Jump to content

What is appropriate in street photography?


John Peri

Recommended Posts

Lets try to understand the real world.

 

Innocent folks are being murdered and killed in the real world.for various righteous causes....claimed to be a goodness by those who claim ( is God somewhere in this...bet he wished he was not } to have a moral righteous cause. Righteous or not innocents have to die for their cause.....sad really .Do the innocents have have a choice? methinks not.

 

And then we have a thread about some bloke taking photos and impacting on some folks sensibilities.

 

Truly a sad world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Lets try to understand the real world.

 

Innocent folks are being murdered and killed in the real world.for various righteous causes....claimed to be a goodness by those who claim ( is God somewhere in this...bet he wished he was not } to have a moral righteous cause. Righteous or not innocents have to die for their cause.....sad really .Do the innocents have have a choice? methinks not.

 

And then we have a thread about some bloke taking photos and impacting on some folks sensibilities.

 

Truly a sad world.

 

I think we can all agree that there are a lot worse things going on in the world. It does not change the fact that people should be treated with courtesy and respect. Wanting to post a picture on PN doesn't give someone license to be creepy or a jerk. This isn't Time or National Geographic.

 

Let's be clear. If some guy on a beach is taking pictures of the scenery and one of those pictures happens to have my daughter in it talking to one of her friends, I don't care. Or even if he sees them playing in the surf and thinks it makes a cute picture, - fine.

 

If I see someone sneaking pictures that are focused on her and other young girls on the beach, there will be a conversation about what it is he's doing exactly.

Edited by tomspielman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crap, my time expired on the last post, but I wanted to make one other point. Ultimately what he's doing may be harmless, but if some of these girls see him doing it, it can make them feel unsafe. I've seen nothing in those pictures that make them worth that. It's unfortunate, but that is the world we live in. Edited by tomspielman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Creepy folks don't need a camera to be creepy.

 

Really really creepy folk have a big gun which they murder folk with.

 

Why are photographers.....actual photographs being bought into the equation of creepy people? We have never murdered anyone or been associated with any murders.

 

 

MOD NOTE

YEP I edited this comment too - no point in mentioning "Metal Issues" and directing that as bait to other members.

If the conversation doesn't stay within COMMUNITY GUIDLEINES it will be closed

Edited by William Michael
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Creepy folks don't need a camera to be creepy.

 

Really really creepy folk have a big gun which they murder folk with.

 

Why are photographers.....actual photographs being bought into the equation of creepy people? We have never murdered anyone or been associated with any murders.

 

Creepy folks don't need a camera, but being a real photographer doesn't mean someone can't also be a creep. And I'm not saying that the photographer in question definitely is, but it's a little suspicious. It could be that he takes as many or more pictures of old people on beaches as he does of teenagers.

 

Documentry/ Street photographers always treat their subjects with respect but there is the odd few who do not....but that is true of any walks of life.

 

Absolutely. I'm not worried about photographers in general, but I do think being a street photographer today is more of an ethical minefield than it was a few decades ago. Photographs can spread widely and quickly. Being photographed at an event or just doing something stupid, - which we all do from time to time, can cost people their current job and to be passed over for others. And I think as a society, we are just more fearful of strangers and their motives than we used to be.

Edited by tomspielman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"but I do think being a street photographer today is more of an ethical minefield than it was a few decades ago" tom.

 

The ethical minefield is mostly about the trolls on the internet and the moralists who want to moralize...before you listen look at their work first. You will find they have little photos to offer if they are a troll or moralist.

 

I have been taking street/documentry photography; which feels I've been there before the dawn of time......and never ever ever been challenged. Ever.

 

If you want to be a nuclear scientist you need to study your science. If you want to be a documentry/street photographer you need to study and understand your art and how to go about it. Wandering the streets and sticking your lens in someone's face...well, it will be fun for me to watch.

 

Nothing has changed over decades street is just the same.

 

Only reading crap on the web gives folk a squeaky arse.

Edited by Allen Herbert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I take photographs on the street I make it very obvious what I'm doing. If someone shy's away I don't take their photo. Respect.

 

If folk understand you are a photographer they understand that you will take photos.....that simple anywhere in the world.

 

Creeping and sneaking long lenses.....means trouble. A smile and a nod disarms most folk.

 

Honesty is the best policy...and that is a constant in any time.

 

Common sense nothing secret and wonderful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do I keep thinking about Bruce Gilden and his craft/art when reading the last few posts in this thread?

 

Ah yes, probably because he's Mr Famous Street Photographer sticking his camera (and a flash) directly into people's faces to capture the facial expressions of shock, anger, fear, surprise, resentment etc.. Very respectful.

 

It appears to me that the answer to the question of what is appropriate in street photography may differ quite substantial depending on whether you are the photographer or the photographed and also on the level of tolerance of each individual. Don't do onto other what you don't want done onto you could be a guideline - even though there will still be variability from person to person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have any problem with street photography. Almost none of my photos have people in them. I did take 2 photos of my wife this year, trying out a couple of film cameras (film's all I shoot) that I won on ebay.

 

Hmm... don't forget, you

took this picture of me...

http://bayouline.com/o2.gif

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems too many people have developed thin skin and political correctness rules these days. Shooting kids playing in the park is now considered stalking and you are automatically labeled as a pervert. WRONG! People that think they have a right to privacy in public have no idea what their rights actually are.There are certain areas that are guaranteed PRIVATE and on a beach is not one of them. Photographing girls scantly dressed and even nude on public beaches is not against the law because there is no expectation to privacy in a public place.

 

BUT if you are going to use those pictures for commercial use... you had better have releases for everyone in that photo.

 

There are many guides available as well as government publications on photography laws for your city or state. Google is your friend.

 

AS long as no laws are being violated, there are no rules to street photography except shoot with one eye open so you can see a potential attacker coming your way.

 

.

Edited by paul ron
  • Like 1
The more you say, the less people listen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

 

Being of the opinion that stalking young women from behind with a long lens and taking photos of their backsides is in poor taste and creepy is not bully, it is having an opinion. Just like you starting this thread is having an opinion. If we do not agree it does not make my opinion bullying, that is bullsh*t and you have to be clever enough to know that.

 

When I take pictures of young women, old women, old men, children, etc. it's almost always from the backside and almost always with a long lens, because that's what I carry for my main quarry, wildlife. The reason that I focus on backsides, some of which are quite attractive, is so I don't need a model release to sell the images. I'm not "stalking" them, I'm there and they go by and I shoot them after they go by. I do shoot from the front, occasionally, but I can't sell those and don't try to get a release, even thought I carry a release app on my phone.

 

Believe it or not, these kinds of images sell:

 

8418135714_5fee27c076_b.jpgLong-haired woman walks her dogs by David Stephens, on Flickr

 

Buyers use them in lifestyle articles. If there's something striking about the subject, like this gal's hair, it helps. I think the long-lens perspective helps set apart these images when an art director is looking at a light board full of images.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I take pictures of young women, old women, old men, children, etc. it's almost always from the backside and almost always with a long lens, because that's what I carry for my main quarry, wildlife. The reason that I focus on backsides, some of which are quite attractive, is so I don't need a model release to sell the images. I'm not "stalking" them, I'm there and they go by and I shoot them after they go by. I do shoot from the front, occasionally, but I can't sell those and don't try to get a release, even thought I carry a release app on my phone.

 

Believe it or not, these kinds of images sell:

 

8418135714_5fee27c076_b.jpgLong-haired woman walks her dogs by David Stephens, on Flickr

 

Buyers use them in lifestyle articles. If there's something striking about the subject, like this gal's hair, it helps. I think the long-lens perspective helps set apart these images when an art director is looking at a light board full of images.

 

Are you familiar with the photos which sparked this conversation? and if so, do you consider the photo you posted here to be of the same ilk?

 

My comment was in response to the photos of a specific individual and not intended to be taken out of context. I am unsure if some of the posters in this thread are actually okay with voyeuristic stalking of young girls in bikinis at the beach or whether they are just clueless as regards the photos to which this thread alludes.

 

I too have taken many photos which I could post to this thread of various people, men and women, both from behind and in front, using a long lens, however those photos would be no more relevant to this conversation than the one you have posted. What I do not do, is sneak around at public beaches taking hundreds of similar photos of scantily clad young girls clearly without their knowledge or consent. If you are okay with people doing so then fine you are entitled to your own moral compass. I stand by mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...What I do not do, is sneak around at public beaches taking hundreds of similar photos of scantily clad young girls clearly without their knowledge or consent.

 

I don't remember any proof that the photographer in question was "sneaking" around. If people are in a public place, a photographer doesn't need their knowledge or consent to take their photos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well yes I suppose that it is within the realm of possibilities that after taking these pictures from a distance with a long lens the photographer approached all the young girls and showed them the image he had taken. The issue here is not whether the behaivior is legal but rather whether it is appropriate. I think the photos in question have no redeeming features and appear entirely intended to titilate a certain type of dumbass male. I have trouble imagining that the subjects of these photos would be comfortable with the knowledge that they are part off a large collection of photos posted on the internet. But then who cares about them so long as it's legal, right?
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I have trouble imagining that the subjects of these photos would be comfortable with the knowledge that they are part off a large collection of photos posted on the internet. But then who cares about them so long as it's legal, right?

 

They're out in public dressed (or not) as they are. They can't be that naive to think males aren't looking at them. It seems to me that they're asking to have their photos taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't remember any proof that the photographer in question was "sneaking" around. If people are in a public place, a photographer doesn't need their knowledge or consent to take their photos.

 

He does not legally need their consent, but legal and ethical aren't the same. You asked what was appropriate, - not what was legal.

 

They're out in public dressed (or not) as they are. They can't be that naive to think males aren't looking at them.

 

I'm sure they know males are looking at them, and some may in fact be hoping that males are looking at them. But not just any males, - males they see as dating material. And maybe the photographer falls into that group. But there is a difference between looking, staring, and taking pictures. I'm sure they all expect to get looked at. But staring is rude under most circumstances. Stealthily taking a picture is also rude. Stealthily taking pictures of young girls is creepy.

 

Ambiguity is hard. A male can not always be expected to know whether some girl is going to see him as dating material or not. But a lot of the time, we do know. I'm 50 years old and married, I'm not dating material for a 17 year old girl. I know that. I know that it would be creepy for me to seek out scantily glad young girls and take pictures of them without their knowledge or consent. It might be creepy even if I had their consent. It depends on what my intentions are.

 

And this isn't some new PC thing getting foisted on us. In my 50 year lifespan, it's always been creepy for old guys to leer at young girls.

 

It seems to me that they're asking to have their photos taken.

 

That's a dangerous and most likely wrong assumption. And if it were the case, then he should simply ask them if it's OK.

 

You are right in that we don't know for a fact that he's sneaking around. He may have asked them if it's OK. But the pictures look suspicious. In none of them are the girls looking towards him, and all of them appear to be taken from some distance.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AS long as no laws are being violated, there are no rules to street photography except shoot with one eye open so you can see a potential attacker coming your way.

 

That is so sad, always feeling an attack is imminent while making photos.

  • Like 1
www.citysnaps.net
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you familiar with the photos which sparked this conversation? and if so, do you consider the photo you posted here to be of the same ilk?

 

My comment was in response to the photos of a specific individual and not intended to be taken out of context. I am unsure if some of the posters in this thread are actually okay with voyeuristic stalking of young girls in bikinis at the beach or whether they are just clueless as regards the photos to which this thread alludes.

...

 

Yes, I started at the start and followed the links. Whether you admit it or not, photography and enjoyment of photography is, at its foundation, voyeuristic. If people present themselves in public in a way that makes you uncomfortable, you should look away. If you see someone's photographic work that makes you uncomfortable, look away. Don't apply your values to others.

 

You seem to be arguing about degrees. Simply look away when the degree is passed that makes you uncomfortable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, reminds me of this C.S. Lewis quote:Phil.

 

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

 

So articulate and true.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This conversation is hilarious. Not sure why this is about what's lawful, what's moral, what's ethical or political correctness. To me its about not interesting photos with no engagement with the subjects or the environment and a creepy, sniper like vibe. If that's the photos he wants to take, I don't give a hoot, but I will opine on what I think of the photography. I have no moral problem with them other than what is good photography and what is crap.
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...