Street Photography -- invasion of privacy?

I am curious about the ethos of street photography and how it varies

among cultures and regions. I live in the Seattle, Washington, USA

area and I would be hesitant to take a picture of a stranger at close

range, just as I would feel uncomfortable to have my picture taken.

Do you generally ask permission? Or do you kinda fake that you are

taking a picture of something inanimate that just accidently includes

them. The only occasion when I felt that I could exercise street

photography with impunity was when I spent a year in Saigon, 1966-

67. I don't know whether it was the language barrier, I hope it

wasn't arrogance, but I would regularly take photos of people at

close range. A large part of my ease was due to something in the

Viet Namese character that when you took out your camera, people

would tend to jump in front of you to pose, and they smiled, and

really seemed to enjoy being in your field of view. On recent

overseas trips to Spain, I was as hesitant to photograph people as I

would be in the US, despite the language barrier, except when they

were like extras on the scene. Please let me know how you overcome

the barriers to street photography, i.e., essentially invade

someone's personal space.

I have to go to Seattle tomorrow, and you can bet I'm going to be keeping my eye out for you James. Anyone looks like they are trying to take a photo of a street sign that just happens to be over my shoulder, I'll know it's you. Then WHAMMO the famous boot to the ear.

 

Seriously though, this has been a matter of some debate around here recently. Many people use ultra wide/long lenses or "hip shooting" to hide the fact that they are taking a photo. Some people try to interact with their subjects in such a way that makes them feel "okay" that they are being photographed. And some just use Jedi mind tricks to become invisible.

 

While not true 100% of the time, I feel that the second method generally makes for better images than the first. If that's true or not is largely a matter of taste, but it's my opinion (one that I hold pretty strongly). And it is reflected in the kinds of images that I find to be my favorite street shots.

have a look at John Brownlows site

 

http://www.pinkheadedbug.com

I just raise the camera at them and wait see what happens. If nothing, I will click it. If something happens, then I just wave and walk off.

Brian,

 

Thank you for pointing me at that site. Very interesting and answers many of my questions.

It seems to be getting more difficult in Paris (from personal experience), even though I photograph scenes and environmental portaits rather than close up, intrusive work. There seems to be a growing resistance to being photographed, possibly because of the large number of photographers wanting to follow in HCB's footsteps.

 

I think also that the legal situation in France technically complicates candid street photography. See for example, http://photography.about.com/library/weekly/aa031102f.htm

Use a camera that does not need to be raised to the eye. A Rollei TLR is ideal. Glance down at the viewfinder to check subject is in frame and click the shutter. (It is silent)

 

Even if someone sees you touching the camera they assume (from the look of a Rollei TLR) that you are some old crank rather than a photographer!

 

 

Winding on, shutter priming and pre-focusing (and/or setting the timer for a 'hands off' photograph) can all be done whilst turned away from the subject.

 

If feeling really sneaky a cable release can be operated from a pocket.

 

Use 400 or 800 film so DOF and shutter speed is sufficient to get sharp pictures. Grain is not a problem on 120 6x6 format even with very fast film.

Oh and another thing about 6x6 or 6x7 is that framing does'nt have to too precise. The neg is so big that cropping is not detrimental to quality. (Within reason of course.)

Think about it- the street is public, not private. It's difficult, although not impossible, to invade someone's privacy in a public place.

I think this is a tough issue. There's a oft-stated opinion on this forum that you must have a willing subject before you press the button, that you should only do street photography without offending people. There is some legal backing for this, but it seems a pretty grey area to me.

 

I defer from this view not because I actually want to offend or criticise people, but because I think it's sanctimonious and dishonest. I'd like to know how you could accurately portray either a monarch or a thug going about their business if you had to get a model release first. Any kind of critical image would be out - and I don't mean personally critical only, but socially critical too. And so would anything with even a hint of voyeuristic detatchment, which would count out a lot of HCBs output, for instance.

 

Personally, I cannot see how a photographer can make an image from a detatched perspective without being covert and invading people's lives, risking their unfavourable reaction. Why do you want quiet Leica cameras if you don't want to be covert? Of course there are some kinds of street photography where the subject is involved in the process, or aquiesces to it, but they are different.

 

A cheerful smile after pressing the button usually seems to smooth things over at the time, but the subject often can't guess whether your photo shows them in a favourable or unfavourable light.

My personal attitude is that if I am allowed to look at people then I have no problem photographing them. I don't see a difference in the actual physics of the two in that both the eye and the film receives light. Both are passive mechanisms as far as the subject is concerned.

 

What I do with the image is another thing and is subject to law but rarely does the law prohibit the taking of images in public, it's what you do with the resultant print where you could become unstuck.

 

As to openly vs surreptitously taking photographs - I think it should be done openly. The moment I would try and take photographs surrepitiously I would feel that the act itself has somehow become subversive and that is not a position I hold. As long as it is legal then I am going to take photographs without any sense of guilt (and probably even if it became illegal although I suspect that is highly unlikely). Of course if you have to be surreptitous to get the shot then fine but I am not going to act in such a manner normally because of any sense of guilt or wrongdoing.

 

I think your attitude to photographing others is down to how you feel about being photographed. You said yourself that you feel uncomfortable being photographed. I have no problems with it at all. I am very interested to understand why people have problems with being photographed - I'm sure it would make a fine subject for a psychology thesis.

Try this. Go to an area of Seattle that draws tourists. That will mean there are a lot of cameras around and people taking pictures. You will fit right in. The bonus is that most people will not even notice you when you make their picture. Or go to a public event like a parade or festival or whatever. People will be involved in their activities and could care less that you are taking their picture. If you don't physically intrude or act obnoxious, you will come away with lots of people pictures. It will also give you confidence in yourself when photographing strangers.

 

Even in public places, a person deserves respect. Don't press it if someone tells you not to take their picture or turns away if you point the camera in their direction.

I just ask myself this question - would I mind if it was me in the shot, doing whatever

my possible subject is doing, or portrayed in whatever way I'm thinking of portraying

them? If my answer is 'no, if I saw a picture of myself in that position I wouldn't be

happy' then I desist.

 

The point about photgraphing a thief or a violent person in the act of theft of

committing violence brings other considerations into play. Principally they are that

society, of which I am a member, is likely to be better a s a result of the picture.

 

Photos of newsworthy events are another minefield, IMHO. Take for instance the

unforgettable images of the second plane hitting the South Tower of the WTC.

Newsworthy and dramatic, certainly, and I believe that publishing them is

justified because they bring home to us all exactly what was done, but the images

must cause anguish to the surviving relatives of those who died there.

Last summer I was in London, my home town, snapping away at people doing what they do. I shot off a few films, getting pretty close - and no one complained. I was amazed. A few gave nodding smirks afterwards, as if they appreciated the attention, but most completely ignored me. Afterwards I was in Frankfurt, my second home, and the same thing - no one said anything, I was completely ignored, again, the same in Munich. I began to feel like the invisible man.

 

Here in India, it is easy, many people love to be photographed, sometimes too many. Those that don't soon indicate that it is not what they want; again, many just ignore me.

 

I rarely ask to take anyone's photo, though I do sometimes chat with people. If someone catches my eye, I usually wait until they have lost interest in me, or if I find it fits aesthetically I shoot away. If they don't look away and look hesitant and I still want the shot I look questioningly, indicating the camera, it seems to be a universal gesture that everybody understands and they can either consent or not; at this stage I would respect their wishes.

 

I would not want to be categorical about which shots come out best: it all depends on so many factors. I do think, however, that if you depend on asking permission all the time your range of what will be possible in street photography will be drastically and probably unrealistically limited, making it a sort of amputated exercise. Some of my best shots are those where I am with someone, usually my wife, and they chat while I shoot the subject, relaxed and natural.

I think Spain can be a tough call, as can many places with a history of oppression - recent history. Primarily I think people in these countries do not know precisely what you are going to do with the photographs and/or why you are taking the photographs. There are many more nefarious reasons than innocent that they can think of (or remember from recent history.) The sense of economic injury born out of this oppression is also pretty fresh. And then there you are, an anonymous photographer, pointing a camera worth more than this person makes in a year right in their face. In the Czech Republic, most babushkas know you are photographing them because they look like they stepped right out of some Commie snapshot from twenty thirty years ago. They see how different they look as compared to the images they see on the television every day. Taste determines some appearances, but money determines the rest. Their pensions don't bring them much money at all, so they are stuck wearing what they did twenty thirty years ago. Meanwhile, all around them the world is changing rapidly, becoming more expensive and shinier, and they feel stranger and more foreign in a place they used to feel relatively at home. In these sort of situations, where the photographer becomes symbolic of a whole host of complex changes and challenges to the person being photographed, you really have to do your best to become an individual to the person you want to photograph. I think you have to speak to the person, or at least, find a way to exchange some form of understanding and honor their position as individuals as well.

 

On a practical note, if they get really really angry, rewind the film and give it to them. I've done it. Completely changes the temperature of the situation.

<<I would be hesitant to take a picture of a stranger at close range, just as I would feel uncomfortable to have my picture taken.>>

 

Glad I'm not the only one not living in a dream-world it's still the 1950's when HCB was working.

Any photog who didn't hesitate must have a skin like a tank, but I suspect many hesitate out of personal anxiety, rather than empathising what it must feel like for the subject.

 

Jay, I know any mention of HCB brings you to the boil at once, but I don't see why the 1950s differed so much from the present. Surely Leicas were even more the toys of the privileged at that time, and I imagine people were just as sensitive and prickly. I don't reckon photgraphing clients in a Mexican brothel was all that commendable, and HCB got criticised for 'discovering' that China was full of quaint Chinamen and Ireland of the Irish. That style of street photography was no less controversial then than it is now.

 

But why do Leicaphiles on this forum go on about the quietness of their shutters if they aren't interested in detatched voyeuristic photography?

 <BR>

 

<A HREF="http://4020.net/unposed/critics.shtml#privacy">

http://4020.net/unposed/critics.shtml#privacy

</A><P>

 

Basically - those who know how to photograph people without asking for permission

- do. Those who don't, or are too self-conscious or fearful (or - let's face it -

muddled) - don't, and then go on and on about "privacy" or "engagement" or

"voyeurism" to rationalize their limitations<P>

 

:?)<P>

At least Weegee had the excuse that what he was shooting had news value, but I doubt that would have sufficed for HCB. I wonder how often he was threatened with having his Leica shoved down his throat � or better yet, where the sun doesn�t shine. The ancients had a concept of personal privacy, the personal space a person carried around with them. In northern countries is was the �fathom�, a �Viking�s Embrace�. In practice these spaces could overlap when crowding necessitated it, but it was respected in principle and its violation considered a personal affront. In modern times we detest the Paparazzi because they not only invade this space but their �in your face� tactics approach personal assault. I just don't feel comfortable with "street photography" anymore.

<<Jay, I know any mention of HCB brings you to the boil at once, but I don't see why the 1950s differed so much from the present. Surely Leicas were even more the toys of the privileged at that time, and I imagine people were just as sensitive and prickly.>>

 

Not even. There was a lot less distrust back then. People weren't concerned their photo would end up on the internet for billions of people to see...or on a fake id or forged passport, or in some tabloid with their head pasted on a donkey's body and a by-line that read "Evidence of Cross-Mating beween Human and Jackass"...or any one of a thousand disgusting things that happen today that didn't happen back then.

 

And probably the worst that could happen to a photographer back then was to get punched in the nose. Today, just too many clowns out there armed with lethal weapons and the amoral, sociopathic personalities to use them in an instant of anger.

What Andrew Nemeth wrote. And I add that, contrary to some peoples' beliefs, there is in the United States (can't comment on other nations) no "right to privacy" when in public. Anyone who actually photographs strangers in public places typically knows that, contrary to nervous photo.netters' beliefs, such subjects rarely object to and frequently enjoy being photo'd.

Andrew

 

I agree with you. I like your site too - but I do not think you need to be so defensive about it. So what if people whinge to you? No need to explain.

I guess it all depends on what you are going for.

 

My opinion on the subject isn't because I can't take photos without being noticed, or because I think I shouldn't. It's because I don't like a majority of photos that are taken "on the sly". I just think they often show little emotion or substance. I don't hold many "posed" photos in high regard either. But I don't think that just because a subject is aware of your presence that they are going to base their actions completely around the fact that you are taking pictures. Some will I suppose, but then they might not be the best subject choices. Getting people to ignore the fact that you are shooting photos of them is tricky sometimes and is a real hard skill to perfect. But I think that is where the best photos come from. Not from trying to disguise the fact that you are shooting. No, I am not a master at doing this myself. But this is what I aspire to

 

But as I have said MANY times, this is just my OPINION. But please, any of you should feel free to consider this a personal attack if you want.

In my experience, paranoia about being photographed and an

expectation of privacy while in public are extremely uncommon in

the real world. It's only on the internet that anyone seems to take

such concepts seriously.

<I>no "right to privacy"</I><P>

 

There's none here in Australia either, at least when applied to photographs of people

without their permission. In the link I gave above, I even cite Australian case law

(with exact chapter and verse) to back this up.<P>

 

<I>Why be so defensive?</I><P>

 

I thought this too a few years back. But after scores of attacks, both online in forums

and privately via nastygrams, I decided to set out my thoughts in an easily accessible

way. Mind you, the commentary is kept separate to the photographs - so those who

just want to look at pictures can, while those who want to sneer can be made fun of

because they lacked the intelligence to read my remarks first :?)<P>

 

And if this sounds too paranoid, unfortunately - it isn't. Prior to setting up my

"critics" page, I would routinely get complaints like: "You have no right to photograph

people without their permission! This is an invasion of privacy!"<P>

 

Well, I now carefully set out the case-law to show that it isn't. Not in this country at

any rate. :?)