Legitimate street photo or 'creepshot'

I only came across this term 'creepshot' recently. It seems to mean any image of a woman taken by a man without her knowledge. This raises distinct ethical issues for those of us the HCB school of street photography who want to take candid 'hidden' images to get more natural stories. Following are images of women I have taken recently.

[ATTACH=full]1199428[/ATTACH] I only came across this term 'creepshot' recently. It seems to mean any image of a woman taken by a man without her knowledge. This raises distinct ethical issues for those of us the HCB school of street photography who want to take candid 'hidden' images to get more natural stories. Following are images of women I have taken recently.

Ian, I wouldn't worry about words like 'creepshot' until they have been defined and adopted by a reputable authority like the OED. At the moment, 'creepshot' could apply to all, many or no candid photos.

Cell Phone Zombie

 

Ian, you creepy old creep--I am headed to twitter this very minute to blast a tweet out of my ____ expressing instant internet outrage at your blatant intrusion and sexualization of women... :p

 

And that dear photo friends is the age we have entered. As a dinosaur creeping (pun intended) closer and closer to the tar pits of eternity--I will always maintain that if you dress like a clown, people will see and treat you like a clown. If you walk around half-naked, or dressed like a clown in public--you have no rights or expectation of privacy. And all of this 'cultural competency' rubbish brought on by those who have been educated far beyond their native intelligence--or with some social ax to grind--simply does not apply when one displays whatever they are displaying or doing in public.

 

Now, your last photo certainly qualifies as a 3rd Place Prize winner in the category "Arse Photography." In previous threads, I have noted that I have a slight penchant for these sorts of views. If one is an adult, they are fair game. If they are 5 years old, someone likely needs to pummel the pee out of whomever is taking those photos. There are socially acceptable and legal lines to consider. And if you consistently cross those lines you indeed may be a 'creeper' in the vernacular--or a pedophile. But I diverge... :rolleyes:

 

What exactly is different that makes one a 'creeper' in the popular parlayance for photographing women--in a public sphere--different from photographing men in that same venue? Absolutely nothing, except for the racket that some people with too much time on their hands see fit to make of it.

Ian, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Your fourth photo, IMO, is not up to par with most of your work and I find something off about it in terms of its portrayal though I wouldn't call it "creepy."

 

I don't think it's possible to fully adopt an HCB style of photographing in today's world. First, because attitudes toward women have changed since his day, thankfully. Not just in photography but in the workplace and at home, women are being seen and treated differently, though sometimes not differently enough, than they were in that bygone era. A big difference as well is the increased paranoia about the presence of cameras and protection of what little privacy we have left in an era of surveillance and the ability of millions to see pictures of ourselves posted to the Internet.

 

I think it a little unfair of you to suggest "creepshot" refers to any picture of an unaware woman taken by a man. That sleight of hand, which really waters down the concept, concerns me more than any of your photos do. I think most of us know an objectifying, creepy, disrespectful, or abusive photo from simply a candid, unaware photo. And, while many people, not just women, will not be happy to have their picture taken and shown on the Internet, it's helpful to make distinctions in the degree to which a photo shows a lack of respect or elements of "creepiness." Frankly, I've been at the receiving end of not very many but more suspicious looks and comments from men in public than from women, so I question putting this only in terms of women as the subjects of street photos to begin with.

 

There's a difference between what HCB did and being a sneak or exhibiting other uncomfortable photographic behavior on the street. How "hidden" did HCB or Bresson make themselves or did they just make themselves so much a part of the street that they didn't have to hide but instead became a benign and acceptable part of it? Because of changing sensibilities and privacy concerns, being a benign and acceptable part of the street may have differences today from yesterday.

For the record, let me elaborate about that clowns and half-dressed simile... :p

 

 

Ah, yes -- the ever expanding joys of political correctness a bit like Chairman Mao's Little Red Book. I do not take pictures of others' children, the disadvantaged or pictures that are sexually suggestive or in my opinion voyeuristic. Otherwise in public venues I shoot as I choose. A Cat can look at (or photograph) a King.

Now, your last photo certainly qualifies as a 3rd Place Prize winner in the category "Arse Photography."

Fine, and if third prize in the category "arse photo" is enough or desired, I say "go for it." I've been following Ian's photos for some time, and I'd be surprised and disappointed if that were either his goal or even satisfactory to him. You say you're talking about adults as opposed to children. But I sense a lot of "teenager" in third prize arse photos.

What exactly is different that makes one a 'creeper' in the popular parlayance for photographing women--in a public sphere--different from photographing men in that same venue

1) the fact that women have a long history of being objectified, disrespected, and abused because of their gender more than men.

2) the fact that women didn't have the right to vote until recently so have been historically afforded less power to advocate for themselves., which has residual effects just as slavery does.

3) the fact that, even still, women are not allowed domain over their bodies to the extent men are in many states in the US, again denying them self empowerment.

 

It boggles my mind that, though women are men's equals, some people often refuse to or simply just don't take into consideration the different historical experiences of the two genders, which has not been equal and so affects our social consciousness today.

Beautiful women provocatively photographed get a disproportionally higher number of "Views" and "Likes" on P/N.

Ah, yes -- the ever expanding joys of political correctness a bit like Chairman Mao's Little Red Book. I do not take pictures of others' children, the disadvantaged or pictures that are sexually suggestive or in my opinion voyeuristic. Otherwise in public venues I shoot as I choose. A Cat can look at (or photograph) a King.

This gave me quite a chuckle. First, echo the Fox News talking point of making sure to chalk everything up to and then put down "political correctness," even matters of simple respect, and then in the next breath say something for which you could just as easily be accused, by the same Fox News mouthpieces you bow down to in mimicking their memes, of being politically correct. I'm sure Sean Hannity would have some choice words for a left-leaning photographer who said he didn't take pics of others' children, the disadvantaged, or pics that are sexually suggestive. Those choice words would be "politically correct," which you use as an axe against others while choosing your behaviors out of a sense of respect and not labeling those as politically correct merely because you do it as opposed to someone you have political differences with. That's called hypocrisy.

Give me a break. Fred! You always chide me for politics, and I know you live in Liberal Central, but don't suggest your views as facts. Women have had the vote here since 1920 -- earlier in some states. Slavery has been over for 152 years. except, of course on the plantation created by the "Great Society". As to birth control and abortion, that should between a woman and her physician. "Historical experiences", unless one is somehow reincarnated with the full set, can only be sourced vicariously from literature or verbal histories, quite different from having been there. One learns from experiences, good or bad and moves on, or gets stuck in a negative loop.

Like most important things respect must be earned.

My wife just commented -- her "historical experience of abuse" is by Liberals "Who think they know how to live my life better than I do, and sneer and condescend if I don't follow their rules."

Crossed posts -- Fred is in a mood this morning -- do you really want to go down this road?

do you really want to go down this road?

Of course not. And I'd love you to stop making inane Mao references, but I can't control that. Best thing I can do is put you on IGNORE, which will mean no more going down your muddy roads. Done.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Norma Desmond

Thank you, Fred! Closed doors are expressive!

Oh my, where to start, where to start? Perhaps I will attack the middle of the banana, as this eliminates eating it from the wrong end and getting indigestion... :eek:

 

Public spaces are just that--public spaces. As an academically trained (beyond my own native intelligence) sociologist, I am a firm subscriber to the observational lens provided by Ervin Goffman, and elucidated ever so clearly in "The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life." This is just one more take on the dramaturgical approach to human being--and how we define and compartmentalize certain sets of behaviors and dress according to the venue we are appearing in. Thus there is the private (or backstage) and various public (frontstage). Goffman differs in that he sees the backstage as a preperatory place to emerge from--and the frontstage as a place that requires an audience operating under certain constructed rules.

 

In this, some situations are not fluid--but forced by condition or immaturity. Therefore, those that are homeless, mentally ill, handicapped (whoops, I fell off the PC bandwagon with that term), senile, or immature in discernment (children, mentally retarded [damn, did it again]), chemically incapacitated, etcetera--are operating in a sphere outside of what may be ethical to make a practice of photographing. This certainly WAS NOT the practice of HCB, nor even WeeGee. BTW, being dead is a completely different matter that may be photographed freely, if that is your bag. Here, we just have a discarded costume. Consult Arthur on this. You may use a Ouija board for that purpose ... :confused: {yeah I know, really bad pun.}

 

Now I am going to move toward both ends of the banana at once. Seeing as I have a pretty big mouth, that is easier than it sounds. Let's cut to the chase. If we are doing street photography--or even structured work ala Arbus--we are all voyuers. But Sandy is right. You walk onto the stage where I am at, or others--I may take the opportunity to immortalize that appearance by crystallizing it in two digital dimensions. What I do with that image later is a whole 'nother conversation. You may be a Queen or a King in the great drag show of life--but this cat LEGALLY RECOGNIZES my right to observe and document what I have seen in any venue that is not private or bound by rules of decorum and behavior. Try hanging around an AA meeting to capture some character studies, and get back to me on how that worked out for you... :oops:

 

All sorts of people have been marginalized, disenfranchised, stigmatized, beaten, slaughtered, and generally shat all over. I have been in a couple of those populations so I know the feeling all too well. I suspect that none here know the cognitive dissonance of living as a child in the 1960s and being confronted with the dilemma of water fountains labelled "Colored" and "White Only" and being neither and both. There is no such thing as equality--never has been and never will be. That is the purview of philosophers, social reformers, ax grinders, sociologists, anthropologists--and a whole library full of monotonous monographs. Let's skip that, and simply acknowledge that things are changing for some, and old white folks of the conservative and evangelical bent do not like any of it. Time to cheer for the underdog, and send Beauregard and his shiny bible belted clan back to Dixie. :cool:

 

That said, we are nearing the ends of the banana. Where were we, and whatinhell has this to do with street photography? Oh yeah, objectification--sorry had a senior moment there. If I dress you up like your little sister, or take her out in a public venue naked (we are talking over 18 here) to create some of that humiliation porn that is ever so popular in the former Soviet Republics--then we have a winner for the title. The act is deliberate, staged, and tuned for a receptive, albeit twisted audience. But what we are encountering by and large in the public fora is everyday life--and the manifestation thereof. You did not stage it--and it is fair game. If one does not like the idea of random recidivists looking on and making mental judgement calls (c'mon, don't lie to yourself--we all do it to everyone we see or meet)--then DO NOT GO OUT IN PUBLIC.

 

The final bite of the banana. As photographers making a survey of the great stage of public life--we are not marginalizing, disenfranchising, or abusing anyone in any way--unless that is what we have set out to do with a clear agenda in hand. To believe differently (IMHO) is disingenuous at best--and to believe as the the subject of such recordation such is true is grinding the wrong end of the ax--and disingenuous.

 

Oh, and be careful not to slip on that banana peel over there... ;)

Edited July 20, 2017 by PapaTango

I'm not going to make a pretty mundane photo-grab of a woman leaning over a drinking fountain taken from behind anything other than what it is to me, which is pretty shallow and juvenile, and I say that liking and respecting most of Ian's photos.

 

Ian wasn't asking what's legal. He asked our opinions and practices as photographers. Legality has little to do with what I think of photos or what I'll photograph myself. In determining my own ethics toward others, photowise or otherwise, I don't usually even come close to what the legal limit is in terms of what I prefer to stop short of.

 

It does not take intent to objectify or disrespect someone. It can be done and is done unwittingly all the time. It's been pointed out to me on occasion that I've been doing it when I haven't been aware of it. Lucky, many humans are open to learning that they can and have hurt people unintentionally and change their behaviors in the future.

 

If I am told or sense someone doesn't want their picture taken out in public I've never even thought to tell them not to go out in public. I just don't take their picture. It's been easy enough for me and I still have many street photos I'm happy with so I don't feel it's hampered me. I've come to assume many people don't want their photos taken and approach my own street work accordingly, which doesn't mean never shooting candids of people on the street but does mean doing it with a different sensitivity than I used to. One thing I don't like doing is hiding. It doesn't make me feel good and, thankfully, I don't find it necessary.

Everytime I see a photo of a person dressed differently than what I am used to, I take it as a message on the diversity of human cultures and understanding. I almost never think of it as a statement of ridicule or shaming. Perhaps the source of that thinking is the understanding that my own native dress of a woman may be construed as 'clown like' in areas where it is not familiar. Thats human nature and general instinct, but it doesn't have to be right.

Ah, yes -- the ever expanding joys of political correctness a bit like Chairman Mao's Little Red Book. I do not take pictures of others' children, the disadvantaged or pictures that are sexually suggestive or in my opinion voyeuristic. Otherwise in public venues I shoot as I choose.

 

You may obviously choose to shoot or not shoot what you wish, but I prefer a contextual view. Single photos of other's children, the disadvantaged, sexually suggestive (from someone's perspective) or voyeuristic should be viewed within the context of the photo or as part of a larger body of work. We sometimes look at photos through our own cultural and personal lenses, which at times may not be consistent with the context of the photo.

 

As an example, westerners may find find this photo objectionable because it arguably hits the markers you identified (in bold), but within the context of the photo itself, it is an ordinary sight where it was taken (Cambodia) and within the context of a larger body of work, it contributes to a narrative.

 

http://www.leonin.net/img/s7/v158/p290733913-4.jpg

Edited July 20, 2017 by photo_galleries

Keith -- I spoke for myself only, plus I operate entirely within the U.S. these days, and will in future. Clearly there are a multitude of issues across nationalities and cultures. Additionally, there is the consideration of mission -- e.g. for a documentarian, which I am not. I have the luxury of pleasing myself and a few friends & family with my photos, so my subject choices do no harm, and are not intended to be imposed on others.

"I'm not going to make a pretty mundane photo-grab of a woman leaning over a drinking fountain taken from behind anything other than what it is to me, which is pretty shallow and juvenile, and I say that liking and respecting most of Ian's photos".

 

It looks to me like the women is photographing a plaque with her phone. It also appears that she has placed some sort of small figurine on top of the plaque. I mention this only because the photo would have indeed seemed mundane to me if the women had been getting a drink of water.

I was going to upload some recent photos to a new gallery--but typically PN seems bollixed today and will not allow that using any browser. So, maybe I will put some here.

 

THE LAW proscribes what is socially acceptable and what is not--allowing for a nice margin of deviance from the median. So indeed we are talking to some extent about legality--as that defines how one can and should act within a public venue--with or without a camera. I will not belabor that beast, as in the end of it all it is simply one of the pillars that holds this argument up.

 

I note today that people read more into things than are there--in many cases offering up a problem where no solution is called for. Dichotomies and paradoxes amuse me--either as fodder for the simpleton that I am--or on a deeper sociocultural basis. Not sure where I am going to fly off to with this. Oh, Objectification, Exploitation, and Commodification. Right. The central basis of any culture or society except for a couple of aboriginal cultures--and that is fading fast. Such is the basis of labor, capital, and tort. Utopian experiments have been tried--they stand in stark testimony to failure and are as populated as a Shaker Village. Paper Tigers such as Marxian society fail before they even start--someone always wants more than the other--and finds a way to exploit, disenfranchise, and marginalize a large swath of the populace to make that happen. I could point out that our entire American system is little more than gross exploitation--but why bother. I think my argument is pretty clear.

 

Time to clear up something, perhaps Supriyo took the wrong turn with something I wrote. Making value judgements has nothing to do with making fun of anyone or their 'uniform of the day.' We necessarily must make those judgements--as they keep us from being killed or punked (through a variety of metaphorical & virtual means) in each and every one of our social transactions. Don't do business with a compulsive liar. How do we discern that? Redux my previous sentence.

 

So, when wandering about the street we are surely going to encounter those who DO NOT want their photo taken. I have been told in no uncertain terms that by some subjects. One did so when taking the following photo series--a hardy old biker soul. I told him I only take photos of interesting people--so he had nothing to worry about. I was gone before he figured this out. Yes, discrimination is truly the better part of valor. And a modicum of respect. But you know, if I want to I can. THE LAW says so. We may all disagree on the application and conditions of this on a case by case and conditional basis. That's OK.

 

Anyway, what follows are some recent pics I shot. Proof that perhaps the old saw that 'even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while' is true. Care (anybody, anybody? [imagine that in a Ben Stein voice]) to comment as to whether anyone was objectified or exploited? :cool:

 

Give Big Mama a Toss.

 

Reminiscing of Summers Past.

 

Blanket Dream.

 

See Me.

 

Fuzzy Romance.

 

Pride & Joy.

 

Pop Life.

 

We All Smile.

 

Amused, One at a Time...

Edited July 20, 2017 by PapaTango

THE LAW

. . . is generally written by a non-diverse group of older men who don't necessarily reflect my values and are bought and paid for by special interests. The law is often unethical. Yes, I abide by the law because I have to and it's part of my social contract, but I base a lot of my ethical behavior toward others on a more personally-derived morality.

 

I don't see anything sexually objectifying, which is I think what the thread was about, in your photos. If I were taking any of those photos you posted and any one of those subjects had asked me to stop, I would have stopped without giving it a second thought.

 

___________________________________

 

Thanks, Gordon. Doesn't make much difference to my overall reaction to the photo, but it certainly better describes the details!