Street photographer or voyeur?

Yes.

Nobody owns the Universal Truth.

The only thing we can do is to "Do unto others what you would have them do onto you".
 
sig said:
Roger, just my personal view.... I would not take a picture of a person drooling on the street because of a heart attack, because if that happened to me, my mother or in general everybody I would not like it to be photographed. You on the other hand feel differently, all the power to you.
Click to expand...

Re-read what I said about the accident: perhaps if e.g. I had just had a motorcycle accident and was lying in a pool of blood I'd be a bit pissed off if someone tried to take my picture instead of helping.

If I wouldn't want a picture taken of myself or of loved ones, I wouldn't take that picture myself. But I still wouldn't tell someone they couldn't do it. It's their problem if they have no empathy at all. But such pictures are very rare indeed, and very rarely taken unless you set the barrier for 'don't take my picture' at 'I'm not looking at my best'.

What worries me is the view that street photography is always (or even often) intrusive. How many pics have you ever seen of 'a person drooling on the street because of a heart attack', let alone taken?

These arguments always wander off very quickly into extremes. As I said earlier, I've had maybe 10 people complain about pics in 10 years, and some people will complain about anything, such as the possibility that I might have been taking pictures of their property.

Cheers,

R.
 
I work to my conscience, if that makes sense. If I feel that a shot is pointless or pointlessly invasive I won't take it. However, as someone who photographs the public alot I also have to temper that with the fact I need to make that decision very quickly or I'll get nothing. This becomes instinctive after a while and you come to rely on those instincts. That instinct can let you down from time to time or you take a picture that you later see holds little or no value, that's why you edit.

I'll photograph many types of scene but go with my own moral judgement, it's not always going to fit exactly with everyone else's judgement but it's all we've really got and IMO underestimated.

I'll also agree with the point made about people being different. I got quite friendly with a chap who was homeless in his last few years, he was an old fashioned raconteur and loved to be the centre of attention; recounting stories, singing songs and enjoying himself...his housing situation was just one facet of his life and he'd be more upset to think people judged him by that than his character, behaviour and personality. People are a confusing mix of similarities and differences - which is to me not just something to be mindful of but reason enough to want to photograph people.
 
GSNfan said:
It is very simple, if you feel what you're doing is wrong, invasion of privacy, whatever you call it then don't do it because that doubt and hesitation will show in your face and body language...
Click to expand...

and most likely in your photo as well due to doubt and hesitation.
 
Jamie Pillers said:
How do you react when someone on the street catches you taking their picture? Do you lower the camera and move on, or take it anyway?

And how do you react when you see the final image? Excited? Proud? Or do you sometimes feel like me... wondering why I'm intruding on people's lives and making a spectacle of them here on the web?
Click to expand...

It all depends on the situation. I'm not raiding people, there is alway an escape for everyone. So there is no remorse afther. When I make the picture I've already considered the do's and dont's.

And streetphotgrapher or voyeur? Making streetpictures is about observing, so I guess I'm a 'voyeur' by default :)
 
Last edited:
as a young guy the 28mm was my main lens for shooting street around 1970

Only 1 time a person reacted a bit grumpy in Amsterdam:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/36573929@N00/257544714/in/set-72157594175682729/

But Capa in mind (if the pic is not......not close enough...) this didn't spoil me a lot and I tried to get more 'hook' into the pics as the spirit of 'real'? streetphotography:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/36573929@N00/169527004/in/set-72157594175682729/

people photography with wide angles made fun and the conversations with strangers brought a lot of fun - for both sides:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/36573929@N00/3043510674/in/set-72157594175682729/

Today times are different but it's possible to get the 'small story' in one shot:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/36573929@N00/5023647528/in/set-72157625031362422/

But conversation with the people is so important for me, even the language is not compatible, but the eyes are:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/36573929@N00/5263470453/in/set-72157625479390755/

Visiting new cities gives me not only the input of churches, buildings and other 'dead' stuff, the inhabitants are so important to get the real picture of a city and country.

Have a nice weekend!
Bernd
 
When you are out on the street photographing, especially people, you are getting into their s**t. No way around it.
 
Keith

Keith

For years, the minilab manager where I had my C41 developed said that she would go kill anyone who photographed her without her permission. The other lab worker mentioned to her that it might be his right to photograph her if she were in public, she said she didn't care, she'd still go kill the bast*ard ...

At a book sale once, a friend was in the adjacent aisle, and another friend was browsing the next aisle over. They looked over and saw a perv with a DSLR photographing and legal or not, that guy came very close to having a permanent Nikon imprint in his forehead ...

Keith said:
I've never really been able to decide if shoving a camera in someone's face (figuratively speaking :D) is a justifiable action ... whether it's the shooter's legal right or not. Because of this I have no real desire to indulge in street photography though I do appreciate it's merits when done with talent and a good eye ... which at least ninety percent of the time it isn't IMO.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ampguy said:
They looked over and saw a perv with a DSLR photographing and legal or not, that guy came very close to having a permanent Nikon imprint in his forehead ...
Click to expand...

Hahaha, if he had a Leica (or a Sony NEX with Nikon 43-86 zoom), would he have been a perv? :cool:
 
jsrockit said:
Not a good philosophy. I don't mind having my photo taken on the street... many do.
Click to expand...


You don't like the Golden Rule?:rolleyes:

Imagine how much better the world would be if only that simple rule were followed by everyone.:) Yeah, I know what you meant, and it is not a perfect rule...besides there is an exception for EVERY rule!

Back OT, I had a lady at the art exhibit I worked with last year asking me what Street Photography was....at the time, I couldn't explain it to her. Still cannot do it. Maybe I should have shoved a camera in her face, snapped it and kept walking...

Here is one definition, but there seems to be so many different opinions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_photography
 
Last edited:
ampguy said:
For years, the minilab manager where I had my C41 developed said that she would go kill anyone who photographed her without her permission. The other lab worker mentioned to her that it might be his right to photograph her if she were in public, she said she didn't care, she'd still go kill the bast*ard ...

At a book sale once, a friend was in the adjacent aisle, and another friend was browsing the next aisle over. They looked over and saw a perv with a DSLR photographing and legal or not, that guy came very close to having a permanent Nikon imprint in his forehead ...
Click to expand...

Sorry, I must be missing something. And how do you know the person with the DSLR was a 'perv'? How are you defining 'perv'?

I'm just unclear on the assumptions.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ampguy said:
(...) that guy came very close to having a permanent Nikon imprint in his forehead ...
Click to expand...

'Street photography' is probably not for the faint at heart. It's about contact with people you don't know; they always can be psychos just about to go berserk.

It doesn't worry me. My conscience is clean, and I look friendly but very strong.
 
I dont mind being photographed - if somebody wants to photograph my kid then that's fine as well...
If the photographer is being sneaky, then that's another story....

& I agree with jsrockit - "best street photographers have been the ones that were not sneaky"...
 
Tompas said:
'Street photography' is probably not for the faint at heart. It's about contact with people you don't know; they always can be psychos just about to go berserk.

It doesn't worry me. My conscience is clean, and I look friendly but very strong.
Click to expand...
Well said! There are nutjobs and predators enough on the street to make it wise to have at hand a means of defense, though often simply being aware of one's surroundings - as photographers tend to be - is preventative.

I make a point of not being sneaky, making friendly contact, maybe asking the "victim" to just keep on doing what they were doing... That my interest is on what they were doing, not making a portrait. If asked, I'll explain truthfully that I'm doing a project of regular people doing whatever they're doing. Some interesting conversations... :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom