Don't be a creep!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rogier- I am surprised first that you have seen that many Leicas around the city. I street shoot A LOT up there and almost never see a Leica shooter around.
 
YYV_146 said:
Anyone who has to use an AF telephoto for street photography is, IMO, simply not doing street photography.

I use 75, the occasional 90mm shot of a street dancer and such, but the essence of street work is the environment, and one is excluding most of it by using a telephoto. There is nothing inherently "bad" with photographing strangers, though. If you want candid moments, scale focus and shoot from the hip or use a TLR.
Click to expand...

I find this a curious statement. 90mm is OK, but what isn't? 135mm? 200mm?

Isn't the essence of street photography (or any photography) precisely what the photographer would like it to be? Also, you don't necessarily exclude anything by using a longer lens, you may simply be further away.

If you really, truly want a 'candid' moment, the key is to not be seen, and I know from experience, that a TLR attracts a lot of stares.

It seems to me that you're saying that it's OK for you to use a long lens, but others should refrain from using longer ones, for street photography, anyway.
 
thegman said:
I find this a curious statement. 90mm is OK, but what isn't? 135mm? 200mm?

Isn't the essence of street photography (or any photography) precisely what the photographer would like it to be? Also, you don't necessarily exclude anything by using a longer lens, you may simply be further away.

If you really, truly want a 'candid' moment, the key is to not be seen, and I know from experience, that a TLR attracts a lot of stares.

It seems to me that you're saying that it's OK for you to use a long lens, but others should refrain from using longer ones, for street photography, anyway.
Click to expand...

I use mild telephotos when there is no other option. For example, when approaching the subject is not possible or when there is potential harm involved with getting too close (juggler, street performing arts .etc ) And 95% of all my street shooting is wider than 50mm, mostly with a 35 or 24.

Also, it is factually ridiculous when someone uses a 70-200 or even a 100-400 zoom for shooting across a four-lane street. I believe that there should be a minimal "self" factor in street work, which involves the viewer identifying the photographer's location and point of view. I don't really see this being possible with a super-tele, unless one plans to shoot at someone on the horizon with the lens stopped down to f22...

And yes, I think what counts as "too long" depends on the situation. If I find myself using the 90mm simply because I don't want to "man up" and get closer, then 90mm is "too long" for the situation.
 
Don't be a criminal

Don't be a criminal

I understand the OP was perturbed by what he perceived as rudeness/creepiness. It's a free country, folks are allowed to be perturbed.

If the OP's solution to this problem is to go and rough up the photographer, that's a criminal offense: assault, battery, and destruction of property. The OP, I'm sure is just blowing off some steam, as guys will do (if only my wife hadn't been around, etc.). If the OP proposes to do that, I'd very much encourage the rude photographer to sue the OP civilly and do everything he can to get the OP charged.

We'll all have to live with the sadness that the OP has a thin skin, but criminals should be treated accordingly.
 
i don't like being photographed but i can hardly go after someone for doing it when it's something i do all the time.
it's hard to expect privacy and consider myself a street shooter at the same time.
 
Dan Daniel said:
Get over yourself. You're in public. Go ahead, make any hand gesture you want, block your face, put your hand in front of the lens, whatever. In the same way, people can wear clothes I find offensive, people can use cameras in ways that I find offensive, on and on.

But touch the guy and it's assault. Be ready to face the consequences.

....
Click to expand...


Exactly right answer to the runt about amateurs' street photography.
 
IdealCamera said:
I understand the OP was perturbed by what he perceived as rudeness/creepiness. It's a free country, folks are allowed to be perturbed.

If the OP's solution to this problem is to go and rough up the photographer, that's a criminal offense: assault, battery, and destruction of property. The OP, I'm sure is just blowing off some steam, as guys will do (if only my wife hadn't been around, etc.). If the OP proposes to do that, I'd very much encourage the rude photographer to sue the OP civilly and do everything he can to get the OP charged.

We'll all have to live with the sadness that the OP has a thin skin, but criminals should be treated accordingly.
Click to expand...

Believe me I will make him delete the pictures of ME and my family!
 
back alley said:
i don't like being photographed but i can hardly go after someone for doing it when it's something i do all the time.
it's hard to expect privacy and consider myself a street shooter at the same time.
Click to expand...

If I don't want to be recognized in the street by a security camera I will dress appropriately :rolleyes:

This guy was a pure asshole.
 
Rogier said:
If I don't want to be recognized in the street by a security camera I will dress appropriately :rolleyes:

This guy was a pure asshole.
Click to expand...

this may be true…but he's likely at home enjoying a beer and you're still losing sleep over it.
who's winning here?
 
back alley said:
this may be true…but he's likely at home enjoying a beer and you're still losing sleep over it.
who's winning here?
Click to expand...

I am not loosing sleep at all, just wanted to share my experience. And point out possible consequences if a "photographer" behaves like that.
 
There are two issues here: freedom and empathy.
We establish laws and rules to the degree, that they make our lives easier, and actually more free - e.g. since it is forbidden to rob people in the street, we are more confident to get out of our homes to do whatever we need to, without wearing helmets, bulletproof jackets and machine pistols on us.
In this respect, you were a jerk and the guy with the Canon was doing something he is free to do.
Then there is empathy: we are all human beings, and we all have our ups and downs, good and less good moments, etc. If another person shows you a feeling of discomfort, and you continue harassing him, then you ( the Canon guy) are a jerk.
As in most situations in life, one needs to find a balance based on reason and emotions.
 
I often wonder why people mind having the picture taken in public places. What is it they are worried about? What exactly do they think these pictures could 'do' to them?

And another thing... if it weren't for street photography, we would be FAR less aware of our history and the people that lived that history.

I for one say to those of us that get "creeped out" by someone taking their picture in public... get over it. Its the public's space. We WANT to see it, look at it, remember it, even cherish it. And there's no better way to do that than to take a photograph of it, to see what that moment really looks like.
 
Rogier said:
Almost every time I go into San Francisco I see guys with a black Leica M. Standing in a corner quickly snapping pictures and putting their camera back under their coats. As if they were a spy or on some sort of special mission.
I don't know in wat fantasy world they are caught up in but I think its very creepy and do understand if some gets upset when they discover that their have been photographed without their consent.

Today I was standing on curb waiting for our light to turn green to cross the street. Across from us a guy with a Canon slr with white tele lens on his knee taking pictures of Me, my wife and out dog. I clearly signaled to him that I did not wanted to have our pictures taken by holding out my hand in front of my face. He clearly reacted to my :mad:. But get GOING AND TOOK MORE SHOTS. Then I increased by disapproval by using the international sign language using one of my fingers... He still kept going on. I yelled at him calling him a creep.

Lucky for him I had my wife with me. Otherwise that white tele would have ended up in his....
Click to expand...
Swap your wardrobe for shocking-pink lycra, at least two sizes too small - either you'll put the photographers off for life, or you'll give 'em a sight truly worth capturing.
 
Jamie Pillers said:
I often wonder why people mind having the picture taken in public places. What is it they are worried about? What exactly do they think these pictures could 'do' to them?

And another thing... if it weren't for street photography, we would be FAR less aware of our history and the people that lived that history.

I for one say to those of us that get "creeped out" by someone taking their picture in public... get over it. Its the public's space. We WANT to see it, look at it, remember it, even cherish it. And there's no better way to do that than to take a photograph of it, to see what that moment really looks like.
Click to expand...


People are idiots. Look at the OP, threatening violence against photographers and their property for taking a picture of him on the street. He's lucky he's in California; in Indiana, he's very likely to encounter someone who responds to assault by shooting first, then calling the cops to come get the body. The law here explicitly allows use of deadly force to stop an assailant, even if the assailant is himself unarmed. It also REQUIRES the state to issue a concealed carry permit to ANYONE who applies for one, so long as the applicant has never been convicted of a felony or been committed to a mental hospital by the state.

Even in an anti-gun state like California, he is likely to encounter someone who will take him out anyway if he starts throwing punches and spraying chemicals on people's gear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom