Following a successful appeal by the National Trust of Australia (Victoria), the famous Skipping Girl Vinegar neon sign in Abbotsford is once again illuminated.

The Skipping Girl sign was erected for Skipping Girl Vinegar in 1936. Her design was created by Jim Minogue in 1915, who won a competition to create a symbol for vinegar manufacturers Nycander & Co. Pty Ltd. He based his design on his eight-year old sister, Kitty (who later became a nun). When the factory was demolished in 1968 the sign was removed, but following a public outcry, a replica was created in 1970 and placed on the roof of the Crusader Plate factory in Abbotsford.

The sign, which is one of the most loved and recognised icons of Melbourne, has again been sitting in the dark since 2001, after it’s owners decided to pull the plug on funding and maintenance.

As reported on The Grapevine back in 2008, the National Trust was looking for $60,000 to have the sign restored.

Following generous donations from nostalgic Melbournians, the Heriage Council of Victoria, the Melbourne Heritage Restoration Fund and an electricity company, the sign was taken down in March for restoration at Delta Neon’s factory in Heidelberg.

Last Wednesday 10 June, the restored sign was illuminated for the first time.

Unfortunately I was unable to attend the big launch, but I had a good look this evening and it was great to see Little Audrey skipping again.

As an added bonus, “green electricity” is being supplied by an electricity company to keep her illuminated and minimise any negative environmental effects arising from her operation.

More information:

The Skipping Girl sign shines every night at 651-653 Victoria Street, Abbotsford.

The sponsoring electricity company has provided a website here, and you can also see pictures of the restoration at Delta Neon by Mimmo Cozzolino and the Heritage Council on Flickr.

Out of sheer curiosity (and because I can see that it might have some value for me), I have joined the must-have website of 2009 – Twitter.

For now it’s a trial, to see what it is capable of and what it can deliver for me.

Despite the popularity of Twitter, I am not aware of any of my close friends or family posting to the website (yet). Then again, I don’t know anyone who uses RSS either, but I have seen that RSS has massive benefits in increasing website traffic and exposing my work to the right people. So perhaps Twitter might do the same?

Aside from Flickr, I have avoided social networking websites until now. I especially resisted the urge to join MySpace in 2007 and Facebook in 2008, even though everyone else had an account. For me, a website has to be useful and engaging. And since I couldn’t do much more on Facebook than I could do in real life (or via other means on the internet), I decided there was no real value in me joining up.

Twitter has been much-talked about in the Australian media this year, even on the ABC. Curiously, much of the chatter (or should I say twittering?) has been about how no-one really understands what the purpose of the website is (or how it must be used by twits – boom-tish!) And it is true that Twitter’s functionality is very limited because each post is constrained to 140 characters.

Despite this, I want to see whether I can use Twitter to draw a new audience to my blog, and my photography. I have already linked both websites to my Twitter account, which will be updated when these two sites are. But it also will allow me to post short messages that might otherwise be too trivial to bother writing a blog post about.

For instance, if I was travelling and wanted to let everyone know I’d arrived safely, I could easily do so without the need to write a long email or send an SMS. No-one in their right mind would bother posting such trivial information on their blog website. With Twitter, the information could be dispersed easily to my Twitter page from a mobile phone, without me even needing proper internet access. This could be very useful. It would also make it much cheaper than sending text messages to mobile phones.

What also attracts me to Twitter is that it is open.

I resent the fact that I am forced to actively participate  in Facebook et al. Even if I just want to see my friends photos, chat, et cetera, I am not only forced to open an account but start my own site. Twitter doesn’t require others to join to view the posts, and that is how the internet should be. After all, isn’t the sharing of knowledge and information the whole purpose of the internet? Whilst we all share some things privately over the internet (email, private photo albums etc), I see no point in a “lock out” system except to increase revenue to the social networking websites that operate such a system.

If you want to access my Twitter page, go to twitter.com/adamdimech.

This evening, I was taking a walk at the newly-opened Harbour Town Shopping Centre in Melbourne’s Docklands, when I happened to meet the Premier of Victoria, Mr. John Brumby!

Mr. Brumby was taking a walk with a few of his staffers, presumably to see one of the city’s newest developments. I happened to be walking in the opposite direction, scouting for possible photo opportunities.

Suddenly I spotted a familiar figure in the corner of my eye. Recognising the face instantly, I hurried over and introduced myself to the Premier.

As would be expected, Mr. Brumby was very friendly. We shook hands, he asked where I was from, what I did for a living and we had a brief chat.

One of his ‘minders’ asked if I’d like my photo taken with the Premier, and of course I jumped at the chance. Unfortunately, in the dim evening light, my camera’s autofocus decided to centre on a Christmas tree rather than the Premier, and so my photo is a bit blurred.

On this occasion, I chose not to make any comment to the Premier about the performance of his government. I have been pleased with some of his policies, and unimpressed with others.

In any case, on such an occasion, it woudn’t have made a difference if the Premier were Liberal, National or Green instead of Labor. The pleasure was in meeting such a senior politican and I was happy to have a “celebrity moment” rather than make a political point.

I am happy enough to save the political commentary for the ballot box.

See also: My 2004 doorstop with Bronwyn Pike!

Last week I was taking evening pictures when I was abruptly confronted by an angry man who objected to my photographing his business. The matter escalated quickly into an incident involving the police and I was held captive by him for 50 minutes.

A previous and unrelated photo I took of a petrol station in 2007.

Suffice to say, this frightening incident highlighted the paranoia that certain members of the public seem to harbour about photographers and the art of photography in general. There’s hardly an enthusiastic photographer in Melbourne who hasn’t had an “incident” with a security guard, Connex staff member or an angry member of the public who’s decided to take matters into their own hands.

As regular readers of The Grapevine would appreciate, I am a very keen photographer. I go shooting several times a week without fail and am especially interested in urban landscape photography, macro photography and interior spaces. What I try to do is capture the scenes and landscapes that define my Australian experience, be they a grand Victorian-era building in the city that I admire or a local supermarket.

There are laws that govern when people can photograph. For instance, the photography of any Commonwealth Department of Defence land is prohibited. Also the photography of places where someone would have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” such as a toilet or change room is illegal, as is any attempt to photograph genitalia (including upskirting) for very obvious reasons. But with a few other minor exceptions, almost anything else goes.

A photograph of Knox City Shopping Centre.

In my case, I was not interested in photographing people but a landscape. The petrol station in question was architecturally interesting. Set against a beautiful dusk sky, it would have made a beautiful photograph. To take my photo I’d stepped a metre onto the petrol station land, but before I could take a single shot I was stopped by an aggressive man who claimed he owned the petrol station.

I immediately stepped back onto the footpath so as to be on Crown land. From here I attempted to again take photos but was stopped even after explaining what I was up to. The man demanded that I either identify myself, surrender my camera or at least show him my photos, all of which I refused to do. Frustrated that I wouldn’t co-operate, he ran inside and called the police. Twice. (Yes, he called the cops because I was taking photos, armed with a camera!).

In Australia, neither an individual nor a property are immune from “unauthorised” photography if the photos are taken from Crown land or adjoining private land with the landowner’s consent (this includes railway stations).

Photography is free for a good reason. Without free photography the visual press could never document current affairs. Just imagine asking the permission of every attendee at a rally, for instance. Ironically, that very right means that the petrol station proprietor could lawfully record footage from his CCTV system without requiring the permission if his customers. So it works both ways.

Several High Court rulings such as Victoria Park Racing vs. Taylor (1937), ABC vs. Lenah (2001) and Her Majesty vs. Sotheren (2001) have reinforced the legal right to photograph from public land. In the last case, Justice Dowd commented “A person, in our society, does not have a right not to be photographed”.

This picture of the city loop shot from Flagstaff station was very popular on Flickr.

This lack of a right not to be photographed can be extrapolated to buildings and landscapes. As long as I can see it from Crown land, and my conduct could not be construed as “stalking”, then I am free to take as many pictures as I like.

Since the dusk had turned to nightfall, I gave up on my petrol station photo. I packed up my belongings and went to my car only to have it blockaded by the proprietor whilst he awaited the arrival of the police. (Yes, he rang 000). He complained to me that my behaviour was “rude”, that photographing the premises was “against the law” and that I was breaching “security”.

The “security” argument is a popular one, even occasionally with the police. Back in 2005 I was asked by the Western Australian Police to cease taking a photo of a railway station despite them admitting that I was not breaking any law. Countless times I have been asked by security guards to stop taking photos in shopping centres for “security reasons” (although since I am on private land they have that right). Interestingly enough, no-one can ever actually articulate what the “security reasons” are.

The obvious two are terrorism or some other pre-meditated crime. Logic would dictate that if I was up to no good, surely I’d choose not use an enormous camera with a giant lens mounted atop a huge tripod on the corner of a major intersection during peak hour, making absolutely no attempt to disguise my identity or activities. When I put this idea to the petrol station attendant, he was indifferent to the logic and remained adamant that the police would arrest me.

Parliament underground railway station is a good example of early 1980′s architecture.

As for the “rudeness” allegation, that it is a tough call. There is no Manners Act, just morality and human decency. Should I have walked into the petrol station and asked permission first? Should I have walked away when confronted, rather than argue the point and waste an hour with an ill-informed lunatic?

For me, the response will depend on the location and who’s doing the asking. My “golden rule” of photography is that I will never break the law to get a photo. That means no trespassing, no photographing prohibited locations and no arguing with police. If a private citizen confronts me with a threat to destroy my camera and violent demeanour to match, I won’t stand there arguing the finer points of the law. The Crimes Act won’t spare me a broken camera or a black eye.

In this instance, the man was angry, ill-educated and forthright but he was not aggressive. Indeed, he brought one of his staff and his Mum out to also blockade my car (much to the frustration of the petrol station customers who only had one staff member left on site to serve them). I made the decision that my conduct was lawful, peaceful and not at all interfering with the lawful activities of others and therefore I’d stand my ground.

So, was it worth it?

Yes and no. After 50 minutes, the police came and I was vindicated. I had not acted illegally and the police officer had no hesitation in letting me go. As I left, I heard him chastising the petrol station owner for barricading my vehicle. On the other hand, I missed the photo that I wanted to take and I had to spend 50 minutes arguing with a unreasonable man, his Mum and a member of his staff whilst they blockaded my car.

Perhaps the three big lessons to arise form this episode are these; 1. Familiarise yourself with photographic law and your personal rights if you’re going to go out shooting, 2. Know when to argue and when to walk away and 3. Try to be discreet when photographing internal spaces or “contentious” locations.

As for the wider community, I just hope that they come to better understand what the law states in relation to recreational and commercial photography. Andrew Nemeth’s “Photo Rights” web page is very informative in this regard.

Most photographers – myself included – want nothing more than to capture beautiful images of the world around us. There is no malice intended, no devious intentions, just harmless artistic expression. And if we’re approached politely, we’ll be more than pleased to share our work with you. I know I am!

A marigold up close.

Further reading: Andrew Nemeth’s “Photo Rights” web page details photographic law in New South Wales, most of which is applicable in other states of Australia. Jon Reid’s “Photography is not a Crime” blog post provides good documentation about the harassment that many photographers experience from members of the public.

Today is my birthday, so I decided to pay my parents a visit late this afternoon.

As per usual I took my camera like any keen photographer would do. One can never be certain of when something photogenic will appear. In times past, I’ve experienced the disappointment of seeing something remarkable and not having my camera there to record it for posterity.

So it was very fortunate that I took my camera today, because I’d hardly set foot in my parents’ garden when I spotted something very interesting indeed. Resting upon a native hibiscus (Hibiscus geranioides) was a tiny solitary Blue-Banded Bee who’d settled-in for the night.

Blue-Banded Bees (Amegilla cingulata) are relatively rare Australian native bees seldom noticed in suburban gardens. Last year I spotted my first ever Blue-Banded Bee, but I’ve seen many since and have developed a keen interest in these beautiful insects.

Because of their rapid flight patterns, I’ve never been able to take a decent photograph of a Blue-Banded Bee. And for all the bees I’d spotted in gardens, I had never seen one resting, as they’re reported to do. Now the situation has changed on both fronts; I’ve seen one resting and have the macro photograph to prove it!

Photographing the Blue-Banded Bee was not easy. The bee was only 1 centimetre long, and the plant that he was sitting on was prone to movement in the breeze. I had to resort to carefully staking the plant in place to prevent its movement, mindful not to disturb the resting bee.

Next I had to set-up my tripod. The plant was positioned at the end of a narrow sideway and at an awkward height, so I had to cramp myself into a tiny corner and contort my body in a very peculiar manner to see the bee through the viewfinder of the camera.

Finally, I had to focus the bee as best I could. Focussing with a macro lens is a precise art with no room for error. It was getting late and the light levels were quite low. But I knew reducing the shutter speed would lead to blurred photos. To compensate, reducing the aperture would reduce the risk of blur, but also reduce the depth-of-focus. Additionally I really wanted to shoot at 100 ISO to keep noise to a minimum. What a fussy photographer I am!

Thankfully, the bee was a patient subject and allowed me to spend 20 minutes taking 89 photographs until I was convinced that I had something worthwhile. And of those 89 shots, 3 were sharply focussed. The magic formulae were an exposure of 1/50 sec, ISO 100 and f/2.8 and 4 seconds at ISO 100 and f/11 respectively for the two pictures shown here. No-one said macro photography was easy, and I am still learning the art.

But I am really happy with the results. After almost a year, I finally have my much -coveted Blue-Banded Bee photos. What a great birthday present!