In defence of taking pictures of people surreptitiously.

[Andrea Taurisano]

I see very rarely a moral problem with taking photos of unaware strangers in public places (unless the picture, trying to be funny, shows the subject in an humiliating or embarrassing situation).

What I do see a problem with is the total lack of story, content and even point in most street photos. When they, in addition to uninteresting, are also poor from the technical point of view. That's what I have a problem with, and what makes me shake my head. And I believe those are the photos that rise moral questions as soon as the subject is a homeless or a pretty girl whose clothes or posture show more than she perhaps intended..

We'd avoid a lot of moral questions in photography if we cared or managed to take good photos that have something to tell. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Sparrow]

I find that an exceptionally interesting question. Me, personally, as one of the few dinosaurs still walking the earth, I find I simply don't care. If anyone manages to take a photo of me, they can represent me any damned way they like (as long as I'm out there in public). If I look a right goose, in public, then I deserve to since I do, or at least I did, look that way. [BTW: I mean 'goose' in the sense of an uncoordinated loon; not in the sense of an elegant feathered migratory bird; and I meen 'loon' in the sense of a crazed 'homo sapiens' not in the sense of an elegant bird with[...]...[...]and I mean 'sapiens' only in the sense of a generic species identifier, not an attempt to ascribe 'wisdom' to myself and I mean... well, what the *** do I mean? - and how many stinking disclaimers am I supposed to write these days?!!??!).

Or, let me put this in a less disordered way:

I couldn't give a toss how I'm 'represented' in public. If I'm out there in public then I'm, well, out there, and it's in public. If someone takes a photo, well, it's their camera, their lens and best of luck with that! I take no responsibility for any breakages, and if their equipment goes on strike for 'representing' human ugliness, then that's the photographer's responsibility.

I've not gone out of my way to bung on a public persona. I'm not sticking MyFace on SpaceBook. I'm firmly LinkedOut, and I've spent most of my adult life trying not to be a Twit (with limited success).

I know I'm not a 'celebrity'. I don't think of myself as being just on the edge of fame, and don't believe I have to be my own image consultant - until the inevitable stage of fame - after which many seem to believe they'll no-doubt appoint a team of such. So I simply don't care how I'm 'represented' in public because I'm sure nobody at all could give the slightest [Anglo-Saxon word].

Which means I'm old! Everybody younger
[*] than me seems to think they're so damned well-known and popular that they already need to start curating their own 'Public image(TM)'.

...Mike

[*]By 'younger' I mean pretty much everybody, including you, even if you're older. One of the reasons I'm so fond of the modern world.

... I would have said that your outlook was the modern one, a youthful attitude ... and it's me that still listens to The Home Service on the wireless

 

[mfunnell]

... and it's me that still listens to The Home Service on the wireless

I would but I'm too far away for the home service. Instead, I have to deal with the world one. And I'm not kidding when I say that includes horror.

...Mike

P.S. Though I'm sure you already knew this, when I said "you" in my earlier quoted post I didn't mean you, personally, but the generic "you" as reader. But just to be clear...
P.P.S. I'm also vain enough to go back and correct misleppings in my earlier pose[post], even though I know you've preserved my original errors in the quoted text. So sue me!

 

[Sparrow]

I see very rarely a moral problem with taking photos of unaware strangers in public places (unless the picture, trying to be funny, shows the subject in an humiliating or embarrassing situation).

What I do see a problem with is the total lack of story, content and even point in most street photos. When they, in addition to uninteresting, are also poor from the technical point of view. That's what I have a problem with, and what makes me shake my head. And I believe those are the photos that rise moral questions as soon as the subject is a homeless or a pretty girl whose clothes or posture show more than she perhaps intended..

We'd avoid a lot of moral questions in photography if we cared or managed to take good photos that have something to tell. Just my 2 cents.

... so would you say it's the intention of the subject should be a concern for the photographer?

As example ... that backlit photo of Princess Diana that caused such a fuss, she clearly didn't intend that dress to be transparent against the light, but the press didn't hesitate. LINK

 

[Sparrow]

I would but I'm too far away for the home service. Instead, I have to deal with the world one. And I'm not kidding when I say that includes horror.

...Mike

P.S. Though I'm sure you already knew this, when I said "you" in my earlier quoted post I didn't mean you, personally, but the generic "you" as reader. But just to be clear...
P.P.S. I'm also vain enough to go back and correct misleppings in my earlier pose[post], even though I know you've preserved my original errors in the quoted text. So sue me!

I still use 'one' and 'you' in real life but it sounds pompous if I use it on here, but I got the intent 🙂

 

[Andrea Taurisano]

... so would you say it's the intention of the subject should be a concern for the photographer?

As example ... that backlit photo of Princess Diana that caused such a fuss, she clearly didn't intend that dress to be transparent against the light, but the press didn't hesitate.

No, I don't think Diana or anyone else wore a semi-transparent skirt with the intention of giving a paparazzi (or any horny amateur photographer) a golden opportunity. Yet someone seems to be hunting for exactly that kind of photo opportunities.

But leaving VIPs and paparazzi aside and moving back to the millions of street candids of strangers, my point was that it's not the fact the subject was unaware that's the problem for me. And neither it is the fact "per se" that the unaware subject's skirt is slightly transparent or that her posture unawarely exposes the border of her panties or half of a boob.

What I personally shake my head at, is the lack of any content and point with those photos. If there were an important story or point in them (say a real "decisive moment" or historically interesting content), then the fact that we see two legs or some underware in transparency would be virtually irrelevant, and probably almost unnoticed. Whereas in lack of any content or point, as well as aesthetical qualities, the unawarely exposed boob or underware BECOMES the point with the image, and that IMO reveals bad taste and bad judgement. Not because I'm a moralist, but because I like interesting photos.

 

[mfunnell]

.... that backlit photo of Princess Diana that caused such a fuss, she clearly didn't intend that dress to be transparent against the light, but the press didn't hesitate.

However, at the time that photo was taken she was already using the 'cult of celebrity' thing when it suited her, and pretending innocence when it didn't. I don't blame the press at all for not hesitating: who amoung them would or could have known whether it was deliberate? Was it a mistake by her team of publicicists? Was it deliberate, with faux outrage to maximise publicity? Were the journos 'on the drip' told, or not? Did she know? Would her publicists have cared if she did or didn't? Who was in control? Her or them? Who cared? Certainly not the magazines and newspapers that sold literal bundles whenever Dianna was on the cover.

Once you ride the celebrity tiger, can you get off? I suspect Dianna did guess, but probably didn't see all the consequences. Or perhaps she didn't, found out the hard way, then used that. Or something else. At this remove, I think it impossible to tell.

As an Antipodean, Republican, Athiest, Disestablishmentarian, Colonial, failed-Catholic of mostly Irish background, I can hardly count myself as a disinterested observer!

I can recall my family absenting themselves from London at the time of the wedding (I was back here in Oz, so couldn't do one or the other). I also recall being over in Macau on the day she died, and outraging the assembled Poms on my return to HK by simply not caring. Then outraging them more by asking, every day for weeks, on arriving in the office, "Is she still dead?". Because I was sick of the wall-to-wall coverage, and I always like to wind up a Pom.

...Mike

 

[pvdhaar]

We'd avoid a lot of moral questions in photography if we cared or managed to take good photos that have something to tell. Just my 2 cents.

As a first step, that will definitely help, but there's more to it than that I fear..

The whole problem is that people [who are photographed unaware] have no control over what is published and where. And justifiably so, because there's no control over the context in which those images are later shown; that includes their mug popping up on sites that show adds that they don't consent to, or on a site of a photographer whose political/moral/creative views they don't share or appreciate..

Factor in the sneakiness and ubiquity [of this type of photography], and I can very well understand that there will be a cry for stricter and stricter legislation..

 

[jsrockit]

... do you think the surreptitious photographer has any responsibility as to how he represents his subjects or is he free to publish anything?

and can the photographer really control how his subjects are represented i.e. will the audience always think like the photographer?

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

It's a little bit surprising to me that, at the same time Americans are voluntarily giving up our privacy to media companies, we're also getting more sensitive about being photographed. Maybe, because of the prevalence of selfies, and because everyone now has a camera with them all the time, people are becoming more aware of the way they look, and have a greater desire to control their public presentation.

It's a little vexing to me that few people are ever taken to task for shooting photos with a cell phone, but a "proper" camera, especially a non-DSLR, raises eyebrows. Enthusiast photographers look more and more like a weird group—more voyeur than documentarian. Because who needs a documentarian anymore? We're all documenting ourselves. Why would somebody want to document me? Because they're a freak or sexual predator, no doubt.

I don't object in any way to the social media era, by the way. I like Instagram and twitter very much. It bothers me how much selfie-hate I see on this forum, actually; I never object to seeing the faces of the people I love who live far away. But it's definitely changing the way people think about how they want to be seen, and changing the cultural reaction to somebody pointing a Leica in their direction.

 

[Sparrow]

However, at the time that photo was taken she was already using the 'cult of celebrity' thing when it suited her, and pretending innocence when it didn't. I don't blame the press at all for not hesitating: who amoung them would or could have known whether it was deliberate? Was it a mistake by her team of publicicists? Was it deliberate, with faux outrage to maximise publicity? Were the journos 'on the drip' told, or not? Did she know? Would her publicists have cared if she did or didn't? Who was in control? Her or them? Who cared? Certainly not the magazines and newspapers that sold literal bundles whenever Dianna was on the cover.

Once you ride the celebrity tiger, can you get off? I suspect Dianna did guess, but probably didn't see all the consequences. Or perhaps she didn't, found out the hard way, then used that. Or something else. At this remove, I think it impossible to tell.

As an Antipodean, Republican, Athiest, Disestablishmentarian, Colonial, failed-Catholic of mostly Irish background, I can hardly count myself as a disinterested observer!

I can recall my family absenting themselves from London at the time of the wedding (I was back here in Oz, so couldn't do one or the other). I also recall being over in Macau on the day she died, and outraging the assembled Poms on my return to HK by simply not caring. Then outraging them more by asking, every day for weeks, on arriving in the office, "Is she still dead?". Because I was sick of the wall-to-wall coverage, and I always like to wind up a Pom.

...Mike

Not really ... that was the first time she appeared or posed for the press iirc, she didn't speak for the first few years ... what your talking about was years later and ...

... no I didn't care much beyond the 'each death diminishes' thing either, the coverage was daft

 

[mfunnell]

The whole problem is that people [who are photographed unaware] have no control over what is published and where.

Therein really does lie the problem: why does everyone think they have an 'image' that needs to be controlled? Aside from studio stars, with teams of publicists, or politicians with teams of minders, who actually needs to control their image?

I suspect a great many people are leading rich fantasy lives wherein people other than themselves actually care.

If so, I think they're deluded. But that seems to make me the only bloke on parade who is marching in step.

...Mike

P.S. That military metaphor is also a marker of age: 'everybody' pretends to admire military service but only 'nobodys' do it. Which makes me a nobody (or at least an ex-nobody; which is OK by me as long as being an ex-nobody doesn't make me a somebody; that would P me off.)

 

[mfunnell]

Not really ... that was the first time she appeared or posed for the press iirc, she didn't speak for the first few years ... what your talking about was years later and ...

Don't want to argue here, for multiple reasons including that I genuinely think poor Ms Spencer was far more sinned against than sinning. She most certainly was a victim of the 'cult of celebrity', which is something that Ps me off in many ways, but her circumstances were unique and not really illustrative of general points.

...Mike

 

[pvdhaar]

Therein really does lie the problem: why does everyone think they have an 'image' that needs to be controlled? Aside from studio stars, with teams of publicists, or politicians with teams of minders, who actually needs to control their image?

To me, that's back to front reasoning.. It's like questioning whether anyone really needs clean air, using the argument that lots of folk smoke anyway..

I suspect a great many people are leading rich fantasy lives wherein people other than themselves actually care ..
If so, I think they're deluded

Then, aside from studio stars, with teams of publicists, or politicians with teams of minders, of who do you actually need to take an image?

Maybe, my bias against "sneakophotography" also has to do with age.. I grew up when the only time you ever even saw a camera, was on a family outing.. there would be 1 or at max 2 carefully composed shots taken. And you wouldn't even think about wasting freaking expensive film on total strangers..

 

[jsrockit]

Maybe, my bias against "sneakophotography" also has to do with age.. I grew up when the only time you ever even saw a camera, was on a family outing.. there would be 1 or at max 2 carefully composed shots taken. And you wouldn't even think about wasting freaking expensive film on total strangers..

Well, that's practical, personal photography. Many like to try to make Art.

 

[mfunnell]

Therein really does lie the problem: why does everyone think they have an 'image' that needs to be controlled?

To me, that's back to front reasoning.. It's like questioning whether anyone really needs clean air, using the argument that lots of folk smoke anyway..

OK, I'll go along with the gag. Invert my reasoning.

Everybody, that is Everybody needs a 'public image' just as much as they need clean air. Discuss.

Really? Why?? I can understand the need to breathe. I have a need to breathe and I can understand that others do too. But I don't need to have a public image. In fact I don't have one, in any sense that I understand as a 'public image'. I have friends and I have family. But they are not 'the public'. If you asked people in my country, in my state, in my suburb, the vast, vast, vast, vast, vast, majority of them, even the most local, wouldn't have a single stinking clue who I was, nor would they care, nor should they. If someone showed a photo of me in my track-suit pants checking my mail-box, nobody would care. The Northern District Times (my local suburban rag) wouldn't publish it.

But I bet if Katie Perry or Taylor Swift or Brack Obama or Angela Merkel were looking less than entirely 'appropriately' dressed, there would be a news story in it. (Note by the way, that I mention two of the least important people in the world first, and two of the most as add-ons. That's part of what I'm talking about.)

Because they have a public and a public image. I don't. I suspect you don't. If you do it has escaped me.

So tell me, once again, why control of your public image is as important to you as breathing. Who are your public? Why do you need to control the image you present to them? Why is that as important to you as breathing? Please be specific.

Because I don't see it, but apparently you do.

...Mike

 

[MikeWebb]

I'm with Andrea, if the photograph has some merit artistically, or tells a worthwhile story then it probably moves away from what others are calling sneak photography. But so many street shots are pretty pointless just recording very hum drum scenes that don't really expand our understanding of the human experience.

That said of course there is a place for recording the day to day life around us in 50 years time people will be interested in how we lived now. It's the small stuff that really helps you understand how people lived.

Mike

 

[Pherdinand]

OK. Just for the sake of discussion.
Would the person below, on the photo, be allowed to complain or even to feel offended, or anything?
Is it morally OK to publish such a photo?

Or more generally, if you put yourself voluntarily in a funny situation in public, do you waive your rights to privacy (or whatever that is, the right not to be portrayed by a random dude and spread all over the Net in a possibly ridiculous situation)?

 

[Pherdinand]

... so would you say it's the intention of the subject should be a concern for the photographer?

As example ... that backlit photo of Princess Diana that caused such a fuss, she clearly didn't intend that dress to be transparent against the light, but the press didn't hesitate. LINK

i disagree on both points.
1.There's no way she could have missed that that "dress" is semitransparent.
2. So what's the big deal, there's nothing really embarrassingly visible through it.

 

[megido]

What I personally shake my head at, is the lack of any content and point with those photos. If there were an important story or point in them (say a real "decisive moment" or historically interesting content), then the fact that we see two legs or some underware in transparency would be virtually irrelevant, and probably almost unnoticed. Whereas in lack of any content or point, as well as aesthetical qualities, the unawarely exposed boob or underware BECOMES the point with the image, and that IMO reveals bad taste and bad judgement. Not because I'm a moralist, but because I like interesting photos.

Well said.