My (planned) modus operandi for confrontations.

I'd actually take issue with a lot of the original points posted here. For a start 'whether or not I am an "artist" is up to other people to decide' - it is not. It is up to you and if you don't know if you are an artist or not, then I suggest that's where you need to start. A lot of posters are correct, diffuse the situation - however it is also important that you know your rights. In the end remember that perspective is important. Someone armed with a Leica is a lot less 'sinister' that the numerous CCTV cameras that everyday record our every move.
 
Barolodrinker said:
I'd actually take issue with a lot of the original points posted here. For a start 'whether or not I am an "artist" is up to other people to decide' - it is not. It is up to you and if you don't know if you are an artist or not, then I suggest that's where you need to start. A lot of posters are correct, diffuse the situation - however it is also important that you know your rights. In the end remember that perspective is important. Someone armed with a Leica is a lot less 'sinister' that the numerous CCTV cameras that everyday record our every move.
Click to expand...

It would be funny if I was accosted and had a CCTV in view to demonstrate a point.

On being an artist, I might change my attitude depending on how things go, but the way I see it what does it really matter? It means that I (hopefully) do something well and other people enjoy the result. In my mind it confers little else.

But I don't have a gallery yet, so I'm not going to fret too much about it.
 
Boris Stupak said:
I was once on an assignment to photograph a foreign politician in a foreign country. I was shooting for a Japanese magazine in a Pacific country.

The politician was shot, murdered by the military on the tarmac of the airport, and I captured the whole thing on film. (nobody had imagined that this was going to happen) I was about 10 feet away.

A young soldier saw me photographing, and pointed his rifle at me and was going to shoot me. I shook my head "no", opened the camera, pulled out the film, exposed it all to light, and threw it on the ground. Then I also dropped the camera on the ground and raised my hands, palms outward.

A military officer saw me do that. He looked at me a long time (it seemed a long time), looked at the young soldier aiming at me, looked at me again. Finally, he gestured to the soldier to lower his rifle, and said to me "go".

I went. I forced myself to walk slowly and quickly disappeared into the crowd. I trembled uncontrollably after I was out of danger.
Click to expand...

Quite a story. Good call on destroying the film. Fortunate also to have this happen in a place where being a US citizen was probably an asset and not a death warrant.


philipaloft said:
And of course there's the story from the days of just film when a photographer working in Asia was busted by authorities for shooting in a restricted area and they confiscated all of his exposed rolls of film. However he had his film set up in reverse, with his exposed film packaged to look like unopened boxes (leaders out) and his unexposed film loose in a ziplock with the leader withdrawn into the canister ( he'd retrieve it out prior to loading ).
His polite behavior was rewarded by his being allowed to at least keep his unopened boxes for "future use".
Philip B.
Click to expand...

I wonder if that was Antonin Kratochvil. There was an interview where he related a somewhat similar story. He was trespassing some place but two guards caught wind of him. He had the presence of mind to change rapidly the exposed film in the camera for an unexposed one and when they came to confiscate the roll he pretended he was rewinding it. So his story went anyway.

.
 
"I'm just testing a new camera [film/lens/tripod...]"

People are so used to consumerism/new stuff that except in extreme cases (Boris's story) they accept it without blinking.

Cheers,

R.
 
By the way, the camera was a Canon AE-1. I threw it on the ground and left it there.

In hindsight, I thought it was lucky I was using this camera rather than a more imposing professional camera like a Nikon F2 with a big lens. It made me look like an amateur.

If I had a more threatening "professional" camera set-up, the outcome might have been different.
 
In this case, maybe you said too much.

A simple "Is is OK if I take a photo of those?" should suffice.



giellaleafapmu said:
I'd add a few steps to your, already good, list. First, if possible why not simply ask? Just a few days ago I was in a pharmacy in a remote area of a tropical country and they had a really beautiful collection of old glass container they use for raw material which looked like a chemistry lab from the 19th century, I told them I liked that and asked whether I could take a few pictures, I promised them to send them some small file and told that I could give them one print if they wanted, I also told them that I didn't have any plan to use the images for anything commercial but that if occasion would arise of course I would ask them their permission. I toke many pictures, and while I was taking them another guy, probably a tourist, toke out his camera but the reaction of the owner of the pharmacy was to tell him not to take pictures and explained that he was letting me do that because I asked, explained who I was and could trust me. The second is about getting caught in a closed area, I think that if you are in some private property and a ward get you in many countries they have the right to confiscate film or memory card (I am thinking of places such as those visited by "urban explorers" such as abandoned building, factories, destroyed constructions), in this case I would consider a quick change before they get close enough to notice and handling to them an unexposed film/empty card.

GLF
Click to expand...
 
I have had discussions with people about what I'm doing, why I'm doing it, etc. when doing my street photography.

I have had only one intense confrontation in over four years of doing street photography. The guy was obviously a staunch believer in self-medicating and/or do it yourself pharmaceuticals.

The irony of the situation was that in spite of his shiite rage and 140 decibel obscenity laced rampage, I had not photographed him. I had not even aimed my camera anywhere in his general vicinity. :rolleyes:

Moral of the story: If being screamed at once every four years by an unhinged, chemically addled moon-bat is the price I have to pay for doing street photography, I'll gladly pay it. ;)
 
To the OP: I don't agree with your plan at all. Basically you are willing to cave in under any pressure. There is a joke there, but I don't want to bring politics into this thread.
 
To the OP... Just remember the wise counsel of Helmuth von Moltke the Elder, "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy." Having a plan is good, but thinking on your feet when the plan fails will keep you out of trouble.
 
giellaleafapmu said:
. . . The second is about getting caught in a closed area, I think that if you are in some private property and a ward get you in many countries they have the right to confiscate film or memory card (I am thinking of places such as those visited by "urban explorers" such as abandoned building, factories, destroyed constructions), in this case I would consider a quick change before they get close enough to notice and handling to them an unexposed film/empty card. . .
Click to expand...
Not in any country I know of. They may try, but it won't be legal and you are not obliged to let them.

EDIT: "Restricted areas" within the meaning of the Official Secrets Act and its foreign equivalents are another matter -- but that's the government, not private property rights.

Cheers,

R.
 
My personal advice would be to make yourself perfectly aware of the risks, but don't be too shy or defensive. Avoiding confrontation may be the way to handle advertising and wedding photography, but it is a sure way to create bad press and bad art photography.
 
Boris Stupak said:
In this case, maybe you said too much.

A simple "Is is OK if I take a photo of those?" should suffice.
Click to expand...

No, maybe I wrote too little in my description of the situation, for some reason even tough it is a pharmacy there were notes about being forbidden to use cameras and so on, I said exactly what worked in that situation. ;)

GLF
 
I have had, like most people who shoot on the street, minor confrontations for uncounted years, but I have never felt the need to give any personal information to anyone who is angry with me.

I don't really understand why I would have to -- in order to become a photographer. It's not like angry people are going to be sending me a check.:D
Click to expand...

I think we were thinking about different situations. Minor confrontation in the street was not what I had in mind, in fact unless you are taking the picture of someone pointing the camera straight to him I don't see why there should be such a thing at all, I was thinking trying to make a reportage of dangerous stuff, or taking photograph where it is explicitly forbidden such a picture to a bike gang, pictures of a meth lab, that sort of thing, and in this case I think it is much better to get a complete arrangement beforehand rather than trying to snatch where one shouldn't be because even if nothing happens at the moment of the pictures something could happen once they get published (unless you publish them anonymously but I don't know how long can you keep a career that way). also, maybe, it is due to the place each of us is. I understand than in the US and some other places there is hostility against photographers from the police and usual people who see them either as potential terrorist or as simply threatening entities, I live in Latin America and my main concern is taking either by mistake or in purpose pictures of illegal activities and the possible reaction from the people performing these activities.

GLF
 
doolittle said:
Apologetic seems to imply fault on your behalf, right away putting you on the defensive.
I am not saying that giving an apology is necessary a bad strategy, but I wouldn't resort to it right away.
Click to expand...

There's a pub I often stop in after a long day at work for a quick scotch. It has a lovely original interior, and I have lost count of the times I've been stood at the bar with a friend and have spotted a guy sitting in the corner with a DSLR and zoom lens pointed in my direction. After a hard day's work I just want a moment's private breathing space and some peace, so even as a photographer myself, I generally turn my back. So I can fully understand that while it's the photographer's right to take pictures in public spaces, it's also the subject's right to have times when they just wish there wasn't a camera pointed in their face. Any time I take a photo and someone seems offended, I'm happy to apologise, irrespective of whether that puts me on the defensive, just out of respect for their rights. Sometimes that doesn't appease them - but they are perfectly entitled to want a moment's privacy not to be photographed by a stranger - but very often it does calm the situation. I have no problems apologising, and do it as a matter of course if someone seems uncomfortable or even offended. People's right to feel uncomfortable or offended is no less worthy of respect than my right to take photographs, and I tend towards the idea that empathy and communication are a good way to balance those rights when they conflict.
 
FrankS said:
To the OP: I don't agree with your plan at all. Basically you are willing to cave in under any pressure. There is a joke there, but I don't want to bring politics into this thread.
Click to expand...

Maybe I should just pretend to be French? (Granted, they nearly conquered continental Europe, started a revolution that shaped the entire Western world and ensured British defeat in the American Revolution).

In seriousness, I'm more firm on some things than others. For instance, if someone "calls the cops" I might not wait around, or if someone asks me to get rid of their photo and it's a great shot for some reason, I might just decide to keep it. I'll have to make decisions when they pop up like everyone else.

Hell, more than anything I'll probably wind up just pretending to not hear people and losing them across a street, in a shop, etc.
 
Find the video on YouTube of Garry Winogrand shooting in the streets. I think it's just part of who he was. He would be almost constantly fiddling with the camera and then looking through the finder and fiddling some more and then "click" followed by more fiddling and looking around. People would think he's trying to figure out how to use the camera or that he looks confused and harmless and sometimes not really sure whether he took their picture. So just do like he did and constantly fiddle and or look around like you are confused and most people will leave you alone even if they suspect you took their picture. Of course if you are not naturally fiddly it might not work for you. I don't know that he was trying to act that way on purpose as a protection mechanism as much as I think it looks like that's just how and who he was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom