Don't leave home without it!

[jd callow]

yes, but HCB was an obnoxious lout and we all know that is the last thing we should aspire to.

 

[Ian David]

Thanks Domenico. I was interested to read more of your thoughts. And I do understand your point of view.
I do think it is good that there are great photos like that one of Bresson's above. It really captures something essential. (One point about that particular image though is that kids, as subjects, mostly enjoy having their photo taken. Generally nobody is upset by an innocent photo of children except paranoid adults.) And I really do hope to keep seeing excellent candid photos in future which are revealing of the rich depths of humanity.

But I also understand why some people do not like being photographed up close and without warning by strangers, and I would not be surprised to get negative reactions. The main reason I generally do not take many such photos is not out of fear, but out of respect for other people's space. That's just me. But then, if I felt a stronger pull towards candid street photography, I might find that barrier easier to breach. I am not attacking you or Andy, but am just interested in your approaches. Nor am I against creativity. But there are (at least) two sides to this issue. The guy who punches you or Andy in the face may feel just as passionately about his right to privacy in public as you do about your right to creativity in public. If you are prepared to understand and accept that, even if you are not afraid of it and choose to push past it, then I think you are better placed to understand the humanity you are trying to capture in your work.

 

[Domenico Foschi]

"The guy who punches you or Andy in the face may feel just as passionately about his right to privacy in public as you do about your right to creativity in public."

How do you feel about it, Ian?

Would you consider a punch in the face in reaction to a click of a shutter a fair reaction?
I said I am willing to catch a punch in the face in the event someone might decide to do so, but understand and accepth that? No.
If I get assaulted the guy or gal can trust me to call the cops and will see their ass sent to jail for that.

 

[removed account4]

I presume you are one of the former, Andy. So are you prepared to accept the occasional punch in the face from someone bigger than you as the price of being a fearless artist?

i have my life threatened by a drunk after i photographed his "general direction" late one night.
i often times have photographed not giving a hoot
or how and who and where i photographed, but times are different now.
people will ruin your life ( lawyers ) these days .. especially if you can get a tan ...

 

[Ian David]

Domenico

I didn't say you must necessarily accept a punch in the face. I said that, in my view, you should be prepared to accept and understand that someone may feel just as passionately about his right to privacy in public as you do about your right to creativity in public. Rightly or wrongly, that sort of passionate feeling may lead someone to assault you, or to yell at you, or to try to grab your camera, or to simply stare at you.

How I personally feel about having my photo taken by a street shooter would depend upon the circumstances, Domenico. As a photographer, I am aware of the drive to take photos and am almost always perfectly OK with being in someone's photo. But if I was feeling really delicate for some reason and a photographer was being particularly in my face or pushy, I would probably tell them to get lost. If I was in the middle of a very tense situation, or bending over the body of my dead child, or involved in various other heavy situations that news photographers routinely photograph without any sensitivity, I can imagine getting very upset...

But this is not just about me, it is about the whole spectrum of people you might wish to photograph on the street. If you cannot understand and accept that some of those people in some situations (that may not be wholly obvious to an observer) will object in an unpredictable and angry way, then you do not understand a pretty basic aspect of humanity. If someone did assault me in that sort of situation, I would have a think about exactly what I had been doing before I decided whether or not to call the police. Do you not agree?

Ian

 

[jd callow]

No one needs to accept the actions of a person who breaks the law as being some how equivalent to someone well within the law.

 

[Ian David]

The law changes from day to day and from place to place. It is a blunt instrument. Some actions that are strictly against the law are, when viewed in their totality in a particular situation, not something that should be prosecuted. One day, certain forms of street photography may be outlawed in your country. Will your view of the legitimacy of those forms of photography then change?

I think French law takes a dimmer view of street photography these days, doesn't it? Does your attitude to the merits of street photography change when you are in Paris? (This is not a rhetorical question - I am interested in your answer)

 

[mike c]

Just thinking about the previous posts and thinking that if the subject was in a good mood would they really mind the camera . Most people don't go around hating people with camera's and most photographers don't shove cameras in peoples face and if they did I think you could expect a angry response.When I did shoot people I'd use a tripod or stay in one place while people walked around me (using a tripod can be dangerous on a narrow side walk and could be a misdemeanor or city ordinance ) ,the longer I stayed in one place it seemed like the more people didn't mind me. That was 30yrs ago ,my be things have changed if I did start again I'd use my 4x5 speed graphic on a tripod.

Mike

Mike

 

[Thomas Wilson]

No one needs to accept the actions of a person who breaks the law as being some how equivalent to someone well within the law.

I don't believe Ian was suggesting the two actions are in any way equivalent.

The paparazzi in this country routinely get their asses kicked and gear destroyed for acting "Well within the law."

While assault or destruction of property is clearly outside of the law, our judges consider mitigating factors before deciding innocence or guilt, and sentence accordingly.

Additionally, jury nullification commonly comes in two forms, "Not responsible," or "Responsible" with damages in the amount of $1.00.

Those who provoke a fight, get in a fight, lose the fight, and then sue, are generally greeted with little or no sympathy, and deservedly so.

 

[jd callow]

Just thinking about the previous posts and thinking that if the subject was in a good mood would they really mind the camera . Most people don't go around hating people with camera's and most photographers don't shove cameras in peoples face and if they did I think you could expect a angry response.When I did shoot people I'd use a tripod or stay in one place while people walked around me (using a tripod can be dangerous on a narrow side walk and could be a misdemeanor or city ordinance ) ,the longer I stayed in one place it seemed like the more people didn't mind me. That was 30yrs ago ,my be things have changed if I did start again I'd use my 4x5 speed graphic on a tripod.

Mike

Mike

Bingo. For those out shooting in public places there hasn't been much of a change. One out a couple hundred people will accost you whether you pointed the camera at them or not and you don't go into seedy areas without care.

Thomas,
I have no idea what happens with the paparazzi and their targets.

 

[Flea77]

Been lurking for a while, had to register just for this thread.

One thing I think has been missed here. The OP stated the subjects put up their hands to shield themselves from the camera, the OP thought it made a good picture, and took it.

Why does this matter? Because BEFORE he snapped the shutter the subjects CLEARLY made their desire to not be photographed known. This is completely different than if they came up after the fact, and in no way is catching life as it happens, it is staged, rude, and generally being a A__.

Let me clarify something. I firmly believe that our rights to photograph anything in public should be upheld. I do not however think that when someone explicitly asks (or demonstrates their desire) to not be photographed before said photograph is taken, that some law or piece of paper is a substitute for basic human courtesy.

Are you allowed to take their picture anyway? Sure! But I personally would not feel one single gram of sympathy for you if you did and wound up in the morgue for it (even though I would want the murderer brought to justice). I know that sounds harsh, but it is honestly how I feel.

Once again, remember, they showed their desire to not be photographed BEFORE the op fired the shutter!

If you can not be bothered to extend some basic decency to other people, then I see no need in extending it to you.

Allan

 

[Ian David]

But I personally would not feel one single gram of sympathy for you if you did and wound up in the morgue for it (even though I would want the murderer brought to justice). I know that sounds harsh, but it is honestly how I feel.

Yeah, that does sound a little extreme Allan...

 

[jd callow]

Yeah, that does sound a little extreme Allan...

And an interesting first post...

 

[Ian David]

kids... mostly enjoy having their photo taken.

Of course, another group of people that generally like the lens are Italian police in their shiny riot gear...

 

[Soeren]

Another option

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/07/22/arts/helmutslide7.jpg



Best regards

 

[mike c]

Another option

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/07/22/arts/helmutslide7.jpg



Best regards

Thats an oldie but a goodie

Mike

 

[Ian David]

That's a great shot
Effective... but makes it harder to blend in to the crowd

 

[Soeren]

Well after loosing five teeth due to a Brando punch I dont' think he had a problem with that
Best regards

 

[Mike Kennedy]

Your kit.

The article in Ambientlight.ca (photographer rights in Canada) made mention of the fact that if you are lugging around a professional "looking" camera you are more likely to draw a crowd.Seems obvious.I was questioned by a security guard at a local construction site as to "Who I worked for".
By the way,I was in the wrong for being there although the site was not "posted" as no trespassing area.Pleaded ignorance and we had a nice chat.
Don't carry this one around in a crowd.............I can almost hear the safeties coming off the Glocks now.

 

[bobwysiwyg]

That would definitely draw a crowd. They would all likely be uniformed and heavily armed.

 

[BetterSense]

I can almost hear the safeties coming off the Glocks now

Glocks don't have safetys. FYI.

 

[Soeren]

Not in the conventional sence at least (its in the grip)
Best regards

 

[abstraxion]

Are you allowed to take their picture anyway? Sure! But I personally would not feel one single gram of sympathy for you if you did and wound up in the morgue for it (even though I would want the murderer brought to justice). I know that sounds harsh, but it is honestly how I feel.

Allan

Hear this, folks? If you enjoy taking pictures of people without getting model releases for each and every one, print this quote and put it above your monitor to remind you how completely idiotic some people are and how you can safely dismiss their opinions. You can safely ignore anyone who says someone should die because they took a picture. Their opinion is worthless and shouldn't be listened to.

I hope I meet you one day, Allan. I think I might just put my 10-20mm right in your face and give you the bird.

 

[Flea77]

Hear this, folks? If you enjoy taking pictures of people without getting model releases for each and every one, print this quote and put it above your monitor to remind you how completely idiotic some people are and how you can safely dismiss their opinions. You can safely ignore anyone who says someone should die because they took a picture. Their opinion is worthless and shouldn't be listened to.

I hope I meet you one day, Allan. I think I might just put my 10-20mm right in your face and give you the bird.

You conveniently left out the rest of the post where I clearly and repeated pointed out that the people whom the OP took the picture of showed they did not want to have their picture taken. This was not about releases. Nor was it about how one should or should not do candid street photography. It was about not taking pictures of people who clearly show they do not want to have it taken BEFORE you snap the shutter.

Next thing, you also misread what I wrote. I never wished anyone harm, and even clearly stated that if something did happen to the photographer I would want the perpetrator brought to justice. But that does not mean that I have to feel sorry for the photographer if he gets hurt because he CHOSE not to respect other people's wishes against being photographed BEFORE THE SHOT WAS MADE.

Just like if someone gets drunk, drives off the road and gets hurt in the crash, I do not feel sorry for them either. That does not mean I want them to get hurt, but they brought it on themselves.

Lastly, you are welcome to take my picture any time you want, and shoot me the bird as often as you like, I see the latter being the gestures made by 12 year olds, but maybe you are. If however you invade my personal space with your lens, I have no problem going to jail again, remember that.

Allan

 

[Soeren]

I still think killing a person for taking your picture is way out of perspective and I find it ps....... to say you wont feel sorry for a person getting killed for that reason.
Best regards