Just because you can, doesn't mean you should

[sjones]

It is the restricting that I feel is wrong, the self-censorship.
My conscience tells me that it is better not to take opportunistic photos of defenseless people, and usually I don't. But if I see a great shot of a sleeping beggar with child, it feels as a dereliction of duty not to take it.

But that's just it; my duty is to myself and to what I want or prefer to do---this is a hobby, and a selfish one at that. My decisions are largely a product of natural response, reflecting my personal priorities.

Is 'self-censorship' involved, well yes, but to the same extent that there is self-censorship involved in my not taking macro photos or color photos. It's just not my thing.

If you feel it is wrong to deprive yourself of such an opportunity as the one you stated, that's fine, and I look forward to seeing the shot. But, in the realm of photography, I'm obviously not obligated to feel 'wrong' because it doesn't conform to your manner or expectations.

To be sure, if you still think it silly, then that's your prerogative.

 

[robert blu]

In Italy you can take photos of people on the street. But you are not allowed to publish them without their explicit consent. Newspapers, magazines, net, social forums, exhibitions. Most of people do it anyway...but it does not mean they are allowed.
robert

 

[lukitas]

Well, here's this. Clearly a shot where the subject felt he showed a benign smile, but the photographer clearly didn't respect him :

Arnold Newman shows Mr. Krupp as a Mr. Burns avant la lettre. He couldn't have made a better photograph. I repeat, sometimes it is necessary to be indiscreet.

How about Avedon's Duke and Duchess of Windsor. After a roll of bland, smiling shots, Avedon casually mentioned that his taxi had overrun a dog, that is when this photograph happened :

Yes it is a dirty trick, but it is a timeless photograph. The perfect expression of aristocratic ennui. Note the gap between what the couple think they show, and what the viewer thinks she sees.

There is nothing wrong with pictures of flowers and dogs and landscapes - I do quite a few myself, but sometimes, quite a few times, photography has to break every law of propriety and politeness. In fact, that is quite often when photography becomes more than mere 'pretty things'.

So I will continue to defend the point that if you shouldn't, you should.

By the way, in the full negative, there is a helmeted photographer on the right, changing his film. I wonder if that makes it even worse than the crop we are used to.

(ok, I'll accept that one shouldn't take pictures of underpants from under the staircase, but those are deviants, not photographers, they don't count)

 

[Keith]

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...

I have just read this thread and what Johan says here is very relevant as is Lukitas' excellent summation.

Opportunistic grab shots of attractive females in public places are not particularly classy IMO and indicate to me that the photographer is not really in touch and is probably only a few neurons away from the mentality of the infamous 'upskirt' site!

 

[t.s.k.]

Although many here would deem some types of street photography as tasteless, aggressive, creepy et al, we should nevertheless be thankful (admire?) for those that do push these boundaries regardless of how we view the practice.

These photographers are the ones that are flexing everyone's rights, and for that I'm grateful.
I'm prefer not to diminish their significance.

 

[Addy101]

I have just read this thread and what Johan says here is very relevant as is Lukitas' excellent summation.

Opportunistic grab shots of attractive females in public places are not particularly classy IMO and indicate to me that the photographer is not really in touch and is probably only a few neurons away from the mentality of the infamous 'upskirt' site!

I find pictures of homeless people worse, that is preying on somebodies misfortunes. Also, don't you think it is sexist that you have a problem with pictures of attractive females but not with pictures of attractive men? 😱

Anyway, whenever you take a picture, make sure you're comfortable with it, don't judge others for their choice of subjects and be respectful to your subjects

 

[johannielscom]

I find pictures of homeless people worse, that is preying on somebodies misfortunes. Also, don't you think it is sexist that you have a problem with pictures of attractive females but not with pictures of attractive men? 😱

Anyway, whenever you take a picture, make sure you're comfortable with it, don't judge others for their choice of subjects and be respectful to your subjects

Betcha there are far more grab shots of underdressed women in the Gallery than there are of underdressed men. Simply has to do with the fact that the majority of members is male and heterosexual here.

In fact, I would applaud an increase of underdressed men in the gallery, right to the point where it would get uneasy for 90% of the male viewers, only to balance the fact that women in our sexualized western culture have to undergo this uneasiness all the time too.

Meanwhile, I feel I'm being pretty respectful to the members who post iPhone 4 grab shots of underdressed women to the Gallery, distinctively more so than they have been to their subjects!

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Next it'll be wrong to photograph clouds, for fear of offending the owner of a satellite that was overhead at that time.

Lukitas gets to the heart of the question here. It seems to me that, in most modern cities and not a few smaller settlements, you're being recorded dozens of times every day. I don't think it reasonable to complain of those making their own records, unless you also insist that all the CCTV cameras are taken down.

 

[johannielscom]

Lukitas gets to the heart of the question here. It seems to me that, in most modern cities and not a few smaller settlements, you're being recorded dozens of times every day. I don't think it reasonable to complain of those making their own records, unless you also insist that all the CCTV cameras are taken down.

That's different. The photographer in the street always is a subversive, a dissident, a free-mason, a pedophile and a paparazzi. The authorities OTOH can be trusted blindly, everybody knows that!


😛

 

[sanmich]

That's different. The photographer in the street always is a subversive, a dissident, a free-mason, a pedophile and a paparazzi. The authorities OTOH can be trusted blindly, everybody knows that!


😛

You forgot a terrorist.
It is well known that elqaida shoots only Tri-X in their Leicas :bang:

 

[Jamie Pillers]

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.

Just a couple of thoughts about your post. First, you suggest that there's some level of "common courtesy" that "seems to be disappearing from our general consciousness". I'm not sure you can make that argument very well when discussing street photography. Street photographers have, since the very beginning of street photography (late 1800's?), been making images that include people not aware they are being photographed. Its the very basic nature of street photography... to make an image of what life is like on the streets at that time. If you stop everyone and ask their permission, then its portrait photography... a very different genre.

Second, you say you don't want pictures of you put in places of prominence without your permission. If this was the general criteria for selecting images to be placed in art photo books, there would only be landscape photo books (the ones with no people in them).

I think we could turn your concern around and ask people on the street to be more courteous to street photographers and stop hassling them whenever they put their camera up to their eye. After all, what harm do they think could realistically be done with such a photograph? I mean don't the people on the street have all their clothes on? And aren't they behaving in a civil manner, doing nothing illegal? If so, then how could a picture of them result in anything but being a historical record of that moment in that place?

Thanks for your original post... its a topic always worthy of conversation. Especially so in this era of social media & the internet where people are posting a LOT of questionable images of themselves and their friends. In my opinion, that behavior has somehow biased people's opinions of street photography.

 

[mugent]

Personally, I don't see this as a complicated issue. If I wouldn't like it done to myself, then I wouldn't do it to others.

There is a big difference between firing a flash in someones face to being photographed across a crowded public park and taking up a tiny part of the frame.

As a general rule, be nice to others.

If your photo is going to be incredible, and vital for the world to see, for the greater good of society, then maybe it's OK to invade privacy, but it's just another photo of a girl on a bike isn't it? 🙂

 

[Keith]

I find pictures of homeless people worse, that is preying on somebodies misfortunes. Also, don't you think it is sexist that you have a problem with pictures of attractive females but not with pictures of attractive men? 😱

Anyway, whenever you take a picture, make sure you're comfortable with it, don't judge others for their choice of subjects and be respectful to your subjects

Strange assumption on your part IMO. I would find grab shots of men's arses, groins etc equally purile ... but where are they in our gallery?

An artistic shot of a male nude would interest me every bit as much as a female nude ... don't see those in the gallery either unfortunately!

 

[OurManInTangier]

Strange assumption on your part IMO. I would find grab shots of men's arses, groins etc equally purile ... but where are they in our gallery?

An artistic shot of a male nude would interest me every bit as much as a female nude ... don't see those in the gallery either unfortunately!

In all the time I've been looking at the RFF gallery, nearly seven years, I can only remember two. One by Rob Klurfield and another, I think possibly by Swann. One caused some uproar at the time but both were far more interesting than the oft posted grab shots of young girls arses and cleavage.

Just a couple of thoughts about your post. First, you suggest that there's some level of "common courtesy" that "seems to be disappearing from our general consciousness". I'm not sure you can make that argument very well when discussing street photography. Street photographers have, since the very beginning of street photography (late 1800's?), been making images that include people not aware they are being photographed. Its the very basic nature of street photography... to make an image of what life is like on the streets at that time. If you stop everyone and ask their permission, then its portrait photography... a very different genre.

Second, you say you don't want pictures of you put in places of prominence without your permission. If this was the general criteria for selecting images to be placed in art photo books, there would only be landscape photo books (the ones with no people in them).

I think we could turn your concern around and ask people on the street to be more courteous to street photographers and stop hassling them whenever they put their camera up to their eye. After all, what harm do they think could realistically be done with such a photograph? I mean don't the people on the street have all their clothes on? And aren't they behaving in a civil manner, doing nothing illegal? If so, then how could a picture of them result in anything but being a historical record of that moment in that place?

Thanks for your original post... its a topic always worthy of conversation. Especially so in this era of social media & the internet where people are posting a LOT of questionable images of themselves and their friends. In my opinion, that behavior has somehow biased people's opinions of street photography.

This is an interesting point to me. The outrage that can be caused when someone believes, rightly or wrongly, that you've taken a photograph of them in a public place in a time when so many of us could find a photograph of ourselves taken in a private place (or somewhere with an expectation of greater privacy) is published online via social media with tags including your name. Perhaps that should be the answer we give to anyone who gets snarky..."S'okay, it's just going on Facebook, you got a name so I can tag you?"

 

[Boris Stupak]

I'm not particularly interested in that subject matter, thanks anyway.

An artistic shot of a male nude would interest me every bit as much as a female nude ... don't see those in the gallery either unfortunately!

 

[lynnb]

While courtesy and discretion may be misplaced (Lukitas, post #37), sometimes when confronted by mob-think, such as in this report Pedophile or Street Photographer? Police on Lookout for Man Photographing Kids about a Toronto photographer who was followed by a group of people who assumed he was a paedophile because he'd photographed a child in a playground, I think discretion is the greater part of valour!

 

[koven]

shoot first

ask questions later

 

[Ansel]

Of course you should, if you can.

 

[Addy101]

Strange assumption on your part IMO. I would find grab shots of men's arses, groins etc equally purile ... but where are they in our gallery?

An artistic shot of a male nude would interest me every bit as much as a female nude ... don't see those in the gallery either unfortunately!

However, there are also grabshots of men in the galleries - you just don't realise they are there apparently: example.

I read "Opportunistic grab shots of attractive females in public places" to be about women 😉

 

[clcolucci58]

I have not done much street photography yet but the couple of times I did if was for the architecture I try not to take photos of people if I can avoid it but if it came to photographing the people of the street I would just fire away because sometimes it's better to ask for forgiveness then permission :angel:
regards
Clc