Photo-aversive subjects?

[Archiver]

This discussion made me think about photo-aversion in my own life.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAssh...ta_for_telling_my_daughter_its_her_fault_she/

Quick synopsis: as a child, a now 26 year old woman had social anxiety and hated having her photo taken. She would either have panic attacks or pull awful faces and make obscene gestures, then as a teenager, simply wouldn't participate in photos. Her mother had to explain why there are hardly any photos of her in the album compared with everyone else, and the daughter couldn't quite believe the situation.

In my case, I didn't like having my photo taken between about 10 and 16. It also cropped up again when I was 19. I would turn away from the camera in later years, but I made crosseyed smiles when I was a kid. It didn't bother me so much later, and now I'm fairly okay with it. I'm much better behind a camera than in front of it.

What are some of your stories of photo-aversive people? Are you, or were you, a photo aversive person yourself?

 

[markjwyatt]

I often refuse to smile for pictures. Some people have a cheesy smile they use for every [posed] picture. I guess I have a cheesy neutral expression.

 

[css9450]

I've been that way my whole life. I've always hated picture time!

 

[Bill Clark]

It is an art for both the subject and with the photographer directing, to behave like they usually are when in front of a camera. Most actors are good at this. There are different ways to achieve this.

That, to me, is one of the important qualities a photographer needs when photographing people. Some photographers never achieve that, especially when photographing untrained people; instead, relying on pj style of photography, with a machine gun approach that digital allows, hoping to get some keepers.

I always liked it when I was the last photographer on a prospective clients list to interview.

Smiles.

 

[nikon_sam]

I too prefer to be behind the lens rather than in front...there are very few photos of me that I really like.
I won't sabotage a photo when someone is shooting but I am uneasy with it...I've seen pictures of me when I have no clue someone is shooting and am okay with those...
My mom would freeze up and her face contort in some strange way whenever I pulled out a camera, I learned to deal with this but still took few photos of her...
On the other hand our two kids are hams whenever you shoot them...
Once I shot photos of a friend's daughter, the mother loved the results and wanted to make a big print and hang it in their home...I advised that she flip the neg when printed, I explained that that was the image the daughter sees every day in the mirror and is normal for her...it might make her more comfortable having that image hanging on a wall...

 

[Phil_F_NM]

I never have liked my photo being taken but I'll play along to placate others.
Is this discussion just about the "western" psychosocial aversion to being photographed or are we taking into account cultural norms/beliefs or political reasons to not wanting a photo taken? Just curious, as I have only a few anecdotes about the former, but many about the latter.

Phil Forrest

 

[das]

I also hate my picture being taken -- so I try to be conscious of other people who feel that way before snapping away and posting their photo on the internet.

I think that social media has made more people begin to hate being photographed. With 95% of people having no internal filter of what is a flattering or non-flattering photo of a person, and with those same people rarely asking for permission before publicly posting said photos, and with people's level of self-consciousness these days, I do not blame people for not wanting to be photographed. That's also why I am not generally a fan of stranger, surreptitious "street" photography -- unless the subject is doing something publicly where it would not be a surprise to be photographed.

 

[brothernature]

I was out photographing yesterday and raised up my camera to take a photo of a bus stopped at a light. It was back lit and the inside was glowing. After I took the photo the bus driver opened the door and yelled out "I didn't give you permission!" seemingly upset thinking I took a photo of her. I was maybe ~30 feet away with a 35mm camera. Even if she was in the frame it would not be more intrusive than a snap with my iphone.

I love candid photos of strangers by other photographers, but interactions like this make me hesitate when taking my own photos. I hate the idea that I'd ever have a negative impact on someone else. But it also boggles my mind that people don't think twice about the ubiquity of security cameras, google streetview cars, etc. But have a problem with someone out documenting everyday life.

unless the subject is doing something publicly where it would not be a surprise to be photographed

but who gets to decide what crosses into that territory and what doesn't? Everyone draws their own lines.

 

[Horatio]

My wife has been shying away from the camera for years. So I tortured our kids.

 

[das]

It's not so hard to draw some lines. People giving a public performance - probably fine. Skateboarders at a park or body builders on the beach - probably don't want to be photographed before being asked. Random lady walking down a busy street, probably not. There is some kind of golden rule concept that can become instinctual. However, a general disregard for whether a stranger wants his or her photo taken often permeates some street photography culture. Not all, of course, but some people defend their absolute "right" to photograph anything or anyone in public.

I remember I was on vacation walking around a small town and some dude looking like he was doing "street photography" just literally took my photo with DSLR when I wasn't looking and I caught him out of the corner of my eye quickly put the camera down. Somewhat infuriating.

It's interesting to learn that some of the famous "street photographs" of the 40s and 50s were actually staged with models to appear "spontaneous." That's definitely an interesting concept and has lots of creative potential.

 

[John Bragg]

My 4 year old daughter went through a stage as most kids do of putting her cheesy camera face on. I got over it by letting her take my portrait with her little kiddy cam and encouraging her to "direct" me. It worked and she is now more natural again when I want to document her doing her favorite things. I like her photos of me as well, since I am also far more comfortable behind the camera and she has learnt how to make Daddy laugh and put him at ease.

 

[Archiver]

I never have liked my photo being taken but I'll play along to placate others.
Is this discussion just about the "western" psychosocial aversion to being photographed or are we taking into account cultural norms/beliefs or political reasons to not wanting a photo taken? Just curious, as I have only a few anecdotes about the former, but many about the latter.

Phil Forrest

Would LOVE to hear your stories from both sides of the cultural divide!

 

[brothernature]

It's not so hard to draw some lines. People giving a public performance - probably fine. Skateboarders at a park or body builders on the beach - probably don't want to be photographed before being asked. Random lady walking down a busy street, probably not. There is some kind of golden rule concept that can become instinctual. However, a general disregard for whether a stranger wants his or her photo taken often permeates some street photography culture. Not all, of course, but some people defend their absolute "right" to photograph anything or anyone in public.

I remember I was on vacation walking around a small town and some dude looking like he was doing "street photography" just literally took my photo with DSLR when I wasn't looking and I caught him out of the corner of my eye quickly put the camera down. Somewhat infuriating.

It's interesting to learn that some of the famous "street photographs" of the 40s and 50s were actually staged with models to appear "spontaneous." That's definitely an interesting concept and has lots of creative potential.

If everyone abided by those rules we wouldn't have Winogrand, Friedlander, Frank... etc

I agree that the Bruce Gilden approach that is somewhat present in "street photography" is awful, it's just bullying that borderlines on assault. But on the other hand if you had to walk up to everyone in the frame and ask permission, you'd never take a single photo. Life will always be more interesting and absurd than anything one could stage. Losing that entire sub-section of photography would be a tragedy.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

.. But on the other hand if you had to walk up to everyone in the frame and ask permission, you'd never take a single photo. ..

This is untrue. A lot of, if not most of, the amazing journalistic work seen has identified subjects, or subjects who explicitly knew their photo was being taken. And a lot of "street photography" is not photos of the pavement, but more boring photos of the backs of people's heads, buttocks, legs, shoes, other parts, which seem to exist simply to show those parts. That's fine if you want to call it what it is, but it's not street photography, and usually not even making an editorial statement.

Would LOVE to hear your stories from both sides of the cultural divide!

There were a few individuals who I went to high school with who were Dine that did not even have their photo taken for the yearbooks.
The people who live in the Hopi and Taos pueblos as well as a bunch of others in New Mexico and Arizona do not like their photos taken. Add the Lakota of the upper midwest to that list too.

When I was in Dubai in 1998, we were warned that taking an image of a woman, and having that act noticed by another man could get us beaten up or jailed.

When I was shooting in Iraq, there were three answers I'd get to a request for a photo, and I'd always ask in the most formal respectful way I could. First would be that the person or persons would simply feel shy and not want their photo taken. Second was that the person or persons were working with or didn't want to be seen with Americans due to reprisal killings, which were incredibly brutal and rampant. The third were the few who actually wanted their photo taken and were happy to pose.

One time, on patrol in Fallujah, I was shooting images of US military members down the street. They yelled at me to go to their position stating "no images to be made of this unit!" I asked my 240 gunner in the turret of my squad's HMMWV to keep an eye on me as I walked up. I pulled out a copy of my order and the DoD directive, signed by D. Rumsfeld, which gave me carte blanche to image everything and anything in the AOR. They tore it up and we argued a bit about our jobs. I erased a FEW digital images to placate them but I also got some on film which they didn't know of. Turned out they were looting.

I've been guilty of trying to be a "street photographer" but in the end, I always wanted to know more about people, so I gave up on that. These days I feel that "street photography" is just thinly veiled voyeurism or collecting objectification. I go back to not wanting my photo being taken; even though I have the right to take another's, doesn't mean I have to do so without reflecting upon my own feelings of why I'm taking the photo and how that person would feel. Having been a combat engineer, I think I'd rather see images of the actual pavement.

Phil Forrest

 

[brothernature]

This is untrue. A lot of, if not most of, the amazing journalistic work seen has identified subjects, or subjects who explicitly knew their photo was being taken. And a lot of "street photography" is not photos of the pavement, but more boring photos of the backs of people's heads, buttocks, legs, shoes, other parts, which seem to exist simply to show those parts. That's fine if you want to call it what it is, but it's not street photography, and usually not even making an editorial statement.

Not sure I understand what you think is untrue. I'm talking about a pretty specific subset of photography. Helen Levitt, Winogrand, Frank, HCB.. all incredible artists whose work we would not have if we didn't allow candid photography to take place out in public.

You seem to be talking about bad photographers, which there are a lot of. I'm only shouting about the 0.0001% of the work made out on the street that is exceptional, because it is the kind of work that has meant the most to me.

I think the idea of people as "brands" and social media is making this worse, people want to control their image and are easily self conscious now.

As a photographer, I think you have to be clear about your own intentions and to be able to articulate them. If you're operating from a pure place, then hopefully you'll be able to communicate that to anyone that you might offend.

 

[DougK]

Great story, Phil. I have a lot of mixed feelings about street photography and I think you summed it up better than I could. I've shot couple of photos I guess you could call "street" that turned out pretty nicely, but for the most part I avoid that genre altogether. I prefer to play with shape, color, and form in landscape, or maybe environmental portraits where both the subject and I are working together to make the photo.

 

[Archiver]

@Phil - thanks for those stories, they are eye opening. It's remarkable to think of how things are in different cultures, even to the point of risking life and limb.


A lot of what claims to be 'street photography' these days is just voyeurism. There's a fortunately large niche of street which emphasizes the shapes and lines of the buildings, light and shadows, with people as incidental figures in it, and that's pretty cool. Traditional street photography as described by @brothernature is much more rare, and far more difficult to do.

 

[presspass]

Our community has a large number of Amish residents. In general, they do not like to have their photo taken. It's a religious prohibition and I respect and honor that. However, if they are involved in a newsworthy event, I will take their photos and they understand that. I have written, photographed, and edited the local weekly newspaper for more than 40 years and we have all come to an understanding about photographs. Specifically, my Amish neighbors are community-oriented both for people in their own faith and their other neighbors. Many are volunteer firefigbhters who take, and use, classes for emergency responders. They know that when they are fighting a fire or working the secene of a collision, I will take their photos. And they understand that the photos are part of recording life in a rural community, not photos of them because they are Amish.

 

[ChipMcD]

Our community has a large number of Amish residents. In general, they do not like to have their photo taken. It's a religious prohibition and I respect and honor that. However, if they are involved in a newsworthy event, I will take their photos and they understand that. I have written, photographed, and edited the local weekly newspaper for more than 40 years and we have all come to an understanding about photographs. Specifically, my Amish neighbors are community-oriented both for people in their own faith and their other neighbors. Many are volunteer firefigbhters who take, and use, classes for emergency responders. They know that when they are fighting a fire or working the secene of a collision, I will take their photos. And they understand that the photos are part of recording life in a rural community, not photos of them because they are Amish.

I have passed on photographing so many scenes involving Amish that could have been great because of their cultural preference, although I have shot a few long range scenes in which the persons were far enough away that they could not be recognized. Like many posters here, I have only rarely tried "street shooting," and I have a reticence about it personally, although I love looking at the work of Robert Frank, Gary Winogrand, HCB etc. I think that when they were doing a lot of their work, cameras were less common, at least on the street, and people were more accepting of being photographed.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

I was once walking down 6th or 7th avenue (pretty sure it was 6th) in NYC, kind of late at night, and had just passed 12th St. when I looked to my right into a nail salon. I thought "that homeless-looking guy is getting a pedicure." I was dressed in a bright red jacket, had a Lowepro bag and a few cameras with me, a D3 was hung over my right shoulder. My friend I was walking with said, "is that?", and I repeated, "is that?", and she answered our collective question saying, "it's Michael Moore getting a pedicure." He saw both of us just looking in, saw my camera then pulled his hoodie over his head and turned away.
I felt a tiny bit icky having wanted to take a paparazzi-style photo but I didn't. I decided to treat a public figure like a human being and walked on my way.

Phil Forrest