Photography in Public Places

[df cardwell]

Domenico
" I don't believe in politeness.... I believe in kindness."

I think we are in complete accord. Self restraint = respect = kindness.
Allowing for each other to choose our own words to express what seem to be similar sentiment,
we agree.

When I was much younger, an editor told me that I needed to get close enough to people that I COULD become part of the picture, but never, never, never BECOME part of the picture. My job was to be a witness, not a participant.

In time, an intuitive appreciation of that direction replaced the mechanical direction of my boss and teacher.

We each set our own limits, and I'll grant that we can't make hard and fast rules: no closer than 3 meters, no pictures of people eating bananas, etc. Kindness, respect, restraint. Same.

Now.

What troubles me is not HCB, or Vishniak, or Hine, but the Photo Bully.

"I have a camera, I am a street photographer and can't be told what not to shoot"

This is the photographer who is out to get in your face, disrupt what you are doing, to provoke you and record your reaction.

Tell me, if you are out making pictures, and this guy comes stalking you, what do you do ?

In a perfect world, I think I'd try to go with the improvisation, but I can't do that all the time.

The Photo Bully is what many people today perceive, and that has made carrying a camera harder than it once was.


Some of my favorite pictures were done in the New York subway by Stanley Kubrik:

But that was a long time ago, and so many 'photographers' infested the subway over the next 50 years, cameras had to be banned. Too bad.


.

 

[Domenico Foschi]

Well, then to your eyes I am a photo bully as last summer I did photograph a girl biting a banana.
Why not? If you have to censor yourself as you see images floating around you, then you'd better stay home and do some still life, and if bananas bother you, you can always choose bell peppers.
Can't you make look a girl eating a banana as a sad endeavor, or funny or anything but allusive to oral sex? And if it is allusive to oral sex, in the right context could still be a successful image, even as a level of social value? The worst thing a photographer can do is to care of these stereotypes.
One of the traits of This kind of photography is exactly to point out the flaws and stereotypes of our societies and not to conform to them. Be free, be out of the box!
Why shouldn't I include myself in the picture? I am working for no newspaper and no editor is going to care if I am in there or not. I was actually thinking to start a series of images with me in the crowd a few days ago.
At the end, once again, you cannot judge a photographer dancing around the crowd taking pictures if you haven't tried the discipline.
You can't tell a chef how to make a sauce if you haven't done it yourself first.

 

[df cardwell]

Domenico

I believe, with gentle intentions and kindness, you misread what I wrote.

Of course, I'm very difficult to comprehend even on a good day, so the fault is probably mine.

You can't tell a chef how to make a sauce if you haven't done it yourself first

I'm sure that is very true.

 

[Domenico Foschi]

That'll be fine.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Cardwell, you organized my thoughts for me. Thanks.

Domenico
" I don't believe in politeness.... I believe in kindness."

I think we are in complete accord. Self restraint = respect = kindness.
Allowing for each other to choose our own words to express what seem to be similar sentiment,
we agree.

When I was much younger, an editor told me that I needed to get close enough to people that I COULD become part of the picture, but never, never, never BECOME part of the picture. My job was to be a witness, not a participant.

In time, an intuitive appreciation of that direction replaced the mechanical direction of my boss and teacher.

We each set our own limits, and I'll grant that we can't make hard and fast rules: no closer than 3 meters, no pictures of people eating bananas, etc. Kindness, respect, restraint. Same.

Now.

What troubles me is not HCB, or Vishniak, or Hine, but the Photo Bully.

"I have a camera, I am a street photographer and can't be told what not to shoot"

This is the photographer who is out to get in your face, disrupt what you are doing, to provoke you and record your reaction.

Tell me, if you are out making pictures, and this guy comes stalking you, what do you do ?

In a perfect world, I think I'd try to go with the improvisation, but I can't do that all the time.

The Photo Bully is what many people today perceive, and that has made carrying a camera harder than it once was.


Some of my favorite pictures were done in the New York subway by Stanley Kubrik:

But that was a long time ago, and so many 'photographers' infested the subway over the next 50 years, cameras had to be banned. Too bad.


.

 

[haris]

Oh, well, seing what happens in Britain, USA, etc... regarding photographing on public places (just to mention "demokracies", not to mention dictatorship countries), and worrying it will spread all over the world, I think soon we won't have to ask ourselves about it. There will be no photographing on public places as it will be banned in all countries, or we will be too afraid/sceptic to do it (it will produce too much hassle with authorities and/or other people) even if it will not be banned.

 

[Larry Bullis]

Oh, well, seing what happens in Britain, USA, etc... regarding photographing on public places (just to mention "demokracies", not to mention dictatorship countries), and worrying it will spread all over the world, I think soon we won't have to ask ourselves about it. There will be no photographing on public places as it will be banned in all countries, or we will be too afraid/sceptic to do it (it will produce too much hassle with authorities and/or other people) even if it will not be banned.

Are you watching what's happening in Iran right now? I can hardly believe the courage of the people who are photographing - mostly with cell phones - and sending the images out to the world. It may well be that one way or another, photography will continue, and even though dangerous, will continue to be a source of vital information about vital things. Like survival in the face of tyranny.

Larry

 

[Anton Lukoszevieze]

I know this reply is not totally relevant to the current discussion but it made me laugh.......
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/18/antiterrorism-police-stop-painter-airport

 

[Shangheye]

The average IQ of a PC in the UK Police force is below 100 I was told by a colleague the other day. If that is true, it effectively means that on average you are dealing with someone below average intelligence. Expecting them to actually know the law, and not simply turn to bully tactics is stretching hope. The police do a wonderful service, and put their lives at risk for us every day, so this is not a rant at them (I believe most of them GENUINELY believe a terrorist would set up a Large Format camera to photograph a building that is probably repeated 100 times on an image search of google). It is more a rant at a system that effectively leaves stop and search powers in the hands of individuals not capable of intellectualising the use of such powers.

On the subject of public photography, I am an advocate of Domenico's approach. I believe that with the exception of harassment (which would destroy the "natural" part of the photo..no?), anything goes on public property.

Rgds, Kal

 

[Rudeofus]

The average IQ of a PC in the UK Police force is below 100 I was told by a colleague the other day. If that is true, it effectively means that on average you are dealing with someone below average intelligence. Expecting them to actually know the law, and not simply turn to bully tactics is stretching hope. The police do a wonderful service, and put their lives at risk for us every day, so this is not a rant at them (I believe most of them GENUINELY believe a terrorist would set up a Large Format camera to photograph a building that is probably repeated 100 times on an image search of google).

As I have written before: the problem is not primarily the cops who are at the front of this. Mistakes happen and cops may overreact. The problem is that these incidents were fully backed by their authorities: "proportionate", as they called it. Afterwards. Not stressed. In every civilized country one would expect personal consequences for police officers who arrest people for taking a picture, and one would also expect some (monetary) relief for the victim of police action gone haywire.

I hear the tourism agencies of normal European countries uncork nice bottles of champagne every time such a screw up gets reported from the UK/USA

 

[Aurum]

The problem isn't IQ. Its attitude.
My next door neighbour is retired plod, and he dispairs of what the force has become. He has often said that when he joined, exam results were not as important as a "coppers nose", physical fitness, and being personable.
He has pointed out that coming the hardman doesn't help. A good copper needs to know his patch, and that being personable actually gets him more information to do his job. Being labelled a twat in a uniform just makes his catch rate drop through the weeds.

"You catch more flies with honey than you do vinegar"

Still all this should have been learned during the 70's and 80's, when the sus laws blew up in the polices face, and PACE had to be introduced as the courts didn't trust what plod were saying any more.

It appears to have been forgotten, oh well history may well repeat itself....

 

[Uncle Goose]

Damn, I'm going to London in April. I will take my camera of course (not my Bronica ETRSi but rather my 1€ Minolta XG2 score, just to be save). Seems that I will get questioned by them since I will do all the tourist spots with a tripod and a "weird" looking camera. Having this I must be a terrorist, no??

Funny thing about the new Belgian identity card is that is doesn't show your address, it's in-bedded in a chip specially done to increase privacy. I wonder how they will react on that if I being stopped. Also, it will be hard to show my photographs if I asked to as they are on film .

 

[Steve Smith]

I will take my camera of course (not my Bronica ETRSi but rather my 1€ Minolta XG2 score, just to be save). Seems that I will get questioned by them since I will do all the tourist spots with a tripod and a "weird" looking camera. Having this I must be a terrorist, no??

Don't worry. It's not very likely that you will get stopped. Bring the Bronica!



Steve.

 

[Phil]

A Photographer Is "Banned" for Taking Pictures on Church Street

http://www.7dvt.com/2010photographer-banned-taking-pictures-church-street

 

[hspluta]

This has been a very interesting read. I guess I am very lucky as I have never been given a hard time. I have set up my camera everywhere from the streets of San Francisco to downtown Chicago to the monuments in Washington to the middle of Walt Disneyworld with no issues. I was trained as a battalion photographer in the early 70's and one of the things that was pounded into my head was to always look and act like you belong where you are. Essential in a military environment, helpful beyond words in everyday life.

I believe that photographers took a real hit when Princess Diana was killed, most anyone you talk to will tell you it was the photographer's fault. The poparazzi are pretty much seen as scum by most of the people I talk to and if you are seen with an SLR that looks anything like the ones seen in the news people are much less trusting of you. Whenever I have the 4x5 out and now with my old Hasselblad people are more interested in the equipment I am using rather then being offended by my taking pictures. ( "You mean you don't know if the picture is going to come out right away?" )

Again an interesting thread and lots of good points. Oh yea, I was taught that if you take a picture the clearly shows a person in it, you have to get them to sign a model release in order to sell it or display it publicly. I always have a few in my bag just in case I think I have caught that special shot.

 

[Steve Smith]

Oh yea, I was taught that if you take a picture the clearly shows a person in it, you have to get them to sign a model release in order to sell it or display it publicly.

You can display it publicly without a release as long as it does not show the person in a defamatory way I think you can also sell it as an art print without a release.


Steve.

 

[Rudeofus]

At least there is one free country where you can take pictures of train stations ...

... most of us would have to travel quite far to get there, though

 

[wotalegend]

... most of us would have to travel quite far to get there, though

North Korea? A free country?

 

[Rudeofus]

North Korea? A free country?

I sure hope my high level of sarcasm was not misunderstood. I am fully aware of what's going on in North Korea, and even this lunatic regime seems to have a more liberal stance towards photography in public places than some countries in the so called "free west".

 

[hspluta]

You can display it publicly without a release as long as it does not show the person in a defamatory way I think you can also sell it as an art print without a release.


Steve.

I'm sure you are correct, that was just the way I was taught.

Best, -H

 

[Larry Bullis]

You may now face arrest

A friend posted this link on his facebook page.

Dead Link Removed

Be careful when you photograph in any situation where police are involved. In my opinion, these laws MUST be challenged and overturned. Anyone interested in a little excitement? The article tells you where to go: Massachusetts, Maryland, or Illinois would be a great place to start. There are nine others where enforcement could be expected, but these three states are the hot ones.

 

[AgentX]

Ed: This post made in general, not specifically addressing anything other than the thread's overall (and original) theme.

There are quite legitimate concerns with terrorism and various forms of surveillance, including photography.

The sad part is that overall paranoia combined with a lack of real training and understanding among security guards, cops, and the public leads to legit photographers (99.99999%+ of photographers) being hassled and real terrorists possibly or even probably going unnoticed.

 

[nc5p]

A look over at carlosmiller.com shows a large increase in these incidents lately. This seems to follow the increasing number of general arrests, the increasing number of citizens killed by the cops, and increasing hostility by government towards the public. I live in an unincorporated area but the city is nearby. They really take things like photography more seriously there.

 

[IloveTLRs]

Which remind me....

The company I work for has stopped us taking pictures with SLR type camera. We have been told, we can't even take pictures of the back yard portion of the business facing AWAY from building. One of us was required to get permission from security then from corporate for a permission to take photo outside - at the parking lot. Company name cannot be shown and door cannot be open. Few days later, I saw a bunch of people taking photos of our lobby area, with company name in the frame AND security guard was posing with them. These people were using regular point-and-shoot digital.

That reminds me. A few years ago I went to the opening of the Apple Store in my city. I thought I'd be nice and ask if I could take pictures since I was in a local Mac Users Group. The shop staff promptly told me "No". Literally all around me were hundreds of people snapping away on their P&S digicams and cellphones and no one said a thing, nor were there any signs forbidding photography :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

 

[dasBlute]

same here in front of the Palo Alto apple store; the store employee said I was not allowed to stand on the public sidewalk and photograph the interior of the store. Rubbish. The only reason the guy could stop me is because I was using a rollei on a tripod.