images taken by everyone who participated. Rarely saw anyone w a camera kit for surveillance anymore at end. Dude w a camera on his lap plain started to look funny.

Interestingly, did one case involving (overnight) theft of surveillance (digital) cameras from a surveillance car but that’s another story… (ok, guy had an earlier un-associated murder and the case got him located and in the can, thankfully).

and interestingly, only a few years back learned from two coworkers each from different major cities who I’ve worked w for many years who admitted were commercial photographers once prior. You guys are out there…

 

[MFstooges]

The objective was to photograph persons to compose up to at least 50% of the image. It’s funny how one could actually get such better photos. For overt work and searches etc., primes usually used.

Is it safe to assume 300mm or longer for covert ops?

 

[Rrrgcy]

You posed a very good question at front.
Covert operations are pretty much nothing more than standard street surveillance work, pedestrian and vehicle, when the need arose, depending on the case, covering meetings and activities, and all investigators did it for their work irrespective of photographic talent when necessary. Sometimes a static perch where an apt is rented or stationary vehicle-borne. I’ve only once observed a long(er) lens like that, I think zooms went to around 200 at most. Nobody is going to be walking outside with a long lens unless context allows the tourist look.

Of course not a method but the obvious are heavily tinted car windows which in parts of the U.S. are fairly omnipresent. Back to your question on F# (btw I do remember film was always color and always 400) and about car side window tint - brace your elbows and arms and lean into or against window, regulate breath and press shutter… and wait.. and wait… okay finally “Kler-dunk” the shot taken. (Not with moving subjects.) When you finally got that package of photographs back, it was like Christmas morning gone terrible; shamefully the photos still went into evidence.

The advent of REALLY tiny secreted body worn cameras arguably eliminated most of the need for surv photos for meetings with undercovers or sources (aside from follow-ons, takeaways). And with the advent of great hi def video - half the time it was just easier to pull top-notch intimate security video from public areas of hotels and restaurants (in fact, almost anywhere today there’ll be video to pull) w little risk. At trial, defense would criticize if you didn’t’ pull video from every place possible; defense come up w alibis and objections to your work as incomplete and argue you missed exculpatory evidence if you hadn’t. So there‘s a tremendous reliance on video these days.

IMO, Surveillance photography had become a less emphasized and used skill set. As I earlier mentioned, by the end of my time, if you showed up at a pre-op briefing and someone had a real camera and lens set, it was an outlier.

I just don’t recall which lenses and F#’s. These were very good lenses well beyond my price range, that I remember, but just not how best or fast that I can recall 30+ yrs ago.