jenna_g Posted September 18, 2005 Share Posted September 18, 2005 For all you street and documentary shooters, do you have any rules on what you will or will not photograph? Places, people, or situations you will not shoot? Is everything and everyone in a public place fair game? Assuming nothing is being shot illegally, do you believe it is up to each individual photographer to decide? Just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randall ellis Posted September 18, 2005 Share Posted September 18, 2005 Some of the most interesting of these types of images from the past have been very, well, progressive if you will, as far as rules and propriety go. Look at Weegee's images of crime scene photos. They were pretty unheard of at the time, but that is what made them stand out. He shot IR images of people making out in movie theaters and other things that were done but not talked about at the time. I have to go with individual choice on this one. It is up to the photographer to decide if the intrusion into someone elses privacy is worthy or not. You will always be able to find someone who objects to what you are doing, but some things are important to record and others are valuable to soceity as a whole. Not every choice is going to be correct, but then again, who is to say what is correct and what isn't? As long as you are not trespassing, it's your call. - Randy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edmo Posted September 18, 2005 Share Posted September 18, 2005 shoot everything.....wtf? dont let some twisted brain decide what you shoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edmo Posted September 18, 2005 Share Posted September 18, 2005 <i>..."others are valuable to soceity as a whole...."</i> <p> Jenna, most importantly don't BS yourself and shoot for yourself and no one else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted September 18, 2005 Share Posted September 18, 2005 I can't imagine anything I wouldn't shoot if it interested me. www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arond a. Posted September 18, 2005 Share Posted September 18, 2005 Perhaps I'm not as hard-core in that I don't subscribe to the anything-goes ethic. A little personal discretion never hurts, I find. For example, I tend to refrain from taking shots of less than able-bodied people, i.e., those unlucky enough to have obvious afflictions. Homeless people are usually out as well--w/ an occassional exception--because I find it about as fair as clubbing a lame duck. Is there a place in street/documentary photography for something like sportsmanship? It's easy to forget that a camera has a unique tendency to draw attention to others' misfortunes. While it may be intersesting, it doesn't always merit a photo. In short, it's possible to violate social taboos and still be (somewhat) respectful. Feel free to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edmo Posted September 18, 2005 Share Posted September 18, 2005 <i>Feel free to disagree.</i> <p> nah, i actually agree and thought the lame duck analogy was great untill i thought of dead pigeons. anyway, yeah not really interested in homelessness though sometimes the presence of a huiman figure helps regardless of their social status. <p> for me at least there's a diff between shooting and posting, pretty much what goes in the "family album" stays there out of respect for friends and family.... <p> not keen on shooting pics of strangers kids either... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis1 Posted September 18, 2005 Share Posted September 18, 2005 I don't really like shooting people sleeping in public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael s. Posted September 18, 2005 Share Posted September 18, 2005 Big difference to me between having the right to take a picture (virtually anywhere in public) and deciding I want to take it. Then another decision is made as to whether I want to post it anywhere. If people I know are in it, and recognizable, I'll ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted September 18, 2005 Share Posted September 18, 2005 I won't take photos of people living so far over the edge that the people in them would be regarded as pathetic. I've seen photos here like that, and I don't particularly like it. Unless I could really do something for them by showing the photos, I don't even bother taking them. Other than that, I shoot anything I see. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank.schifano Posted September 18, 2005 Share Posted September 18, 2005 I like making photographs of people, but I don't like posting them for all to see. Though it may be legal to do so, I think it's too blatant an invasion of privacy. I'll display the prints in a limited fashion, but would never release them for public consumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edmo Posted September 18, 2005 Share Posted September 18, 2005 <i>the pic is as good as the viewer's ability to see.</i> <p> BS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis1 Posted September 18, 2005 Share Posted September 18, 2005 Pete, you forgot ugly ugly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted September 18, 2005 Share Posted September 18, 2005 Pretty much agree with Arond and Jeff on people living on the street. The random off-axis snap of a person sitting/lying on a sidewalk against a wall with a blanket seems to be a staple with some. Maybe I see more of that on the other forum - kind of cheap shots, in many ways... Arond, really good stuff on you website. www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_west Posted September 19, 2005 Share Posted September 19, 2005 if the light is good, i'll shoot anything. i don't think about anything else. : ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsorsa Posted September 19, 2005 Share Posted September 19, 2005 Arond makes a good point about exploiting "less than able-bodied" but documentary photogs have done work that is damn good and important in "mental" asylums, with drugs addicts, with troubled people, with racists, etc. I attended a lecture/slide show by Eugene Richards last week. His work is so good it hurts, and just as good was his presentation and apparent discomfort with what he sees and shoots, with journalism and documentary photography. One slide showed a troubled man assaulting his grandson by biting him in anger. Another showed a couple fighting and Richards said, "we were afraid it was a sexual assault but fortunately it wasn't." Several times, Richards paused and said something like, "When I see and shoot things like this I have to wonder about documentary work, but..." and he trailed off leaving the point unresolved. A point could be made that documentary photogs who aren't shooting anything that makes them uncomfortable aren't shooting anything new or interesting. An over generalization I admit, but something to consider. Self censorship is ultimately more powerful and dangerous than external censorship, especially since the Internet provides new opportunities for the diffusion of ideas and images. I'm not a street photog so take what I say with a grain... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edmo Posted September 19, 2005 Share Posted September 19, 2005 f*ck fred...what is good? twenty 'viewers' over at the LF say a pic is 'good' and one says it 'sux'...is it 'good'? like i said total BS. seriously...what is a good pic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenna_g Posted September 19, 2005 Author Share Posted September 19, 2005 Thanks for all the answers so far. I'm still contemplating my personal view on all of this. I'll write more on that later.<br><br> edmo says: <i>seriously...what is a good pic?</i><br><br> Virtually every one you post. Seriously! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dxphoto Posted September 19, 2005 Share Posted September 19, 2005 hi, jenna, the rule is --- "no women no children"...---just kidding. i think ur eyes interprete the world, not rules.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
correfoc Posted September 19, 2005 Share Posted September 19, 2005 Documentary photographers don't let non-public spaces or temporary laws and regulations prevent their work. Think about all the excellent work around the world that has been made not "legally" nor in public spaces. Personal ethics is not the same as local or national laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanky Posted September 19, 2005 Share Posted September 19, 2005 My first b&w class had a street/documentory assigment. The teacher advised us to avoid shooting homeless people because it's exploitive and over done. I agree so now several years later I won't photograph homeless people. What's the point? Nothing new or edgy there. Besides, how is one to know for sure if someone is homeless or not? I know a guy who's clothing and grooming is so ratty and unkempt that he's often mistaken for being homeless although he's not. Then there's those scammers who pan handle while holding a "homeless please help God bless" cardboard sign then walk several blocks to their new-ish car and drive on home to their house in the 'burbs. So looks are decieving. However, twice I photographed homeless people. Once because I had one shot left and was anxious to shoot it and head home. A homeless lady was sleeping on a bench but what intrigued me was that she had on a hospital id tag on her wrist despite having all her belongings in a shopping cart next to the bench. So I took the shot with the hospital id dead center in the frame. The other time was another sleeping person (I guess homeless people are more active at night) and again there was a cart piled high with belongings on the top of which sat a Louis Vuitton handbag. Probably fake but still interesting to see even the homeless aspire to owning status symbols. This is what sold me on photographing this. Aside from these two examples though, I agree that shooting homeless people is not the best way for one to spend their time street shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edmo Posted September 19, 2005 Share Posted September 19, 2005 Jenna, thanks...but they are just pics i or we enjoy or feel moved by, that's all. but if others feel the need to judge so be it.... Peter, what a freakin' howl... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
over exposure Posted September 19, 2005 Share Posted September 19, 2005 I guess is up to everyone's personal opinion.. Is there a thing that you feel like useless and that in your opinion has negative effects to you if you take the shot? When it looks so to me, I don't do it, and that for me is pretty much about people wasted for hard life situations..it looks too much like searching the big shot and taking an abuse.. In reality, it can be even different if those photos would be done for a project, or other helpful uses, but again...is up to the situation, to the moment, to the day and more important to you and to your perception of respect. This to me apllies in every kind of streetshot.. bye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis1 Posted September 19, 2005 Share Posted September 19, 2005 well said Peter, well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis1 Posted September 19, 2005 Share Posted September 19, 2005 Is based on how much photoshop is done after the snap, Peter, the reaction that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now