Street photography: With prior permission or candid?

[sepiareverb]

It depends on intent. I guess I was speaking more to the genre of street photography, not with regard to cellphone news photography. Most street photography is not chasing the news of the moment. The average joe (who is not news worthy) is not used to being photographed the way a street photographer photographs them.

Nor was I thinking about news. I've never been able to understand the fear or concern or whatever it is that drives people to not want their image made because I don't experience that myself and I've never had it articulated to me. Not being used to something doesn't make it wrong.

It doesn't need to be normal though.

Nor should it be abnormal.

I don't think there is any solution except to take more photographs.

Randy

Well said.

As an aside to the 'cellphone news photos' I found this an interesting take on that. The link above is an excerpt, be aware that the whole article has some graphic photographs.

 

[jsrockit]

However, you are correct, being OPEN about your activities is not a mainstream activity. ;-)

Right, and again...intent. Most people are not trying to make the photos street photographers are making with cellphones.

 

[noisycheese]

It depends on intent. I guess I was speaking more to the genre of street photography, not with regard to cellphone news photography. Most street photography is not chasing the news of the moment. The average joe (who is not news worthy) is not used to being photographed the way a street photographer photographs them.



I agree. However, you said street photography is perfectly normal when a lot of the general public does not feel the same way. It doesn't need to be normal though.

If I may jump in to this conversation for a moment, I would like to say that I think sepiareverb is on the right track in regard to street photography, particularly with his statement -

By eliminating all but mainstream activity we are doomed to a world where the lowest common denominator becomes the only acceptable course.

I don't think it is a good policy to let our culture devolve into a situation where lawmakers get into the business of outlawing things that are not considered "normal" by the general public.

Psychiatrists and counseling psychologists who hold Ph.D. degrees cannot agree on a cogent and objective definition of what is "normal" in the psychological sense; what hope is there that the general public or lawmakers could arrive at a cogent and objective definition of what is "normal" - let alone a definition that is fair and equitable to all parties concerned?

Slim to none would be my expectation.

A few of the activities that are not "normal" according to the general public (whoever they are) includes:

Living the Amish lifestyle
Extreme skiing
Going to church
Training for and competing in the Ironman triathlon
Going to a Tony Robbins retreat and walking on red hot coals
Being a vegetarian
Hunting deer or geese (or anything else)
Making photographs with film cameras
Making photographs with large format view cameras
Rock climbing
Collecting and caring for poisonous snakes
Collecting scorpions
Walking the Appalachian trail or the Pacific Crest trail end to end
Making photographs of people on the street, sidewalk or other public areas
Developing photographic film at home

The general public (whoever they are) does not engage in any of the above activities to the best of my knowledge. If asked, most members of the general public would likely say that any of the above are not "normal" (since they do not engage in them and they consider themselves to be "normal").

Should all the above "not normal" activities therefore be outlawed because they are not "normal" and "normal" people do not engage in such pursuits?

I hope the answer is and always will be a resounding NO.

We are supposed to celebrate diversity. I would think that doing so would include permitting others to engage in activities that are not looked at as "normal" by the general public as long as those activities do no harm to others.

To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever been deemed by a court of law (at least in the U.S.) to have been harmed by the act of another person photographing them on the street.

 

[jsrockit]

I don't think it is a good policy to let our culture devolve into a situation where lawmakers get into the business of outlawing things that are not considered "normal" by the general public.

I wasn't referring to the law... I referring to the fact that I work in mainstream america and nobody else goes and photographs on the street because they love photography. In that sense it is not normal...

 

[airfrogusmc]

I do both depending. Heres a couple of moments that if I would not have gotten if I would have asked asked.

And these I asked

 

[candidcameraman]

So you think the only photo worth making is one with a moment?

Now you're just being cheeky... that was not your question, your question was, and I quote:

What happens if you aren't interested in THE moment?

If I am not interested in the moment, I don't even think about it - let alone make a picture of a moment I am not interested in.

 

[noisycheese]

I wasn't referring to the law... I referring to the fact that I work in mainstream america and nobody else goes and photographs on the street because they love photography. In that sense it is not normal...

I would guess that no one in the segment of mainstream America where you work carries a backpack full of camera gear out into the wilderness to make landscape photographs. Therefore, based on the habits of mainstream America, landscape photography is not normal either.

My point is that what is not "normal" for some should not dictate what others can or cannot do, provided that no verifiable harm is done to others in the process. Street photography falls into this category of activities.

The problem arises when/if those who are a part of mainstream America want to ban street photography because it is not "normal" by their particular and limited definition of "normal."

That's all I was saying...

 

[airfrogusmc]

Yes it can can be a slippery slope. Lets not forget photographers like Robert Frank that came under the communist label during the time of the McCarthyism ( just after but still the same mentality).

 

[sepiareverb]

To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever been deemed by a court of law (at least in the U.S.) to have been harmed by the act of another person photographing them on the street.

Precisely. Yet, apparently, it can be very traumatic to have someone you can see take your photograph with a still camera. Having yourself videotaped at every gas pump and ATM and grocery store and toll booth and train platform is however completely 'normal' and above reproach.

 

[68degrees]

Taking his picture is normal because he is so unusual. No body can call you creepy for taking his photo because its apparent why you are taking his photo. When you take someone photo and there is no apparent reason to take it because only you see something photo interesting about them, then it can appear creepy to others.

Ive thought about this kind of photography before and if I were going to do it I ask a few women to go along with me to provide social proof that I was not a creep. IMO there is no better defense against the social political correctness BS trend. Have to fight fire with fire. or have the risk of false allegations and white knights coming up wanting to engage.
If you are with a group of women and especially attractive women this wont happen.

 

[sepiareverb]

If you are with a group of women and especially attractive women this wont happen.

Quite a posse you must have

 

[airfrogusmc]

When you take someone photo and there is no apparent reason to take it because only you see something photo interesting about them, then it can appear creepy to others.

First, why would you care if others think you're creepy. I couldn't care less as long as what I am doing is legal and not hurting anyone. This type of work is not easy and confrontation from time to time comes with the territory. How you handle it can almost be an art form in itself (LoL)

Most of my work is as much about leading lines, repeating shapes and other visual elements as it is about subject. Like in the photograph you mentioned, I like things to be happening in the background to support the subject and sometimes when i get real lucky the image is making a statement about or society. In this case everyone is on a portable device and everyone is taking photographs (see the car)

Its hard enough to capture moments when you're all alone and it would be nearly impossible with group of people.

 

[jsrockit]

Precisely. Yet, apparently, it can be very traumatic to have someone you can see take your photograph with a still camera. Having yourself videotaped at every gas pump and ATM and grocery store and toll booth and train platform is however completely 'normal' and above reproach.

Well, the difference is intent. You can confront an individual and ask them WTF they are doing... you cannot confront a camera in a gas tank (well, you can, but what's the point). I photograph strangers, so I get your side, but there is a difference.

 

[sepiareverb]

Well, the difference is intent.

Artistic expression or spying, which one seems less offensive to you?

 

[pieter]

Obviously it is impossible to find both offensive?

Weird kind of argument. We're not talking about security camera's, but about street photography. Or else the argument would be:
With people dying from hunger all over the world, why are people getting upset with somebody taking a picture of them on the street. Or, for that matter, about a security camera pointing at the street they happen to walk on.
Surely we can all agree there are more important issues in this world to get mad about!

This, we can keep up untill we reach a consensus on what is the most logical thing to get upset about...

 

[lukitas]

I have a feeling this general aversion to 'being taken a picture of' is a rather new phenomenon. I remember quite a few scowls and 'don't take my picture's from 10 and 20 years ago, but it didn't happen quite as much as now.
The other day a couple of girls (nothing special, just skinny teenagers) told me that 'is not done' to take pictures like that. I became quite pissy, told 'em that it was, we were in a public space, and sunlight is free.
This obsession with not having your picture taken seems to have grown with the proliferation of security cameras, and it irks, because there is no logic to it. Security camera's are there to see you doing something wrong, whereas I want you to do something right, even if it is only being in the right spot for my frame.
Another factor must be what the french call 'pipol' culture(derived from people) : paparazzi chasing celebrities. It has taught people to think of the business end of a lens as an intrusion.
For the person who is photographed, it is personal. For me, the guy who clicks the button, it doesn't have to be personal at all. You are only an element in my composition, and I will be thankful if I think you made my photo, but after all, you are only an anonymous who happens to find him or herself in the photo of another anonymous, who bewails the fact that much too few people appreciate his of her photos.

Who is the owner of a photograph? The person in the picture or the photographer?
In the days of painting, it was more simple. If you paid a painter, the picture was yours, but it had his signature. If a painter made a picture without getting a commission, that picture was obviously his, and any of the sketches he made towards making your portrait were the painter's as well.
Now we have people who get paid for getting their picture taken, people who are being pursued for getting their picture, people who feel they are on camera all the time. It's confusing.
I'll just go on and take pictures of people on the streets. (most of them land in the bin anyway). Light is free. If I can see you, so can anyone else, and unless you are a celebrity, your picture will just get lost in the morass of forgotten pictures.

 

[noisycheese]

This obsession with not having your picture taken seems to have grown with the proliferation of security cameras, and it irks, because there is no logic to it.

My thought exactly.

But then again, logic is not exactly experiencing a renaissance these days.

 

[jsrockit]

Artistic expression or spying, which one seems less offensive to you?

Both can be offensive... most of the world doesn't really care about someone's artistic expression. However, you cannot really do anything about security cams, but you can do something about an individual being in your business.

Don't get me wrong, I'm on the streets a lot photographing in NYC. People sometimes think I'm photographing them just because my camera is around my neck. Even when I have the lens cap on, they mistake the windows in my rangefinder or fuji x camera as lenses. They do not think... they don't realize that the camera bouncing up and down when on my neck would not get me great photos. They don't realize that you have to remove the lenscap, turn it on, and actually push a button to make it work. They are just paranoid that an indivdual might be taking advantage of their image for weird purposes on the internet. They NEVER think it's about art.

When someone comes up to me and asks me what I am doing (when I'm photographing something), I just say, I making a photograph. Then they ask why? My answer is - because I like photography. You'd think people would realize this, but most truly don't think about making art. Art is dead to most people. Don't forget that most people's idea of what photography is, is sunsets, calendars, and celebrities, not street photography.

 

[DNG]

Don't get me wrong, I'm on the streets a lot photographing in NYC. People sometimes think I'm photographing them just because my camera is around my neck. Even when I have the lens cap on, they mistake the windows in my rangefinder or fuji x camera as lenses. They do not think... they don't realize that the camera bouncing up and down when on my neck would not get me great photos. They don't realize that you have to remove the lenscap, turn it on, and actually push a button to make it work. They are just paranoid that an indivdual might be taking advantage of their image for weird purposes on the internet. They NEVER think it's about art.

When someone comes up to me and asks me what I am doing (when I'm photographing something), I just say, I making a photograph. Then they ask why? My answer is - because I like photography. You'd think people would realize this, but most truly don't think about making art. Art is dead to most people. Don't forget that most people's idea of what photography is, is sunsets, calendars, and celebrities, not street photography.

So True !!!!

 

[Monochrom]

the only thing i know at the moment is i should be bolder....i´m still loosing lots of pics due to my shyness.

...candid when nobody cares, permission when people is paranoid....but i never take pics of children or babies...