Street photographer or voyeur?

[Nikkor AIS]

Impersonal? Fair enough.

These are more personal. Just don't say that these are portraits, not street photography:bang:.
































All taken with Nikkor telephotos and Nikon film cameras

 

[Sparrow]

Impersonal ? Fair enough.

These are more personal, just dont say okay now these are portraits not street photography:bang:.

EDIT

All taken with Nikkor telephoto's and Nikon film camera's

I didn't say impersonal, I said lacking context.

I wouldn't categorise those as classic street photos, nice photos but street photos?

Long lenses always edit out too much of the world for my taste, the subject without their environment.

 

[jky]

Yeah, definitely nice pics. Tele just isn't my taste that's all.
We might go off on a tangent here & revisit the wide vs tele topic again...

After spending some time on this thread, I looked at a handful of my pics & very rarely do I have somebody looking right at the camera... sometimes it adds something & sometimes not to the whole image.

I didn't say impersonal, I said lacking context.

I wouldn't categorise those as classic street photos, nice photos but street photos?

Long lenses always edit out too much of the world for my taste, the subject without their environment.

 

[j j]

I'm not a street photographer as such, but I take photos of, in and around my home town and people are often part of the scene. A typical and oft-repeated interchange with people on the street who notice me taking a pic is:

"sorry" [them assuming they just got in the way of my photo]
"no problem" [me]

Otherwise when noticed I smile and say hello. I've never had a bad reaction here in York. Perhaps it's familiarity with cameras as so many people here are tourists.

 

[Nikkor AIS]

Why do I need a release? I missed that part 😕.
Secondly, why would they sign it. What possible advantage would it be to them. I would feel kind of ... creepy asking for personal information from a complete stranger.

Can you PM me a copy, please. I would love to see what it says. I am curious aobut what is involved. Payment in print? Payment for what? Taking their picture?

Selling it as art?
Posting it online. Using it as reference material for painting. Using it as inspiration for poetry? ...OO

The other thing I want to know is how far away do they have to be before you get them to sign a release.
If you blow this up you can see this woman's face.



12 mm 5.6 on Leica MP





Nikkor 8 mm 2.8 AIS on Nikon D3

 

[Sparrow]

... no, a subject release form would be a bit tricky a lot of the time, and anyway if they don't see me with a 12mm they can't claim I was being sneaky

 

[agentlossing]

Bringing this old thread back as I think there were some good responses, worth a second read. The age-old question for street photographers. You get responses all over the board, but some of these were unusually well-expressed.

Personally, I usually will not take the photo if it seems likely to become confrontational. I'm an introvert and I don't enjoy confrontation or conflict, and I'm also out to enjoy myself when I'm street photographing, so why would I just walk into an unpleasant situation? However, if I see a really good photo (this means the compositional elements are easily put together into something aesthetically good, in addition to a remarkable moment or situation), I'll risk a little bit more. I find those sitautions are rare, though. Or am I just missing them all? Some places people live out much more of their authentic lives on the street than other places. I live on the US west coast, where I don't think city life is usually as vibrant. But whatever; take what comes, right?

Another thing, though, is that I both see and photograph with my worldview, or I guess you could say character - if I see a nasty situation, with distress, confrontation, or bad behavior, I'm not going to gawk. I usually look the other way, give people some privacy, if my own response to what's happening tells me they should have some privacy. I think that might be what was meant earlier in this thread by invoking the Golden Rule, and I agree with it. Maybe that's just being empathetic. Sometimes I'm projecting my own feelings onto people who definitely don't have the same feelings, like someone making a scene in public. I don't care, I'm still motivated by my feelings. If something tells me to look anyway, then maybe there's more to the scene, something worth noticing.

Incidentally, being empathetic as well as introverted is kind of exhausting. I'm sure some folks can relate.

 

[Rayt]

I stood 10 feet away for a minute focusing and metering my Rolleiflex. She saw me and I said hi. You take the photo, people don’t give it to you. It’s more than just semantics.

 

[Timmyjoe]

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.

God, I so miss Roger!

He was the best.

Best,
-Tim

 

[boojum]

Photography is like sailing. I can teach you how to sail in a morning. Then you can spend the rest of your life trying to learn how to do it well. So learning how the camera operates and running out into the street does not mean that those shots will be good street shots. And the bitter truth is that no matter how good the gear is the shots may never be. But the fun is trying, that is what has drawn us. Are street shots sometimes intrusive? Yes. But if it is happening in the street it is public. Weegee and war photographers made their rent shooting shots that made us uncomfortable. Riot, murder, mayhem and war are just plain ugly. There is no way to dress it up and putting a pink bow on any of it will not help.

So shoot at your own risk. Not everyone will like what you shoot. This is true no matter what you shoot. OTOH, if it interests you shoot it. If you want to please the most people possible shoot family reunions with everyone smiling. Or lake and kitten pics, they are safe, too. ;o)

 

[Darthfeeble]

Seems to me from what I've read there is a certain personality that makes a successful street photographer. More outgoing types seem to be the ones. There have been some who weren't but that might be the exception. I don't remember which famous fellow it was but put the camera behind his shirt and ran a remote cable down his sleeve to get candid shots. If you aren't outgoing then sneaky is always an alternative. I tried being a street photographer and ran into the same problem so I just don't now.

 

[Jbennett68]

Am I fully clothed in this scenario?

 

[Yokosuka Mike]

This snippet from the Hippocratic Oath is how I feel about my approach to street photography

"...I will do no harm or injustice to them."

I'm out on the street almost everyday and I love to take pictures of people, especially happy people. My approach is to be as unobtrusive and invisible as possible. I don't want to be bothersome and intrude on another person while they are out in the public domain. If I sense that taking the picture will be noticed by the subject I don't do it.

All the best,
Mike

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Odd... I haven't been back to this thread since 2011, when I started it. But today I came across it and had a look at the responses over the years. Its definitely a subject that gets dealt with in many ways.
Last year I was creating a series of photographs of San Pablo Avenue, a street that makes it way through nearly the entire East Bay here in the San Francisco Bay Area. The Avenue encompasses much of the identity of the cities it passes through, Oakland being mine. I like photographing there at night, when the Avenue takes on a very particular identity, much different than during the daytime. On one evening, as I was getting ready to photograph the exterior of an old hotel used by people of little means, when a man on the sidewalk yelled out "camera!". I took the picture and left quickly. But the moment did fill me with questions about what I was doing. Since that time, I've talked to other photographers and read others' thoughts about this issue. I think I still come down to the position that anything is acceptable to be photographed so long as there is an expectation by the person seen that they are in a position of being seen. So anyone out on the sidewalk is fair game, but sticking your lens through someone's window is definitely not.

 

[boojum]

This snippet from the Hippocratic Oath is how I feel about my approach to street photography

"...I will do no harm or injustice to them."

I'm out on the street almost everyday and I love to take pictures of people, especially happy people. My approach is to be as unobtrusive and invisible as possible. I don't want to be bothersome and intrude on another person while they are out in the public domain. If I sense that taking the picture will be noticed by the subject I don't do it.

All the best,
Mike

What you say is true and I believe that many if not most of us aspire to this. The rub is what "bothersome" and "intrusive" are interpreted to mean. Harm and injustice are easier to understand in medicine. A lot of this is a gray area. What is interesting is how many photos of street events that we prize, admire or are amazed with, how many were taken without intrusion or being bothersome? Nick Ut's napalm shot, the killing of a captured Viet Cong in Saigon by the chief of police during Tet, the burning Buddhist monks, the dead at Kent State, the marvelous shots at Woodstock and on and on and on. So many are intrusive with redeeming value. It's a fine, fine line.

I think many of us would like to have a great photo like in any of the instances I have mentioned. When I was in Basic Training at Fort Dix a combat vet cadre told us that when we heard that first shot we were going to run. We just did not know in which direction. It seems it is similar with photo shooting. Do we run to or away from the action? Will fear of being intrusive stifle a possibly great shot? I think most of us would flee. That may be why there are so few great street and combat photographers. Can you be calm alongside misery?

 

[ellisson]

From the Cambridge Dictionary:
Voyeurism: The activity of getting pleasure from secretly watching other people in sexual situations or, more generally, from watching other people's private lives.

Taking photos in public is not voyeurism, but it can be an invasion of someone's privacy (as in private life) that makes them uncomfortable. For example, walking close enough to someone who is either alone or with someone else and snapping photos without their permission. Or stealthily using a long telephoto lens to get close-up shots of people and then posting them on-line in a climate where any photograph can be altered with artificial intelligence to the detriment of the subject. Or sold for money. Or viewed privately for pleasure, which borders on voyeurism. If a stranger got too close to me or a friend or family member with no verbal introduction or obvious common sense reason, I would consider that a violation of my personal space and I would defend it, violently if necessary. Photographers who get into peoples faces and personal space should be considered harmful and treated accordingly.

Photojournalism and war coverage is not the same as street photography by anyone with a camera who is out and about shooting photos of random people and things. But even photojournalists can be respectful of the wounded and dead and the associated destruction.

 

[boojum]

From the Cambridge Dictionary:
Voyeurism: The activity of getting pleasure from secretly watching other people in sexual situations or, more generally, from watching other people's private lives.

Taking photos in public is not voyeurism, but it can be an invasion of someone's privacy that makes them uncomfortable. For example, walking close enough to someone who is either alone or with someone else and snapping photos without their permission. Or stealthily using a long telephoto lens to get close-up shots of people and then posting them on-line in a climate where any photograph can be altered with artificial intelligence to the detriment of the subject. Or sold for money. Or viewed privately for pleasure, which borders on voyeurism. If a stranger got too close to me or a friend or family member with no verbal introduction or obvious common sense reason, I would consider that a violation of my space and I would defend it, violently is necessary. Photographers who get into peoples faces and personal space should be considered harmful and treated accordingly.

Photojournalism and war coverage is not the same as street photography by anyone with a camera who is out and about shooting photos of random people and things. But even photojournalists can be respectful of the wounded and dead and the associated destruction.

In general I can agree, but this is a vague area. You may not think taking photos in public is voyeurism but it can be for some. And while we might pretty much agree on the ethics of street photography and war journalism not everyone with a camera will agree with us. Social and cultural norms may define what is polite, permissible and allowable but we wouldn't have jails and mental institutions if we all agreed.

We have two questions: intrusion and exploitation. Here in the US anyone in public is pretty much fair game like it or not. Good thing. Can you imagine the thorny thicket of rules and regulations over public photography and the interpretations. It is sort of like freedom of speech. Where and how do you hinder it?

As for exploitation, who is responsible for misuse of an image? If I were to take an innocent photo of someone fishing and post it to one of the on-line photo sites that is OK. I someone uses that image for some smarmy or sleazy purpose that is not OK and maybe even illegal. Whose fault is it?

And while we are at this, how great a problem is this really? Is the misuse of images worse now than in the past? By how much? Misuse of images has gotten a lot of press recently. But statistics never accompany the articles on this. I'd like more clarity and less conjecture.

And just as a personal example, I recently hung out at the local pinball group and did some shots. I was a "fly on the wall" and as unobtrusive as possible. No one objected and I spent a little over an hour shooting. I'll go back and do some more. Now, if in one of those photos someone was doing something stupid but interesting what's the balance? At what point does interesting outweigh stupid? This is all so vague and so subject to interpretation. It is almost impossible to define where the line is ahead of time. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart had a similar problem defining obscenity. And looking at the photos which grab our attention, which are startling, we note that they may have been intrusive. They were not made after a polite "May I?" Just look at Bresson's stuff or Meier's or Allard's. Did they ask? Allard's tack is the best one, he says he will thank a subject after he gets a good shot.

If you want to talk to someone who knows a little about street shooting, talk to me. I know as little as anyone. But what works for me is to be polite and stay out of the way. This can be done while being persistent and close.

Prolix? Yes.

 

[peterm1]

Was Henri Cartier Bresson a voyeur? What about Saul Leiter? How about Fred Herzog or Ernst Haas? How about Fan Ho? Or Eisenstaedt or Steve McCurry. And what about the fair sex - was Viviane Maier a voyeur? There are many more................................................

I have a quite definite sense of ethics in how I undertake street photography - if someone indicates not to photograph them, then I honor that- always. I never photograph people in demeaning or embarrassing situations. I always try to make my subjects look at their best and hope that were they to see the results they would be pleased with the result. Street photography is a recognized art form whether done for documentary purposes or for fine art purposes. I am not in the class of those "greats" named above, but if I am a voyeur (or we are ) then so are they. (Hint - they are not!)

In short it is piffle and nonsense to regard street photography as necessarily being a voyeur's pastime. Of course in this generation where about 80% of the planet - at least the part of it which constitutes our (so-called and diminishing) civilization are wilting violets and tiresome cringing wimps, it is fashionable to do so. To them it is also most likely racist, sexist, colonialist (whatever that means - it changes daily) and a few other epithets I cannot even imagine....................which makes me all the more determined to p*ss them off by doing it.

PS to be sure there are some (a few) street photographers who are aggressive in the way they invade peoples' personal spaces, shove their camera in peoples' faces, publish the results and then somehow regard this as "art". Even these I do not really regard as voyeurs. They are just.......................unappealing and bat sh#t boring.

If this sounds annoyed, it is because I am. Not at the O.P. - the question is a perfectly legit one to ask....................I am annoyed that so many ignorant people actually hold this view. While knowing nothing about the subject at all. Sadly we live in a world where ignorance is not just bliss.................it is elevated to the highest pinnacles of esteem. And that just encourages them.

 

[ellisson]

In general I can agree, but this is a vague area. You may not think taking photos in public is voyeurism but it can be for some. And while we might pretty much agree on the ethics of street photography and war journalism not everyone with a camera will agree with us. Social and cultural norms may define what is polite, permissible and allowable but we wouldn't have jails and mental institutions if we all agreed.

We have two questions: intrusion and exploitation. Here in the US anyone in public is pretty much fair game like it or not. Good thing. Can you imagine the thorny thicket of rules and regulations over public photography and the interpretations. It is sort of like freedom of speech. Where and how do you hinder it?

As for exploitation, who is responsible for misuse of an image? If I were to take an innocent photo of someone fishing and post it to one of the on-line photo sites that is OK. I someone uses that image for some smarmy or sleazy purpose that is not OK and maybe even illegal. Whose fault is it?

And while we are at this, how great a problem is this really? Is the misuse of images worse now than in the past? By how much? Misuse of images has gotten a lot of press recently. But statistics never accompany the articles on this. I'd like more clarity and less conjecture.

And just as a personal example, I recently hung out at the local pinball group and did some shots. I was a "fly on the wall" and as unobtrusive as possible. No one objected and I spent a little over an hour shooting. I'll go back and do some more. Now, if in one of those photos someone was doing something stupid but interesting what's the balance? At what point does interesting outweigh stupid? This is all so vague and so subject to interpretation. It is almost impossible to define where the line is ahead of time. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart had a similar problem defining obscenity. And looking at the photos which grab our attention, which are startling, we note that they may have been intrusive. They were not made after a polite "May I?" Just look at Bresson's stuff or Meier's or Allard's. Did they ask? Allard's tack is the best one, he says he will thank a subject after he gets a good shot.

If you want to talk to someone who knows a little about street shooting, talk to me. I know as little as anyone. But works for me is to be polite and stay out of the way. This can be done while being persistent and close.

As I said in my post, if a stranger violates the personal space of another without introduction and snaps pictures without their consent, some examples provided in this thread, I consider that invasion of privacy and objectionable.
I'm not talking about your group activities and whereabouts. I'm talking about being safe on the street and respecting the privacy of others. Some people will take whatever they can get away with, and will be fine with that. I'm not. If you are across a road from someone in a public space and like to capture them going about their business, looking for some "decisive moment" or insightful thing, have at it if it floats your boat. But if you walk up to them unannounced and start shooting, be prepared for an unfriendly and deservedly harsh reaction. And in the current time of unmarked ICE agents hauling people off streets, I would be extra sensitive to space issues and consent.

 

[ellisson]

Was Henri Cartier Bresson a voyeur? What about Saul Leiter? How about Fred Herzog or Ernst Haas? How about Fan Ho? Or Eisenstaedt or Steve McCurry. And what about the fair sex - was Viviane Maier a voyeur? There are many more................................................

I have a quite definite sense of ethics in how I undertake street photography - if someone indicates not to photograph them, then I honor that- always. I never photograph people in demeaning or embarrassing situations. I always try to make my subjects look at their best and hope that were they to see the results they would be pleased with the result. Street photography is a recognized art form whether done for documentary purposes or for fine art purposes. I am not in the class of those "greats" named above, but if I am a voyeur (or we are ) then so are they. (Hint - they are not!)

In short it is piffle and nonsense to regard street photography as necessarily being a voyeur's pastime. Of course in this generation where about 80% of the planet - at least the part of it which constitutes our (so-called and diminishing) civilization are wilting violets and tiresome cringing wimps, it is fashionable to do so. To them it is also most likely racist, sexist, colonialist (whatever that means - it changes daily) and a few other epithets I cannot even imagine....................which makes me all the more determined to p*ss them off by doing it.

PS to be sure there are some (a few) street photographers who are aggressive in the way they shove their camera in peoples' faces, publish the results and then somehow regard this as "art". Even these I do not really regard as voyeurs. They are just.......................unappealing and bat sh#t boring.

If this sounds annoyed it is because I am. Not at the O.P. - the question is a legit one to ask....................I am annoyed that so many ignorant people actually hold this view. While knowing nothing about the subject at all. Sadly we live in a world where ignorance is not jsut bliss.................it is elevated to the highest pinnacles of esteem.

Whether you consider them voyeurs or not, it is the invasion of personal space and privacy that is the key issue. The people you site may be considered "artistes" or greats, but if they infringed on someone's personal space without consent, their significance in the world of photography is not justification for intrusion. Again, as I said, if someone approaches me with a camera (or no camera) in public and gets too close and I object, I'll let them know about it in clear terms. Consent, please, before approaching and snapping away.