Jerk with a telephoto

[gb hill]

nobody ever made an excuse for beethoven's crummy music because he was deaf. Usually, its just the opposite.

shooting people anonymously from half a mile away is cowardice in my book regardless of what kind of social affliction you have.

I have worked in the arts professionally my whole life and have had the (dis)pleasure of working with some of the most socially misaligned personalities of all sorts who couldnt deal with life on their own, but shined as bright stars when they stepped into their creative roles in life, whatever they happened to be. Every single one of them would have been appalled and insulted if a critic had used their social ineptitude to function as a foot note crutch to justify their creative output. You are either awesome or you are not and sometimes this requires stepping up to the plate. Or you can buy a white lens. whatever.

white lens is awesome for shooting in places where you absolutely CAN NOT be, like the 50 yard line. But in a park, where you can take the same exact photo just by walking two thousand paces up to someone and shooting it with a 50 or a *gasp* 90? sorry... White lens street takes a skill level of one half to become proficient at and is just laughable at all costs.

I'm not trying to make excuses, I just don't think a person should be judged a jerk because he or she uses a long tele lens. Not my style though.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

My "code of behavior" whenever being photographed on the street... Wave! 🙂

 

[WoolenMammoth]

I just don't think a person should be judged a jerk because he or she uses a long tele lens.

on this note I agree with you.

 

[Anupam]

I suspect you would have felt differently if he had just smiled and given you a thumbs up or waved when you made eye contact. In general, I try to be respectful of my subjects - some sort of acknowledgment when they are clearly recognizable or the main subject of the photo is nice too, but often after the shot. Sometimes I'll see a good shot and grab it first without bothering to ask - asking would spoil the following shots, IMO. You can be respectful of the subject without having to ask explicit permission etc.

 

[btgc]

What a great thread! On subject, I once tried 135 on street (half a roll) and know what? Not a fraction of that emotional engagement that normal lens gives! I got only one frame I like more or less and it could benefit from being taken from closer distance.

I think all of those who go street with wide or normal lenses, are looking for emotional fulfillment - if street photography would get hypotethically prohibited, I'd go by street saying phrases to people "Love your gesture" "What an expression" on so on.

Back to tele's. If someone is repeatedly sneaking towards me with tele lens, and trying to hide when caught, I'd show him some Mickey Mouses face or like, showing what I think about inability or not willing to come closer. I wouldn't mind if someone would come close and raises camera because eye contact already makes bridge between us. Each day to office I'm taped by security camera, sometimes I leave funny messages and I can just guess if operators see them or not.

Below is picture I kind of like but not proud of.

 

[williams473]

A lot of good conversation here - haven't been able to check the thread since Friday - been helping a friend with a documentary over the weekend.

As the OP I just wanted to try and respond in general to everyone and reiterate that it was specifically the long lens that bothered me, but more so, the photographer acting guilty. I think it is a lesson we can all take. I say all the time, when working on the street don't act guilty, and you won't emanate guilt. As with a lot things, I believe very good photography is the result of cultivating a lot of things that don’t seem to deal directly with photography itself – social grace, compassion, empathy etc. go a long way in making good images on the street.

I also wanted to point out that there is a way to work on the street with permission. In one of Cartier-Bresson's books he mentioned that all about all the street work he did when he visited China only began after he was granted clearance by his Chinese government "guide" (babysitter) to work in a particular area, which he honored. There is a time and place for the confrontational street image, in which the subject is complicit with the photographer, ala Diane Arbus. But it is possible to enter a space, let people know you’re there, then sit back and watch things unfold. It takes more patience than just walking and snapping, but I believe yields better results because you can get your intuition and brain more involved. People are going to just stand there for a half hour staring at the camera and smiling – they will eventually go back to whatever they are doing, and assuming they are okay with your presence, then you can work freely, and obtain spontaneous images.

The only detractor’s comments I feel a need to address is NH3’s comment, because it was unconstructive, and contained the simplistic insult that I am pretending to be a photographer. Well, apart from the obvious idiocy of the comment, seeing as anyone who takes photographs is by definition, a photographer, I would say let’s compare portfolios buddy. It’s true I am an amateur – it’s French for “for the love of it.” And that’s why I do it. The only professional photography I would want to do would be photojournalism, and I am not able to move from city to city and take the low pay at the moment as I am raising a family. Are you insinuating you are a pro? If so, I’ think you probably ought to have some stones and put up or shut up. Send me a link to your site, or perhaps a list of the shows you’ve been in. If YOU had any idea how much of my heart, soul and time goes into photography, you’d have made your point without it being a “rant.” To be amateur is not to pretend to do something, but to be pro means you do something for money. What involves more passion do you think? Getting paid to do something under the guidelines of an employer, or actually PAYING one’s own money and time to work for one’s self?


With my defensive “rant” out the way and my blood pressure lowering, I will address your point, because it is similar to one several others raised – I realize it seems like a double standard for me to have an aversion to being photographed. That’s sort of why I posted. Not everything in life is so clear. And yes, the lens absolutely does make a difference, to me anyway. If you are not schooled visually enough to know there is an intimacy in a telephoto closeup of a face that is not there when taking the same image with a wide angle lens form the same spot, I can’t help you. Yes, if he was in my face with a 28, it would obtain the same intimacy, but then I could have also said something to the guy, and I would have respected him more – he probably wouldn’t have gotten the label of “jerk.” The guy seemed a “jerk” to me for being such a pansy about being discovered.

Regardless, it wasn’t a direct insult to him – as I stated I didn’t even talk to him. I didn’t post his name, or his face or anything – to you he’s just a nameless jerk with a long lens. I’m glad you decided to stand up for our faceless, nameless “jerk,” though and instead attacked me personally, insulting that which is most dear to me. You’ll note I know your “fake” name – NH3 – and I haven’t called you a jerk. My name is Matthew Williams by the way, and I live in Pittsburgh PA, there “NH3.” That’s actually a picture of me taken by my daughter in my avatar, too. Why are you hiding? Is it because you enjoying flaming people more than talking photography in a civil manner?

Alright – that was too long but I feel sufficiently defended now. See you all tomorrow, back at work!

 

[shimo-kitasnap]

would you have felt any different if he had pointed a rangefinder at you? I probably would've smiled back no matter what kind of camera/lens the photographer was using.

 

[shimo-kitasnap]

I've always found it amusing to photograph people who are photographing. Maybe next time you see a guy point a telephoto at you, spin round and take a picture of him, maybe that might scare him off.

 

[peterc]

The photographers.

Sorry, not RF. Nikon F3, AI-P Nikkor 45/2.8

 

[Roger Hicks]

Back,

So it wouldn't bother you to know there was a 16x20 inch print of your face, with every line and whisker clearly defined, hanging on someone's wall somewhere?

Why would it worry anyone?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Be careful Roger. Your statement should be qualified.

No worry for "adults" to be pictured this way maybe......

Dear Richard,

I'd not have thought it a great concern for a child's face, either. Besides, to be a little legalistic, it's not the child that's likely to be doing the worrying about their own face. More likely a paranoid parent.

Actually, how disastrous is it to have any part of anyone's anatomy as 20x16 inches? (Aesthetic considerations aside). Is this not conflating stalking of a specific person, adult or child, with taking their picture?

Incidentally, anyone who can get a super-sharp 30x40cm pic with a hand-held 300 must be some kind of superman anyway.

Cheers,

R.

 

[gb hill]

Your "rant" has been well taken. The guy probably did act like a jerk but I wouldn't let this dissuade you from going out and taking photos in the street. Looking at some of your work @ smug mug, street doesn't seem to be your style anyhow. Your work by which, far from being amateurish, seems more documentary. Very nice BTW. When I think of street photography I think of Winogrand, Meyerowitz, Gilden, Boogie & others. Who are you going to ask permission of? HCB was in a Communist country. You almost need to ask permission to sit down over there. We live in a free society. In this short documentary http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkIWW6vwrvM&feature=related
Bruce Gilden is right when someone said "not here" Some people think they own the street & the rest of the word should make a clear path for them. If you shoot street your just going to come off as being rude. Face it. If we are going to document this era of time we now live in we have to put feelings aside and just do it.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Though street photography in general is tolerated by French law, the concentration on an individual, head shots, with "telephoto lenses" is definitely illegal.

Though with children, I would be more worried about the parental lynch mob.

Dear Richard,

Unfortunately I have lost the reference but within the last year substantially this question was addressed in a lawsuit over a book showing Parisians going about their business, not always in a flattering light. The court decided that a free press was more important than their rights.

I should be most obliged if you could help me track the case down. I think it was a Paris court, in the last quarter of 2007.

EDIT: Success! Le Figaro 14/10/2007. Sorry, the link doesn't seem to want to happen. 'Le sacro-saint droit à l'image battu en brèche'. Have you heard any more about this case?

Cheers,

Roger

 

[mfunnell]

Incidentally, anyone who can get a super-sharp 30x40cm pic with a hand-held 300 must be some kind of superman anyway.

In these days of stabilised lenses and/or camera bodies I don't think super powers are needed so much. While I seldom use it for "people photos", and then mostly for sports, I can print quite sharp A3+ photos (generally of birds and other wildlife) taken hand-held at 400mm focal length (640mm equiv field of view) with a stablised lens. And kryptonite sure wouldn't hurt me! For that sort of work, I'll take all the gizmos and electronic aids I can get.

...Mike

 

[Roger Hicks]

Ah, yes, I'd forgotten aboit VR -- thanks. that woukd certainly make a majpr difference.

Even so, I've never seen anything off 35mm or small-format digi (35mm or less) yjat I'd call super-sharp at 16x20 inches --as compared with an MF shot using a tripod, which is where I'd say 'super-sharp' begins. Mike's 'quite sharp' seems likelier, or even 'remarkably sharp'.

Cheers,

R.

 

[MickH]

Watching that u-tube piece on Gilden I wouldn't be surprised if he occasionally gets slotted on the nose. Talk about a jerk!

 

[Nh3]

A lot of good conversation here - haven't been able to check the thread since Friday - been helping a friend with a documentary over the weekend.

As the OP I just wanted to try and respond in general to everyone and reiterate that it was specifically the long lens that bothered me, but more so, the photographer acting guilty. I think it is a lesson we can all take. I say all the time, when working on the street don't act guilty, and you won't emanate guilt. As with a lot things, I believe very good photography is the result of cultivating a lot of things that don’t seem to deal directly with photography itself – social grace, compassion, empathy etc. go a long way in making good images on the street.

I also wanted to point out that there is a way to work on the street with permission. In one of Cartier-Bresson's books he mentioned that all about all the street work he did when he visited China only began after he was granted clearance by his Chinese government "guide" (babysitter) to work in a particular area, which he honored. There is a time and place for the confrontational street image, in which the subject is complicit with the photographer, ala Diane Arbus. But it is possible to enter a space, let people know you’re there, then sit back and watch things unfold. It takes more patience than just walking and snapping, but I believe yields better results because you can get your intuition and brain more involved. People are going to just stand there for a half hour staring at the camera and smiling – they will eventually go back to whatever they are doing, and assuming they are okay with your presence, then you can work freely, and obtain spontaneous images.

The only detractor’s comments I feel a need to address is NH3’s comment, because it was unconstructive, and contained the simplistic insult that I am pretending to be a photographer. Well, apart from the obvious idiocy of the comment, seeing as anyone who takes photographs is by definition, a photographer, I would say let’s compare portfolios buddy. It’s true I am an amateur – it’s French for “for the love of it.” And that’s why I do it. The only professional photography I would want to do would be photojournalism, and I am not able to move from city to city and take the low pay at the moment as I am raising a family. Are you insinuating you are a pro? If so, I’ think you probably ought to have some stones and put up or shut up. Send me a link to your site, or perhaps a list of the shows you’ve been in. If YOU had any idea how much of my heart, soul and time goes into photography, you’d have made your point without it being a “rant.” To be amateur is not to pretend to do something, but to be pro means you do something for money. What involves more passion do you think? Getting paid to do something under the guidelines of an employer, or actually PAYING one’s own money and time to work for one’s self?


With my defensive “rant” out the way and my blood pressure lowering, I will address your point, because it is similar to one several others raised – I realize it seems like a double standard for me to have an aversion to being photographed. That’s sort of why I posted. Not everything in life is so clear. And yes, the lens absolutely does make a difference, to me anyway. If you are not schooled visually enough to know there is an intimacy in a telephoto closeup of a face that is not there when taking the same image with a wide angle lens form the same spot, I can’t help you. Yes, if he was in my face with a 28, it would obtain the same intimacy, but then I could have also said something to the guy, and I would have respected him more – he probably wouldn’t have gotten the label of “jerk.” The guy seemed a “jerk” to me for being such a pansy about being discovered.

Regardless, it wasn’t a direct insult to him – as I stated I didn’t even talk to him. I didn’t post his name, or his face or anything – to you he’s just a nameless jerk with a long lens. I’m glad you decided to stand up for our faceless, nameless “jerk,” though and instead attacked me personally, insulting that which is most dear to me. You’ll note I know your “fake” name – NH3 – and I haven’t called you a jerk. My name is Matthew Williams by the way, and I live in Pittsburgh PA, there “NH3.” That’s actually a picture of me taken by my daughter in my avatar, too. Why are you hiding? Is it because you enjoying flaming people more than talking photography in a civil manner?

Alright – that was too long but I feel sufficiently defended now. See you all tomorrow, back at work!

I still think you overreacted and the more you complain and make threats the more silly you look.

"Lets compare portfolios...".

Forget that how about we see who has the longest telephoto lens.

 

[rbsinto]

Wow!
So now anyone who uses a telephoto on the street is a coward or worse an asshole, and "real" street photographers only use short focal length lenses, and in time the newbies might learn this secret and then become "real" street shooters as well.
Who, by the way comes up with these Truths?
I've been doing this for a while myself, and use triplets of lenses. SLR's: 17~28, 35~105, and 80~200, and rangefinder 21, 35, and SLR 180 for more reach. In either case, the longest focal length is the one I use the least, but in any number of instances it was absolutely the best choice (in my opinion at the time) to get the shot, and so, was the lens I chose. And if someone called me a coward or an asshole for using it? I got the photo I wanted, I've been called worse, and I got over it.
As for someone feeling "violated" by a photographers intrusiveness using a long lens to snipe, I agree that street photography is intrusive by it's very nature. One's privacy is being invaded to an extent by a stranger with a camera. But I think it's a tempest in a teapot. Everyone of us is likely recorded a hundred times a day on surveilence cameras, as we go about our lives, and while we may not like it, it is a fact of life in our world today. My short answer to the Original Poster's feelings about being photographed by someone using a long lens is to suck it up and move on. There are vastly more important things in this life to worry about.

 

[Chris101]

Interesting that such angst would come from being photographed by an amateur photographer who will probably post his photos on some online forum or other. How about all the photographs of you that are made by the government or security company with their 'hidden in plain sight' cameras that are all over any metropolitan setting. Traffic, store security, schools, Homeland Security, etc., with face scanning software pouring over your every move. In any American city, average citizens are photographed about a dozen times a day. In parts of Europe, twice that or more.

 

[sjones]

Street photography is popular in Tokyo, as are film cameras for that matter. So far, I have caught two guys taking my photo, and I generally felt flattered. Do I worry about a bad photo of my mug; impossible!

Even if I developed some ethnic aversion to taking photographs of strangers, I would still find pleasure in looking at the works of others, thus arguably undermining my own convictions.