how has public suspicion of photographers affected street photography?

[Photo_Smith]

I really don't believe that "A Leica is highly conspicuous."

Cheers,

R.

Roger I understand, but isn't it all very comparative? A Leica may be less conspicuous than a DSLR; but more-so than a waist level camera.

I think the 'conspicuous' part comes often from the user, probably more than the type of camera.

 

[thegman]

Roger I understand, but isn't it all very comparative? A Leica may be less conspicuous than a DSLR; but more-so than a waist level camera.

I think the 'conspicuous' part comes often from the user, probably more than the type of camera.

It's all anecdotal, but my most conspicuous camera has been my Rolleiflex, one guy in Bruges could hardly believe what he was seeing, he was staring, almost open mouthed. I was not quite sure why he was so interested.

I've had comments on a Mamiya 7, a Hasselblad, a Zeiss Ikon, Horseman Convertible, and once on my Leica too. I think if I wanted to be totally unnoticed, I'd use a phone. If I wanted to use a somewhat better camera, then I'd use a DSLR. I think 'hidden in plain sight' is the way to go, and that means using what everybody else does.

I never had comments on my Fotoman 69, but then, from a distance, it could pass for a DSLR.

i.e. A bright red Ford is more discreet than a plain grey Ferrari.

 

[OurManInTangier]

Does the behaviour, attitude and reaction (to any given situation) of the photographer have a greater impact on both the resulting pictures and perceived impact on the subject than the equipment used?

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Good advice, as usual from Roger and Francis.

I prefer digital cameras that don't need to be raised to eye level and can be used without attracting attention. I have several of these, such as the small and very inconspicuous Nikon S10...

 

[thegman]

Does the behaviour, attitude and reaction (to any given situation) of the photographer have a greater impact on both the resulting pictures and perceived impact on the subject than the equipment used?

I expect it depends on the gear, if I was using an 8x10 Deardorff handheld in someone's home, then I expect no amount of discreet behaviour is going to make me go unnoticed.

Behaviour is on a sliding scale, and gear is too, which makes the bigger impact will depend on the severity of each.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

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?

Wierd assumptions....

Almost every time I'm in Toronto, for work almost always, I go for a walk after. Long walk sometimes, two hours, it could be even more. I could also come earlier and do it before work. I do street photography.
Without asking almost always, taking as close as I want it, from the front, side, and very randomly from the back.
I'm taking street candids. Google what candid means.

 

[Photo_Smith]

Does the behaviour, attitude and reaction (to any given situation) of the photographer have a greater impact on both the resulting pictures and perceived impact on the subject than the equipment used?

I think so, I've only been challenged a couple of times once when photographing my own child in a park, the other when photographing a pair of broken umbrellas on a bench I was threatened by someone I'd not noticed. Apparently I'd taken an incident reading and pointed the lightmeter at him while he watched me and he threatened to punch my ***** head in unless I deleted the image.

"It's a lightmeter, I haven't taken the picture yet" was my reply yet still he gave a torrent of abuse, I was save by the crowd that gathered more than the protestation of innocence.
i tend not to take that many images of people except from a distance, I guess non confrontation and subjects like street entertainers or protesters are safer.

Puppet man is quite unthreatening

Despite being trained killers these guys don't mind.

Desert Rats by Photo Utopia, on Flickr

I've found for portraits you can always just ask:

sister pamela by Photo Utopia, on Flickr

On the whole I do a lot less than I did 20 years ago...

 

[Roger Hicks]

"Sister Pamela" reminds me of a Catholic priest friend who, when I remarked on his nice car, said, "I've taken vows of chastity and obedience, but not poverty".

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger I understand, but isn't it all very comparative? A Leica may be less conspicuous than a DSLR; but more-so than a waist level camera.

I think the 'conspicuous' part comes often from the user, probably more than the type of camera.

Very true, but my point is that the DSLR is perceived one way (serious), the Leica another (snapshot). A great deal also depends on how quickly and smoothly you shoot. Raise the camera to your eye; shoot; put it down again (HCB's usual technique, I'm told) is very different from faffing around, removing and replacing lens caps, changing shutter speed and aperture, zooming, moving from one viewpoint to the next... The former is perceived as "snapshot", the latter as "serious" -- even though, if you know what you're doing, the exact opposite is likely to be true.

Cheers,

R.

 

[jsrockit]

The internet changed the public's perception... prior to that there was not a huge public delivery device capable of reaching millions of people that ordinary people had to worry about.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The internet changed the public's perception... prior to that there was not a huge public delivery device capable of reaching millions of people that ordinary people had to worry about.

True, but what are they actually worrying about? What awful things are going to happen? In other words, they don't really have to worry at all. They just choose to worry.

Cheers,

R.

 

[jsrockit]

True, but what are they actually worrying about? What awful things are going to happen? In other words, they don't really have to worry at all. They just choose to worry.

Cheers,

R.

I agree. Parents are the most paranoid it seems.

 

[Photo_Smith]

I'm not sure it was her car, although parked outside 'The little portion' convent. Sister Pamela was a wonderful and very spirited lady in every sense of the word, she would say serving god hasn't meant she lost her sense of humour.
This image was taken in my youth before I had left College, I have no idea if she is still around.

 

[OurManInTangier]

Puppet man is quite unthreatening

Are you Norwich based? Or perhaps there's more than one Jarrold's? I sometimes pop up, from Suffolk, for a nosey.

 

[Photo_Smith]

I agree. Parents are the most paranoid it seems.

Yes I'd agree here, I was asked by a woman to stop taking pictures of my children, her perception was it was illegal to take images of kids outside of your own home.
Of course I remonstrated, but one someone thinks they have right on their side and says they will call the police if you don't stop...

I know you'll find it hard to believe I avoid confrontation so just left.

To me that says a lot about the world we live in, most people will think nothing of a dad taking snaps of his kids for the family album, a tiny yet vocal minority think that public photography is an act of aggression.

I would never take images of another persons child, but a world where someone finding me taking my own kids pictures is shameful is confusing to me.

Do you remember those pics of you on the beach naked as a 3 year old taken by your parents? How many would be brave enough to take one now ?

 

[Photo_Smith]

Are you Norwich based? Or perhaps there's more than one Jarrold's? I sometimes pop up, from Suffolk, for a nosey.

I am an East Anglian, I'd say Norwich area but I have more than one house 😱

Oi cuaam frum Saafulk ariginally

 

[OurManInTangier]

True, but what are they actually worrying about? What awful things are going to happen? In other words, they don't really have to worry at all. They just choose to worry.

Cheers,

R.

1. The many many things that the media constantly "warn" us about and the information that the police now feel that have to give us to attempt to avoid a civil case when a fool forgets to think for themselves.

2. All those dreadful things that happen in our nightmares and that the bogeyman didn't get around to doing when we were children.

Apologies, I turned forty and instantly became a class A grump.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Yes I'd agree here, I was asked by a woman to stop taking pictures of my children, her perception was it was illegal to take images of kids outside of your own home.
Of course I remonstrated, but one someone thinks they have right on their side and says they will call the police if you don't stop...

There are only two good reasons I can think of NOT to encourage her to call the police. One is not wanting to upset your children and the other is not having the time to waste. Otherwise the dozy trollop might have believed the policeman when he told her (ever so politely, and not in those words) that she was a dozy trollop. This would have made life easier for the public at large later.

Cheers,

R.

 

[OurManInTangier]

Yes I'd agree here, I was asked by a woman to stop taking pictures of my children, her perception was it was illegal to take images of kids outside of your own home.
Of course I remonstrated, but one someone thinks they have right on their side and says they will call the police if you don't stop...

I know you'll find it hard to believe I avoid confrontation so just left.

To me that says a lot about the world we live in, most people will think nothing of a dad taking snaps of his kids for the family album, a tiny yet vocal minority think that public photography is an act of aggression.

I would never take images of another persons child, but a world where someone finding me taking my own kids pictures is shameful is confusing to me.

Do you remember those pics of you on the beach naked as a 3 year old taken by your parents? How many would be brave enough to take one now ?

That's shocking!

Personally I think I'd have taken some small amount of mean spirited glee in spending time making her aware of the current legal situation regarding public photography and pointing out that her 'community spirit' is perhaps a touch warped if she believes berating parents on showing love and care in the form of making permanent family memories is justified or necessary.

It does nicely illustrate the point that you don't have to carry a camera to be an award winning arse.

 

[OurManInTangier]

There are only two good reasons I can think of NOT to encourage her to call the police. One is not wanting to upset your children and the other is not having the time to waste. Otherwise the dozy trollop might have believed the policeman when he told her (ever so politely, and not in those words) that she was a dozy trollop. This would have made life easier for the public at large later.

Cheers,

R.

The words of a wordsmith. Perfect.