I'm a Street Photographer, Not a Pervert . . .

StoneNYC · Jul 16, 2013

hoffy said:
Here's the thing - I think that NYC is very much one of the very few places in the world where street photography will not even batter an eye lid. There is something about that place that people just don't seem to care about little things like this.

Have you been here much?

Not always the case, but I think as an Actor I can be aware of my facial expressions and persona, and I always try to put forth the real me, which is a very excited about photography type or person, and use that excitement in that moment to make it ok and not get people upset. I think that's why online I seem like such a dick, because my personality never comes through in my text.

I've certainly seen people's cameras get destroyed in NY by someone who didn't like their picture taken.

Also, being aware of PEOPLE... there's a thing about TLR's and WLF type cameras that bother people less... something about looking down instead of AT them, seems to lessen their reactions and you get a more natural look as well. I think that the OP should probably learn to use a TLR instead of a leica and perhaps he won't be viewed as such a creep

C.poulton · Jul 16, 2013

I've often wanted to take shots of children when out shooting but have been put off by the risk of being labeled a 'pervert'.....

It never used to be like this - before the whole mass hysteria of every male photographer being viewed by the general public as a potential pedophile if they so much as point a camera in the general direction of any child. (Or a terrorist if they try and shoot architecture!)

I would like to know from any female photographers out there if they have had any problems with photographing children, or is this just a male thing?

hoffy · Jul 16, 2013

StoneNYC said:
Have you been here much?

Not always the case, but I think as an Actor I can be aware of my facial expressions and persona, and I always try to put forth the real me, which is a very excited about photography type or person, and use that excitement in that moment to make it ok and not get people upset. I think that's why online I seem like such a dick, because my personality never comes through in my text.

I've certainly seen people's cameras get destroyed in NY by someone who didn't like their picture taken.

Also, being aware of PEOPLE... there's a thing about TLR's and WLF type cameras that bother people less... something about looking down instead of AT them, seems to lessen their reactions and you get a more natural look as well. I think that the OP should probably learn to use a TLR instead of a leica and perhaps he won't be viewed as such a creep

That's interesting to know.

I went to NYC in 96 - it was probably the highlight of my stateside travels back then. I loved the city. I loved the people. I loved that I was in a laundromat and people started to talk to me. I loved that I was wearing a T-shirt that someone found (mildly) offensive and she challenged me about it.

But, I suppose, back then I didn't care too much about street photography, so it wasn't something I did.

I guess I have taken my recent cues and views from seeing clips on the likes of Meyerwitz and Gilden and what a guy I know locally did when he was over there a few years ago.

Ming Rider · Jul 16, 2013

StoneNYC said:
Lol! Complete joke or partial truth?

Just did some street photography with my newly squired yashika44LM it's safe to say mine is not jammed, and all my subjects were fascinated by the camera and let me take their candids on the NYC streets and a Johnny Rockets restaurant including a few staff who WANTED to be in the picture, I think I'm just really approachable and friendly and that helps.

Of course I took them on 1966 expired Verichrome Pan so might not have come out LOL

~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

LET me take their CANDIDS !

Isn't that an oxymoron?

removed account4 · Jul 16, 2013

Mark Feldstein said:
Whaddya mean "starting to sound like a bad movie" ?!

its really that hard to see what i am talking about ?
--- not sure who would direct it, or write it ... maybe the guy that directed "peeping tom" ?
but so far there are no deaths that go along with the OP's pursuits LOL

====

Ming Rider said:
LET me take their CANDIDS !

Isn't that an oxymoron?

no it isn't ... it means after he took their candids they didn't go up to him
and threaten him, or cause him trouble.

years ago i used to take candids at late night eateries in and around the boston area ..
drunks, cabbies, drunk cabbies, off duty cops & revelers between 1am and 4am ..
most people knew who i was and what i was up to, the owners didn't care and they looked out for my safety
when the occasional violent drunk saw my camera pointed in his direction and approached me.

in other words, if the people didn't LET him take their CANDIDS they would have approached him ( as the occasional drunk approached me )
grabbed his camera threatened to smash it on his head, or the ground, and then drag him someplace to hit him ...

Ming Rider · Jul 16, 2013

jnanian said:
its really that hard to see what i am talking about ?
--- not sure who would direct it, or write it ... maybe the guy that directed "peeping tom" ?
but so far there are no deaths that go along with the OP's pursuits LOL

====

no it isn't ... it means after he took their candids they didn't go up to him
and threaten him, or cause him trouble.

years ago i used to take candids at late night eateries in and around the boston area ..
drunks, cabbies, drunk cabbies, off duty cops & revelers between 1am and 4am ..
most people knew who i was and what i was up to, the owners didn't care and they looked out for my safety
when the occasional violent drunk saw my camera pointed in his direction and approached me.

in other words, if the people didn't LET him take their CANDIDS they would have approached him ( as the occasional drunk approached me )
grabbed his camera threatened to smash it on his head, or the ground, and then drag him someplace to hit him ...

Sorry, I misunderstood.

I thought he asked their permission before taking the picture, thus making it non-candid.

Prof_Pixel · Jul 16, 2013

From: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candid_photography

"A candid photograph is a photograph that is captured without creating a posed appearance. This is achieved by avoiding prior preparation of the subject and by either surprising the subject or by not distracting the subject during the process of taking photos. Thus, the candid character of a photo is regardless of the subject's knowledge or consent as to the fact that photos are being taken, and regardless of the subject's permission for subsequent usage such as distribution, but related to the apparent absence of posing. It is distinguished from making secret photography by the photographer usually remaining discernible to the public and not wearing cover."

So are we actually talking about SECRET photography and not CANDID photography?

StoneNYC · Jul 16, 2013

Ming Rider said:
LET me take their CANDIDS !

Isn't that an oxymoron?

Knew that at some point I would be snapping them but that they weren't posing for it... It can be done.

~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

blockend · Jul 18, 2013

If general paranoia about candid/street photography continues, these could become the least documented times since the box brownie. Most of my stuff consists of people at events, parades, festivals, village fetes and so on, a subject I've been covering since the 1970s. Recent years have definitely shown a rise in suspicion of what I do. Whether this is because I'm no longer the handsome cove I was, and fit the weird old man category more easily, or if it's a sharp rise in the fear and loathing index, is hard to say.

I mentioned to a parent a few days ago at a fete, that I probably had photographs of her child when he was the similar age to the present participants (about ten years ago), and she seemed slightly taken aback, then gratified that someone had seen fit to make a record and requested a look at some of the shots. The photographs are not portraits, but street style images that include people (of all ages), though it's impossible to explain such nuances when you're pointing a camera.
Direct confrontation is rare, although I did have one two days ago. I was photographing someone passing an amusing billboard from the car waiting at traffic lights. A nearby driver assumed he was in shot, and with a theatrical revving of his engine and squeal of tyres, pulled alongside and demanded to know what I was 'taking pictures of'. I vaguely pointed, the lights turned green and he peeled away. Some people just have short fuses and you have to roll with it.

batwister · Jul 18, 2013

The other way of looking at this photographic sea change is the real potential for more thoughtful work to arise. We're aware of the impulsive drive to 'shoot, shoot, shoot' that new technology facilitates and at the same time, increasingly conscious of the consequences - one of which is at the root of this thread (somewhere...). In all facets of life, people are becoming enlightened (for lack of a better word) - socially, politically, environmentally. Questioning, all said and done, isn't a bad thing and the best art/photography - as is often said - doesn't give us satisfying answers, but more often asks challenging questions. If you're forced to think "should I/shouldn't I?", you're in a position of responsibility - of representation in our case. This puts photography in a very important social and cultural place. Looking at the history of photography, you get the feeling this hasn't always been the case. So make the most of the time you live in.

StoneNYC · Jul 19, 2013

blockend said:
If general paranoia about candid/street photography continues, these could become the least documented times since the box brownie. Most of my stuff consists of people at events, parades, festivals, village fetes and so on, a subject I've been covering since the 1970s. Recent years have definitely shown a rise in suspicion of what I do. Whether this is because I'm no longer the handsome cove I was, and fit the weird old man category more easily, or if it's a sharp rise in the fear and loathing index, is hard to say.

I mentioned to a parent a few days ago at a fete, that I probably had photographs of her child when he was the similar age to the present participants (about ten years ago), and she seemed slightly taken aback, then gratified that someone had seen fit to make a record and requested a look at some of the shots. The photographs are not portraits, but street style images that include people (of all ages), though it's impossible to explain such nuances when you're pointing a camera.
Direct confrontation is rare, although I did have one two days ago. I was photographing someone passing an amusing billboard from the car waiting at traffic lights. A nearby driver assumed he was in shot, and with a theatrical revving of his engine and squeal of tyres, pulled alongside and demanded to know what I was 'taking pictures of'. I vaguely pointed, the lights turned green and he peeled away. Some people just have short fuses and you have to roll with it.

This is the MOST documented time ever, especially when you consider feeds like Instagram and vine, it's amazing people have time to live with all the images they are taking, they are just not using film...

~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

darkosaric · Jul 19, 2013

StoneNYC said:
This is the MOST documented time ever, especially when you consider feeds like Instagram and vine, it's amazing people have time to live with all the images they are taking, they are just not using film...

How many of those Instagram pictures will exist in 100 years from now? Internet has extremely short life - most of the pages I liked in early 90's are gone - those pictures, texts that I liked are gone.

Steve Smith · Jul 19, 2013

darkosaric said:
How many of those Instagram pictures will exist in 100 years from now?

Probably about the same percentage as Box Brownie pictures from 100 years ago.

Steve.

Prof_Pixel · Jul 19, 2013

darkosaric said:
Internet has extremely short life - most of the pages I liked in early 90's are gone - those pictures, texts that I liked are gone.

Have you tried the Wayback Machine? http://archive.org/web/web.php

StoneNYC · Jul 19, 2013

Steve Smith said:
Probably about the same percentage as Box Brownie pictures from 100 years ago.

Steve.

It's true... it's all a feed, a cycle ... no one will care in 100 years, they will be part of the "dark web" there, but inaccessible to most, except the rarely good ones (like that hurricane that engulfed NYC that someone caught with their cell phone on an airplane and instagrammed it... and it went viral, and was on the news... that might still exist...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_t...e_best_photo_of_new_york_city_hail_storm.html

that one... I think...

darkosaric · Jul 19, 2013

Prof_Pixel said:
Have you tried the Wayback Machine? http://archive.org/web/web.php

Yes, it works for some pages, but not for all.

lxdude · Jul 19, 2013

darkosaric said:
Yes, it works for some pages, but not for all.

Yes, there are several things I have tried to find through Wayback Machine without success, even when I knew exact titles.

Worker 11811 · Jul 19, 2013

The Wayback Machine usually only archives HTML and plaintext but often does not copy pictures, movies and other multimedia from the websites that it crawls. Further it doesn't copy entire sites. Usually only the first few pages. When it does copy, it only copies the changes from one time period to the next. Therefore, dynamic websites like web forums, blogs or social media sites can not be copied reliably all of the time.

Wayback is good to let you know that a site existed at a particular point in time but its not always a reliable record.

batwister · Jul 21, 2013

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddes...n-photographers-gallery?mobile-redirect=false

removed account4 · Aug 22, 2015

thank yo batwister !

Ko.Fe. · Aug 22, 2015

I didn't finished OP gastronomic adventure with ending up been sick from called somehow he didn't liked.
I think in 2013 he was to fast to call him Street Photographer.
May be he was taking pictures of streets?
Or maybe OP lived in high sosiety environment and took pictures of it.
I was asked for money, people yelled and through large rocks at me. Here in Canada.

removed account4 · Aug 23, 2015

naaah

he had reason for being upset
and so did his subjects ..

benjiboy · Sep 25, 2015

I'm going to get a t shirt printed that says " I'm a pervert not a photographer".

RalphLambrecht · Sep 25, 2015

nothing people are doing is sick.Sick are only the minds of people thinking to know what people are doing.

BrianShaw · Sep 25, 2015

I'm thinking about you typing on your computer. Sick indeed!

I'm a Street Photographer, Not a Pervert . . .

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency