In defence of taking pictures of people surreptitiously.

[lukitas]

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

This is not an either/or proposition : both apply.

The photographer is responsible for his photographs by definition. And the photographer should be free to publish anything. A photographer cannot be responsible if he does not have the freedom to make the relevant choices. (In that sense, Winogrand is not fully responsible for his later work, as he didn't have a chance to choose what would later be shown)

It is the photographers job to choose what she shoots and what he publishes. The public can then raise a hue and cry, bemoan foibles of composition and blown highlights, shudder over a lack or a surplus of textile coverings, or plain choose to ignore. The critique may be merited, qualifications like 'perverse' and 'obscene' may apply, but they do not take away the right to show what the photographer wants to show. Aren't the dark dungeons of the human psyche at least as interesting as the kodak moments?
Obscenity changes all the time, and pushing at its boundaries is as old as the concept itself. In ancient greece, one couldn't walk without stumbling over a whopping great phallus erectus in stone, but a woman speaking in public was considered obscene. Medieval Europe considered bathing a lascivious perversion. Our hangups are just as irrational.

It is all right to call something obscene. But it is obscene to call for expulsion, ostracism, punishment and interdiction.

cheers

 

[photomoof]

This is not an either/or proposition : both apply.

The photographer is responsible for his photographs by definition. And the photographer should be free to publish anything.

In the US, the case law is pretty clear.

Context of the publication might be slander. Using a photo to illustrate an article on criminals, may imply the individual is a criminal.

Ditto in a show... if the title of the show is descriptive and implies crimes, for instance.

 

[daveleo]

. . . .
It is all right to call something obscene. But it is obscene to call for expulsion, ostracism, punishment and interdiction.
cheers

I agree with you here. (And you posting was extremely well thought.)
I will add that calling a piece of work "obscene" is acceptable (to me), but extrapolating that to say that the image maker is an obscene person is absolutely, intolerably unacceptable. As Granny Clampett would say ..... "I has spoke ! " 🙂

 

[BrooklyNYC]

It's strange because I never like being photographed in public by strangers, but street photography is my favorite flavor of photography. When you go out in public, you can't ask for privacy. I never get uncomfortably close to strangers when working on street photography in NYC, but everyone is used to cameras everywhere. I even use my cell phone for street photography sometimes because people don't seem to care. A rangefinder is my favorite tool for street photography, but it might not be the best anymore. The iPhone 6 might be able to catch a more candid scene.

 

[Georgiy Romanov]

I find that take a picture in honest open way is more challenging than take candid shot surreptitiously. In the end it's all about picture, but for me relationships and memories is also important.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I find that take a picture in honest open way is more challenging than take candid shot surreptitiously. In the end it's all about picture, but for me relationships and memories is also important.

It's the Bruce Gilden way, anyway. "I'm takin' a pitcha, I didn't realize you owned the street!!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkIWW6vwrvM

Also, BTW, I like Philly, I think it's kinda happening in recent years.

 

[Sparrow]

This is not an either/or proposition : both apply.

The photographer is responsible for his photographs by definition. And the photographer should be free to publish anything. A photographer cannot be responsible if he does not have the freedom to make the relevant choices. (In that sense, Winogrand is not fully responsible for his later work, as he didn't have a chance to choose what would later be shown)

It is the photographers job to choose what she shoots and what he publishes. The public can then raise a hue and cry, bemoan foibles of composition and blown highlights, shudder over a lack or a surplus of textile coverings, or plain choose to ignore. The critique may be merited, qualifications like 'perverse' and 'obscene' may apply, but they do not take away the right to show what the photographer wants to show. Aren't the dark dungeons of the human psyche at least as interesting as the kodak moments?
Obscenity changes all the time, and pushing at its boundaries is as old as the concept itself. In ancient greece, one couldn't walk without stumbling over a whopping great phallus erectus in stone, but a woman speaking in public was considered obscene. Medieval Europe considered bathing a lascivious perversion. Our hangups are just as irrational.

It is all right to call something obscene. But it is obscene to call for expulsion, ostracism, punishment and interdiction.

cheers

... I think that's probably it, convention ... were I in fourth century Delos then an erection in church would be more welcome than in a 19c methodist chapel

I seldom take a shot when I'm not in clear view of the subject, it seems to be bad-form to me, or simply bad manners, my morals dictate that I have to give the subject an opportunity to have a say ... for the same reason I'd not publish anything that made fun or ridiculed or objectifies the subject without good reason, so yes we clearly all don't share the same morals.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

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.

I think you may be on to something here. I don't "do" Facebook, or social media in general -- and one of the reasons is that the amount of energy it would take to self-curate an up-to-the-minute self-show is exhausting even to contemplate. But perhaps the effort that it does take, that folks do put in, gives folks a proprietary sense of their self-image in a way that ordinary folks did not have before. As in, "hey! I worked hard on that."

I think our thinking about this is muddy. Here's a picture that could be read two ways:

Maybe the photographer is a "perv" who noticed the woman's backside. Or maybe he is showing you the behavior of the man passing in the street and inviting you to find his fascination amusing.

Most of us inhabit public spaces. When we do, we are creating something -- a fleeting public interaction that is like a great civic dance. This is the beauty of cities, in my view. But noticing the dance (or being able to present it in an interesting or ironic way) -- that can approach art.

The people in this photograph will never (or are unlikely to ever) be together in this way again:

They have formed something for an instant. Or rather, I formed them into something for an instant.

Ditto here:

Developing a relationship with the subject, a la Mary Ellen Mark (and many other courageous photographers) would completely change the outcome of the civic dance.

I am not saying that it is the only way to take photographs; only that it shows something that cannot be viewed otherwise.

Some pictures taken with permission can have that flare too.

[Forget about this last one. . . . I just like the picture, but it ain't street ;-) ]

I think the extreme cases are easy: Kiddy porn? Never OK. Adults in public places? Pretty much always ok. In the thread above, or in the one deleted last week, someone posted about a photographer taking pictures of women's backsides at the Thanksgiving Day Parade in NYC. Poor taste, although I think you could accomplish the same thing with cropping and a wide angle lens if that was your thing. Does that mean that I am going to have the lady-butt photographer over to dinner? Nah, don't think so. Not really that interested in what makes him tick. But lock him up? Or prohibit him? Also no. I'd much rather live somewhere, and make art somewhere, where the rule is to err on the side of permissiveness of expression, regardless of how poor the taste.

 

[Georgiy Romanov]

It's the Bruce Gilden way, anyway. "I'm takin' a pitcha, I didn't realize you owned the street!!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkIWW6vwrvM

Also, BTW, I like Philly, I think it's kinda happening in recent years.

I tried to work like mr. Gilden from time to time. All I wanted to say that this type of shooting eats a lot of your physical and mental energy. I don't feel a guilty myself or something like that, but after one session I must recharge my battery.

Interestingly another. When I try to take a picture surreptitiously (from the hip, for example) I feel myself more lousy but save much more energy. Trying to find a balance every week :angel:

 

[zauhar]

....

Also, BTW, I like Philly, I think it's kinda happening in recent years.

Yes it is! Unfortunately a lot of people from NYC have moved down, and the prices are rising in response. Now everyone who owns a shoe-box row house sees their ship coming in.

But Phila. is the best place I have lived over the course of my life.

Randy

 

[airfrogusmc]

Sometimes I engage if I see an interesting face and I want to photograph it but if I'm working in the moment it's about that and that can't be recreated or fabricated. Think of all the great photographs that would not have been taken by the likes of Bresson, Winogrand, Frank, DeCarava, and so many more, if they had not been taking photographs in the moment, without permission. Though when I am working it is no secret that I am taking photographs so I am not sneaking. The subject usually doesn't know the photo has been taken until after it is shot and I'm on to the next one.

We all have to find what works best for each of us just the way the Bresson, Frank, Winogrand and DeCarava did. Just get out and work and don't break laws and work within your own parameters, whatever those may be.

 

[froyd]

Speaking of Gilden... had a guy jump out of the shadows and blast me in the face with his flash gun at night. Too bad I was carrying my daughter on my shoulders, because the temptation to give him a swift one in the derriere was pretty strong.

 

[Pherdinand]

Speaking of Gilden... had a guy jump out of the shadows and blast me in the face with his flash gun at night. Too bad I was carrying my daughter on my shoulders, because the temptation to give him a swift one in the derriere was pretty strong.

that sounds like my friend 😀 was it a tall skinny guy with a beard and a konica Hexar AF rhodium?
he's really a good guy but can be a tad aggressive in his approach 😀

 

[MrFujicaman]

When people stop behaving badly in public spaces, maybe then, maybe, I'll stop taking pictures of people in public places. Where is the uprising against loud cars, loud music, loud.. people? Where is the uprising against trashy public advertising, trash-littered streets, trash-talking.. people? Where is the uprising against over-paid free-market capitalists, free-spending super-PACs, and WAY-underpaid school teachers?? No... lets just ignore all the truly painful abuse that goes on in public and instead pick on photographers. I'll keep making pictures of anything and anyone I feel like, thank you very much.

AND... what exactly do any of these bone-headed censors think is going to happen to them when I plaster their pouty visage all over the RFF gallery pages? (Oops... forgot my meds)

Where's the outrage against jeans worn below the butt and backwards hats ?

 

[Georgiy Romanov]

Speaking of Gilden... had a guy jump out of the shadows and blast me in the face with his flash gun at night. Too bad I was carrying my daughter on my shoulders, because the temptation to give him a swift one in the derriere was pretty strong.

May be it was this guy? )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qcgEnC3bLY

Also find good articles about Mark Cohen on ASX

 

[kuzano]

I love your post...

I love your post...

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 mean '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.

It's in my archive to reflect on every time someone yells at me.... "Hey, dunn tek no pitchers of da kids!!!" With their fat poofy face, black greasy mustache, and their rotund gut hanging out over the front of a black thong and them wearing flip flops.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Speaking of Gilden... had a guy jump out of the shadows and blast me in the face with his flash gun at night. Too bad I was carrying my daughter on my shoulders, because the temptation to give him a swift one in the derriere was pretty strong.

I'm not a G-fan at all.
Blasting flash in the face doesn't bring a lot to me as viewer.

I'm currently studying GW work and he was using flash on events and on the street as well, but it looks more natural for my taste.

 

[lukitas]

Gotta love this. the invective has died down, interesting points have been made, and some nice photos have turned up.

Thank you everybody!

I had a conversation about this with my daughter the other day. I had been shooting around a boxing match on a public square, with a small crowd attending. Mostly young men, some clumps of girls, who were generally more interested in the boys than in the boxing. While working the periphery, I spotted a couple of seductive young ladies making selfies under a large pillar. I quickly took a shot, and they immediately broke out in screams and insults, told me I didn't have the right, etc.
My daughter thinks they were perfectly justified in doing so : If somebody you know takes your picture, it's ok, but when a stranger points a camera at you it's perfectly normal to be suspicious.
It's hard to disagree with that. As the frequent subject of photos (I have a big beard and work on the trains, so I can be found in vacation albums from all over the world), I can empathise.
But we live in a world, where the only things we produce more of than bullets and toilet paper are images and noises. Camera phones, surveillance cameras, satellite cameras, cameras in computer screens, photos and film : we are incessantly clicking away and building up an incredible tsunami of images no single person could ever wade through. We are in the frame all the time, every day. Almost all of these photos are of no significance, are not seen by the masses, have no impact except maybe on family and friends. And a few three photographers, who like to torture themselves with others' luck at getting great frames, or grinning in disdainful glee at others' failures. The fact that images are being made of us shouldn't matter anymore.
Maybe we should learn from societies where everybody knew they were being listened to. In communist Yugoslavia, student clubs knew they were taped when they were organising rock concerts and subversive magazines. They made sure to end each reunion with 'coded' messages, like 'the pigeon has left the roost' or ' the pig is wallowing in the mud' - That would at least give the listeners something to worry about.

So my advice is, if somebody points a camera at you, and you don't like it, make a face. With a bit of luck, you'll become an Icon, like Einstein sticking out his tongue.

Cheers

(had to include a couple of photo's, to get myself pardoned for all those words.)

I had a fight with a synonym for grinning. It begins with an s, followed by an n-word that can apparently not be mentioned, even when it is another word with an s in front of it. interesting.

 

[Daniel Teoli Jr.]

OP, it is bull****.

If it is legal...do as you please. No reason to make excuses.

 

[noisycheese]

I cannot speak for the other 195 nations in the world, but in the U.S. no one has a right to go out in the public domain and not be photographed.

A lot of people do not know this or understand it; their ignorance is the cause of problems with regard to street photography and candid photography. I have been told more than once that it is "illegal" to photograph people on the street and in other public places. That is a 100% false claim in the U.S.

In 30 years, today's street photographs will be considered historic images, links to a bygone era - and they will be precisely that. No one should be allowed to deny future generations that legacy just because they think it is "illegal" to photograph people in public places.

With regard to foreign persons who are in the U.S., respect our culture and our customs when you come to our nation and we will do likewise when we come to yours. As the old axiom says, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." Being a gracious visitor to another nation is just common sense and common courtesy.

In other words, do not come to the U.S. and attempt to enforce the cultural and/or religious customs of your home nation on the people of another nation.