street photography thread

Thanks for pointing it out!

We've had this discussion here as well - it's a common theme, it seems. Seems there are always those who want everyone to ask permission of strangers before photographing them, and those who feel that people have the right to privacy in public. And etc.

I found Kent's comments interesting, but I've seen the same statement before.

The problem, as I see it, is that there ARE bad people out there taking clandestine photos, as well as those who are merely photographers. How do you tell which are which? As one fellow pointed out, one has no idea what a person is doing with a photo once they get it home. Are they exploring the human condition, or making their eyesight bad?

The solution, when one cannot read minds and determine intent, seems to be to ban it altogether - at least, that's the mindset the USA seems to have at the moment.

Frankly, I deplore it. It makes me want to take more street photos, and make people good and mad, just to tick off a few "I'm not comfortable having a camera pointed at me without my permission" zombies. Like they're not being photographed a hundred times a day by the goverment and private businesses anyway.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Bill, I sympathize with you, but I think our worlds have to be more personal and less paranoid, despite the increasing oppression and its love of dumbth.

I'm highly pessimistic about the future: this is the time for me to withdraw into my cave, lurking dangerously I hope... and when photographing seeking direct contact with my subjects, even though it may confuse them, hopefully confuses them. For me permission is the heart of photography, the actual essence, and whatever doesn't involve permission is just cold illustration or artsy fartsy doodling (eg scenics)...for somebody else it's something else. I'm just starting to do the photography I really want to do.
 
Last edited:
I was interested in the transference thing, where a person projests their own negative characteristics onto someone else, to dislike that person. Brought back memories of university psych courses.
 
Frank, Kent's "shadow" concept is interesting, but my thinking is more primative than his...like natives everywhere used to, I believe we're capturing souls and traveling in time with these devices, so I think we should consider the possibility that our subjects have a right, a profound right, to know that we consider the act important, and to know what we intend. If we don't consider it important, and don't share our intentions, we do deserve to be beaten in the streets, if that's what our subjects want to do to us.

I tell people that I'd like to make their photograph and I'd like to send them a print. Unfortunately I slip up on sending prints sometimes, which makes me feel guilty. But I'm improving, morally IMO.
 
FrankS said:
I was interested in the transference thing, where a person projests their own negative characteristics onto someone else, to dislike that person. Brought back memories of university psych courses.
Click to expand...

"He who smelt it, dealt it." I think that line of reasoning has been around for awhile.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Because I almost always work close to my subjects with wide lenses, they're aware what I'm doing. I do get at least acceptance, if only through a shrug or nod. Possibly due to my friendly/harmless demeanor I'm rarely refused. But people do sometimes ask me what purpose this has, and what I intend to do with the photos. I'm another who tries to look up the victims and gift them a print. 🙂
 
djon said:
Frank, Kent's "shadow" concept is interesting, but my thinking is more primative than his...like natives everywhere used to, I believe we're capturing souls and traveling in time with these devices, so I think we should consider the possibility that our subjects have a right, a profound right, to know that we consider the act important, and to know what we intend. If we don't consider it important, and don't share our intentions, we do deserve to be beaten in the streets, if that's what our subjects want to do to us.

I tell people that I'd like to make their photograph and I'd like to send them a print. Unfortunately I slip up on sending prints sometimes, which makes me feel guilty. But I'm improving, morally IMO.
Click to expand...

Djon, as much as I can understand your point of view, I'm still wondering whether it's more a matter of "I should act as such" and less a matter of "I <i>am</i> acting as such". For example, from your own gallery ( http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=16111&cat=500&ppuser=1194 , a wonderful shot BTW). Did you ask her permission? I'm not saying you should or shouldn't have but let's face it, there are many situations where asking permission is either not possible or not "required". Of course, you have to act according to your own moral stance and if you can most of the time, you have my respect.
 
I don't ask permission when I'm using my 135mm. With a normal, I ask, unless they're not looking.
 
if you're taking a "street portrait" and ask permission to take a photo, you aren't really doing street photography, imho. you're just taking portraits, a la diane arbus.
 
djon said:
For me permission is the heart of photography, the actual essence, and whatever doesn't involve permission is just cold illustration or artsy fartsy doodling (eg scenics)...for somebody else it's something else.
Click to expand...
*cough* *cough*

I wouldn't dismiss so many (most?) of street shooters as hacks just because they don't ask for permission. It works both ways, you know: some would argue that you're just a chicken (although I know that asking for permission and shooting without one is about equally hard).
 
I think that any statement that begins with "In these [modern, dangerous, unusual] times, we need to..." is itself a dangerous statement, and it immediately gets my hackles up. Governments, contrary to popular opinion, and the perception of Hollywood, traditionally don't just strip rights away one sunny day. They normally eat them away slowly, and usually by seeking buy-in from the populace - making such moves seem "reasonable" and "neccessary" and "for our own good." I see it for what it is, and I want to throw up.

It is my opinion that there are too many people who are far too willing to trade away traditional liberties and freedoms in exchange for what they see or have been told is increased safety. Unfortunately, they never trade away their own rights - they trade away mine. I have a teeny little problem with that.

Are there dangerous people out there? Yes.
Do many of them have cameras? Yes.
Are some 'street photographers' actually nothing but perverts? Yes.
Are there more people who seem to think they are entitled to privacy when they wish it, regardless of whether or not they are in public? Yes.

And the solution to this is to change how we (street photographers) go about what we do?

Does that work? Do pedophiles stop being pedophiles? Oh, please.

I'm sorry that the person who posted on PN thought that the photographer he saw was 'creepy' and he wanted to confront him and/or punch him out. Maybe the guy was a pedophile. Maybe not. I wasn't there, and I doubt I'd be able to tell what the guy's intent was by watching him.

But that's the point. If I subject myself to the 'rules' of 'not creeping people out' then I am subject to YOUR interpretation of what 'creepy' is. By YOURS, of course, I mean anyone in the vicinity. Now I'm supposed to be a mind-reader?

Maybe I'm just a creepy looking guy. Maybe I just look 'suspicious' even though I have no malicious intent. So I can't do street photography because of the way I look?

You know, like when a black (hispanic, middle-eastern) guy walks around in a 'white' neighborhood. I think we'd better put a stop to that, shouldn't we? I mean, he just looks suspicious. Maybe we'd better confront him, ask him what he's doing in the neighborhood. Maybe we'll punch him out. There's no telling if he might be a burglar, and he sure looks suspicious to me. Better if we just pass a law, keep all the black guys out of here. Or maybe the black guys should just accept the fact that in these dangerous times, everybody needs to keep more in their place. I mean, hey, sorry about that, black guy. I'm not racist, I have nothing against black guys, but I think that in these dangerous times, it would be best if everyone just avoided getting anyone's suspicions up. It's just for the duration, then everything will be fine. Right?

I'm sorry - I know I'm in the minority here. I realize that we're all worried about what are very real dangers. But I will not change my methods - I can't do it. For the sake of my art, for the sake of my freedom.

And if it means getting confronted, punched, or even arrested - I will not stop doing what I do. I will take your picture if I want to, and I won't ask your permission.

I know that many of you don't do street photography, or you ask permission, etc. I don't have a problem with that. I understand that some of you feel uncomfortable having a camera pointed at you by a stranger, and you think that people need to be more considerate of others' privacy rights even in public. I'm ok with that, too. But I have a problem with those who would then impress those desires on me - by changing laws, by encouraging police to hassle street photographers, by 'confronting' photographers and demanding to know what they're photographing and what they intend to do with their photographs. I mean no offense - but such a demand of me is likely to meet with a response you don't care for.

A society that can't stand to have a light shined on it is not a society - it is a regime.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
For me street shots are the essence of what I enjoy about photography. The art is pushed to a new level by being candid. This is where photography differs from painting. If I want a seated portrait I can paint it. But a TRUE, in the moment candid, can put me the viewer in the shoes of the subject.
I can become that woman looking at the shoes in the window. I am the old hunched over man carrying his groceries.
When I stop to ask permission, this essential aspect is lost. The catharsis does not carry through the same way. The part of ourselves that we see in our subjects fades away.
In order for my photography to move toward it's best possible moment I want it to be pure. Otherwise to me it is not art.
 
I agree on many points with Bmattock, that's what i was about posting...It's really hard to walk around with a camera, well everyone has their privacy, u may quote them in a condition that embarasses them, mayeb some one is upset enough not to bear the pressure of a camera pointed somewhere that might be at him...Even sometimes when we r ready fro a group photo, some people just try to clear themselves off the field of the lens...!

Adding this to the degradation that is happening to the world day by day, some ass might use photos in a very improper way...People ar emean today.

Where i live if i saw a guy that is pointing his camera at me, i'll hardly believe he's after an innocent shot, 90% i'll think, he's a mean bastard!
Mainy cause the photography hobby isn't popular and those who are interested wouldn't go for street photography...

Some other places in the city, lower life style, poorer, they might eat u alive if they spot u with any sort of camera even if u don't have the intention to shoot, they r very freaky about it, and i agree there r many times i wouldn't shoot because i feel it's wrong, cause i feel that it's not right to violate that mood!

I'm also not afraid of people reactions towards me as i'm afraid of hurting/annoying them...Some people would smile but deep inside that's not how it is, specially if this person is having a rough moment...

But still i like to do that, and i'm not gettin shots, cause i don't want them to feel it's happening, so..i'll try to improve..!
 
Ignoring the the rights debate, if everyone asked everyone else for permission to take their photographs in the street, the world would be awash (hell, it's bad enough as it is) with insipid street portraits of performers, homeless people, old people and other miscellaneous alternatives. Unless your name is Diane Arbus, there's only so many of these sorts of shots I can stomach.

Cartier-Bresson, Winogrand, Erwitt, Koudelka, Frank, Meyerowitz, Parke... I wonder how many of these asked the majority of their subjects for permission. As far as I can tell, pretty much every famous and anonymous street photographer I admire never asks for permission and that to me is as good a reason as Bill's very reasoned argument 😎 In London there are CCTV survellance cameras around every street corner. We're being watched anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

peterm1
Who is your favorite photographer in history - who has influenced you the most?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
2K
mconnealy
mconnealy
E
Curious — What defines a perfect street shot for you?
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
4K
boojum
boojum
maigo
Germany Photo Enthusiast Sites of Interest?
Replies
7
Views
541
valdas
V
peterm1
Through any window....................
15 16 17
Replies
333
Views
18K
JoeV
JoeV
caila77
perfect combo film reflex and street photography
2 3
Replies
50
Views
3K
JohnGellings
J
Back
Top Bottom