Jerk with a telephoto

[Al Patterson]

You sure it wasnt your "telephoto" she was checking out?

I had the 40 on my CL that day...

 

[Cale Arthur]

My wife said in a loud fake stage-whisper, "I think this guy wants to be a photographer."

Brilliant!

--c--

 

[sepiareverb]

I tend to jerk with something else. Gear doesn't get me going- oh I thought this was a question. sorry.
:angel:

 

[mfunnell]

Another thing that creeps me out: Photographing people who are working. A cute waitress, for example, is a captive subject.

You mean like this:


or even this:



Neither ever struck me as 'creepy'.

Does the fact that there's a waiter rather than waitress in the second one make it less 'creepy'?

I'm not offended nor really arguing. I just don't understand...

...Mike

 

[miklosphoto]

Somewhat related to this topic; how many of those of you who do street photography, actually ask people on the street if you can photograph them? Not in a posed manner, but explaining to the subject to ignore you as you photograph them? I know many street shooters think that asking people is killing the main purpose of the street photography, that is the natural, unstaged scene. But I often think that the ethically the most correct thing is to ask first.
Ideas?

 

[aad]

At Epcot one year, a fellow came into the restairant we were at and video'd us-so my wife clearly and silently enunciated "get the f@#$ out of here with that camera". He left.

I stopped the "street" thing, as in sneaking pictures of people I didn't know. I thought it was rude, and the pictures were worthless.

 

[sepiareverb]

As stated elsewhere, I avoid people in each and every image (family images excepted)

 

[swoop]

oh, this reminds me of something. I was once walking somewhere near West 4th with a girl and I saw these two guys with the huge white lenses hiding behind trees. I was looking in the direction they were shooting in and didn't see anything and I thought it was really weird. I was figuring maybe they were spying out some celebrity. But apparently they were just snapping pics of people across the street. Weird.

 

[Matt White]

There's something creepy about being furtive. If he jerked away twice, he was being chickensh*t about it. I say have the guts to admit you are photographing people if you are noticed.

Quite so. I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with using a long lens (other than a memory card full of dull photos), but it's pretty spineless to try and hide what you're doing when you get busted.

Despite it being my new favourite thing, I do think It's fairly uncouth to be taking people's photo without telling them first, so if I'm spotted, I feel under some kind of obligation to own up and explain what I'm doing. Anything less is either cowardly or a contempt for the subject - which to me goes against the spirit of this kind of shooting.

 

[ChrisN]

Here's my take on this: I don't think I've got any right to impose my values and preferences on others when it comes to photography. I'm just grateful that photography in public places is still allowed (where I live). I'd suggest us photographers should support each other and stick together to protect our rights and privileges, even if we don't like their style.

And as to the "taking" versus "making" photos argument (short lens up close is morally or ethically superior to using a long lens from a distance) - that might win you brownie points from photographers and "artists" that share your values, but it doesn't cut it with the other 99.9% of the population! Joe Public isn't interested in your eithics and can't tell the difference..

 

[f/stopblues]

I've been photographed (that I noticed) two or three times while walking around the city, I'd guess because I'm freakishly tall and stand out like a sore thumb

My initial reaction has been different depending on how the photographer acted about it. None asked for consent first.

One time I reacted like the original poster and was a little put off by the shot. It was somewhat close range with an SLR, but he acted sneaky and tried to play it off when I made eye contact with him. I felt like he was trying to steal something from me.

Two other times there were photogs who were just gingerly wading through the people and raised their camera to me, took the shot, then politely smiled and nodded. Both times I felt comfortable with it and it didn't trigger that negative gut response.

I've since adapted the polite smile and nod method which seems to work wonders. I'm a nice guy and I try to project that without dialoge on the street. One day I'll actually scan and post some of my adventures, but I HATE scanning and fiddling with photoshop

 

[WoolenMammoth]

(short lens up close is morally or ethically superior to using a long lens from a distance)

for me this is neither a moral or ethical thing. Its just a question of skill. What skill could possibly be required to shoot portraits of people on a 300mm lens? I see this daily in the city and I always wonder what degree of satisfaction this could possibly bring to the camera operator. Standing 40 yards away from someone and taking headshots is about the most ridiculous thing I can think of. It just smacks of cowardice to me. This didnt used to bother me until it became such a staple to see in parks in New York City. This is "street" photography. I just have to laugh sometimes. As if street photography wasnt boring enough to me, there couldnt be a more "who cares" kind of photograph than a completely condensed 300mm shot that doesnt contain a player in a uniform catching a ball of some type or a raptor carrying some kind of dead thing in its talons. Here is suzy sitting in the park. I was three hundred million feet away from her when I took this, look how great of a photographer I am... yawn.

 

[gb hill]

I usually shoot at events that are camera friendly. Last week at the Heavy Rebel Car show practically everyone had a camera. There was one dude that really stuck out. He was shooting with a Canon Rebel & a white tele lens. I watched him for a bit & the guy would stand almost hidden in a doorway & point that tele & take his shot. I never could figure who or what he was shooting & thought him weird. Short time later it started raining so I made my way over to a shelter where the guy was standing. So I started making conversation with him & immediately noticed he was a shy person. But he was very nice to talk with & I came to the conclusion that even though he loves photography, he is quite shy, so purchased the equipment best suited for his comfort zone. So next time a fellow street shooter points a tele or even a 28mm in your face remember he is a fellow brother so I would get over it.

 

[Russ]

Forget it. He was a rookie street shooter. Once he becomes more experienced, he'll be getting close with a wide angle, and he'll drop his "big game" ways of shooting. It's common amongst new street shooters. Heck, we all started somewhere.

Russ

 

[John Rountree]

I shoot a lot of "street" with my lovely little 40mm Rokkor. Personally, I really like it when I make eye contact with my subject. Ninety per cent of the time I don't ask permission, it would change the scene too much. As someone else said, street shots that are all compressed and foreshortened just look stupid. But, as Diane Arbus said, "If you go out in public, you might have your picture taken." It is done and over, though I do understand how powerful it is when "misery loves company." If it was a life changing experience for you, that's okay too. But it doesn't require anyone to impose a set of "rules" or "ethics" for street shooting.

 

[gb hill]

Here is a good method for photography out on the streets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3HXILo9Znk&feature=related

 

[pesphoto]

Here is a good method for photography out on the streets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3HXILo9Znk&feature=related

yeah, he's cool and his work is good. But its not for me. People posing and smiling at the camera.

 

[WoolenMammoth]

So I started making conversation with him & immediately noticed he was a shy person.

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.

 

[mfunnell]

I dunno. White lens or not, I quite approved of this photographer:



And, yes, she saw me taking the photo. Though quite what she thought of the M3 I don't know.

...Mike

 

[Keith]

Reading through this thread reminds me of why I like the gallery gigs that I get once a month or so. I get to wander around with a rangefinder photographing people randomly as you would do in the 'street' genre without my somewhat timid nature being an issue. I can walk up to a group of people or individuals and photograph them at very close range if I so choose and I have the freedom to photograph them where and how I like.

This gets this whole 'street photogaphy' thing out of my system and allows me to get on with my life and not obsess about photographs I find it hard to take!