35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
Common sense anyone?
Krosya
Konicaze
While I agree with this - I do have a thought. From what I understand those guys dont shoot for profit, while every news report is technically for profit and would require person's consent to be photographed or at least published/aired, correct?
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
As soon as I saw the term "upskirt", I stopped reading. REAL photographers do NOT do "upskirt", perverts do, so this is a slanted piece of garbage...
David Murphy
Veteran
I wonder how WBZ would react if they received a list of guidelines from the police as what is and what is not acceptable to photograph or video tape in public. Perhaps WBZ should also be monitored.
stevebrot
Established
I can't say that I am particularly comfortable with the behavior I saw in the video and I can't say that people who would complain about being photographed on the street are entirely wrong or hypersensitive. A few things to consider:
Steve
(...seldom has the nerve to do hard-core street, but has been known to seek out people "in costume" at area street fairs and such...)
- The best street photographers actively engage their subjects
- Focusing on particular body parts will likely get you in trouble. Can you imagine what would happen if some guy parked himself on a bench and aimed his camera at every passing MALE crotch that walked by? ...but its art?
- Photographing children on the street or in a playground will likely get you in trouble. Repeat 200 times and remember what happens to pedophiles in prison.
- People are fascinating, particularly in crowds. Remember, however, that you are not capturing images of a flock of birds or a herd of wildebeest. If you are shooting a crowd, do your best to look like a tourist or a serious photojournalist. By all means do not position yourself as a nervous hobbiest.
- Do not be furtive with your camera. Act like a thief with stolen images and you will be treated like a thief.
- Do not exploit street people or the homeless and how well they illustrate "the human condition". If you want to photograph them, take the risk to engage them and by all means compensate them for their time and for consenting to be your model.
- Shooting as a group might be OK if you are taking a class, but outside that setting it is a little like the pack of wolves working the flock.
- Deal lightly with people who confront you and realize that the tables may easily be turned by some guy with an iPhone and some skill with video editing. Hello pervert on the 6:00 news. (I am reminded of a street shot taken by a friend of mine where one of the people in the shot has a Contax G2 pointed right at him being shot from the hip.
I wonder who got the better photo!)
How many times as you go about your way in public places is your image captured without your explicit permission in the name of "security"? How many times have people in a control room somewhere been treated to images of you adjusting your clothing/body part or "scratching" a certain spot when you thought you were out of sight? Consider the cameras you don't see before getting upset at the guy with the camera that you do see.
Steve
(...seldom has the nerve to do hard-core street, but has been known to seek out people "in costume" at area street fairs and such...)
Last edited:
PatrickONeill
Well-known
I wouldn't worry what a single local news crew covered on street photography. people have memories like moths and will forget it in a day.
however, if it becomes a trend...
however, if it becomes a trend...
saxshooter
Well-known
that's the problem. I am beginning to see a trend where photographers more and more are viewed with suspicion.
would these guys have drawn as much attention if they did what they did with iPhones?
and to the other poster, I think HCB rarely engaged his subjects. But those were different times.
hteasley
Pupil
I'm disappointed because I have shot in Downtown Crossing previously, and enjoyed it a lot. Had two shots from DX in a show, in fact. But I was alone, and tried to be stealthy about it.
These guys seemed to be a lot less subtle, and I'm disappointed that the waters may be polluted, as it were, if I wanted to go shoot there again anytime soon.
The show shots from DX:
These guys seemed to be a lot less subtle, and I'm disappointed that the waters may be polluted, as it were, if I wanted to go shoot there again anytime soon.
The show shots from DX:
peterm1
Veteran
Its very easy to be misjudged if you are a street photogrpaher.
Of course it all depends on context too. I always feel more comfortable making photos in the street if there are other photographers around doing the same especially if the locale is used to tourists.
And of course it depends, as others have said,on how its done. Being anything other than casual and friendly is a negative. And as some have pointed out, bending over and giving the appearance of shooting upskirts etc is begging for trouble.
Most people dont take too much notice of me most of the time. Generally if they do look in my direction I adopt one of two body languages - a quick friendly smile then drop the eyes and turn back to concentrating on the camera. Or just look past them as if I think they got in the way of the image I was really going for. Most times they then appear to feel apologetic and quickly try to get out of the way.
In short if you look and act inoffensive it will take you a long way. Not always. Last weekend I was leaning against a wall trying to make a shot of a group sitting at an outdoors cafe about 20 metres away. A lady who was not in the group (she was in another group behind that one and was clearly partly obscured in any event suddenly turned, fired her camera and flash in my direction then quickly turned back to her companions.) By the expression on her face she was clearly annoyed. But that was the beginning and end of the affair and I went about my photography. This kind of stuff happens from time to time but its the exception.
I have come to express the worst of the press. Too often they are vultures who will happily distort facts and tell half truths if it will sell a paper. Anyone who hands them the opportunity to do so by deliberately being provocative wants their head read and is doing the rest of us a great disservice.
Of course it all depends on context too. I always feel more comfortable making photos in the street if there are other photographers around doing the same especially if the locale is used to tourists.
And of course it depends, as others have said,on how its done. Being anything other than casual and friendly is a negative. And as some have pointed out, bending over and giving the appearance of shooting upskirts etc is begging for trouble.
Most people dont take too much notice of me most of the time. Generally if they do look in my direction I adopt one of two body languages - a quick friendly smile then drop the eyes and turn back to concentrating on the camera. Or just look past them as if I think they got in the way of the image I was really going for. Most times they then appear to feel apologetic and quickly try to get out of the way.
In short if you look and act inoffensive it will take you a long way. Not always. Last weekend I was leaning against a wall trying to make a shot of a group sitting at an outdoors cafe about 20 metres away. A lady who was not in the group (she was in another group behind that one and was clearly partly obscured in any event suddenly turned, fired her camera and flash in my direction then quickly turned back to her companions.) By the expression on her face she was clearly annoyed. But that was the beginning and end of the affair and I went about my photography. This kind of stuff happens from time to time but its the exception.
I have come to express the worst of the press. Too often they are vultures who will happily distort facts and tell half truths if it will sell a paper. Anyone who hands them the opportunity to do so by deliberately being provocative wants their head read and is doing the rest of us a great disservice.
kzim56
Karl Zimmerman
The news department probably decided the gist of the story in their morning meeting, before the reporter even walked out the door.
Just a few years ago, this might have turned as a feature. "Artists take the pulse of the city at one of Boston's busiest crossroads, all new at six!!" But there's little room for softer stories these days in local TV news. They take longer to produce and require too much thought.
And the surest way to make yourself look like a creep or worse is to ask that they turn the camera off. That will make air every time.
Just a few years ago, this might have turned as a feature. "Artists take the pulse of the city at one of Boston's busiest crossroads, all new at six!!" But there's little room for softer stories these days in local TV news. They take longer to produce and require too much thought.
And the surest way to make yourself look like a creep or worse is to ask that they turn the camera off. That will make air every time.
stevebrot
Established
rdeleskie
Well-known
I watched the piece and read the response. The news piece looks like the typical kind of sensationalist fear mongering that unfortunately passes for "news" these days. What we have here are a bunch of older guys out with their cameras, being kind of nerdy, annoying and intrusive. Is that worthy of the 6 o'clock news? Really? Is it even that "suspicious?" Believe me, law enforcement officials WISH pedophiles and pornographers were that blatant. And for the record, anyone who thinks that guy was taking an "upskirt picture" clearly doesn't know what the term means (it's a rather specific fetish, and no, it is not a fetish of mine).
Most of my favourite photographs probably classify as street: I have little to no interest in looking at scenic views or pictures of buildings, or shots of peoples' cats or whatever. What is unique and powerful about the genre is its ability to capture private moments in public spaces: a moment of personal reflection, an unguarded look or gesture that occurs in full view of other people. Or the way it can place people in a certain relationship with their environment that causes the viewer to reconsider both. It's different than reportage or social documentary, and so requires a different approach. If you stop all of your subjects and ask them if you can take their picture, you may get a street portrait (a perfectly legitimate genre), but you don't get what I described above.
Undertaking this requires not only aesthetic sensitivity, but sensitivity to where you are, the society you live in, and the context in which you are taking pictures. A bulletin was recently sent around by my daughter's school warning of a suspicious individual spotted taking photos of the kids during recess. The individual was described as "a young Asian woman, in her early twenties, wearing a trench coat." Right. Draw your own conclusions, but I guarantee you she was an art school student, taking blurry shots of kids through a fence or something like that. Her naivety was astonishing: she clearly wasn't sensitive to prevailing social mores regarding photographing children, or wasn't thinking about how the context would definite her activity, or she just didn't care. Not very smart, in any case.
So too with the "weird" men in the news report. Showing up at the same location, week after week, with your posse of fellow nerd/hobbyist/photographers, blatantly working the crowd, focusing on people's legs or whatever, displays a remarkable lack of basic understanding about the social milieu in which one is working. Stupid, yes. Likely to produce great photographs? Unlikely IMO. Unethical? Come on. Photographing someone dying instead of trying to help them is unethical: these guys are simply annoying. Weird? Well, I thought the newscaster was the real weirdo in the whole thing, so there you go.
Most of my favourite photographs probably classify as street: I have little to no interest in looking at scenic views or pictures of buildings, or shots of peoples' cats or whatever. What is unique and powerful about the genre is its ability to capture private moments in public spaces: a moment of personal reflection, an unguarded look or gesture that occurs in full view of other people. Or the way it can place people in a certain relationship with their environment that causes the viewer to reconsider both. It's different than reportage or social documentary, and so requires a different approach. If you stop all of your subjects and ask them if you can take their picture, you may get a street portrait (a perfectly legitimate genre), but you don't get what I described above.
Undertaking this requires not only aesthetic sensitivity, but sensitivity to where you are, the society you live in, and the context in which you are taking pictures. A bulletin was recently sent around by my daughter's school warning of a suspicious individual spotted taking photos of the kids during recess. The individual was described as "a young Asian woman, in her early twenties, wearing a trench coat." Right. Draw your own conclusions, but I guarantee you she was an art school student, taking blurry shots of kids through a fence or something like that. Her naivety was astonishing: she clearly wasn't sensitive to prevailing social mores regarding photographing children, or wasn't thinking about how the context would definite her activity, or she just didn't care. Not very smart, in any case.
So too with the "weird" men in the news report. Showing up at the same location, week after week, with your posse of fellow nerd/hobbyist/photographers, blatantly working the crowd, focusing on people's legs or whatever, displays a remarkable lack of basic understanding about the social milieu in which one is working. Stupid, yes. Likely to produce great photographs? Unlikely IMO. Unethical? Come on. Photographing someone dying instead of trying to help them is unethical: these guys are simply annoying. Weird? Well, I thought the newscaster was the real weirdo in the whole thing, so there you go.
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I'm a bit torn between not liking the attention and suspicion being focused on street photography in this report but also not really feeling that comfortable with the way that these guys are going about it. They operate as a group/pack for protection I suspect ... put one of them out there on his own and he may not be quite so bold!
Either way it seems like a two bit report on some two bit photographers to me and will probably get the attention it deserves ... which is not much!
I blame HCB.
Either way it seems like a two bit report on some two bit photographers to me and will probably get the attention it deserves ... which is not much!
I blame HCB.
Last edited:
Two points
One:
I don't think HCB would behave any way in the fashion those guys are. Bending down and pointing at bare legs is borderline. He only used his wife's and that's a classic shot.
Two:
To me, anywhere there's a pack of photogs I consider the area or event played out, unless I'm assigned to it. I'll move along since I'd rather shoot alone. That seems more to the style of HCB and others, although I do like Winograds images.
Three:
Consider it a FAIL since they got observed and videotaped and put on the news.
One:
I don't think HCB would behave any way in the fashion those guys are. Bending down and pointing at bare legs is borderline. He only used his wife's and that's a classic shot.
Two:
To me, anywhere there's a pack of photogs I consider the area or event played out, unless I'm assigned to it. I'll move along since I'd rather shoot alone. That seems more to the style of HCB and others, although I do like Winograds images.
Three:
Consider it a FAIL since they got observed and videotaped and put on the news.
Brian Legge
Veteran
A photographer here shot an excellent series on hands. Are feet so much more salacious that they shouldn't be featured in the same way?
Granted, I haven't watched the piece but some of the responses here are throwing me off a bit.
Granted, I haven't watched the piece but some of the responses here are throwing me off a bit.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Je n'aime pas Boston.
Don't like the town, don't like its sports teams, don't like its attitude, don't like its drivers, and now, don't like its news media. I'll take NYC or Philly over Boston any day.
Don't like the town, don't like its sports teams, don't like its attitude, don't like its drivers, and now, don't like its news media. I'll take NYC or Philly over Boston any day.
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
So your thinking is that every time you see reporters chasing down someone they want to interview (like Scott Peterson, Drew Peterson, or Casey Anthony) they get Release Forms signed by them...I don't think so...
Harry S.
Well-known
There was a video of these guys on Youtube for a couple of years that was always the brunt of a lot of street photography jokes.
I recently posted it to an unrelated flickr discussion and it has since been made private.
At the end of the day, these guys are drawing negative attention to themselves with their creepyness. I think the famous street photographers often skirted the line here but always balanced it out with a certain wit and charm that these fellows are lacking.
I recently posted it to an unrelated flickr discussion and it has since been made private.
At the end of the day, these guys are drawing negative attention to themselves with their creepyness. I think the famous street photographers often skirted the line here but always balanced it out with a certain wit and charm that these fellows are lacking.
gekopaca
French photographer
The two main questions are :
1) How can you go on Gizmodo.com, a such ridiculous and bad done site?
It's a demagogic and poor edited site, with sensational and superficial (non) information. No interest. Really. No culture. No knowledge of art, artistic practise, and history of art.
The world isn't a reader's digest magazine; it's more subtile and complex.
2) What are the real, deep, main reasons who makes photographers angry to see others photographers working? I let answer yourself.
You haven't to be agree, or not. It's a style, a point of view and, most of all, a genuine artistic practice
In reading the response of the photographer, it's clear that he's lucid, he has mastered his practise. This is clearly an artistic approach, referenced, sensitive, controlled, one way to apprehend the world and connect with him, like it or not.
1) How can you go on Gizmodo.com, a such ridiculous and bad done site?
It's a demagogic and poor edited site, with sensational and superficial (non) information. No interest. Really. No culture. No knowledge of art, artistic practise, and history of art.
The world isn't a reader's digest magazine; it's more subtile and complex.
2) What are the real, deep, main reasons who makes photographers angry to see others photographers working? I let answer yourself.
You haven't to be agree, or not. It's a style, a point of view and, most of all, a genuine artistic practice
In reading the response of the photographer, it's clear that he's lucid, he has mastered his practise. This is clearly an artistic approach, referenced, sensitive, controlled, one way to apprehend the world and connect with him, like it or not.
peterm1
Veteran
While from what I can see these folks are uber creepy. I have to say that I am also put off (to a lesser much extent thankfully) by street photographers like Joel Meyerowitz who can be very very "in your face" (literally so give his occasional predelictionfor shoving his camera into your face within just centimetres when on the trail of a photo.) At least he is not creepy as such - just pushy and a sometimes PITA.
I understand how people feel - I am an experienced photographer and I do not like having a camera shoved in my face. (So for my part I often shoot with a longer lens to put a bit of personal space between me and the subject. This helps as it does not invade peoples space. For those of you who think this is cheating let me say its actually harder due to the diminished depth of field.)
As for these dudes, if photographers were actually bending over to photograph my wife's ass as she walked beside me in the street, they may just end up with a face full of size 10 blucher boot - rightof privacy or no right of privacy.
But sadly there are always going to be a...holes out there who do not get it.
I understand how people feel - I am an experienced photographer and I do not like having a camera shoved in my face. (So for my part I often shoot with a longer lens to put a bit of personal space between me and the subject. This helps as it does not invade peoples space. For those of you who think this is cheating let me say its actually harder due to the diminished depth of field.)
As for these dudes, if photographers were actually bending over to photograph my wife's ass as she walked beside me in the street, they may just end up with a face full of size 10 blucher boot - rightof privacy or no right of privacy.
But sadly there are always going to be a...holes out there who do not get it.
Last edited: