Street Photography unethical?

[MartinCrabtree]

Fear reigns supreme in these times. Sad.

 

[Colin Corneau]

That's probably true but here's an excerpt from the link below...

"If someone waves you off when you try to photograph him or her, you may be well within your legal rights to take the shot, but ask yourself if it’s worth the verbal or even physical altercation that it may yield. Confrontation aside, I’d always advise being respectful and considerate towards your subjects, and if they express that they’d rather not be photographed, I’d suggest simply moving on."
/QUOTE]

This is well said, in my humble view. I try to abide by it in my working photography as well as personal time shooting. Simple but it works.

 

[tomfrh]

What do you base that on -- evidence? Hearsay?

There are people who engage in cannibalism. Therefore we should ban all knives and large cooking pots...same exact logic.

I formed that opinion seeing the home movies and photos from the Robert Dolly Dunn trial (the ones fit for public viewing anyway). I remember in particular one clip where they were filming a boy in a playground. One voice said something like "ooo, what about him". The other voice "definitely". Many of these children ended up lured back and coerced into sex by these men.

I'm not saying ban cameras, and I think parents do get a bit hysterical, however the fact is some pedophiles do go around filming/photographing children, and when the consequences are so appalling I can understand some parents being hyper vigilant.

 

[TheRook]

Parents do indeed get hysterical and most people who run into trouble are perfectly innocent, however there are pedophiles that take pictures of children - sometimes as a way of assembling a folder or pin-up board of potential "targets", and thus it's understandable that some parents lose their mind a bit when strange men start photographing their children.

A few years ago I was walking downtown with my camera and stopped to photograph an interesting building. Immediately, an irate woman approached me and accused me of "photographing children". I did not notice any children around me at the time, and later analysis revealed absolutely no children present in the frames I took. I think much of the paranoid public perception that people with cameras are up to no good is driven by sensationalist news media. Although pedophiles certainly exist, the vast majority of people are not pedophiles.

 

[MattKing]

Since I'm always being mistaken for Omar Sharif, I simply think people are admiring my good looks and it doesn't bother me.

Theo - I always thought you were a bit of a gambler.

 

[removed account4]

what a weird thread ..

yes, there are obnoxious photographers, and there are those
who are the good ones who .. are NOT obnoxious. there are
weirdos, and creeps and vile people in this world, and
sometimes they use a camera, but i don't think
they should tarnish people with GOOD intentions.
the good far outweighs the bad.

street photography is not ez. its easy to make
the "cheep shots" of homeless passed out on the
pile of trash or whatever, and hard to take "the good stuff"/
the subject upset, giving the photographer the finger
isn't really the good stuff ... the other stuff is.

 

[skorpiius]

How about this
- Street photography in public places is legal, and SHOULD be legal, if it was illegal all of the candid street photos from the past 100 years showing valuable images of un-posed daily life would never exist.
- Some people really don't want their photos taken, and this should be respected. Not respecting it just moves the dial towards an unfortunate future where more restrictions are put on street photography.

 

[bernard_L]

its easy to makethe "cheap shots" of homeless passed out on the pile of trash or whatever

+1
This aspect got lost in the discussion "my privacy vs your photog activity (and vice versa)". When Lewis Hine, Dorothea Lange, ... photographed homeless people, it was to raise public awareness and ultimately remedy their condition. When a photographer does it for "art" (whether an amateur or a self-styled professional), it is unethical.

 

[blockend]

Good street photography is the toughest discipline with a camera. It requires lightning responses, nerves of steel and an uncanny compositional sense, as well as endless hours of dedication, most of which have nothing to show for the effort. Like all demanding pursuits, some people take short cuts and think ugly, fat and vulnerable people offer a quick means of shock value. It isn't that such individuals are out of bounds, but neither is having an ugly mug and a fat backside inherently interesting, nor does it make the photographer a wry social commentator.

There's nothing unethical about photographing people you don't know so long as you're clear about your own motives, and those intentions are not to make yourself feel superior at their expense.

 

[Wallendo]

Taking a wide angle picture of a couple having a romantic dinner in a streetside café where the couple is just part of the image is perfectly ethical. Running up to that couple and sticking a camera in their faces with an obtrusive flash is not (although it may well be legal). Where most of us differ is exactly where is the line between ethical and unethical.

On concern that many people have these days is the internet meme. A seemingly harmless photograph circulates through the internet with occasionally offensive text or quotations added. People on the net tend to forget that the targets of these memes are real people who will likely be offended and embarrassed.

 

[Saganich]

I'm seeing moral issues here not ethical ones. These questions are driven by cultural issues of fear, misunderstanding, and lack of trust, which can be overcome with a short conversation and a smile. Ethical issues are deeper and deal with the individual motavation. I may feel that I deserve to have that image, thereby satisfying my personal ethics, but in my community public photography is suspect and causes anxiety and anger, so my actions may be a moral problem. The dilemma of ethics and morality. To question ethics is to question ones inner justification. If I feel I deserve to have that image, i have to ask, "why?" "Because I can take it and no one can stop me"...position of power..."Because I feel connected with my community"...position of caring..."Because my peers will praise me for my work"...position of reputation...And there are questions of exploitation as well. So an ethical discussion should center on the photographers personal motivation. The moral questions arise in the action of getting what you want. One could have unethical motivations but achieve their goal in a perfectly acceptable manner. The converse holds true as well and is usually easier to point to historically; my goals are ethical but the means to achieve them were brutal. Since most people will concede to having their picture taken when asked they likely feel that photographers are ethical. We should worry when getting permission is the rare occurrence. As for the morality of asking permission or not, every situation will have it's challenges and it's up to the photographer to take the moral temperature of the situation they are in.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

In the past things were simpler. Now when a photograph reaches the internet both the photographer and the subject lose all control. Something to ponder. I think that for many subjects this is a matter of concern.

 

[cliveh]

Street photography need not be about angst or offending people, but a friendly encounter as demonstrated here by HCB -

 

[RattyMouse]

If I see you pointing your camera at me and I hold my hand up to block the view and shake my head 'no' then I expect you to stop pointing your camera at me. End of story... no discussion... just don't do it.

If you are in a public area, you have no right at all to stop someone. You can put a bag over your head, you have that right. You also have the right to leave.

 

[RattyMouse]

I've had 3 incidences while out photographing on the street. I have tens of thousands of people shots from my many many years in Asia but only 3 times did anyone complain.

First time I was photographing a duck that was for sale in a wet market. The lady who was selling the duck was not in the frame but was still very angry at me and came out and hit me in the arm after I made the image. She was 60+ years old so it didnt hurt all. She yelled vigorously at me in Chinese but I had no idea why me photographing this duck upset her so much. The market was VERY crowded but everyone looked at her like she was a loony.

Second time, I was in downtown Seoul Korea (very crowded), photographing an interesting fruit vendor from across a street. After I snapped the shot, a Korean guy (not the vendor) burst out in HUGE rage and charged me from across the street. He ran right up to me yelling his brains out. He was nowhere near where I was shooting so I had no idea why he was upset. My wife and kids were with me and my daughter burst into tears at how violent this man was screaming. I didnt step back one foot and yelled right back at him, with the next step being to send my Canon 85L into his head if he took one more step against me. Once he saw that I was not yielding one iota, he radically changed tune on me, bowed and ran away. Beyond weird.

Third time was in Shanghai when I was photographing an islamic street vendor in a crowded street market, cooking some lamb that was producing massive amounts of smoke. He had a huge fan blowing the smoke upward and it created quite a scene. I photographed him from a good 25 feet away as I wanted the whole scene, not just him. He saw me and became violently angry shouting in my face. I assumed that he wanted me to delete the photo and I showed him my Fuji GA645, showing him that I could not do so. I dont know if he understood that as he got louder and louder. Again, I didnt give an inch an I prepared for the worst, when he finally relented and went back to his street stall.

If someone shields themselves or ducks out of my frame, I dont go chasing after them. I just move onto other pastures. But if people are out on the street and doing something interesting, then they are fair game.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... I was photographing an islamic street vendor ...He saw me and became violently angry shouting in my face.

at-tasweer haraam

Some believe photography (of people) is forbidden entirely. Others will accept photography of persons, such as at a wedding, but photos should be in an album and not displayed openly.

I am half-Hungarian, half-Syrian. The Arabic side of my family had no such beliefs and in fact enjoyed photographs. Others in the community, though, took the issue very seriously.

 

[Diapositivo]

at-tasweer haraam

Some believe photography (of people) is forbidden entirely. Others will accept photography of persons, such as at a wedding, but photos should be in an album and not displayed openly.

I am half-Hungarian, half-Syrian. The Arabic side of my family had no such beliefs and in fact enjoyed photographs. Others in the community, though,
took the issue very seriously.

Yes you can't take images of a cow, because it has a sould, so you make an idol of it:

https://islamqa.info/en/49676

there is no limit to human idiocy. And, I'm sorry to say, to Islamic idiocy, because it is quite blatant that the most imbecile religious bigots, all over the world, appear to belong to that one religion (without having any exclusivity for imbecility which is widespread among many bigots of many religions: only they bring it to new unthinkable heights).
I'm sorry for all intelligent and sincerely God-seeking Muslim believers that they have to share the same religion with the most idiots beings on Earth.
Yet, it's also their taks to distance themselves with such idiocy, first and foremost by dismounting this "fatwa"-decree thing, whereby an idiot with a long bear manage to brainwash some idiots, more idiots than himself, very easily, with an "authority" which is implicit in the Islamic culture.
When Islamic people begin ridiculizing, scoffing at, dismounting such reasonings, there will be hope for the true values of Islam to emerge (love, peace, compassion etc. basically the true good values of any religion). Otherwise it's not without reason that the world will see Islamic people as potentially dangerous maniacs. There's a lot of house-cleaning to do, a long cultural battle which nobody really seems ready to fight in the Islamic world. An Islamic Voltaire is not on the horizon yet.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

If you are in a public area, you have no right at all to stop someone. You can put a bag over your head, you have that right. You also have the right to leave.

Aiming directly at me as the main subject and I wave you away? Okay... just try it. In my personal small group and we wave you away? Okay... just try it. If I'm in a crowd... that's different.

 

[SuzanneR]

This thread appears to be headed into religion, which means it may have to be moved to the soap box... just a heads up...

 

[Dali]

Diapositivo, I am not sure that APUG is the best place to discuss religion... regardless we agree or not with your comment.

 

[RattyMouse]

Umkay... try it.

Umkay... try it.

as you can seein my earlier post I have no problem trying it. I've stood down punks much bigger than me, several times.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

as you can seein my earlier post I have no problem trying it. I've stood down punks much bigger than me, several times.

So I'm a 'punk' if I disallow you taking my picture?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

This thread appears to be headed into religion, which means it may have to be moved to the soap box... just a heads up...

Has nothing to do with religion. Some cultures believe that a photograph steals your soul.

If you are in indian territory you must be careful also. Remember the official designation of these lands is that of sovereign states independent from the US. They have their own laws, police forces, and constitutions. You will probably be asked politely to pay the subjects a small fee for the photograph. Refuse and you may be escorted from the reservation.

 

[SuzanneR]

Has nothing to do with religion. Some cultures believe that a photograph steals your soul.

If you are in indian territory you must be careful also. Remember the official designation of these lands is that of sovereign states independent from the US. They have their own laws, police forces, and constitutions. You will probably be asked politely to pay the subjects a small fee for the photograph. Refuse and you may be escorted from the reservation.

Your point is well taken, but there was a post about religion that had nothing to do with street photography made on a public street or on private property. If this thread heads into a religious debate, then it will be moved into the soap box.

 

[MattKing]

I'm seeing moral issues here not ethical ones.

+1
And sometimes politeness issues not ethical ones.