Psst! Over here. I’ve got some street photography.

[Rayt]

I was posting on a online street photography group for a month and one of the members made a stink about certain kinds of street photography as invasion of privacy etc etc. I knew it was a swipe at me because I was the only one posting photos regularly that featured faces prominently. The group otherwise didn’t have much activity and most people didn’t post street type photos. My style is about faces in the crowd. So I made a comments that I did not expect this type of criticism in a street photography oriented group. Then there are comments from this same person about violation of laws in such and such countries and he even posted a consent form. So I basically stopped posting. I still shoot but no longer post anywhere. I do follow various street photo groups in FB because I do like to look and learn. I am not sure if I am over analysing the photos but don’t see much if any street style portraits. If faces are featured then they are a small part of the scenery and not the scenery. In any case I can’t go on taking the variations of the same photo over and over again so my photography needs to evolve but not because of someone telling me I can’t shoot it or show it.

 

[xayraa33]

I think shooting like Eugène Atget , with almost zero people in your photos makes more sense every day in today's climate...even as far as to use medium format cameras and a tripod and be deliberate...not street photography in the usual sense as we know it but a form of street photography none the less.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

I’m not quite understanding your post. If you are comfortable with the photos you’re making, why do you care what some rando on the internet thinks about them?

 

[Darthfeeble]

My understanding of what Street Photography is all about is the human condition, what ever that means. Sorta requires humans.

 

[Rayt]

I’m not quite understanding your post. If you are comfortable with the photos you’re making, why do you care what some rando on the internet thinks about them?

That’s a good philosophy to live by. Thanks. While I have been photographing for 25 years I am not a street photographer. Photography was always incidental to travelling and I haven’t considered such privacy issues. But due to Covid retirement I stopped travelling so took up street photography as my only creative outlet. In my travels people always let me take their photos. It was only about 3 months ago I actually started exploring the city I call home these 25 years.

 

[Rayt]

I think shooting like Eugène Atget , with almost zero people in your photos makes more sense every day in today's climate...even as far as to use medium format cameras and a tripod and be deliberate...not street photography in the usual sense as we know it but a form of street photography none the less.

I also do a lot of large format photography and people don’t wait around for that.

 

[p.giannakis]

Edit: I accidentally deleted my older post. What I said was that I never have issues with the people I photograph in the street. For the average person who is going to work in the morning and has zero interest in photography, we are a bunch of weirdos who like taking random pictures of people who we don't know. It is usually other photographers that take issue with street photography due to their own prejudices. Street photography is not illegal and you don't violate anything just as long you stay within social distance (3-7m).

Smile at the people you photograph and thank them. If they want to speak to you, don't walk away. Show them your work, don't try to hide what you are doing. Offer them a copy of the picture. Have a chat and reassure them. Ask if they have Instagram or s.media account to follow your work. Use humour to calm them if they seem anxious. You won't have any problems whatsoever.

These ladies in the picture burst laughing at me after I took the picture.

 

[Andrea Taurisano]

I am not aware of any laws that says street photography is illegal and we should sign consent forms with people in the street for photographing them.

What is and isn't allowed without consent varies quite a bit from country to country. While photographing strangers may be totally legal in most countries, publishing their images without consent may not be (alas). Publishing street images with recognizeable faces without consent may also be perfectly allowed, as long as the situation or event (for instance a Gay pride march) is the subject of the image, and not the single face. In the same country, publishing street portraits may require consent. Norway is an example of this.

My take is however that law is one thing, common sense is another. Even if you publish street portraits without consent, as long as they aren't intentionally embarrassing, degrading or offensive, the worst thing you risk - if the subject should get to know AND not be pleased - is probably an email asking you to remove that image from your blog or gallery, which you at that point should second. I'd say, be respectful of people, but keep doing your photography.


EDIT: Actually I had almost forgotten the only really unpleasant episode I've had while doing street, about 10 years ago in Copenhagen. An interesting-looking man walked in my direction carring a huge parrot on his shoulder. I snapped a shot. He stopped me and loudly threatened to smash my camera and my face if I ever do it again. He smashed neither, however, and I still have a smashing street shot of him.

 

[p.giannakis]

What is and isn't allowed without consent varies quite a bit from country to country. While photographing strangers may be totally legal in most countries, publishing their images without consent may not be (alas). Publishing street images with recognizeable faces without consent may also be perfectly allowed, as long as the situation or event (for instance a Gay pride march) is the subject of the image, and not the single face. In the same country, publishing street portraits may require consent. Norway is an example of this.

My take is however that law is one thing, common sense is another. Even if you publish street portraits without consent, as long as they aren't intentionally embarrassing, degrading or offensive, the worst thing you risk - if the subject should get to know AND not be pleased - is probably an email asking you to remove that image from your blog or gallery, which you at that point should second. I'd say, be respectful of people, but keep doing your photography.


EDIT: Actually I had almost forgotten the only really unpleasant episode I've had while doing street, about 10 years ago in Copenhagen. An interesting-looking man walked in my direction carring a huge parrot on his shoulder. I snapped a shot. He stopped me and loudly threatened to smash my camera and my face if I ever do it again. He smashed neither, however, and I still have a smashing street shot of him.

I agree with what you say Andrea. Also in UK it is illegal to take a picture below a lady's skirt and stuff like this but somehow taking a picture that embarrasses the person is not something that aesthetically pleases me and I would never do it.

 

[JohnBeeching]

I have been taking street photos for over 50 years and nobody on the net has criticised the content of my photos. My philosophy is not to take photos of people that exploit them; that means subjects like the homeless, pretty women because they are pretty, people of cultures or with beliefs who one knows might feel threatened or offended. Apart from that anything goes. Intuitive familiarity with ones camera and body language are key to successful street photos. A few examples:

Leica M6, 35mm.
London, 2008. by John Beeching, on Flickr

Fuji X-Pro1, 18mm.
Please. London, 2016. by John Beeching, on Flickr

Fuji X100T.
Lunch at work by John Beeching, on Flickr

 

[KenR]

Art only

Art only

In the US as long as the photo is for “artistic” purposes and not used in advertising it’s okay. Anything freely visible on the street is allowed - no high powered telephoto or infrared sensors allowed. Remember that Google won every lawsuit filed against its street view camera because the images were visible to the driver of the Google car as well as anyone else on the street. That said, it doesn’t protect you from being threatened or punched.

 

[p.giannakis]

With the development of social media, street photography became more difficult in some sense. People believe that if you have their picture, you can somehow use it against them online - as if you have captured their soul. They are not many (I genuinely believe most people don't care) but they are increasing. I remember listening to an interview by Ian Berry, who took pictures in warzones but he said he wouldn't even think to take now a picture of a child in UK. "It is sad" he added.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

In my experience, it's definitely becoming more difficult to photograph strangers, at least here in America. Covid restrictions were recently lifted completely in my state, and public events have resumed; I've been out a few times to shoot at rodeos and town fairs, where I interact with folks and do informal portraiture, not on-the-fly street photography per se. The vibe is certainly different from a year and a half back. Partly, there is still Covid anxiety, but I think the politics in our country have been the primary reason for the change. The past 18 months have created an appalling atmosphere of suspicion, distrust, and hostility in our communities, and "the media" are seen as instigators who feed the flames. As a person with a camera, I'm probably seen as a member of that group, and it now seems to take far more work to gain the trust and cooperation of my subjects.
Please note that I am not speaking from either side of the Left/Right, rural/urban, or any other of the divides that are plaguing our country. I think that we are probably all in agreement that civil society is in trouble. My point is that this plays out in doing street photography or any of its variants.
This post will probably initiate a good deal of acrimonious finger pointing, of course, thereby confirming what I've written. Unfortunately!

 

[MrFujicaman]

It would seem that the person making a stink has ZERO understanding of the law. Under the law, you have no expectation of privacy in public. This is long established case law. If you're not using the image to sell something, you're pretty much in the clear.

I was posting on a online street photography group for a month and one of the members made a stink about certain kinds of street photography as invasion of privacy etc etc. I knew it was a swipe at me because I was the only one posting photos regularly that featured faces prominently. The group otherwise didn’t have much activity and most people didn’t post street type photos. My style is about faces in the crowd. So I made a comments that I did not expect this type of criticism in a street photography oriented group. Then there are comments from this same person about violation of laws in such and such countries and he even posted a consent form. So I basically stopped posting. I still shoot but no longer post anywhere. I do follow various street photo groups in FB because I do like to look and learn. I am not sure if I am over analysing the photos but don’t see much if any street style portraits. If faces are featured then they are a small part of the scenery and not the scenery. In any case I can’t go on taking the variations of the same photo over and over again so my photography needs to evolve but not because of someone telling me I can’t shoot it or show it.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

"It would seem that the person making a stink has ZERO understanding of the law."

You are absolutely correct. However, watching the news lately, it seems that many people are simply ignoring the laws they don't like. See my comment on "civil society" above.

 

[agentlossing]

Sounds like the street photography group you were a part of was a bunch of dummies. Censoring the content of street photography for some sort of controversy du jour is nonsense. Find a better place!

 

[Evergreen States]

Ignore him-that guy has ZERO understanding of the law. Under long stand case law, as long as you don't try to use the photos to sale things or ridicule someone, you're fine.

There are many Americans, particularly in the suburbs, who hold a hysterical fear of pedophiles lurking around every corner. Increasingly, many also believe that satanic pedophiles control the government and media. Pedophile panic started taking hold here in the 1980s and only accelerated with the proliferation and eventual mainstreaming of the New World Order and Qanon conspiracy theories. Of course none of this has any basis in reality; nine out of ten assaults of children are done by a trusted authority figure, family member or family friend rather than a stranger. On top of that you have to contend with the possibility that a person aggressively confronting you with their wishful interpretation of the law has a head full of vigilante fantasies and is armed in the hopes of enacting them.

In brief, I think that it's not so simple anymore.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

We should all just stick to cat photos. Much safer.

 

[agentlossing]

There are many Americans, particularly in the suburbs, who hold a hysterical fear of pedophiles lurking around every corner. Increasingly, many also believe that satanic pedophiles control the government and media. Pedophile panic started taking hold here in the 1980s and only accelerated with the proliferation and eventual mainstreaming of the New World Order and Qanon conspiracy theories. Of course none of this has any basis in reality; nine out of ten assaults of children are done by a trusted authority figure, family member or family friend rather than a stranger. On top of that you have to contend with the possibility that a person aggressively confronting you with their wishful interpretation of the law has a head full of vigilante fantasies and is armed in the hopes of enacting them.

In brief, I think that it's not so simple anymore.

True, but I feel like the west coast is more aware of and concerned about being photographed than the east coast, just in my limited experience. The west coast is where I operate, except when I'm traveling. Maybe the midwest is more of a tinderbox where being photographed is concerned. But in spite of the west being a bit more sensitive to being photographed, I've never gotten into a situation where anyone accused me of doing anything creepy. Staying vigilant about whether kids are in the area is probably key to that, and just avoiding the most risky shots. Doesn't mean I haven't taken photos of kids, but the kids can't be the only center of interest. Take below, this is what I consider a safe, or smart, risk to take.

img980 by Andrew Lossing, on Flickr

 

[Evergreen States]

True, but I feel like the west coast is more aware of and concerned about being photographed than the east coast, just in my limited experience. The west coast is where I operate, except when I'm traveling. Maybe the midwest is more of a tinderbox where being photographed is concerned. But in spite of the west being a bit more sensitive to being photographed, I've never gotten into a situation where anyone accused me of doing anything creepy. Staying vigilant about whether kids are in the area is probably key to that, and just avoiding the most risky shots. Doesn't mean I haven't taken photos of kids, but the kids can't be the only center of interest. Take below, this is what I consider a safe, or smart, risk to take.
img980 by Andrew Lossing, on Flickr

As a fellow Washingtonian, you certainly know that the east side and west side may as well be two different states.