The world has changed Street Photography

[Erik van Straten]

A few years ago in The Netherlands it was forbidden to take pictures in shopping malls. Now that everyone makes selfies with an iPhone this prohibition seems to be forgotten.

Leica I model A, Elmar 50mm f/3.5, 400-2TMY.

Erik.

 

[PKR]

I always found being a rather thick, tattooed and scary looking man allowed me a whole lot of breathing room 😉

I was visiting some business friends after business hours. I buy my pelican cases from these folks. A good client called asking to come in after hours. A big Lincoln pulled up and the guy was let in. He's dressed in expensive athletic clothing. So, they are talking and the customer turns a little and I see the butt of a H&K poke out of his pants waste band.

That works too.

Turns out he was buying cases for 3 sniper rifles. The guy was head of security for a very rich hedge fund trader.

 

[PKR]

I reckon I'll just try and be more open, less sneaky. I've had people eyeball me after shooting them and a smile tends to see them off. I just struggle sometimes to maintain that decorum when really I just want to tell them to stop looking at me, which would of course be hypocritical and counter-productive.

It's okay for you to photograph them, but it's NOT okay for them to "look at you" afterward?

 

[ptpdprinter]

Yep with this mentality there would be no The Americans by Robert Frank, none of Winogrands wonderful images. Diane Arbus, forget about a lot of her work. Bresson is another. No Subway by Bruce Davidson. Glad none of those were in agreement with your ethics.

Robert Frank's The Americans was published in 1958; Henri Cartier-Bresson abandoned photography in 1966; Diane Arbus died in 1971, and Bruce Davidson's Subway was published in 1980. The examples you cite are all from at least 35 years ago. The question is not whether their historical works are extrordinary, but whether society's attitude toward street photography has changed in the intervening years so as to jeopardize the vitality of the genre.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Robert Frank's The Americans was published in 1958; Henri Cartier-Bresson abandoned photography in 1966; Diane Arbus died in 1971, and Bruce Davidson's Subway was published in 1980. The examples you cite are all from at least 35 years ago. The question is not whether their historical works are extrordinary, but whether society's attitude toward street photography has changed in the intervening years so as to jeopardize the vitality of the genre.

Why would their times be in more important than ours?

My point is if they had followed someone else's ideas of what should be photographed or not the work might not exist.

No one has the right to dictate how others should see and record the world around them. Is landscape photography less valid than when Weston and Adam captured it? Is portraiture no longer valid because Newman did it a half century ago?

 

[ptpdprinter]

Why would their times be in more important than ours?

My point is if they had followed someone else's ideas of what should be photographed or not the work might not exist.

No one has the right to dictate how others should see and record the world around them. Is landscape photography less valid than when Weston and Adam captured it? Is portraiture no longer valid because Newman did it a half century ago?

The issue in the thread was not the validity of the genre but the changing attitudes of society and individuals toward having their photographs taken in public places. Landscapes do not object when you take their photograph and portraiture is by its nature consensual.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Read the post I was responding to #191

If folks like Frank would have listened to that advice The Americans would not exist.

When I first started working on the streets in the early 1980s I was always being hassled and I stuck out because i was the only one shooting on the streets then. Now I can't walk a block in Chicago and not see several other photographers. People really pay little attention because cameras are everywhere. 35 years ago everyone was aware when they saw me and my camera because there weren't many out there doing it. Things have changed a lot but I find it a lot easier today than I did 30+ years ago. I also feel today's times and all the moments in it are no more or less valid than those times and moments of the past and should be open to record just as they were in the past. I think the challenge as it was then is to find a way to say something about it in an individual way.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Why would their times be in more important than ours?

My point is if they had followed someone else's ideas of what should be photographed or not the work might not exist.

No one has the right to dictate how others should see and record the world around them. Is landscape photography less valid than when Weston and Adam captured it? Is portraiture no longer valid because Newman did it a half century ago?

Ask yourself: are we dealing with rational people here?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

.. . portraiture is by its nature consensual.

Really? Why?

And even if it were, exactly how is that consent given or withheld?

Cheers,

R.

 

[PKR]

Really? Why?

And even if it were, exactly how is that consent given or withheld?

Cheers,

R.

Yeah, Mr. Morgan, was that a knife in your hand? I don't think Steichen liked Morgan. Consent was given until Morgan saw the photo. I guess he could have had Steichen killed, but that would have been too obvious.

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/49.55.167/

OT: way before PhotoShop.

 

[ptpdprinter]

Really? Why? And even if it were, exactly how is that consent given or withheld?

By the subject agreeing to sit for the portrait, and generally paying the photographer. Arnold Newman was held up as the example of a portrait photographer to which I responded.

 

[PKR]

By the subject agreeing to sit for the portrait, and generally paying the photographer. Arnold Newman was held up as the example of a portrait photographer to which I responded.

Newman's photo of Alfred Krupp.. same story as Steichen and Morgan I would think?

https://iconicphotos.org/2009/05/05/alfred-krupp/

 

[Roger Hicks]

By the subject agreeing to sit for the portrait, and generally paying the photographer. Arnold Newman was held up as the example of a portrait photographer to which I responded.

That's the only style of portraiture?

Wheeeee...

R.

 

[ptpdprinter]

That's the only style of portraiture?

Wheeeee...

R.

The any photograph of a person is a portrait school?

 

[airfrogusmc]

Newman's photo of Alfred Krupp.. same story as Steichen and Morgan I would think?

https://iconicphotos.org/2009/05/05/alfred-krupp/

That's what I was think'n.

 

[airfrogusmc]

The any photograph of a person is a portrait school?

And again I would rather others not push their morals and ethics on anyone else. No one really has the right to tell others what they should see or create.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The any photograph of a person is a portrait school?

By one very limited definition, yes. By a vastly more limited (but different) definition, it's only a portrait when the subject consents and (ideally, in your view) pays the photographer.

As I fairly clearly implied, there are many kinds of portraits.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

And again I would rather others not push their morals and ethics on anyone else. No one really has the right to tell others what they should see or create.

Well, actually, we do. It's up to the recipient of the advice whether he/she accepts it.

Cheers,

R.

 

[kiss-o-matic]

I'm a 250 6'2" former Marine and I have some ink but what is normal? I think if you act like you belong there and treat others with respect you should be OK. I only have problems once in a while. And I actually get noticed less now than I did in the 70s and 80s when I was the only one wit ha camera on the streets. Leica Ms also help some especially when everyone else has big DSLRs. They seem to be getting most of the attention.

What neighborhood are you in usually these days? I try to take advantage of the ridiculous amount of sunlight after work, but am pretty busy unfortunately.

I'm 6'3" white guy with long hair and a beard. Jesus-y, if you will. Tatoo is not visible. I've done the majority of my shooting in Tokyo, where I have ALWAYS stuck out like a sore thumb. I still find a way blend in. Here in Chicago, it's a bit easier, but people are more likely to go off and explain to you why you're wrong.