arseniii
Well-known
Never ran into any issue with street photography in Toronto, Montreal, NYC or Europe. I guess it might be different in more conservative provinces (states). The thing is the street becomes less and less interesting each ear, people all dress the same boring way, look at their smartphones all the time and don't do much stuff outside anymore but sitting on their assess at home with iPads (like I do right now). The new gen will probably won't even bother to go out: doing a video call instead. Death of human communication is what is the problem
uhoh7
Veteran
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
In unfamiliar territory I prefer to use a Rolleiflex. Most people I come across don't know what it is and others find it cool and strike up a conversation with me. I had a blast shooting with the Rollei in NYC with people reacting in amusement. Regarding aesthetics, I have always made it a point never shoot people in the back with rare exceptions unless the photo works. In the modern age I don't shoot people when they are staring into their phones but they are everywhere. I see too many shots of young girls with their phones. Must be a new fetish or a new definition of low hanging fruit.
kshapero
South Florida Man
kuuan
loves old lenses
besides all the paranoia created by politicians to gather the sheep into their herd the internet certainly has changed things. I have had people in rather touristic places in Asia covering their faces just because they don't want to end up on the internet. ( there was an example in a recent thread of very good travel pics taken in Hanoi, and I am quite sure that it was taken in 'the Old Quarters', a touristic area where shopkeepers are 'subject' to having their picture taken almost on a daily basis )
Around Asia in most places there still is a lot of life on the street, in comparison people in cities 'in the west' appear like an anonymous mass. Taking photos in western cities, if showing scenes, not hunting for weird expressions, I feel more at ease than in places with a lot of street life where taking photos always means, though viewable in public, showing more intimacy.
Ok, one has the privilege of being a tourist, or one may be of 'higher class' and therefore the 'subject' deems not having the power to protest - e.g. once was out shooting with a local photographer in a market in Saigon and he simply 'ordered' an old, poor woman sitting on the street, she only had a basket with a few things to sell in front of her, how to pose. She complied without any sign of emotions.. Imo giving respect is important, in the case of the market woman more than she expects! - Around Asia I usually ask before taking a photo and I find it much easier to do candids when I am back e.g. in Vienna.
I find it remarkable that we, well, not sure if you too, but many seem to be hesitant to show a photo online of somebody we know well, or wouldn't at all, but care less if it is a stranger.
Around Asia in most places there still is a lot of life on the street, in comparison people in cities 'in the west' appear like an anonymous mass. Taking photos in western cities, if showing scenes, not hunting for weird expressions, I feel more at ease than in places with a lot of street life where taking photos always means, though viewable in public, showing more intimacy.
Ok, one has the privilege of being a tourist, or one may be of 'higher class' and therefore the 'subject' deems not having the power to protest - e.g. once was out shooting with a local photographer in a market in Saigon and he simply 'ordered' an old, poor woman sitting on the street, she only had a basket with a few things to sell in front of her, how to pose. She complied without any sign of emotions.. Imo giving respect is important, in the case of the market woman more than she expects! - Around Asia I usually ask before taking a photo and I find it much easier to do candids when I am back e.g. in Vienna.
I find it remarkable that we, well, not sure if you too, but many seem to be hesitant to show a photo online of somebody we know well, or wouldn't at all, but care less if it is a stranger.
rscheffler
Well-known
This was an interesting read in The Atlantic: The Coddling of the American Mind
The apparent irony about people being suspicious about photographs of them but not by them ending up on FB, etc., yet they're endlessly snapping selfies posted to FB is IMO about control, or lack thereof. Similar to corporate and government PR departments, the individual is concerned about controlling their 'message' or their 'brand' resulting in reluctance to participate in something over which they have little control. Another explanation could be they are suspicious about their likeness being used to promote something with which they don't agree, or for someone else's commercial gain, from which they won't benefit.
That's an interesting point and one with which I can certainly relate.
calebarchie
Established
Maybe we are all looking at it the wrong way.
If we are documenting contemporary society (on the streets) then not much has changed regarding photography. It just that society has changed, and when future generations look back on our period maybe then they will realise how bland or not bland it was compared to where they are through our photos.
If we are seeking photos resembling a past time then it really isn't an accurate reflection, perhaps this is where the 'street photography' term has evolved (hence the difficulties).
If this is the case, you would be more of an artist than a photojournalist and that requires a certain temperament that will allow you to perform regardless.
If we are documenting contemporary society (on the streets) then not much has changed regarding photography. It just that society has changed, and when future generations look back on our period maybe then they will realise how bland or not bland it was compared to where they are through our photos.
If we are seeking photos resembling a past time then it really isn't an accurate reflection, perhaps this is where the 'street photography' term has evolved (hence the difficulties).
If this is the case, you would be more of an artist than a photojournalist and that requires a certain temperament that will allow you to perform regardless.
f16sunshine
Moderator
The 70's and 80's sure look cool now.
When a young adult in the 90's it was embarasingly boring to see those pictures from my own childhood era.
So yes... It takes some time for docuentation photography to become interesting and meaningful in a nostalgic or historic way.
That history gives a good reason to document the next ....one our time now.
Any street photography will be better than a collection of selfies !
Everyone keep looking and taking pictures
__jc
Well-known
Just to get back to the original concern of the thread...
My experience in Melbourne, Australia has been strongly supportive of item 2 above.
Now you may think that my icon is representative of the true Johnny Scarecrow but I can assure you that it's not. I am actually clean-shaven, neatly dressed and very polite. In fact my icon was chosen as a kind of tongue-in-cheek response to the way I've been finding I'm viewed when in the streets with Leica in hand.
The last five times I've been out street shooting I've been subject to verbal abuse and/or remonstration on four occasions. And there were instances scattered through various other occasions before that, probably stretching back five years or so.
The last time, it was when I decided I'd like to spend a pleasant Sunday a few weeks ago photographing in a crowd where a local dance festival was taking place. As I was sitting changing film at one point a security guy stood over me and told me to stop shooting girls (who, admittedly, accounted for probably half of the gender that I had been photographing) and - at this over-18 only festival - accused me of being a "paedophile".
Now I've read various responses in this thread suggesting I should have told him to go and make love to himself, and to please call the cops etc (which I actually did do but he wouldn't), but instead I just sat there and felt how incredibly sad it was that we have come to this.
I am 59 years old and, like the OP, have been photographing in the streets for forty years.
The week after the incident above happened, I went to hospital following a heart attack.
I am not suggesting that the things are related - in fact I don't think they are. But - that's "it" for me photographing people in the street. I won't bother doing it any more. Not in Melbourne at least. A few years ago I had a wonderful time in Oaxaca, Mexico photographing in the streets as part of a workshop with lovely Mary Ellen Mark, with whom I kept in touch until her death. And a couple of years before that, I shot in the streets in India, and England, the USA and Spain, France etc. I'll shoot again in the streets when I travel - or at least I'll try. But never again in Melbourne.
Have "they" won? Is this due to some big brother conspiracy of fear? There are others here obviously more driven and/or better qualified than I to ponder such questions. I can only talk for myself and my own outlook, and I don't care about "them" or conspiracies. I care about my enjoyment of something I love.
Likewise, there are others here that seem immune to being hassled in the streets, as was I for maybe thirty five years. More strength to you folks, and I hope it always stays the same for you. We actually need to have street photos, because what happens on the streets largely illustrates who we really are.
Yes it is, at least in parts, a different world, a different paradigm. But we can adapt. One of the lessons these last few weeks has reinforced in me - both from my own experience and from learning of world events - is that we have opportunities in our lives today that may not be there tomorrow.
For my own part, I choose to no longer subject myself to unreasonable behaviour from stupid people who don't know me, so it is not a big deal for me to find other things to photograph in my home town. Call it a challenge.
phatnev
Well-known
What's your secret?
I dress well, I act like I belong, I don't hide what I'm doing, I smile and I move along. If someone wants to chat, no problem at all, if you can engage with the subject even better.
robert blu
quiet photographer
We like or not times changed...we cannot compare HCB times with our times...it's sad but this is the reality...yes, there is too much paranoia around and we have to deal with it...sometimes I asked people if I can take of photo of them and positive answers are I would say 50 %, but if I ask them if I can publish that on Internet, on my blog most of times the answer is no.
Probably they are the same people who ten minutes later publish their own selfie...
But times dictate how we (should?) relate with other people, their opinions, their fears...for me the fact I can do ti is not enough to do it if this disturbs anyone else...
robert
phatnev
Well-known
I guess it may be different because you're older, but who cares? Why does it bother you? If someone yells at you, smile and move on. You're not doing anything wrong, you're not breaking the law, so they can't do anything legally to stop you. I doubt everyone Bruce Gilden photographs responds politely.
I got chased by a homeless man with a knife down Pennsylvania Ave in 2006 for- get this - taking his friend's photo. I didn't even photograph knife ****. It certainly didn't stop me, just made me laugh and gave me a great story. Same thing when riot police shot at me with bean bags and rubber bullets while I was covering the G20 for my college paper. Or was pepper sprayed and nearly run over by horse mounted police during a post-Super Bowl riot.
If it's not worth it for you that's fine and I completely respect that, but I would never let naysayers stop me from doing something I love. Stay strong!
kuuan
loves old lenses
One may be hesitant, out of convenience, to think my point through. But doing so it's apparent that we show more respect to people that are close to us and that we do not grant the same attention to preserving personal integrity to strangers. One may say this is justified, but is it?
In the context of differing levels of respect I want to point again to something which may be a bit of a tabu in our modern, egalitarian societies, but which nevertheless also exist there: The perceived social level, the 'caste', so to speak, of both the photographer and the photographed and the right or lack thereof being deducted from it. Or why did some of you mention that, when out shooting on the street, you dress 'nicely'?
Once I saw a documentary of HCB 'shooting' in a market in Paris, I think it was. He was all 'Sir' and there were his subjects, toiling market women and all looked natural. However I am quite sure, would I see someone 'sneaking on his prey' as he did then but today, that I'd view him as a bit of a weirdo. Todays modern societies are more egalitarian, that has changed things.
I wonder, wouldn't it be best, in the end, if we showed the same respect to a stranger than we do to a friend? Once I had posted photos of people I had just met, later they became close friends and that had made me delete some of the previously posted photos.
----
Having said all that, if I had asked if I could take the photo I usually also take the liberty to post that photo online. I assume that they know that it might end up on the internet and that agreeing having their photo taken also is agreeing to that. I would not post a photo that shows somebody in an obvious unfavourable way though.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
I wasn't going to post this link here, knowing it would rankle most people here, but what the heck!
http://joevancleave.blogspot.com/2015/11/there-is-no-street-photography.html?m=0
This is strictly my own opinion, of course, but my contention is that there is no street photography. What there is, is social documentary, and urban landscape.
What we call "street" is either social documentary that happens to occur in an urban setting, or urban landscape that happens to include people.
If any of us desire to make images of people in public, it would help tremendously to think of it as social documentary photography, instead of this imaginary thing called "street". Which implies that we therefore have a responsibility to the subject to treat them as humans, to first develop some form of relationship, or at least provide a wider context than their physical countenance being a mere photographic subject like a vase or sculpture.
~Joe
http://joevancleave.blogspot.com/2015/11/there-is-no-street-photography.html?m=0
This is strictly my own opinion, of course, but my contention is that there is no street photography. What there is, is social documentary, and urban landscape.
What we call "street" is either social documentary that happens to occur in an urban setting, or urban landscape that happens to include people.
If any of us desire to make images of people in public, it would help tremendously to think of it as social documentary photography, instead of this imaginary thing called "street". Which implies that we therefore have a responsibility to the subject to treat them as humans, to first develop some form of relationship, or at least provide a wider context than their physical countenance being a mere photographic subject like a vase or sculpture.
~Joe
I get it, but it is easier to just move on to another photo... you won't change the world one interaction at a time. I'm just one nobody that doesn't have the power the media has. Luckily I live in NYC where there is so much to photograph, so I just don't stress it if someone is being ridiculous. That said, I never say I'm doing something wrong. I just understand if someone doesn't want their photo taken as well.
kuuan
loves old lenses
very interesting article, thank you very much for that!
facebook ( or 'fakelook'?
) is all about creating and perpetuating a certain image of oneself. There even seems to exist an unwritten agreement, one only posts photos of others if it shows them in an universal, happy, successful, peace and enjoyment posegns
Well-known
If people are so full of suspicion, fear and concern for privacy, why not make your street photography about that. Maybe it's more of an opportunity than a problem.
Hsg
who dares wins
Before any other definition, street photography is photography.
This is what people forget.
uhoh7
Veteran
TY for that. I like your bemused attitude. I think many of use are just as over-sensitive as some of our subjects. You alot pack into few words. What stands out to me: I dress well, I smile and move along. I imagine you are a pretty quick shooter too, and not that HCB is any god, he was pretty fast. But he did hide what he was doing. I think this is one point where many good street shooters differ. Of course, there is a difference between "hiding what you are doing" and your subject aware he/she is the subject at the time of the shot.
This is one of the great demarcations of street work I think, those which recognize the photographer and those which don't. You can see very interesting work in both genres, like lukitas shot above, but I generally prefer the photographer be "out of it" it terms of the attention of the subjects:
You by unoh7, on Flickr
This was an experiment for me. I have a new to me nikkor 300/2.8 EDIF, which is an unbelievable lens, but huge and long. So you are an obvious photographer. But you can stand back a bit and yet enter interactions. Of course DOF is out of the question at any aperture.
The whole look is different of course, and I switched from 75 to 35 on my other body to give me that more classic street perspective.
L1041735 by unoh7, on Flickr
Bottomline: I loved it. But I'm weird, for example i far prefer color
kiss-o-matic
Well-known
Something like this sadly does happen... but I mean... what can you do? Assume everyone has a stalker?
I was trying to position myself to take a photo in HK a couple of years ago and another white **** took it upon himself to awkwardly stare at me all the while and of course spoil the whole shot. I bet that guy got all the girls...
I get a little disdain from time to time, but it helps that I don't look like a creepy weirdo (just a non-creepy one). I generally dress somewhat fashionably, which allows me to blend in a little better. If I wanted to go to a shady part of town, I always have scruff and can mangle the long hair and fit in there as well. Never bothered yet though.