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

[hoffy]

The real perverts are behind government cameras... watching us for our own good and their own pleasure...

You are not actually far from the truth. About 15 years ago I used to do building maintenance in a series of buildings in a very well known city (not in Australia). During that time I got to know a bunch of the security team who were assigned to these buildings. They used to have have a tape that they would dub certain footage too, which they showed me once. The footage was of, lets say, private liaisons in secluded areas.

Yes, there are certain areas in most cities where you cannot do ANYTHING without someone watching...

 

[markaudacity]

You're seriously asking what a busybody mother would think of a dude wearing a Motorhead shirt?

The law in the US is: if you are in public space, and you can see it from there, you have an explicit right to photograph it for any non-commercial reason. Full stop.

 

[ambaker]

Darn near every cell phone made in the last ten years has a camera built into it. Nobody thinks anything of a person with a phone. Have a real camera, and all of a sudden people in public places are worried about their privacy.

The Boston marathon bombing should have laid to rest any idea of not being photographed while out and about. Between private images and security videos, the police were able to rapidly figure out what happened.

 

[Ming Rider]

This happened after the London bombings. Despite signs in the railway station saying "No Photography", the Police were quick to ask witnesses if they had any photo's from inside the station at the time.

 

[Worker 11811]

I don't tend to photograph children as a rule if I can help it.

I don't either. It's not because I'm afraid of people thinking of me as a creeper or because I think it's creepy. I just don't have much interest in shooting pictures of kids unless the (potential) picture is something special.

The reason is brutally honest: Most people don't care to look at pictures of other people's kids.
Show them a picture of their own kids and they'll think it's the greatest picture in the world, even if it isn't. But show them a great picture of somebody else's kids and they'll say, 'Ho-hum, what else have you got?"

Unless it's something iconic or extra special such as a little girl standing on the beach watching the sunset, most people wouldn't give a rat's ass.
On the other hand, the iconic "girl at sunset" picture would probably be a silhouette anyway. In which case, it's a wash. You're not really taking a picture of a kid. You're taking a picture of a sunset which happens to have a kid in it.

Street photography is a social activity. Treat it like a street party at which you're the official photographer.

Y'know, if you put it that way, I am, sort of, the official photographer of Sunset Point.
I wear cargo shorts, a Polo shirt and beach sandals. (Not flip-flops. Teva's.) I often have two cameras around my neck. One loaded with color. One black and white. People often come up and ask me if I'm a photographer. Sometimes I just want to say, "No, I'm a veterinarian!"

If you watched that Bill Cunningham trailer, he actually IS the official fashion street photographer of New York City.
Even if he really isn't, he certainly acts like it.

 

[pbromaghin]

The reason is brutally honest: Most people don't care to look at pictures of other people's kids.
Show them a picture of their own kids and they'll think it's the greatest picture in the world, even if it isn't. But show them a great picture of somebody else's kids and they'll say, 'Ho-hum, what else have you got?"

Yup.

Other than this, I would say to get the weirdest camera you can find. A Mamiya TLR would probably suffice. Nearly everybody is intimidated by those things. You have to be a serious photographer if you show up with something that weird. I do know that I get occasionally nasty reactions if I use my SLRs, which are recognizable as normal cameras, but this is much reduced using a mid40's folding camera. The Mamiya C33 seems to get almost universal respect. People stand back when they see it.

 

[Ming Rider]

Yup.

Other than this, I would say to get the weirdest camera you can find. A Mamiya TLR would probably suffice. Nearly everybody is intimidated by those things. You have to be a serious photographer if you show up with something that weird. I do know that I get occasionally nasty reactions if I use my SLRs, which are recognizable as normal cameras, but this is much reduced using a mid40's folding camera. The Mamiya C33 seems to get almost universal respect. People stand back when they see it.

Well by some strange coincidence (?), it just so happens I have C33.

I would love nothing more than to shoot a TLR all day. Unfortunately at around a fiver per 12 shots, it's a bit restrictive. If only you could roll your own?

On the plus side though, with the world as a whole adopting a heads-down iphone stance (me included as I write this), they would just assume I'm using an early 'mobile' prototype?

 

[mr rusty]

OT Hi Ming. You by any chance the same Ming Rider as on the P*P*O forum? If so coincidence we are both on the same forums?

 

[Ming Rider]

OT Hi Ming. You by any chance the same Ming Rider as on the P*P*O forum? If so coincidence we are both on the same forums?

Hi,

Yep, one and the same.

Seems that no matter what area of life you get involved with, you're open to attack from litigous morons?

 

[Noble]

there seems to be a bit of a vogue at the moment on camera forums to diagnose people as having drug and/or alcohol and/or mental health problems purely on the basis that they object to having their photographs taken without first being asked.

What Ming Rider experienced is really quite unpleasant - as his reaction testifies - but none of us are in a position to make moral (or pseudo-medical) judgments about the person who inflicted it on him. We have no idea what provoked her reaction.

Yeah it's weird to me that some people can't accept that there are perfectly normal people that don't want a stranger snapping pictures of them and their family without permission. People need to be able to read a situation and back off. I try and take pictures surreptitiously or in a non obvious way. Or I take pictures of people working at events like festivals. Sometimes I take pictures of policemen or construction workers at work. It's just that when people are enjoying some quiet leisure time with their family in an idyllic setting they really don't want their own personal paparazzi. It's just like they wouldn't want someone starring at them.

What a lot of people don't realize in life is most people don't like confrontation. Just because they don't say anything to you while you are snapping away doesn't necessarily mean they don't mind. But every once in awhile you run across someone who has no problem telling you off. I've encountered those types of people in other areas in life. It has nothing to do with someone holding a camera.

I think as artists some people should be a bit more human and empathetic to their subjects' feelings. If you ask the average person whether they thought it was normal to object to a stranger snapping pictures of their family outing most people would say yes. It doesn't matter whether it is legal. There are plenty of things that are perfectly legal that we don't do because we know others will object.

 

[Steve Smith]

I suppose my biggest failing is that I tend to see the best in people (until they show otherwise)

I don't see that as a failing. I think it's much better than thinking the worst of people until they prove themselves to be worthy.


Steve.

 

[lxdude]

There are plenty of things that are perfectly legal that we don't do because we know others will object.

Like what? And who's "we"? And is yelling "pervert" at someone one of those things?

 

[Ming Rider]

Like what? And who's "we"? And is yelling "pervert" at someone one of those things?

+1

I can't think of anything in the UK that's legal yet no one does for fear of offending (except photographing kids that is).

Conversely, I can think of plenty that's illegal, yet people do regardless.

 

[Noble]

Like what? And who's "we"?

Like telling my boss what I really think of his suit. And "we" is the average normal person.

And is yelling "pervert" at someone one of those things?

It is possible for two parties to behave in an unreasonable fashion in a situation. It's not like one person is 100% correct and one person is 100% wrong all the time. Like I said I choose my subjects carefully. I shoot carefully and I read a situation and back off. I wouldn't "stand my ground." If I were to do something like that, which I wouldn't, and someone got upset I would apologize and explain myself. If they mentioned the authorities I would again apologize and be willing to discuss the matter with the authorities. I would not tell them I had a legal right to do what I did. Once you start telling people about your legal rights you are in full blown confrontation mode. Even if someone reacts excessively to a noxious stimulus that does not absolve the person imposing that stimulus of all blame. You can't control other people. But you have 100% or at least 95% control over yourself. Change the variables you can control.

 

[Ming Rider]

I don't see that as a failing. I think it's much better than thinking the worst of people until they prove themselves to be worthy.


Steve.

Quite agree, though I was feeling a little sorry for myself at that point.

It's a sad fact that the more time I choose to spend in 'the city', the more I'm realising what a different world it is to the relative tranquility of the countryside.

People's attitudes (to a large degree) towards each other are different. I walk around feeling happy with my lot and probably show it in my expression. Others look (to me anyway) as though they're about to be attacked around the next corner.

A simple cheery nod from me to anyone passing by, is met with a fearful look in the other direction.

I was going to ask a passerby in Blackburn this morning if he knew where there was a McDonalds. Before I could speak, he just blurted, "not interested, I don't believe in God." Later I realised that with my cheerful disposition and the black messenger style camera bag, I probably looked like a Jehovah Witness.

Sad times and shame on others for loosing empathy with their surroundings.

I'll get of my soapbox now.

 

[lxdude]

Like telling my boss what I really think of his suit. And "we" is the average normal person.

I don't see how that compares to taking pictures in a public place.

 

[Noble]

I don't see how that compares to taking pictures in a public place.

Well it's not merely "taking pictures in a public place." It is taking pictures of someone else's children without permission or even introducing yourself. There are some people that would consider both scenarios rude.

In the United States we have a constitution. And the first amendment of that constitution guarantees freedom of speech. It is almost like a religious text. But for most of us regardless of what freedoms that passage says it protects we go most of our lives without invoking it's protection. Why? Because regardless of what some piece of legal paper in Washington DC says we are more constrained by societal norms. It's ironic. People complaining about the break down of society because they can't just stalk and shoot other people's children without so much as a "hello" or introduction. Quoting your legal rights to someone is not how I see things getting done on the street in small towns. That to me seems a very urban attitude.

 

[viridari]

I guess it helps me sometimes that I'm particularly big and particularly ugly. When I do street work, I seldom run into problems with anyone. On the contrary, when people realize I'm shooting film, they often see it as a novelty and ask if I'll take their photo (and yet still ask to see the preview on the back of the camera).

 

[Steve Smith]

i am not familiar with the rules of the country the OP was in regarding street photos. but in the US we can still do it freely.

It's largely the same here.


Steve.

 

[Steve Smith]

A simple cheery nod from me to anyone passing by, is met with a fearful look in the other direction.

Not down here. most people would say hello.


Steve.

 

[Worker 11811]

Yeah it's weird to me that some people can't accept that there are perfectly normal people that don't want a stranger snapping pictures of them and their family without permission.

I think there is a basic misunderstanding between serious photographers and the public.

We don't necessarily take pictures OF other people. We take pictures that have people IN THEM.
At least that's the way I see things. I take pictures of landscapes, scenery or landmarks but, without people in them, they often look deserted, uninteresting or just plain boring. People in the foreground or interacting with the world are what makes an "okay" picture into a great picture.

Sometimes, I'll take a picture of people or kids doing something but, in those cases, it's about the activity, not necessarily the person. Most of the time, those people's faces aren't visible or they are blurred or in the shadows.

It's not because I don't want to see the person's face. It's because I'm trying to sell my pictures or I'm trying to promote my photography. I want to promote pictures, not other people. The only person beside me who cares is the person in the picture. The rest of the world doesn't give a rat's ass.

 

[wwilliams]

In today's world it's incredibly rude to interact with a minor without contact with the responsible adult first. INCREDIBLY RUDE and anyone who reads a newspaper or watches a tv more than once a month should know that. Don't discuss the constitution or your "rights" as an artist. We are talking about very basic good manners.

 

[Ming Rider]

. . . anyone who reads a newspaper or watches a tv more than once a month should know that . . .

I refer the honourable gentleman to the content of my original post re: the media.

 

[Noble]

I think there is a basic misunderstanding between serious photographers and the public.

We don't necessarily take pictures OF other people. We take pictures that have people IN THEM.
At least that's the way I see things. I take pictures of landscapes, scenery or landmarks but, without people in them, they often look deserted, uninteresting or just plain boring. People in the foreground or interacting with the world are what makes an "okay" picture into a great picture.

That is a different scenario. If you are taking a picture of a large building that just happens to have several people mingling in front of it you are not required by etiquette to dash from person to person introducing yourself and asking permission to take a picture of a building they don't even own. It is understood that if you stand in a crowd in front of an interesting or historic building or landscape you may end up incidentally in a photograph.

 

[waynecrider]

You need a business card when this happens which you can hand to such a person and tell them that they can download the picture for their album. It helps if you are actually licensed. All legit and all.

I gave up on the street stuff mostly. Had to many over zealous security guards who thought they were God's law. The shooting was really all for fun, so why weather that crap. Big events are ok tho.