Street Photography Under Attack? WBZ-TV Boston's slanted piece

S

saxshooter

Well-known
Local time
12:33 PM
Joined
May 23, 2005
Messages
585
I saw this posted on Gizmodo.com, see LINK

WBZ-TV has put together what seems to be a grossly slanted piece on street photography. You can see their piece on this LINK

This is apparently a response by one of the photographers in the piece

First it was Homeland Security's poster showing "shady" photographers looking to photograph airplanes. Now this. I fear this will stigmatize casually walking down the street and taking snapshots.
 
Last edited:
This is precisely the kind of people we should be thanking for all the photography paranoia and the absurd laws out there right now.
Disgusting, really.
 
Last edited:
The report may be slanted by your perspective, but not from the popular perspective. Granted, people who would like the photographs those photographers were making, most likely never think about how they were made. Those photographers were acting different than everyone else, and their interview certainly doesn't help improve their image.

I'll bet that most of the people being photographed in Boston that day have no idea what street photography is, who HCB was, nor would they care much if they were to learn. Bottom line is the photographers were different, different even from "normal photographers." Different usually gets noticed, and rarely in a positive way.

But, take my opinion for what it is. Street photography is not my style nor my taste.
 
Last edited:
Those who see it as an offense won't ever be pleased..
Those who see it as an art won't ever be bothered..
 
No matter what kind of pictures they were taking, it's people like this who give photographers a bad name. I don't think the popular perspective is going to take the time to make the distinction
 
DanP said:
Those who see it as an offense won't ever be pleased..
Those who see it as an art won't ever be bothered..
Click to expand...

I don't see this like you.
We say in Germany "the sound makes the music".
If you like the people, if you be gentle and have a smile for every person you photograph, you will for sure get less problems.
If you aggresivly hunt for pics, stalk persons you want to shoot... no doubt, you will be hated. With good reason.

Lauffray is right, something like this harms all photographers, including the reasonable.

This is only a opinion, but my opinion... :)
 
Last edited:
For a start, they hang out in groups which is odd as it defies the point of shooting street. Secondly, the dude taking the up-skirt style shot was just asking for trouble. There are things you don't shoot, and ways you don't act. We all know this, and these kinda shooters make us all look bad.

If you did this in Brixton, near where I live, you'd not walk out of town - you have to be super stealthy. That guy with his DSLR and beast of a lens...
 
The video footage of the photographer bending over and shooting the women from behind does not help out the photographers one bit. I shoot a lot on the streets and one thing you do not do is bend down behind a group of women and photograph. This is asking for trouble.
 
A couple of things in the video bothered me...first the shot of the guy bending over to shoot behind the group of women...that's creepy and demands an explanation or at the very least (if shooting digital) show me what you shot...
Second, if you're out Street Shooting don't complain when someone turns the table on you and points a camera in your direction...
If you're shooting "Street" and using a digital camera in a legit fashion you shouldn't be afraid to show anyone, who politely asks, the photographs you have taken...I'm not saying if they ask you to delete them that you have to, all I'm saying is that if you can't show me what you're doing then maybe something is wrong...
I shoot film so I couldn't do this...but I would be willing to to show you the uncut roll of film after it's been developed...I have nothing to hide...
I don't know if anyone here shoots in this style but I wouldn't have anything to do with these guys after seeing this video...besides I shoot alone...
 
I also had this thought...
I find it a bit funny when News People find this behavior aggressive...have we not all seen News reporters chasing people all in the name of Reporting the News...a little hypocritical to me...
 
do a search for Magnum's Bruce Gilden or Garry Winogrand on youtube to find videos (Gilden's was maybe 4-5 years ago, Winogrand's is almost 30 years ago) of those guys working the street. Would be easy to categorize those guys as shifty, suspicious, and shady characters too, yes?
 
I don't like Fred Phelps and his "Church" either, but I don't think he should be silenced. Either free speech (and photography) are legal and protected, or they aren't. It doesn't matter if you think the speaker or photographer are creepy. They have rights.
 
crawdiddy said:
I don't like Fred Phelps and his "Church" either, but I don't think he should be silenced. Either free speech (and photography) are legal and protected, or they aren't. It doesn't matter if you think the speaker or photographer are creepy. They have rights.
Click to expand...

And I would be first in line to defend their right to photograph in the street...I just might not agree with their style...:cool:
 
you can't possibly believe that WBZ-TV Boston's edit of the piece is completely fair and balanced? the "story" was brought to their attention. they went out to "investigate". certain shots and certain interview bites were chosen. many other story elements, i'm sure, were left on the proverbial cutting room floor. I posted the link here because I believed it applicable to what many of us do -- photography as a hobby (ok, full disclosure I do it for a living, but it's easier for me because I can always show my credential if stopped), some may even do it shooting "on the street". I wanted to bring attention (as I did the Homeland Security poster a few months ago) that we now live in times that photography is no longer easy to do in public without being stopped, questioned, or at the very least, viewed with suspicion.

I don't think it's misguided for those photographers to hang out in the "same" location. Certain intersections in certain cities lend themselves to a lot of movement, activity, and serendipity. As told in "Bystander: A History of Street Photography" Winogrand, Joel Meyrowitz, and Todd Papageorge used to often meet at an intersection in NYC, go off their separate ways (now maybe THAT wasn't included in the WBZ-TV piece, just the shot of a group hanging together), shoot for a while, and then they would meet back and "compare notes".

Watching the WBZ-TV Boston's piece as PHOTOGRAPHERS, we can imagine what could be missing from the presentation. But how about non-photographers? Comes off as a seed planted for a witch hunt, no?
 
Last edited:
saxshooter said:
do a search for Magnum's Bruce Gilden or Garry Winogrand on youtube to find videos (Gilden's was maybe 4-5 years ago, Winogrand's is almost 30 years ago) of those guys working the street. Would be easy to categorize those guys as shifty, suspicious, and shady characters too, yes?
Click to expand...

Yes, they could be categorized as such. But, I don't remember seeing Winogrand crouching behind women to take photos of them. Maybe he did, and it was never caught on video. Or, maybe these guys in Boston were invasive.

I read portions of the blog, and one of the photographers posted 10 images as examples of street photography with an emphasis on legs. I find it interesting that he only offered one image of his own, and it may not even be from that location or date.

Again, street isn't my style nor taste as I feel too voyeuristic or as though I'm looking at CIA surveillance photos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom