Street photography without pissing people off?

[digital&film]

I do a fair amount of Street Photography in NYC ( www.digitalandfilm.com )

My recommendations would be to adapt your style to your subject. Try not to be obvious or obnoxious but *get the shot*!

Some camera's now have almost silent electronic shutters ( Fuji X-30 ) for stealth, and I use an X-Pro 1 from Fuji myself.

You must learn to assimilate and dissolve *into* the area you are working, and know where the light direction is, and at night- if you see a "shadow" under the streetlights generally you can shoot.. around 3200 ISO, but you can shoot. Film is much more of a challenge.. but it's doable. Film backs and two bodies allow fast and faster film, and lenses can be pre-mounted.

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT to shoot in public, but you also must temper that right with common sense, or you will have problems.

 

[digital&film]

Come to think of it, I have suffered more injuries filming in State Parks, falling down embankments, off snow dunes, and have come home frozen or (in summer) covered with mosquito bites with a few ticks thrown in there.

The most problems I have had (shooting street) was one homeless man running down the street yelling "NO.. NO.. No no.. NO!" and a Metro Card that wouldn't work for the subway. Starbucks provides bathroom's and wifi.. not to mention coffee.

If you shoot film, it pays to remember your exposure count.. and then hit Starbucks or a Pub to reload.. and rest.

 

[benjiboy]

Street shooting isn't for shrinking violets if you don't want to risk pissing people off, shoot landscape, or church interiors.

 

[Xmas]

When you push the button it is in the can.
When they ask you to delete it show the film speed reminder.
If they say you need to ask permission tell them to phone for a cop.
If they say it is a prohibited place ask where is the notice.
If it is a cop show a driving licence.
Most of our cops pose for tourists!

 

[horacekenneth]

The style you are going for I think plays just as big of a factor. Eric Kim is contemporary street photographer (shoots film, mostly) and a lot of his stuff is in your face, intrusive street photography. That's his style (or one of them). He's got people yelling at him and flipping him off and they fit right in.

Vivian Maier's street photography has a much more intimate feeling to it, like she personally got to know the people she was about to photograph.

How much do you want to be a fly on the wall and how much do you want to be interacting with the people you're shooting, whether intimately or intrusively?

 

[darkosaric]

Eric Kim is contemporary street photographer (shoots film, mostly) and a lot of his stuff is in your face, intrusive street photography. That's his style (or one of them). He's got people yelling at him and flipping him off and they fit right in.

Just recently I saw this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjc7a33ML3U

 

[horacekenneth]

Just recently I saw this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjc7a33ML3U

haha

 

[snapguy]

Can you....

Can you walk into a crowded room and bedazzle everyone in the place? Clark Gable could, and so could Marilyn Monroe. Marilyn worked her tailfeathers off until she learned how to make love to a camera (and the people around her) and the camera made love back to her. It is something you can learn. And you can learn to be a no-threat with your camera. You just have to work with it. A TLR is helpful. An old folder would be nice. In the 1950s street pros put black tape over the "Leica" on their camera and bought black camera bodies. Pretty soon a lot of folks knew if they saw all that tape and black paint the eyeball behind the camera was a street pro or a wannabe. Then, it didn't work so good anymore. I'd suggest a 50mm or longer lens on a standard 35mm camera. You don't have to get four inches away from them. Perhaps you ARE rude with your wide angle lens. Think about it. The courts are saying these days that upskirt photos are legal so you're going to get more of those weirdos and folks who are going to assume you are a weirdo. You cannot reinvent 1955 on the sidewalks of Nueva Jork. You have to work with reality, whatever that is.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Can you walk into a crowded room and bedazzle everyone in the place? Clark Gable could, and so could Marilyn Monroe. Marilyn worked her tailfeathers off until she learned how to make love to a camera <snip> and the camera made love back to her. It is something you can learn. And you can learn to be a no-threat with your camera. You just have to work with it. A TLR is helpful. An old folder would be nice. In the 1950s street pros put black tape over the "Leica" on their camera and bought black camera bodies. Pretty soon a lot of folks knew if they saw all that tape and black paint the eyeball behind the camera was a street pro or a wannabe. Then, it didn't work so good anymore. I'd suggest a 50mm or longer lens on a standard 35mm camera. You don't have to get four inches away from them. Perhaps you ARE rude with your wide angle lens. Think about it. The courts are saying these days that upskirt photos are legal so you're going to get more of those weirdos and folks who are going to assume you are a weirdo. You cannot reinvent 1955 on the sidewalks of Nueva Jork. You have to work with reality, whatever that is.

I made love to a favorite camera once. It did nothing but make me feel like a pervert... and it didn't even try to make love back to me. I felt so... used.

 

[MrBrowning]

I made love to a favorite camera once. It did nothing but make me feel like a pervert... and it didn't even try to make love back to me. I felt so... used.

 

[skorpiius]

You might try this.

Select a very quiet camera with a wide angle lens. One with a leaf shutter works great. Attach a neck strap to the camera. Set the hyperfocal distance on the lens. Note the minimum distance. Hang the camera around your neck. Attach an air bulb shutter release. Run the air hose behind the camera and under and through your clothing into a jacket or sweater pocket. Set the shutter. Stick your hands into your pockets. Casually walk around in public maintaining at least the noted minimum distance from any potential subjects. When you find something interesting, mentally compose the frame by turning your entire body. Then look away just before you squeeze the bulb. Casually exit the scene and rewind.

I've done this with both a Canonet QL17 G-III and a Yashica MAT-124G TLR. Both have leaf shutters. Never had a single confrontation as not a single subject was ever aware they had been photographed. Even up close.

A side benefit of the TLR is that almost every photo has the subject looking directly into the lens. Not because they suspected. Rather because they had never before seen a TLR and were staring at it. Nice.

Ken

This is hilarious, I was going to suggest exactly what you wrote, because I've been thinking about this problem as well. I have a Yashica (not MAT) LM TLR and came up with the exact same solution. Now I'm definitely going to go ahead with it.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

This is hilarious, I was going to suggest exactly what you wrote, because I've been thinking about this problem as well. I have a Yashica (not MAT) LM TLR and came up with the exact same solution. Now I'm definitely going to go ahead with it.

See: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

This photograph was made with a Yashica Mat-124G TLR using the exact process I described. I was standing only a few feet away. Note the subject eyes crucially looking directly into the camera lens, and thus directly into the viewer's eyes. The young lady is in the midst of beginning to sneeze...

Ken

 

[removed account4]

You are deluded, they don't even notice.

some do notice and they dont' like having their photograph taken so much
that they might get in your face and threaten you with harm. this has happened to me
a handful of times, when i was doing street work ( and documentary photography in late night eateries )
and as a photojournalist on the street. i've not only been threatened with harm but had my camera grabbed from me
and almost not given back ... i don't do stree work anymore because of that , and a few other reasons which are not related to this thread ( and i wont' elaborate on them here ).

a few years ago in an online gallery someone posted a photograph of a street person sleeping in a pile of trash with a few dollars strewn next to them and some sort of silly comment.
they made it seem as if they were doing him a favor by photographing him and then posting the images on the internet for people to laugh at.
grab shots like that or sneeky photographs when people don't know what you are doing aren't really what i think show the human condition
or humanity or anything positive for photography. they just show how low people can get in order to get comments in an online gallery.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

a few years ago in an online gallery someone posted a photograph of a street person sleeping in a pile of trash with a few dollars strewn next to them and some sort of silly comment.
they made it seem as if they were doing him a favor by photographing him and then posting the images on the internet for people to laugh at.
grab shots like that or sneeky photographs when people don't know what you are doing aren't really what i think show the human condition
or humanity or anything positive for photography. they just show how low people can get in order to get comments in an online gallery.

As a general rule I avoid responding directly to the criticisms of a (very) select few, because so often those criticisms are rooted in the totally nonsensical. However, in this case I'll make an exception.

The photograph in question is not exploitive in any way. Given the circumstances of its creation there is next to nothing that the camera itself could have contributed and/or detracted beyond its basic documentary application.

The couple pictured were presenting themselves in public precisely the way they are depicted. And that presentation was peer conforming. Had an unrelated observer been standing next to me at the moment of shutter release, that observer would have seen exactly what the photograph depicts without the interposing of a camera at all.

There was no attempt to seek out and show something that was not already voluntarily fully on display. These two were not in any way embarrassed or ashamed to be walking around in full view of everyone. They were not hiding. And if one includes the ubiquitous smart phones, they were literally surrounded by scores of cameras, many of which no doubt caught their (and my) images as unintentional background clutter.

And as far as the title goes, as I stated in the upload description, I know that to be true for a fact. Less than 30 minutes earlier I was coincidentally sitting right next to them on a bench as they ate corn dogs, and could not avoid hearing them discussing mutual friends and the origins of their date.

That someone may view this picture with anxiety is more a reflection of that viewer's projected personal insecurities than it is of any exposed and exploited insecurities held by the subjects themselves. They appeared to be having a pretty good time that afternoon at the fair.

Ken

 

[cliveh]

Many years ago I was in the opera district in Paris, it was pouring down with heavy rain and there was a beggar laying on the pavement under a black shroud proffering an out stretched hand for money. The entire scene and choreography of his/her movements under this soaked shroud cried out for help. From an aesthetic point of view it was a very powerful image. However, even though I could have taken some photographs of this anonymous person, I declined to do so out of respect for the pitiful situation it proclaimed.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Many years ago I was in the opera district in Paris, it was pouring down with heavy rain and there was a beggar laying on the pavement under a black shroud proffering an out stretched hand for money. The entire scene and choreography of his/her movements under this soaked shroud cried out for help. From an aesthetic point of view it was a very powerful image. However, even though I could have taken some photographs of this anonymous person, I declined to do so out of respect for the pitiful situation it proclaimed.

+1

 

[cliveh]

If your serious about doc photo work you must divorce your conscience from the job. Sure, I may pass up a shot once in a while because of conscience, but very seldom. Plenty of time to trash the shot at home. Weegee, tells us 'you can't be a nice Nellie and shoot street / news.'


OP...

Learn to shoot unframed, hip shots if you want success with low key street work. It is very dangerous on the street nowadays, at least in the US. Everyone gets caught once in awhile no mater how good a sneak photog they are. I am one of the best at it and get caught every so often. That is not the point, the goal is to not get caught 98% of the time or at least make it so the subject is unsure enough that you shot them to not put up a stink. When you do get caught your self-defense / deescalating training is there if needed.

nsfw

https://danielteolijr.wordpress.com/2015/11/16/shooting-from-the-hip/


nsfw

https://danielteolijr.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/self-defense-for-the-street-photographer/

If your in the UK your pretty much fudged with self-defense weapons. But you can sill have a few puny options as listed in the link above. In any case, you are always on the move, don't stand there and argue or wait for conflict like some wannabes do. Press the button and move one!

That may work for you, but not for me.

 

[removed account4]

As a general rule I avoid responding directly to the criticisms of a (very) select few, because so often those criticisms are rooted in the totally nonsensical. However, in this case I'll make an exception.

The photograph in question is not exploitive in any way. Given the circumstances of its creation there is next to nothing that the camera itself could have contributed and/or detracted beyond its basic documentary application.

The couple pictured were presenting themselves in public precisely the way they are depicted. And that presentation was peer conforming. Had an unrelated observer been standing next to me at the moment of shutter release, that observer would have seen exactly what the photograph depicts without the interposing of a camera at all.

There was no attempt to seek out and show something that was not already voluntarily fully on display. These two were not in any way embarrassed or ashamed to be walking around in full view of everyone. They were not hiding. And if one includes the ubiquitous smart phones, they were literally surrounded by scores of cameras, many of which no doubt caught their (and my) images as unintentional background clutter.

And as far as the title goes, as I stated in the upload description, I know that to be true for a fact. Less than 30 minutes earlier I was coincidentally sitting right next to them on a bench as they ate corn dogs, and could not avoid hearing them discussing mutual friends and the origins of their date.

That someone may view this picture with anxiety is more a reflection of that viewer's projected personal insecurities than it is of any exposed and exploited insecurities held by the subjects themselves. They appeared to be having a pretty good time that afternoon at the fair.

Ken

the photographs i was refering to had nothing to do with you or your café scene or anything you have posted in the gallery &c, and i never even suggested it did.
i am speaking of a photograph that mocked a homeless person, have you posted photographs like that, and do you brag about that sort of stuff ?
i imagine you are a bit more respectful to other people than cheap shots like that.
it has to do with human dignity, i have said that in the comments section of a photograph similar to that in the apug gallery.
i don't really care how you set your camera up to make sneeky photographs ...

nonsensical is right.

===

Many years ago I was in the opera district in Paris, it was pouring down with heavy rain and there was a beggar laying on the pavement under a black shroud proffering an out stretched hand for money. The entire scene and choreography of his/her movements under this soaked shroud cried out for help. From an aesthetic point of view it was a very powerful image. However, even though I could have taken some photographs of this anonymous person, I declined to do so out of respect for the pitiful situation it proclaimed.

thank you clive!
+2

 

[Roger Cole]

I seriously doubt the photograph did or was meant to mock the person. A photograph like that makes a powerful statement, and it isn't about mockery or laughing. If some took it that way I can only say that some people really suck.

A photograph like that is most likely intended to promote compassion and speak to the homeless condition of too many people.

I understand respecting their privacy and dignity and not using an individual person to make such a statement and I'm not taking a position on whether that's justified or not. But I seriously doubt that photo was meant to mock.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

the photographs i was refering to had nothing to do with you or your café scene or anything you have posted in the gallery &c, and i never even suggested it did.
i am speaking of a photograph that mocked a homeless person, have you posted photographs like that, and do you brag about that sort of stuff ?
i imagine you are a bit more respectful to other people than cheap shots like that.
it has to do with human dignity, i have said that in the comments section of a photograph similar to that in the apug gallery.
i don't really care how you set your camera up to make sneeky photographs ...

nonsensical is right.

And who said I was referring directly to you?

Ken

 

[removed account4]

I seriously doubt the photograph did or was meant to mock the person. A photograph like that makes a powerful statement, and it isn't about mockery or laughing. If some took it that way I can only say that some people really suck.

A photograph like that is most likely intended to promote compassion and speak to the homeless condition of too many people.

I understand respecting their privacy and dignity and not using an individual person to make such a statement and I'm not taking a position on whether that's justified or not. But I seriously doubt that photo was meant to mock.

maybe roger but the commentary about the photograph wasn't very compassionate, nor have others i have seen wherepeople throw money at homeless people
while they are passed out to make photographs of them. it is pretty low ...

 

[removed account4]

And who said I was referring directly to you?

Ken

LOL

you are too much
hmmm, lets see ....
you quote my comment and go on about how you don't respond to
things "certain people here" write because they are nonsensical ... or that they have insecurities
as you always tend to do, to put me in my place ... :munch:
i keep forgetting how so very smart you are, you must have outsmarted me again with
your nonstop argumentative style ...

yawn... back on ignore, thanks !

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

LOL

you are too much
hmmm, lets see ....
you quote my comment and go on about how you don't respond to
things "certain people here" write because they are nonsensical ... or that they have insecurities
as you always tend to do, to put me in my place ... :munch:
i keep forgetting how so very smart you are, you must have outsmarted me again with
your nonstop argumentative style ...

yawn... back on ignore, thanks !

I routinely quote your comments whenever you are part of a thread because you have a history of repeatedly modifying your posts after reading various conflicting replies to them, and they thus become difficult to connect and follow over the course of a discussion. Explicitly quoting them (as above) prevents that.

And I never mentioned your name. So if you were truly speaking in generalities, then so was I. And if you truly weren't, then neither was I. Take your pick. The choice is yours. See how that works?

And no, I am possessed of only very average intelligence. Which could be interpreted in this particular context as a potentially devastating reality...

Ken

 

[ericdan]

In Japan as a foreigner it's really easy. They think I am just another tourist with a camera anyhow. No one gets aggressive. Most of the times I compliment people. "Nice tie, nice shoes, nice jacket" etc. Everybody loves compliments...

 

[removed account4]

I routinely quote your comments whenever you are part of a thread because you have a history of repeatedly modifying your posts after reading various conflicting replies to them, and they thus become difficult to connect and follow over the course of a discussion. Explicitly quoting them (as above) prevents that.

And I never mentioned your name. So if you were truly speaking in generalities, then so was I. And if you truly weren't, then neither was I. Take your pick. The choice is yours. See how that works?

And no, I am possessed of only very average intelligence. Which could be interpreted in this particular context as a potentially devastating reality...

Ken

no i wasn't speaking in generalities.
i have been accosted with my camera ...
as i was working for a newspaper
and when i have been on projects/doing my own work
i have been surrounded by a crowd of racists/bigots who threatened me
yelling in my face "A-rab go home" ( as well as other things ) ... at a tourist destination in broad daylight / quincy market infront of city hall in boston.
a few years before i had my camera grabbed from me
by a drunk guy who wouldnt' give it back, and then he said he'd give it back alright, he' shove it up my --ss.
--- i took his photograph on the sly like you do/did.
on assighment a 240lb linebacker of a security guard was in my face
and threatened me for a long while if i didn't delete my assignemnt ( yes it was digital )
i had him talk to my managing editor who calmed him down, and eventually he let me go
not to mention other private security who has followed me around and harrassed me for
making photographs of people doing "street work" ... no, i am not speaking
in generalities, like you ... UNlike you, i have been making photographs for a living since the 1980s
and i have plenty of life experience and paid assignments to talk about,
and here locally on apug i have spoken up if i see something in the gallery that is low and disrespectful

one of the photographs i was referring to was one of stephen frizza's
he said it was a guy sleeping in trash ouside his building
and he either threw money at him ( it was next to him passed out ) or put a coffee
next to his body and then took his photograph in a heap of trash with a title like "morning coffee" ...
i suggested his do something productive and buy the guy a meal and what he did was in bad taste.
no i don't remember which one it was, there are plenty of people who photograph the homeless like that and it is sad and pathetic.
i would have linked to the photograph i am talking about but it looks like it has been deleted from his gallery.
other disrespectful images in the gallery i have spoken up about
include a model whose "professional" photographer jokingly refered to her as "another anorexic model"
yes, equally in bad taste, i am an equal opportunity commenter.
... and if you posted something as tasteless, just to get chuckles, comments and back slaps,
i would make a comment as well.

you don't disappoint as usual, you are too much ...

thanks for putting me in my place !
i really appreciate it. :munch: