Ashamed to be photographed?

Aggie · Jun 24, 2006

So by not wanting my picture taken, I'm small minded and ashamed? Get a life! You are making assertions based on what you think. Have you ever asked one of those people why they didn't want to be photographed? Each person has their own reasons for and against it. I'm often in situations where I have my picture taken quite a bit. Until recently not many avialed themselves of it. Why now as opposed to back then? It goes both ways. Why do you photograph some people and not others? Before you start making those innane asuprsions again, look at all sides of it. It also might surprise you to find out there is not one answer for everyone.

firecracker · Jun 24, 2006

There's only one condition that matters to me is photographing the scene of a protest. Police use available photos as a record. They snach pretty much anyone who's been engaged and/or has witnessed in the activity, and they more than often use the record against certain individuals, unlawfully.

So, when I'm at the scene, I just fly away with my camera as fast as I can.

Helen B · Jun 24, 2006

Roger Hicks said:
Dear Helen,

Can't quite see your argument.

First, would you dismiss Cartier-Bresson as shallow? Because I can't believe he always 'engaged with' his subjects in the sense of talking to them first, etc. Likewise Brandt, Bourke-White, Brassai, Rai, most of the staff of Picture Post...

Second, who decides what is 'shallow'?

Third, even if it is 'shallow', what do you lose by being in it?

Cheers,

Roger

Hi Roger,

"How do others feel about this? And how do they feel about people who feel they have some sort of right not to be photographed?"

You originally asked questions about feelings, not about rational arguments, so I wrote about my feelings.

A lot of people take pictures of me. I live in a tourist-filled city and I look rather odd. One of my main reactions to being photographed is mild amusement. Maybe you didn't see the smile on my face as I wrote my response, and ended with "That's what I don't like: being a part of a shallow photo." It's a feeling, you know. It's part of what I find amusing about being a photographer photographed, and there is the associated implication that a photograph that has me as the subject is necessarily shallow. You missed that one, didn't you? Does that put a different perspective on my definition of shallow? I'm not going to use one of those damned smiley faces forgoodnesssake. I'm British, dammit. Standards to keep and all that.

I was referring to the gutless. An analogy with Weegee is clearly inappropriate. I see plenty of guts in Weegee's photographs.

Engaging or connecting with the subject does not imply talking to them, of course, and wouldn't always be appropriate.

Bourke-White? A dilettante*.

Best,
Helen

*Just my opinion.

unregistered · Jun 25, 2006

Roger Hicks said:
Alexis Neel said:

First you're going to have to explain "pusillanimous". Only $.25 words allowed here...no $1.00 ones
QUOTE]

Lit: 'small minded' (from the Latin)

By extension: bloody-minded, Jobsworth ('more than my job's worth, that is, mate'), awkward, not too bright.

I think the late Tony H...H... 'Ancock used it quite a lot.

Cheers,

Roger

Click to expand...

huh? stop speaking British...use American. The TRUE version of English.

Markok765 · Jun 25, 2006

Alexis Neel said:
Roger Hicks said:

huh? stop speaking British...use American. The TRUE version of English.

Click to expand...

Quiet you american

unregistered · Jun 25, 2006

Markok765 said:
Alexis Neel said:

Quiet you american

Click to expand...

Canuckian

Markok765 · Jun 25, 2006

Alexis Neel said:
Markok765 said:

Canuckian

Click to expand...

Thats Croatian moved to canada to you

David H. Bebbington · Jun 25, 2006

For me, the whole area of street photography (candids of people) is history. In HCB's time, people in general had very little awareness of miniature cameras as serious picture-taking instruments and even less of the ramifications of intellectual property and the ways pictures can be exploited. Today, the pendulum has swung completely the other way, and people are grotesquely over-suspicious of being photographed (although not completely without reason, given the proliferation of official surveillance, pornography, idiots with their "up skirt" cameras, paparazzo work, etc.), Against this background, the facts of the matter (e.g. paparazzi have no interest whatsoever in non-celebrities, photography in public places, even of children, is legal, etc.) pale into insignificance.

My attitude (as someone who was greatly inspired by HCB et alia as a young man) is simple: In moral terms, street photography is more likely than not to cause offense and confrontation, and in commercial and artistic terms, I do not wish to expend any effort amassing a body of work which includes recognizable images of members of the public and which therefore most if not all professional photography buyers will reject out of hand and refuse to use without a signed model release for every recognizable person in the picture in question.

I made an attempt ten or so years ago to do some contemporary street photography within the legal parameters then applicable (now much worse) and learned a hard lesson - buyers at numerous picture agencies expressed admiration for the work but said for legal reasons they could not use it (even pictures without people but including signs were rejected for intellectual property reasons). If anyone is interested, this is the "Parallax Perspectives" series on my website.

Ultimately, I do not want to offend anyone, and I do want to enjoy an easy life - accordingly, no more street photography for me!

Regards,

David

copake_ham · Jun 25, 2006

Roger,

I'm a bit fearful here in that I only read the first two pages before responding.

I think some concern arises from where folks live and their resulting lifestyle.

On weekdays I live in Manhattan, NYC and (weather permitting) walk to work each AM from 33rd St. to 50th St. My destination is in the midtown "hotel" district - chock-o-block with camera-toting tourists. As such, it would be beyond "odd" for anyone to object to having her/his pic taken - particularly in a "street" shot!

Nonetheless, when I am outside of a NYC-type mileu I find myself much more inhibited as a shooter. Much of "quasi-public" America is "malled over" and photo-taking is thus a privilege (if granted) and not a right. Malls are private property.

Similarly, most of America's populace now lives in suburban/exurban (and even more "sprawled out") places such that "street" no longer exists.

Add to all of this the detioration of most real elements of privacy (e.g. your banking records and telephone calls are regualarly monitored) and it is not surprising that folks are "clinging" to the last outward vestiges of privacy by objecting to having their pictures taken in pulbic!*

*Oh, and besides, there are way too many folks who think they are the next American Idol (what a fool's era we live in!) and so thing if you take their pic - you are just one of those nasty H-wood papparazis!

Roger Hicks · Jun 25, 2006

This is frightening. A forum full of PHOTOGRAPHERS wants to ban street photography -- and make no mistake, if you don't want your picture taken, you want to ban street photography.

Fortunately there are still many countries where having your picture taken is regarded as it was in the UK and USA until some 10-20 years ago: essentially, as a bit of a lark. There have been several explanations of why things have changed, but it seems to me that the change should be deprecated, not praised.

Cheers,

Roger

Steve Smith · Jun 25, 2006

I agree entirely with Roger. I can see no difference between a person actually being seen in public and someone being seen in a photograph whilst in public.
In fact you can get a better view of someone in real life than you can in a photograph so the people who object to being photographed in public should also object to being looked at whilst in public.

Steve.

David H. Bebbington · Jun 25, 2006

Roger Hicks said:
This is frightening. A forum full of PHOTOGRAPHERS wants to ban street photography -- and make no mistake, if you don't want your picture taken, you want to ban street photography.

Roger, I polished my glasses extra hard and checked all the posts on this thread - couldn't find one saying street photography should be banned, simply that some people were less than keen about being photographed (this includes me - I refuse to model for anyone for free!). And as to whether the change is regrettable or not, I think this is academic - the fact is, most people are suspicious of photographers and don't want to be photographed. For me at least, this is the deciding factor and the reason why, as I said, I have crossed street photography off my agenda.

Regards,

David

Roger Hicks · Jun 25, 2006

Dear David,

Anyone who does not want their picture taken in the street is voting, as clearly as possible, for people not being allowed to photograph them in the street. If this is not a vote to ban street photography, it is hard to see what is.

As for whether the change is regrettable, well, public opinion changes over time, and there is no reason why it should not change back to a more reasonable attitude in due course -- which it will not with a passive acceptance that we can't change it.

Cheers,

Roger

Roger Hicks · Jun 25, 2006

One more thought: because someone holds a pusillanimous view, it does not make them pusillanimous in everything, so I apologize, Aggie, if you thought that's what I meant.

Cheers

Roger

catem · Jun 25, 2006

In fact, you're asking the wrong people here, Roger, as photographers are notoriously camera shy,

My comments about HCB were based on things I've read and an excellent video taken some years shortly before his death (which I saw twice). Yes he often 'shot from the hip', but he didn't always, and even when he did there was often some sort of interaction going on - perhaps afterwards, which can be just as important as before. He expressed some regret, in fact, for the idea of 'stolen moments' (though perhaps that shouldn't be taken too deeply).

In fact I'm not hugely moralistic about all this, but one thing I think is always important is respect for your subjects - that's something HCB definitely had in good measure. That means surely respecting their decision to opt-out if they so wish. I don't see the connection with banning street photography.

Les McLean · Jun 25, 2006

David H. Bebbington said:
- the fact is, most people are suspicious of photographers and don't want to be photographed. For me at least, this is the deciding factor and the reason why, as I said, I have crossed street photography off my agenda.

Regards,

David

David, my experience when photographing people in the street suggest that your comment above is incorrect. For the past 10 years I have led a very successful street photography workshop in Brighton and have had very few refusals when members of the public have been asked if they would mind being the subject of a photograph. I've found that once engaged in conversation the majority relax and happily go about their business and are oblivious of the camera. Certainly there are occasions when people refuse and provided the photographer graciously accepts the refusal no harm is done. I've also done the same workshop in various parts of the USA withthe same results. In May this year at the APUG Conference I took 24 APUGERS on the streets of Toronto for a few hours and we had a very successful time, proving to me at least that willingness to be photographed is not confined to the cosmopolitan atmosphere of dear old Brighton.

David H. Bebbington · Jun 25, 2006

Stargazer said:
In fact, you're asking the wrong people here, Roger, as photographers are notoriously camera shy,

My comments about HCB were based on things I've read and an excellent video taken some years shortly before his death (which I saw twice). Yes he often 'shot from the hip', but he didn't always, and even when he did there was often some sort of interaction going on - perhaps afterwards, which can be just as important as before. He expressed some regret, in fact, for the idea of 'stolen moments' (though perhaps that shouldn't be taken too deeply).

HCB was indeed successful in keeping the world at large ignorant of his appearance. There is an apocryphal tale of the well-known British photojournalist Bert Hardy covering a news event and seeing another photographer using the trick popular with HCB of covering his camera with his handkerchief. "Oo do you fink you are, bleedin' Cartier-Bresson?" asked Bert. It turned out the person he was addressing was - HCB.

Regards,

David

Roger Hicks · Jun 25, 2006

Dear Stargazer,

Respect must indeed be required, at least when appropriate (again I except e.g. politicians), but HCB was something of a poseur in some ways: a rich kid who had to intellectualize his work.

I can understand people not wanting to have their picture taken; what I can't understand is the intellectual dishonesty which then adds 'but it's OK to photograph other people'. If I want to photograph other people -- or just street scenes that have people in them -- then there is an implicit contract that I am in my turn available (even if unwillingly) to be photographed.

What really worries me is that there are countless photographs from the last 100+ years that illuminate the human condition (to use a somewhat pretentious phrase) AND connect us to our history. Refusing to photograph people in the street/accepting that you can't/refusing to be photographed is one more step in the atomisation of society.

Street photography really does seem to me to be a force for good, a tool for understanding others and (which is at least as important) sympathising with them. Banning it -- which is, as I say, what people are saying when they assert some sort of 'right not to be photographed' -- seems to me fraught with danger.

Cheers,

Roger

catem · Jun 25, 2006

David H. Bebbington said:
HCB was indeed successful in keeping the world at large ignorant of his appearance. There is an apocryphal tale of the well-known British photojournalist Bert Hardy covering a news event and seeing another photographer using the trick popular with HCB of covering his camera with his handkerchief. "Oo do you fink you are, bleedin' Cartier-Bresson?" asked Bert. It turned out the person he was addressing was - HCB.

Regards,

David

I woudn't disagree with that - the most abiding image I have from the video is when he showed how he held his camera in his hand, it was small enough to be held completely and unnoticeably.

He didn't always work completely incognito though - and would relate to people AFTER the shot at times, depending, certainly on the place/subject etc.

All I'm saying is, even with HCB there is more to it than meets the eye.

catem · Jun 25, 2006

Hi Roger,

Your reply came when I was writing mine. (You've started something here!)

I just can't see the logical step you make... (or rather to me, the illogical one )

Having read Les McLean's post above - why can't you have your cake and eat it? I don't see why asking permission shoud kill street photography, even the spontaneity of street photography.

I agree that testimony of our times is important but - not everbody wants to be part of yours, and I really don't think that's a big deal. You don't have to assume that because some people don't like it, nobody will.

Another important point is that if photogrphers continue to photograph without being sensitive to the wishes of their subjects then the general public will get less tolerant of it, not more. Someone who discovers their photograph has been taken and objects is far less likely to allow it in future, than if they had been approached in some way.

If we are not to eventually have privacy laws as stringent as those in France, I do think it's important to face these issues responsibly and sensitively.

Best wishes

Roger Hicks · Jun 25, 2006

Stargazer said:
If we are not to eventually have privacy laws as stringent as those in France, I do think it's important to face these issues responsibly and sensitively.

Absolutely! All I am saying is that there are times when it is impossible to take a given picture if you have to ask permission first, or where you have to ask permission of all in the picture. Some of these pictures will do a lot for understanding and sympathy, or will show us a parallel with our own lives; they should be taken.

Also, what if you are somewhere you do not speak the language? I note that this has been, to date, principally what the French call an 'Anglo-Saxon' thread (UK/USA, with a few Canadians).

France is bizarre. Outside Paris and a few tourist-traps, these draconian laws are a dead letter: people are astonished that they even exist, and shrug and say, "What do you expect of Parisians?" Everywhere else in Europe that I've taken pictures, the vast majority of people regard it, as I have said, as a bit of a lark. Why are 'les anglo-saxons' (and les parisiens) so paranoid?

But then, as they say of incomers in Brittany, buying second homes, 'mieux un anglais qu'un parisien' (better an Englishman than a Parisian).

Cheers,

Roger

gr82bart · Jun 25, 2006

Holy "way too much thinking" batman!

Since I was 12, I'd say I've been taking images of people on the street - both with 'cowardly' and 'in your face' lenses - and it's all been a pretty good experience.

Some articles to make you go hmmmm....:
NY Times: The Theatre of the Street Article
Washington Post: Catch Not Release
Cyber Speak: New Digital Camera? Know how, where to use it
Dead Link Removed
The Supreme Court of Canada considers the right to privacy and freedom of artistic expression

Happy picture taking, Art.

David H. Bebbington · Jun 25, 2006

Just to introduce a practical note - among the series I mentioned in an earlier post was this picture, which I shot without the subjects' knowledge and without malicious intent of any kind (using approx. 70 mm zoom setting on 35 mm). I was interested by the tension within the arrangement of the group, the dedication which the man had obviously shown in acquiring his tatoos, and the stylistic contrast between the rustic insouciance of the man's rear end and the classic elegance of his partner.

I later entitled it "At The Zoo," hoping to indicate a further slightly satirical dimension and raise the questions "Who is actually in the zoo? Who is looking at whom?" etc. By shooting from behind, I furthered this aim and also (I hoped) obviated the need for model releases. Part of the reason I gave up street photography was the knowledge that I would in future have to pass up picture opportunities such as this one (or at least give up any idea of selling the results) because of potential clients' worries about the legal situation. Various potential buyers showed interest in the picture but declined it for this reason.

I therefore felt that to continue to do street photography would not only run the risk of offending people (which I genuinely do not wish to do) but also (and quite frankly, more importantly) force me to work in an artistic straitjacket where I constantly have to consider legal factors, which for me is simply more trouble than it is worth!

Roger Hicks · Jun 25, 2006

Dear Art,

Thanks for the links. I'd be very nervous of the model release without valuable consideration, though: 'valuable consideration' (even if only nominal value, e.g. one penny) is required in all jurisdictions of which I am aware, because a model release is a contract.

Cheers,

Roger

Roger Hicks · Jun 25, 2006

Dear David,

I'd say, with my LL.B. hat on, that a title like that would greatly increase your chances of being sued. YOU knew what you meant: HE might take it differently.

Cheers,

Roger

Ashamed to be photographed?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency