I may never do street photography

[MFstooges]

Social media society

https://www.diyphotography.net/stre...-in-a-viral-post-for-taking-photos-in-public/

 

[Sirius Glass]

There is no expectation of privacy in public. While I do not ke street photography, I strongly defend the right to do it. However stupid is as stupid does ===> putting it on the internet is just asking for problems.

 

[removed account4]

HI MFstooges
I wouldn't say never. Maybe if street photographers stopped using "professional level gear" and used cellphones instead ... cranky paranoid society wouldn't care...after all they are already surveilled 24/7 and don't realize it...

 

[KN4SMF]

I never do street photography. It isn't what it was 30-40 years ago. Now it's a hodgepodge. People dress like slobs it t-shirts and tattoos. Total eyesore. Waste of film.

 

[MattKing]

I never do street photography. It isn't what it was 30-40 years ago. Now it's a hodgepodge. People dress like slobs it t-shirts and tattoos. Total eyesore. Waste of film.

(Irony alert on)
Yeah - Vivian Maier's subjects were so much more elegant.

(Irony alert off)

 

[Kino]

Just get yourself one of these: https://www.amazon.com/OFFICIAL-PHOTOGRAPHER-PHOTOGRAPHY-TEES-PHOTO/dp/B07PMBQD8Z

Signs tend to calm and assure the simple minded,easily befuddled public, and when it says "official"... well...

 

[TheRook]

I believe many people are paranoid about being photographed (or their children being photographed) by strangers in public because they are told by the news outlets that they need to be highly concerned because individuals walking around taking pictures in the street are likely to be criminals or perverts up to no good. Yet at the same time, they post images of themselves and their children on Facebook and the like... for the entire world to see and potentially download. There's just no rationality behind all this.

 

[AgX]

Over here there is a kind of selfenforcing process. Inspite of century-old, strong resp. legislation people recently got aware of privacy rights. Then the media enforces it, not only news magazines but also teleplays etc. where characters utter legally erroneous statements. Then again jurisdiction does strange decisions...

 

[blockend]

The difference now is the internet. Before the millennium almost every photograph sat in someone's negative file or slide drawer. A few made it to an archive, gallery show or personal collection. Now it's straight to the web for anyone to comment on. Their appropriation may be innocent, well-intended or very creepy, there's no way of knowing.

In the 1980s Martin Parr published The Last Resort, including an image of a naked male infant. No one suggested it was sexually motivated and the worst accusations levelled at the book was patronisation of the working class. There was no indication Parr was interested in nakedness, children or any correlation of the two, anyone in an area of public recreation would have seen similar sights. Now by Parr's own admission, such images would be off limits. Ironically the child depicted was motivated to study photography. Back in the 1970s when I took my camera out people of all ages would shout "take my photo" in those communities. Now they certainly would not.

Anyone shooting street photography today has to navigate changes in public perception. Things can turn from benign acceptance to pitchforks on a frame angle.

 

[removed account4]

back when i was working for a portrait photographer one of her colleagues died. she sent me to his studio to talk to the shoppe that was dealing with and sorting through his gear to maybe show some interest so i might get "dibs" on his old anniversary graphic and whatnot. the photographer who died spent a lot of time on playgrounds and photograph kids on all sorts of apparatus shooting candids of you know ... kids being kids... and my boss said "he would never be able to do that today" and that was the 1980s ... i think there has been a general paranoia about photography for a long time... right angle lenses, perverted camera people photographing women at the beaches ( i think they would call them camera perverts but i can't remember ) ... yes, I know I am being photographed 24/7 and even more so that all my neighbors are video surveilling me from their doorbells to the giant cloud keeper, that's why I have a variety of disguises I wear all the time. I have rubber masks .. you know ronny reagan, maggie thatcher, nixon, ricardo montablan, twiggy, rainbow and dreadlock wigs, clownface and once in a while i am on stilts .. i have tape over all the video on my computers, a drape over my tv ( i actually only listen to it like a radio ) and white noise makers so the parabolic listening devices just hear garbled noises. street photographers sometimes video or photograph me, that's ok by me, cause i've changed my hairstyle so many times now i don't know what i look like...

 

[Dali]

Social media society

https://www.diyphotography.net/stre...-in-a-viral-post-for-taking-photos-in-public/

Welcome to the age of social media justice, a time when every moron can sentence anyone in the light of his/her own stupidity.

 

[Sauer]

Of course this person having a personal crisis was video recording the photographer in question as well as everyone in frame with him, but that's completely different of course. My outrage is the only correct outrage.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

This why I wear hat and glasses

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

I generally don't have issues with people when I'm in public- and most of the time it's just curious onlookers fascinated with whatever old camera I've got with me- I've had some minor issues with photographing some private properties ( some people/ businesses have been more accepting than others)-
But I definitely had my worst incident earlier this summer. I'll let you decide on the ethics.

I decided to take my 4x5 studio camera out for the first time in a few months, and try and capture this abandoned farm structure that's by a playground. Shot I was from the parking lot, and had a couple interested people. I then wanted a shot of the playground beneath the structure. First, the scene was way too flat and I was attempting to evaluate the tonal ranges when some angry parents came up to me and threatened to call the police on me. Granted I was kind of close to the splash pad and tried to explain what I was doing, but how do you explain shutter speeds, motion blur, and f45 to anyone who doesn't understand photography? Either way- though I should have explained it wasn't working out, I had to leave and didn't enjoy the rest of the day.

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

Also- this ted talk rationalizes these behaviors perfectly

 

[guangong]

(Irony alert on)
Yeah - Vivian Maier's subjects were so much more elegant.

(Irony alert off)

(Irony alert on)
Yeah - Vivian Maier's subjects were so much more elegant.

(Irony alert off)

By today’s standards, these gentlemen are obviously overdressed.

On another point, ignoring the outbursts of prudes, it must be recognized that the penalties for abusing children are far les severe than when I was growing up in late ‘30s and ‘40s. We roamed city and countryside on our bicycles without fear of perverts. The world is much more dangerous for children now. One reason is that child molesters often face sessions with therapist rather than serious jail time.

 

[Eric Rose]

Just get yourself one of these: https://www.amazon.com/OFFICIAL-PHOTOGRAPHER-PHOTOGRAPHY-TEES-PHOTO/dp/B07PMBQD8Z

Signs tend to calm and assure the simple minded,easily befuddled public, and when it says "official"... well...

I bet they don't sell many of their "funny" shirts, like the one that says "I shoot people"

 

[Dali]

I generally don't have issues with people when I'm in public- and most of the time it's just curious onlookers fascinated with whatever old camera I've got with me- I've had some minor issues with photographing some private properties ( some people/ businesses have been more accepting than others)-
But I definitely had my worst incident earlier this summer. I'll let you decide on the ethics.

I decided to take my 4x5 studio camera out for the first time in a few months, and try and capture this abandoned farm structure that's by a playground. Shot I was from the parking lot, and had a couple interested people. I then wanted a shot of the playground beneath the structure. First, the scene was way too flat and I was attempting to evaluate the tonal ranges when some angry parents came up to me and threatened to call the police on me. Granted I was kind of close to the splash pad and tried to explain what I was doing, but how do you explain shutter speeds, motion blur, and f45 to anyone who doesn't understand photography? Either way- though I should have explained it wasn't working out, I had to leave and didn't enjoy the rest of the day.

I would tell them to call the cops just to embarrass them.

 

[pentaxuser]

This why I wear hat and glasses

And hang around a Ferris wheel in Vienna ..cue Anton Karas

pentaxuser

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

I would tell them to call the cops just to embarrass them.

Live and learn.

I still want that shot, Maybe use my Mamiya c220 instead with my 55mm lens, and if I have any issues say "don't worry, I've got a wide angle lens" and hope that works.

 

[Ariston]

I have seen street photography done without being invasive. A lot of strangers on the street will even happily pose in weird ways if you ask them. And many will give the okay AFTER you have taken the photo, if you just introduce yourself and ask.

The worst is the people who photograph poor or homeless people - trying to capitalize off of someone else's misfortune, but claiming in their vanity that they just want to bring "awareness." They are rude, vain, and liars.

It is legal. But it is also legal for me to stand outside your house every morning and follow you to work.

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

Here's another one

 

[Ariston]

By the way, does no one see the irony in the fact that the photographer was upset that people took photos of him, even though he was doing the same thing?

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

By the way, does no one see the irony in the fact that the photographer was upset that people took photos of him, even though he was doing the same thing?

It's all representation.

 

[nmp]

Ironic!

Seems like the photographer should sue the guy who took his pictures without his permission and published them.

(OK, Ariston noticed it first.)