How do you see the 'uptightness' of coffee shop snaps?

<p>Tim, I think I sure would hate to be a photo journalist coffee shop papparazzo on your local news paper if Tim were photo editor. I make one last final offering and that' s final take it or leave it..:-) No,I know what you are seeking and like all genres it is maybe not as easy to get all the specs in as all that.<br /> PS: )The Joyce at the espresso machine was of course a snapshot. The guy with the baseball cap may be interesting but not my kind of local color. I think he resides in the place..And Since when do I need to be always so arty farty, as if I could that is:-))</p><div></div>

<p>Here is a thought to bend your mind around on some dreary day, almost even apropos of the OP.<br>

Why are there so few photos, folks, if any at all, of people zoning out in opium parlors/dens in early 20th Century San Francisco? Did the reporters at the Examiner worry about fire hazards of flash powder? Are opiate effects just not all that photogenic. Correct me, was it not part of the San Francisco contemporary scene. And lost to us historical minded..I bet there are some flash glass plates out there somewhere.<br>

Now, stretching even farther. If cameras were in use in late 18th Century New England, would Sam Adams have shucked off being photo-op'ed with a crew from "Sons of Liberty." "Private conversation, officer of the Crown, so butt out please;we are just planning a little demonstration as free Englishmen.."..<br>

I just find the social psychology interesting so much more so than what we have in the picture but what we hold in our mind on the scenes , but that is just me. A diversity of opinion and feelings offered,of which some are blended and not exclusivel held. Aesthetic, practical, legal, moral, personal, and documentarian/libertarian documentarian and maybe more, As I admitted wrong forum and I know better :-).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But most of what's been posted here are straight on posed snaps of folks with all the ambience of their environment cropped out. What story is it telling? Here's a person sitting at a table with a drink in their hand? Why would I want to look at that? Not saying your self portrait is bad, Charles, just saying it doesn't make it a cafe shot because I don't see the cafe or pub. It's all cropped out.<br>

How do you create with composition and lighting a shot of a person in a cafe that says something about that person in relation to the place they are at? There really isn't a lot to work with in such a shot unless it's a candid where you've captured some unique body language and/or expression on their face that relates to where they're at and tells the viewer this person wasn't aware they were being watched</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm afraid that shot of me is not a self portrait. A staffer on the group I was sitting with borrowed my camera for a few moments.<br>

I was simply offering comment and one example of a cooperative subject, in the case of the young lady. Actually I have a ton of shots from that coffee shop because it promoted open mike nights and other events. Except for a couple of individual informal portraits that made it into my examples folder, the rest are archived, but I will try to find an example that meets your criteria.<br>

By the way, I did go into a coffee shop where a poetry reading was going on and one of the poets immediately informed me she did not want her picture taken. Thought I was connected with the newspaper--hazards of carrying big camera.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>..And Since when do I need to be always so arty farty, as if I could that is:-))</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's the question I think we've all been trying to ask concerning why you or anyone would want to shoot pics in a coffee shop. What is the intent or goal that is important enough to the photographer to risk pissing off folks who just want some privacy and a peaceful cup of coffee without hearing a camera shutter constantly tripping and being blinded by a camera flash?</p>

<p>It's different if you're shooting at a family gathering which still has great potential for that artsy fartsy shot if the timing is right and/or luck is with you. A coffee shop should have something unique about it that's different from a regular franchise like Starbucks that would make everyone understand why folks would want to take pictures.</p>

<p>I bicycle around my town's 100+ year old neighborhoods and photograph the restored houses people still reside in. Some come out with inquisitive looks on their face where I feel compelled to tell them how beautiful the houses look where they then give a nod replying they get a lot of that being New Braunfels is a tourist town. Where's the charm in Starbucks?</p>

<p>I'ld feel too nervous bringing a camera in Starbucks from all the over educated underemployed patrons that seem to hang out in my local branch. I'ld always fear some PhD philosophy major with a minor in social work will turn smuggly to me and ask that I not take their picture and suggest I should spend my time and money helping the poor. Then the battle royale would ensue on who could be the more pretentious where I'ld have to turn and say "Oh yeah? Well you can go and get me a half-caff, frappachino, latte and don't forget to include a rain forest friendly, organically grown real vanilla bean stir stick...BEE-UTCH!"</p>

<p>Excuse me for drifting there.</p>

<p>BTW, Gerry, your last shot is right on the money. You clearly have a different demographic of patrons that hang out at your local shop. Doesn't really matter if it's artsy fartsy enough for the Metropolitan Museum of Fine Art but then that should never be the photographer's intent or goal in the first place. Photographers should be shooting to capture a moment that means something to them (given they have a sensitivity and sense of timing for such shots) or else they're better off just culling through the coffee shop's security camera stills.</p>

<p>Tom, thanks for saving me from searching the stock agencies. One of those vapid saccharin posed shots came up in my google image search.</p>

<p>Yeah, why aren't there more intimate, compelling and more interesting looking coffee shop shots? I think it's easier to pull that off in bistro's and cafe's in places like France and usually in B&W like Dave's previous shot.</p>

<p><em>"</em><em>Yeah, why aren't there more intimate, compelling and more interesting looking coffee shop shots? I think it's easier to pull that off in bistro's and cafe's in places like France and usually in B&W like Dave's previous shot."</em><br /> <strong>--Tim</strong></p>

<p>Tim, I don't think it's the location of the coffee shop or whether it's shot in b/w or color, though those things can certainly make a difference. I think it's the intent and approach of the photographer, as you allude to in your posts. If you're hiding behind your camera in a coffee shot, passively shooting what's before you, you are going to get a different kind of shot than if you are experiencing something and proactively considering what you're doing and why you're doing it, which you also mention. Engagement with your subjects doesn't even have to come in the form of conversing with them or nodding to them. It can come in your own participation with your photograph and your own awareness of the various perspectives you can adopt. I think snapshots are often <em>records</em>, some done extremely well and with excitement, some done rather poorly and blandly. I think photographs that are something other than snapshots are <em>creations</em> of the photographer and the world.</p>

<p>Perhaps there "aren't there more intimate, compelling and more interesting looking coffee shop shots" because they would look like this. I think one of the comments above is right, we tend to zoom in on individual or scenes to eliminate distracting backgrounds.</p><div></div>

<p>I think everyone decides at some point whether to be a conformist or a rebel. The conformist is bound by every rule and law and request put upon them. Well, they try anyway. Rationale ranges from being law-abiding, to respectful, to polite, or even God-fearing. At the airport security stand, they are the ones with arms up in the air and a huge grin on their face chatting up the security guard who is feeling them up. Nothing is an imposition, no requirement is too tedious or too outlandish for the conformist who takes it as a point of pride to follow the rules.</p>

<p>Rebels recoil at such restrictive behavior. Most of the time it's not harmful, but sometimes it is. The rebel lot isn't necessarily a safe one by any means. There are muckrakers, and there are outright outlaws and just about everything in between. No cameras allowed? Well, I'll take that as a challenge, thank you, says the rebel. Police say you can't film this or that? I'll also take that as a challenge. Breaking the rules, ignoring the rules, making up your own rules is a long standing and often honored position. We wouldn't have passed a Civil Rights law without people willing to break rules.</p>

<p>As we move farther into the constant surveillance near-police state culture where it's rather obvious that the rules are stacked against the common person, we might be in need of a bit more rebel attitude. I think it could be very dangerous to evolve in the direction of total subservience conformity. Corporations are trying to own every bit of content, every bit of sound, vision and human experience to be copyrighted, trademarked and sold at profits. I think we need some balance to that terror. If they can monitor your every move on surveillance cameras, as I see no reason you can't take pictures of your own.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>That's the question I think we've all been trying to ask concerning why you or anyone would want to shoot pics in a coffee shop. What is the intent or goal that is important enough to the photographer to risk pissing off folks who just want some privacy and a peaceful cup of coffee without hearing a camera shutter constantly tripping and being blinded by a camera flash?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I expect to leave you wondering and unfufilled from your last, Tim.. 'Pissing people off' is still an issue we will always even now disagree on. I mean, of course, perceived <em>risk </em>of doing that. I get more smiles than scowls, maybe the innocent smilin' way...and I pay to be there and am a piece of the furniture, eventually and inevitably. <br /> We live with understanding that this contemporarh subject -area-(by <em>any possible arrived at by consensus restrictive guidelines)-</em> holds absolutely <em>zero </em> interest and more, is filled with prissy and not so prissy 'no nos for some readers..Don't take 'prissy' as a condemnation, I am prissy about a lot of stuff.<br /> So I say fine,cool, we can live with that disagreement w/o need not make it more than what it is, an honest disagreement of interest and style,not a code of conduct breach we can't span.. I do a lot of other things, and the two lady coffee talkers knew and consented to that shot which was in the back file and dragged out. (I do posed models whenever I can get them,as you know.main area of ineresst but not only one. I would face more physical hazard shooting the Bay to Breakers crowd I imagine,like run over by the crowd in pursuit of good time in the race..)<br /> This category of shooting is a small and unrefined area which yet holds some interest for some people at some time in their lives and needs no higher calling. Hope that thought is tolerable in the end game, gs</p>

<p>Charles's shot tells us about Charles and how he appears in the setting. Charles radiates his smile at the local pub hoisting one and we share the ambience thing along with the brew..the part represents the whole. What tell me are we looking for in places where people congregate I am thinking...the people not the china ware.<br /> And IMHO when the word "<em>should"</em> appears re photo discussion of any sort, it better have a great <em>should </em>argument as to the art and craft of shooting, for me anyway. We should never shoot a person in terminal pain. That is a good <em>should,</em>period.</p>

<p>"when the word '<em>should'</em> appears re photo discussion of any sort, it better have a great <em>should </em>argument as to the art and craft of shooting, for me anyway. We should never shoot a person in terminal pain. That is a good <em>should, </em>period." <strong>--Gerry</strong></p>

<p>Good rule of thumb on the first part. I try not to utter photographic "shoulds." Well, maybe the occasional, you <em>should</em> take the lens cap off, but that's a little different. ;))) I'm aware that today's "I shouldn't" could become tomorrow's "I will." Generally, I talk more in terms of "I don't" rather than "I shouldn't" because that tells it like it is without suggesting it MUST be that way or will always be that way.</p>

<p>Now, for the exceptions to your patient in terminal pain. One hypothetical, one real and related.</p>

<p>1) What if a terminal and suffering parent or spouse wanted photos taken in order to educate others? Let's say a 75-year-old father was dying of lung cancer due to smoking all his life and felt that pictures might keep youngsters from starting the habit. What if he couldn't even give permission but a spouse was so convinced it would be a public good to shoot the pictures and was pretty sure the person would give consent if they could.</p>

<p>2) Annie Leibovitz in her book, <em>A Photographer's Life</em>, has many pictures of her dying and dead parents. I don't think about them in terms of "liking" them and I doubt I could take pictures like that, but they seem significant and are moving. I sense that she couldn't help taking them. I also sense her parents would understand. I don't know whether it was a photo obsession with Annie, a catharsis, a means of coping, simply what she did, whatever. They seem genuine and personal to me.The thing is, they don't seem to be in pain, but they are clearly close to death. Were they in pain (and they may well have been), I'm not sure Annie would have felt any compulsion not to take them.</p>

<p>I think where ethics and photography join and separate is fascinating. I am sometimes judgmental of what other people do with their cameras. I take it on a case by case basis whether I speak up about it. I certainly make judgments about what I will take and what I won't, but I still try never to say "never." I like leaving doors open and making these decisions in a more finite and personal way, for now and in this situation, rather than saying "I will or won't do this <em>ever</em>."</p>

<p>Good observations, Fred.Stuff I had forgot actually.<br /> What is there to see in a coffee shop. For people watching, everything if one takes time. The Sunday after church bible discussion cluster talking about the sermon scripture. On Saturday, a guy in long pants with a leather portfolio selling some (financial) product to a lady with a stroller and who wears flip flops like most people. The couple in the corner, not young and not old. Wondering what does she see in him and what does he see in her. The boy hunched over the laptop in the corner, oblivious. The in 'n 'outers, grabbing their drinks and swiftly navigating it out to the lot and I follow through the window. What kind of car does she drive based on her age and apperance. (often surprised, but usually a truck) The lady next to me on the celphone telling her daughter she will be home late. The ones who buy the New York Times for a buck and a half. Now those are the ones to worry about. They probably go see Academy of Art foreign films too! ) A passing parade and for free.What else could one add. Peace.</p>

<p><strong>Gerry</strong>, I agree with you, there are all those things to see, and more, in a coffee shop. It goes back to what <strong>Tim</strong>'s been saying. The problem is that most coffee shop photos don't show any of that. They show sweet smiles or random customers at counters or people buried in a book or two people sitting side by side. The photographer is most likely very aware of the kinds of stories you're talking about and may likely be motivated by those very thoughts in his or head based on what he sees in the coffee shop. Now the tricky part is telling that story or showing it in the photograph.</p>

<p>Additional Note: I should add that, for me, your Coffee Talk photo, nicely shot and titled, does it.</p>

<p>Compelling photographs can be made anywhere, even coffeshops. One just might have to work a bit harder to see the ordinary in an extraordinary way, but that just makes it more of a challenge doesn't it?. A couple months ago I was in downtown LA to do some street shooting. It was early, I hadn't slept well (as usual) and it was starting to drizzle. I ducked into a Starbucks for a much needed caffeine fix. As soon as I walked in, the reason I normally avoid chain establishments like Starbucks hit me: Bland, corporate (i.e. soulless) and overpriced. Nothing like the independent café me and a friend used to hang out at in Pasadena before it closed. Anyway, I got a cup of joe and sat at a counter right in front of the large window facing the street. I had my Nikon F2 with my 35mm ZF lens, a lens that despite being a wide angle is a pretty good sized lens. Also around my neck was my light meter and on my shoulder was a small bag for film, cable release, maps etc. I looked around and decided on a whim to shoot a "warm up" roll. I had just loaded a roll of Tri-X and took a incident reading and discovered I could still hand hold the camera during exposure. So I took a few grab shots of the couple sitting next to me at the counter, then I got off the stool and took a shot of some businessmen at one table, a couple of ladies at another table, and at the other end some students studying. Then back to the counter where some people sat at tables under a awning just on the other side of the window. I took some shots of them and of the people passing by on the sidewalk in front of them. At some point if I recall correctly, I loaded another roll and by now some new people had come in so I once again walked down to the students and back again shooting as I went.</p>

<p>During this time, nobody said a word to me. Most people didn't notice, or pretended not to. I did get a quizzical look from one of the businessmen, but that was it. So was any of these pictures an earth shattering masterpiece? I have no idea! I processed these back then took a quick look mainly to note any exposure/developing issues that may have occurred and put the strips into their sleeves and now they are buried somewhere in the ever growing mountain of film that I have yet to make prints from. My darkroom time is scarce and I have rolls taken from almost a year ago that I haven't been able to make any prints from. Hell, for all I know, I may never get around to them. Now why was I able to shoot these and not have anyone raise a stink over it? Once again, I have no idea! I guess everyone at that time in that place had other, better things to occupy their mind.</p>

<p>Coffe shops, airports, cinemas, malls, pubs, police units, etc - all are part of people's life within the generic domain of Street Photography. The genre cannot exist with public conscent. I am a Street Photography amateur and I am not ready to any concessions here.<br>

On the other hand it is the full right of anybody to ask his picture to be deleted from our digital camera. So I would gladly and graciously do it. Due to political, technological, hystorical changes in the last decade, it will be very much problematic to perform this deletion carrying film cameras.<br>

In general most of street photography is the art of conspicuity, unless sometimes we wait for the subject to become aware of our presence to catch its reaction. And many times this reaction is highly good for my great surprise. But on the other hand, as members of the underground, we must make further sure we do not abuse our position to catch people in unpleasant moments. At any moment we should be able to show the clean standards of our work, at the back LCD monitors of our cameras.</p>

<p>"to catch <em>its</em> reaction"</p>

<p>that about sums it up.</p>

<p><br /></p>

<p>Today I ran across this in an interview from 2005 with Bill Owens (of Suburbia fame) and thought it pertained at least obliquely to this conversation:</p>

<p>"I am planning to digitally photograph Starbucks, which is part of the new suburbia. I don’t care to go back and photograph a Tupperware party again."</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I asked a coffee shop barista behind the counter today to tell me what she knew or was told as an employees about the Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf store camera policy. This was a small kind of laid back less upscale establishment in a more casual part of town than the top photo of the flagship shop in Manoa. Lori said she was not really sure but the management she knows is requiring the help to ask customers to put away a visible camera if they are shooting in the shop. I then asked, in passing, why she thought there was such a restriction. She was not sure what the worry was as it didn't personally bother her to have a customer take a photo of her behind the counter. (A winning lass Lori. I left a tip ).<br>

Now,she went on to tell me that her little shop ( about 800 sq ft) had several hidden video cameras on me at the time. I then asked " What do you think the cameras are trying to catch?" Again, not really sure.<br>

I think I got it though a theory anyhow. Coffee Bean is shooting video cam tape or making a hard drive record w/ intemittent snaps of the day's activity to see if someone is <em>pulling a camera out</em>. And,more vital to mgt. if the shift manager is taking action to stop it at once. Someone is doing a random review of tapes of customer activity. Maybe it even provides feedback about the trade...<br>

No robberies in memory at coffee shops and no fisticuffs lately. A drug suspect at one time was apprehended leaving a Starbuck and shot the arresting officer, a long while back that one.<br>

I must say, candidly, after the discussion, and a little reflection, I do feel a little more uncomfortable about the whole idea. Decided to put it to rest. I dislike being called out for my camera behavior so hell with it I think. I have other subjects to tackle.</p>

<p>Just drink it</p>

<p>Just remembered an experience in a cafe about a year ago...I was sitting there sipping my latte (or was it a flat white?) and fiddling with a new lens when a woman approached me and asked if I was a tourist. After replying in the negative she gave me a bewildered look and said "Oh...I was wondering about the camera". You see? We are all just TOURISTS, bonded together in the vacation of life...Canonites to the back of the bus please". Whatever. I think I'll have that coffee now, doctor. Better make it a strong one.</p>

<p>There is nothing threatening about taking photos. There is nothing threatening about talking loudly and explicitly about one's sexual escapades. But I imagine many patrons of a coffee shop do not want to be subjected to either. For that reason the shop owner would try to stop someone taking photos or engaged in a loud discussion about their sexual escapades.</p>

<p>"For that reason the shop owner would try to stop someone taking photos or engaged in a loud discussion about their sexual escapades."<br>

---------<br>

Based on the whopping number of loud cell phone talkers I hear everywhere from coffee shops to airports to walking down the street, I'd "guess" that talking loudly about one's sexual escapades isn't what it once was!</p>

<p>Just to add another example to Charles's on why larger environmental shots in coffee cafes are often mostly boring, even when juiced up with sepia tone. (I have though noticed a less stark office tone to some of the renovated Starbucks locations lately,not this venue). They almost want me to feel more "at home." you think? Stay awhile, order a hockey puck oat bran cake, keep your powder dry,recycle your newspaper, lay out the tax forms, and leave your camera at home:-).<br>

Use the observing mind if you choose to "take" the more interesting slices of contemporary life. For the adventurous street shooter, get a police band radio, look for an automobile accident perhaps, color excitement, human interest...that is a public venue too. Don't stop on a freeway,however, too voyeuristic ,use the long lens. Peace.</p><div></div>

<p>I work as a bartender at a pub type bar in a college town, where I am also a grad student. All sorts of cameras come out after people have been drinking- from cell phones to cameras that I would <em>never</em> bring into a bar. I personally am furious when some jerk tries to take a picture without my permission while I'm doing my job, or simply hanging out off-shift. It just feels creepy. AND it happens a lot. I often hear the same complaints from my friends that work at the local coffee shop across the street. Whether the picture is of me or a patron, it puts me in a bad spot of having to appease the subject of the photo while also trying to get my point across to the photographer.<br /> An example- on "Dad's" weekend I had a guy call me over to order, when I ask him what he'd like he shoves a piece of paper my in my hand and tries to snap a photo, using a pretty sophisticated set-up I might add. I read the slip of paper and it says, "Matt, will you go on a date with me?" The guy laughingly says that his son is turning 18 and he wants to send him the photos as a joke. I was beyond furious, and when the guy went around the bar continuing his "joke" with other female bar patrons, I kicked him out. It's really hard for someone who is put on the spot being photographed to distinguish between a total creepster and someone who simply feels inspired to take a really great photo. Extreme example, yes. Okay to take pictures of people in bars/coffee shops/privately owned spaces without asking- NO.<br /> Does amazing stuff happen at the bar/coffee shop? Absolutely. Will I photograph there? With permission, yes!<br /> If I even suspected someone of using "stealth" equipment I would wig out. Not a good way to make friends in my opinion!</p>

<p>jessica, interesting perspective. I'll never understand some folk's idea of a joke. That's a new level of jerk making photography some kind of performance art just to play an especially insensitve joke on his son at your expense. He's probably already pissed two people off with that display of poor judgement, the second I'm pretty sure is his son at least he should be. I would.</p>

<p>This is why I don't have a lot of people shots in my gallery. You never know how folks will respond when taking their picture in public places. I always shoot them with their back towards me. That way they aren't recognized when I post the image online and they don't know I took a picture of them. Nice and safe.</p>