alistair.o
Well-known
Respect? You either have it or you don't - you have it alone and in company.
Photography (street or otherwaise to an extent) is not for being concerned about respect or lack of respect. You are a recorder of the time and place in which you live and move. If you wish to strike up a 'relationship' prior to photographing then do it - if you don't then don't do it.
As for the homeless and the infirm etc., What? Are you going to sanitise your place and time for propriety? I hope not.
Al
Photography (street or otherwaise to an extent) is not for being concerned about respect or lack of respect. You are a recorder of the time and place in which you live and move. If you wish to strike up a 'relationship' prior to photographing then do it - if you don't then don't do it.
As for the homeless and the infirm etc., What? Are you going to sanitise your place and time for propriety? I hope not.
Al
cameosis
word? up!
pity and respect are two entirely different things.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
We disagree.
I don't exactly know what all of that meant, but I'll leave it alone.
cameosis
word? up!
certainly not by committing crimes.
rudeness is bad -- violence is worse.
alistair.o
Well-known
We disagree.
I don't exactly know what all of that meant, but I'll leave it alone.
Gabriel, You've lost me - how do we disagree? What has the picture of Diana to do with it?
As for the part you are leaving alone - good enough.
Added after posting: It troubles me that I said 'good enough' as it is absolutely not good. The arguement rages back and forth about photographing the beggars and homeless etc If we all say No to doing that then who will draw them to our attention? Please don't start the 'it's all been done before' argument (not necessarily you Gabriel but anyone)
Thanks
Al
Last edited:
Ken Smith
Why yes Ma'am - it folds
Respect is oft a many tiered definition - from bowing before one's Monarchy, saluting your Commander in Chief, saying Ma'am or Sir to your elders, and so on. How you summed it up pretty much fits a definition of "respect" in my book.
Which is why there are a lot of spoiled "grown children" with bad manners - the rod was spared and the child was allowed to do as he/she wants. Adults are no longer children whom one might have to discipline through time outs, sitting in a corner, or a good old fashion spanking. With adults, sometimes it takes a 2X4 to get someone's attention - literally.
Last edited:
peterm1
Veteran
I am a little shocked that some people do not seem to understand what "respect for others means"
Here is a straight quote from the online dictionary (the bits that are most relevant are in bold text.)
"1. To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.
2. To avoid violation of or interference with: respect the speed limit.
3. To relate or refer to; concern.n.
4. A feeling of appreciative, often deferential regard; esteem. See Synonyms at regard.
5. The state of being regarded with honor or esteem.
6. Willingness to show consideration or appreciation.4. respects
7. Polite expressions of consideration or deference: pay one's respects.
In short its about empathy and being polite. Thats not so tough, is it?
Here is a straight quote from the online dictionary (the bits that are most relevant are in bold text.)
"1. To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.
2. To avoid violation of or interference with: respect the speed limit.
3. To relate or refer to; concern.n.
4. A feeling of appreciative, often deferential regard; esteem. See Synonyms at regard.
5. The state of being regarded with honor or esteem.
6. Willingness to show consideration or appreciation.4. respects
7. Polite expressions of consideration or deference: pay one's respects.
In short its about empathy and being polite. Thats not so tough, is it?
Jason Sprenger
Well-known
It is rude
It is rude
Anything uninvited is rude. The very nature of candid photography is rude. It's a wonder to me that people, especially photographers, fail to understand this part of what it is.
However, short of being a nuisance or creating a disturbance, uninvited photography is only on the order of passing gas while riding the subway.
And frankly, like passing gas, rude photography can be necessary to let out what is otherwise is held back.
Now what constitutes a disturbance or nuisance? To my mind, impeding someone, getting closer than other people in the same environment, interfering with what the subject or those around them are doing, etc. And like with anyone acting disorderly, it's appropriate for such individuals to be controlled when they choose not to control themselves.
Aside from the proprieties, when the photographer affects the subject, the photograph is no longer candid anyway; it's as spontaneous as a posed photo taken in a studio. For as in a studio, people are reacting to being photographed and not behaving as they would otherwise.
But don't get me wrong, it can work. For instance, I got a good one as the subjects laughed at me dressed in street shoes and pressed pants while the surf washed-in about my knees. The shoes were never the same, but I got the shot, and that moment was all there was going to be of it.
So I say go ahead, get your shot, and being willing to accept the consequences of doing so. Better shooters than me have risked far more than a pair of shoes for their art.
It is rude
Anything uninvited is rude. The very nature of candid photography is rude. It's a wonder to me that people, especially photographers, fail to understand this part of what it is.
However, short of being a nuisance or creating a disturbance, uninvited photography is only on the order of passing gas while riding the subway.
And frankly, like passing gas, rude photography can be necessary to let out what is otherwise is held back.
Now what constitutes a disturbance or nuisance? To my mind, impeding someone, getting closer than other people in the same environment, interfering with what the subject or those around them are doing, etc. And like with anyone acting disorderly, it's appropriate for such individuals to be controlled when they choose not to control themselves.
Aside from the proprieties, when the photographer affects the subject, the photograph is no longer candid anyway; it's as spontaneous as a posed photo taken in a studio. For as in a studio, people are reacting to being photographed and not behaving as they would otherwise.
But don't get me wrong, it can work. For instance, I got a good one as the subjects laughed at me dressed in street shoes and pressed pants while the surf washed-in about my knees. The shoes were never the same, but I got the shot, and that moment was all there was going to be of it.
So I say go ahead, get your shot, and being willing to accept the consequences of doing so. Better shooters than me have risked far more than a pair of shoes for their art.
cameosis
word? up!
i fail to see how someone can be able to equate brutality or physical punishment with teaching a child to be well behaved. the second part of the sentence is absolute nonsense, i'm sorry to say. there are far better means to let children know their limits, but it takes a refined mind to understand that.
advocating (domestic) violence as sound/normal leads to the situation that people who were conditioned in this manner become either those that
a) take said potographs
b) beat up said photographers
thankfully, locking both up and throwing away the keys solves this problem most of the time.
Bill58
Native Texan
In Korea-everybody (except little kids) hates to be photographed. Even the images of ordinary citizens are blurred and their voices are disguised on TV! This makes it hard to be a streetshooter.
Nikkor AIS
Nikkor AIS
I love reading threads like this. The varied opinions of other photographers out there never cease to amaze me. It seems that every time one of these threads comes up, Bruce Gilden comes up, and then we have someone chime in that if they tried his type of photography in (name of their city), they wouldn’t last very long.
I want to say that I am a HUGE fan of Bruce’s work and his body of work speaks for itself. And while I have never personally met the man, I will continue to have his back when others are talking **** about him.
The fact that I often like to work up close and personal on the street is one reason that I respect Bruce’s work so much. Unless you walk a mile in getting close to strangers on the street, you will never know.
And the fact is, no one approach is right for every person or every situation, every time.
If others choose not to photograph the homeless or work in close and whatever, I think that's fine. To each their own.
However, to think that because you don't take pictures of the homeless or work up close doing candids, you are somehow taking the higher road, okay sure.
You’re better than me
. Want to compare portfolios?
My favourite is when I read, "I didn’t take the picture because of respect.” ??????????????????
WTF
So does that mean the act of taking every photo is an act of disrespect?
Hmmm.
I want to relate a story that a close friend of mine who happens to be exceptional photographer (check out www.kevenfedirco.com) told me the other day.
He was taking shots of one of his buddies jamming (playing music) in the basement.
Keven told me that at one point, his buddy made a rude comment to him that rubbed my pal the wrong way. Instead of getting pissed off or leaving, he decided to teach his pal a little lesson.
This is when the story gets interesting. Keven said he made a point in that photo session not to make them look good like he had on several other occasions while photographing the band. He purposely took photos of them (and I quote) "not to show them in the best light, but to show them as the middle-aged overweight has-beens that they are.”
And so he brought in a set a prints the next week and his friend got the point.
To me, the story really illustrates the power of the photographer over what the final image looks like.
And if you want to make someone look bad, it's not that hard to do.
Or to put it another way, it's not what you shoot but how you do it.
For me, when I am street shooting, I trust my instincts and try and get the best pictures I can. I have no problem walking right up to strangers and taking their picture. And I will/have used long glass on my Nikons to get the shot as well.
I've never understood how using longer glass makes a street photo any less .... honest.
In fact, as others have pointed out, by moving in close there is no doudt that the photographer changes the picture.
And just for the record, I feel no obligation to give anyone my card. I don't even have cards.
And what I do with my pictures is my own business.
If you’re on a public street, like it or not you’re fair game in my books.
About once a week, I am told by someone to delete a photo. Which I never do. If they are pissed off, I try and diffuse the situation and deescalate it as best I can.
As I’ve said before, street shooting isn’t for everyone. It can be dangerous and there are no rules. Where I live, photographers have the right to photograph people in public places.
And while other photographers certainly have the right to express their opinions, I see no reason to change my approach or my way of working because of their issues or their moral standards.
And I would like to know how I'm supposed to take pictures of someone without sticking a camera in their face.
As far as personal space, I have been known to stick my Nikkor 8 mm 2.8 fish-eye in people's faces and I see no reason to stop.
The thing about street photography is you either get it or you don't. There is no hiding and if you're not good with people or you have hang-ups or insecurities, you stay on the computer and comment about other people's work instead of going out and street shooting yourself.
Taken yesterday.
28 1.9 ASPH Leica M9
Nikkor 8 mm 2.8 AIS on Nikon D3
I want to say that I am a HUGE fan of Bruce’s work and his body of work speaks for itself. And while I have never personally met the man, I will continue to have his back when others are talking **** about him.
The fact that I often like to work up close and personal on the street is one reason that I respect Bruce’s work so much. Unless you walk a mile in getting close to strangers on the street, you will never know.
And the fact is, no one approach is right for every person or every situation, every time.
If others choose not to photograph the homeless or work in close and whatever, I think that's fine. To each their own.
However, to think that because you don't take pictures of the homeless or work up close doing candids, you are somehow taking the higher road, okay sure.
You’re better than me
. Want to compare portfolios? My favourite is when I read, "I didn’t take the picture because of respect.” ??????????????????
WTF
So does that mean the act of taking every photo is an act of disrespect?
Hmmm.
I want to relate a story that a close friend of mine who happens to be exceptional photographer (check out www.kevenfedirco.com) told me the other day.
He was taking shots of one of his buddies jamming (playing music) in the basement.
Keven told me that at one point, his buddy made a rude comment to him that rubbed my pal the wrong way. Instead of getting pissed off or leaving, he decided to teach his pal a little lesson.
This is when the story gets interesting. Keven said he made a point in that photo session not to make them look good like he had on several other occasions while photographing the band. He purposely took photos of them (and I quote) "not to show them in the best light, but to show them as the middle-aged overweight has-beens that they are.”
And so he brought in a set a prints the next week and his friend got the point.
To me, the story really illustrates the power of the photographer over what the final image looks like.
And if you want to make someone look bad, it's not that hard to do.
Or to put it another way, it's not what you shoot but how you do it.
For me, when I am street shooting, I trust my instincts and try and get the best pictures I can. I have no problem walking right up to strangers and taking their picture. And I will/have used long glass on my Nikons to get the shot as well.
I've never understood how using longer glass makes a street photo any less .... honest.
In fact, as others have pointed out, by moving in close there is no doudt that the photographer changes the picture.
And just for the record, I feel no obligation to give anyone my card. I don't even have cards.
And what I do with my pictures is my own business.
If you’re on a public street, like it or not you’re fair game in my books.
About once a week, I am told by someone to delete a photo. Which I never do. If they are pissed off, I try and diffuse the situation and deescalate it as best I can.
As I’ve said before, street shooting isn’t for everyone. It can be dangerous and there are no rules. Where I live, photographers have the right to photograph people in public places.
And while other photographers certainly have the right to express their opinions, I see no reason to change my approach or my way of working because of their issues or their moral standards.
And I would like to know how I'm supposed to take pictures of someone without sticking a camera in their face.
As far as personal space, I have been known to stick my Nikkor 8 mm 2.8 fish-eye in people's faces and I see no reason to stop.
The thing about street photography is you either get it or you don't. There is no hiding and if you're not good with people or you have hang-ups or insecurities, you stay on the computer and comment about other people's work instead of going out and street shooting yourself.
Taken yesterday.
28 1.9 ASPH Leica M9
Nikkor 8 mm 2.8 AIS on Nikon D3
Last edited:
_larky
Well-known
I too really like Gilden's work, and I imagine I'd like him as a person; I like him when he's being interviewed. There are certainly areas where that style of shooting would end up with him being mugged, stabbed and left to bleed out though. However, he's not stupid and he knows when and where to simply walk on.
When I started the thread, I was and still am trying to grapple with these words I keep hearing, reading and being told. Respect the subject. What does that mean, or is it simply filler? Photos should be true, what is that? I don't believe in truth, it's subjective. I believe in fact, and all a photo can do is show you what was captured on film/sensor and nothing more. But I'm interested on hearing other points of view.
I shoot with 24, 35 lenses - always close. I used to shoot with a 10mm, but had to sell it for funds. I'm going to try a 75mm, to see how that works for me, I suspect it will be tough.
When I started the thread, I was and still am trying to grapple with these words I keep hearing, reading and being told. Respect the subject. What does that mean, or is it simply filler? Photos should be true, what is that? I don't believe in truth, it's subjective. I believe in fact, and all a photo can do is show you what was captured on film/sensor and nothing more. But I'm interested on hearing other points of view.
I shoot with 24, 35 lenses - always close. I used to shoot with a 10mm, but had to sell it for funds. I'm going to try a 75mm, to see how that works for me, I suspect it will be tough.
dave lackey
Veteran
Truth?
The truth is in my little hometown, if a "photographer" shoved a camera in my wife's face, Gilden style, I would be calling for bail money in an instant. This photographer would not be so arrogant as to think anyone is "fair game". In the last year, my wife has had a heart attack, a stroke and 10 cardiac arrests and is currently disabled and falls frequently. Neither one of us needs added risk from a surprise attack.:angel:
That is fact. That is the truth.
The truth is in my little hometown, if a "photographer" shoved a camera in my wife's face, Gilden style, I would be calling for bail money in an instant. This photographer would not be so arrogant as to think anyone is "fair game". In the last year, my wife has had a heart attack, a stroke and 10 cardiac arrests and is currently disabled and falls frequently. Neither one of us needs added risk from a surprise attack.:angel:
That is fact. That is the truth.
_larky
Well-known
If Gilden took my photo, I'd be very happy. If I ever spot him, I'll try to look like a character.
dave lackey
Veteran
If Gilden took my photo, I'd be very happy. If I ever spot him, I'll try to look like a character.
And I respect what you want.
But Gilden is nothing more to me and my family than just another guy with a camera. Nothing more nothing less. If he were to show up on the sidewalk in our little downtown and pull a surprise attack, he would then be shooting "pinhole" style through the lower sphincter of his anatomy.Respect works both ways. I respect you and others because I do and I have no idea what is going on in your life. Others should respect us and not cause any harm by possibly inducing another heart attack or causing a disabled person to fall because of some "photographic right" that they are zealous about. Unintended consequences are always there.
dave lackey
Veteran
I love reading threads like this. The varied opinions of other photographers out there never cease to amaze me. It seems that every time one of these threads comes up, Bruce Gilden comes up, and then we have someone chime in that if they tried his type of photography in (name of their city), they wouldn’t last very long.
I want to say that I am a HUGE fan of Bruce’s work and his body of work speaks for itself. And while I have never personally met the man, I will continue to have his back when others are talking **** about him.
The fact that I often like to work up close and personal on the street is one reason that I respect Bruce’s work so much. Unless you walk a mile in getting close to strangers on the street, you will never know.
And the fact is, no one approach is right for every person or every situation, every time.
If others choose not to photograph the homeless or work in close and whatever, I think that's fine. To each their own.
However, to think that because you don't take pictures of the homeless or work up close doing candids or whatever, you are somehow taking the higher road, okay sure.
You’re better than me
My favourite is when I read, "I didn’t take the picture because of respect.” ??????????????????
WTF
So does that mean the act of taking every photo is an act of disrespect?
Hmmm.
I want to relate a story that close friend of mine who happens to be exceptional photographer (check out www.kevenfedirco.com) told me the other day.
He was taking shots of one of his buddies jamming (playing music) in the basement.
Keven told me that at one point, his buddy made a rude comment to him that rubbed my pal the wrong way. Instead of getting pissed off or leaving, he decided to teach his pal a little lesson.
This is when the story gets interesting. Keven said he made a point in that photo session not to make them look good like he had on several other occasions while photographing the band. He purposely took photos of them (and I quote) "not to show them in the best light, but to show them as the middle-aged overweight has-beens that they are.”
And so he brought in a set a prints the next week and his friend got the point.
To me the story really illustrates the power of the photographer over what the final image looks like.
And if you want to make someone look bad, it's not that hard to do.
Or to put it another way, it's not what you shoot but how you do it.
For me, when I am street shooting, I trust my instincts and try and get the best pictures I can. I have no problem walking right up to strangers and taking their picture. And i will/have used long glass on my Nikon's to get the shot as well.
I never understood how using longer glass made a street photo any less .... honest.
In fact as others have pointed out by moving in close there is no doudt that the photographer changes the picture.
And just for the record, I feel no obligation to give anyone my card. I don't even have cards.
And what I do with my picture's is my own business.
If you’re on a public street, like it or not you’re fair game in my books.
About once a week, I am told by someone to delete a photo. Which I never do. If they are pissed off, I try and diffuse the situation and deescalate it as best I can.
As I’ve said before, street shooting isn’t for everyone. It can be dangerous and there are no rules. Where I live, photographers have the right to photograph people in public places
And while other photographers certainly have the right to express their opinions, I see no reason to change my approach or my way of working because of their issues or their moral standards.
And I would like to know how I'm supposed to take pictures of someone without sticking a camera in their face.
As far as personal space, I have been known to stick my Nikkor 8 mm 2.8 fish-eye in people's faces and I see no reason to stop.
The thing about street photography is you either get it or you don't. There is no hiding and if you're not good with people or you have hang-ups or insecurities, you stay on the computer and comment about other people's work instead of going out and street shooting yourself.
Taken yesterday.
28 1.9 ASPH Leica M9
Nikkor 8 mm 2.8 AIS on Nikon D3
Read my response above.
MC JC86
Negative Nancy.
It's always good to be respectful, especially in the inner city. Anyone who needs to grope for the definition of "respect" should probably stay home until they find it. (I'm not referring to the O/P so much as people's seeming inability to interact with their fellow man)
People are photographed and recorded on video almost everywhere they go. If one has the perception that the moment some amateur photographer captures them on film while in public violates their privacy their priorities are somewhat out of line. If they think, as at least one person has suggested, that resorting to violence because they have been photographed in public makes sense then again, their priorities are somewhat out of line.
People are photographed and recorded on video almost everywhere they go. If one has the perception that the moment some amateur photographer captures them on film while in public violates their privacy their priorities are somewhat out of line. If they think, as at least one person has suggested, that resorting to violence because they have been photographed in public makes sense then again, their priorities are somewhat out of line.
dave lackey
Veteran
No, this comment is out of line. Re-read my post. My priority is protecting the most important person in my life. A zealot photographer is not my priority. So stop it with all the high level photographic rights and purity of street photography. Respect people. It's simple.
MC JC86
Negative Nancy.
Dave,
I don't know how it was "out of line". As for "re-reading" your post, I'm very sorry but I was actually responding to stuff on the first 2 pages of the thread and nothing that you said (I only now read your post for the first time and don't disagree with anything you said) In fact your last sentence just now seems in line with what I said.
EDIT: and I don't see anything about high level "photographic rights" or what have you in my little response. I guess just a miscommunication, just want you to know I wasn't engaging or attacking your post(s)
Last edited:
Neare
Well-known
"Art is about doing what you should not." - Nobuyoshi Araki
- Status
- Not open for further replies.