Jerk with a telephoto

rbsinto said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's how it works :)
 
I had something similar happen to me, except I was taking the picture (with a yashica lynx), and the person objected to it. Even though technically I was within my rights (in a public space), it made me think what do "everyday people" think or feel having their picture taken either without their knowledge or their consent ? Fact of the matter is, they have no idea what your intentions are (artistic or creepy).
I think it's a good thing to question the methods, equipment, manners we use. Even though photography is permitted in public spaces, leaving a person with the feeling they've been violated or intruded upon in some way is not pleasant (and certainly not my intention). For myself, I've suspended my meager attempts at street photography while I have a think about the best way to proceed.
 
A couple of weeks ago I took a photograph of a municipal campsite for a new travel site. Some young woman came steaming out of a caravan and it, "It is not allowed to take pictures here!"

I said, "Yes it is. This is a public place."

She said, "Why are you taking pictures?"

I said, "For a web-site about travel."

She said, "Were you taking pictures of my caravan?"

I said, "I don't think so. I was taking a picture of the showers-and-toilets block. The cirner of your caravan may or may not have been in it. The corner of this car was."

She said, "Don't take pictures of my property."

Unfortunately I failed to think fast enough to ask her how I could tell her property from anyone else's.

Most people, even if they start out angry, will calm down if given long enough. But this sort of thing is just crazy -- unless she had something to hide. In which case she should just have stayed inside the caravan, and I'd never have known she existed.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Yeah Net - that's sort of the conclusion I'm coming to - Is the payoff worth the intrusion? I'm just trying to figure out where to go from here if I'm going to do less intrusive work - it makes me think about the value of personal aspirations in the first place.

Roger - don't know why it bothers me - just does. It really doesn't bother me that my image is taken routinely - I used to work at a Casino/horsetrack and there were 900+ cameras on the property! So I got used to that - what bothers me is the eye of the photographer - it always has - I just don't like being photographed.

NH3 - I didn't mean to get into a pissing match - just didn't like being insulted and the portfolio comment wasn't about "my work is better than yours," it was just getting to the fact that, if you aren't going to show your work, it's not really fair to insult mine, which is out there for all to see. Actually, I could take criticism of my work, but devaluing it as non-photography forced me to ask you where yours is. Anyway, you were probably originally just reacting to the combative tone of my original post, which I will refrain from taking in the future, so I am partly to blame and I'm not holding this against you.

RBS - I wouldn't call you an asshole - I think of the entire series Eugene Smith made out of his apartment window - telephoto shots of passersby. I'm not advocating one way of working on the street over another, just 1, noting how weird it felt to be photographed like that, and 2, how wrong it all felt when I noticed the photographer not acknowledging me. I did move on, but I can't deny how it made me feel, and as it turns out, it has been a pretty good experience in totality, and I think it is something a lot of us think about as evidenced by the response to this topic.

GB - Thanks for the compliment and I do believe you may be right - I might be more of a portraitist after all - there was a time when I was a pure street shooter, but over time I found that the meat of the imagery I wanted to get to was rarely right on the surface, and I really do enjoy working at a slightly slower pace than street photography demands. Even so, I can’t see going into a studio – I really enjoy working from life.
 
Roger,

Yeah you can just never tell how people are going to react. Most photographers I've ever known are well-intentioned, but it is interesting to realize that for many people, right or wrong, justified or not, being photogrpahed is perceived as invasive and/or rude.

I once had to slip away when a guy went to get a friend when I was shooting in a Russian open-air market - I guess this guy was probably selling somehting illegal out of his truck, but he was LIVID that I photographed him. The police actually came and amazingly told the guy I was within my rights, and to calm down. When the cop left, the merchant was still hot and told me to "wait here!" Course, I didn't. Scooted for my life. That guy was going to grab a buddy and probably drag me behind the truck to give me "what fer." Course I assume he was selling something illegal - he may have just felt as violated as I did at having his picture "taken."
 
Roger Hicks said:
A couple of weeks ago I took a photograph of a municipal campsite for a new travel site. Some young woman came steaming out of a caravan and it, "It is not allowed to take pictures here!"

I said, "Yes it is. This is a public place."
Click to expand...

Does the fact that her "property" is in a public space mean she has relinquished her right to decide if it can be photographed or not ? I'm sure most of us would answer yes (I would), but it might not be an obvious answer to the "non photographically inclined" general public. And does this (or should this) directly translate to a persons "self" ? That might not be so easy to answer.
 
nextreme said:
Does the fact that her "property" is in a public space mean she has relinquished her right to decide if it can be photographed or not ? I'm sure most of us would answer yes (I would), but it might not be an obvious answer to the "non photographically inclined" general public. And does this (or should this) directly translate to a persons "self" ? That might not be so easy to answer.
Click to expand...
The simple answer here would be "I'm not on your property", but from Roger's recollection of the encounter, she would probably not be satisfied.
 
I think she meant "of her property", meaning her caravan, and they were on a municipal camping site, which I guess means public camp site.
 
The point is, I don't even know if I was taking pictures of her property. The corner of her caravan may or man not have been in the shot. The corner of the car in front -- a wing/fender, no registration plate -- probably was. Was that her car? Who cares? If I am worried about taking pictures of 'private property' I can't photograph anything.

Over 200 MPs have now signed Austin Mitchell's Early Day Motion urging Parliament to issue a statement of photographers' rights in the UK. The Parisian court quoted in Le Figaro has clarified French law. We need more of this sort of clarification, and fewer paranoid buffoons.

Incidentally I've had grief at markets too, in the UK. I'm told by The Authorities that this may be because quite a frew market traders claim unemployment benefit. But equally I've found most market traders in most countries treat the whole thing as a bit of fun; a lark.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
I've had grief at markets too, in the UK. I'm told by The Authorities that this may be because quite a frew market traders claim unemployment benefit. But equally I've found most market traders in most countries treat the whole thing as a bit of fun; a lark.
Click to expand...

Ha... me too. I once took a photo of a town crier in an obscure Northern English town center (centre) on Market Day... only to have him chase me down crying "you took a photo of me and now you must pay me two pounds." He was so obnoxious that I was tempted to give him two pounds... the two pounds that is supended on the end of my right arm -- a fist. Instead I asked him how he knows I took a photo since all he really knows is that I pointed a camera in his direction. He was baffled and walked away muttering something -- perhaps "well then, how about one pound?"

p.s. I guess that make me a "jerk with a telephoto," eh?
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
The point is, I don't even know if I was taking pictures of her property. The corner of her caravan may or man not have been in the shot. The corner of the car in front -- a wing/fender, no registration plate -- probably was. Was that her car? Who cares? If I am worried about taking pictures of 'private property' I can't photograph anything.
Click to expand...
Yup, I completely understand your point and what the implications to our hobby/profession would be if we couldn't point our lenses towards 'private property' in public places. I guess I'm questioning does the same 'property in a public place' permission extend to 'person in a public place' ? I think the general thought is, yes it does (a lot of street photographers seem to say so).
 
williams473 said:
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? I guess I'm more self conscous than that - it's cool that you're not. I'm not sure why that scenario creeps me out, but it does.
Click to expand...
When my my image has been taken and stored by almost every bank, store, subway platform, office building lobby/atrium, and home surveillance system I've walked past or into, some untold number of times each day, I'd say no, my appearing in a print like that wouldn't bother me, even if I wasn't looking quite my best that day.

People with big-ass SLRs and their associated lenses do sometimes annoy me, but that might be because I resembled them in a previous life. :cool:


- Barrett
 
oftheherd said:
Maybe that was it. In Korea I once had a young man tell me "Yankee go home." I wasn't overjoyed at it, but what really got me was the way he did it. He bowed his head, didn't look at me, and spoke softly so other Koreans around wouldn't hear him. That made me mad. He didn't even have the courage to face me and declare how he felt loudly enough for others to hear.

Otherwise it was almost funny to think I had been in the US Army for about 26 years, and in the far east over 12 years, and that was the first time I had been told Yankee go home. He must have been watching old US movies or something. :D
Click to expand...

I can relate. I was working for the Metro Parks in Tacoma WA in an all black part of town and I was told, 'Whitey, you belong on 6th Ave.'

Later during the Nam years I was a rocking and rolling long hair. More than once I was served at the back doors of restaurants. I was afraid both times.

As far as being photographed goes, there's paranoia and legitimate fear. What would a legitimate fear of being photographed be?
 
back alley said:
there's a code of street photography?
Click to expand...

There's an implicit code of conduct in public. Street photography is usually performed in public, ergo, there is an implicit code.

I've been thinking about this lately, and I've realized that when I perform what is usually described as "street photography" (i.e., shots taken without permission for non-documentary purposes), I feel I'm taking advantage in a way that degrades both myself and the subject. There are times it's hard to restrain myself, but lately I've been taking my camera out on the street less and less because of this.

Perhaps it's a subconscious reaction to the increasing surveillance we experience. Or perhaps it is simply my interest in the subject changing. I don't know.
 
I feel uncomfortable shooting street photos. I almost always feel as if I am invading someone's privacy. There is no doubt though that its easier to do if you have a telphoto lens. There is at least less reason to invade the person's personal space as well. But these days there are so many freaking phobias as well. If you photgraph kids you are a potential pervert. If you photograph a group of young women you are a sexual creep. If you are photograph a building you are a potential terrorist. If you photograph a bunch of old farts playing canasta in the sun, then you are a young wippersnapper and just a plain annoyance. Jeez Louise! Our damn society is SO uptight. But all of this negativity does affect me and what I photograph.

I have occasionally had people glower at me when I photograph them but the most unusual reaction I have had was that on one occasion while sitting in an outdoor cafe (with a Leica M no less) I had an old guy come up and insist that he knew I was an undercover cop doing surveillance work. He was not aggressive, just interested. I simply could not convince him that I was a dumb amateur who only liked to photograph strangers in the street (and that not too many Police department budgets run to Leica kit.) He was equally adamant that (nudge, nudge; wink, wink) he understood that I could not break cover and that I had to lie to him but that as a law abiding citizen was on my side and would not give my "true" identity away.

On the other side of the coin, While I am not a cop, I do work in a government building and recently when I stepped out the back door into the alley behind the building , I noticed a nice shot of the buildings at the end of the alley, framed nicely by buildings on either side and with the sun in just the right position. As I brought the camera up I noticed a policeman standing beside me. He waited politely for me to take the shot then demanded (equally politely) to explain why I was photographing in an alley behind a government building. Fortunately he was quite a nice bloke and even more fortunately I had my Government ID card so it was no big deal, but it just demonstrates how paranoid almost everyone is about photographers these days. Ya gotta smile.
 
Last edited:
I don't think stopping is an answer (at least not for me). I prefer to have a think about what I'm doing, and determine how it could misconstrued or simply unwanted. Then try to operate in a manner that would avoid it. For instance, I don't think I would take any more photos that would single out a person, unless that person was the centre of attention in a given scene (a street performer for instance).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom