Taking Candids of Random People

Dorothy Blum Cooper · Nov 19, 2005

The majority of my work is straight from the streets (you can see some of that in the montage Calm Before the Storm - be forewarned that it is not dial-up internet friendly). My family and I would head to New Orleans for a bite to eat and to just hang out...that's when I would work.

In the many years that I have photographed in this manner (shooting then explaining what I do), I have never had a problem. I remember asking on one occasion and politely being told by the young man that he would 'prefer' that I not make a photo of him. I respected his request.

I think (for me) it's a personal thing in how (not just what) you photograph. I'm comfortable working in the street and people have always been comfortable with me. I've even approached individuals that I've seen sitting on front porches, told them what I do, why I want to photograph them (it helps when I give them my business card) and sometimes (if I need to bribe ) I offer them a print as a gift in exchange. Just a thought!

gbroadbridge · Nov 20, 2005

Dorothy, if I saw *you* taking photos of kids at a playground, I certainly would not give it a second thought.

If I saw Les leaning over the fence snapping shots, I'd probably get concerned.

Notice here the language I used, you're taking photographs, but poor old Les is leaning over the fence snapping shots.

That is how it would be reported in the papers, or to the police when someone complained.

If you want to take kiddie shots in public places, it helps if you're a woman

Graham.

Andy K · Nov 20, 2005

I have no problem making photographs of buskers/street performers etc, I chuck a quid in their hat, show them the camera and always get a friendly nod and smile of 'ok'.
The reaction to making photographs of Joe Public on the other hand, in this modern paranoia riddled world can range from a friendly smile to physical injury, so I don't do it.

Ralf · Nov 20, 2005

Bear in mind that various countries have laws that differ from your home country. In practice, that might not be a problem, but from a strictly legal point of view you might sometimes walk on very thin ice with candid shots of strangers.

For example here in Germany, it would of course be okay to make photographs of a street performer. Painting one's face and hands silver, stepping on a box and acting like a robot clearly implies that you want attention and the "risk" of photographs. Making shots of the people watching this performer, however, is something completely different. Using a wide lens and doing an overview kind of shot of the whole scene would be okay. Picking one or a couple of people for your shot would (strictly speaking) be completely illegal. As soon as a picture is centered around a person, i.e. the shown person is the main object of the photograph, you would need permission.

I know that in most situations this is purely hypothetical, but just imagine you made that wonderful shot inside the crowded underground car and upload it to your online gallery. What you didn't know was that next to John Doe in the fourth row on the left was sitting his lover, Joanna Public, her head resting on his shoulders. Two month later, John's wife browses the gallery, whoops!

Don't want to be a spoil sport - I love street photography, just wanted to mention possible legal trouble. It's rare, admitted, but technically possible.

Dorothy Blum Cooper · Nov 20, 2005

Graham, my response was directed to the original post in this thread, not to the answers. I explained how I work.

While it may sometimes be easier for me to approach people because I'm a woman...there is less concern that my motives may be inappropriate...I cringe at being cubbyholed as another woman doing kid photography. I make photographs of people in the street most of which is NOT of children.

If I saw a man or a woman for that matter leaning over the fence "snapping shots," I'd probably get concerned as well.

I recognize that laws vary from locale to locale, as does the interpretation of those laws. There are those here in the States who interpret our privacy laws as you've represented them to be in Germany. For most of my street photography, I ask permission, which trumps that interpretation.

Oh, and Ralf...as for John Doe and Joanna Public, if they didn't want to get "caught" by Mrs. Doe, they shouldn't have been prancing around in public together with their affair. I believe they call that 'adultery'.

digiconvert · Nov 20, 2005

Right to dignity ?

Anyone any views on how ethical it is to take photos of those who will pose for a few pounds/dollars/euros e.g beggars or those in the developing world ?

I'm not sure I feel totally happy with this, photogenic though they may be.

firecracker · Nov 20, 2005

digiconvert said:
Anyone any views on how ethical it is to take photos of those who will pose for a few pounds/dollars/euros e.g beggars or those in the developing world ?

I'm not sure I feel totally happy with this, photogenic though they may be.

I think it depends on how you communicate with them. If you want to do that, treat them the way you want to be treated by others. That doesn't mean giving money or anything in the first place.

Bill Mitchell · Nov 20, 2005

I believe I've read that both Helen Levitt and Eudora Welty have said that it's not possible today to take the kind of (wonderful) pictures that they took in the '30s and '40s.

firecracker · Nov 20, 2005

Bill Mitchell said:
I believe I've read that both Helen Levitt and Eudora Welty have said that it's not possible today to take the kind of (wonderful) pictures that they took in the '30s and '40s.

Could you explain what you mean by that?

digiconvert · Nov 20, 2005

firecracker said:
Treat them the way you want to be treated by others. That doesn't mean giving money or anything in the first place.

Sorry I did not mean to imply that dignity can be traded. However in a world where the value of a human is too often SEEN as being measured in monetary terms I fear that those of us who have been well treated by life need to be careful about the feelings of others.
That said a photograph of a human being who has not been so lucky can speak volumes .
Hope this make my point clearer ?

digiconvert · Nov 20, 2005

firecracker said:
Could you explain what you mean by that?

Not sure what Firecracker meant, but can you imagine taking this today ?
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/phbw/hob_1987.1100.75.htm

It shows a side of life that could not easily be discussed/envisioned today.

Les McLean · Nov 20, 2005

I'd never give money to anyone I photograph but if it is a beggar I would buy some food and hot drinks for them. My thinking is that any money given could be used to purchase drugs or alcohol, and no I am not saying that all beggars are druggies or drunks.

firecracker · Nov 20, 2005

digiconvert said:
Sorry I did not mean to imply that dignity can be traded. However in a world where the value of a human is too often SEEN as being measured in monetary terms I fear that those of us who have been well treated by life need to be careful about the feelings of others.
That said a photograph of a human being who has not been so lucky can speak volumes .
Hope this make my point clearer ?

Okay I see what you mean now.

Bill Mitchell · Nov 20, 2005

firecracker said:
Could you explain what you mean by that?

I'm not sure, exactly. But I think they had in mind a different attitude of people in being photographed by strangers, and also a lack of deference toward the presence of middle-aged, middle-class women in the environments in which they photographed.

derevaun · Nov 24, 2005

I doubt that the ratio of predators to children has grown since those photos were made. The change, IMHO, is that more of us are more aware of the reality and less afraid to confront it. It's a shame when the confrontations take unnecessary forms, but at least somebody's speaking up for potential victims.

Maybe the successful street photographers will be the ones who find a way to do great work in the present culture instead of changing the culture to make it easy. Isn't that a big part of taking candid photographs?

bjorke · Nov 24, 2005

The only ethical issue is: "does the photograph have potential value that can override all other ethical questions?"

YOU MUST DECIDE YOURSELF

Or like me assume the answer ALWAYS to be a potential "yes"

Q: what to do?
A: f/8

David H. Bebbington · Nov 24, 2005

Bill Mitchell said:
I believe I've read that both Helen Levitt and Eudora Welty have said that it's not possible today to take the kind of (wonderful) pictures that they took in the '30s and '40s.

I believe this is absolutely true, for these reasons:
Back then, people [subjects] had no idea about the commercial exploitation of photographs and no preconceptions about this. Now, people still really have no idea but are are hypersensitive to the whole idea - they think that paparazzi will try to photograph completely unknown people, they think that ordinary pictures of fully clothed children in the street can be exploited by pedophiles, and they think that pictures of unknown people can be worth thousands of dollars in advertisements. People are also much more aware of cameras (not least thru cameraphones). Back in the 1930s, many people would not necessarily recognize a miniature camera as such.

The bottom line for me is that if people find being photographed offensive, this for me is reason enough not to do it, particularly as commercial exploitation of material of this kind is getting more and more difficult every day. Sad but true - we live in paranoid times

Ralf · Nov 24, 2005

David H. Bebbington said:
I believe this is absolutely true, for these reasons:
Back then, people [subjects] had no idea about the commercial exploitation of photographs and no preconceptions about this. Now, people still really have no idea but are are hypersensitive to the whole idea - they think that paparazzi will try to photograph completely unknown people, they think that ordinary pictures of fully clothed children in the street can be exploited by pedophiles, and they think that pictures of unknown people can be worth thousands of dollars in advertisements. People are also much more aware of cameras (not least thru cameraphones). Back in the 1930s, many people would not necessarily recognize a miniature camera as such.

The bottom line for me is that if people find being photographed offensive, this for me is reason enough not to do it, particularly as commercial exploitation of material of this kind is getting more and more difficult every day. Sad but true - we live in paranoid times

Well said. I think (I'm afraid) you are right.

PS: Good luck with your Uncle Ben's

firecracker · Nov 24, 2005

David H. Bebbington said:
I believe this is absolutely true, for these reasons:
Back then, people [subjects] had no idea about the commercial exploitation of photographs and no preconceptions about this. Now, people still really have no idea but are are hypersensitive to the whole idea - they think that paparazzi will try to photograph completely unknown people, they think that ordinary pictures of fully clothed children in the street can be exploited by pedophiles, and they think that pictures of unknown people can be worth thousands of dollars in advertisements. People are also much more aware of cameras (not least thru cameraphones). Back in the 1930s, many people would not necessarily recognize a miniature camera as such.

The bottom line for me is that if people find being photographed offensive, this for me is reason enough not to do it, particularly as commercial exploitation of material of this kind is getting more and more difficult every day. Sad but true - we live in paranoid times

I agree with you on a couple of points. True, the commercial exploitation in photography and the hypersensitive reaction of the public to that really affect people's minds. Plus, the pedophiles and the alike are really pushing them to the deadend. Mostly this happens in the developed countries like the U.S., GB, and Japan.

I think it's because there are too many cameras to have any private moment. Too many people with too many cameras, and they hang out 24 hrs. When and where can other people find a time to rest?

However, in some parts of the world, most of the time people do not give you such a look even if you have a camera out. At the same time, they understand you're a tourist and/or traveling in their area(s) for a short period of time. That's the interesting part of this dilemma, I think.

As long as you practice your everyday moral and ethics, they will simply accept you and your reason(s) for taking their pictures. You don't want to look like you came from another planet.

In most of the countries I have visited in Europe, I find people are rather receptive. In some Eastern European countries, my cameras have become the ultimate communication tools. Otherwise, I don't know how else I would've been able to exchange a few words with the non-English speaking natives who I wanted to get to know.

So I think it's sort of safe to say, the tough part is the hysteria in the developed countries. Of course you couldn't know for sure what your subject(s) think without making any effort to learn.

Roger Krueger · Nov 24, 2005

rrankin said:
I used a Mamya TLR in Manhattan on a number of occasions with no problem. Most times no one even knows what you are doing and probably thinks you are a weirdo, best avoided. When I used a Nikon 35mm with a 70-300 zoom lens, I had no end of glares and gestures.

Even if you're "caught", there's something about a funky old camera.

My 1dsII draws so many middle fingers (who knew there were that many APUGers out there?) that I've mostly given up using it for eye-level street.

But my weird-looking Mamiya Universal has yet to get a finger, and usually gets a smile.

Andy K · Nov 24, 2005

If challenged just say it isn't the person openly using an SLR they need to worry about, it's the person with a tiny little digital camera or phone camera they need to look out for.

Bill Mitchell · Nov 24, 2005

Dorothy Blum Cooper said:
The majority of my work is straight from the streets (you can see some of that in the montage Calm Before the Storm -

The slide show is absolutely magnificant! Thank you for sharing it.

firecracker · Nov 24, 2005

Roger Krueger said:
My 1dsII draws so many middle fingers (who knew there were that many APUGers out there?) that I've mostly given up using it for eye-level street.

Still valuable pictures they would make, I think.

Dorothy Blum Cooper · Nov 24, 2005

The slide show is absolutely magnificant! Thank you for sharing it.

Why thank you, Mr. Mitchell!! (In my best southern drawl and giving you a little curtsey ) I do appreciate that.

Bill Mitchell · Nov 25, 2005

Y'll is plumb welcome, Ma'am (in a deep nasal Tennessee twang, accompanied by a quick little grin and a slight, defferential, nodding of the head). It were surely deserved.

Taking Candids of Random People

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency