Street Photography: What dont you take photos of?

Street Photography

Andy K said:

Street Photography: What dont you take photos of?

Kids. Just isn't worth the hassle.

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. I have virtually given up street photography because of the increasing number of suspicious people about. I used to enjoy candid photography in the 70s but its just not worth the risk any more.

I do enjoy photographing street performers especially during the Edinburgh Festival. I always make the effort to go up to Edinburgh for a few days during festival time. Many performers ask the audience for one pound after a show. I usually slip five pounds in to show my appreciation.

Troy said:

...I guess I'm feeling sensitive today.

Click to expand...

We all have those days. But I guess you were feeling a bit sensitive - the comment was not directed at you.

Markok765 said:

Yes, i agree

Click to expand...

Well, I was talking to you.

a) I don't think that comparing one's attnetion span to a rodent on drugs is all that insulting, especially since it was meant to be humorous.
b) I know you're enthusiastic, and I don't care how many threads there are on the same topic - its just you would actually learn more, and get more answers to a serious question if you just took a breath before hitting the "submit" button and noticed that a big huge thread, with some really experienced folks contributing exists already.

Usually I don't bother with these kinds of posts. But I like Marko and his (sometimes overt) enthusiasm, so I thought I'd point this out to him. Most of the people who just posted a thoughtful response on a subject will probably ignore your question or simply don't have the time and effort to repeat themselves. Its no skin off my back - you will simply get more out of this place if you bother to look first. And this was an extreme example... the thread was literally three or four posts below this one!
Marko - take a breath, think it over again, then post. I think you will find you will get better results that way.

Peter.

If you're bashful about shooting it, it isn't Street Photography

What is wrong shooting homeless, sick ederly, or people with life struggling problems. It is some logic behind modern image culture mixed with manipulations and misinformation just anywhere, above, on, and under the earth. Money matter. And what is powerty? Powerty is other side of beeing satisied with life... (I think we talk about Western world and its streets).

The problem can arise not from photographer but from one that use the photographs, for which purpose he use it and how.
For all of that reasons I do not like to picture kids on street just because I do not want to melt their naïve and honesty with other “people”. I wish they never became part of todays world, but to build the world as they are while kids. Then I will photograph and smiling kids on streets.

Daniel_OB said:

What is wrong shooting homeless, sick ederly, or people with life struggling problems.

Click to expand...

Because unless it is done to aid the homeless and disenfranchised, or as a photojournalist to highlight their plight, it can be seen as exploitation.

Andy K said:

Because unless it is done to aid the homeless and disenfranchised, or as a photojournalist to highlight their plight, it can be seen as exploitation.

Click to expand...

I Agree with Andy, it is too easy and takes little effort.

Andy
"Because unless it is done to aid the homeless and disenfranchised, or as a photojournalist to highlight their plight, it can be seen as exploitation."

Photojornalist do not do it. Art directors and editors make that sh*t contextualizing pictures. Photjournalist is just a pinion that gears to what is "ordered". He can do what he want but it is not magazines want, but if editor want it he (pj) again made what is ordered.

Andy K said:

Because unless it is done to aid the homeless and disenfranchised, or as a photojournalist to highlight their plight, it can be seen as exploitation.

Click to expand...

And the point is??? I can't speak for the rest of the world, but in the US, once you walk out the door to your house or office into public space, the only protection one has is against unwarranted search or seizure. I suppose that those who dont want to show their faces or social status should wear a burka

There is no right or expectation to "privacy" once in public. Likely, there are certain considerations. Let's say I photograph you taking a dump behind a bush. A minor embarassment for sure, but as long as I dont sell it or post it on the internet, I really do not have to worry about getting a release from you. On the other hand, if you take a dump in the middle of a crowd, that might be considered by some "news", and by virtue of the fact you are in a crowd a release is not necessary.

Homeless or not, it boils down to the simple fact that taking a public photo of anyone might be considered by our post-modernist or marxist friends as exploitation; what difference does it make?

What I dont you take photos of in street photography is naked people.

Mostly because there are none.

Alexis Neel said:

What I dont you take photos of in street photography is naked people.

Mostly because there are none.

Click to expand...

Really? A friend of mine was once approached by some lady (or a lady-looking guy is what I think) in the street in South Philly. She asked him to take pictures of her, and they went into the alley. Then she started to undress in front of him, and he snapped a few photos of her naked.

There are opportunities like that.

I don't shoot the homeless mostly because it's a cliche. But exploitation? So what? Some schmuck with a camera is about 532nd on the list of people they should be aggrieved with.

The most powerful, haunting picture I can think of is Winogrand's shot of the legless vet. I don't think I've got enough sociopath in me to take that kind of shot, but I envy those who do.

Not, however, that I'd likely want someone like that as a neighbor or friend. Many talented folks you really don't want to get too close to--just saw "Tom and Viv" the other night about how T.S. Eliot dumped his wife in an asylum and ignored her for the rest of her life, living off her inheritance. Even when menopause cured her hormone-imbalance-related problems, no one was interested enough to get her out.

firecracker said:

Really? A friend of mine was once approached by some lady (or a lady-looking guy is what I think) in the street in South Philly. She asked him to take pictures of her, and they went into the alley. Then she started to undress in front of him, and he snapped a few photos of her naked.

There are opportunities like that.

Click to expand...

Guess I need to move to Philly.

a couple of meandering thoughts, in no particular order..

1) There is a homeless daytime drop in shelter right across the street from my house. Seriously - right across the street. Anyhow, when and if they sit on my property, I feel I have the right to take their picture - but seldom do.

2) IN addition to the shelter across the street from my house, theres is also a meth clinic, a second daytime homeless drop in shelter exactly one block due north of my house, a youth jail on the same block I am on, a mens homeless mission (for overnight stays) two blocks west, another two blocks west past that a Salvation Army homeless shelter, the police station is across the street to the east (same block the one homeless shelter is on), - well, you get the point, there's a few other social agencies that have stores and other such places in my immediate vincinity.

My point is - try and take a local picture in my neighborhood and NOT get the homeless in it. Heck, I've even taken family snaps of the kids in the side yard, and inadvertently gotten the homeless in the background, walking down the sidewalk in front of my house.

..and you guys are all debating the ethics of shooting the homeless.. Grrr. if I sound angry - I am. At least you people have the choice to do it or not.

3) as per above, I make a point of NOT shooting the homeless when away from home, or travelling. One exception in the past however. I was shooting in Key West once, and a homeless guy came up to me, and offered to let me shot him for a day, if I bought him a beer. But, if I wanted to shoot him the next day, it cost another beer. The day was hotter then hell, and i kinda liked the guy - being up front and all. So I gave him beer money,a nd had a nice chat with home. A lot of homeless people know the streets very well, and can be an amazing source of information for many different topics.

Well, last point on the soapbox for now.

I guess my point is, maybe you all should be grateful that you have the choice to begin with. Kinda like the debates you see pop up here and on other photo boards and mailing lists about B&W vs colour. I'm colour blind, so I cannot shoot colour anymore than a guy in a wheelchair can do a Stairmaster. Maybe instead of debating ad nauseum which is the right choice, occasionally take a deep breath, step back, and thank whomever you hold responsible that you have the ability to make a choice to begin with. It makes you see the world in a different light when you do that. That kind of outlook on life might even improve your photography a wee bit, regardless of medium.

have a good one everyone

joe

Just one more comment

Thinking about how you will not take pictures doesn't sound like a very productive way to find and make The Good Pictures. Sounds like the same old "confirm and conform" to me.

Rule of thirds, anyone?

kb

bjorke said:

Just one more comment

Thinking about how you will not take pictures doesn't sound like a very productive way to find and make The Good Pictures. Sounds like the same old "confirm and conform" to me.

Rule of thirds, anyone?

kb

Click to expand...

I agree. There's nothing I wouldn't shoot if I thought it was interesting and I could get away with it. If you're street shooting and editing in your head before you even attempt a picture you're really limiting yourself. It's what happens to the picture later that's important.

Think of all the great pictures from the last 100 years of photojournalism. Almost all of them are hard to look at because there's someone in distress in them, let alone just plain homeless or a child. Hell, HCB used to hide his camera under a hankie and sneak up on people. Doisneau's great pictures are almost all kids.

I know times are different, but don't give in to the pervs. Let the world know photography is not a crime. Stand up for yourself and your art. Incidently, most kids who are abused are abused by someone they know, not strangers with cameras.

Goethe said something like, "Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid."

Well said.

In our country extreme 'Political Correctness' is the current modus operandi for living. Everyone walks around on tiptoes, worried they might have inavertantly miffed a minority group somewhere.

Further on HCB; if he had followed the current trend in PC he wouldn't have used a right-angled viewer to fool subjects. But it's also unlikely he would have been labelled 'Greatest Photographer of the 20th Centry'.

These things go in cycles and certainly imho our society needed to change, here anyway. But, also the pendulum has swung a long way in the opposite direction. It'd be easy to step into the political discussion out that.

Andyk said:

Because unless it is done to aid the homeless and disenfranchised, or as a photojournalist to highlight their plight, it can be seen as exploitation.

Click to expand...

Yes it can be seen as exploitation, but this is in the eye of the beholder. A photographer may also make a comment on society with their camera whilst maintaining responsibility for and awareness of affects of their images without a vehicle to aid the subject or the intent to exploit.

In a round about way Salgado is a good case in point. I follow his photography avidly, spent a small fortune on his books. His cause constantly seems noble and admirable and it is easy to assume all his work is motivated by the will to aid. Perhaps this is true of his excellent Narration of the Brazilian coffee routes, which was incidentally sponsored by Illy.

What did his End of Polio portfolio really do? The campaign to eradicate Polio by the end of last year was executed by aid workers around the world. The photographer mearly witnessed it and through his fame for this kind of work was able to give it a wider audience. Don't know how much he actually aided the eradication of polio though.

I don't mean to be disparaging in any way. Merely making the point that "if you photograph a displaced person when you have a good and widely regarded reputation it's aid but if you photograph the same when you don't it is exploitation" is too black and white for me.

A simple image taken by an amateur photograph that makes an audience see something they wouldn't normally see in their own environment, could be very beneficial.

I refuse to take pictures of mimes or clowns. I just don't want to encourage such behavior.

Booo !

Scared the $%@#% out of me!

now I can't sleep...thanks

How 'bout another marginal dissertation on the ethics of Street Photography? Would that help?

John McCallum said:

A simple image taken by an amateur photograph that makes an audience see something they wouldn't normally see in their own environment, could be very beneficial.

Click to expand...

I agree. It just shows what an individual can do with such a little personal tool, but they can't be so naive about the effect of the photos being produced with it.

Sorry to hear NZ has gone all "PC" sad news as I'd like to live there. Is the South island safe from this scourge ?


"Street photography" is not my cup of tea, although record shots, of town centres etc., appeal to me , for the interest would be several years or even decades down the line much as with street shots.

It's Ok Peter I believe it is a temporary affliction and mostly confined to the cities, especially Auckland. The South doesn't change much at all (bless 'em). No time for niceties and salt o' this big ol' earth. Great people.

A mother in Alexandra was interviewed on the 6 o'clock news the other night. She'd been without power for 9 nights. The hoar frosts had frozen the pipes, and she was cooking dinner by candle-light on a wood stove for 3 small children. Interviewer observed "your spirits seem to still be up". She just said "yeah, why not?"

And I am waiting answer to same question Roger asked. Me too, I am really puzzled: Why not?

I once asked a group of bicycle cops if I could shoot them. Based on their collective reaction I quickly re-worded my request to "May I take your picture". I usually avoid them so as not to appear I am interfering with them. We have had a few cases up here where photographers were roughed up and some had equipment damaged by police.

Bob