Street photography: With prior permission or candid?

[bogdanb]

Street photography is a form of artistic creation whose value is recognized by society. If society - through its institutions such as the museums, the ministries of culture or the universities - recognizes that what Bresson or Gilden did is legitimate, it should also deem legitimate what the photographers that shoot in the same manner do.

 

[noisycheese]

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 !!!!

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.

 

[zauhar]

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.

A number of excellent points, all very well stated.

As an educator, I can attest that there is relentless pressure on schools and colleges to teach "skills" (as opposed to independent thinking), along with whatever asinine bullish-it the Human Resources parasites have cooked up. I teach at a science-oriented university, so the "skills" part is natural; but at the same time we have corporate donors promising money if we also teach "leadership" and "teamwork", meaning we should train the students how to follow orders and behave as passive robots.

The lashing out at street photographers is a symptom of a cowed and powerless population. Their every move is scrutinized, and they can't stop it - but point a camera at them openly and honestly and they suddenly have a target.

Perhaps documenting that violent reaction is a worthwhile thing in itself?

Randy

 

[Exdsc]

In case people constantly get annoyed with someone's street photography is not because the society has become stupid, paranoid and other typical catch phrases and soundbites.

The reason people get annoyed is because the street photographer in question dose not know what he/she is doing.

Truth is quite often a lot more simple and stupid.

 

[zauhar]

In case people constantly get annoyed with someone's street photography is not because the society has become stupid, paranoid and other typical catch phrases and soundbites.

The reason people get annoyed is because the street photographer in question dose not know what he/she is doing.

Truth is quite often a lot more simple and stupid.

Wow! Nice to know that the problem is all me. (But isn't it always?)

Brings to mind the kid who shouted at me after I walked past him and his friends with a small camera in my hand (IIIf), having neither raised the camera, nor even glanced in their direction. Since this could not have been the product of the young man's paranoia or stupidity, maybe you could enlighten me as to what I did wrong?

Randy

 

[Exdsc]

When it comes to street photography, exercising one's hobby/pleasure at the expense/images of others, the problem is always with the photographer.

If people are hated so much, why photograph them?

 

[gb hill]

Wow! Nice to know that the problem is all me. (But isn't it always?)

Brings to mind the kid who shouted at me after I walked past him and his friends with a small camera in my hand (IIIf), having neither raised the camera, nor even glanced in their direction. Since this could not have been the product of the young man's paranoia or stupidity, maybe you could enlighten me as to what I did wrong?

Randy

That's quite funny (In a laughing sense) I was walking by a group of young teens yesterday & they shouted at me "hey sir wanna take out picture"

I did. Then took down a email address to send the photo later, explaining that I was shooting film. They seemed fascinated that I was able to transfer the film to digital.

Another thing I learned yesterday, young girls don't carry pens or pencils in their purses. I didn't have a pen with me but remembered I have a notebook feature in my cell. Technology...boy I'm an old fuddy dutty.

 

[Tati]

no rules
very rarely ask permission
I don't hide my camera or my intentions

This is about it for me too.

I do find kids more open and unafraid of being photographed than adults. Some adults are fine with it. Some adults are so threatened that their reactions seem psychotic to me.

So far, at least to my knowledge, I haven't stolen anyone's soul.

 

[zauhar]

That's quite funny (In a laughing sense) I was walking by a group of young teens yesterday & they shouted at me "hey sir wanna take out picture"

I did. Then took down a email address to send the photo later, explaining that I was shooting film. They seemed fascinated that I was able to transfer the film to digital.

Another thing I learned yesterday, young girls don't carry pens or pencils in their purses. I didn't have a pen with me but remembered I have a notebook feature in my cell. Technology...boy I'm an old fuddy dutty.

Greg I likewise have had kids ask me to take their photo, I shouldn't make it sound like they are all aggressive.

And yes, kids rely on the phones, not paper. There is a certain set of weirdos though who insist on doing things the old-fashioned way, thank God for them.

Randy

 

[noisycheese]

When it comes to street photography, exercising one's hobby/pleasure at the expense/images of others, the problem is always with the photographer.

If people are hated so much, why photograph them?

Interesting.

For someone who is a member of a photography forum, you apparently have quite a large axe to grind with your fellow image makers.


I have never seen such a "blame the photographer first" outlook - in a photographer, at least. Your animosity and negativity toward street photographers is quite puzzling.

 

[somebodysb2]

Interesting.

For someone who is a member of a photography forum, you apparently have quite a large axe to grind with your fellow image makers.


I have never seen such a "blame the photographer first" outlook - in a photographer, at least. Your animosity and negativity toward street photographers is quite puzzling.

The photographer is intruder, so common curtesy is key. Lazy excuses like "I am an artist" don't cut it. Waxing poetic BS about why the public "doesn't understand" is pathetic.

PS: Whenever I point fingers, I usually forget what actually needs fixing in me.

 

[noisycheese]

The photographer is intruder, so common curtesy is key. Lazy excuses like "I am an artist" don't cut it. Waxing poetic BS about why the public "doesn't understand" is pathetic.

PS: Whenever I point fingers, I usually forget what actually needs fixing in me.

Wow.

The irony of such a statement - coming on the heels of branding others as pathetic - is truly staggering.

 

[somebodysb2]

Wow.

The irony of such a statement - coming on the heels of branding others as pathetic - is truly staggering.

You can interpret it that way, or you could interpret it the other way.

Whatever you want

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

How could a photographer possibly know if the moment is unguarded, if they are photographing strangers? Photographers are not instant shrinks.

But, hey: if it doesn't "tell a story", it ain't nothin' A story provided by instant shrinks, I may add

 

[jsrockit]

Interesting.

For someone who is a member of a photography forum, you apparently have quite a large axe to grind with your fellow image makers.

I don't see it that way. We all do it, but you have to admit that you are getting into someone else's business when you are photographing them without them knowing.

I have never seen such a "blame the photographer first" outlook - in a photographer, at least. Your animosity and negativity toward street photographers is quite puzzling.

Who should be blamed? Are you saying photographing strangers can never be considered intrusive?

 

[Exdsc]

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.

 

[JChrome]

The photographer is intruder, so common curtesy is key. Lazy excuses like "I am an artist" don't cut it. Waxing poetic BS about why the public "doesn't understand" is pathetic.

PS: Whenever I point fingers, I usually forget what actually needs fixing in me.

I have a hard time believing that a street photographer is an "intruder" when photographing on the street. The point of photography in the public is that it is... In the public. I don't accept the argument that being photographed while in public is an intrusion but rather is one of those things that you have to accept because you're in public. It's the 21st century and the law is very clear. Let's accept street photography like we accept CCTV.

 

[mugent]

Another vote for this very succinct summary. ALWAYS asking permission destroys spontaneity. NEVER asking permission destroys humanity.

Cheers,

R.

Summed up pretty damn well.

I don't do 'street' photos, but if I did, I'd ask myself if I would mind being in the same situation, usually, no, I wouldn't mind, but if someone jumped from behind a wall and fired a flash in my face, yeah, I'd mind.

It's a whole grey area, just try to be nice to your fellow humans.

 

[mugent]

I have a hard time believing that a street photographer is an "intruder" when photographing on the street. The point of photography in the public is that it is... In the public. I don't accept the argument that being photographed while in public is an intrusion but rather is one of those things that you have to accept because you're in public. It's the 21st century and the law is very clear. Let's accept street photography like we accept CCTV.

Agreed, walking around in public places, you have to accept your privacy is limited, but there is a difference between being captured on film/sensor, and having a camera in your face invading your personal space (which I believe we still have, even in busy cities)

 

[noisycheese]

I have a hard time believing that a street photographer is an "intruder" when photographing on the street. The point of photography in the public is that it is... In the public. I don't accept the argument that being photographed while in public is an intrusion but rather is one of those things that you have to accept because you're in public. It's the 21st century and the law is very clear. Let's accept street photography like we accept CCTV.

Hear, hear!!

As in all other things, people's druthers must conform to the law, not the other way around - and in the U.S., the supreme law is the U.S. Constitution.

The First Amendment is a central provision of that supreme law.