Photography in Public Places

Thomas Bertilsson said:

Domenico, I don't disagree with you. But who is to say what is ethical and what is not? What one person finds perfectly natural, somebody else might find offensive. That, of course, is the root of the problem.

Click to expand...

The problem is that photography (even by some people of this community) is seen as a predatory action, when it isn't.
What makes me laugh is that at many crossroads, stores, and other many venues you are consistently observed by cameras and you don't complain, when you actually should because the intent is the one to control our actions.
When a photographer takes pictures of the crowd instead we find it objectionable and we complain because it is easier to target him/her, especially if the Father Government tells us that we should be reported if we look suspicious.

I am done doing this as I realized I was going to say the same thing I said in other threads and to repeat myself over and over to people who don't know what it means to DO street shooting is a waste of time.
Thomas, I am not sure what ethical is to you, but I know what it is to me. There are times when only experience can teach us if something is ethical or not.

That's just it. We'll never fully agree. And let's move beyond you and I for a minute now.

The reason we'll never agree is that everybody has a different opinion of what is ethical and what is not. I know what I think is ethical, and you know what you think. But that doesn't necessarily correlate with everybody else' opinion.

I go back to my comment about empathy. You have to possess the ability to place yourself in reversed roles, where you imagine somebody else holding a camera and photographing you, all while you consider the experiences those people have had since they were born, forming and shaping who they are today. Just like you and I! It could well happen that we were raised in homes where free thinking and liberty were absolutes and musts, while others are not so lucky.

That is why people get irritated and angry, because i believe that they feel like we are stealing something from them. They don't understand teh rationale, no matter how many times it's explained, because they profoundly disagree. Lawful or not, it is with consideration of that I think street photography can exist.
Then it's up to you to determine how much you wish to piss people off. If you want to stick a camera in somebody's face without asking permission first, well that's your call. If you did it to me I would ask you please not to, even if it's within your rights.

- Thomas

Thomas Bertilsson said:

That is why people get irritated and angry, because i believe that they feel like we are stealing something from them.

- Thomas

Click to expand...

Are we ? If the answer is not, then to accommodate them would be a bit patronizing, don't you agree? Are you talking about privacy? Your privacy is non existent from the moment you get out your door. There is no way you or anybody else can escape that.
Or maybe it is a mix of fear and shame that makes us seem this job so unethical.
If somebody would take pictures of me on the street, I would be amused because I know that it is fun, I respect creativity and I wonder what the person saw in me to excite his curiosity.
I wouldn't feel deprived of absolutely anything, I would still feel intact and I probably would feel like I am not 28 grams lighter.

I was at a public estate auction a couple of weeks ago and a pair of girls were leafing through a scrapbook. The girls looked to me to be high school age, if not a bit older, and both had a young man in close attendance. Their facial expressions were very interesting as they saw and read of life 80 or more years past and I made several exposures as the light was bad and shutter speeds low.

When I finished an older man came up to me and asked whether I was with the newspaper. I said no; I'm a computer programmer by profession. He then asked why I was taking pictures of his daughters? I was a bit worried but told him the truth: their facial expressions as they leafed through the scrapbook were interesting. Then I offered him a print. His manner changed immediately; he smiled and wrote down his name, address, and e-mail address.

So, sometimes it doesn't take much to turn a situation around!

Mike

I blame the internet!

Actually, I do.

I think one of the reasons people have become so adverse to having their photograph taken by strangers, is that they are aware how incredibly easy it is now to share a digital image with dozens, hundreds, thousands, millions and more people.

It may be that the best answer to someone who is reluctant is to show them a print!

Matt

I respect your opinion, amico. But I also see it differently. How I feel is not something I can change, even though I am an extremely open minded individual.

I realize that when I am in a public setting a different set of rules apply than when I'm in my home. It's not the law that I am discussing. It is to have enough respect for the people you would photograph in the street to consider whether they actually want to have their picture taken or not. Respect, and empathy - two of the most important qualities any human can possess when dealing with other people, in my humble opinion.

I'm not implying that you don't have those qualities. I know you are a good person, and I can't wait to meet you and shake your hand some day, let's put that straight. We just don't see eye to eye in this particular issue. I hope you respect my standpoint too.

Domenico Foschi said:

Are we ? If the answer is not, then to accommodate them would be a bit patronizing, don't you agree? Are you talking about privacy? Your privacy is non existent from the moment you get out your door. There is no way you or anybody else can escape that.
Or maybe it is a mix of fear and shame that makes us seem this job so unethical.
If somebody would take pictures of me on the street, I would be amused because I know that it is fun, I respect creativity and I wonder what the person saw in me to excite his curiosity.
I wouldn't feel deprived of absolutely anything, I would still feel intact and I probably would feel like I am not 28 grams lighter.

Click to expand...

No, I am not trying to convince you. That is not my goal, but I have a question.


Are you thankful for the existence of Bresson's work?

I greatly admire the work of Bresson. What he did was phenomenal, and I am used to seeing large prints of his, especially since I worked at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts at the time he died, and then photography curator Ted Hartwell put on a great display of some fantastic prints. I looked at those up close every day for months.

I don't know the working methods of Cartier-Bresson; and just because I love his absolutely incredible sense of composing pictures quickly in a witty and ingenious way, I don't have to agree with how they were created.
Records of people doing every day things is something very interesting; they provide a fantastic glimpse into the past, and I strongly believe we can learn from it; in fact we should! If I knew that Cartier-Bresson somehow had gotten at least a nod of approval from the people he photographed, I would feel better.

To me it's just about common courtesy and respect for other fellow humans. I was raised to believe, and have later in life liked, that you ask permission of people before you do something where they are involved. It could be pouring a glass of wine, it could be about sitting next to them on the bus, or taking a picture of them. My appreciation and admiration for Bresson's work does not change how I feel. And, his pictures, or yours, are not necessarily disrespectful to those involved either (in my view) from a content standpoint.

A photographer has rights, and a photographer can choose how they operate as long as it's within the frame of law. But you also have a given right to consider the feelings of the people you photograph, and whether you should put your own agenda above theirs.

Which is more important to you? The picture, or making sure that the person you photograph actually does not have a problem with you photographing them?

Thomas Bertilsson said:

Which is more important to you? The picture, or making sure that the person you photograph actually does not have a problem with you photographing them?

Click to expand...

The picture.

But I believe in good karma, and often ask, but if I'm photographing in public... I photographed at my town's 4th of July fireworks last year, and couldn't ask everyone for permission as it was very crowded. Fortunately, I know a lot of those people, and if I want to ultimately use a picture, I'd try to reach them, and offer a print. I don't often photograph strangers any more as it doesn't interest me visually, but I did a lot of street shooting in the early 80's in New York. I don't regret a single picture. It's the pictures I don't make that I regret.

It's entirely possible to make pictures in public respectfully. If you asking yourself that question, then I think you'd make a fine street photographer.

SuzanneR said:

It's entirely possible to make pictures in public respectfully.

Click to expand...

Agreed wholeheartedly! That's a good skill to know in itself, and needs practice, just as any other.

SuzanneR said:

It's entirely possible to make pictures in public respectfully.

Click to expand...

How do you insure that? If I was walking down the street, and because I look so interesting you wish to make a picture of me. How do you insure that you photograph me in a respectful manner? And what does that mean?

I'm sorry, but I am hard headed on this one intentionally. I'm trying to get to the core of how street photography can be an empathetic and respectful process. For everybody.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

How do you insure that? If I was walking down the street, and because I look so interesting you wish to make a picture of me. How do you insure that you photograph me in a respectful manner? And what does that mean?

I'm sorry, but I am hard headed on this one intentionally. I'm trying to get to the core of how street photography can be an empathetic and respectful process. For everybody.

Click to expand...

By being respectful, Thomas.

And mind you, I'm not sure all street photographers are or have been, but it's an individual choice... and ultimately by making pictures that add to, and deepen our understanding of the human condition, you've demonstrated respect.

Bresson did that, and I think he added something special to each person's life that he photographed. Do you really think he took something from them? Do you really think he wasn't respectful of the people he saw, and photographed? As a viewer I'm enriched by it... I think the subjects are, too.

And some photography isn't very respectful... I am bothered, sometimes, when I see pictures made intentionally to elicit an "I feel sorry" for them response... a lot of pictures depicting poverty, for example, trouble me for a variety of reasons, though those pictures are often made in private settings, with the consent of the person being photographed. Is that the only road to respect?

And ultimately, if one makes a picture in public that doesn't feel right or respectful, then don't share it.

Go out and try it.

Struggle until you learn, just like everyone else. Another skill in your skillset.

Suzanne - it just goes to prove why this is controversial. I just think people are different. What's respectful to one person may not be to another. And I believe that you are right that if you at least ask yourself the question whether you're being respectful or disrespectful, may well be enough. As long as you at least consider it. And that there may be moments where we choose not to take the picture, for empathetic reasons.

I don't think HCB was intentionally disrespectful, but to some people involved he just might have been. We can never know the truth about that. And I think that as with many other situations in life, like having conversations with other people, taking their picture can be much the same thing. Perhaps most of the time we are respectful and mindful of what we say to others; if we know them well enough we can be bolder and downright challenging. And sometimes we'll screw up and hurt somebody. I'm sure we have all done it, I know I have. Then it's a matter of how to repair it. In the case of photography, I think there must be some level of integrity where consideration is made as to whether a certain frame will get printed, scanned, deleted, etc.

WolfTales - I just might. Some day.

Thank you from me. I have learned something today.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

...
Records of people doing every day things is something very interesting; they provide a fantastic glimpse into the past, and I strongly believe we can learn from it; in fact we should! If I knew that Cartier-Bresson somehow had gotten at least a nod of approval from the people he photographed, I would feel better.

To me it's just about common courtesy and respect for other fellow humans. I was raised to believe, and have later in life liked, that you ask permission of people before you do something where they are involved. It could be pouring a glass of wine, it could be about sitting next to them on the bus, or taking a picture of them. My appreciation and admiration for Bresson's work does not change how I feel. And, his pictures, or yours, are not necessarily disrespectful to those involved either (in my view) from a content standpoint.

A photographer has rights, and a photographer can choose how they operate as long as it's within the frame of law. But you also have a given right to consider the feelings of the people you photograph, and whether you should put your own agenda above theirs.

Which is more important to you? The picture, or making sure that the person you photograph actually does not have a problem with you photographing them?

Click to expand...

Everything changes. HCB operated in a different time, when people didn't have the same concerns. Had he asked for approval, what he was able to do would not have been possible.

I photographed in crowds at public events in the late '70's - 80's, and I didn't ask permission very often. Had I done so, I would have got an entirely different kind of image, a kind that would not have been useful to the publication I worked for. In other words, I would not have had a job.

As far as I know, the magazine received NO complaints, and, in fact, people who did find themselves in a picture were generally quite happy, sometimes asked for prints and the magazine happily provided. They would order prints from me and pay me to make them.

I looked like a photographer, nothing was hidden. People mostly ignored me or accepted me as just another part of the event, just as they were, themselves. I moved freely among them, doing my job. They knew, instinctively, what I was there to do. It was just part of life, then.

I frequently worked in a crowd for 4 or 5 hours before anyone would even notice me. Sometimes, people saw me working and asked me to photograph them. Once, some young folks were drinking beer in a parking lot when I was done for the day. "Take our Picture". I said I'd just unloaded my camera, and was dead tired. "We'll take our clothes off!"

Then, it was ok. Now it's not. There are no longer any "consumer" picture magazines, so there is no model in people's minds that enables them to accept a photographer operating openly in their midst. That's gone. Now the images in magazines are heavily produced, artificial, art-directed. So, people don't trust photographers; they can't imagine why anyone would be doing that. When everyone was looking at LIFE, etc., everyone was conditioned to recognize photography as part of normal life. No longer.

We may have different feelings about this, but we may also not be quite aware that where we see these things in an absolute sense - that, for example, asking permission is and always was a requirement - it's not like that. Attitudes change with time and place. Cartier-Bresson's world is gone forever.

A friend of mine spent a year in Turkey in 1964. He photographed a couple of Mullahs. They chased him down the street. Neither he, nor they, recognized that their worlds resided in different universes. He learned that very quickly.

I now know that I was extremely lucky to have experienced working like that. For photography, my time was the end of a great era.

One thing is going amiss. I am not suggesting that permission should be asked. I realize that this changes the whole approach and content of the scene and resulting picture.

The only thing I'm suggesting is that there are two agendas involved. The photographer's picture, and the people being photographed. Consideration to whether it's appropriate to make the picture or not lies with the photographer. To me it's a DUTY to make that consideration. We have to trust our judgment, and most reasonable people probably do. Then there are some that will photograph anything for shock value or gaining attention. That's what I'm questioning. We just have to be cognizant of the people that we photograph, so that it's dignified and respectful of their presence in the picture and how it's portrayed.

I am sure it has changed, bowzart. I wouldn't know, because I was born in 1971. Thanks for chiming in with your vast experience.

There is only one person who can satisfy your questions, and that person is you.
When you will decide to go out and do some "street shooting" (wrongly called so), you will have knowledge based on experience and not just assumption.

Very true, Domenico. I agree with that wholeheartedly. My points of the discussion came from being an observer, and experience certainly does matter.

But I have to say that my idea of integrity comes from life style, and doesn't apply just to photography; it's how I lead life. I strongly believe in treating others with as much respect and dignity as I can; to make them feel good about being in my presence. I would never veer from that.

- Thomas

If it's working right, there is only one agenda. If there are two agendas, there is a problem.

So, Thomas,

Consider this conundrum:

1) You would feel better knowing that HCB received a nod of approval.

2) With approval, HCB could not make the photograph, since he was in the moment as was his subject.

3) Doesn't it follow, then, that you'd feel better if HCB hadn't produced the image?

Unless, perhaps, we acknowledge that the approval is embedded IN THE SITUATION.

-----

My point is that in the present environment, one can no longer rely upon the situation carrying that approval with it. Even if you, as Domenico suggests, were to bite the bullet and shoot in public, you would not have the same experience that was HCB's daily fare.

I suspect that you may object to my extraction of your meaning from what I hear in your language. Note: I hear it. What I hear may not correspond to what you are trying to say.

To me, there is a contradiction in the language which is easily resolved by placing the responsibility for "approval" where it belongs - in the flow of the work and the living of the life. I understand that, having missed the period in history within which HCB and his colleagues worked, it may be difficult for you to quite grok this.

My experience: when shooting is flowing correctly, the image is a partnership between photographer and subject. In our current world, it's not a partnership; it's become adversarial. Not in every case, probably, but more often than not.

bowzart said:

If it's working right, there is only one agenda. If there are two agendas, there is a problem.

So, Thomas,

Consider this conundrum:

1) You would feel better knowing that HCB received a nod of approval.

2) With approval, HCB could not make the photograph, since he was in the moment as was his subject.

3) Doesn't it follow, then, that you'd feel better if HCB hadn't produced the image?

Unless, perhaps, we acknowledge that the approval is embedded IN THE SITUATION.

-----

My point is that in the present environment, one can no longer rely upon the situation carrying that approval with it. Even if you, as Domenico suggests, were to bite the bullet and shoot in public, you would not have the same experience that was HCB's daily fare.

I suspect that you may object to my extraction of your meaning from what I hear in your language. Note: I hear it. What I hear may not correspond to what you are trying to say.

To me, there is a contradiction in the language which is easily resolved by placing the responsibility for "approval" where it belongs - in the flow of the work and the living of the life. I understand that, having missed the period in history within which HCB and his colleagues worked, it may be difficult for you to quite grok this.

My experience: when shooting is flowing correctly, the image is a partnership between photographer and subject. In our current world, it's not a partnership; it's become adversarial. Not in every case, probably, but more often than not.

Click to expand...

Excellent points, Bowzart. I am in agreement with the first part of your last statement (sorry), but the second part is in contrast with my perception. It is true that the world has become more hostile toward photographers, but at the end, when I am concerned about taking some particular shots I realize that the real obstacle is only within myself. If I disregard that concern and I go for it I have done my job. If I have restrained myself from shooting I feel as I have lost something, which isn't only a potentially good picture but the occasion to win my personal battle with my own fear.

This is getting interesting! Thank you for sticking with it.

Domenico, Bowz, I'd like to ask you, do you feel that it's important to consider the subject and how they feel about you photographing them? Or is the process about you entirely? Or a combination?

bowzart said:

If it's working right, there is only one agenda. If there are two agendas, there is a problem.

So, Thomas,

Consider this conundrum:

1) You would feel better knowing that HCB received a nod of approval.

2) With approval, HCB could not make the photograph, since he was in the moment as was his subject.

3) Doesn't it follow, then, that you'd feel better if HCB hadn't produced the image?

Unless, perhaps, we acknowledge that the approval is embedded IN THE SITUATION.

Click to expand...

Bowz, this is why I am SO INCREDIBLY torn on the subject. I have my admiration for Bresson's work on one hand, and my belief in what is right and wrong in the other.

I don't believe in politeness. Politeness is that set of rules created by society that have clipped the wings of many children. Do you remember when your parents told you to say hi to that creepy guy colleague of your father and you didn't want to ?
I believe in kindness.

To answer in part to your question.
Do you really believe that if taking pictures was entirely about me I would go around risking to be punched in the face by some not so well meaning stranger, or being stopped by the cops for a background check to make sure I am not a child molester?
Have you ever tried not to take pictures for one year by self imposing will and not due to depression?

This question of yours delves at the very core of why we take pictures, why we do what we do, what is the real purpose that requires from us continuously selflessness, in return of some sporadic precious moments when we are elated because we are in the flow, as Bowzart says, and as Minor WHite described as "walking on water".
At this question, Thomas, once again, you are the one to find the answer.
What I can tell you is this. "Street photography" has taught me to love people at the point that sometime I find myself observing the crowd (without a camera) with a smile from ear to ear.
It is about respect, it about love and it is about something bigger that unites us with a thread.

All right! That was far within. Although, Domenico - I do believe in respect, which doesn't always completely relate to politeness. I was raised to only express joy at what I believe to be joyful, and only to express admiration for what I think deserves it. My parents were cool!

Thank you for sharing your inside view. It has been most illuminating. I don't believe that anybody walks around doing something, risking to be punched in the nose, unless there was good reason to do it.

I shall continue to grow.

Thomas,

If you are going to do this, you need, as Domenico said or at least came very close to saying, to confront your fear.

You know, or maybe you don't - I was a shy kid with a serious confidence deficit, probably due to my lack of male influence in my life as a child. I mean, I had no clue, whatever. So, I got interested in Song Dynasty Chinese silk paintings in an art history class, and wanted desperately to do something like that, so I picked up on photography and hooked up with Minor White. Seems appropriate, probably. But there was a time when with two little girls, I decided that yes, I had to make a living. Printing for Don Normark, I met the Sunset Magazine editors and got into a free lance arrangement with them as a travel and garden photographer. So here's this really shy kid out there photographing in crowds, doing events and travel destinations. Every shot had to have at least one person in it and it had to look natural, and the best way to do that is for it to be natural.

I was terrified.

I adapted.

I am still a bit shy, but I learned one thing that was extremely valuable, both in photography and in teaching. Life was not at all what I thought it was. By adopting a persona, I could be an actor. In doing so, I could do much more than Larry Bullis himself had in him. I could be much more than that. I could be a fearless photographer, plying my craft in public, and in doing so, I could interact with people with some degree of highly enhanced confidence.

Shooting like that is an incredible discipline. If I thought about it, I'd get stage fright and fold up like laundry. It requires not only confronting one's fear and getting past it; it means to confront that fear constantly, daily if possible, and live that confrontation. If I got scared in the midst of a job (happened repeatedly) I eventually learned that dealing with the onset of fear is easier if I convert the fear into action, so I'd shoot more aggressively. In doing so, I became more entertaining. If people get uncomfortable, the thing to do was to lie on the floor and shoot them from there. That was great. It made them into monuments.

I hope you aren't thinking this is one of those collectible things like a boy scout merit badge. You know: "I've done landscapes, I've done portraits, I've done architectural photography, now I'm going to do street photography" etc. If you are going to photograph in public like that you must do it constantly and work very hard. Otherwise, your people will look like stick figures.

I can't do it now, and that's why. It is NOT something I can do on Saturday, and go back to something else on Monday. Unless I were to do it maybe three times/week, ten hours/day. At my age, I can no longer run circles around my subjects, models, etc. I can't shoot two-day hikes in the desert in 100° weather. If I were going to do that kind of shooting now, I would need to train for it. I mean, like an athlete. Or an actor. It's sort of like method acting, actually, at least for me. Others may not have this hanging over them; I don't know. But that's what it's been like for me. I am strongly attracted to it, but all I have to do is pick up a camera and hit the crowd, and I know -- I know that my career doing that is really over, and I'd best occupy myself with - at this point - contemplation, and putting together all I've learned into some coherent whole. I hope I have time.

Anyway, it isn't a small hobby thing we're looking at here. It's a calling, like teaching or the ministry. If you are going to do it, then do it. Really do it. No half efforts. It's a big commitment, and in order to do it successfully, you have to want it with everything you've got. I was good at it, and while I had a job doing it, it was rather wonderful. Now that job is gone. Doing it now, since there are really no picture magazines left, requires doing it without the financial motivation. I'm not likely to start doing it again. Other things have taken precedence and I have insufficient motivation to ever achieve my own standards.

If Gene Smith were alive today, he'd be unemployed. I'm sorry, but it's true.