how has public suspicion of photographers affected street photography?

[aizan]

so, what do you think?

i think photographers' reactions went in two directions. the first is to be extra, extra open about being a photographer: asking and receiving permission, posing subjects in "outdoor studios," frontal poses that confront the viewer, etc.

the second direction is stealthy, clandestine: lots of photos of people taken from behind or from farther away than in the past, not engaging them directly, or maybe not taking many photos of people in the first place.

can you think of any good examples of photographers who epitomize how street photography has adjusted to this atmosphere of suspicion?

 

[van_d]

I think there is a lot more street portraiture nowadays as a result of increased paranoia vis a vis candid street photography. It's perceived as 'safer' and 'easier' and less prone to scrutiny. That's the most noticeable effect I've noticed with street photography in the 21st century.

 

[Steve M.]

The problem is the photographers. There are far too many amateurs out there firing away (w/ their flash on in the middle of the day yet!). In people's faces, rude, uncaring, using big cameras. I would be miffed too. It's important to remember that Cartier-Bresson used a small, inconspicuous Leica, and others like Ben Shawn used a little Leica w/ a right angle viewfinder to cloak their activity.

 

[van_d]

^ I agree that the photographers with big guns are sort of a nuisance (especially the flashes), but we shouldn't have to resort to using right angle finders to cloak our activity. Yes, we're often after candids here, but why act as if you're trying to hide something? That only draws suspicion. Shoot inconspicuous, but don't go through great measures to hide what you're doing. That just raises more questions to passerby.

 

[Photo_Smith]

It has nothing to do with size, Brassaï used a plate camera, I don't think its the size rather the ubiquity of cameras. Some early photographers took pictures of kids acting up for the camera; those kids probably rarely had pictures taken of them-they wanted to be in the frame.

Taking images was unusual people didn't own camera's having their image recorded seemed unusual to them—interesting even...
Come forward 70 years and everyone has a camera they always carry, so now rather than unusual it becomes intrusive so attitudes have changed.
If it was size related then tiny cameras in phones would matter less than Leicas, its about the change in attitude of the subjects not the smaller cameras.

 

[Rodchenko]

When I was younger, I did a lot of candid photography (as it was called then) on the streets of (mostly) Sheffield, Newcastle & York. I barely ever saw another photographer, barring tourists.

These days, there are many more around, and the act of taking photos seems to have shifted in its cultural significance.

I can well understand the aggressive style of up close in your face flash photography that I see in many YouTube videos (aka acting like a dickhead) could seriously offend, and I'd be tempted to have words with anyone who treated me with such little respect.

Brassai did have a camera larger than a Nikon DSLR, it's true, but he wasn't shoving in the way. I watched a video last night of a pro shooter giving tips, one of which was to be invisible, and saying how he 'dodged and weaved like a boxer' so no one knew he was there. This was followed by some footage of himn working on a pedestrian crossing, and people evidently annoyed at having to stop and step aside to walk round this pillock jumping in the way.

He isn't the biggest clown on the internet, though. And that's a subject for another thread.

 

[thegman]

It has nothing to do with size, Brassaï used a plate camera, I don't think its the size rather the ubiquity of cameras. Some early photographers took pictures of kids acting up for the camera; those kids probably rarely had pictures taken of them-they wanted to be in the frame.

Taking images was unusual people didn't own camera's having their image recorded seemed unusual to them—interesting even...
Come forward 70 years and everyone has a camera they always carry, so now rather than unusual it becomes intrusive so attitudes have changed.
If it was size related then tiny cameras in phones would matter less than Leicas, its about the change in attitude of the subjects not the smaller cameras.

I quite agree, a Leica stands out a mile in a world of iPhones, DSLRs and little digital cameras. A Leica is highly conspicuous. These days even a camera you bring to eye level looks a bit out of place.

 

[OurManInTangier]

It has nothing to do with size, Brassaï used a plate camera, I don't think its the size rather the ubiquity of cameras. Some early photographers took pictures of kids acting up for the camera; those kids probably rarely had pictures taken of them-they wanted to be in the frame.

Taking images was unusual people didn't own camera's having their image recorded seemed unusual to them—interesting even...
Come forward 70 years and everyone has a camera they always carry, so now rather than unusual it becomes intrusive so attitudes have changed.
If it was size related then tiny cameras in phones would matter less than Leicas, its about the change in attitude of the subjects not the smaller cameras.

I'd like to back this sentiment up from my own experiences of seeing others photographing 'street.'

I've seen photographers working quickly and discreetly (not stealthily, simply not getting in the way) with the top range Nikon and Canons in a manner no different from those sainted for their use of small "discreet & stealthy" cameras. I've also seen the "stick it in their face and rely on AF" brigade at work too - which can as easily include those using zone focusing and a rangefinder. Its more about, suddenly remembering to put in the obligatory "IMO," the attitude of the photographer (not the more recent kind of 'showing attitude,' but your position regarding your subject/topic.)

That being said, in terms of answering in some vague way the question asked, I'd suggest a large part of the 'problem' is simply numbers. The sheer number of people out there doing it. I've never known a photography fad, if I can get away with calling it that, so popular and totally global. I've just been working in Lisbon and then Seville and felt surrounded by street photographers every day (to the point I wondered if the RFF EuroMeet was early this year,) London is always full of them...us 😱 and I end up nodding, smiling or chatting to others far more often than I'd actually like. So perhaps people just get peeved when it feels like everyone is out to fit you into their creative little frame. Add to that the fact that the more people doing it will inevitably mean more people will do it badly; insofar as their bad practice, lack of basic care/manners or even simply the fear that they're doing something wrong will lead to a poor experience for the subject.

Perhaps like a landscape photographer won't litter the Natural Wonder they've just photographed a street photographer should respect their chosen subject in a similar way - though in such vast numbers its like replacing one landscape photographer with a coach full of tourists at a viewpoint and I imagine we've all had a coach pull up and shatter that all too brief moment alone with a beautiful view.

There will be a myriad of answers shedding some light onto this on following pages I'm sure. Which will be interesting as this is a very good question and something I think everyone who considers themselves this type of photographer or who enjoys street photography must think about.

 

[Rodchenko]

An interesting and perceptive post, Simon. I don't feel too conspicuous myself, but a wee bit uneasy about large groups of photographers - us, as you say.

I don't know if I'm a street photographer or not, but most of my opportunity for photography occurs when I am walking to or from the train station (and it gets hard to avoid cliches, even personal ones).

This morning, I was using a Werra I've bought for my partner - just testing it out before I start showing her the quirks - and it was very conspicuous. It's not a big camera, but it has silver on it, had the lens hood fitted, and was in the ERC, which was flapped open in use. It certainly got some attention, but it was, IMO, less threatening than something more mainstream.

 

[Michael Markey]

As you can see there is a lot of public suspicion of photographers in the North of England.

"He`s taking a picture"

They then proceeded to drop their trousers.

 

[Roger Hicks]

A Leica looks like a snapshot camera. In that sense, it's a lot less obtrusive than a huge DSLR with vast lens, which marks you out as A Photographer in the eyes of Joe Public.

For one take on the differences in shooting street in different places, based on maybe 40 years and 20 countries, see http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps street.html -- it's getting quite old now but I think it's still basically true. It's les anglo-saxons (as the French put it) who have the most problems, on either side of the camera.

Cheers,

R.

 

[John E Earley]

I think a lot of street photographers are trying to elicit a reaction. Otherwise, they just end up with a series of uninteresting snapshots of people.

 

[Rodchenko]

That's a useful and interesting link, thank you, Roger. I particularly like this line (which isn't necessarily germane to the current discussion, but I thought wise):

do not think that merely because you think you ought to be able to get good pictures of a place, you actually can get good pictures of it

 

[Michael Markey]

That's a useful and interesting link, thank you, Roger.

Yes ... I agree.
That just about says it all.
Use your common sense .... it helps.

 

[Photo_Smith]

A Leica looks like a snapshot camera. In that sense, it's a lot less obtrusive than a huge DSLR with vast lens, which marks you out as A Photographer in the eyes of Joe Public.
.

While I agree to a point, I don't think that is the reason for the change in public perception or reaction to photography. I pointed out that early photographers used plate cameras on tripods, they were clearly marked out as 'Photographers' yet few suffered violence or threats when working on European streets.

I think a change has happened in the perception of photography in public whatever camera you use, HCB took pictures of kids running through rubble, probably spent many hours doing that with his 'unobtrusive Leica'

Do that now and you'll get a different reaction from both the children and other adults even if you have a Leica M.

The change is in the perception of what is obtrusive that has certainly changed since I first started taking images.

The only time I've actually been threatened with violence was when I've carried an M4P, but in all honesty he'd have reacted the same whatever camera I'd used.

 

[__jc]

Roger - good advice but the bit about the hypothetical cop "emptying his pistol into your head" leaves me feeling just a tad uneasy.

 

[Keith]

I'm more worried about the diminishing landscape ... people are are increasing at an alarming rate as we breed like rabbits and plunder the planet's resources. 🙁

 

[Georgiy Romanov]

Streetphtography in fashion now. All guys who brings cameras can become a street photographers but the only teacher who can educate you is street. You must go out and try to take pictures and fill your own bruises

It took for me almost 5 years to learn body language and how to work with unknown people. During this time, my personality has changed dramatically. I became an open and friendly to people. It simple to pick up a camera, but it is not simple to force yourself to think differently.

 

[Roger Hicks]

While I agree to a point, I don't think that is the reason for the change in public perception or reaction to photography. I pointed out that early photographers used plate cameras on tripods, they were clearly marked out as 'Photographers' yet few suffered violence or threats when working on European streets.

I think a change has happened in the perception of photography in public whatever camera you use, HCB took pictures of kids running through rubble, probably spent many hours doing that with his 'unobtrusive Leica'

Do that now and you'll get a different reaction from both the children and other adults even if you have a Leica M.

The change is in the perception of what is obtrusive that has certainly changed since I first started taking images.

The only time I've actually been threatened with violence was when I've carried an M4P, but in all honesty he'd have reacted the same whatever camera I'd used.

You are absolutely right: it is almost always foolish in the extreme to try to attribute anything to a single cause. My sole point was that while a Leica is every bit as visible as a DSLR, most people see it as a snapshot/ compact camera and therefore don't worry as much: I really don't believe that "A Leica is highly conspicuous."

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger - good advice but the bit about the hypothetical cop "emptying his pistol into your head" leaves me feeling just a tad uneasy.

Ah... It was written not too long after the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, a Portuguese electrician shot in London: http://thewe.cc/weplanet/news/europe/uk_terror_state/killing_us_brother.htm -- "The jury returned an ambiguous, open verdict — their only option beside 'police lawfully killed' that the jury were allowed after the coroner ruled they could not find that Mr de Menezes was illegally shot dead by officers. "

Cheers,

R.