Don't be a creep!

[kennylovrin]

I always find it a little bit weird when photographers get offended by having their photo taken.. I can see how some people that shoot nothing but landscapes perhaps doesn't like having their photo taken and think that because they don't shoot people they have the right to not be in a photo taken in a public location.

But yet, I still find it strange, we're all doing photography, it's just that we have different ways of choosing our subjects and also different behavior when taking those photos. In the end I believe we are actually doing the same thing, just differently.

I think an argument like this is kind of like getting pissed at people in traffic just because they drive their car differently than ourselves, even if they still keep within the traffic laws.

Of course, I wouldn't be totally happy if someone came and Gilden-flashed me in the face, but not because of them taking a photo, rather because it's invading my personal space. 🙂

Some people think it is creepy when people use tele lenses, other people think it is creepy/intrusive when photographers use short lenses and get really close and so on. To me it doesn't really matter, it's still photography.

Even though I am not a street photographer, I don't mind at all if people take my photo. What I do mind would be if they used it in a questionable manner, but usually I will never know, and I choose to believe that in the majority of cases it won't be used for something I would be opposed to. Even if the photographer in question would go home and masturbate to my photo, I don't care, good for him/her in that case if I can help out by just walking down the street.

In short, I find this whole thing a bit ridiculous to be honest.

 

[colyn]

He was not breaking a law but he was just very rude.

So what??? Get over it.. I've had my picture taken while in public taking pictures. I did not get offended......

 

[Jack Conrad]

Create a new sub-genre. Creepy street photographer photography. 😀

 

[Lucadomi]

I am very often tempted of taking people pictures in NYC. There are so many interesting faces and situations. However, I am always very cautious and careful not to upset people.
I do understand that somebody might not want to be photographed and it does not hurt to try to be respectful.
For sure I do not like people taking pictures of my kids and I do understand why the OP was bothered by that. They can take pictures of me anytime, I don't care (if that is what they like..?)

 

[Ko.Fe.]

...snapping pictures and putting their camera back under their coats....

...tele lens on his knee taking pictures of ..

First flavor of amateurs in 99 % taking backs pictures. Too afraid to do it in the face and even if they'll try it, it is going to be missed by the time they pull their beauties out.

Second one will have pictures of nobody, because it is simply impossible with tele at the knee...

What you really should worry about is YouTube video taken with mobile phone near by you, while you where acting creepy on tele-at-the-knee pictures-off-to-the-sky dude. 🙂

 

[Addy101]

For sure I do not like people taking pictures of my kids and I do understand why the OP was bothered by that.

I know people don't like it, and that is why I'm always cautious. But why don't you like it when people make a picture of your kids? You could consider it a compliment as your kids are picture worthy 😉

 

[68degrees]

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.

Now there is a true creep element to this kind of photography. I had a camera and took a couple of shots across the street into Union Square while waiting for a light. A guy sidled up to me and mumbled something about,' you bobbie joe?' or some such thing. He finally realized that I had no idea what he was talking about, and then he mentioned a web site and went off. I looked at the web site later- up-skirt shots, women leaning over on the street, pure voyeuristic creep land.

ironic that he was familiar with the creep site but you werent. Says something about him.

 

[Jack Conrad]

I couldn't find the original source, but this post reminds me of this great Bukowski poem.

a photography poem

Haha, yeah, Bukowski nailed it.

I had my camera and took the shot through the shop window
And a rather tall, ugly lady, neck bent forward, ran out of the shop
“What are you DOING?” she asked. “What did you photograph?”
“I photographed the naked manikin,” I told her
“I'd rather you didn't take anymore photos,” she said
“Alright,” I said and I walked down the street with my camera, with her starring after me
I felt guilty and upset, even though I had done nothing really improper
It usually happened to me at least once a day
I turned, dropped to one knee, focused and photographed her
She waved her arms and screamed, and I shot her again
The trouble with these people is, that their cities have never been bombed,
and their mothers have never been told to “Shut Up.”

Charles Bukowski

 

[mdarnton]

There's a big difference between what you can do or you are legally permitted to do and what you should do.

Face it, there are a lot of creeps out there. Many of them have cameras. Many of those populate photo forums and try to justify their creepy behavior as their "right". I would say that just about everyone thinks what they do is a correct thing to do, no matter how bad it is. That's why the police don't take the perp's word for it that he's innocent.

 

[skopar steve]

I'm one of those folks that does not like to be photographed. However, if someone takes an image of me in public I don't really care. Figure there must have been something interesting to them about what they were photographing.

When I photograph in a public setting it's always obvious what I'm doing. Sometimes someone will ask why I photographed them. I'll explain why, and if its digital I'll chimp them some of my images. If someone does not want to be photographed their body language and facial expressions relay the sentiment, and usually spoil the image.

 

[mdarnton]

And as for Bukowski:
http://biblioklept.org/2011/01/03/charles-bukowski-drunken-creep/

Finding references to Bukowski as the king of creeps really was not a hard thing to search.

 

[NY_Dan]

Rogier, your reactions wound up rewarding the Canon photographer with more interesting photos. If you want to make a photographer stop photographing you, or if you want to reward their efforts with crappy photos, then just pull out your cellphone and pretend to get a call -- that always stops me dead in my tracks -- totally ruins the photo for me.

To contemplate assault in such a situation is insane, you could get arrested, sued, and worst of all have to pay a lawyer over $250 an hour to deal with it all. You need to have a good talk with yourself about this. Do you really want to go animal on someone? What would your wife and kids think of it? And if you're on RFF, you're a photographer, so to come here and complain about photography -- insert scratching head emoticon.

When I'm out shooting with my vintage cameras, it's not unusual for someone to take a photo of me doing my thing. I don't care. Sometimes they do it shyly or surreptitiously -- if I see them and they're nearby, I tell them to shoot as much as they like. After all, if I'm out photographing others, I can't complain.

As for the trench coat Leica "spy" -- I love it, that would make my day -- that's funny and it's street performance.

Everyone takes photos with their eyes, so if they use a camera so they can see what they saw earlier easier, or through the camera's eye -- why not?

A large percentage of the public doesn't understand how much some people need to make photos.

 

[zuiko85]

Being photographed in public simply has no effect at all on my demeanor. Since 99% of the time I'm out I have a camera slung over my shoulder if I should ever get annoyed I would just turn my camera on them and shoot back.

 

[Dan Daniel]

What you really should worry about is YouTube video taken with mobile phone near by you, while you where acting creepy on tele-at-the-knee pictures-off-to-the-sky dude. 🙂

Ha! Yep. I went into a food store with a TLR over my shoulder. I was going to take a photo of the entrance area when I was told that there was no photography. Which I am fine with- private space, concerns about marketing, customers, etc. I put the camera down and made a comment about how if I was using an iPhone he'd just smile and think it was cool.

In the next ten minutes I saw three people using their iPhones to take photos in the store, with no comments from the staff. Including one guy doing a full study of a particular display.

If I was a terrorist or a voyeur collecting images, I'd be using an iPhone or such, not a long lens on a DSLR.

I was around Union Square a while back, with a Sony RX100. This woman was sticking her camera in the mid-sections of guy after guy on this corner! Cute decal, attractive woman, nice smile. I should have punched her, right??

On a more serious note, here's a series I made in Union Square, San Francisco. Almost all done with a 200mm lens on an APS-C DSLR (old manual focus Pentax lens, small and discrete all in all). I didn't hide the camera under my jacket. This isn't the place to discuss editing, but I do eliminate disrespectful shots, faces of children, the basic 'camera makes you look stupid' shots, etc.

Maybe the OP would have punched me out; fine, I could always find a good use for some of his money. But if you have ever spent time shooting with other people, wondering why someone is pointing their camera at this or that, and then being surprised to see what they saw when the images are pulled up, you should know- you can't tell much about what people are doing with a camera until you see the actual images.

http://dandaniel.zenfolio.com/p116825950

 

[daveleo]

. . . . .
I was around Union Square a while back, with a Sony RX100. This woman was sticking her camera in the mid-sections of guy after guy on this corner! Cute decal, attractive woman, nice smile. I should have punched her, right??

She was having her revenge for all the pictures of ladies' rear views that flood the internet ! Somewhere she has a web page of guys' big bellies !!

 

[noisycheese]

There's a big difference between what you can do or you are legally permitted to do and what you should do.

Face it, there are a lot of creeps out there. Many of them have cameras. Many of those populate photo forums and try to justify their creepy behavior as their "right". I would say that just about everyone thinks what they do is a correct thing to do, no matter how bad it is. That's why the police don't take the perp's word for it that he's innocent.

🙄 So for the sake of discussion, let's apply that so-called "logic" across the board; let's take it to its logical conclusion, okay? Here we go...

That SOB Henri Cartier-Bresson should have been thrown in prison for the rest of his life the first time he dared to photograph another person out on the street!! Damn him to hell! How dare he take pictures of people out in public!!

Since the authorities were derelict in their duty to protect humanity from this pervert who got his jollies by exploiting innocent and unsuspecting people around the globe,we are now left with the only recourse available to decent people: Every last one of Cartier-Bresson's vile, perverted, voyeuristic, exploitative privacy robbing abominations on paper should be rounded up and burned.

The same thing goes for the perverted, dirty spy shots created by Garry Winogrand, Vivian Maier, Elliott Erwitt, Lee Friedlander, Bruce Gilden, Andre Kertesz and Robert Capa. They are nothing but exploitative perverts, the lot of the. Round up every one of their photographs and burn them.

Burn baby, burn!

By God, that'll teach all these jerks with cameras!!

Sound about right??

Just make certain that when you are dancing in the ashes of Cartier-Bresson's masterpieces - his historic photographic records created for posterity - that you are exercising the principles of openness, transparency and honesty with your fellow man by wearing a swastika armband and a set of SS runes on your collar. 😉

 

[Ko.Fe.]

...
On a more serious note, here's a series I made in Union Square, San Francisco. Almost all done with a 200mm lens on an APS-C DSLR (old manual focus Pentax lens, small and discrete all in all). I didn't hide the camera under my jacket. This isn't the place to discuss editing, but I do eliminate disrespectful shots, faces of children, the basic 'camera makes you look stupid' shots, etc.
....

I practiced it on my earlier stage of amateur street, candid photography.
Old small MF tele on DSLR and small long macro with AF.
Technically right, visually wrong.
Taking it on long distance - all flat. Taking it on close distance, someone face and rest is blurry. No environment, nothing going on, boring...

Now 50mm is my longest tele...

Sorry, I wish to show some pictures, but my Flickr (paid member account) is broken.
Flickr resent management people, this is where creeps in terms of photography are...

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

But if you have ever spent time shooting with other people, wondering why someone is pointing their camera at this or that, and then being surprised to see what they saw when the images are pulled up, you should know- you can't tell much about what people are doing with a camera until you see the actual images.

Agreed. Alexander Pope summed it up rather nicely, nigh on 300 years ago: "The proper study of Mankind is Man." (from An Essay on Man, 1730).

 

[ruby.monkey]

Create a new sub-genre. Creepy street photographer photography. 😀

I wouldn't call Rogier creepy. Grumpy, perhaps; but not creepy.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . Embrace the raw taste of freedom . .

Beautifully put. Far too many people have a very limited vision of freedom: they are in favour only of THEIR freedom, not of anyone else's. And often, they don't like the legal definitions of freedom.

Of course there are such things as manners, consideration and good taste. In some ways they are more important than the letter of the law. But in others, they are a lot less important, especially when it comes to blustering threats to commit an assault.

As a friend of mine, an ex Hell's Angel, put it, "If you're going to hit somebody, hit 'em. Otherwise just shut up and **** off."

Cheers,

R.