Street Photography -- invasion of privacy?

[jay_.]

Of course Mike, gorgeous, scantily-clad women rarely object to being photographed.

[stephen_w.]

I try to shoot like Andrew: without being noticed, in public and on private property. In my recent Noct' thread, NO ONE noticed me taking pictures.

[Alex_Es]

In the US you are more likely to get into trouble photographing public buildings than people these days.

 

But that aside, I never ask for permission or seek a model release when shooting in public places. So far, no problems.

 

I do not like to feel "embedded" in my street work. I also feel that as a street photographer I am in essence a historian. As a historian I try not to disturb the subjects of my photography so that they will go about their lives naturally.

 

As I said elsewhere in this forum, I do have a few rules. The most important is that I try not to make photographs that are degrading of the subjects.

 

I am not ever completely at peace with myself when doing street photography. But that is as it should be.

[joshroot]

<I>I am not ever completely at peace with myself when doing street photography. But that is as it should be.</i><P>An excellent quote Alex. That's two days in a row that I've thought "right on Alex" to myself. Yesterday's Leni thread posting was the other.

[jean_.]

How would you like or dislike it when someone photographs you? I might think that i'm mistaken for a celebrity (Brad Pitt, or George Clooney, e.g.), and laugh.

 

Or I might feel uncomfortable that day (ever rushed outside without shaving, or two different socks, or.. you get the point: you feel uncomfortable). Nobody, including me, wants to look bad on a photo, so I really would think the photographer takes advantage of me lookling foolish.

 

I might think "heck what a good-looking dude I am, people start taking pics!"

 

Anyway, taking a picture from a person like he was a thing, acting if anybody is at your disposal to fill a frame, is very rude IMHO. I would consider it as lack of respect, and i would not enjoy to be treated like this.

 

On the other hand - eye contact, a smile, a nod, is enough to establish a connection and the subject, even a disgruntled paranoid freak like me, will feel comfortable, perhaps even flattered.

 

Just use your common sense, and be a gentleman. Would YOU enjoy it to be photographed like an animal in a zoo?

[sprouty]

Jay wrote: (about the 1950's) "There was a lot less distrust back then."

 

<P>

Jay I wasn't even alive in the 50's but I'm still wondering how you can make an objective case for people being less distrustful then than now? Wasn't the cold-war in full swing by then? And what about McCarthy, purveyor of common sense and trust?

[andrew_somerset1]

This has been covered so many times on photo.net that it's hardly worth discussing.

 

But for my part, the worst thing you can do is to behave furtively -- this automatically leads to suspicion. If you are open about what you're doing, you can get "concealment in plain view" -- people see you, see what you're doing, and dismiss you.

 

There are some situations in which you more or less have to ask. This example is getting away from "street" photography, but if I walk up to two guys ice fishing 5 km out on Lake Erie and start taking pictures, they're naturally going to stop behaving normally. But if I talk to them first, they'll go back to what they're doing and behave naturally.

 

Common sense applies. Real-world common sense, that is, not Internet theoretical common sense.

[vic_.]

From my limited viewpoint it seems that "Street Photography" can only take place in crowded metropolitan areas of big cities. I live in a small city and we have so few streets, with hardly any people walking, that anyone with a camera would stand out and invite suspicion if they pointed a camera at someone. (Men, who usually are insecure, tend to be rather possesive of their women here, and seem to view anything beyond a glance as an invitation to a battle of the primates.) It seems that Street Photography is then only a history of big cities.

[andy_piper2]

James: practice practice practice.

 

Really - if you are nervous and uncertain about photographing people close up and personal, you are going to transmit that to everyone around you, including the subject(s), through involuntary body language and micro-expressions. Humans can pick up on fear and uncertainty just like horses and dogs.

 

You'll stand out like the twitchy guy in a quik-mart - everyone around will be wondering when you're going to yank out the .357 magnum.

 

So first you have to get YOURSELF comfortable with taking people pictures at close range - to the point where raising the camera - click - lowering the camera just feels like the most natural movement in the world.

 

Start with something easy - some places and events are more comfortably "public" than others. In semi-organized crowds (celebrations, religious processions, demonstrations, etc.), you stand out less, and your subjects will also feel more protected in a group. They're also usually involved in something more interesting that using the sidewalk to get from point A to point B, and the distraction of the event itself will help "hide you in plain sight".

 

It's an environment that allows you to build up confidence - and get some good pictures. Seattle should have some bonzer Asian New Year celebrations this weekend, as a venue to start trying this.

 

Once you've built up your own comfort level, then you can start 'working' tougher crowds.

 

You do have to stay in practice - a couple of months away from the 'street' in cold winter months and I have to rebuild my own confidence each spring.

 

I don't 'sneak' pictures. I don't hide the camera, I don't look the other way, I don't shoot 'from the hip'. People, even close-up (the attached images were taken at 3 feet or so with a 21) either notice I'm there, decide I'm too boring to care about, anbd forget about me - or are so involved in what they are really doing, that they never notice at all.<div></div>

[andy_piper2]

Another<div></div>

[andy_piper2]

I will add that using a - well, a "famous rangefinder" camera - gives me "dutch courage".

 

For no justifiable reason it makes me feel less conspicuous when shooting, and thus more comfortable, and that comfort level helps maintain the general comfort level, as described previously.<div></div>

[sprouty]

<I>"..."Street Photography" can only take place in crowded metropolitan areas of big cities."</I>

<P>

Vic, you might want to check out <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=223882">Ian MacEachern</a>.

[mike dixon]

<i>Of course Mike, gorgeous, scantily-clad women rarely object

to being photographed.</i><P>

I spend far more time photographing people in public than I do

photographing models (and the models are usually fully

clothed). If you want to dismiss my views, you'll need to do better

than making distorted implications about the kind of

photography I do.<P>

I actually <i>do</i> spend a lot of time photographing in public

(<a href="http://www.mikedixonphotography.com/

documentary.htm">some older stuff</a>), and I don't encounter

the paranoia that you claim is so widespred.

[._._z]

Or William Eggleston. Or Ken Light's Delta & Mexican work. Or Helen Levitt's decades-

old Mexico City photos. Or work by Cristobal Hara. Or Robert Frank going cross-

country. (Or Lee Friedlander doing the same.) Or Raghubir Singh's rural work.

[vic_.]

<I>you might want to check out Ian MacEachern.</I>

<P>Stephen, thank you very much. I'd better get out and make some non-art!

[Spearhead]

Basically I agree with Dixon about the body modification types. They're generally pretty pleasant and certainly more "normal" than me. However, on one occasion, I did meet some people who let me photograph them, although they wouldn't even talk to me, and then started throwing bottles across the street (not at me, I went the other way.)<p>

 

<center>

<img src="http://www.spirer.com/images/punky1.jpg"><br><i>Punks, Copyright 2000 Jeff Spirer</i></center></center>

[._._z]

<i> I am curious about the ethos of street photography and how it varies among

cultures and regions </i><p>

 

Different individuals within different cultures may act differently, however "invasion of

privacy" is a formal legal term in American and German jurisprudence, whereas in the

United Kingdom and Australia the tort has been denied. <p>

 

<i> Please let me know how you overcome the barriers to street photography, i.e.,

essentially invade someone's personal space. </i><p>

 

Cultural barriers to entering someone's personal space often are barriers belonging to

the photographer. As with all things photographic, practice is the best way to

overcome personal limitations.

[Alex_Es]

Thanks, Josh.

 

--Alex