One of the things that I think hurts us as street photographers

Occasionally I see some pretty crass comments on sites like flickr about person(s)

who are the subject of street photographs. I just ran across a flash photo of a woman

with a scratched nose, photographed close and straight on. These were the comments:<p>

 

"Bruce Gilden in the house."<p>

 

"Nice. the bleeding nose is a neat detail."<p>

 

<b>"its bad form to beat up your subject prior to shooting them - thats assault"<p>

 

"apparently she missed the sign that said "low branches ahead"<p>

 

"Nah - I think she's a scratcher."</b><p>

 

I wouldn't have made the photograph itself or posted it, but that's not my criticism here. What offends me

and gives me the strong opinion that street subjects have a reason to fear their space

being invaded is the fact that the kinds of comments like the last three here are made online. These aren't the worst

I've seen by any means. Some

members of the public are vaguely or acutely aware of this, and it gives them a legitimate gripe

about being photographed in public.<p>

<p>I have talked to people who <em>specifically</em> have said they don't want to find themselves featured on some blog somewhere that exists to ridicule people with [<em>choose one</em>: bad ties, messy hair, out of style shoes, too much butt, not enough butt, last year's iPhone, bad skin, thick glasses, etc]. Why do they worry? Because they've been on the receiving end of forwarded e-mails that point to some web site that does indeed seem to exist to only to humiliate randomly chosen strangers. We all know this says more about the people doing the commenting than it does the subject, but it's easy enough to understand where the discomfort comes from.</p>

<p>It's a curious and total mischaracterizarion to cast all street photography as being about humiliation of the subjects. It's an insignificant, tiny %-age of SP, although I have seen samples of it on PN on W/NW, until people spoke up. The affected who are loath to be depicted with last year's iPhone or some other fashion horror hardly get my sympathy. TFB.</p>

<p>The fact is that while you may be (or imagine yourself to be) a powerful person in control of many employees, others and your family, you do not have control over your own image in public. Or you can move to Texas or France (hey, they had to have <em>something </em>in common). Hopefully, the Texas law will be challenged in the SC soon.</p>

<p>Most SP'ers of note keep the dignity of their subjects and the truth first and uppermost in their minds.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>For me, it's less about the commenting than the actual photographing. Look at a lot of street work. It's clear that many overweight people are photographed on the street because the photographer thinks of them as curiosities. It's, then, not surprising that those are the kinds of comments that would be made when viewing the picture. Same with people in wheelchairs, often. I'm not saying it's always the case, but exploitation is rampant and people don't like to be exploited. Now, of course, the same can be said with a lot of portraits and even so-called documentary photos, though in most set-up portraits at least the permission of the subject has been received. That doesn't stop photographers from exploiting the subjects of their portraits.</p>

<p>Treating others with respect is not so easy. I have found myself working at that all my life. Photographers can work at that as well, with both human and non-human subjects.</p>

<p>As Luis says, there's a lot of photography that doesn't exploit like this. But I'm a little less generous than Luis and I see enough of it for it to seem like a problem.</p>

<p>Like anything else, the popular SP gets, the more stupid people will be involved. Flickrs is prime evidence...For some, flickr is an end to itself...No need to compose a good frame, wait for that perfect moment or create a dynamic graphic/emotional impact photo with any merit, just flickr it. It's like a bad wnw thread here but much worst. 90% of "sp" pics should be trashed. 90% of the blogs just clog. Subject(s) ridicule by the photog is one thing, more ridicule by comments is another... </p>

<p>Luis, I don't think anyone (even the people who complain) cast <em>all</em> or even a significant portion of street photography thus, if they're really asked to stop and think about it. But people tend to jump to conclusions about why you want a picture of <em>them</em>, in particular. What's the agenda? Why me? I'm not wearing nice clothes! I don't look my best! Why does <em>a guy with a camera</em> want to focus on <em>me? </em>I'm just getting a cup of coffee and carrying my gym bag!<br /><br />You can see that inner dialog play out on people's faces, and easily. It's the photographers that are (it seems) blind to all of that communication, and who get a little too stalker-y and persistent about the whole thing despite it, that really raise some folks' hackles.<br /><br />And it wouldn't be much of an issue if there weren't everything from hundreds of "upskirt" web sites to "let's make fun of people with double chins" blogs out there - no matter how rare - to fuel the annoyance. I get why this genre - and the necessary tactics required to produce it - really get under some people's skin.<br /><br />I photograph at events where I'm welcomed by the organizers - but some of the attendees don't know why I'm there or who I am. I see a lot of push-back from strangers, though I'm almost always able to relax the situation by providing some context and showing examples of what I do. For many subjects (and I've encountered this many, many times), the default posture is one of suspicion, bordering on outright hostility. I've done a lot of work on telegraphing my benign nature, but some people are so caught up in the fact that <em>some guy is going to be using my picture for something and who knows what it could be</em> that the rest of their thought processes shut down.</p>

Fred, merely photographing a fat person or handicapped person is not the problem as I see it.

Are we supposed to deny the fact that those people exist? It would be a pretty edited version of history if

they were passed by. It's how it's treated that matters. A photograph is just a photograph. It's the

uninformed and/or mean spirited reaction to it that's the primary issue in my mind.

 

Matt, what photo blogs exist entirely to ridicule people? I'm not saying there aren't any, but I'm curious if

there are. By in large those contributing to flickr, for example, are respectful. But there is a small

minority who aren't.

<p>I think this is a good discussion to have because so many photographers forget about just WHY people don't want to have their photos taken. From the other side of the lens, we get caught up in legal right to photograph in public and rude ignorant security guards and other similar issues. But from the subject side of the lens, most everything Matt has said is spot on as far as I have experienced. People question your motivation with a camera. And given how popular "let's make fun of this stupid person at walmart" blogs are, can anyone really blame them? They don't know you, don't know that you have made street or documentary images your life's work, and are afraid that you'll end up with a photo of them that portrays them in a bad light. At best, in their mind, it's an ugly photo that they would rather not have had taken and at worst, they are going to be mocked on the internet for perhaps millions to see.</p>

<p>Creating trust in the people you photograph is one of the hardest things for any "people" photographer to do. Some people can't ever do it, some people don't understand that they should do it, and yes, some people don't care to do it because they are trying to take photos that exploit someone looking stupid or catch a gal with her thong hanging out.</p>

<p>Ray: I'm not going to give such sites a single new bit of search engine page rank by directly mentioning them here in this very visible venue. But if you start Googling on phrases like "bad street fashion" or "ugly hair" you'll turn up all sorts of sites featuring ill-conceived photos and snarky commentary to go with it. There are hundreds of millions of people online. It only takes a thousandth of one percent of them to be complete jackasses, and you've got hundreds or thousands of such threads/blogs/comments. I actively avoid exposure to such crap, but still come across it. Ask a handful of teenagers, and they'll know of a few just off the top of their heads.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>By in large those contributing to flickr, for example, are respectful. But there is a small minority who aren't.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As with most things, people don't remember the decent, polite discourse. They remember the (however infrequent) outrageous and the deliberate stick-in-the-eye type stuff. We don't get too many trolls and griefers here, but PN is the <em>wild</em> exception to the rule when it comes to social web sites.</p>

<p>Ray, I understand what you are saying and I agree. But the real issue isn't street photographers or even photography. It's the the social nature, the sharing technology, that makes this possible. Look at Viral videos, the first videos to go viral were never intended to go viral (since the term probably didn't exist) but they did because people forwarded them in emails, blogged and reblogged them Then it wasn't long before people began trying to create viral videos.<br>

A couple weeks ago I was out shooting and a confrontation between two homeless men broke out. Everyone within 100 feet of the two men had cell phones, yet they were not calling the cops, instead they were all video recording the action on their phones; no doubt to text / post it to their friends. This I feel is the real problem, it's a cultural thing.<br>

There are some images taken by famous SP's in the 20th century that no doubt would have created quite a thread of comments if there was a Flickr back then. but no one got to comment on them in a public forum, it was really a one way street. Today EVERYTHING is commented on. Hell most internet forum threads end up commenting on the commentators.<br>

FWIW I think there is world of difference between a site like <a href="http://www.peopleofwalmart.com">http://www.peopleofwalmart.com</a> (which serves to make fun of those shopping at wall mart and to the uniformed could be considered street photography or at least be the kind of thing that people would be concerned about having their picture taken in public) and any street photography website.<br>

But in the end, how can you control the way people will receive your work, how they'll comment on it, or how those you shoot will react?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But in the end, how can you control the way people will receive your work, how they'll comment on it, or how those you shoot will react?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>being serious about your work is a good start. Let's not pretend that there isn't a big difference between a serious photographer and someone, anyone, who just snaps away at anything that shows up in front of his/her lens.</p>

<p>As for necessary tactics, I don't use them. I use my common sense and so far it has served me very well.</p>

<p>Sorry, Ton. By "necessary tactics," I meant either "being very plainly in sight of people as you use a shorter focal length" <em>or</em>, "using a really long lens and looking like the papparazzi." Either way, you've got social issues you have to confront. Common sense being surprisingly uncommon (apparently!), the act of getting the picture means being seen doing so and - for lot of people - causing some friction, even if only temporarily and in some circumstances. You are far more nuanced and thoughtful about this than many people are, Ton, and are not, I think, the source of the common public angst in this regard.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Let's not pretend that there isn't a big difference between a serious photographer and someone, anyone, who just snaps away at anything that shows up in front of his/her lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It doesn't matter what WE on this forum pretend. It matters what the people being photographed believe. And some very large percentage of them don't see any difference.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Fred, merely photographing a fat person or handicapped person is not the problem as I see it. Are we supposed to deny the fact that those people exist? It would be a pretty edited version of history if they were passed by. It's how it's treated that matters. A photograph is just a photograph. It's the uninformed and/or mean spirited reaction to it that's the primary issue in my mind."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ray, I couldn't disagree more with most, though not all, of what you've said here. No, we are not supposed to deny that fat people exist or that people in wheelchairs exist. But a photograph is most definitely not "just a photograph." There are good photographs and bad ones. There are exploitive photographs and non-exploitive ones. There are ones taken mindlessly, ones taken just to poke fun at some one, ones taken for the photographer's amusement, ones taken to elicit a very false and fleeting sense of pathos. There are also many taken with some sort of social conscience. Many people take photos of homeless people with the best of intentions. And, as the old saying goes, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." Homeless people don't need every Joe Shmo with a phone camera taking their picture to show the world the plight of the homeless. It's a ridiculous notion that everyone taking pictures needs to document homelessness. Very few documenters of homelessness are needed. I can look through the Street forum on a daily basis and tell the pictures of fat people that are exploitive and tell the pictures of fat people that are about individuals who happen to be fat. Can't you?</p>

<p>No, it's not a matter just of the reaction. Though I agree that many reactions are over the top and misguided. The responsibility for content and the handling of content begins with the photographer. Too many photographers conveniently forget that because they look at "art" or "photography" as an excuse. It's not.</p>

<p>Josh, if we were to stop and consider the validity of what people believe we'd stop taking pictures altogether. People believe all sorts of things and usually they'll project the worst intentions on the photographer (any photographer, no matter how benign, upfront, friendly, etc...). There are things you can do to minimize their suspicions, just as you can exercise the proper common sense that will minimize your grief...</p>

<p>Ton has it right about the intentions of the photographer. We've been through this before with the homeless, the handicapped, etc., but fat people is an addition to the list... If the shot is just to show some fat slob gorging himself (or herself, let's be politically correct on this) to death it's not to be advised (in my humble opinion)...</p>

<p>Speaking of wheelchairs:</p>

<p>A wheelchair shot that comes to mind is the one by Meyerowitz, a guy is parked near a mailbox and he's looking at a woman traipse by in a short skirt. The look of anguish on the guy's face is heartbreaking and the viewer can empathize with him and his condition... Some would look at it and say it's exploitative. Some would say everything and anything is exploitative. In this you have to cultivate your senses to see the difference between an honest portrayal of humanity and treating subject as object.</p>

<p>So, I come full circle, if you stopped to consider the subject, the potential viewer, the PC police, and what your grandmother would say, you'd be so whacked out about what you were doing, you'd stop shooting on the street.</p>

<p>This is not to give full license... there has to be an awareness of what you're doing and why you're doing it, and--the intangible of all intangibles--how you're doing it...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Josh, if we were to stop and consider the validity of what people believe we'd stop taking pictures altogether. People believe all sorts of things and usually they'll project the worst intentions on the photographer (any photographer, no matter how benign, upfront, friendly, etc...). There are things you can do to minimize their suspicions, just as you can exercise the proper common sense that will minimize your grief...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not telling anyone to stop shooting or that they should or shouldn't shoot a particular subject.Ton brought up that we here shouldn't pretend that there isn't a difference in one photo of a person on the street and another. And he is right.</p>

<p>But the point of the conversation was why other people react badly to having their photo taken. And that has nothing to do with how we here on a photographer's forum look at anything. You can have the most pure motives in the world and be the last honest man in the universe, and it still won't matter when someone out there who you are trying to photograph sees you with a camera as the same thing as someone taking a photo of a fat lady in walmart.</p>

<p>Does that mean you shouldn't take photos in the street? Of course not. Street photography is a honorable and highly respected (historically) genre. But that doesn't mean we get to ignore WHY people feel the way they do just because we hold up the "street" flag. Particularly in this day and age of "whale tail" and "walmart" and "fail ____" blogs and viral jokes, people are more suspicious of photographer motives than ever. As photographers, we need to accept that fact. You can work with them, ignore them, fight photo subjects over them, or try to change them. But those attitudes are there and they aren't leaving any time soon.</p>

Couldn't have said it any better than Ton.

 

It's how you approach your photography and subjects with respect to what you're trying to say and achieve. Tactics

aren't necessary. Some photographers choose to go deeper and it shows in their results and how people are

subsequently characterized. Whether candidly, or engaged.

 

Give people respect and you get it back. People can read you a block away with regards to your intentions and

approach. I shoot only with a 35 (on a FF) and never have trouble.

 

>>> Occasionally I see some pretty crass comments on sites like flickr about person(s) who are the subject of

street photographs.

 

Sad but true. I moderate comments on my blog closely for that. Anything disparaging gets cut. But that's rare

because I try and portray subjects (photo and captions/story) in a dignified and respectful manner. I pretty much

stopped using flicker last year, though I still have 9 or 10 photos there.

<p>Everything matters, and some of us are not pretending.</p>

<p>"And it wouldn't be much of an issue if there weren't everything from hundreds of "upskirt"..."</p>

<p>Geezus, Matt....not everybody goes to those sites. Hard to do when the camera is in your hands at eye level, too. Yes, I understand millions of people live in abject fear of tsunamis, muffin-tops, quakes, bad hair, old iPhones, terrorists, being raped, waking up naked and lost in the streets, being abducted by aliens, plundered, cheated, cheated on, shorted at every transaction, deserted by friends and lovers, spied on by the secret police, Kidnapped held-up, and... photographed. Apparently, you talk with a lot of them.</p>

<p>Incredible as it may seem, there's some sane ones left, happily going about their lives.<br>

If I see Matt alone with a camera talking with a little girl, I do not automatically assume he is a (horrors!) web/blogger pedophile.</p>

<p><em>[Turn off the Fear Machine.]</em></p>

<p>I still photograph a few events where I am the "official" photographer, and many where I am just another dude with a camera, sometimes with a very large Nikon +bracket +flash, sometimes a Leica/other RF or digi P&S. Sometimes using flash. A huge percentage of the time I am not noticed, and am able to make a string of exposures with no apparent reaction from anyone. I have no idea exactly how this happens, but people are relaxed and oblivious.</p>

<p>Currently, I'm doing a long-term project doing somewhat formal portraits of artists. The sensitivity of subjects to one's energies in an overt situation is considerable. I also still photograph on the street now and then.</p>

<p>When I became fifty, I quickly realized I'd become invisible to most sane women under 35, but long before that, I was already invisible with a camera because people apparently don't seem to notice me at all, and on the rare occasion when they do, they smile, and often ask for a picture, and I send them a 4x6 print. I am positive and humane, take care not to trample on the sensitivities of my subjects, and preserve their humanity and dignity intact. I sometimes fail. When I do, I see it in the edit, and those are deleted unseen from my folders. They are never mean-spirited.</p>

<p> I rarely ask, but when I do, it's often wordlessly, by miming. I'd say 90+% say yes.</p>

<p>[i think the energy you project has a lot to do with the energy your subjects reflect.]</p>

<p>Just going out aimlessly, nervously, aggressively and maniacally snapping away for something to do with your camera is neither street photography nor documentary work. It's visual diarrhea.</p>

<p>If Robert Frank, Klein, Meyerowitz, HCB, Cohen, Avedon, etc. had paused to consider every possible objection from every subject photographed on the street, they would have never made one single exposure and some of the greatest work of theirs, the history of the medium and of its time would have been lost in hesitation. I agree one has a definite responsibility and a human debt when photographing anyone, but that can be taken to the point of paralysis.</p>

<p>(Calling Jeff Spirer...)</p>

 

<i>"Give people respect and you get it back. People can read you a block away with regards to your

intentions and approach. I shoot only with a 35 (on a FF) and never have trouble."</i><p>That's fine for

you Brad, but it doesn't work for everyone all the time. Where does it put Gilden or Winogrand, who do

and did have negative reactions? Most people I know who shoot street have occasional conflicts, giving

respect or not. And people in fact don't always read other people accurately. Sometimes they come to the situation with strong

preconceptions, so that what they read is mostly or only in their head.<p>Fred, I think we agree more than we're making it clear with each other, although I sense we don't agree 100%.

<p>People seem to a lot of you to be more angry, paranoid, spooked about cameras, aggressive towards shooters, etc. than I have experienced. In fact many people go out of their way being nice. The kind of interaction I get is different depending on the equipment I carry. Pocket cams are the same as cell phones - people just can't stop taking pictures with them. So who's going to complain about that? What bugs me is the constant '"scuse me, 'scuse us" hyper-politeness of everybody. I miss shots all the time from duckers. - "sorry, sorry, sorry…" What is this world coming to?<br>

On the other hand when I have a tripod and just hang on the corner I get people asking me all kinds of questions and just hanging out like myself. The business about posting on the web is upsetting . Do I believe it will cause people to feel uncomfortable around cameras? No more uncomfortable than knowing for certain that there are camera filming them in every business and most street corners.</p>

<p>I have personally witnessed Alan Z. with a tripod and panoramic camera photographing in a sea of people dancing -- in open daylight -- and no one blinked, flinched or hid. Somewhere I have a picture of him doing it.</p>

>>> That's fine for you Brad, but it doesn't work for everyone all the time.

 

Of course not. There are no guarantees in life when dealing with random people.

 

>>> Where does it put Gilden or Winogrand, who do and did have negative reactions?

 

Don't know. That's their business. I expressed what works for me. Consistently.

 

>>> Most people I know who shoot street have occasional conflicts, giving respect or not.

 

Most people I know who shoot and use common sense and offer respect rarely (or never) have problems. Again, there are no guarantees. As with any other endeavor in life involving people, act like a jerk and you'll be treated like one. That's just common sense. From what I've seen, some "street photographers" seem to be afraid or not comfortable being around people. They're worried about getting caught, or sweat even talking to a stranger, etc. To me, that speaks volumes and no doubt plays into others "having problems" from time to time.

Ran out of edit time above...

 

What I wanted to add, before the last sentence up above, is that some street photographers who have difficulty

being comfortable engaging/relating to people in a direct manner, then have to rely on "tactics" (long lenses, hip-shots,

looking the other way while shooting, etc) to get their pix. Which then as a result, many times, makes subjects nervous and causes suspicion. People are far more aware than most imagine.

<p>Hey Josh... don't tell anyone, but I think we pretty much said the same thing...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>People interpret people's sense of humour, viewpoints etc. For one, I just get tired of the shoulds and shouldn'ts. If each person has their own moral code, than just practice it. I'm tired of being preached to on a photo forum.</p>