Respect for people.

[Damaso]

I think it's hard to judge how another photographer works, especially a professional. I know lots of non photographers as well as hobbyists who sometimes consider the way I work as being too aggressive. I always try to balance how I make my subject feel versus what I believe I need to do to tell the story.

Sometimes I have to make my subjects uncomfortable in order to do my job. I try not to whenever possible but sometimes it happens. I think what people forget is that sometimes we are uncomfortable with what we have to do as well.

At the end of the day I think you can tell if a photographer has respect for people by look at his or her images.

 

[gekopaca]

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.

+1



I am sure the endless discussions on this topic are mainly due to the incapacity of some photographers to approach closely the human subject and to be confronted to it.
I think the Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture is largely responsible for that - there is definitely NOT disrespect the fact of photographing someone, unless of course you yourself are terribly uncomfortable with his own image: in this case you necessarily feel guilty of shooting another.
It's a clear case of social hypocrisy: Our society, who demonize street photography, is the very one that handles the visual codes to sell us some food too sweet, trips in tropical countries and all those useless things.

 

[35mmdelux]

"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.

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.

 

[Thardy]

imo, pity is closer to condescension.

it is neither respect nor compassion.

Pity is sympathy or sorrow over the condition of the downtrodden. The ability to feel empathy over someone's unfortunate condition.

Condescension is the opposite of pity.

 

[Ken Smith]

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.

Apparently you do not live out West. Try that stick "your lens in my face" philisophy here in Montana and one of two things are going to happen. Either your lens gets broken, or you wind up going to a proctologist to retrieve said lens. And on some occassions, both will happen. Rest assured we have personal space in Montana. What cuts it in NYC won't ride across the range out here. We have personal space and have the legal right to defend that personal space.

To get up into someone's face with a camera without asking for permission to do so is plain rude and a lot of us don't cotton to rudeness.

 

[KM-25]

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.

+1

Also, If you photograph people in public places, you must be prepared to answer to them, give them a business card, show them the photo, buy them a beer and above all, explain why you are doing it, especially if not professionally.

It may not be law but it sure as heck is common decency, particularly so in the plaster it on the Internet to hear Great Capture, Facebook Internet age...

I photograph people professionally, I have the utmost respect for them and take their needs and perceptions seriously.

 

[Out to Lunch]

. Try that stick "your lens in my face" philisophy here in Montana and one of two things are going to happen

... Which is perhaps as to why street photography in Montana has never really taken off... (either a lack of streets or the alluded violence associated with taking pictures in public in that state). Montana aside, perhaps people are more sensitive to having their picture taken because their face could show up anywhere -whilst not so long ago, a picture would end-up in a sock drawer...or perhaps, at least in the big cities people don't 'belong' anymore and consider their environment as inherently hostile.

 

[Bob Michaels]

Let us always be careful not to evaluate others well being by our own set of standards. Everyone else in the world does not march to our drummer.

I once had a street person tell me how sorry he felt for me having to worry about my retirement funds, homeowner's taxes and insurance, job pressures, family dealings, social pressures and on and on. He said "been there, done that, no thank you."

 

[35mmdelux]

Apparently you do not live out West. Try that stick "your lens in my face" philisophy here in Montana and one of two things are going to happen. Either your lens gets broken, or you wind up going to a proctologist to retrieve said lens. And on some occassions, both will happen. Rest assured we have personal space in Montana. What cuts it in NYC won't ride across the range out here. We have personal space and have the legal right to defend that personal space.

To get up into someone's face with a camera without asking for permission to do so is plain rude and a lot of us don't cotton to rudeness.

Gildden may bargain for more than a goof-ball stare on this side of the States. Even in the Puerto Rican side of the Bronx, for that matter, I doubt his Leica & flash would last long. I recall back in the day they used to cannabilize your ride if you just stopped to get a Hogie.

 

[peterm1]

I just cannot bring myself to invade someone's space and shove a camera into their face. Apart from anything else and quite apart from the respect argument (which should be enough on its own) I think "candids" are a much more telling way of represnting the real person.

My own belief is that many people who do this close up in your face crap do it because they think this is the way street photography must be done. (There is an awful lot of derivative and uninspiring work done out there.) Perhaps it is on the streets of New York.

Having said that I cannot recall too many famous images by HCB that look as if they were made this way. And "Eisie" - Alfred Eisenstadt had a reputaion for taking the time to get on intimate terms with his subjects first as a way of earning their trust before taking his shots. This is how he made his name as a great.

For me, if I am street shooting, rather than using a 35mm up close I prefer a 90mm from further away. Or even (heaven forbid) a DSLR and even longer lens.

 

[_larky]

"I am sure the endless discussions on this topic are mainly due to the incapacity of some photographers to approach closely the human subject and to be confronted to it."

Not always. I'm perfectly comfortable to approach it, and get very close.

My question has evolved I think, from physical respect which it appears we all have differing opinions on (no right to privacy, would never do it etc) to what we decide to make a photograph of and then what we do with it afterwards? Do we always strive to show the 'truth' in a photo? By 'truth' I don't mean some analytical viewpoint of some subjective idea but do we simply document what happened at the moment we take the picture? Does the layout, choice of photograph, order they are shown etc have an impact? If so, is that where the most thought and respect takes place?

As for DSLR with long lens, heaven forbid! 🙂

 

[OurManInTangier]

Let us always be careful not to evaluate others well being by our own set of standards. Everyone else in the world does not march to our drummer.

I once had a street person tell me how sorry he felt for me having to worry about my retirement funds, homeowner's taxes and insurance, job pressures, family dealings, social pressures and on and on. He said "been there, done that, no thank you."

A very true point. I love my job for the fact I get to meet people from just about every social and political sphere and in my experience to assume that people would not want to be photographed because they are poor, obese or disabled is just too simple. I've photographed disabled people who have been, and told me this, overjoyed that they haven't been ignored because of their disability. The same has happened with various homeless and very impoverished people I've worked with on various projects. I'm in no doubt many will be annoyed and upset if the manner in which they're photographed makes them feel as if they're being simply categorised but to simply assume they must not be photographed signifies as little 'respect' as boorishly photographing someone.

As to the respect issue itself I'm not honestly sure what the answer is; if there even is a correct answer. I don't respect those strangers I photograph as I don't know them, however I treat them as I would wish to be treated. Honestly, sincerely and with some human warmth and compassion. Occasionally they react without reciprocation but then I would suppose they have misunderstood my intentions, body language or there is even a cultural misunderstanding.

I don't tend to be particularly 'in your face' as there isn't always much benefit to this approach with much of what I photograph but 'showing respect' for your subjects should diffuse most situations. Essentially, life is complex and you need to be able to adapt to situations as much as have a fixed rule of working. Obviously this is my experience and works for me, how others work will be based upon their experiences, personality and social interactions.

 

[gekopaca]

Does the layout, choice of photograph, order they are shown etc have an impact? If so, is that where the most thought and respect takes place?

That's "editing", and it's an added value to our images, that's the cleverness and know-how that protect us from any disrespect for our subjects.
Thus the thematic, narrative, form, the media can't and mustn't be separated from the shooting itself.
A simple click on a camera phone by voyeurism, without cultivated sight and no desire to build a project can be disrespectful to any person. But a photographer who shoots at close range in order to create tension (as Guilden for example) running not a gratuitous act, it is part of a creative process.
(sorry I want to express a complex idea and my English is poor, so I hope to be clearly understood)

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

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'm not surprised at all (about Chris Weeks). A lot of people come through the wrong way on the Intertubes, but sounds like he's just "on" all the time.

About the "respect" issue: I keep on beating on this drum (I have a collection): the "Who Cares!" attitude. Many people are hard-core "the ends justify the means" followers.

There are a lot of shots that I have missed due to the "respect" factor: other than gear unreadiness or plain fatigue, there are many times that one could get a shot would be to be on people's faces, so to speak. I care too much about my own work to trample on other people's sensitivities just to take a shot.

There are some opportunities that will never come again; too bad. If my level of comfort or other people's level of comfort is not "up to snuff", then I just leave it alone.

I believe that showing lack of respect is not a good quality in a photographer. It is the few that give the rest of us a bad rap. I say (like the song says), live and let live.

 

[cz23]

My main issue with street photography is that it's all about taking.

The subject gains nothing from the process. The photographer gets enjoyment, ego gratification, and perhaps recognition and even money. It's an entirely one-sided transaction.

Under those terms, it seems to me that the subject should at least be treated with dignity.

John

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

As to the respect issue itself I'm not honestly sure what the answer is; if there even is a correct answer. I don't respect those strangers I photograph as I don't know them, however I treat them as I would wish to be treated. Honestly, sincerely and with some human warmth and compassion. Occasionally they react without reciprocation but then I would suppose they have misunderstood my intentions, body language or there is even a cultural misunderstanding.

I feel the same way. There are some, unfortunately, that just can't be bothered to "get distracted" by "thinking too much". Whether it's purposefully due to personal issues, by lack of empathy, or just plain SOB-ness, one should be true to the following: others as to oneself. Surely the extreme cases that have our would get outlined as examples of this do care about others somehow, for they wouldn't be looking to get "the shot" just for their own private amusement. At least I wouldn't think so.

Bottom line, you can't teach social skills or manners to someone who is not a child. And even these, as you've pointed out, are not universal. Eye contact in some parts of southeastern Asia (and I'd add Scandinavia) is either impolite, threatening, or an aggression. Opening doors or insisting on picking up the dinner tab for women is polite in some cultures, whereas in many Western cultures it's just a no-no. Even traveling abroad, some places deeply appreciate you trying to speak in their language, in others they'll take that as condescension.

We can all split hairs on what "respect" means, but within one's culture, there are some people and examples that would just sweep the polls.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

My main issue with street photography is that it's all about taking.

The subject gains nothing from the process. The photographer gets enjoyment, ego gratification, and perhaps recognition and even money. It's an entirely one-sided transaction.

Under those terms, it seems to me that the subject should at least be treated with dignity.

Subject gain has nothing to do with it: One could argue that Passport photos give the subject nothing to gain from the process (except the photo(s) themselves).

But I see the point: it is indeed a "one-sided" transaction. The whole point (I believe) of "street photography" is to show what you see, what is happening, with virtually no influence from the photographer. Someone "in your face" influences people's body language, attitude. And most everybody hates having their photo taken. This should be Item Number One in photographer's conscience when they engage in this sort of photography.

But your (general "your", not your "your") mileage may vary.

 

[jky]

My main issue with street photography is that it's all about taking.

The subject gains nothing from the process. The photographer gets enjoyment, ego gratification, and perhaps recognition and even money. It's an entirely one-sided transaction.

Under those terms, it seems to me that the subject should at least be treated with dignity.

John

I think the above stems mainly from what you thing is street photography - photos of homeless, disabled people perhaps?
If it is, there are plenty of examples in flickr that defy this... complex compositions, fantastic lighting and of course interesting subject matter (unrelated to people begging for $).

...btw I like that ego gratification part...
Months & months of crappy photos doesn't necessarily boost one's ego...
🙂

 

[cz23]

I think the above stems mainly from what you thing is street photography - photos of homeless, disabled people perhaps?
If it is, there are plenty of examples in flickr that defy this... complex compositions, fantastic lighting and of course interesting subject matter (unrelated to people begging for $).

...btw I like that ego gratification part...
Months & months of crappy photos doesn't necessarily boost one's ego...
🙂

Not really, jky. The more unfortunate folks among us are a obvious example, but I did not have them in mind. In almost all cases the street photographer takes from others, usually without consent, for his/her own gain. I shoot street sometimes, but I'm uncomfortable with that imbalance.

Don't we owe it to our fellow human beings (our subjects), who are enriching our creative endeavor, to be respectful. Seems to me that's basic human decency.

John

 

[jky]

Not really, jky. The more unfortunate folks among us are a obvious example, but I did not have them in mind. In almost all cases the street photographer takes from others, usually without consent, for his/her own gain. I shoot street sometimes, but I'm uncomfortable with that imbalance.

Don't we owe it to our fellow human beings (our subjects), who are enriching our creative endeavor, to be respectful. Seems to me that's basic human decency.

John

The way a landscape photographer admires a certain scene I admire a certain character; the way a photog admires the form or curvature of a vase I admire a person's stance, movement, dance... part of respect is admiration.
And from this point, I believe many people taking street photos admire their subjects.
I'm not comparing humans to inanimate objects, but merely the act of taking the photo itself.