Street photography: With prior permission or candid?

[Rodchenko]

I don't usually ask permission, but I did ask a chap today, because he was carrying a Harris Hawk for birdscaring. Sadly, he said he had to keep moving, but I walked with him, and got a decent shot. I'd already taken two from a distance.

I wish I'd asked permission of the group of women at London Bridge tube station all dressed as Audrey Hepburn, but I missed the moment.

 

[rluka]

They have the rights to refuse too.
Besides, you failed being candid if they sensed you're taking their picture anyway

Prefer shooting without permission, much easier than asking them to repeat the scene/expression/pose once again.
Personally, I don't like getting my picture taken, so if I know it, I just walk out of their way or hide behind another stranger and usually they'll get the point and look for another target.
In case I don't realize it, then it's the same as not happening. Unless the picture got published, but getting published is a privilege for very small number of photographers in the world.

 

[kosta_g]

I for one am happy to shoot candidly - though I will make sure I try to take the best possible picture of the person otherwise i'll delete/not use it (film). There are things you can't capture when someone prepares for their photo to be taken.

I will also ask permission for portraits (sometimes) as I prefer to take them closer up (i'm selling my 50/90mm lenses anyhow - see classifieds )

I'm also happy to use flash on the street (not quite Gilden style) as the challenge of using it and making a non-Gilden style image is quite exciting. I prefer using flash at street festivals/parties and if i'm shooting someone for their fashion/style.

I have people laugh and smile when i've taken their photo when I use flash and without it - some bad experiences too, though i actually feel a little more comfortable shooting with it at night. When I shoot without it for some reason it seems a bit creepy to some as the camera can be so stealthy in appearance. I try to talk to them then and diffuse it a little as my aims are not to embarrass anybody.

Ethically - I think it's not just what you do with it afterwards, but what your intent is when you take it.

Also - you should know your rights as a photographer in your country/state. In Australia, you are free to take photos of people in a public place. (there is a legal document around street photographer's rights)

 

[kosta_g]

My goal is not to get beaten up, or shot, I play it by the situation.

good goal to have. I share that one with you!

 

[YYV_146]

Here is what I have concluded in my time doing street photography:

1-People who want you to ask for permission before photographing them are not worth photographing.

2-If you don't feel anything about something, don't photograph it.

3-There are no shots to be grabbed, if you feel its not the right time or place to take a photo, don't take it.

4-Its better to photograph a place that you care about countless times than waste your time in new places that means nothing to you.

5-Don't be creepy, even if being creepy might get you what you think will be a great shot. In fact make "don't be creepy" your motto in photography and in life.

Amen. It gradually occured to me to dress smart while shooting on the street - a young man in shirt and tie is less likely to be a pervert than one in a t-shirt and sandals. I also wear as much school names as I can, people then think I'm an art student and don't become alarmed, even when I stick a camera in their face.

 

[squareshooter]

The more people on the street with cameras the safer our society will be. When the boys with the rubber hoses and the dudes with the illegal goods in their shirt want to do their nasty business they hope there's no camera around to put a dent into their criminality. Get your camera. Carry it/ Shoot with it. Expose the criminals. Give the streets back to the mimes and the kids with balloons and your and my grandmother making her way home from the market. The way you crush the slimebags is to confront them and share your photos around.

 

[noisycheese]

The more people on the street with cameras the safer our society will be. When the boys with the rubber hoses and the dudes with the illegal goods in their shirt want to do their nasty business they hope there's no camera around to put a dent into their criminality. Get your camera. Carry it/ Shoot with it. Expose the criminals. Give the streets back to the mimes and the kids with balloons and your and my grandmother making her way home from the market. The way you crush the slimebags is to confront them and share your photos around.

@squareshooter -

There is a fair amount of truth in your thoughts. I cannot help but think that if every other person you saw on the street had a camera hanging around their neck it would be a good thing.

One would reasonably expect that if the streets were crawling with people armed with cameras, perhaps the criminals and thugs - including the minority of rogue cops who act like thugs - would think twice before breaking the law.

There are some criminals who have no regard for human life and would not hesitate to stab or shoot anyone who photographed them, though. In such cases, all bets are off. The onus is on the photographer to try to discern when he is up against this type of psychopath and to avoid injury or death.

Going home alive and in one piece in order to be able to see the prints of your street photography images should be every photographer's #1 priority.

 

[Paul Jenkin]

Before I travel outside the UK, I try to find out what the legal position is before, as a tourist, I start snapping away. This year, I'm driving Route 66 from Chicago to Santa Monica and, as I'm in "The Home of The Free", I'm hoping that no-one will raise an eyebrow.

In the UK, I feel privileged that, so long as I'm on public property, the law affords me the right to shoot pretty much what I want, when I want.

Basically, I try to be respectful to individuals and their cultures / personal preferences. However, my own "belief" is that whilst we're in the open, viewable to our fellow men and women, we are fair game if someone wants to take a photo of us. I hate having my photo taken but, if someone finds me sufficiently interesting to want to waste pixels or film on me, it's their call...

 

[Ko.Fe.]

If I want street portrait I ask. How could you take portrait without interaction?
If I want some nice street view I'll wait for someone to walk into the frame, where I want. Nothing to ask.
I'm not taking pictures of disabled people, hobos, I don't smash my cameras into seniors faces. With is where my moral is.
I'm not taking candids of sausage vendors and street musician, if I didn't pay for what they are doing first.
My true candid situations usually lasts few seconds, it is more less regular street life. No time for asking. Often it is too late to take picture.

 

[peterm1]

99 times out of a hundred if you ask for permission first you have already missed the shot and there is no point in taking it. Usually when you make a street shot you do so because you are making an image of someone doing something interesting or because they look interesting when they are doing it. If they stop doing it to "pose" then you might as well move on and not waste the image.

 

[peterm1]

I agree wholeheartedly with jsrockit and DNR.

It appears that as the human knowledge base expands exponentially on a daily basis, the vast majority of humans (in developed and/or western cultures) become progressively more ignorant, uninformed, capable of cogent thought and downright infantile.

In spite of the vast storehouse of cultural and scientific knowledge that humans have literally at their fingertips (thanks to laptops and the world wide web), we are as a whole (with notable exceptions) regressing intellectually. The bulk of this failure can be laid squarely on the doorstep of the education system in western nations which has abandoned its duty to teach people how to think in favor of teaching them what to think.

However: The failure does not begin and end with the world of academia. It extends to the failure of the individual to seek out knowledge and to engage in learning - and deductive reasoning - of their own volition for no monetary compensation or career advancement but simply for the purpose of enriching themselves intellectually and elevating their quality of life. Instead, the vast majority of people in the west settle for the table scraps tossed to them by the world of academia. Clearly, any person with a functioning mind deserves better.

In terms of photography, we see the result of this settling reflected in the ignorance and paranoia of the general public regarding photography in general and street photography in particular that approaches the level of dark ages superstition.

When I look at the photographs of Henri Cartier-Bresson, Garry Winogrand and Vivian Maier, I thank God that we have these permanent visual records of their bygone eras. The street photographs made today will one day decades down the road be regarded likewise, whether the photographer who made them was "famous" or lived, photographed and died in obscurity.

We cannot let the ignorance, paranoia and superstition of the small minded deter us from providing posterity with a visual record of our current era, which is - for better or worse - a time of transformation for all of us.

Photography - documentary and street photography in particular - are things that matter. This is important and significant work. We must not let the paranoia and prejudices of the unthinking public deter our work. Someone has got to do it.

JMHO.

I also agree with this.

In particular the education system has a lot to answer for. In our public education system (Australia) :

(a) there is too little discipline or respect. In fact these things are frowned on by the doo-gooder left wing hair brains who dominate it. Aging hippies who were too timid to give up their public service jobs and instead became educational admistrators who grab whatever the latest fad is in education (So long as it involves smaller class sizes, shorter hours, less rigour in thier duties and more pay for them). (This is an unfair generalisation, I know as many many teachers are p*ssed off and agree with me. But these are not the ones with the power).

(b) people leaving education are, as pointed out told what to think now how to think or more to the point what they must NOT think (As in one must not above all else, be politically incorrect. This is the greatest sin of all.)

(c) kids are taught the result does not matter - what matters is that you tried (As in little Johnny may think 2 plus 2 equals 5 but that is perfectly fine as long as little Johnny is enjoying learning - notwithstanding that if they think 2+2 =5 then demonstrably little Johnny has learned bugger all).

The spillover effect of the above is that this is also the way left wing politicians think and behave - as in its much MUCH more important to adopt policies that have a symbolic purposes and sound good. Policies that actually work and do something are far too hard to implement and may upset their constituents.

We In Oz have just had 6 long years of a left wing government who have now been ignominiously dumped because they ran government like a cross between a three ring circus and a reality TV show. We now know quite a lot about how not to run a country. So sad.

(d) Kids are taught by example and by word that its all about THEM as individuals. The ME,ME,ME ME, ME generation. Thereby creating an unwelcome and unearned sense of their own entitlement. (As in the world's my oyster and I do not have to work hard, learn or contribute to have it ALL dropped in my lap. And I want it NOW!)

(e) No thanks also to parents who will cry blue murder if any school teacher is silly enough to punish a kid, many kids come out of school with exactly no values except the nonsense rammed constantly down their throats by left wing idealogues.

(f) One does not need to learn anyway - every bit of knowledge you need can be Googled. (Thereby ignoring the old adage - data is not equal to information, information is not equal to knowledge and knowledge is not equal to wisdom. While it may be too much to ask kids coming out of school to be wise it would be nice at least if they had some knowledge (and even nicer if the teachers had some wisdom).

I am sure I could think of more examples of our system's shortcomings should I stop for a while and put my mind to it. These are things that damage and devalue western civilisation. I am old fashioned enough to believe that western civilisation is a great thing and has been for over a millenium. Sad to see it going down the gurgler.

Specifically in relation to education, while our politicians have pumped billions and billions of $ more into education over the past 20 years they have failed to fix the fundamental problems with it. The results in terms of skills and knowledge learned (as demonstrated by national testing) is that learning has gone backwards and kids coming out of the system today know less than their predecessors knew 20 years ago. In fact if you compare kids graduating today with kids graduating in places like China and Japan you can see how much damage has been done to western society by fad based teaching and the lack of values. And all this entails.

Its little wonder that in places like the US, something like 30% of people (adults) think they have been kidnapped and digitally probed by aliens, that 9/11 was a US Government plot and cover up, and that they need guns to protect themselves from the coming zombie apocalypse. We are not too far behind I am sad to say.

In case I am beginning to sound like PJ O'Rourke, then I can only say I would be pleased if people did think this. He is not only funny, but I have come to the view that his cynical conservative view of the world is spot on. I used to be more tolerant, even supportive of left wing views. Suffice it to say my eyes have been opened by having the chance to see what 6 years of Social Democrat government can do to a country. and I have decided that if I want comedy I would prefer to go to the comedy warehouse for it rather than getting it from my political leaders. At least I can throw eggs at comedians if they are not funny. Besides, they cost less.

 

[Rodchenko]

Wow. I thought we were encouraged to keep politics off the board (which is, admittedly, difficult because photography is a political act), but then I stumble across this non sequitur of an ill-informed right wing rant.

Please consider editing your post in order to avoid inflaming an argument. Otherwise, perhaps the mods might like to take a look at it.

 

[peterm1]

Wow. I thought we were encouraged to keep politics off the board (which is, admittedly, difficult because photography is a political act), but then I stumble across this non sequitur of an ill-informed right wing rant.

Please consider editing your post in order to avoid inflaming an argument. Otherwise, perhaps the mods might like to take a look at it.

I will have you know its not "ill informed right wing rant".

Its very well informed right wing rant!

But you are right it is off topic and for this only, I apologise.

 

[oneANT]

you have to promise not to giggle...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjTBYdJwQ4I

 

[Rodchenko]

Sorry. I giggled.

I've been to Scunthorpe.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

The best part of that video is when she tells him, "You can't just go around taking photos...."

I thought I was going to fall out of my chair laughing. Great stuff.

 

[uhoh7]

My goal is not to get beaten up, or shot, I play it by the situation.

+1

Many people feel violated if they realize you are shooting them. It's so common that's it's really pointless to claim they "should not feel that way".

The fact we can legally do it is arbitary and is no justification for whether it's "wrong or right"

My goal is that they don't know I shot them at all. "the look" says fail to me, as far as civility goes.

However some shots right before the look come out pretty good.

Street photography is inherently inconsiderate. However, there are degrees.

 

[Sparrow]

.. I don't understand why anybody bothers with this twaddle

 

[Toastno6]

I'm still very new to this but oddly when I have a camera in my possession I'M the one feeling massively self conscious about using it on the street. This is one of the reasons why I have very few 'street' shots even though I always have it with me and am in dozens of major US cities every month. I've missed some wonderful opportunities because, when it comes to it, I feel very conscious of the reaction I may provoke from bystanders.

Oddly even more so now, having a small RF, because of it's rather old fashioned and 'stealthy' nature as opposed to my un-hideable DSLR. At least with the DSLR, obvious as it is, it's recognisable, I'm clearly out taking pics/being the tourist and people don't feel as if I'm being creepy/subversive/secretive about taking pics. With the Leica, with it's rather stealthy appearance, I look rather less the photographer and may provoke a more guarded reaction.

It really is inconsiderate and I'm acutely aware of that. If it makes someone feel upset or bad I will always explain why I'm doing it, acquiesce and delete the pic or show them and offer to send them a print or something if they like it.

Couple of examples I guess: In a park in Kansas City of all places a group of rather delightful Hare's turned up and spent a few hours canvassing and chatting with suprisingly receptive locals gathered round a fountain. As they circled the fountain I kinda circled opposite ostensibly shooting pics of the fountain but the wife of one and one of their kids noticed me pretty quickly because I suck at subtlety. I felt obliged to let them catch up and actually had a lovely chat and explained why I thought they were a great subject.

The shot I missed but wanted sooooo badly was of a KC cop watching them and scowling with clear disapproval. It would have been a great shot of his glare through the Krishnas but I couldn't do it without it being obvious who I was photographing and, while it is my right and there are many videos of photogs belligerently defending that right, it's not a fight I want to pick with an already pissed off cop.

 

[__--]

In one of the videos available on the web, Moriyama Daido states that he uses compact cameras because people are less conscious of them. He says he often makes "no finder shots" (a better phrase then "hip shots") because he doesn't want the subject to be conscious of being photographed. Simple enough, but behind this is the idea that Moriyama is doing producing something meaningful. However, a lot of street photography one sees on the web seems to have no meaning or redeening value. Are there too many photographers walking around essentially sticking their cameras in people's faces? Dunno, it's a question I have though.

Another thought about Moriyama's compact camera idea: my experience with the Ricoh GRD cameras is that using the LCD for roughly establishing the edges of the frame and then looking directly as the subject when pressing the shutter seems to me to be the best way for "no finder shots" and particularly well suited for street photography, along the lines that Moriyama speaks about. Taking this into account, I would think that one of the best cameras for street photography would be the new Ricoh GR. However, I haven't bought one because, for B&W, I like the look from the M-Monochrom; and for, color, I like the unique color rendition of the M9. So there is a trade-off here between image quality and ease of street shooting, as a Leica M-type camera is simply not as as well suited for street photography, despite its history, as a camera like the Ricoh GR.

Another issue is, when is one really being intrusive? Not always easy to know. Here are two example of the extremes. The first picture is of a professor emeritus of Japanese literature who was visiting the grave of Baudelaire at the Montparnasse cemetery: we spoke and, subjected him to my rusty Japanese, I explained that I was shooting a series related to Baudelaire, and he asked his wife to take a picture of us together and then I took a picture of him: a street portrait, not street photography. Now the second picture: I then went to have lunch at a nearby restaurant and took a picture through the window behind my table. Then, as I turned back and brought my camera across, I like the scene, in terms of light and dark, with the couple on my right. As I pressed the shutter the woman put her hand to her face; although it was not clear that she was reacting to me and was unhappy, that is how most people would interpret her look in the picture. Incidentally, this shot was 5 stops underexposed because I didn't have time to change the aperture or shutter speed as I brought the camera across, only being able to refocus. (The Baudelaire series is linked below my signature).



M-Monochrom | Summilux-50 pre-ASPH | ISO 320 | f/2.8 | 1/1500 sec

Paris




M-Monochrom | Summilux-50 pre-ASPH | ISO 320 | f/2.8 | 1/2000 sec

Paris



—Mitch/Paris
Looking for Baudelaire [WIP]