Street photography- Here we go again!

[David H. Bebbington]

http://seward.newsvine.com/_news/2007/12/20/1177730-police-seize-films-from-amateur-photographer
This guy was making a first attempt at street photography and elected to use a Bessa with 21 mm lens. I can only surmise that the resulting close working distance was felt by his subjects, members of the public, to be threatening. He nonetheless does not appear to have committed a criminal offense, but the police took and acted on a complaint all the same and impounded his film (not as yet returned 6 weeks later).

I seem to recall Les McLean, among others, endorsing a "get in close" approach to street photography - I'm not sure if he still does, as far as I am concerned classic street photography is defunct (public attitude and extreme difficulty in exploiting images commercially without model releases). All the same, the Hull police seem to have behaved particularly stupidly!

 

[Dave Miller]

What more would you expect from the Police?

 

[Bob F.]

Not "again": same as this one: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[David H. Bebbington]

Not "again": same as this one: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Interesting - Amateur Photographer has apparently found another great way to save money by re-running old stories - it's in this week's edition, too.

 

[Les McLean]

[

I seem to recall Les McLean, among others, endorsing a "get in close" approach to street photography - I'm not sure if he still does, as far as I am concerned classic street photography is defunct (public attitude and extreme difficulty in exploiting images commercially without model releases). All the same, the Hull police seem to have behaved particularly stupidly!

David, I use almost exclusively a 20mm lens when working in the street although I am finding it more difficult to make street photographs with such a wide lens. It will be interesting to see the reaction in Dublin when I do the St Patrick's Day Street Photography Workshop in March. I don't anticipate any problems for I have a belief that potential situations can be diffused if the photographers body language and demeanour is friendly as well as being prepared to speak to the subject after the film is exposed. Certainly I have had to change my approach to street photography in the past 5 to 7 years because of the change in attitude of the police and the amount of irrational and emotive publicity given by the media.

 

[pauliej]

And yet, the crap-erazzi can stalk and hound Brittany, Paris, Lindsay, etal till the cows come home to roost (so to speak) and NO ONE cares about this infringement of their rights, least of all the coppers. Go corn-figure.

paulie

 

[copake_ham]

Not "again": same as this one: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Mod Squad,

Please merge the threads!

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

The other thread got way off topic and ended up in the SoapBox. Let's see if this one can stay civil and on-topic, and maybe it can stay here.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

Interesting - Amateur Photographer has apparently found another great way to save money by re-running old stories - it's in this week's edition, too.

I can reveal that Amateur Photographer's editorial team are currently debating which story to splash on the inside pages next week - it will be either "Titanic sinks" or "Lindbergh flies the Atlantic".

 

[David Brown]

The other thread got way off topic and ended up in the SoapBox. Let's see if this one can stay civil and on-topic, and maybe it can stay here.

Yeah, what are the odds ...

 

[Andy K]

I can reveal that Amateur Photographer's editorial team are currently debating which story to splash on the inside pages next week - it will be either "Titanic sinks" or "Lindbergh flies the Atlantic".

I heard it was going to be 'Lacock Abbey man makes picture using light'

 

[Matt5791]

Unfortunately the world we now live in is obsessed with two things: Peadofiles and Terrorism

And this sadly impacts on street photography.

For a laugh I think I might go into Birmingham city centre with my Agfa Ansco 5X7 on a tripod and see what happens. It wouldnt suprise me if someone accused me or something.

 

[Trevor Crone]

I fear the UK is in danger of becomming more paranoid then most with regard to street photography.

When I was in Orlando, Florida a couple of years ago. People could not be more accommodating. I had no trouble photographing within the theme parks and towns, and that was with a tripod mounted 6x9 view camera. It was like a breath of fresh air.

I've been sent packing several times in the city of London by security personnel while using a 5x4. They inform me that it's a sensitive area therefore no photography. I always say with a smile, 'that it's a pity for it's a fine looking building and if all photography is baned then we'll have no history'. This is what concerns me if this paranoia continues we are in danger of loosing a record of an entire generation(s). We will have but a fragmented history of our time.

 

[JBrunner]

The real joke is that hi res photographs can be taken quickly, and unobtrusively by a photographer of mediocre means and skills, unless an area is under continuous and unwavering scrutiny.

Hassling a person openly engaged in photography is most certainly taking the advantage of being seen to "do something" by ones supervisors and bean counters, and contributing to the illusion of safety needed to counter past gross failures in intelligence and interdiction. The whole terrorist thing has been exploited to expand government power beyond any reasonable level.

"In January 2007 the department interdicted 7 attempts to photograph security sensitive areas. Please increase our budget, because we are doing a great job, and also keep letting us enforce our arbitrary made up policies, or please pass them into law, because the more we can intrude the more it makes us look like we are accomplishing something. Oh, and those pesky rights are an impediment, please keep curtailing them."

The feds here are now trying to push a national ID system down the states throats.

"Ya, verr arrr your paperzzz? Ze are een order, yezzz?"

Wow, you are getting safer by the minute.

 

[Ralf]

Well said, Jason.

Oh, and the irony regarding Trevor from the UK, being harassed by security in London for taking pictures with a 5x4. And that in a city with more surveillance cameras than any other. They want you on their camera, but not you shooting them?

How ridiculous is all this? And politicians can even keep a straight face when lying to the people that all this is about security and terrrrism.

The same of course not only happens in the UK or the US. Back in Germany the same hysteria is going on, laws made that reduce citizen's rights and privacy, surveillance here, RFID there, fingerprints in passports et cetera. And guess how many people died in terrorist attacks in Germany in the past 5 or 10 years? Around zero. Yet politicians use the same rhetoric as in the States or the UK. And even in these two countries the argument is fake.

 

[thebanana]

All anyone wanting to scout out potential targets for a terrorist strike has to do is install Google Earth and they're in business. The world is going insane.

 

[copake_ham]

All anyone wanting to scout out potential targets for a terrorist strike has to do is install Google Earth and they're in business. The world is going insane.

I think part of the explanation is that technological innovation moves at lightening speed whereas bureaucratic insight, at best, moves at a snail's pace. Oh, and what's that old saying about generals always strategically planning for the last war!

 

[pentaxuser]

The late Robert Maxwell, a powerful and combatant figure, was said to have a "summons to a court case for damages" ready to deliver to anybody( usually from the non Maxwell press group) who bothered him with awkward questions or allegations. As a consequence few bothered him because they realised he was prepared to use the law to protect himself. If he were still alive and decided to do street phtotography I wonder how often the police would bother him?

The world still belongs to the strong, no matter how much we'd like to believe otherwise. We've been pre-conditioned to accept certain things without asking sensible questions that may have been thought absurd or even impossible a few years ago and it has happened in a shorter time than most propagandists would have thought possible.

The next time someone quotes the line: "I do not agree with what this man says but I will defend to the death his right to say it" he will probably be taken away and sectioned under the " Mental Health Act".

Of course implied in the above quote is that if the man is talking nonsense this will be recognised by the general public and we should rely on people's good sense not to be unduly influenced by nonsense. We've seem to have abandoned that kind of faith in the people's judgement.

Tony Blair had three priorities: Education, Education, Education. Where did it all go wrong?

pentaxuser

pentaxuser

 

[BobbyR]

I see why the non-photo sect acts as it does, as in this day of big-brother, with official "authorities" trained to act like storm troopers, the wannabes are getting bolder.

It has been said, and I have yet to speak to a person educated in psychology challenge it, that seventy percent of the population is of slave mentality, that is they do as they are told. (the most recent person I spoke with educated in the art of psychology thought the total was probably higher)
With the coming to reality what was fiction in the book 1984 the day is not far off when if a person of "authority" is standing in crowd of people, who the talking heads on TV insist believe so called middle-of-the-road as the proper way, if the authority says "crap" the vast majority will drop their pants and squat.

It is a sad day when one feels safer from getting busted for some piss-ant PC law, while standing in a bar with hard-core bikers, than merely walking down the street in a "civilized' society.
Bobby

 

[FrankB]

AP now has more on this story here

The gist is -

After considering Carroll's complaint a Humberside Police spokesperson said: 'Following a thorough investigation into complaints made to Humberside Police it has [been] found the police officers acted in a right and proper manner.

'Any person who appears to be taking photos in a covert manner should expect to be stopped and spoken to by police to enquire into what their business is.

'Humberside Police would expect other officers within the force to act in the same manner if given a similar situation.'

The spokesperson said it would be inappropriate to discuss details of Carroll's complaint as this is a 'private matter between the complainant and Humberside Police'.

Commenting on the police statement Pete Jenkins, vice-chair of the Photographers Sub Committee at the National Union of Journalists (NUJ), said: 'Taking photographs in a public place in the UK is still not a prohibited act, nor is it any way against the law. We as citizens expect the police to uphold the law, not to make it up as they go along.'

Describing the police's reason for stopping Carroll as 'nonsense' Jenkins added: 'While I can understand that anyone acting in a covert and underhand manner might excite suspicion in today's anti-terrorist climate, one does have to put this into context. A camera, digital or otherwise is just that. It is not a weapon of terrorism or an anti-social tool, nor is it the badge/weapon of the paedophile.'

 

[dmr]

And yet, the crap-erazzi can stalk and hound Brittany, Paris, Lindsay, etal till the cows come home

You have a point here, but it rings a bell for something else related to it.

There were recently some photos published of one of the famous-for-being-famous beings, the setting being the security checkpoint for an airport! Now I *KNOW* that if you or I would whip out a camera at one of the checkpoints and start snapping away, the TSA would be all over us like stink on doodoo in no time!

Seems like the paparazzi can play by a different set of unwritten rules than we do!

 

[Paul Goutiere]

It is odd that enforcement officials are concerned about people with cameras, standing no doubt in plain view, with cameras on tripods, making no attempt to be clandestine?

What about those whose intentions are clandestine, who will take pictures with hidden cameras. There has been small and hidden cameras for quite a few years now. There all sorts of ways of obtaining information now.

But we all know this so what the heck is really going on.

 

[middy]

Hmmm. Street photography with a hidden camera. Sounds like a fun project...

 

[haris]

Well, thing is, however angry we might be, we have to listen to police at that moment because if we not, then we will get into bigger trouble (resisting to police on duty). I am not saying police is right, but at that moment they have power. So, they ask for film, you give it to them, and then you hire lawyer and sue the police/town/country. What else we can do? We can't teach them (they won't listen to us) and we can't fight with them (it is against the law). So, we sue them because of misuse of their position and unlawful seizing, hopefully we win on court, then asking to be payed for emotional pain, destroying of film, lost working hours and everything else we can remember of. And if enough of us do that and if we hit them (police, government) hard enough onto their pocket, maybe they will return to common sense.

But, I am afraid they never will...

 

[arigram]

I am never handing my film to any cop