street photography thread

[bmattock]

There is an excellent book that I read a couple of years ago: "The Transparent Society: Will Technology Force Us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom?" by David Brin. Brin is a science-fiction writer who sometimes writes on privacy issues. He correctly notes that while government agencies and private businesses increase their level of surveillance on US, governments at the same time create new laws restricting the right of public photography BY us.

In other words, the government watches us more, we watch them less.

And some feel that this is a good thing.

I have to disagree.

On the subject of 'street photography' as a concept, it is the one field of photography that I often feel does not have to be made to be seen. With most of my photography, I feel what it important is sharing the photograph with others. Yes, I shoot to satisfy myself, but in the hopes that I can create images that others will want to see - to make 'art' if you will. In the case of street photography, I often feel it is more important that I am there, taking the photograph, than that anyone else appreciate it or even see it.

"Being a witness" is a powerful motivation.

And speaking of witnessing - I have a good friend who announced to me that he is changing his religion in response to these modern times. He's now a "Jehovah's Bystander." He's pretty sure something happened, but he really doesn't want to get involved.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[RML]

Bill, you're the best! I know you're for real but, man, you write it down in such a way I can't hold me laughter in. I may not always agree with your points but on this right to photograph issue I'm with you.

 

[sbug]

Hin, I've been a fan of your work for a long time and as I was reading this thread I was getting ready to post essentially 90% of what you said below. I read an interview you did here: http://interviews.dailysnap.com/aiotf/index.shtml which gave me the courage to do more street shooting. It was really amazing to find someone whose street shots I admire so much to have struggled with it in much the same way I have. The more I shoot the more comfortable I am doing street photography. I’m only speculating, but I would think that my increased confidence makes me less noticeable to those that I am shooting. I have not yet asked for permission.
Once I was shooting next to a newspaper photographer taking some shots of young kids at a midnight release of a Harry Potter book. A parent did approach us and I explained that I was there with my kids and the newspaper photog explained that she was working on a story for the issue the following weekend. Kids are the one area I am a little cautious with. Maybe that comes from being a parent myself. I would have gladly exchanged info and sent him a print of his kids however he seemed less interested in me and more excited about the possibility of having his kids run in the newspaper. So obviously, it works both ways.

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.

 

[hinius]

Hey Scott,

Thanks for your kind words; I'm rather embarassed about that interview because I come an insufferable young fool (unfortunately I'm a bit older but still insufferable now). You are absolutely right in that confidence is the key to street photography. You are out there and you are doing nothing wrong (I too avoid children, not only because of the possible seedy issues but because there are enough cutesy photos of kids in the world already 😉 ). People only notice and object to you if you're being furtive (or if you have shoved a Canon 17-40 right in their face!). And if they notice, smile at them and stop for a chat. A camera is a great way to re-connect with strangers on the street!

Street photography is a mood, a state of mind. If you're in the groove you should be aware of what is 'kosher' and what isn't. I wander around the street every day and it doesn't matter if I'm using my Hexar RF or my big Canon 5D. Queue up the right sequence of tracks on your iPod, smile to yourself (and strangers) a lot and most importantly don't be a jerk. There's just no time to stop and ask. Street photography is like swimming in a shoal of tiny fish and waiting for that perfect moment when the constantly changing form morphs into an incredible, miraculous shape.

There's that oft-referenced article by Mason Resnick that talks about the way Winogrand worked:


He was constantly looking around, and often would see a situation on the other side of a busy intersection. Ignoring traffic, he would run across the street to get the picture. Incredibly, people didn't react when he photographed them. It surprised me because Winogrand made no effort to hide the fact that he was standing in way, taking their pictures. Very few really noticed; no one seemed annoyed. Winogrand was caught up with the energy of his subjects, and was constantly smiling or nodding at people as he shot. It was as if his camera was secondary and his main purpose was to communicate and make quick but personal contact with people as they walked by.

 

[Doug]

Nomade, sounds like you could use a pair of inconspicuous but tough bodyguards... 🙁

 

[aizan]

bill, since you mentioned "witness", i've got another movie for you to watch. there's even a leica in it, briefly. the title might suggest something it isn't. 😀 wim wenders' "wings of desire". all about angels watching us. and yeah, there is a love story.

 

[aizan]

hinius, you listen to the ipod while doing street photography?! lol, that's so post-modern. 😀

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

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.

Bill for president!

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

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.

So, only a few people should take pictures of a certain kind so they can be digested? Interesting point of view...

 

[djon]

Bill M's more tuned in to reality than most. Catch 22.

Maybe it's worth remembering (or learning) that many people suspect that cameras steal souls, or at least intrude into their humanity uninvited. Maybe soul ripoff is exactly what "street photographers" are after: perhaps there's a lack of soul? Honest self awareness is certainly lacking, eg. the earlier comments by someone trying to convince us that he becomes his subject 😉 Cannibals are more honest: not having cameras they eat their "subjects" livers.

Sneaking is an illicit pleasure, right? Peeking through a keyhole at one's parents, early Sunday morning. Would one feel equally "artistic" calling oneself a "sneak photographer?"

And why the "art" label? Tis is 2005: People who decorate tissue boxes and paint duck decoys are artists. Rumsfeld's tortureres are artists, right? Is everything that's not profitable "art?" Why do "art" photographers express so much insecurity when they see great work from commercial photographers (eg Avedon). And aren't Magnum photographers commercial photographers, even the late HCB ?

Don't take my comments as hostility. Shoot what you want, call yourself what you want. I'm just expressing my own thoughts: I did a lot of street photography in the 70s, quit it when a friend showed me long lens shots of street people. Now I'm just a photographer. :angel:

 

[hinius]

Don't take my comments as hostility. Shoot what you want, call yourself what you want. I'm just expressing my own thoughts: I did a lot of street photography in the 70s, quit it when a friend showed me long lens shots of street people. Now I'm just a photographer. :angel:

Ah, but what makes you think that long lens photos of street people qualifies as 'traditional' street photography? You're absolutely right, those sort of shots are voyeuristic (and as importantly, they're usually pretty crap). As far as many are concerned are concerned though, they're just not street photography.

As Petteri Sulonen forceully puts it, Telephoto is for cowards. As far as I'm concerned, it's as far removed from street photography as portraiture.

 

[aizan]

i bet i could do street photography with a tele. only people who've used a tele on the street had other things on their minds. it's all about intent, right?

 

[Toby]

Of course there is another method ... carry a portfolio of 6x4 prints of your best work, if someone stops you show it to them, say you'll be happy to send them a print if you have their contact details... surely having your photo taken by a talented ( or otherwise in my case) street photographer should be a good thing to happen to you... why not some positive PR for street photography?

 

[ruben]

There's just no time to stop and ask. ..


Mason Resnick talks about the way Winogrand worked:
He was constantly looking around, and often would see a situation on the other side of a busy intersection. Ignoring traffic, he would run across the street to get the picture. Incredibly, people didn't react when he photographed them. It surprised me because Winogrand made no effort to hide the fact that he was standing in way, taking their pictures. Very few really noticed; no one seemed annoyed. Winogrand was caught up with the energy of his subjects, and was constantly smiling or nodding at people as he shot. It was as if his camera was secondary and his main purpose was to communicate and make quick but personal contact with people as they walked by.

There are many ways to ask, not just formally stopping. Basicaly it's your inner moral standing.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[djon]

People who post on Photo.Net's street forum embrace the lable and their work on that forum defines the activity. Numbers count, not theories or post-mortem labels. Steiglitz was as much a street photographer as Meyerowitz or Frank. Frank was a commercial photographer. Skilled. Few street photographers seem technically skilled, again judging by Photo.Net. Basic skills do have to do with photography in some way, IMO.

Street photographers do what was, for decades, called "candid photography " : snapshots of people one doesn't know, without permission

 

[aizan]

which circle of hell do street photographers go?

 

[back alley]

i rarely ask permission but i never sneak.

joe

 

[bmattock]

With respect for everyone's viewpoints - I'd like to elucidate on a couple of points I made earlier.

First, I am not exclusively a 'street photographer' - I very much enjoy nearly all forms of photography. I sometimes find myself in the right frame of mind and in the right location to do some street shooting and then I do it. I have no idea if I am 'good' at it, but I hope to improve, in any case.

Second, whether you refer to street photographers as candid snapshotters or something ruder, it is fine with me. Street photography is the term that is commonly used, and it works for me.

I am intrigued and fascinated by 'candid' photos - at least some of them. When the mask slips, we see what people really are, what their lives mean. And frankly, it is uplifting for the most part. You see the goodness that is inside, often enough. That divine spark, if you will. You will seldom see that in a posed picture - the closest I have ever seen were photos of M. Gandhi and Mother Theresa. I'm not saying that I'm capable of producing such shots, but sometimes I feel like I'm getting closer.

Some street photos are more about the situation, the location, the setting, or whatever. It can be an attempt to capture moments in time, with varying degrees of success.

Third, when I take street photos, I do not hide or sneak around, although I often find myself in the shadows. I am usually out in the open, I am vulnerable, and perhaps that is part of what I enjoy about it. I'm in a lot more danger than anyone I'm taking a picture of. I've got to remain aware of my surroundings, use my periperal vision, listen to people's voices and their tone of voice, gauge the mood of the crowd. I have to use my own discretion and judgment about what photographs to take, which to pass up. Sometimes I stir some dissonence, sometimes not. I try to adjust my responses and my actions accordingly. As some here have noted, one can maintain a positive and friendly outlook without saying a word. Body language, eye contact (or not), a nod, a wave. Sometimes acting with authority, moving with sureness and purpose, are all that are needed. Other times, acting humble works. I seldom have anything in the way of a confrontation. And I do understand people's fears and concerns.

But there are some other things that are at work within me as well. Things about freedom, really. About society and expectations.

I don't justify my actions when confronted. I don't need to. More importantly, I shouldn't. I am a photographer, and I am taking photographs. Making art, if that doesn't offend anyone too much. I am a part of society, I am not alien to it. I am as much a part of the scenery as the parents with their stroller, the kids with the soccer ball. I belong here - and I won't justify or apologize for that.

There was a time when people in society worked hard to not take offense. Now, we work hard on not giving offense. The onus is off individuals to be open and accepting, or at least tolerant, and on individuals to guess what might give offense to any one of a thousand people and find ways to not squick them. This is, I believe, a problem. But I'm not going to 'fix' society, I know that. But I can continue to try to be honest with myself. And I fail at that a lot, believe me. I'm no saint and I'm no hero, but I'm resolute - maybe too much?

And finally, I have always objected to the notion that the actions of the law-abiding must be rescinded to protect society from the actions of those who break the law. Taking upskirt photos of women and hiding cameras in changing rooms and bathrooms are not legal - nor should they be. And some sexual deviants seem to get a charge from taking and viewing photos of clothed body parts, or shoes, or Norge refridgerators, or whatever it is that flips their switches.

But I just can't shrug and say "Well, we live in different times now. I guess that street photography was an innocent pasttime that has been polluted. Time to move on."

How does any member of the public know that I'm not a fridge freak when they see me moving stealthily through a junkyard towards an innocent Westinghouse? The answer is that they don't.

Punish people for the wrong they do, not the wrong you suspect them of, or that which you think they might do. That's my model, and I have a hard time letting that go, even in these 'modern times'.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

PS - Besides, as good as Ansel was, I seldom see a photo of El Capitan that captivates me. Sorry.

 

[FrankS]

Punish people for the wrong they do, not the wrong you suspect them of, or that which you think they might do. That's my model, and I have a hard time letting that go, even in these 'modern times'.

Right on, Bill. This ties in to that transference psycho thing where people project the characteristics they most dispise in themselves onto others. Perhaps it is those people who can't face their own perversities, that see them in others.

Kinda reminds me of a story about a person reacting negatively to a photograph. The viewer admonishes the photographer for depicting a man lying on a bed watching his mistress remove her clothing before joining him for an afternoon tryst. The photographer responds by explaining that the woman is the man's wife, it is morning, and she is getting dressed. 🙂

 

[bmattock]

Kinda reminds me of a story about a person reacting negatively to a photograph. The viewer admonishes the photographer for depicting a man lying on a bed watching his mistress remove her clothing before joining him for an afternoon tryst. The photographer responds by explaining that the woman is the man's wife, it is morning, and she is getting dressed. 🙂

You awoke an ancient memory. Once, a long time ago, I worked for a time for the Denver Post in the circulation department, taking phone complaints. Missed deliveries, that sort of thing. Sometimes we got irate calls from people who were angry about this story or that editorial, etc, and they always wanted to read somebody the riot act and then quit their subscription. I was the guy who got dumped on. Not a problem for me, I never took it personally.

This fellow called to complain about a "The Neighborhood" comic. This was the one which showed a fellow bending over backwards, with his arms thrown wide, in an apparent display of delight. The caption was something like "Ed can resist anything except temptation."

The guy who called thought that the man was bending over FORWARDS and presenting his posterior to the viewer, kind of inviting someone to, um, 'take advantage of him in a special way'.

I looked at the comic strip and started laughing, because I could see the character's zipper - unless it was in the back, the character was bending over backwards, not forwards. The guy read me the riot act and hung up on me, after suggesting that I was 'one of those'.

I never thought about it until now - I guess he might have had a little identity problem, eh?

Well, live and let live. It's a sick world, and I'm a happy guy.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks