What is street photography?

Is it, as I believe, a totally unposed picture which has not been set up except by setting the camera? Or is it any

picture taken in the street? The reason I ask is that there have been suggestions on various forums that we ask a

person's permission before taking their picture in the street. I did this a few times. The result was a person standing

in the street and smiling for the camera. That is not my idea of street photography. It is portraiture. But if we do not

ask, are we doing something unfair, wrong or immoral? It is legal, but is it right? With few exceptions the only good

street pictures I have gotten have been of people who did not know that they were being photographed.

There are some situations when you 'see' a person doing something you want to capture on the 'street' and do not

want to break the spontaneity. If you are so close to then and your equipment and attention so obvious it will break

things, just quietly speak to them, tell them that you're very interested in capturing what it was they were just doing

and that you'd like to hang around and take a few more photos of them, and if they are doing what they just did,

naturally and not paying attention to the camera, that would be wonderful. That is about the only time that 'asking

permission' for a genuine 'street' photograph will pay off in a good capture. In essence, what you are doing is

saying, 'I may be hanging around taking a photo or two, but ignore me and go about your business if that's OK.'

 

Some people smile or make facial expressions and those expressions are revealed in the musculature of their face --

and it's very prominent -- usually a smile that is often involuntary. That is to be discouraged. When I see that, I

sometimes tell them something like 'you're smiling -- think of something 'morbid' or tell them something 'morbid' and

explain why. This occurs very seldom because most of my shots are candid.

 

It is helpful in 'street' portraiture, however, and pays dividends as too many people will want involuntarily to 'smile' for

the camera and even if their lips are not smiling, their smile muscles will be visibly activated.

 

Yes, you can always ask someone in the street for permission, and the result is they'll want to fix their makeup, go

home and put on better clothes, or change their behavior to something more civil.

 

So, ask for permission and spoil the photograph in many instances, but not all.

 

Some 'street' people are very cooperative and will let you 'hang around' taking photos and not posing for them, which

is OK and qualifies as 'candid' as long as they're just engaged in their normal behavior and you can verify that to

yourself by having observed their behavior prior to asking.

 

Otherwise, truly candid is the order of the day. Most great 'street' photos were taken as 'candids' though we're

finding a few were posed by overeager photographers, such as Doisneaus' Kiss in front of the Hotel de Paris

(Parisian City Hall) and the famous Sailor Kissing a girl on VJ Day in Times Square (if memory serves me) - both of

which were iconic kisses and both of which were staged, and later revealed to be frauds -- not really 'street'

photographs any more than a Kelvinator commercial photo is a 'street' photograph -- just something made to further

the photographer's career as a magazine photographer and get him some money and acclaim.

 

Some people will avoid the camera -- beware of those -- sometimes they're criminals 'on the loose' or 'violating parole'

or 'violating probation' or in California, they're 'gang members' around other gang members and being engaged now in

gang activity that is criminal (you may not see the criminality) can result in a life sentence . . . and any such person

may have extreme necessity to stop you from photographing, so watch for the signs among those you might expect

to be from such classes - as personal safety is a genuine concern for the street photographer in certain

places/neighborhoods/situations.

 

Safety is another consideration for clandestine shooting; some people object vehemently about having their image

captured (and even worse is the buttinsky who objects to your capturing some else's image who puts their hand or

body in front of your camera just as you're about to get that great capture, even though your subject really wouldn't

mind -- they image themselves 'enforcers' of their own private brand of morality/ethics regarding photographers and

may have mistaken you in their addled mind for a child molester and/or a paparazzi.

 

Never say you are a paparazzo. If someone asks me if i am that, I reply 'NO, they are scum-- they hound people,

cause auto accidents and are ill-behaved. I am not paparazzo.' I behave well and take good photos that people like

and don't hound celebrities to death which is really bad manners. (People seem to like this sort of unexpected

response.)

 

Street photography doesn't mean you have to be clandestine. Go to a public event and shoot away; people expect

to be photographed as such things -- parades, political events, etc., -- even get in front of a parade and walk

backward through the parade shooting away. People will KNOW you are photographing, but that's part of the

excitement, and they'll assume you are professional -- no need to hide or 'sneak' all the time -- you just need to know

when to not reveal and when to reveal.

 

When doing 'street portraiture' with a digital camera, often best to take a photo of someone and if it's good, show it to

them and ask them if you can take a few more (I seldom if ever get turned down, and make LOTs of new friends --

including three yesterday, and get many viewers of my web pages from these subjects and their friends).

 

Often people will approach me and invite me to take their photo, too. That's far from clandestine.

 

There's a whole gamut of responses, then from being invited to sneaking a 'grab shot' as you walk by someone.

 

Look at my photo in my 'Faces' folder for a photo of a 'Businessman'. It was taken from waist level while walking and

is pretty well framed and with excellent expression. I never looked through the viewfinder and was able to shoot it

because I knew my equipment and have considerable experience (these kinds of shots are very hard to do

consistently). The 'businessman' never knew he'd been photographed (twice, actually) as I never broke stride as I

walked past him, clicking away.

 

So, there you have it, soup to nuts.

 

If you're concerned about 'morality' you should talk that over with your spiritual and/or religious advisor - if it's 'legal' --

the law is a kind of offshoot and codification (at least in the US) of Judeo-Christian morality together with various

freedom-based ideals.

 

The moral aspects have been pre-determined for you, in the sense that the law is a set of moral rules (not always,

but common law is based in 'morality'. Same with the Bill of Rights, which offers you protections (and some to your

subject too, if you're shooting in the United States).

 

Things are different in Europe, where 'privacy rights' are viewed quite differently now.

 

So, review your own feelings about working the streets and take 'personal inventory' to see if you're the person who is

facile and agile enough to at one point be idolized for what you do and the other moment be hated, plus it helps to

have a healthy amount of charm, and if you have what it takes plus talent, you should go ahead and try street

photography -- it's a pretty complex business as the photographer is more than a guy with a camera; he's more like

a sports figure who works multiple positions, depending on what skill is needed that moment to get that photo (and

keep out of trouble).

 

By the way, I've filmed in war (Viet Nam), ghettos all over the country, in Eastern Europe (where I often live), and in

all sorts of places most sane people don't walk, but I seldom if ever have any trouble at all --you must learn to

be 'street wise' - something I learned when I lived in New York in my 'teens and early '20s and tutored in Harlem while

attending Columbia College, when being a white guy in Harlem was like wearing a target on your chest, front and

back -- you had to know when to run, reverse directions, change over to the other side of the street, yell loudly, avoid

walking too near buildings, and all sorts of other 'street' tricks.

 

Until you learn these or they come naturally, use extreme caution in the streets. Always carry your camera with

sturdy strap around your neck if it's not totally clandestine, as it can be stripped from you, especially in major cities

worldwide.

 

Hope this helps.

 

John (Crosley)

<i>....The result was a person standing in the street and smiling for the camera. That is not my idea of street

photography. It is portraiture.

<br><br>

Some people smile or make facial expressions and those expressions are revealed in the musculature of their face

-- and it's very prominent -- usually a smile that is often involuntary. That is to be discouraged. When I see

that, I sometimes tell them something like 'you're smiling -- think of something 'morbid' or tell them something

'morbid' and explain why</i>

<br><br>

How is someone's genuine smile for the camera less truthful and revealing than the asking them to think of

something morbid? It's like saying, "watch the dead birdie." But that's assuming truth or revelation is your

goal.

<br><br>

My approach is-- I don't hide what I'm doing, so people often see me taking their photo. If they do, when they

smile, I take the smile. If they give me a hard look, I shoot the hard look. It's their thing I want to catch;

not mine. If that's not street photography, so be it.

Damon D'Amato,

 

I have no quarrel with taking photos of people smiling. However, too often when people realize suddenly they're going to be photographed they're surprised and sometimes a little nonplussed and/or embarrassed, but also uncertain of what to do now that they realize they're going to be the center of attention.

 

Now, the reason I wanted to take their photo is that I SAW something before they realized they might be the center of my photographic attention, and it was NOT a smile, and the smile so often is antithetical to that expression that caught my eye.

 

In 'street' and/or 'street portraiture' (or environmental portraiture) the smile can be wonderful to take, and it also can be pretty awful, especially when it's not a 'real' smile but a reaction to being photographed.

 

As I said, it's revealed in the musculature of the face, more precisely at the area around the temporomandibular joint (where the jaw and mandible join), and associated muscles, which can show prominently. If a person is suppressing a smile (on their own), that involuntary 'smile reflex' will show in those muscles which will show their sinews, and it can absolutely 'ruin' a portrait that is intended to preserve the natural look that attracted me and my photographic attention in the first place.

 

Now, of course, sometimes I WANT that smile and am happy to get it, and sometimes I want both the smile and the preceding expression. The point was that there are ways to overcome that involuntary attempt at a 'smile', which in my teenage years was actually known as a 'sh*t *ating grin', and had no real resemblance to a genuine smile -- and only related to being 'caught in the spotlight' like a deer.

 

Since I don't' specialize in 'caught in the spotlight' shots (and also don't go hunting deer at night with my car headlights on), I try actively to avoid taking such contrived looking photographs. I always look at the side of my subject's face (or both sides if visible) and if there's a suppressed smile, it will show and

almost certainly it will ruin the photo.

 

One can take a photo of a subject smiling, grinning, frowning, yelling, etc., but that SEG look is not what I am aiming at, and most often occurs only when someone realizes they're going to be photographed and don't really know what to think.

 

As a photographer, I give them guidance to allow them to be 'natural' - to suppress their SEG, and whatever it takes is fine with me, so long as I can once again see that 'natural' look that attracted me to them in the first place.

 

Now, I often can see other looks too, when I approach a person and it's obvious I'm photographing, and if those looks are attractive, I hasten to take those too and not affect those; it's only the SEG from the surprised photographic subject who doesn't know what to think about being photographed that I seek to get rid of . . . in most cases. (There are times when that also can help make a good photograph, and then I press the shutter release without interfering.)

 

One doesn't have to have the subject 'think morbid thoughts' - one need only say 'think of how good a president George Bush is', 'think about the current state of the economy', or 'are house payments easy to make for you?' to get the person with a more 'normal' look, or at least to break that usually-dreaded SEG look.

 

I approach a subject, like I did tonight, because I 'see' something that is outstanding or promises possibly to be very interesting and/or eye catching, and it is that thing I seek to capture. Tonight in a supermarket a cashier/checker -- a large black woman -- had a horrible toothache and was standing near the cold breezeway at her check stand in front of a door that opened and closed, exposing her to a cold wind.

 

She was very uncomfortable so she closed her sweatshirt/jacket with her hands up around her throat, and clutched the garment tightly, and looked to one side, obviously uncomfortable. Her hands clutched the garment tightly around her throat. It was red and very prominent.

 

To get close enough to take her photo while she worked (between customers) I had to chat with her first, as I waited for a ride, then when she clutched, she started that SEG when I told her I'd like to take her picture.

 

That SEG would have destroyed the photograph, so I told her to think about the pain and uncomfortableness she had been thinking of when I had broken her concentration, and she did.

 

Moments later, I got several very telling environmental portraits or 'street' portraits, that were also unique.

 

Nothing about 'street' says it must be clandestine (as I noted) or that the photographer cannot interact in such a circumstance (as a director) with his subject, unless, he's passing it off as 'pure candid'.

 

If it results in a good or great photo, more power to the photographer. In such cases, I'm not just a documentarian of how the person presents him/herself to me the photographer -- at first - but also of how I SAW the individual that drew me to him/her before my presence as a photographer was realized by the subject.

 

Sometimes the result of all this work can be very powerful photographs.

 

And I have no embarrassment or feeling that somehow I've interfered with 'genuineness' - for I have captured a different genuineness than that SEG that most photographers see.

 

People have often written me asking how I get that 'natural look' in my subjects, and I have written about it at length . . . . it's no secret. And certainly something I would teach rather than suppress. Genuineness is not necessarily truth when you're catching a subject in the uncomfortableness of trying to decide how to behave when they first realize a camera is being pointed at them.

 

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.

 

John (Crosley)

 

© 2008, John Crosley

>>> The reason I ask is that there have been suggestions on various forums that we ask a person's permission before taking

their picture in the street.

 

Which forums?

 

I've never seen this listed as a definition or requirement anywhere... Certainly hasn't been the case with a large number of well-known

street photogs.

 

If I want to do street portraits, I ask. But for SP, no....

Bruce Cahn: "It is legal, but is it right?"</p>

 

<p>That's a question we each have to ask and answer for ourselves.</p>

 

<p>My own answer is that it's right if I do it with respect for the person photographed <i>but</i> wrong if I do it without that respect.

John: Thanks for the carefully thought out response. Another "spontaneous" picture that was set up was W. Eugene Smith's picture of two children walking into the woods. Brad: On the street photography and casual conversation forums last spring. I got into trouble with the NYC police for shooting on the street. Several people responded by suggesting that I ask first. I have chosen, instead, to give up street photography, something which I have done for over 20 years. It gets people very angry in this city when you "grab" a shot of them. To me, if you ask, it doesn't pay to bother with the picture because it is not candid, and does not fit my definition of street photography. Why did I give in so easily? Advancing age and so so health I guess, and the reality that street photography is no longer very exciting to me.

<i>If a person is suppressing a smile (on their own), that involuntary 'smile reflex' will show in those muscles which will show their sinews, and it can absolutely 'ruin' a portrait...</i>

<br><br>

<a href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2033/2515869854_95f88d6e41.jpg">My response.</a>

I take what I can get when doing street photography. I never ask permission because it's not in keeping with how I work. I don't know about respect for the subject. It's not something I've ever considered. I just shoot what has interest for me at the moment.

 

The vast majority of the time the subject is unaware of my presence, and what I'm doing. It's a skill I've refined over time no matter what the lens in use at the time.

 

I could never give up street photography because it's become too much hassle. It's part of who I am as a photographer. While it's not exciting, it does allow me to see people and their many foibles long after the moment has past.

 

Street photography is and always has been an individual way of seeing the world. It can never be the same for any two photographers.

For those rare occasions when I take a street portrait, I want eye-contact, which means the subject is aware of the camera. I've not gotten a SEG. If I did, I'd say I spent way too much time in the vf. By the time a SEG would appear I should be at least 5 steps on my way and gone.

What is street photography?

 

Taking photos on the streets. There, that was easy.

 

How you go about it is down to personnel choice.

 

Perhaps someone who has never taken a street photo will write a rule book about it. They seem to be the most opinionated and self righteous around here. The guardians of the morals and righteous beliefs of humanity is the thought which comes to mind. Indeed many religions have started up with lesser convictions and righteous moral fortitude…..

"Taking photos on the streets. There, that was easy."

 

I've done portraits on the streets, architectural shots on the streets, still lifes on the streets, documentary work on the

streets, none of which I'd consider street photography.

I've heard a lot of respectable and seasoned street photographers on this site and in other places reject the notion that

street photography is just photos taken on the streets. Several times, I've heard lamentations over the fact that the "street"

category garners tourist photos of landmarks in Europe because these landmarks or statues happen to be out on the

street. I think a workable definition of street photography would include at least a vague notion of the character of

photographs to which the term would apply. Those distinctions are hard to draw, but I tend to reject the "everything" or

"anything" definitions when it comes to photography or art. Anything I say is art is art. Rejection. Any photo taken on the

street is a street photo. Rejection. Any closeup of a person's face is a portrait. Nope. Some are snapshots. Any distinctions, especially

with things so personal as art, love, beauty, morality, etc., are going to be difficult, blurry, and come with overlaps. But

we can still try to articulate things meaningfully and not always look for the "easy" way out.

 

By the way, along with you, I do notice the amount of moralizing that often goes along with certain genres of photography. It seems

particularly prevalent (and sometimes but not often warranted) with nude and street photography, and maybe the most understandable with

documentary.

Any photo taken on the street is a street photo. Rejection.

 

So, Frederick, what would you call a photo taken on the street? a still life, or, perhaps a landscape? Methinks you are adding special values, labels, to a couple of words.

 

Personally, i dislike labels they have a habit of adding connotations. Just a photograph taken on the street seems to be more apt.

Let's put things in little boxes............and then we can discuss what things we should put in those little boxes.

 

And then we can discuss what colour the little box should be and what size it should be......

 

Once we have done those important things we can sit happy with our pre-conceived ideas and not have to think any

more.

"Taking photos on the streets. There, that was easy."

 

To me, that's the only statement that betrays a lack of thinking.

 

Most of your other statements offer fluidity with sarcasm, but not much substance. Photography doesn't need good verbal

substance, but it's helpful in philosophy, which tends to be discursive.

 

As I've said to you before, all words are labels and understanding words can lead to a certain effective kind of

communication. Using words improperly or carelessly or at least not coming to agreement on terms often leads to confusion,

misunderstanding and, at worst, stupidity. Just as it would be helpful for the candidate for Vice President of the United

States to know what that label actually means, it can be helpful to a philosopher of photography to understand what the

different genre's labels mean. At least, in a discussion of what a particular genre of photography means, it would be helpful if

one person didn't categorically assert a meaning and then immediately close off discussion by sarcastically suggesting that

all labels (especially those used differently by others) were pointless.

it would be helpful if one person didn't categorically assert a meaning and then immediately close off discussion

by sarcastically suggesting that all labels (especially those used differently by others) were pointless.

 

I have not closed any discussion,Fred. I have just challenged your assumptions...your desire for labels. To be

honest most folk would agree with you; it is important that they can attach a label to help them understand. But

there lies the fallacy of making false assumptions,Fred. We are not jars of pickles.

 

"by sarcastically suggesting that all labels (especially those used differently by others) were pointless."

 

You seem to want me to talk,discuss, in a style which you feel comfortable with.On your terms of reference using

your definition of Philosophy. I know best.

"Just as it would be helpful for the candidate for Vice President of the United States to know what that label actually means,"

 

Fred, i'm sure that many of your ex Vice Presidents would rather not have the same label as Sarah Palin. I think you are taking a very simplistic BW image of what i'm saying.

 

Always enjoy chatting with,Fred.

Is this a "street photograph"?<div></div>

"Fred, i'm sure that many of your ex Vice Presidents would rather not have the same label as Sarah Palin."

 

Why? And what's the point of this comment? How is it in the least bit germaine to the topic? It's not - take the personal political commentary to another site.

"Is this a "street photograph"?

 

If it was taken on the street, and relates to the street, then it is a street photograph. A talented street photographer,

in my opinion, posted a photo of a dead rat taken on the street....a part of the reality and life on the street.

 

“Why? And what's the point of this comment? How is it in the least bit germane to the topic? It's not - take the

personal political commentary to another site”

 

I was responding to Fred’s comment, Steve. The name Sarah Palin just popped into my mind as her name is the

news a lot lately.

What made street photography ?<a href="http://museum.icp.org/museum/exhibitions/atget/atget1.html"> Eugene Atget</a> >>Walker

Evans >>Lee Friedlander >>... In a lot of those photographers work ( wich belongs arguable to the most ' street photographer-esque ' work

out there in

the history of the genre ), it's less about people walking around and more about a ' certain human condition ' than anything else.

Ctrl+Shift+U=Desaturate.........only!

The secret of a good shot is: that it is not a bad shot!

You only need to learn shooting better.

Btw - those old masters did the best with the stuff\gear\cameras and all other technology they had - at that

time.

Everything started when cameras evolved enough from woodden boxes to something little and fast enough to

shoot faster things than Sittng Bull-like models - or landscapes, buildings and so one.

Nobody will make movies with Chaplins-camera & film - in order to be classy or more creative than others.

 

B&W=c-p-y-c-a-t. Face it people!

 

"Ctrl+Shift+U" it´s a short cut only & not the Big Secret of ...... yada yadda yada......sadly enough.

 

And now the good news: you are a millionaire......... shoot -shoot & shoot & you still have some frames left

-AND- you kan check ......and shoot again -in order to do it better right there and again and so one.

Yes, I agree with John Crosley above that street savviness is fundamental and comes with experience from an early

age. But street photograhy for me is marriage of that savvy with chance and photgraphic skill that creates what Cartier-

Bresson called the "decisive moment." Chance and spontaneity seem necessary because street photography for me, to

quote the words of a Franco-American writer, Julien Green, is like a long walk in Paris, "without aim where one's finds

nothing searched for, but so many things for which one was not searching." And Susan Sontag talks about all of this in

a much more elaborate way in her book On Photography. On a more practical level, Bruce Cahn's question about the

morality and legality of street photography are in many ways matters concerning dialogue between cultures and classes.

When I lived in Africa, street photography had to be approached differently. I am presently working at a university where

a photographer engaged in any project is required to obtain permission to "use human subjects." To obtain this

permission, a list of human subjects must be identified and disclaimer signatures from all must be obtained. I only wish

that Cartier-Bresson was still alive so that could send him a copy of the application form. I would have been an amusing

moment!

"B&W=c-p-y-c-a-t. Face it people!"

 

hmm... surely in such an active photographic world colour would also= copycat by that rational, people would just say stop

copying Parr instead of stop copying Bression, I don't think I'd ever say stop copying. I don't how many times I've relayed

this quote, "good artists copy great artists steal" Picasso. As for street photography, for me it is what it has become

through its masters, bression, doisneau, blah blah... a beautiful candid moment thats part of the street, I feel when you get

a good street photograph it would be almost impossible to replicate it without a big production crew, its a unique piece of

time. I would never ever really ask for permission to take a photograph, there's absolutely nothing wrong with photography,

its something I have to tell myself every time I shoot, I'm just taking a photograph whats the issue?

 

I've seen the forms that need to be use, model releases, I think I have some, but if the day comes that I have to walk

around with my forms and my clipboard while fearing a lawsuit, think i'll transcend to my landscape period! (did that sound

snobish? I hope not).