Restaurant Photography - Shooting aka Photographing - Customers

[BrianShaw]

pentaxuser

... so would you mind if you went out for dinner and a commercial photo shoot was happening in the restaurant?

I would. When I pay for dinner in a restaurant I want to be able to relax and enjoy.... without hubbub. My expectation is that the restaurant stays focused on ensuring a great guest experience rather than “time sharing” between paying patrons and their own advertising endeavors. I’d emulate the Australians and go elsewhere.

 

[Sirius Glass]

... so would you mind if you went out for dinner and a commercial photo shoot was happening in the restaurant?

I would. When I pay for dinner in a restaurant I want to be able to relax and enjoy.... without hubbub. My expectation is that the restaurant stays focused on ensuring a great guest experience rather than “time sharing” between paying patrons and their own advertising endeavors. I’d emulate the Australians and go elsewhere.

Many years ago I took my brother and his wife to a nice restaurant for dinner, to celebrate their cross country to visit me. A photographer asked to take photographs and sell them to us. I as the host politely said no. The photographer got huffy and said that maybe the other two would want the photographs. When they said no, the photographer dropped some unpleasant words and then left. So the OP should stay away from me.

 

[Down Under]

Pentaxuser,

Your point is well stated. Now an aside, if I may.

The creator of the Sir Les Patterson diplomat from hell caricature, happens to be a person friend. May I say, one of the kindest, gentlest, most diplomatic and polite personalities I have had the pleasure of meeting in my long life (I have met many) is the classic Austalian (indeed, global) old-world gentleman, Barry Humphreys.

 

[foc]

To me the issue here is one of professionalism. A photo session in a restaurant for commercial use must be done professionally.

+1

I remember in the early 1990s, I had to photograph a bar/restaurant, my business neighbour. They wanted Duratrans for display in the local tourist office.
The client wanted "non posed, photos of real people in real-time". I explained that that was a style look and not a literal description and any photography on premises would have to be closed to the public and either staff or models used, for simple logistical reasons.

They insisted on the "real people in real time" and because we were business neighbours I agreed.
They decided they wanted the busy lunchtime to be photographed in real time.
Without going into the details, not one photo was taken.

It was a waste of all our time. Of course there were hot words after and the client only calmed down when I told them to talk to another local restauranteur that I had as a client and ask them how they did it.

A week later I got a free lunch as an apology.

 

[pentaxuser]

... so would you mind if you went out for dinner and a commercial photo shoot was happening in the restaurant?

QUOTE]

As I hinted at but perhaps did not make clear enough, it would depend entirely on how much such a "shoot" impinged on my experience as a customer. I have a feeling that what is planned is likely to be much less intrusive than some here imagine but of course I could be wrong.

We'd need to ask a set of fairly specific questions of the OP to find out but he hasn't been seen since about 15 mins after his first and only post and I doubt we will see him/her again. I imagine ( there's me speculating again ) that he realised that a forum may not be the best place from which to gather what he needed on this subject and given he is a DSLR shooter that may be the end of his relationship with Photrio

You and I, Brian, may in fact react in the same way in said restaurant depending on what we experienced. My problem is that I have no real idea how the whole business of the "shoot" will pan out

It wasn't black or white enough as the OP described the situation for me to be more specific in my responses. Most things in life are more nuanced than some may assume will be the case.

pentaxuser

 

[BrianShaw]

Many years ago I took my brother and his wife to a nice restaurant for dinner, to celebrate their cross country to visit me. A photographer asked to take photographs and sell them to us. I as the host politely said no. The photographer got huffy and said that maybe the other two would want the photographs. When they said no, the photographer dropped some unpleasant words and then left. So the OP should stay away from me.

I completely understand. To me, these folks - like the folks selling roses or mariachi/violinist selling a song or clowns bending balloons into funny shapes - feed on guilt to get a tip. I have little tolerance for being hustled. Never been bad-mouthed, however, but really don’t want to be forced into an uncomfortable position by a money-grubbing hustler. I stop supporting venues that think hucksters “make the occasion more fun” but want me to pay for their idea of fun.

Likewise, have little tolerance for “collateral business opportunities” whether they be photo shoots for commercials or catered parties if they cause my party to get insufficient attention, slow service, cold food, bad food, or have a less-than-pleasant experience.

The OP is clear enough... a photo shoot during business hours that uses paying patrons as volunteer models will result in one or more of the above problems. I guarantee. That’s why commercial shoots aren’t done during regular business hours... no matter how much signage and waivers and free appetizers are offered.

Perhaps somebody might be more tolerant than am I but my funds for dining and pleasure are precious and I always want to get my full money’s worth.

And good luck to the OP in whatever option was exercised.

 

[BrianShaw]

... but it appears that the OP was a 1-post wonder, as someone before me once said. Joined Thursday; made 1post; hasn’t been back since. Chances of us helping or ever knowing what happened are really slim.

 

[removedacct1]

I worked in Toronto as both a freelance photographer and as a member of a collaborative professional studio in the 1990s. There's no way we would have gone into a restaurant to generate promotional imagery for a client using actual customers, permission or otherwise. To do so is to throw control to the wind and pray that it all works out. We would have hired models to fill the role of customers, to maintain control over the aesthetics.

 

[guangong]

Nothing is more annoying than to be bothered by outsiders when eating. Many of the famous eateries in NYC that catered to well known people eventually went out of business because of a change in manners. In my youth, guests would recognize a well known actor or author, and just continue with their own drink or meal. In more recent times they would approach for autographs or just to gush. The well heeled retreated to private clubs.
As for my own project, to my knowledge no subject is never aware of my camera. If they were aware, I wouldn’t take picture, but put camera away. No one should feel uncomfortable when eating...not even porkers.

 

[BradS]

I find the phrasing of this very disturbing, given the number of mass shootings we've witnessed in the past year.

me too. Very disturbing.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

Hi All,

I have a question about shooting customers in a restaurant situation - where I've asked them and they've given permission.

I've been asked to shoot a restaurant in London, and will be taking location shots, food shots, and also some shots while its busy with customers.

The images will be for their website, gallery and some for social.

We’ll put notices up on the day, and its agreed that I’ll politely ask everyone beforehand and get verbal consent to take a picture. No one will be photographed without being asked, and being ok with it.

Of course anyone who doesn’t want to, won’t be photographed.

What we want to avoid is asking all the patrons to sign release forms. We feel that as its for gallery / social use (not a big advertising campaign), that asking politely is respectful, but going up to them with forms will be a bit intrusive on their experience.

My question is this:

I know that release forms are good practicem but... is it reasonable to expect that in the worst case scenario, if someone objects to being in an online gallery, all we do is take the image down when requested? We will have asked them on the day, and put signs up.

Although I want to avoid walking round with release forms for everyone, I will do if needed.

Does anyone have experience of shooting restaurants, bars or similar type places such as this?

Thanks

In the USA, when you suggest you are going to "shoot customers", be prepared for the police to arrive at your door. They won't arrest you, they'll just shoot you... dead.

Please be careful with your language these days, in gun-happy America, "shoot" means to put a lead slug into a person's body. Very sad but true.

Ok, back to your original question. Yeah, here in America (the land of too many lawyers (f*& them), you need written permission to take anyone's picture. I actually print out a "photo release" and keep copies in a stack near my 'shooting' position. Sometimes, I even go look for signatures.

 

[McSafety]

Hi All,
Thank you for for all your replies. I've been away over the weekend, so please excuse the delay. Your thoughts are much appreciated.

Firstly, on language - as has been mentioned - its common at least in the UK, to talk of photo shoots, film shoots, being on a shoot, shooting from a particular angle. I felt like this was fairly safe to use this terminology in a photographhy specific forum. But I also agree there are many ways to talk about taking a photograph, and if one causes even a little bit of concern its easy to switch wording in a particular situation, so I'll look to adopt that or at least have a broader awareness of it going forwards. I'm all for not causing concern - Thanks for your input on this.

On the legal side of things, I'm going to look at taking it to a pro in the UK, as this is specific to the laws in this country. The question was more if anyone had direct experience with this, and could let me know if they'd used signs / release forms etc. It seems that a lot of you would at the very least do this, and probably use models / friends during restaurant downtime.

MattKing- That's a good idea with with the sign up sheet. It might be a good half way point between a lot of paper work and something more concrete than verbal consent.

Thanks for all your suggestions, and input.

 

[BrianShaw]

Yeah, here in America (the land of too many lawyers (f*& them), you need written permission to take anyone's picture.

Eh???????

 

[MattKing]

Eh???????

Are you Canadian?

Even in the States, I don't think that is correct.
Although it is at least prudent if you intend to make commercial use of those photos.

 

[pentaxuser]

Hi All,

Firstly, on language - as has been mentioned - its common at least in the UK, to talk of photo shoots, film shoots, being on a shoot, shooting from a particular angle. I felt like this was fairly safe to use this terminology in a photographhy specific forum. .

On the legal side of things, I'm going to look at taking it to a pro in the UK, as this is specific to the laws in this country. The question was more if anyone had direct experience with this, and could let me know if they'd used signs / release forms etc. It seems that a lot of you would at the very least do this, and probably use models / friends during restaurant downtime.

.

I thought it was clear from the start that you were talking about the U.K. where in any context relating to photography the word shoot, shooting etc does not cause us to feel concerned. I had always thought of the word shooting in the photographic context as having U.S. origins which we in the U.K. had simply emulated.

The best and most neutral word is the old British word "take" rather than "shoot" Once upon a time everyone in the U.K. "took photos or pictures "

I have now resolved to use the word "take" in future. It engenders a warm feeling of nostalgia for the seaside, deckchairs, Blackpool rock and a knotted hankie on old Uncle Harry's head. Short of imminent starvation I will not "soup" my film either

pentaxuser

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Are you Canadian?

Even in the States, I don't think that is correct.
Although it is at least prudent if you intend to make commercial use of those photos.

Ever since the Aubry judgment in 1998, it is illegal in Quebec to publish any photo of someone without consent, unless the photo is of public interest.

This basically killed street photography here. Only reason some photographers still do it is because (a) most people being photographed aren't aware of the law (or don't realize they have been photographed and their photo posted somewhere) and (b) cell phones everywhere.

 

[MattKing]

Ever since the Aubry judgment in 1998, it is illegal in Quebec to publish any photo of someone without consent, unless the photo is of public interest.

That flows from the very specific and additional privacy protections that were enacted to supplement the Quebec Civil Code, and are specific to Quebec.
And even then, that is both limited to the publishing of photos, and is even then not a total ban - news photos are one example of permitted use.
The comment responded to was about the taking of photos, not their commercial or near commercial use.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

That flows from the very specific and additional privacy protections that were enacted to supplement the Quebec Civil Code, and are specific to Quebec.
And even then, that is both limited to the publishing of photos, and is even then not a total ban - news photos are one example of permitted use.
The comment responded to was about the taking of photos, not their commercial or near commercial use.

Should have mentioned that I was just adding a bit of info about our particular situation up here, as few people are aware of it, not commenting on your post.

 

[Kino]

I thought it was clear from the start that you were talking about the U.K. where in any context relating to photography the word shoot, shooting etc does not cause us to feel concerned. I had always thought of the word shooting in the photographic context as having U.S. origins which we in the U.K. had simply emulated.

The best and most neutral word is the old British word "take" rather than "shoot" Once upon a time everyone in the U.K. "took photos or pictures "

I have now resolved to use the word "take" in future. It engenders a warm feeling of nostalgia for the seaside, deckchairs, Blackpool rock and a knotted hankie on old Uncle Harry's head. Short of imminent starvation I will not "soup" my film either

pentaxuser

"Take an image" or "to photograph" are the terms I try to use with non-photo people now.

As a matter of fact, even though I trained as a photojournalist, I don't even try to take photos of people much anymore; they tend to be paranoid when they see a film camera, but blithely ignore cell phones.

As Harry Dean Stanton says in the movie "Repo Man"; "Ordinary frickin people. God I hate em..."

 

[pentaxuser]

"Take an image" or "to photograph" are the terms I try to use with non-photo people now.

Yes two good phrases but reflecting a sad state of affairs if the phrase shooting customers is really that sensitive. What I was trying to say and what I think the OP was trying to say was that our situation with "shooting" and our situation with possession of guns is literally a world apart from that in the U.S. From everything I have seen it is not so much that we are separated by an ocean but more that we live on a different planet, metaphorically speaking, and thankfully so as far as I am concerned.

pentaxuser

 

[rcphoto]

Do not shoot your customers, bad for business.

 

[MattKing]

As this has come back to life, I tweaked the title.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I have done restaurant shoots and have always used models.

That makes sense. Then you hire people who look like the clientele you expect to be coming to the restaurant dressed appropriately and frankly looking good not some old nasty people with frowns on their faces.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I thought it was clear from the start that you were talking about the U.K. where in any context relating to photography the word shoot, shooting etc does not cause us to feel concerned. I had always thought of the word shooting in the photographic context as having U.S. origins which we in the U.K. had simply emulated.

The best and most neutral word is the old British word "take" rather than "shoot" Once upon a time everyone in the U.K. "took photos or pictures "

I have now resolved to use the word "take" in future. It engenders a warm feeling of nostalgia for the seaside, deckchairs, Blackpool rock and a knotted hankie on old Uncle Harry's head. Short of imminent starvation I will not "soup" my film either

pentaxuser

I grew up in The Bronx and lived in NYC all my life. I've spoken and written with words like "shoot", "take", "captured" relating to my photography all the time and was never accosted, threatened, run away from, or arrested.