Stealth Camera

[Sparrow]

This is a spin-off really of the shutter noise debate; it came out in that debate that many people valued stealth in a camera as a way of being unnoticed.

I was a bit uneasy with that idea, I don’t want to be “clocked” by the subject until I’ve got my shot in; but I do want them to be aware at some point, partly so I get a chance of getting their reaction, good or bad, and partly to give them opportunity to object to being photographed if they wish to.

Do you think it’s immoral to purposefully attempt to photograph someone in secrecy, and actually intend for them to not to find out at any point it has been done?

 

[rogue_designer]

I think the act itself is not immoral - but the intent behind taking (and selling) a given shot may be.

For example. A man sitting at a bus stop - where the signage says something funny behind him - not really an issue.

But an attractive girl adjusting her brassier in a window reflection - that might be more of a problem.

It's a hard issue and I'm not sure I have a satisfactory answer for myself, much less one I can articulate. I guess I take it on an internal case by case basis.

But in general, if they are in public, I don't see a problem with taking their picture (provided of course, i'm not selling that image for commercial usage) either in secret or not. Telling them is optional and at my discretion.

 

[BrianShaw]

I really wish you hadn't used the term "immoral"... but I think I know what you are asking. My answer is... it depends. Photos of people being people -- who they are, doing what they do -- are often more interesting to everyone -- photographer, subject and viewer -- when un-posed. Some people are quite self-concious, however, and wouldn't like any photo of them no matter how good it is. To capture their image, stealth and secrecy is often the only way to do it. Likewise, some people "over-pose". Again, stealth and secrecy is often the only way to get a decent image of them. There is nothing wrong with doing this, in the legalistic sense. But to secretly photograph someone who doesn't want/like to be photographed does introduce a bit of a "moral" delemna that must be answered individually. I tend to take photographs whenever I want to, but exercise "moral values" in the display/use of those photographs. If I have captured an image of someone that might embarass someone, I won't flaunt it. But I also won't necessarily hide it unless there is good reason -- like it would cause major embarassment. I suppose that is the moral question that you are referring to.

As an example... I was in a public place (an airline terminal) a couple of years ago and just happened to have a camera. People were meeting/greeting their loved ones who arrived. A women passed by me quickly, having just come out of the women's bathroom (loo, lavoratory, or whatever you want to call it) to meet someone. She had a long piece of toilet paper streaming behind her... stuck in the elastic waistband of her underwear. Also, the bottom hem of her skirt was stuck in the waistband of her underwear. Should I have shot a picture? Probably not, but I did. If it came out okay, should I have used/displayed it??? Unfortunately I was laughing so hard that I couldn't hold the camera still and the photograph was blurry. My moral decision was made for me! Perhaps the real moral delemna was wheter I should have been laughing out loud or not!

 

[Sparrow]

OK immoral isn’t the right word I just can’t find a better one, and yes you can reserve the value judgment until later, or admit or allow yourself to be seen so the subject makes the judgment on the spot. The latter seems to me more proper somehow?

 

[JoeV]

As a thought experiment, it might be useful to imagine a situation where you were apparently photographing people, without their specific consent, using a camera that, in reality, had no film loaded in it at all. Sounds almost like a performance art event, but it demonstrates the dilemma posed by introducing the question of morality.

Parsing this out, I can see at least two facets of this moral issue: #1 is the question of APPEARING to photograph someone in public, and their reaction to this seemingly unwarranted invasion of privacy (ignoring the issues of implied consent in public venues). The 2nd question is what if I'm ACTUALLY taking their photo; what is my moral obligation to the subject?

I must fall back upon personal ethics: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I don't object to someone taking my picture - until I find out that they've represented me in ways I don't approve of, or otherwise exploit my image. I think this concept parallels the recent issues regarding privacy of personal data within a public e-space: does my participation in online transactions imply a defacto acceptance of loss of personal privacy? Currently, some laws say no. But this is in opposition to other laws regarding implicit personal privacy in public spaces.

It seems these issues simply haven't been fully worked out yet; they're an evolving situation. brought about by technological change happening faster than social change. Interesting times are ahead.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

Do you think it’s immoral to purposefully attempt to photograph someone in secrecy, and actually intend for them to not to find out at any point it has been done?

Immoral? No more immoral than it is to look at someone if they are in a public place. Only difference is in the medium or recording, film or neuro-nerve dendrites (eg brain/memory).

People do not have a right to invisibility in public areas or public property. In private areas or property (such as homes, dressing rooms etc), then, yes, immoral and frequently illegal.

 

[Sparrow]

As a thought experiment, it might be useful to imagine a situation where you were apparently photographing people, without their specific consent, using a camera that, in reality, had no film loaded in it at all. Sounds almost like a performance art event, but it demonstrates the dilemma posed by introducing the question of morality.

Parsing this out, I can see at least two facets of this moral issue: #1 is the question of APPEARING to photograph someone in public, and their reaction to this seemingly unwarranted invasion of privacy (ignoring the issues of implied consent in public venues). The 2nd question is what if I'm ACTUALLY taking their photo; what is my moral obligation to the subject?

I must fall back upon personal ethics: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I don't object to someone taking my picture - until I find out that they've represented me in ways I don't approve of, or otherwise exploit my image. I think this concept parallels the recent issues regarding privacy of personal data within a public e-space: does my participation in online transactions imply a defacto acceptance of loss of personal privacy? Currently, some laws say no. But this is in opposition to other laws regarding implicit personal privacy in public spaces.

It seems these issues simply haven't been fully worked out yet; they're an evolving situation. brought about by technological change happening faster than social change. Interesting times are ahead.

Empty or loaded makes no difference any offence is the same from the subject’s point of view, if you restate the proposition with an empty gun then it is clearly the threat that’s causing offence.

I don’t see the law as an issue I tend to take pictures openly until I’m challenged then I stop and I’ve never had a difficulty, what seems wrong is not allowing them the opportunity to challenge you.

In the UK they normally apologise for getting in the way

 

[bmicklea]

...I don't object to someone taking my picture - until I find out that they've represented me in ways I don't approve of, or otherwise exploit my image.

This is the key I use as well. I photograph people in the street because I think people are fascinating and beautiful doing normal everyday things. I don't generally photograph people if they're doing something embarassing. It's a hard line to articulate obviously, so it comes down to how it feels. If I feel like the person would have a reason to be angry at my taking their picture at that moment I don't take it.

Linking back to the quiet shutter I must say that I do value it mainly because I'm new at RF photography and find myself often shooting two pictures of the same scene either to try different things or because I'm screwed up the first one! The only fault I can find with my Bessa is the noise which does tend to draw people's attention and can make it impossible to get the second shot to look "natural" like the first. Hopefully as I get better I won't need to use the second shot as often and the shutter noise will stop being an issue.

 

[Sparrow]

Immoral? No more immoral than it is to look at someone if they are in a public place. Only difference is in the medium or recording, film or neuro-nerve dendrites (eg brain/memory).

People do not have a right to invisibility in public areas or public property. In private areas or property (such as homes, dressing rooms etc), then, yes, immoral and frequently illegal.

Yes good point, but you cant make a 8x12 glossy from brain waves, I’m probably being too sensitive to the feelings of others, it feels more comfortable to me to be open and I was surprised other people wanted anonymity, it’s the photographers right to invisibility thats at issue

 

[Sparrow]

This is the key I use as well. I photograph people in the street because I think people are fascinating and beautiful doing normal everyday things. I don't generally photograph people if they're doing something embarassing. It's a hard line to articulate obviously, so it comes down to how it feels. If I feel like the person would have a reason to be angry at my taking their picture at that moment I don't take it.

Linking back to the quiet shutter I must say that I do value it mainly because I'm new at RF photography and find myself often shooting two pictures of the same scene either to try different things or because I'm screwed up the first one! The only fault I can find with my Bessa is the noise which does tend to draw people's attention and can make it impossible to get the second shot to look "natural" like the first. Hopefully as I get better I won't need to use the second shot as often and the shutter noise will stop being an issue.

Yes I can see that but when you have the shot you want what then? Do you quickly hide the camera or allow your subject a chance to spot you or wave the camera over your head to be sure they have seen you.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

Stewart,

Morality requires a certain consensus of standards, whereas personal taste is more variable. If it is distasteful, simply don't do it. But as long as you capture reality and treat that result with respect, the subject has no grounds to complain, either philosophically, or in law. He/she was in a public place, period.

The photographic world, indeed the world, would be a far lesser place had HCB, Winogrand, Nachtwey et al. been forced or forced themselves to stop taking surreptitious photos simply because the subjects were not aware of them.

But the long and short of it is, if you don't feel it is tasteful to do so, don't do it, and leave it to others who have no such hesitations to do it. cheers

 

[Sparrow]

Tom, I agree, it’s the clearly me who’s odd I usually keep shooting until I’m spotted winding or keep the camera up to my face until I get eye contact, if I don’t I feel uneasy. I was just surprised others wanted to remain hidden

 

[payasam]

The Rogue with the horns and JoeV have, between them and with help from others, said just about all that's relevant. I've spent decades photographing people in public and semi-public places, generally doing their work at the side of the street and aware of me doing my work. All the same, I felt uneasy when, fairly recently, I came across the notion of street photography, which seems immensely popular. I still feel uneasy about its resemblance to theft. I also wonder how many good (howsoever defined) frames street photography gives out of, say, a hundred; and whether the genre (if it can be called that) has something to do with the widespread use of digicams, where there is no worry about wasted film. The public versus private space debate will never end. Do we not think of the space we occupy in a larger public space as our property, inviolable, so long as we occupy it? We object to being jostled and to being assailed by noises and bright head-lamps and strong odours. Whatever be the legality of it, we could well object also to being photographed.