Would random people feel more comfortable photograph if the Photographer uses a smartphone?

Smartphones are arguably less likely to initially attract attention than a DSLR.

However my experience is people being photographed in the street are likely to get angry because of the Photographers' actions, mood, body language and demeanour, rather than the anger being caused by the photographic gear being used.

WW

However my experience is people being photographed in the street are likely to get angry because of the Photographers' actions, mood, body language and demeanour, rather than the anger being caused by the photographic gear being used.

My experience has been good, and I mostly use my dlsr on the street. Even though I'm tall, I don't get the feeling many people see me as a threat or seem uptight when I'm around, I generally feel pretty comfortable in my own skin, am familiar with the city streets, and don't seem to attract negative attention. I'm not shy, either. I think a lot is about demeanor no matter what camera is being used.

thinking further . . .

On the other hand, the potential, implied or perceived secret use of mobile phones for Photography . . .

An anecdote: I do Sports Photography, including many youth events, mainly Swimming and Field Hockey.

Apropos photography at a Swimming Event where the competitors are minors - I’ve walked into the change-room/bathroom, for a toilet break or to refill my water bottle and I have been carrying one or two DSLRs and have never once been challenged by security, coaches, swimmers or parents.

On the other hand, I have noted on more than one occasion, the person walking toward the bathroom, with the habitual carriage of the mobile phone in front of their face, has been given very short shrift by Parents and often disallowed entry by security.

WW

. . . I'm not shy, either. I think a lot is about demeanor no matter what camera is being used.

A smile goes a long way, too.

On demeanour/demeanor - even without any spoken words, clear cut body language and confident and honest eye contact can be used to provide excellent communication - both these were made with a 5D Series DSLR, with Battery Grip and 24 to 105 Zoom Lens -

US Secret Service Officers, Rear of the White House, USA, 2019

***

***

A smaller camera used for this - Fuji X100s

"Bikers" - NSW South Coast, AUS, 2018

WW

Great examples, William.

I do occasionally get waved off, and usually accede, but this time he was a little too late. I mimed an oops to him with a sheepish smile and got a smile back. Thankfully, his rifle stayed right where it was!

I have a few times (or more) been out with my phone trying to get a WiFi signal.

I point the phone in different directions to see where there is more signal.

So far, I haven't had any complaints, but it could look like I was looking around

to take a picture of someone.

I suspect, though, that it is easier to make it look like you are not taking a

picture, than aiming a big SLR or DSLR at someone.

Reminds me, though, that some years ago there was a device with a mirror

such that you could take the picture in a different direction. It was round and

went on the end of the lens, so if you didn't look carefully it looks like a longer

lens, and not pointing at you.

This was meant to be of the sketcher. The mom looked like she might say something, but didn't.

(And this is with a DSLR.)

Last month I was taking pictures around my elementary school (50 years after graduating)

and someone told me not to take her picture. As I was trying to get buildings and playground,

and not especially her, I didn't. But sitting on the grass, she could easily have gotten

(very tiny) in a shot of the whole play area.

It looks about like it did 50 years earlier, though a roof over the lunch tables.

Also, the buildings are now air conditioned, unlike they used to be.

All the "random people" I know don't give a s**t , but any camera with a long, honking telephoto gets annoyed looks from people and wildlife

I agree that for street photography, a smartphone draws much less attention - and may be less 'íntimidating' for those photographed - than a 'large camera'.

However, as previous responses have pointed out, smartphone photography makes 'surreptitious photography' much easier than when working with a large camera. So IHHO, questions of motive and ethics in 'surreptitious photography' have become even more important in this age of smartphone photography.

For sure, there are artistic/photographic projects for which 'surreptitious photography' is justified and may even be necessary. At the other extreme, 'surreptitious photography' may have no other purpose than to photograph attractive young women or wizened old men without their knowledge.

In general, I fully agree with previous responses that the the best 'street portraits' are taken in full cooperation with (or with the permission of) the subjects. This principle applies to both traditional cameras and smartphones.

I suspect that a smartphone implies that the photo will be 'for personal use only' while a DSLR + backpack is less convincing as 'personal use only'.

Mike

I agree that for street photography, a smartphone draws much less attention - and may be less 'íntimidating' for those photographed - than a 'large camera'.

 

However, as previous responses have pointed out, smartphone photography makes 'surreptitious photography' much easier than when working with a large camera. So IHHO, questions of motive and ethics in 'surreptitious photography' have become even more important in this age of smartphone photography.

 

For sure, there are artistic/photographic projects for which 'surreptitious photography' is justified and may even be necessary. At the other extreme, 'surreptitious photography' may have no other purpose than to photograph attractive young women or wizened old men without their knowledge.

 

In general, I fully agree with previous responses that the the best 'street portraits' are taken in full cooperation with (or with the permission of) the subjects. This principle applies to both traditional cameras and smartphones.

 

I suspect that a smartphone implies that the photo will be 'for personal use only' while a DSLR + backpack is less convincing as 'personal use only'.

 

Mike

There may be several assumptions here worth looking at.

Depending on how it’s used and the attitude of the user, also the proclivities of the subject, any camera and any photographer can be more or less intimidating and any subject, due to their own set of issues, can be more or less intimidated.

When I’ve wanted to, I’ve been just as surreptitious with my dslr as with my smartphone. There are many good reasons to be surreptitious with street photography, even when one’s mind isn’t in the gutter. When a crowd is watching street musicians, I may want to be as surreptitious as possible. When an innocent but visually interesting scene seems to be unfolding, I’ll be surreptitious so as not to disturb the flow of activity or attention.

Questions of ethics and motives haven’t become any more important to me than they’ve always been. Mostly, other photographer’s motives are none of my business. I will often perceive their intent via their photos. Their motives usually require more biographical information. An intention is about a goal. A motive is about a reason. I prefer not to dwell on the extremes other people might go to when considering my own use of a camera. My own extremes and the reasons I might go there are enough for me to keep track of.

Can you point out the words above that gave you the impression someone said the best street portraits are made with the cooperation of the subject? I can’t find them. And I’d argue with that.

These days, I wouldn’t draw any conclusions about eventual use of photos from the kind of camera used. Many gallery shows and books are now dedicated to smartphone cameras and they are being used in both professional and commercial circumstances.

I'd also argue with the contention that the best (whatever that means) street photos require subject cooperation. Seems you will only get one kind of photo that way: the cooperating kind.

Though I think many adept photographers are able to get, if they want, a “cooperating” setup not always to look like a “cooperating” photo.

Yes, but they will always be cooperating. Cooperating photos can be good photos of course, but it's not a requirement for a good shot.

We agree on the latter point. I guess we’ll just disagree on the former. To me a “cooperating photo” is one that looks it. A photographer can make a spontaneous-looking photo even with cooperation. I’ve gotten visual ascent from some street subjects, which means cooperation, but didn’t necessarily take the picture right away. I may have waited a while to let things unfold a bit and taken the picture when they were basically paying no more attention to me because they were focused on what they were doing. I’ve also worked with actors who are trained in making things rehearsed look spontaneous. True, many or most street portraits made with cooperation look it. But I maintain they don’t have to. YMMV.

Yes, but they will always be cooperating. Cooperating photos can be good photos of course, but it's not a requirement for a good shot.

I also think: [street] Photos of people cooperating can be good photos of course, but it's not a requirement for a good shot.

. . . To me a “cooperating photo” is one that looks it.

That's how I would classify it.

. . . A photographer can make a spontaneous-looking photo even with cooperation. I’ve gotten visual ascent from some street subjects, which means cooperation, but didn’t necessarily take the picture right away. I may have waited a while to let things unfold a bit and taken the picture when they were basically paying no more attention to me because they were focused on what they were doing. . . .

Agree. (Also agree on the comment about working with Actors.)

However, for Street Photography, I am usually not patient enough to do that: additionally the 'moment' often happens too quickly and before Subject - Photographer eye contact has been attained.

***

"Selfies" Paris, 2012

In reference to the OP - people's reactions to smartphones vs DSLRs - both above taken with a DSLR + Battery Grip.

WW

However, for Street Photography, I am usually not patient enough to do that: additionally the 'moment' often happens too quickly and before Subject - Photographer eye contact has been attained.

I can relate to this as well.

There are so many different ways a street photo can come about, and the result doesn't always telegraph to a viewer how it came about.

On the street, I'm often drawn to something spontaneous and unfolding naturally seeming to have a staged or theatrical look. (Shakespeare comes to mind: All the world ...) The photo below was spontaneous and I doubt anyone in the frame was even aware I was there with my dslr and long 24-105 lens, though I took it at 24mm (something I rarely do) from pretty close, crouching down.

Think about couples kissing in public, a guy smoking a cigarette on the street corner ... Did Hollywood movies copy them or are they often unconsciously copying Hollywood movies. How spontaneous does spontaneous always look?

Much of my work plays with the ephemeral border between natural and artificial, staged and spontaneous. So I like playing around with all the many permutations of staged/spontaneous/candid/setup/cooperative/surreptitious when I'm on the street. I am inspired by how they all share some things, how they can stand apart or not, how they can mimic each other, complement each other, compete with each other, and provide me hours of fun shooting with all this in the back of my mind.

I like the "Pick a subject & price, then get a poem". It leaves us wondering who is getting a poem.

Even more, what the person in the background is taking a picture of.

And all, as far as we know, not knowing about this picture about to be taken.

"PicK a Subject & Price then Get a Poem" - works on a multiplicity of levels.

Great shot! Bravo.

WW