Just because you can, doesn't mean you should

[Bigmonstertruck]

I have read a lot on this forum about street photography. Even though we have the legal right to take photographs of anyone or anything in public, it seems to me that discretion should be used. I would not want my photograph to appear someplace prominent without my permission, even though I may not have the right to prevent such things. I know the argument about cameras everywhere and you cannot prevent your being photographed. But it seems to me that we still should exercise common courtesy, something that seems to be disappearing from our general consciousness, not just in photography, but across the board. I am more comfortable taking photographs of people that would expect to be photographed, or photos in which the person is not so recognizable. Making someone feel uncomfortable is something that I avoid, as there are plenty of subjects to photograph. Just my thoughts, and I welcome others' thoughts on this issue.

 

[mugent]

I agree completely. In most countries, we have a lot of rights, but we are not compelled to use them. For example, I could call a total stranger nasty names, I'm legally allowed to, but it isn't a nice thing to do, so I don't.

The same goes for street photography, yes, I can stick a camera in a persons face, but lots of people don't like it, so I don't.

It works the other way of course, some people are unreasonable about being in a photo, if you are in a public place, you should expect a certain loss of privacy, but it's all grey areas.
If the subject and the photographer are reasonable people, there shouldn't be a problem.

 

[colyn]

I don't have a problem taking a photo of someone in public. If I see an interesting person or situation I shoot. I'm not an "in your face" people shooter though..

 

[Vics]

I always ask first.

 

[Roger Hicks]

On the rare occasions I've been challenged, it's usually been by people who were a few date palms short of an oasis. Such as the woman who emerged from a caravan at a public camping park and started saying rather forcefully -- in fact, just about hysterically -- that I couldn't take pictures of "her property". My cameras wasn't even pointing at her caravan! I was taking a picture (from maybe 20 metres away) of the service block (water, showers, toilets, vending machines) without even any people in the shot: I was illustrating an article on municipally-owned camping sites in France in maybe 2007. Or the McDo manager in Brightlingsea in the UK in perhaps 2009 who complained to the police that I "might have been taking pictures" (I was shooting for a magazine review of some new lenses). Others may have something to hide (or simply be paranoid). For the former, consider market traders who are also drawing unemployment money; for the latter, someone selling the Socialist Worker newspaper. Both Bristol, 1970s or 80s.

Of course there's common courtesy to consider. But there's also the common loony. The vast majority of sane people just don't mind having their picture taken.

Cheers,

R.

 

[wolves3012]

I tend to agree that it's not right to shove a camera in someone's face and take photos, simply because it's not illegal. If I wanted some close-in shot I'd ask first, although you could well lose that "decisive moment" and then I might ask afterwards.

If I'm photographing on-street, I am likely to be shooting a scene, architecture etc and in that case, people may be included incidentally or accidentally. For that situation, I would not ask or expect a reaction and I'd stick to my rights.

Common courtesy goes a long way, I suspect, although nowadays too many people are paranoid about photography - even though they are often on CCTV.

 

[__--]

I always ask first.

The trouble with that is that if you ask the people pose. That's not what street photography is about — it's usually about depicting something, if not documenting it.

—Mitch/Paris
Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

 

[Lss]

I would not want my photograph to appear someplace prominent without my permission, even though I may not have the right to prevent such things.

What does "someplace prominent" mean? For commercial use, you should have some say and pay.

 

[johannielscom]

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should

Would be nice to see some members think of this before posting yet another scarcely dressed woman grab shot to the Gallery. Or worse, the backs of scarcely dressed women. No artistic value whatsoever, just the modern day equivalent of collecting baseball cards it seems...

 

[JSU]

Hear, here!!

Very well stated.

I appreciate the genre of street when it is well done. I have very little tolerance for voyeurism.

Would be nice to see some members think of this before posting yet another scarcely dressed woman grab shot to the Gallery. Or worse, the backs of scarcely dressed women. No artistic value whatsoever, just the modern day equivalent of collecting baseball cards it seems...

 

[lynnb]

Even if you tread gently, there will always be someone who finds your actions offensive (often through ideology or ignorance). That's no reason not to tread gently, of course.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Even if you tread gently, there will always be someone who finds your actions offensive (often through ideology or ignorance). That's no reason not to tread gently, of course.

Dear Lynn,

Precisely. See also Post 6.

Cheers,

R.

 

[MikeAUS]

we have the legal right to take photographs of anyone or anything in public

THE END. :bang:

 

[OurManInTangier]

Even if you tread gently, there will always be someone who finds your actions offensive (often through ideology or ignorance). That's no reason not to tread gently, of course.

Decent enough advice for life generally in most situations.

I'm curious though, is there a belief among many 'non street photographers' that all street/candid photography is made in a Bruce Gilden style? Or is it rather the act of photographing someone candidly that is troubling? I've seen many different approaches to this type of photography some of which verges on shameful (admittedly in my opinion) and some either barely noticeable or in some manner (usually after the photograph has been made) inclusive of the subject e.g. chatting with or connecting to the person or people involved.

Surely the manner in which we photograph has more to do with us as humans than our subject matter? Perhaps street photography has an overly macho reputation put about by some photographers than it really deserves?

 

[zuiko85]

My thoughts.

Forget the small black stealth camera. Be big and obvious.

I've found that a early 1950ish Kodak 6X9 folder garners more admiration than scowls on the street. Of course, with only 8 exposures per roll and not fast in use you have to pick your shots carefully.

I think a Crown Graphic with a 90mm wide angle should make a bang on street camera. Add a fadora and cigar (fake of course, because most of us should be smart enough not to smoke) and you would be precived as a loony, but harmless character.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

We should stop taking private property pictures without permission.
So, even if you can take pictures of buildings, vehicles and farm fields, stop now.

 

[sojournerphoto]

I don't really shoot 'street', but strange situations do occur:

- I, very obviously, photographed some charity direct debit collectors in a response to their, in my view, excessive and abusive approach. The leader approached me and asked what I was doing (taking pictures), told me I couldn't (yes I can) and that I wasn't allowed to photograph their branded clothing (I can, if you don't want it to be photographed you shouldn't wear it in public). Of course, I was engaged in an aggressive act of photography, but I wanted to record some of their approach and behaviour.

- Another lady once approached me whilstI was out with my camera and asked if I would compelte a survey. I agreed if she would let me take a photograph - just a simple portrait with the street as backdrop. She was confused but happy🙂

- Some people in my home town called the police as someone was seen photographing in a local park where children play. There was an immediate assumptionon the part of the police and the local newspaper that the person was a paedophile, which (in the absence of any evidence cited) struck me as a dangerous and over the top reaction. Of course, there may have been more to the story that I wasn't privy to.

By and large I would say just treat people nicely. I think the Shen Hao is probably a good way to meet people!

Mike

 

[jsrockit]

- Some people in my home town called the police as someone was seen photographing in a local park where children play. There was an immediate assumptionon the part of the police and the local newspaper that the person was a paedophile, which (in the absence of any evidence cited) struck me as a dangerous and over the top reaction. Of course, there may have been more to the story that I wasn't privy to.

Seems to be more and more of this in the US as the news makes everyone paranoid. Do pedaphiles openly photograph at playgrounds often?

 

[Brian Legge]

I'm probably a bit more attuned to watching the behavior of other photographers than most. In the last few years, I've seen two or three photographers who were trying to stealthily photograph underaged girls, women derrieres, etc in contention or street photography settings. But hey, I don't know their intent, right? So I point a camera at them and in each case they looked highly uncomfortable left quickly. Yes, there are still people out there.

My take on this is if someone doesn't want to be photographed I don't take the shot. I have no interest in pictures where the primary reaction is to the camera rather than participating in the scene itself. Similarly if I believe the resulting photo would offend the subject or show them in an unflattering light I typically don't take (or don't edit) the shot.

Those are personal decisions though and I wouldn't impose them on anyone else.

 

[Jack Conrad]

We should stop taking private property pictures without permission.
So, even if you can take pictures of buildings, vehicles and farm fields, stop now.

Yes. In fact, it's wrong to even look at other people's private property. That's why I now always apply black gaffer's tape over my eyes whenever I go out into the world of private property,
in order to mitigate the risk of developing an impression which
might be construed as theft. 🙄