Jump to content

Consent in Street Photography


Recommended Posts

I just came across an interesting article on street photography regarding permission. Myself, being a fan of street photography and liking to do it, I am in full agreement with the tenor of the article, in the US permission is not needed, and I like it that way. Here's the article, check it out and what do you thing? Link here: The Sticky Issue of Consent in Street Photography
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

One thing the article reinforces for me is that I’ve made the right decision by not participating in the Twitterverse, other than vicariously because it’s hard to avoid when reading the news and communicating with others. While I’m sure there are benefits to Twitter, the grievance-based, herd mentality, lowest-common-denominator aspect of it is unfortunate, to say the least. California wildfires are harder to get going than Twitter controversies and outbreaks of indignation over every perceived violation of the common and often shallow groupthink mindset. The author doesn’t dwell on but seems to recognized the Twitter flaw.

 

The author’s writing is clear and clearheaded and I agree with most of it.

 

I would like her to have said a little more about intention. Good intentions don’t always yield non-exploitive photos. I may take account of whatever I know about a photographer’s intentions, but often a photo goes well beyond those intentions and can be taken on its own terms, especially when put out into the public.

 

And one final point. From the article:

 

“Asking for permission before a photo is taken immediately nullifies any possibility of a candid moment.“

 

While I don’t think street photographers need to ask permission, I don’t think asking permission nullifies the possibility of a candid shot. Candid means truthful or straightforward and plenty of truthful and straightforward shots are taken with permission. Only when we define candid as unknown to the subject does permission nullify its potential. There are many truths and realities other than candid ones, even on the street. So asking permission is neither necessary nor fatal. It’s possible to work with either … or both.

Edited by samstevens
  • Like 3

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can also mean unposed. Perhaps that is what the author was referring to.

Yes. Perhaps the author did mean unposed. Still, I’ve gotten unposed shots even when I’ve asked permission. Imagine a bunch of people playing basketball in a schoolyard. I ask permission to take pictures and it’s granted. They then go about playing their game, not paying much or any attention to me. Voila, candid (unposed) pics even with permission.

 

Or, I gesture to a street performer that I want to take their pic. In an instant, they nod their approval but continue interacting candidly with the crowd without any further break in their demeanor or concentration. Permission granted and still a candid (unposed) shot.

  • Like 3

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knowing the kind of photos she takes i would think that she would be in agreement with you sam. It was probably only intended in the context of quick reaction passing moments street shooting such as the photo under discussin. In any case I agree.

n e y e

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knowing the kind of photos she takes i would think that she would be in agreement with you sam.

Yes, I think so, too. It was less a direct response to her than a further exploration of candidness and permission ... the variety of types of candid photos and the variety of ways one might ask permission, sometimes quite unobtrusively.

 

Interestingly, I'm often amazed at how so many candid moments of people smoking cigarettes or kissing each other look posed. That's because people in public adopt poses all the time, whether for a photographer or for their own image in public, sometimes consciously, sometimes not. We all have a little Bogey and Bacall in us, whether the camera's on or off. :)

  • Like 1

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article that brings up an issue from many years ago. The courts ruled that adults out in public have no reasonable expectation of privacy but at the same time street or simply candid photos can’t be used to purposely embarrass or make fun of someone or promote an untruth. I’ve covered many news events and photographed whatever told the story and whatever caught my eye. You should keep in mind that those who may object to themselves or family members being photographed may just get right in your face.

 

Rick H.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really like Dina Litovsky's photos since I discovered them on her Instagram account. Good articles too.

 

In the Netherlands, the law recognizes the rights of photographers to take photos in public spaces*. It also recognizes the 'portrait rights' of people being photographed. So 'street scenes' that show multiple people are generally safe because the photo is not a 'portrait' of any one person. But still, one or more people in a group can object to a photo being published if:

- they are clearly recognizable in the photo

- their portrayal disadvantages them to a 'reasonable degree' (reputation, public image, etc.)

 

*public spaces include outdoor spaces that are not owned or managed by an organization. Shops, Supermarkets, Public Transport, Museums, Work situation, etc are considered enclosed spaces where organizations can impose additional restrictions on photography. Usually by requiring photographers to request permission to photograph other people. The public generally has greater rights to privacy in enclosed spaces.

 

Most of Dina Litovsky's photos that I've seen fall into the 'street scene' category (multiple people). In her photos that show a street scene with people behind a lit window, the people are often too far away to be considered a 'portrait'.

 

The 'portrait' of the woman with her children in a subway is one which in NL the woman could object to. So it's one that I'd have asked her permission for (after the shot). I usually do this for any street 'portaits'. I've found it helps to say who I am, why I wanted to take the photo and offering a card with my name, address and phone number. I usually tell them that if they send me and e-mail, I'll send them a copy of the photo free of charge. Just being up front about taking photos lets people know I'm not a creep!

Edited by mikemorrell
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having a "sensitive moral compass" I'm generally uncomfortable doing street photography. No problem with people who aim to be looked at, street performers and such. The images in that article were great and I'm at a loss as to how some of the lighting was achieved. I couldn't do as well in a studio. Here's one from some years ago. I was just hanging around on the street, pivoted 90 degrees to take the shot, and back. No idea if the guy really noticed me or not, but I've always liked the dog. Hated the piece of paper but didn't clone it out in the scan.

 

mainedog.thumb.jpg.c5446b8f566bde259efd3288fd27aa01.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The images in that article were great and I'm at a loss as to how some of the lighting was achieved.

I agree with your comment on lighting. Many of the images, including the one by the student Paul that prompted the essay, have an HDR quality. The composition and subjects are great, but if there's anything I dislike about the her photos (and the one by Paul) it is this artificial HDR quality. I prefer a more gritty natural look to street photographs. ...but then I was never a big fan of HDR in any circumstance except maybe staged still lifes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with your comment on lighting. Many of the images, including the one by the student Paul that prompted the essay, have an HDR quality. The composition and subjects are great, but if there's anything I dislike about the her photos (and the one by Paul) it is this artificial HDR quality. I prefer a more gritty natural look to street photographs. ...but then I was never a big fan of HDR in any circumstance except maybe staged still lifes.

Not sure where you get the "HDR" quality on the image but each to his own opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good article for serious street photographers. Everyone that does street work has to set their own limits as to what is acceptable and be willing to take a little heat if some viewers get negative. I think a good street shot should evoke some emotion in the viewer, positive or negative.
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just came across an interesting article on street photography regarding permission. Myself, being a fan of street photography and liking to do it, I am in full agreement with the tenor of the article, in the US permission is not needed, and I like it that way. Here's the article, check it out and what do you thing? Link here: The Sticky Issue of Consent in Street Photography

 

movingfinger, you could give a master class in spontaneous street photography just based on your Year 2020 summation slide show. Sadly now removed from this site I've found.

 

I rarely make a point of photographing people, and am uncomfortable when I do, but so far have been awarded by either a smile or wave after they've discovered it. I have been confronted several times though by various security guards when shooting downtown buildings. Perhaps out of their boredom really, yet they always accept the explanation that I'm shooting it for posterity, an explanation which begs for a better answer.

The photo of the woman, in the clip from Litovsky, comforting both children has a distinct Pieta sense to it, she's beautiful of course, but her caring is far more powerful and important.

No one under any circumstances should follow or take any heed of the howling unwashed on social media, the megaphone of drivel and motive. If one has lost their own sense of purpose or judgement, just please stop talking and clicking.

Why do I say things...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" I think a good street shot should evoke some emotion in the viewer, positive or negative "tholte.

 

Most don't. Good observation.

 

The reality is, the folks who spout on about street photography, rarely take a street photograph, or, at best just dabble from a good heathy distance.

 

But then, those same folks are also experts on nuclear physics, brain surgery, or, any other subject you care to mention.

 

Just a thought;))

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing the article reinforces for me is that I’ve made the right decision by not participating in the Twitterverse, other than vicariously because it’s hard to avoid when reading the news and communicating with others. While I’m sure there are benefits to Twitter, the grievance-based, herd mentality, lowest-common-denominator aspect of it is unfortunate, to say the least. California wildfires are harder to get going than Twitter controversies and outbreaks of indignation over every perceived violation of the common and often shallow groupthink mindset. The author doesn’t dwell on but seems to recognized the Twitter flaw.

 

The author’s writing is clear and clearheaded and I agree with most of it.

 

I would like her to have said a little more about intention. Good intentions don’t always yield non-exploitive photos. I may take account of whatever I know about a photographer’s intentions, but often a photo goes well beyond those intentions and can be taken on its own terms, especially when put out into the public.

 

And one final point. From the article:

 

“Asking for permission before a photo is taken immediately nullifies any possibility of a candid moment.“

 

While I don’t think street photographers need to ask permission, I don’t think asking permission nullifies the possibility of a candid shot. Candid means truthful or straightforward and plenty of truthful and straightforward shots are taken with permission. Only when we define candid as unknown to the subject does permission nullify its potential. There are many truths and realities other than candid ones, even on the street. So asking permission is neither necessary nor fatal. It’s possible to work with either … or both.

 

Think you you missed the point, Fred G. A more relevant definition of "candid" suits better:

 

'of a photograph of a person) taken informally, especially without the subject's knowledge.

"it is better to let the photographer mingle among the guests and take candid shots" .'

 

There's street, then there's portraiture, whatever the setting. Obfuscating the two contributes nothing. Did this ever detain Winogrand? Doubtful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking less about the fact of candid photography and more about the reasons one might take a candid shot. As Ludmilla mentioned, candids can get us unposed subjects. I mentioned truth. Other reasons might be spontaneity and authenticity regarding subjects.

 

So, it's true that, according to the definition of candid as without the subject's knowledge, asking permission would obviously nullify that. My point was simply to delve into it a little more to see that asking permission doesn't have to nullify unposed, truthful, spontaneous, or authentic. Those aspects often associated with candid photography can be achieved even with permission. I'm not advocating one way or the other. I employ both methods. I'm simply noticing that there can be overlap and the results of candid shooting and asking permission are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

 

Likewise, as I said, even the most candid shot (of a guy smoking a cigarette on a street corner) can have a strong sense of pose or lack of spontaneity.

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

"Candid (photography) -

showing people acting in a natural way because they do not know that they are being photographed."

 

Therefore, according to that definition, seeking prior consent would totally preclude a photograph being candid.

 

But a wider definition would be: (brutally) honest, truthful, true to life, or perhaps naive.

 

In France there are, apparently, strict privacy rules that would seem to preclude taking 'candid' pictures of anyone. Or at least displaying those pictures without permission.

 

In most other parts of the world, permission to photograph people is not needed if they are in a public place, or plainly visible from a public place, or plainly visible from a private space to which the photographer has right of access.

 

Regardless. There's no point arguing that you have the law on your side in the face of an objecting and belligerent 'subject'. And notwithstanding local laws, I think that a large degree of discretion and moral self-questioning should be used by photographers.

 

Such considerations as: Will the 'publication' (in a gallery, online or such) cause embarrassment or ridicule to fall on your subject? Will it discredit or financially harm your subject in any way?

 

Those considerations often seem to be waived by YouTubers, Facebookers and other 'social' media users, but that doesn't excuse their indiscretion and often downright lack of respect for their victims' feelings. We're all part of a human family, and I think the phrase "do unto others as you would be done by" is a good guideline.

Edited by rodeo_joe|1
  • Like 2
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...