noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
I agree with Al.
I remember the last time someone photographed me on the street. My first thought was, "Oh, gee - there's someone doing street photography. Sweet!!" It honestly did not bother me one iota.
Shooting street with a long lens is not inherently objectionable in my outlook. Jay Maisel has made a nice living doing it. He has never "hurt" anyone by doing it as far as I know.
The whole point of using a long lens for street shooting is to either stay out of the way if you are photographing construction workers (for example) or to capture the unguarded moment and to be undetected in doing so. Mr. Long Lens failed miserably at two out of three of those reasons for using a long lens.
the longest lens I have ever used for street photography was 90mm and that has been probably 4 years ago. Over the intervening years, I have evolved into an adherent of the Cartier-Bresson ethic of street photography: "A velvet hand, a hawk’s eye- these we should all have." I must have a strong influence from Winogrand at work too, as the 28mm is my primary street photography lens.
The guy who was photographing you from across the street and then whipping his long lens up at the sky was either a very green newbie to street photography or an inveterate chicken sh*t, it would seem.
I suspect that the original poster (williams473) would have had a totally different reaction if Mr. Long Lens had smiled and waved when you saw him photographing you.
Just another example of why we street photographers must tread lightly when pursuing our craft. We can't think only of what we want (the photo); we must consider the impact of our method of photographing on our subjects and others who see us at work.
DominikDUK
Well-known
To play the devil's advocate here who says that he actually used a tele and not a mega zoom, they can get very big, at the wide setting. Andreas Feininger by the way was a big fan of Teles because he felt they gave a more correct representation of reality. Rules of street photography based on HCB, Winograd's etc... work are in my opinion pure stupidity and not very innovative. Do you like using a wide angle for street work good but don't choose a focal length based on a big name's photographers choice.
It's also ok for a photographer to feel violated by being photographed, many photographers don't like to be photographed and aren't we all little hypocrites
Dominik
It's also ok for a photographer to feel violated by being photographed, many photographers don't like to be photographed and aren't we all little hypocrites
Dominik
michaelwj
----------------
I know its an old thread, but the difference between surveillance and street is the end use. I know I'm being filmed at the airport, train station, etc, but I can't see them getting away with printing out an 8x10 from the footage and putting on their wall or FB or wherever, thats the real difference.
peterm1
Veteran
I am at peace with myself. I feel much more comfortable than I indicated in my other post, below which was made quite some time ago (2008). So where am I now?
As a matter of principle I do not photograph people in demeaning situations, when doing something embarrassing and I do not photograph people who are down and out particularly without their permission.
Lets not kid ourselves. Most of us are not photo journalists and we are not taking pictures because there is a great redeeming social value to the images we make. We are doing this stuff for our own gratification.
So I owe it to my subjects not to catch them doing something that will embarrass them and if they ask me not to take their photo - even when I am able to do it from a legal or ethical viewpoint I respect them and their wishes. And I try to be human and establish some kind of contact with them. If they look at me and their look says "Why are you taking my photo?" (Most people's body language can be read after all) I try to respond by nodding my head, smiling politely and quietly thanking them once the image is taken.
If I follow these "rules" I do not feel that making images of people in a public place is too objectionable. Most people certainly do not seem to find it objectionable for tourists to take photos all over the place - be it in the middle of the Spanish Steps in Rome or in some main street in any other city so why should we think it to be objectionable if a keen amateur photographer does the same!!!
Although what I am doing is taking photos for my own gratification I never the less am making them to turn them into something with some artistic merit. I feel that this has some value, even if its only the value I put on it.
So lets not over analyse these things. We should be polite. We should respect peoples' wishes. But by the same token we should not feel too diffident about what we are doing either. It is not illegal. It is not immoral. There is no ulterior motive. No one particularly benefits and certainly, no one loses.
After all if we do not value it and feel it has legitimacy then society soon will not do so either and the naysayers, the doogooders and the others who want us to feel guilty for living our life as we wsih to and indulging our artistic impulses will have won.
As a matter of principle I do not photograph people in demeaning situations, when doing something embarrassing and I do not photograph people who are down and out particularly without their permission.
Lets not kid ourselves. Most of us are not photo journalists and we are not taking pictures because there is a great redeeming social value to the images we make. We are doing this stuff for our own gratification.
So I owe it to my subjects not to catch them doing something that will embarrass them and if they ask me not to take their photo - even when I am able to do it from a legal or ethical viewpoint I respect them and their wishes. And I try to be human and establish some kind of contact with them. If they look at me and their look says "Why are you taking my photo?" (Most people's body language can be read after all) I try to respond by nodding my head, smiling politely and quietly thanking them once the image is taken.
If I follow these "rules" I do not feel that making images of people in a public place is too objectionable. Most people certainly do not seem to find it objectionable for tourists to take photos all over the place - be it in the middle of the Spanish Steps in Rome or in some main street in any other city so why should we think it to be objectionable if a keen amateur photographer does the same!!!
Although what I am doing is taking photos for my own gratification I never the less am making them to turn them into something with some artistic merit. I feel that this has some value, even if its only the value I put on it.
So lets not over analyse these things. We should be polite. We should respect peoples' wishes. But by the same token we should not feel too diffident about what we are doing either. It is not illegal. It is not immoral. There is no ulterior motive. No one particularly benefits and certainly, no one loses.
After all if we do not value it and feel it has legitimacy then society soon will not do so either and the naysayers, the doogooders and the others who want us to feel guilty for living our life as we wsih to and indulging our artistic impulses will have won.
you or your buddies probably had a smart phone camera in your pockets.
turnabout is fair play.
I wonder his reaction with you marching up to his face and taking his pic with an iphone.
Stephen
B-9
Devin Bro
I experienced a similar situation this past weekend at our local farmers market. I spotted a big old DSLR slung over a gentlemens shoulder, so I walked by and snapped a candid. About 20 minutes later I was the focus of his lens. I noticed and quickly looked away, hoping I didn't mangle his attempt at a candid. There was never conversation, or even a nod.
I think there is TO MUCH intimacy associated with photographing people.
I really have no interest in my subjects as individuals, but how they contrast or connect with the scene. Call me inconsiderate, but Ide never intentionally put Somone in an uncomfortable position. Ide be Lieing if I denied getting a good ol' rush when capturing a candid.
I can imagine the telephoto shooter in question, had equally as much emotion invested into this as you. Nervously concealing his intentions, it sounds like a very stressful time.
In all honesty, I think you should have brushed it off, possibly play fun at the situation. It is rather ironic isn't it?
Kudos for having street ethics, to each their own!
Thanks for sharing!
I think there is TO MUCH intimacy associated with photographing people.
I really have no interest in my subjects as individuals, but how they contrast or connect with the scene. Call me inconsiderate, but Ide never intentionally put Somone in an uncomfortable position. Ide be Lieing if I denied getting a good ol' rush when capturing a candid.
I can imagine the telephoto shooter in question, had equally as much emotion invested into this as you. Nervously concealing his intentions, it sounds like a very stressful time.
In all honesty, I think you should have brushed it off, possibly play fun at the situation. It is rather ironic isn't it?
Kudos for having street ethics, to each their own!
Thanks for sharing!
Boris Stupak
Well-known
You guys do realize the original post was five years ago?
Tijmendal
Young photog
Whenever I see a guy with a long telephoto taking pictures the only thing I can do is laugh. To me anything longer than 135mm (and that's the far extreme) makes for an ugly image. Not just that, it attests to what crappy photographers they are. Whenever I see people walking with those ugly Canon 70-200's in the city the only thing I can do is wonder what they're going to use it for... Especially on a crop body.
mugent
Well-known
I don't think people have a reasonable expectation of privacy when they are in a public place, however... Just because we have a right to stick a camera it someones face and take pictures of them, doesn't mean we should. I think the OP is over-reacting a little bit, and frankly I'd rather someone did from across the street than stick a camera in my grill.
My honest opinion, is that street photography is very often invasive, and the results are rarely worth it, with a few honorable exceptions, it usual fairly derivative and boring.
My honest opinion, is that street photography is very often invasive, and the results are rarely worth it, with a few honorable exceptions, it usual fairly derivative and boring.
Contarama
Well-known
Last summer I had to go to downtown Tulsa to pay a traffic fine and while walking across the courthouse courtyard I saw a young dude in skater regalia with what turned out to be a black Canon AE-1 with a 50 on it hanging around his neck. I think I about scared him to death when I said hey man is that a film camera? So I got into a conversation with him he said he was downtown shooting a roll of some kind of lomography film I don't remember and I told him I was into film cameras too. I said so you are a street shooter? He said he just shot mainly buildings and stuff because he was to nervous to shoot people. I told him to not be nervous and just if you find someone interesting to shoot smile at them nod your head and just act like you belong here doing this. I said take a picture of me man and gave him my email and said send it to me. Also told him if he ever wanted to go street shooting to holler at me. As we were fixing to part company a couple of women were approaching from the courthouse and I said let me see your camera man. They were watching us we were watching them approach. He handed me the camera and when the two girls were about 15 feet away I rattled out three shots at them by the third one they were smiling. As they past I nodded my head said thanks handed the camera back to him and said see it is easy you just have to act like you are supposed to be shooting pictures. Believe it or not I am an old guy who has a real bonafide film shooting hipster for a FB pal. LOL
dct
perpetual amateur
Of course. And it is a good thread. Just read most of it.
My own feeling is a mixed bag, still. I see the point as photographer, but I'm also a possible object on the streets.
peterm1
Veteran
I am sorry but I think this is a weird attitude that reflects a common bias in the wider community about long lenses. Whilst I suppose I can understand it when it originates from the uninformed and ignorant wider public I find it odd and not a little disappointing that another photographer who presumably should know better, shares this bias.
While I seldom use something longer than 135mm myself I certainly do not think that the use of a longer lens by others signifies anything other than that this represents the photographer's photographic preferences and style. In short there is nothing wrong with it at all. To draw the conclusion that those who use long zooms are "crappy photographers" is a sweeping generalization that has no basis in reality and says more about the poster's own biases than anything else.
Speaking of biases, I share the opinion of some here that sticking a camera with a wide angle lens into someones intimate personal space a few feet from their face is potentially much more offensive to many people who are the subject of this style of photography.
thegman
Veteran
Personally, like another post, I'd rather have someone take my photo from a distance than all up in my face.
Any photo of a non-consenting person could be considered a little rude, if they consider it to be a violation. This is not about rules, just about the very grey area of manners.
I don't especially like street photography, but it would seem to me that if you want to catch the 'decisive moment' without your presence interfering with it, a long lens would seem like a good idea.
It would seem if you really want to capture human nature, undisturbed, then this guy with the long lens has the right idea.
Any photo of a non-consenting person could be considered a little rude, if they consider it to be a violation. This is not about rules, just about the very grey area of manners.
I don't especially like street photography, but it would seem to me that if you want to catch the 'decisive moment' without your presence interfering with it, a long lens would seem like a good idea.
It would seem if you really want to capture human nature, undisturbed, then this guy with the long lens has the right idea.
S
Stelios
Guest
Speaking for myself, I never care who it is in my picture as long as there is a person filling a gap in it to balance the image. So don't take it personally, noone 'cares' if it's you or someone else. I've seen a project done with a telephoto in the same fashion you mention and it was fantastic. I'll dig it up later.
However him not acknowledging taking pictures is not nice. If someone notices you taking pictures, you smile and wave and if possible show them what you are doing. That's no code. It's just being nice.
Let's not ban street photography, let's just be nice.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
Yes long lens is good, better that than having your face taken at a low angle with a 7mm fisheye, making your bald head look like a mekon...
I've had my photo taken hundreds of times, I guess I'm not sensitive enough to feel 'violated'–unless the 300mm ƒ4 was placed somewhere else...
I've had my photo taken hundreds of times, I guess I'm not sensitive enough to feel 'violated'–unless the 300mm ƒ4 was placed somewhere else...
S
Stelios
Guest
There is no wrong or right way to photograph.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
JS my nan managed it. We bought her a 110 camera, she looked into the lens and pointed the VF at the subject–I'd say that was the wrong way to photograph
JS my nan managed it. We bought her a 110 camera, she looked into the lens and pointed the VF at the subject–I'd say that was the wrong way to photograph
Haha, true... I wasn't speaking technically though, I meant philosophically.
Eric T
Well-known
The Boston marathon tragedy taught us that we are all being photographed all the time, especially in any big city. There is no way around it and we might as well get over it. Cameras are everywhere these days.