Respect for people.

Status
Not open for further replies.
35mmdelux said:
You may want to rethink this stuff. Not photographing the "obese" or handicapped is a lack of respect in my book. People are people, no matter their weight, creed or religion.

BTW punks committing crimes aren't worth respect.
Click to expand...

Paul, I humbly disagree.
respecting someone is respecting his/her feelings.
I would not raise my camera in front of someone that will inevitably think that he/she is photographed BECAUSE of what he is, or his disability.
BTW, most of these pictures, that simply show the "different people" usually suck.
I have photographed people in a hospital that in the street would have thought that I am taking there picture because of their ethnicity. In the hospital it wasn't an issue, since the hospital was the subject, not them, or at least, that's what they thought, and so I do not think I hurt their feelings.
I have no problem with street photography, even quite close if it is done in a gracious way, and if it respect any sign of "I don't want you to take my picture"
Just to mix gear to the equation, I have found that a RF with a FLAT, wide angle is a much better tool for street because people have less a sense that they are directly pointed at by the camera. They see you but seem not to be sure if they were or not in the picture, or at least do not feel they are subject to an aggression.
 
Neare said:
Practice photography how you want, but don't ever assume that how you do it is ever any more 'right' than the next person.
Click to expand...

why, if I think some ways of photographing hurt people's feeling?
you can say "I don't care about how people feel", but if you care, why not try to understand what can be interpreting like a highly insulting behavior (and of course that depends on the place and culture)
 
Well, another interesting thread. People reveal more about themselves than they realise.

"Street" photography used to be known as "candid" photography, but in its' present iteration it has become somewhat more assertive and aggressive where people are the subjects. Not so candid any more. And just because one or two practitioners like Bruce Gilden have achieved some notoriety doesn't really change anything or legitimise it in the eyes of all.

Photographing objects and streetscapes, even with people in the scene (but who are not the principal objective) is, to my mind, legitimate "street" photography and there aren't many issues with that.
Where I do draw issue is that I believe that in a civilised society people, even in public places, have an implied right not to be made to feel uncomfortable when going about their daily business by (for example) having a photographer thrust themselves into their 'space'. It's an unwelcome intrusion for many people. Some people don't mind and there are exceptions, of course, when the situation is newsworthy or there is some illegal or nefarious activity taking place, for example. Consideration of others' feelings is one of the identifiers of a real society rather than just a rabble. It's not political correctness. It's just civilised behaviour.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My question is, how can you know how another person feels before you take a candid picture of them? It happens fast. Secondly, how do you know their feelings won't change in time?

All this talk about "feelings" has very little if nothing at all to do with respect to me. There is a lot more to it than that. Being honest with the subject is a measure of respect. And when you're on the street, respect is just one of the links in the chain. Just like eye contact, body posture and how you dress and react to their reaction. As far as not photographing people with disabilities, since when are they off limits? And how is ignoring and disregarding them showing respect?

I've got some amazing shots of disabled hockey players and trust me, they certainly don't feel they shouldn't have their pictures taken, on the court or on the street. Check out the Nikkor 300 2.0 IF-ED AIS thread on the Nikon Cafe for those.

And who is to say what street photography used to mean? Since when and by who? Or is there a blanket generalization that we all must live by at this point in time.

What I think is going on is there is so much fear that people have about ... ( ____________) that they want everyone to buy in. And when someone doesn't fit into the little box of their own personal code of conduct, they start to panic.

The reason I don't care what anyone else thinks is that it doesn't matter what they think. And I have no control over what they think. And what they think may and indeed will change in time.
Who cares, move on.

Get out there and take some pictures.









 
Last edited:
Nikkor AIS said:
Just who in the hell do WE think WE are. ?
Click to expand...

Forgive me for paraphrasing but this best sums up the direction of the whole thread for me now.

We've had umpteen different definitions of 'street,' we've had unsolicited examples of what some think is good, (thankfully so far no examples of other peoples pictures to show what we think is bad,) we've had misunderstandings, some mud slung, some strong assertations of whether we care or don't care and what it is that we either care or don't care about and along the way we've had some salient and interesting points.

All I'm curious about now is whether there is anything more to say that won't have us heading toward the uneviable position of someone mentioning the Nazis' and the inevitable closure of the thread based upon the idea that anyone resorting to such an argument has already lost it.

I'm not aiming barbed comments at any indivdual here:angel: I'm way too groovy for that😎
 
dave lackey said:
No, this comment is out of line. Re-read my post. My priority is protecting the most important person in my life. A zealot photographer is not my priority. So stop it with all the high level photographic rights and purity of street photography. Respect people. It's simple.
Click to expand...

Dave, you've been through a lot and you clearly have a case for knocking BG on his ass if he were to ever photograph you and your wife. Your case is not the norm on the streets though. He does seemingly have the right to photograph in public even if it is disrespectful at times. However, I wonder what his rights would be if he did cause a person to have a heart attack. I'm sure his rights would change pretty quickly...
 
Dave Lackey, I never feel as though I disrespect people in particular. The problem might be in how people are trying to force universality of respect ideas. I see it more like an exchange in order to cooperate as humans. The problem is when you just do what everyone else wants you to do there is no exchange.

If someone is going to subject me to some serious rudeness then taking their picture anyway, is the only way I can warrant the verbal assault and personal disregard for what I personally want to be doing within my right to do so; that they can also exercise on me with a camera. In fact I hope a camera battle happens some day randomly on the street! What fun... Film to film anyway.

Seriously though, how people view respect to me is skewed. I see typically requests of it to be asking people to be passive, and subjected to the world around them. The way I value things I should be photographing people much more invasive (in their face), all the time, for their utter stupidity that they regularly choose to expose the world - and me - when they leave their home. A lot of this probably starts with the extreme out of balance employee to employer ideas of respect, and between people and authorities. The word 'equal' means little to most people so it seems like a very big challenge to the status quo when you approach it.

I also think people are crazy in how they think about being photographed. To me it is a big statement of appreciation and people should feel really good that someone thinks they are actually worth taking a photo of at all.

This also goes back to the minor squabble of someone not wanting to be photographed as being very unimportant compared to the fact photographers - and other forms of expression - need to keep up social pressure of basic freedoms in order to maintain them.

One of the funniest things is that a lot of people could almost care less if a photo exists of them somewhere that they will never know about... but the act of being photographed bothers them. They want to have a reason to be pissed off and object to something; they are looking to be offensive.

With elderly I think it might be somewhat clear a lot of the time if you should be careful about "surprising them", like if they are not walking briskly with some pep then maybe they are not doing so well. Still though you never know, you could photograph someone my age and they could drop dead... so you really can not live by that fear. Just use your head and be mindful of those in poor in health as best you can. People use to call it common sense - instead of making up rules that far from always are appropriate.
 
Last edited:
I don't see personal attacks between member's in this thread, perhaps more emotional displays than philosophy.

Some excellent Photography.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
I don't see personal attacks between member's in this thread, perhaps more emotional displays than philosophy.
Some excellent Photography.
Click to expand...

Good analysis, Brian. On one hand some of the 'displays' are not particularly attractive nor well presented, but a few of the images are quite powerful.
So here's a question from a philosophical point of view.
Does the result justify the means? Or is it self-indulgent?
 
I am not a street photographer, not my thing.

Call it an art, an accepted form of photography, a genre. There is a large enough group that engages in it to generate the imagery and to view the images taken. It is an accepted form of Photography. As with a lot of art, the results go far to justify the means. It cannot be simply self-indulgence as others view and admire the images taken. Some street-photographs live to define the times, such as the sailor kissing the nurse on VJ day. That shot is certainly not self-indulgent, it is an icon.
 
In the 1960s, my Dad was a counselor for Auburn University.

He had one student that came to him from the Art department.

This student would Flash a female student, and then make a painting of the shocked expression on their face. He made a portfolio for the work. One of the college girls stared, and announced "I've seen better" and just walked off. The student was crushed and came in for counseling. he got an "A" for the art project. The 60s were "just different", and this is an example of the "result not justifying the means", at least in a modern court of law.
 
Yeah I edited my post some.... it was choppy.

Hey though, at the very least there are some great photographs in this thread!
 
Isn't this whole thread based on the assumption of what 'respect' for people when photographing them is?

I don't think this 'respect' that great photographers have always talked about has anything to do with giving people privacy or space. If you're serious about street photography or photojournalism, you don't have the luxury to give your subjects that. If you do, IMO you're not doing your job very well.
This job requires you to get into peoples personal spaces, into their lives against their wishes. I have always though that this term 'respect' is how the subject is dealt with while or after the photograph has been taken.


On another note, I was reading a very good photographers blog. He has been taking photos out of his apartment balcony of all the people who pass below. He wrote in an entry that once a week a group of disabled children are taken on a walk and always pass his place. He has always avoided taking their photo because he felt uncomfortable and he didn't want to discriminate against them. In this post he wrote that last week he took their photo, because to him he realized that by not taking their photo, that was actually him discriminating against them.
 
Zealots and Martyrs

Zealots and Martyrs

Neare said:
Isn't this whole thread based on the assumption of what 'respect' for people when photographing them is?
Click to expand...

Whatever this thread might have been based on, it's not at that point now.
We have one camp who show and celebrate their insensitivity to the feelings of people and another camp at the other end of the spectrum who are probably oversensitive at times and are appalled by behaviours and attitudes of the first group. The first group seem dismissive of anyone who disagrees with them.
As far as photography has anything to do with individual attitudes and behaviours, it's quite possible that either group could put up some respectable images, regardless of how they're obtained. To each his own.
It's all starting to sound a bit like rival religions, really. Or a new game called "Zealots and Martyrs".

It may not be everyone's view but I think this debate is going nowhere now and it's time the topic was closed.
 
Neare, you make some excellent points.

I fail to see why because one side has failed to make their case, the discussion should be closed. Or are we afraid of hurting someone's feelings 🙄? I am still waiting to hear from someone how/why taking someone's picture is disrespectful?





Leica 35 1.4 Summilux on Leica MP



58 1.2 Nocturnal on Nikon D3
 
Last edited:
Nikkor AIS, I think Leigh Youdale answered your question in post #98 very effectively from my point of view in his post #83, second paragraph where he says "Where I do draw issue is that I believe that in a civilised society people, even in public places, have an implied right not to be made to feel uncomfortable when going about their daily business by (for example) having a photographer thrust themselves into their 'space'. It's an unwelcome intrusion for many people.

I also think it answers Neare's point he made in post #96 where he says, "This job requires you to get into peoples personal spaces, into their lives against their wishes. I have always though that this term 'respect' is how the subject is dealt with while or after the photograph has been taken."

I don't see how you can be respecting someone while taking a photograph if you are getting into their lives against their wishes.

I am not trying to cover all aspects of street photography or all street photographers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom