Beginner thinks out loud

JackForster said:
Hi Stewart and thanks for sticking with it --hmm. I'm not actually trying to say anything in the sense of prescribing what I think is a right or wrong course of action. I'm actually just, as I said in the initial post, thinking out loud about some of the issues street photography raises. I just took a bunch of pictures of strangers without asking their permission today, for instance, so clearly I'm voting with my lens ;) on what I really think about the issue.

One small point though --I'm not talking about situations where the photographer _can't_ get permission, I'm talking about situations where he/she chooses not to (and there may be compelling reasons not to --one obvious one is that the whole purpose of candid photography is lost once a person ceases to be spontaneous and begins to pose. It doesn't automatically make for a bad picture, of course, but it makes for a different kind of picture --would you agree?)

Jack
Click to expand...

... a bit like this?




... I seldom feel the need to ask, as I said my film, my camera, so my photo
 
Messsucherkamera said:
Jack,

I'd like to address numbers three and four as well as your postscript -

3: Being photographed - every day that we draw breath - is now a fact of life in today's world. I find it both ironic and incomprehensible that there are apparently legions of people who voice not one word of objection to the surveillance fetishism of various government agencies and entities, yet take umbrage over the documentary photographer making images on the street. It just doesn't add up.

In the U.S., photographers have the right - not privilege, but right - to make photographs in any public place (and for those who will try to claim the ridiculous - public restrooms, shower rooms, and changing rooms are not included in that right).

Making photographs in public places is not unlawful, unethical, immoral or improper in any manner. Laws vary from nation to nation but one can still make a valid contention that regardless of written laws, documentary photography in the public environment is still not unethical, immoral or improper by any logical or reasonable definition.

The mere act of making photographs of people is not inherently intrusive - the methods employed in making photographs may be intrusive, though. The photographic techniques employed by Bruce Gilden are considered intrusive by many. Gilden does indeed make some unique images - but his methods aren't for everyone nor are they well liked by many of his subjects.

The techniques that Henri Cartier-Bresson employed in his street photography were not intrusive; the vast majority of his subjects never knew that they were being photographed. Many photographers employ HCB's stealth approach today for the simple reason that street photography done in a manner that is discreet and does not disturb the subject is not offensive, disruptive or abrasive. The photographic stalking and badgering techniques of the paparazzi are obnoxious, intrusive and traumatic to the subject - and sometimes worse.

Until photographers come to terms with the fact that photographing strangers in the public environment is not unlawful, unethical, improper or unseemly, they will needlessly suffer from self-inflicted feelings of guilt or discomfort that are not based on any reasonable or objective philosophy.

4: Yes, there are billions of images created every day; so what?

99.5% (or more) of the photographs made every day are devoid of any semblance of artistic relevance, perception, visual impact, aesthetic value or technical merit. The vast majority of photographs made each day are of approximately as much value to the world of photography as a head cheese sandwich is to the culinary world.

Anyone who cares about image making pursues photographic and artistic perfection; they work relentlessly to hone their visual, technical and photographic composition skills, develop their photographic style and produce enduring, meaningful images. They strive to produce the photographic equivalent of a Beethoven symphony - not a vapid, shallow rap "hit."

Regarding your concerns of equipment fetishism - we have to have cameras and lenses to be able to make photographs - period. We don't have to carry six cameras, forty lenses and ten flash units (the "National Geographic Assignment Syndrome") to make photographs.

Too much equipment is usually counterproductive to the photographic process. I have found that the best approach is to tailor the gear you carry for the task at hand.

A couple of camera bodies (one for a backup) a wide angle lens, a normal lens and a short telephoto lens is all a person really needs. This modest amount of gear will cover 90% or more of all the photographic possibilities one might encounter.

Buy the best equipment you can reasonably afford and use it every day that you can - the camera you have with you when a photo presents itself will make a better image than the pie-in-the-sky megadollar camera that you can't (yet) afford.

Live in the now, photograph in the now - and save up for that Hasselblad/Leica/Ebony/whatever. One day it will be yours, especially if you produce outstanding work that sells and is in demand.

JMHO.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the lengthy and thoughtful reply, and I agree with you a hundred per cent on all your points. --I've seen video of Bruce Gilden at work and that's definitely not an approach I could ever be comforrtable with (it seems to work for him but I'll tell you, if someone jumped out at me and popped a flash in my face from three feet away I might take a poke at them purely as a reflex. He looks like kind of a big guy though.) HCB's approach is something I'm much more comfortable with. Practice, practice, practice.

As far as equipment fetishsism goes having been down that road with fountain pens and watches I'm trying to avoid it with cameras ;) right now I'm using two Leicas (an M6 and an M3) and I'm going to try to get it down to one (though I can see keeping 1600 film in one and 400 in the other, although maybe not --night street photography is so much easier with digital!)

It's not so much the legality of street photography that got me thinking when I started this thread; it's the issue of how to respect the people you photograph. The Gilden/HCB divide illustrates the point perfectly. Everybody has their own comfort zone but on the whole I would rather be unobserved. As it turns out that's not as hard as I thought it was going to be. . .

Jack
 
i'm not much of a "street" guy. when i do get into a city, i look for light. more often than not, i shoot edges, spatial and light/shadow relationships, textures, rather than people. when i do shoot "street," more often than not it is in a festival atmosphere, crowded flea market, tourist-rich area and such. i've not yet run into an issue with anyone. it seems as if people in such places expect to be photographed. i am poorly traveled, but i would guess from the many photos i've seen here, it is the same worldwide. if you think street is going to be your thing, go to crowded, happy places/events and fire away. betcha you get some faces ...
 
Messsucherkamera said:
Jack,

I'd like to address numbers three and four as well as your postscript -

3: Being photographed - every day that we draw breath - is now a fact of life in today's world. I find it both ironic and incomprehensible that there are apparently legions of people who voice not one word of objection to the surveillance fetishism of various government agencies and entities, yet take umbrage over the documentary photographer making images on the street. It just doesn't add up.

In the U.S., photographers have the right - not privilege, but right - to make photographs in any public place (and for those who will try to claim the ridiculous - public restrooms, shower rooms, and changing rooms are not included in that right).

Making photographs in public places is not unlawful, unethical, immoral or improper in any manner. Laws vary from nation to nation but one can still make a valid contention that regardless of written laws, documentary photography in the public environment is still not unethical, immoral or improper by any logical or reasonable definition.

The mere act of making photographs of people is not inherently intrusive - the methods employed in making photographs may be intrusive, though.
Click to expand...



yes... yes... yes... yes... yes... yes... yes..

Now if I could only be as eloquent in explaining why putting a homeless person in front of your lens does not automatically and necessarily make one a terrible person.
 
MC JC86 said:
yes... yes... yes... yes... yes... yes... yes..

Now if I could only be as eloquent in explaining why putting a homeless person in front of your lens does not automatically and necessarily make one a terrible person.
Click to expand...

well as Bill Murray says in "Ghostbusters" "It's really more of a guideline than a rule" ;) all these precepts (no back shots, no homeless people) are ok as rules of thumb but I don't think it makes sense to follow them slavishly and there are any number of great images of homeless people and people's backs.

d31b2a5b.jpg


A shot of people's backs by Henri Cartier-Bresson, notorious chicken :) bet he took some shots of homeless people and beggars in India too.

Jack
 
Just be human to other humans who are in need

Just be human to other humans who are in need

MC JC86 said:
yes... yes... yes... yes... yes... yes... yes..

Now if I could only be as eloquent in explaining why putting a homeless person in front of your lens does not automatically and necessarily make one a terrible person.
Click to expand...
I have a photo project in mind where I would photograph people on the street with signs asking for money.

I think that if you approach them in a respectful manner, talk to them like they matter, treat them with dignity and gently ask to photograph them, they would probably be inclined to agree.

And one more thing: Give them a few dollars. Buy them a sandwich or a meal. Go buy them a small bag of groceries. They are desperate or else they wouldn't be begging. Do something to help them, not just something to help your photography.

I have given people with signs money and groceries in the past - and without asking to photograph them.
Give us a bad turn or two, it could be any one of us on the street with a sign instead of a camera..
 
JackForster said:
If you care to, I'd love to hear a bit more on your views on the ethics of taking a picture vs. its use (I think the legal issues are --well, not uninteresting, necessarily, but rooted in ethical instincts --is that a viable formulation? --that are more meaty and fun to talk about.)
Click to expand...
Personally, I think it's unethical to just shoot people on the street as a close-up portrait, without asking their permission beforehand, and then putting their face wide spread on the internet, or use for commercial purposes. Actually you should let them sign a contract for the authorisation of the use of their 'face'.

(I'm not talking about the background actors on a landscape picture who can't be recognised that clearly)

The law will be different everywhere in the world, but in my country they can accuse you because of the privacy law that says you cannot just put photos of people on the net, certainly if it's without their permission.

Some time ago, a guy made a website with a collections of pictures of the most (architecturally) ugly houses in our region. Just pictures of the facades. This guy has been sewed and the website went down. Because of privacy violation.
So I can imagine it's violating with people's faces.

But of course, in real life, people don't make any problem when you politely ask them to take a picture, or their permission to use it later on. They can always answer 'no' without hard feelings.
 
In some cases, photographers even harrass people, just to be able take their shot, not caring about how their 'victim' feels about it.


In this video, at 2'50", you can obviously see that some people really don't like to get photographed or annoyed by someone.

Just leave people be on the street without harrassing them.
 
Last edited:
True that some people are more sensitive about being photographed. Drug dealers and other criminals, for instance; if your street photo by chance includes them or just makes them nervous, there could be trouble.

Or the "victim" may not even be present... Recently I took a shot at the back of a parked semi-tractor, rather old and ordinary but the colored connection cables for the trailer were interesting. As I was snapping, a guy in a car stopped and asked what I was doing. He was a truck driver and thought he should "protect" his absent fellow from any trouble a picture might bring. I'm slow to heat up, but I finally told him if there were any trouble here he's the one causing it.

Construction sites can be interesting too, but some workers immediately assume the picture snapper is some snoopy inspector, or the snapper might see something wrong or illegal at the site. Work not quite up to code, or undocumented workers.

Just the other day I was shooting a site where two houses had been torn down, and a big dump-truck was leaving. The driver asked me if I was an inspector... Nobody wants any trouble, and a camera is a dangerous thing!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom