Respect for people.

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

_larky

Well-known
Local time
8:21 PM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
628
Hello.

I'm reading a lot at the moment about photographers, the projects they chose to work on, their philosophy of photography etc. One thing that keeps coming up, especially with street or documentary style photography, is having a 'love' for people and showing people respect, respecting personal space and privacy etc.

I'm ok with all of that.

Chris Weeks is a photographer I really like, he can come across in a negative kind of way sometimes, he sometimes provokes full on flame wars but I like his stuff. However, watching him shoot was interesting. He doesn't seem to care about people's personal space or privacy, he takes a long long time to grab a series of, or maybe just one shot. And he's not the only one.

So, I wonder if I'm getting the 'respect' and 'love' aspects all wrong? Watch all those vids of street shooters snapping away, none of them really show any respect as far as I can tell apart from Bruce Gilden in the Derbyshire video.

Anyone got any thoughts?

This will be another one of those threads I have to re-visit as I lt it sink in over time. I like those threads. :)
 
I was surprised when I saw the video of Gilden in Derby. See him at work in the USA and he comes across as a compete ar5eh0le, in Derby he seemed very personable and good natured. Dunno if it's him or the editorial slant taken by the videographer. I expect he's a bit of both, like most of us.

I'll go to U-Toob now to see what Chris Weeks gets up to.
 
Gilden keeps popping up, dealing with people is a bit of a game for him, he knows the rules and can be a bit cheeky every now. If you want to see how I felt he really is (did a workshop with him for a week), check his magnum in motion video, Bruce has a ball. It's great in that it shows how he just goes for certain shots, but he has a certain charm that pretty much always defuses any hard feelings very quickly. He's only tough with people that overstep the boundaries themselves and start to get physical (he likes to shoot the tough guys, and he mentioned that those are usually the guys who give him the least problems).
 
Last edited:
a lot of people think for example gilden's or cohen's way to work is rude and disrespectful. I think they might act rude (or cheeky), but I think they have and show loads of respect for their subjects.
 
I guess it's the split, physical respect when shooting and respect for what you choose to photograph and show afterwards. Can you marry the two and still get great shots?
 
ps: martin parr is often considered disrespectful towards his subjects, especially the wealthy. but in my opinion he has as much respect for them as anyone taking photos of poor or hungry or suffering people, he pities them.
 
MickH said:
I was surprised when I saw the video of Gilden in Derby. See him at work in the USA and he comes across as a compete ar5eh0le, in Derby he seemed very personable and good natured. Dunno if it's him or the editorial slant taken by the videographer. I expect he's a bit of both, like most of us.

I'll go to U-Toob now to see what Chris Weeks gets up to.
Click to expand...

I think some of that may have to do with shooting in New York vs the rest of the world.

In NY most people are pretty nonchalant about Gilden's approach. As intrusive as it may seem, it is not entirely out of place with the rest of the city. Whereas in many other cities across the world, that sort of approach may provoke a much different reaction.... It really just depends on where you are. In London the biggest worry are the police. I certainly wouldn't recommend the direct approach in Moscow...
 
_larky said:
Chris Weeks is a photographer I really like, he can come across in a negative kind of way sometimes, he sometimes provokes full on flame wars but I like his stuff. However, watching him shoot was interesting. He doesn't seem to care about people's personal space or privacy, he takes a long long time to grab a series of, or maybe just one shot. And he's not the only one.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. I haven't followed his work. But, I remember that back in the 'Barbecued Iguana' blog days he had a PDF book on street shooting. In that book, he seemed to advocate for the stealth approach, and a lot of the street photography work on his web site has that look. However, he has a lot of experience shooting within the entertainment industry in L.A. (e.g. red carpet/paparazzi-type work). That might explain some of what you saw (?).



/
 
What personal space/privacy

What personal space/privacy

At this point in history none of us has any personal space or privacy when we are in public. Governments, institutions and corporations photograph all of us, all the time when we are in public. This is not a matter of respect or ethics... it is a fact of contemporary western society.

I really don't see what the dilemma is for the photographer. If you think you can make an interesting photograph... make it.

I prefer not to photograph homeless people, the obese, the handicapped those who are extremely sad, and people committing crimes. Anyone else in public is a possible subject if I think the photograph might be interesting.
 
I think it's not polite to photographs unknown people (sometimes I do it). I don't like to be photographed by strangers neither. Especially those "get close to people" shots I really hate. I guess it's possible to read from people's faces if they are ok with it or not when they see you with the camera. Sometimes they smile, sometimes they just don't care, sometimes you understand immediately they don't want a picture.

Taking picture of strangers it's like examining them on the street with a zooming glass or looking into their face with a scope when they are few steps from you. Strange.
 
"I prefer not to photograph homeless people, the obese, the handicapped those who are extremely sad, and people committing crimes. Anyone else in public is a possible subject if I think the photograph might be interesting."

I agree, apart fromt he crimes one. I'm ok with that.
 
I don't care if folks get in my face with a camera. I would far rather they get in my face than notice them pointing a 600mm lens at me from a dark doorway 100 ft. away. Don't really mind that either, but if they are in my face, I can at least say howdy.

If you don't want your photo taken, stay home! :)
 
the results from bruce gilden speak for themselves, but find that using a flash is a no go for me, too invasive, i prefer HCB dancing through the streets
 
Pablito said:
huh? You think pity is respect?
Click to expand...

I was waiting for someone to ask. :D not necessarily. but in his case, yes, if a quirky, sometimes cynical kind.
from another point of view, the fact that you can honestly pity someone might also implicate at least a minimum amount of respect towards this person (or animal).
 
Last edited:
_larky said:
.......................................... Anyone got any thoughts? ..........................................
Click to expand...

Yes, I have a strong conviction that we actually know very little about these photographers personally or even their style of photographing. We tend to reach conclusions based on snippets we see on the web. That may be only the titillating portion or some on-line persona.

We do know something from their published photographs. I conclude that once you delve into the breadth of Bruce Gilden's work you will find he is much more than sticking a flash into people's faces.

I personally do not know any of these famous photographers. I have a friend who interned for Bruce Gilden. I have a friend who is close to Lee Friedlander. Both say neither photographer is anything like the public perceives.
 
The best street photo's i've taken have been fueled by a lot of alcohol. I was likely not very polite in my approach but I'm sure my enthusiasm is what gave me all the smiles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom