Ashamed to be photographed?

Timothy · Jun 25, 2006

Thanks for those links Art. I am surprised and depressed by reading the article about the case in Quebec. Frankly, I am surprised by this whole subject. How can it possibly be that anyone would ever think that they have some ownership of their image. If that were true then, as others have said, how can you be in public in the first place ?
To live in a society at all implies responsibilities. Unless you want to go and live in a cave as a hermit, then I think you have a responsibility to accept that living amongst others and accepting their society as your own, means that you are accepting that your image is part of that society. If you really do not want your image shared, then first you certainly have no right to capture anyone else's and second you have no right to ever leave the house without a bag over your head.

Tim R

bob01721 · Jun 25, 2006

Years ago, when I was on my way to (insert country), I was advised not to photograph the local citizenry without their permission. Apparently, many believed that if you capture their image with a camera, you also capture their soul.

Different people see things differently. So I've always made it a point to try not to impose my values on others. If they don't want me to photograph them, I won't. Plain and simple. The reason they don't want to be photographed is none of my business.

FWIW, if anyone wants to photograph me... my left side is my "good" side. ;-)

Uncle Bill · Jun 25, 2006

To me, you are in public and on the street, you are fair game. However, as the photographer I also have to make the judgement call on personal safety as you never know on how people behave. As for me I don't care if I am photographed, just don't do it early in the morning before my mug of coffee.

Bill

jd callow · Jun 25, 2006

I make no attempt to hide from others who are taking pictures nor do I hide when taking pictures. I also don't make a production out of my picture taking -- something I see many doing -- which probably makes me blend in a bit.

If I'm on the 'street' shooting and I wish to have people in it I don't ask, try to 'know' my subject or engage them. I treat them as components. I don't generally shoot people who are exceptional or out of the ordinary and it is generally what they are doing that interests me not who or what they are.

In my opinion...
Street shots of people unasked is not a formula for good or bad photography nor is it in any way unethical. Street shooting is not history because of the public's heightened awareness of the camera. Being subjected to a camera is just one of many hazards we all must be deal with if we wish to be in public places.

Aggie · Jun 25, 2006

bob01721 said:
Years ago, when I was on my way to (insert country), I was advised not to photograph the local citizenry without their permission. Apparently, many believed that if you capture their image with a camera, you also capture their soul.

Different people see things differently. So I've always made it a point to try not to impose my values on others. If they don't want me to photograph them, I won't. Plain and simple. The reason they don't want to be photographed is none of my business.

FWIW, if anyone wants to photograph me... my left side is my "good" side. ;-)

BINGO! Who are we to demand that everyone has to live by our own personal standards?

This is precisely why places are banning cameras. This attitude has done more harm than good. Example is the Hopi Indian Reservation. All cameras even cell phones are banned, and you get searched. Reson being that too many photographers have abused the people by taking their pictures when they didn't want it taken. Many of their religious ceremonies that they consider ultra sacred were photographed and presented in such a way as to demean them. It is a fine line between being responsible photographers, and insensitive types. Yeah maybe it is a slice in time you think is a great photograph, but what does it mean to the next person. Telling them that they can't leave their house without a bag on their head is just plain stupid and leads to the laws banning cameras. Have the courtesy to recognize that it never hurts to talk to your subject. When I have been in other countries, I have at least enough grasp of the language to ask a simple question, or have someone with me that can communicate. Not all cultures deem it a right to have their photographs taken. Learn the laws, learn the culture, and learn some common respect. Just because you "WANT IT" (wish I could add that little girl self rightous demanding singsong sound to this last phrase) doesn't make it your right in all instances. After all I have the right to fart in your face, or if I could to puke on you, but common decency keeps me from being that vulgar. To others having their picture taken is just as vulgar.

Helen B · Jun 25, 2006

This is one of those threads that has broadened so much that it is difficult to respond to. Roger seems to be referring to the whole gamut of street, news and documentary photography.

I've done quite a lot of documentary film and photography in places where I don't speak much of the language. Whether you have a common verbal language or not, the issue of consent is one of respect, and effort. It may take time to establish a relationship. The time-honoured guideline of "do as you would be done by" applies.

There are, of course, situations in which there may be an overriding reason to just go for it.

"Take care not to do harm unintentionally."

Best,
Helen

Roger Hicks · Jun 25, 2006

Helen B said:
Roger seems to be referring to the whole gamut of street, news and documentary photography.

Dear Helen,

Indeed I am, because I do not see how they can be disentangled. Consider a magazine story that contains pictures of people in the street. Is it street, news or documentary? When does 'documentary' slide into 'news'? And if either is shot in the street, how is it not 'street'.

Cheers,

Roger

willie_901 · Jun 25, 2006

I could care less if someone takes my photograph when I'm in a public space.

You may think you have some right to privacy when you are in public, but you don't. In public there is no privacy. In an urban or suburban environment we are constantly being photographed.

Get over it.

willie

Roger Hicks · Jun 25, 2006

Dear Willie,

As you say, we are constantly being photographed in public places. Indeed, I fear that 'security cameras' have greatly contributed to the paranoia. It would be odd if we accepted Big Brother photographing us but rejected our fellow photographers.

Cheers,

Roger

firecracker · Jun 25, 2006

Roger Hicks said:
Indeed, I fear that 'security cameras' have greatly contributed to the paranoia.

Speaking of which, one of the problems with the the use of the security cameras today in Japan is that the cameras are installed in the locker rooms of some public bath places! In some cases there are no signs saying that, and these cameras are completely hidden.

No wonder some people freak out sometimes.

Roger Hicks · Jun 25, 2006

Dear Firecracker,

Yes, but there's freaking out and freaking out. I keep trying to frame a response to Aggie but it is difficult to find common ground with someone who equates farting, vomiting and photography.

Cheers,

Roger

Markok765 · Jun 25, 2006

Roger Hicks said:
Dear Firecracker,

Yes, but there's freaking out and freaking out. I keep trying to frame a response to Aggie but it is difficult to find common ground with someone who equates farting, vomiting and photography.

Cheers,

Roger

Ohh! Catfight!

Helen B · Jun 25, 2006

Roger,

I was not trying to make definite distinctions between street, documentary and news, only to emphasise that you are referring to an enormous range of photography, with an enormous range of intents and approaches. What I consider appropriate for my conduct in one situation I may not consider appropriate in another. Is that a difficult principle to grasp?

"...because I do not see how they can be disentangled."

It's not that you need to disentangle them, or to define them in a universally applicable way. You can apply the ethics that you believe are appropriate for the situation. Alternatively you can hand the responsibility for your conduct over to the state by knowing your legal rights and exercising them.

I'm sure that this will be misunderstood, but what the hell.

Best,
Helen

firecracker · Jun 25, 2006

Roger Hicks said:
Dear Firecracker,

Yes, but there's freaking out and freaking out. I keep trying to frame a response to Aggie but it is difficult to find common ground with someone who equates farting, vomiting and photography.

Cheers,

Roger

I guess I have to stretch what I wrote a bit. The problem I pointed out is that there's a handful of photographers like yourself and myself, concerned about the growing pressure on the habit of picture-taking that we are so accustomed to. Meanwhile, there are others out there like the public-bath owners and their security consultants, without regarding the consequences practicing what's considered to be the violation of privacy and illegal.

I think some people are losing sanity, but I don't think there's an immediate solution to these problems yet. It's just as diverse as the New York court case (in the NYT article from one of the links Art posted) on the issue of photographing people in public where one can argue and win for the artistic expression or protecting one's privacy.

This is part of the reason why I keep my photos that show the images of people from all over the place with and without consent as private as I can. I don't even post them here at APUG unless I really need to in some discussions on some threads. And I haven't figured out how I can promote my photos in any other ways. I just think it's just hard to come up with enough reasons to back up my own reasoning.

Helen B · Jun 25, 2006

Roger Hicks said:
Dear Firecracker,

Yes, but there's freaking out and freaking out. I keep trying to frame a response to Aggie but it is difficult to find common ground with someone who equates farting, vomiting and photography.

Cheers,

Roger

Well, that's the nature of art. It's all a fermenting heap of poorly-digested junk. No disrespect to vomit, and apologies to Art.

I thought that Aggie was illustrating a point about the difference between rights and personal ethics. Not very difficult to grasp, unless you don't want to.

Best,
Helen

PS This thread has such a wide subject matter that framing a response that has even a slim chance of being understood can be quite a challenge.

Roger Hicks · Jun 25, 2006

Dear Helen,

You and I are, I think, saying the same thing. There is no universal standard of ethics. Where we differ (if at all) is my original point: anyone who wants to photograph others must themselves be open to being photographed. Anyone who wants to forbid others to photograph them wishes to impose a ban on certain kinds of street photography. To quote you back at yourself, is this a difficult principle to grasp?

As for Aggie's 'rights', no, vomiting on someone isn't a right, it's a common assault, and to pick another of her points, a religious ritual (be it Hopi or anything else) is somewhat different from being on the street, walking, shopping, reading on a park bench. I'd also suggest that for most people, her parallels are, to be generous, exaggerated.

It comes back to what you say about there being no universal standard. I reiterate: anyone in a public place must be fair game, though I cheerfully concede the rider that there are plenty of times when a decent photographer will refrain from taking a picture. Just not EVERY time, which seems to me to be what Aggie is saying.

Cheers,

Roger

catem · Jun 25, 2006

Oh yes, and another thing!

I noticed just the photographers of Picture Post were mentioned. No, they didn't always go 'incognito'. in fact they very often didn't, especially with their street shots of children. In fact some shots were not as spontaneous as they appeared, because they were rehearsed and even 'set-up'. Grace Robertson took some well-known pictures of children, she would spend hours with them.

There's a lot of myth-making about photographers of the past.

Helen B · Jun 25, 2006

"Where we differ (if at all) is my original point: anyone who wants to photograph others must themselves be open to being photographed. Anyone who wants to forbid others to photograph them wishes to impose a ban on certain kinds of street photography."

Worded like that, I don't disagree at all.

Best,
Helen

HerrBremerhaven · Jun 25, 2006

Wow . . . long thread. I like the idea of treating others as you would like to be treated. However, there is a cultural aspect to this, and when amongst a people with a culture very different from your own, I think the proper conduct is to apply the covenants of those people's culture.

I have done what I guess could be called street photography for corporate clients. Namely either restaurant or architectural clients who wanted an idea of people in a space they operated or created. The approach I used was to make sure someone knew I was taking photographs; if a person shyed away or scowled, then I did not take a picture. I found many people were very open to being photographed, though the opposite was people who wanted to pose, since those images would not have been of use to my clients. Sometimes people would ask me what I was photographing, though often it seemed few people cared what I was doing. It helped to be in a space long enough for people to notice you, and then they would ignore you. Sometimes I handed out my business card to people, which seemed much appreciated and seemed to put some people more at ease.

Okay, so maybe that was too specific. In eight years of photography and film work (documentary) in public, the only trouble I ever had was largely with security people, and not because I was photographing them. I had once instance at a restaurant when an older gentleman angrily stated you better not take my picture, or I'll . . . . , to which I quickly moved my camera out of harms way and replied I would never consider photographing you, which I stated while smiling. My thought was that it might be better to kill him with kindness, so I also wished him a nice day and replied about how nice a day it was, how nice the weather was . . . guy probably thought I was a complete nut . . . oh well.

So I guess my approach is be obvious and overt, treat people with respect and kindness, consider their culture, and always be friendly, smile, and be polite. It usually works out fine, except with over-zealous security people.

Ciao!

Gordon

Aggie · Jun 25, 2006

Roger Hicks said:
In the thread about 'what don't you photograph on the street', two people have expressed their opposition to having their picture taken, in quite strong terms.

This intrigues me. When I'm in public, I'm fair game. Why shouldn't I be? What have I to be ashamed of?

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?

How much poorer would photography be if everyone took this pusillanimous attitude? What would happen to our understanding of the past? Because, afer all, the present soon becomes the past...

Cheers,

Roger

Getting back to the basics of this thread, you Roger seem to expand it into different areas to try and belittle people who for one reason or another do not wish to have their photograph taken. Why do you feel the need to call those who so wish it, to be ashamed? Why do you call them small minded? Why can't you accept that not everyone thinks like you?

Granted there are security cameras everywhere. So be it. When a person is confronted with a choice as to having that photo taken or not, Why can't you accept that that person made a choice? Some countries it is not a right to photograph whatever you want or whom ever you want. My example of the Hopi Reservation is just that. Many and that means right here on apug have in the past claimed that the reservations should and are public lands. They are not. Photographers, and this means a person carrying a camera, have visited the Hopi rez especially during their ceremonial times. Those photographers were rude, and interrupted the ceremonies to the point that in a few instances the ceremony came to a halt until the offending photographer that positioned themselves right in the middle of it as they claimed it was there right, could be ejected from the rez. Laws were enacted to halt it by banning cameras. It is not that I'm saying ban a camera. I'm saying think before you use that camera. Some shots are not going to be offensive to anyone. There are a lot og good grab shots. Then there are those that for one reason or another would upset the subject. We see it a lot today with parents of children. To say again that a person should put a bag on their head to go outside is the most asinine thing I have heard in response to this thread. To demand that you have the right no matter what will give ammunition to those who do want to ban the use of cameras. Common courtesy, smiling, being open and asking permission when you think it might cause trouble goes a long way to keeping that right you so dearly want. Is it that hard to respect another human being? Do you have to demean them by name calling just because they don't want their picture taken? As to the remarks about farting, Ben Franklin had it right in the late 1700's, read his book called, "Fart Proudly" It actually takes your stance. As to vomiting, well that is not something that is controlable. If it were to happen, then you just happened to be covered by what is an act of God, or Mother nature, take your pick. That person if they were being photographeed, and chose that moment to hurl, I would laugh until I cried to see you covered with your right to photograph it. Yeah I do equate them. It is not an assualt, it is what they say,,,,shit happens. You take pictures in a street setting, and well anything can and sometimes does happen. You sound more like a papparazi type than a street photographer.

Markok765 · Jun 25, 2006

Aggie said:
Getting back to the basics of this thread, you Roger seem to expand it into different areas to try and belittle people who for one reason or another do not wish to have their photograph taken. Why do you feel the need to call those who so wish it, to be ashamed? Why do you call them small minded? Why can't you accept that not everyone thinks like you?

Granted there are security cameras everywhere. So be it. When a person is confronted with a choice as to having that photo taken or not, Why can't you accept that that person made a choice? Some countries it is not a right to photograph whatever you want or whom ever you want. My example of the Hopi Reservation is just that. Many and that means right here on apug have in the past claimed that the reservations should and are public lands. They are not. Photographers, and this means a person carrying a camera, have visited the Hopi rez especially during their ceremonial times. Those photographers were rude, and interrupted the ceremonies to the point that in a few instances the ceremony came to a halt until the offending photographer that positioned themselves right in the middle of it as they claimed it was there right, could be ejected from the rez. Laws were enacted to halt it by banning cameras. It is not that I'm saying ban a camera. I'm saying think before you use that camera. Some shots are not going to be offensive to anyone. There are a lot og good grab shots. Then there are those that for one reason or another would upset the subject. We see it a lot today with parents of children. To say again that a person should put a bag on their head to go outside is the most asinine thing I have heard in response to this thread. To demand that you have the right no matter what will give ammunition to those who do want to ban the use of cameras. Common courtesy, smiling, being open and asking permission when you think it might cause trouble goes a long way to keeping that right you so dearly want. Is it that hard to respect another human being? Do you have to demean them by name calling just because they don't want their picture taken? As to the remarks about farting, Ben Franklin had it right in the late 1700's, read his book called, "Fart Proudly" It actually takes your stance. As to vomiting, well that is not something that is controlable. If it were to happen, then you just happened to be covered by what is an act of God, or Mother nature, take your pick. That person if they were being photographeed, and chose that moment to hurl, I would laugh until I cried to see you covered with your right to photograph it. Yeah I do equate them. It is not an assualt, it is what they say,,,,shit happens. You take pictures in a street setting, and well anything can and sometimes does happen. You sound more like a papparazi type than a street photographer.

Wow, long thread

dmr · Jun 25, 2006

Roger Hicks said:
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.

I don't see it that way at all. If I had my choice in the matter, I would choose not to be photographed by J. Random Camerafan, but there's no way I want that desire to be in any way made into law or even custom.

It's kind of hard to explain. I'm not at all ashamed of the way I look, and for being (something I admit usually under extreme duress) "49 and holding" I think I'm rather well preserved, actually.

It's just that I feel a whole lot more comfortable on the rear side of the camera.

I don't think I'm bad looking in any way, but when I see myself in casual snapshots I often cringe! 9 times out of 8 they catch me with mouth open, hair out of place, dumb expression, eyes closed, hair in eyes, hair in mouth, I'm sure you know what I mean. I just get this "oh {shoot}" feeling when somebody (other than me) pulls out a camera and starts snapping away when I'm in view.

When I'm in public, or at a function where people are taking pictures, I know it's gonna happen. I just put up with it, but it's far from my favorite thing to have happen.

Am I making sense here?

bob01721 · Jun 25, 2006

dmr said:
"... I would choose not to be photographed by J. Random Camerafan, but there's no way I want that desire to be in any way made into law or even custom... Am I making sense here...?"

Consummate sense!

Roger Hicks · Jun 26, 2006

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this thread. I think it has probably run its course now, and all that is likely to follow is repetition and personal attack, so I propose to stop posting and suggest that others might like to do otherwise.

Cheers,

Roger

David H. Bebbington · Jun 26, 2006

Stargazer said:
Oh yes, and another thing!

I noticed just the photographers of Picture Post were mentioned. No, they didn't always go 'incognito'. in fact they very often didn't, especially with their street shots of children. In fact some shots were not as spontaneous as they appeared, because they were rehearsed and even 'set-up'. Grace Robertson took some well-known pictures of children, she would spend hours with them.

There's a lot of myth-making about photographers of the past.

This is an interesting point - if I dare say so, I think it underlines what I was saying earlier about public attitudes to photography changing. In the heyday of Picture Post, journalists with the right middle-class accent and sufficient self-confidence/arrogance (delete as appropriate) could normally expect a deferential attitude from the "lower classes" (the social parameters of the time have been caught very well by the British comedian Harry Enfield and his "Mr. Cholmondely-Warner" character). Rather different today!

A further example of the change in attitudes is the iconic "Migrant Mother" picture by Dorothea Lange. DL, representing the Farm Security Administration which was dispensing the aid which had probably saved the mother in question from starvation, was able without difficulty to get the subject's cooperation without payment of a fee and use the resulting pix free of charge for FSA publicity purposes.

Fast-forward 60 years, and the little girl in the picture, now of pensionable age, instructs a lawyer to sue the US Government for violation of her rights and a share of the very large sums of money which vintage prints of "Migrant Mother" are now fetching at auction. I believe the case was thrown out of court, but it sure does illustrate the change in attitudes!

Regards,

David

Ashamed to be photographed?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency