Street photography ethics are getting beyond silly...

[h.v.]

As a street photographer, I think like others have mentioned, I need to be mindful of not publishing a photo that I could construe as embarrassing or similar.

I think Western culture's emphasis on individualism (which I actually like on the surface) gets to our heads and we take it too far, thus making us take ourselves way too seriously. What really is the harm of a candid photo being taken in the public? The real boogeymen are going to be far more discreet than shooting from less than a meter away with a 35mm lens. Yet we go after the guy who isn't trying to hide anything. I get it from an instinctual level, but it is very illogical.

Luckily, most people are amused or flattered or intrigued or are slightly put off but just go on with their lives anyway. Or they don't notice. Still there are those with a higher state of self-importance who will get in your face occasionally.

I guess if someone were to find my visage interesting enough to take a picture of on the street, I'd be OK with it.

But that is me.

If I were to take a picture of someone I'd really think it proper to ask permission and give an explanation of my
desire to take that picture.

Why not?

Most people are cool with their photo being taken, or are at most, slightly put off. So your perspective is actually common.

Ah, the classic "why not just ask for permission?" I think if we as street photographers could get what we wanted out of our photography asking permission, we would probably solely do just that. But most only dabble in what usually amounts to street portraiture; when you ask permission, people are suddenly very aware of their being photographed where they otherwise may not be or may have only realized after the fact. Because of this, people tend to put on a face when they know they're being photographed and it isn't as genuine and candid and real. That's what street photography is about -- documenting real life, not posed life. We have our Instagram selfies and Facebook albums for that.

I was struck the other day by this photograph. Nobody in that tight, cramped public setting is paying the least bit of attention to the photographer. And the photographer is covered head-to-toe with obvious camera equipment. No hidden snapping going on here. No secretive smart phone or Google Glass. And yet, not a single glance up by any of the background subjects. Amazing by today's ubiquitously paranoid standards.

Times have certainly changed.

Ken

P.S. Welcome to APUG.

Yes, it is interesting. I find in my street photos that are more of a crowd, it is hard to find someone who isn't aware of their being photographed. A scene like that in Vivian's photo, while not impossible, would be a lot harder to find these days in our culture of hyper-paranoia.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

With the Vivian Maier photo, I suspect that if anyone on the rail car saw her, they thought, "look at that kook with all the cameras taking a picture of herself in the mirror".

 

[blansky]

Firstly times have changed.

We all acknowledge that and HCB's day was different. Most people didn't even own cameras then. Having someone care enough to take your picture may have been a cool novelty.

It was still illegal to take a picture of someone (unless you worked for a newpaper/news publication) and publish it without their permission making money off it without a photo release . At least it was a gray area.

But times have changed, values have changed, as people have noted, the 24 hour news cycle has learned that fear is a great ratings boost, so lets keep them scared of everything.

So that's the world we live in and if we want to do street photography we have to adapt.

Personally when I did it, I would size up my shots with my camera pointed away and at the last second move it, take the shot and move it back. Using a reflex camera the mirror slap would attract attention but the subject would look at me and I'd be looking like I shot something else.

If the subject was looking at me when I took it and acted offended I'd simply go up and say that I was a photographer and that I loved to capture street scenes and give them my card. If they wanted to contact me they could and I'd send them a picture. Nobody ever did.

So I guess the moral of the story is, it's not 1940, do what you want but be respectful and take all the damn pictures you want.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I'd dispute that by HCB's day that cameras were an uncommon novelty. Remember that Kodak had already become the industrial juggernaut it was before WW II, and it did so by putting cameras in the hands of common people - "you push the button, we'll do the rest". So photography wasn't a novelty anymore. Frankly, I'd argue that the Civil War documentary efforts and cardomania in the mid-19th century ended the novelty factor of photography. I think it was just the zeitgeist of the mid-20th century that allowed people to be more trusting of the use of images. Today, with instantaneous global distribution, and extremely easy manipulation of images, the possibility for use or misuse of your image in a way you wouldn't like or approve appears to be much greater. In reality, the probability that it will be used/misused is about the same, but with global, instantaneous distribution channels, the probability of your discovering it is now exponentially greater, thus the apparent increase in misuse/abuse. I think it also connects to some degree with the whole notion of anything online should be free for any and all to use as they see fit. It's a bit paradoxical, that people want to be able to use others' content for free, but are more afraid of their own content being abused without compensation.

 

[blansky]

I'd dispute that by HCB's day that cameras were an uncommon novelty. Remember that Kodak had already become the industrial juggernaut it was before WW II, and it did so by putting cameras in the hands of common people - "you push the button, we'll do the rest". So photography wasn't a novelty anymore.

That's true but they were usually only brought out of the closet for a special event, a birthday, family get together or vacation.

When they made an appearance it was "special".

Cameras were like cake.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

That's true but they were usually only brought out of the closet for a special event, a birthday, family get together or vacation.

When they made an appearance it was "special".

Cameras were like cake.

True enough- there was a difference from today when everybody has a camera on them at all times in the form of their phone, and perhaps more than one if they also have a tablet device and/or an actual camera. The act of taking a photograph has become so utterly mundane that it has become annoying to have ones picture taken, in part because the subject has no control whatever over the act. In the film days, if you were sufficiently put out by the act of having your photo taken, you could always storm over and remove the film from the photographer's camera. Today, in the time you argue with the offender to surrender the device and delete the image, they can have it uploaded to a remote server and you'll never get it back.

 

[cliveh]

That's true but they were usually only brought out of the closet for a special event, a birthday, family get together or vacation.

When they made an appearance it was "special".

Cameras were like cake.

Not so, in 1888 - The name "Kodak" was born and the KODAK camera was placed on the market, with the slogan, "You press the button - we do the rest." Millions of amateur pictures were taken from then on.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Not so, in 1888 - The name "Kodak" was born and the KODAK camera was placed on the market, with the slogan, "You press the button - we do the rest." Millions of amateur pictures were taken from then on.

Clive- I think Blansky's point was that even with the advent of the Brownie, although your average factory worker/farm laborer/shopkeeper could now afford to take photos, they chose to take photos selectively - the camera would come out for the family trip, the child's graduation/birthday, moving into the new house, Thanksgiving dinner, and not the "oh look, I picked my nose and THIS came out" mindset of the Instagram generation.

 

[cliveh]

Clive- I think Blansky's point was that even with the advent of the Brownie, although your average factory worker/farm laborer/shopkeeper could now afford to take photos, they chose to take photos selectively - the camera would come out for the family trip, the child's graduation/birthday, moving into the new house, Thanksgiving dinner, and not the "oh look, I picked my nose and THIS came out" mindset of the Instagram generation.

But digital photography didn't really start until the 1980's and instagram much later, so there is plenty of time between 1888 and the 1980's for many non cake events.

 

[blansky]

But digital photography didn't really start until the 1980's and instagram much later, so there is plenty of time between 1888 and the 1980's for many non cake events.

I guess you'd have to follow the thread...

 

[batwister]

The Vivian Maier pic is a sneaky one though - interesting for the fact that the self-portrait is only a device. If she had pointed the camera directly their way, I suspect even then, people would be looking down the barrel - so to speak. It's still very easy to make candid pictures, even in crowded spaces. I think the real issue is that photographers are too self conscious when making pictures now, about being perceived as voyeurs. If you're haunted by that idea, you wouldn't have made a very good street photographer in the 1950s either. You have to be confident at ducking and diving and being a little brash to be a street photographer. If you have social anxiety disorder, pick another genre.

One of the classic stories in photography is told by Joel Meyerowitz (in his book Cape Light) about seeing Cartier-Bresson in New York, in amongst a parade, pirouetting and doing all sorts of cheeky things to get pictures, including throwing his camera at a mans face while keeping hold of the strap and catching it again, like a yo-yo. Maybe all you reluctant street photographers should start dancing classes and karate on the side?

 

[blansky]

The Vivian Maier pic is a sneaky one though - interesting for the fact that the self-portrait is only a device. If she had pointed the camera directly their way, I suspect even then, people would be looking down the barrel - so to speak. It's still very easy to make candid pictures, even in crowded spaces. I think the real issue is that photographers are too self conscious when making pictures now, about being perceived as voyeurs. If you're haunted by that idea, you wouldn't have made a very good street photographer in the 1950s either. You have to be confident at ducking and diving and being a little brash to be a street photographer. If you have social anxiety disorder, pick another genre.

One of the classic stories in photography is told by Joel Meyerowitz (in his book Cape Light) about seeing Cartier-Bresson in New York, in amongst a parade, pirouetting and doing all sorts of cheeky things to get pictures, including throwing his camera at a mans face while keeping hold of the strap and catching it again, like a yo-yo. Maybe all you reluctant street photographers should start dancing classes and karate on the side?

I think it also helped a lot to use a rangefinder.

You also have to remember that not everyone is opposed to being photographed, in fact a lot of people love it and are natural "actors". I've seen lots of great street photographs by the greats, and said to myself, what would I do to get that shot? Lots of it could easily be coming upon an interesting scene/event and then asking someone to "do it again" or to play with people and get reactions.

I think you are absolutely right, doing street photography in the shadows may probably be less effective than being an extrovert and playing and cajoling with people. And in doing so you are also far less threatening to them.

 

[h.v.]

I don't get why people analyze HCB to death. Just because he did something, doesn't mean every street photographer needs to do the same. Many street photographers are actually quite introverted and the techniques HCB used may be too daunting for them. The bottom line is, if you get the shot without dehumanizing your subjects, who cares how you got it? People fixate far too much on how and with what a street photographer got their iconic photograph. Going up to people and asking is alright sometimes, but to create a nice balance, real candids need to be in any street photographer's portfolio. Real candids don't need you provoking people by using your expensive camera as a yo-yo.

 

[marciofs]

I don't think "real candid needs to be in any street photographer's portfolio".
To me it is the opposite, when I try take candid shot they are my worst street photographs. Therefore I don't even try to take candid shots. Tele lenses makes the subjects distant and cold, even if I zoom in and shot a close up.

I am very shy and introverted. But I prefer be close to the subject. I submitted myself to a lot of situation where I would run home feeling really down because peoples look or even laugh. But I overcome my shyness and introversion. And I persisted because the shot I got and like gave me motivation to try again and again.

Before I used to try don't be notice when photographing a beautiful woman. I was afraid people would thinking that I am a pervert. Now I don't care at all. The photo result is what matter to me. A can go to a group of beautiful girls and take their photo and don't care what they will think.

I never hide myself and to be honest I never had any problem with nobody. 1 in 20 or 50 people will say no to me when I ask if I can take their photograph. 100% of them are natural because they are usually doing something and I ask them to just keep doing what they are doing.

I only don't ask when the person is doing something which I should not interrupt like cycling, kissing, running, etc. Or when I feel I should not ask and shoot.

And people expression, when they realise I am photographing them, often give more flavour to the image, making it even more interesting (smile, curious look, glimpse, etc).

Candid street photographs doesn't have "it". It is too cold to me.

 

[batwister]

I think candid street photography is the more critical side of the genre. It's like theatre. Much prefer this type of work personally. When people catch you and look into the lens, their expressions in my experience are almost from a primal place - they look more like monkeys than thinking, feeling human beings (not that monkeys don't think or feel - but it's generally one thing!).

 

[Vilk]

...are almost from a primal place

i hunt for this, too; no "almost"

it makes you think when you catch one

but it's generally one thing!

oh-kee... make that two things

 

[clayne]

Thanks for the article. I, however, won't be listening to a damn thing he says.

 

[clayne]

Is the writer even a street photog? I just glossed over it as it looked like an argument to make us all start shooting flowers and birds and didn't hold my interest

He's a "fine art photographer" and I think we all know what that means. As far as street photography goes, it's always best to flash a smile or just explain to the people you're a street photographer documenting city life. If they ask for it to be deleted "sorry, film cannot be unexposed." I understand his gist, which is to not be a jerk with a camera, but the solution isn't to stop taking photos on the street.

That being said I do think there are way too many cameras out there these days in one form or another. I also think people are much less open photo-wise than say 10 years ago.

 

[jmain]

Completely agree. You have the right to go shopping and sit in your house and watch shows about stupid people being stupid. Any other interests are highy suspect.

 

[markaudacity]

Anyone ever been asked to turn over their film or delete if your shooting digital?

All the time. I've been cuffed and questioned for refusing.

 

[batwister]

But one would think people should be used to getting shot with all the cell phones and little cams waving around in the world.

Conspiracy: this data is more accessible to the all seeing eye. Film images aren't - that makes 'them' mad.