Feature hunters: how aggressive do you need to be?

[mvw photo]

Hi all,

 

Over the past two days, I attended the ECNPA (Eastern Canada Press Photographers

Association) Great White North Workshop in Toronto.

 

What a useful two days! Just about every press photog whose name I know and

respect was there, and several gave incredibly useful seminars.

 

The best one was "Feature Hunting" by a photographer for the Toronto Star. This

guy is a genius as far as I am concerned, as are all these people. Amazing.

 

Part of this session was an hour in which we were all sent out for an hour to

take a feature picture; or what the Star calls a "weather picture". A typical

city shot that looks artistic, or at least technically good, involves people,

tells a City story and can run in the paper across a number of columns.

 

While I feel that I failed (boring shots only), many others did not. And the

thing is, the more "aggressive" the photographer was, the better their pics. The

best ones included a shot of two Chinatown man playing checkers - shot from ON

TOP OF their table (the photographer asked "can I take a pic", and when they

nodded, he climbed onto their table!).

 

Another winning shot was one woman's very sexy hot bright red rubber (!) high

heeled shoes, shot from two inches above the pavement. Just her shoes and bare

ankles. To get the shot, the photographer got behind this woman as she was

waiting to cross the road, and got down on the sidewalk and shot from there. By

the time she realised there was some guy on the ground 2 inches behind her, he

was getting up already.

 

I realise that the reason I fail in these people pictures so often is that I am

too polite - a.k.a. I have insufficient guts. The one time I did shoot people

close up (two altie types sticking a bill on a lamp post), they chased me and

politely threatened to smash up my $4000 camera. I erased the picture rather

than risk that.

 

So - opinions? City "weather shots" (or "enterprise shots" as this Star

photographer prefers to call them) - do they require you to crawl on the

sidewalk behind women's legs? Long lenses to remain unseen? Ask permission and

just accept rejection most of the time? It's easier if you have a press card,

but what do the rest of us do?

 

Michael

[sattler123]

Quote: "It's easier if you have a press card, but what do the rest of us do?"

Shoot landscapes:-)

[mvw photo]

Juergen: yes, or get arrested?

 

But seriously: I think if I get more aggressive I can do it - I certainly appreciate great pj, and if I can recognise it, I can at least get close to it - but can I do that without getting into trouble? What do you all do?

[gaius1]

Agressive? Are these photographers *threatening* people to get them to pose? No!

 

Nothing wrong with being polite; you just can't be shy. What does it matter if you get "rejected"? You will probably never see that person again. Most people are more embarassed to be be asked than you will be to ask.

 

Of course if you can get the shot you want without being noticed, so much the better - true journalism leaves the scene unaffected until the story is published.

 

BTW there is no such thing as a "press card" that gives you universal access and you can flash like a cop's badge.

[brad_w]

Several thoughts here Michael:

 

First- Why is it easier to approach people if you have a press card? Approaching

strangers and asking to take their picture is never easy. You're the one who needs to look

them in the eye and talk to them, whether or not you have a plastic card dangling from

your neck. This may sound strange, but your inhibitions are your own, not a circumstance.

 

Second - Why is it "aggressive" to lay down on a sidewalk or stand on a table? Why is it

impolite? Not that photographers (or writers, or accountants for that matter) can't be

intrusive and rude, but the examples you cite don't strike me that way, just creative

shooters doing their job.

 

Third - OK, so the guys hanging bills on the lamp post weren't nice to you. But they did

notice you and talk to you. That's an entree. Ask them why the don't want their picture

taken. Ask about the event or cause they're publicizing. I don't necessarily ask before I

make a picture, but I do always approach the folks I'm making images of, find out who

they are and a little about them. I explain to them who I am, what I am doing and why.

Sometimes they still they tell me to go away. If they're curious, I'll share my images with

them on my camera LCD. Maybe the guys you ran into were hyper-aggressive,

exceptionally bad seeds, there's nothing you can do about that. Still, it's rare that people

tell me to buzz off, whether I'm doing personal or company work.

 

The best you can do is the same thing anyone does, just be honest.

[chris_johnson17]

I have always taken pictures firt, ask names later. In 99/100 locations I get the picture without the subject knowing I took their picture. After I get the shot I approach the people and introduce myself. I never tell them I took their picture, I ask if I can get their names and take a picture. If they do not want their picture taken I say "thanks for your time, have a good day, etc" and walk off knowing I have a picture still and can always save the picture for a stock photo or run the picture with a general cutline (depends on the scene).

 

It only takes going up to 10-20 people and asking for their name to be comfortable walking up to anyone and talking with them.

 

Also, I always carry 2 memory cards with me. If I were to have to erase the image for any need like in your case, I would switch to my backup card as soon as I walk away. Even though the image has been deleted, only the physical address of the image is gone. Card recovery software can recover those images.

[peter_s.1]

A few months ago I participated at the street march. There was a women dance group preparing for the parade, and then one pro photographer came. Basically, he shoot all of them from every angle you can ever imagine, sometimes his lens were as close as 20 cm from those girls face! The most spectacular scene I noticed happened when two of the girls were returning from the toilet located at the nearby park. The girls were running clothed in their beautifull dresses, and the photographer was running alongside them, taking as much pictures as he could. :-)

 

I watched him for some time, and he didn't say anything for the whole shooting period, nor did he asked for permission to shoot. Neither did I saw his presscard. He just acted like a pro and nobody questioned him. He just looked like a man doing his job.

 

So I think, it is a matter of building your "guts" and get rid of your unneeded thoughts like "I am afraid", or "they will object".

 

Peter

[gaius1]

" He just acted like a pro and nobody questioned him."

 

That's the secret really. Last year I was shooting an anti-war march, the police had the protestors tightly boxed in, but they parted their line and let me through, not just once either, I had complete freedom of movement. I just looked the part, and I acted in a professional manner, polite to the cops and the protestors alike, getting a shot then moving on, not getting caught up in either "side". Got no trouble from the protestors either, even tho' they were pushing against the cops and some were throwing things.

[mvw photo]

I've shot demos and have no problem acting the same as the pros there. I get some good shots at these demos: I shoot as many as I can.

 

But that is easy - demonstrators expect to be photographed.

 

It is the ordinary street stuff, the "getting on the sidewalk behind a woman's shoes and shooting before she knows you're there" stuff that I find harder. Not that I won't do it - but that really IS easier if you can say "I am with the Toronto Star" - it takes away all the doubt. The same applies, only even more so, when photographing children.

 

Those two guys sticking bills the other day threatening politely to destroy my camera if I did not erase their picture are a good example. I bet if I has been the Star they would have been more circumspect in their threats.

 

Mike

[brad_w]

"It is the ordinary street stuff.....Not that I won't do it - but that really IS easier if you can

say "I am with the Toronto Star" - it takes away all the doubt. The same applies, only even

more so, when photographing children."

 

All what doubt? If you subject doesn't trust you and you don't trust yourself, then you

need to be asking some hard questions about your motivations. I suggest reading Susan

Sontag's "On Photography"

 

At the risk of repeating myself, Mike, being employed by a publication doesn't grant you

legitimacy or moral carte blanche. If you feel that you are exploiting, deceiving,

threatening or violating your subject by making a picture, why does publishing that picture

change the nature of that interaction? To my mind, putting that pic out in front of

thousands of pairs of eyes for the glory and fincancial gain of yourself and your employer

only makes it worse. If the dynamic feels morally dubious, it is your obligation to resolve

that.

 

If you feel uncomfortable photographing a stranger's kid either don't do it, or explain to

the parent what you're doing and why. ("I'm a hobbyist photographer and your kid looked

like he was having a great time on the playground....Here's my business card and phone

number...Look, here's the picture I made. Sure, I can send you a print.) Maybe they'll call

the cops on you. Maybe they'll just ask you to stop, but if you're honest, respectful and

personable, most likely not.

 

Unlike the previous poster, I always tell my subjects that I've made a picture of them, and

more often than not, what that picture was...."I saw your daugther dancing and a spotlight

fell on her and I thought it made a great picture...can I find out your name for the paper?"

when the answer is "No, her picture can't be in the paper..." followed by an awkard, trailing

silence I feel a lot better for having been clear about the situation.

 

Sontag's "On Photography". Strongly recommended. -B

[mvw photo]

Ah:

 

<i>All what doubt? If you subject doesn't trust you and you don't trust yourself, then you need to be asking some hard questions about your motivations.</i><p>

 

Oh, hang on! I trust myself and my motivations just fine, but society is pretty crazy now. It is unfair to blame ME for that, surely? If you take a picture of anyone, let alone their kids, you are not unlikely to get into argument unless you have a reason that is perceived to be valid. And "I work for the Star: can I get your name for tomorrow's paper?" is a LOT more likely to be perceived as valid than "Can I have your name; I am a freelance street photographer".

<p>

 

 

<i>At the risk of repeating myself, Mike, being employed by a publication doesn't grant you legitimacy or moral carte blanche.</i><p>

 

No - but it does, I think, give you instant credibility. No-one questions a press photographer as much as a freelancer with a business card. Hang on: what business? Where? Why? Why me? Etc.

<p>

 

I am probably the same myself. If I saw some guy taking my picture I would be relieved if he showed me a Toronto Star card. If not, I might ask some probing questions too.

<p>

 

 

<i>If you feel that you are exploiting, deceiving, threatening or violating your subject by making a picture...</i><p>

 

Oh no - I don't! Again, it is not ME - it is the SUBJECT's perception, however wrong, that sets the tone for the interaction. I am not at all exploiting people by taking their picture.

<p>

 

 

<i>If you feel uncomfortable photographing a stranger's kid either don't do it, or explain to the parent what you're doing and why.</i><p>

 

No argument there - I would ask before taking the picture. But again, the question may be met with lack of comprehension.

<p>

 

The two youths (street kids, in their early 20s) sticking bills onto a lamp post were a good example of that. They ran after me and basically threatened to destroy my camera gear. I explained what I was doing - it made them even more willing to destroy my gear, I get the impression. OK, it was not a great shot so I deleted it, not wanting to get into a big argument - but I bet if I had been a press photographer I wouldn't have had the threats.

<p>

 

Oh and I had/have business card, by the way :-)

<p>

 

Keep the advice coming though: like all the advice here, it is much appreciated.

<p>

 

Michael

[gaius1]

I tried to read On Photography, but found it incomprehensible. Sontag believes that a lens is a phallic symbol and taking a picture is the equivalent of rape. But then, the fact that she was an entirely unremarkable photographer says all that needs to be said. My advice to anyone is - don't take any advice from a photographer who isn't consistently making pictures you admire. Including me!

[brad_w]

Mike - I apologize if you felt accused by my last post. I do not doubt your intentions. I

was struggling to state the full implications of my thoughts in few words, which came out

as strong language. I do think, though, that there are several issues getting lumped

together.

 

First - credibility isn't the issue. I'd guess the guys chasing you believed that you were

who you said you were. You need to provide the subject with a reason to accept you

presence and your activity. Those guys clearly didn't want you around and it sounds like

there was very little you were going to say to change their minds. That happens. Comes

with the territory, and it sucks. No doubt. The central issues are trust and acceptance and

no press card is going to get you that. In the case of anything countercultural, a press

cred often works against you. Obviously if you were a Star employee, you would have had

the legal and financial resources of the organization behind you, which may have deterred

those guys from threatening you, but I don't think that's really the issue here.

 

Being a freelance street photographer isn't a reason to take a picture. It's the end use of

the image that matters. Typically freelancers are hired by someone, producing an image

for your client is the reason to take a picture. If the end use is your own profit (ie. you sell

art prints or stock), then that is the reason you're taking the picture. Telling a subject

these things is tangible and meaningful and lets your intentions be known. People

understand what the newspaper is, that is why they accept news shooters. I've had people

tell me to take a hike when I told them who I shoot for because my paper once ran an

editorial or article critical of them, or their business. One guy even told me to get lost just

'cause he thought it was a bad paper. Rejection is part of the game.

 

Being a hobbyist or working on a personal project is also a reason to make a pictures -

expressing your vision is something that brings joy and meaning to your life. Before I was

a pro I went to shoot at a local skate park. The kids saw I had a big camera and avoided

me like the plague. I asked a few of them if I could take pic's. The leader of the gang said

"You from the paper?" I said, no, I just like taking pictures. He thought about it for a

second. "That's cool..." and I was in. Turns out some pro had done a photo shoot with one

of the kids and promised big returns that never came, hence the mistrust.

 

There are many ways that photographers can exploit their subjects, not all of them involve

misrepresenation or pornography. For example - a colleague of mine never shows their

work to their subjects, even in the case of long-term projects that take weeks or months

and often involve photographing very intimate and sensitive situations. The fear is that

the subject won't like the work and will cut off access. Issues of journalistic neutrality

aside, this, to me , is exploitive - willfully deceiving somone who you're asking to trust

you. Sontag would say that capturing your subject's beauty or uniqueness and possessing

it for person gratification is exploitive. I won't go that far, but I see her point.

 

Which brings me back to the sexy red shoe - well, undoubtedly that woman knew she was

wearing sexy red shoes, and it's not unlikey that she would have been amused, even

flattered by the photog's picture. Or maybe she'd feel exploited and degraded. That

image could have drawn a a whole suite of viewer responses from moral outrage to

amused laughter or lascivious glaring. My point here is that you never know what

psychology a subject or viewer brings to a photo and you can't take responsibility for it.

You are responsible for being honest with yourself and your subject about your intentions.

If your subject knows and is comfortable with that, they'll let you

make pictures. If not, then not. - B

[brad_w]

Guy - Sontag's main conern is/was the moral-value and truth-vaue of photographs, and how

those values both affect and are affected by society. She was a social critic, not an artist and

never intended to give advice on how to be a good photographer. Her ideas are important to

photographers who care about the social implications and consequences of their work. Mike

is asking about one aspect of that - how to make the act of making pictures socially

acceptable. -B

[ratface1]

Be as aggressive as it takes to get the photo that you see and want.

 

For my paper, I often:

-Climb on top of my car, tables, ladders, roof tops. A recent assignment saw me photograph a horse and rider - I sat on the horse to get a good angle.

-Lay in dirty fields, floors, roads, sidewalks.

-Get inside things

-I shoot them ask, almost always. In Canada, we can shoot anybody and anything we want who are in a public place. They can complain, but the only thing stopping you from taking and publishing that photo is politeness. If somebody is against hteir photograph being published, I'll be nice and not do it (barring news worthy accident photo's, etc.)

 

Just constantly think outside the box, move around. Shoot everything from 3 or angles. Get above, below, beside, behind, inside. Whatever.

[mvw photo]

I like that advice, and I shall try to follow it more and more.

 

So the street guy who politely threatened to destroy my camera was not legally entitled to require me to delete the photo? I mean, I was happy enough to delete rather than have a 5D with 24-70 2.8L thrown on the ground, of course...

[gaius1]

Even a cop can't demand you erase/hand over your memory card. Basically (in the UK at least) if you are in a public place you have no right not to be photographed.

[mvw photo]

In the UK, I can see this makes sense, what with the average Londoner being on CCTV 300 times a day!<p>

 

<a href="http://www.willems.ca/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/IMG_1657_small.jpg">Example of same</a> :-)

[mvw photo]

(I apologise: that was OT - just could not resist:)

[ratface1]

Michael - nope, nobody can make you erase on public or private for that matter. Trust me on that, as I studied journalism laws.

 

On public property everything is fair game. If you go onto private property (an sports arena, store, etc), they can't make you erase, but can tell you to leave. Or, they can attempt to detain you until the police arrive, but not even police can tell you to erase...

 

Although it's your rights, it's kinda your call how much hassel the photo is worth...if you like the photo and had an afternoon to kill..well...

 

Now, if somebody is threatening violence, perhaps it is in your best interest to leave or erase....but honestly, if a guy threatened to smash my gear, the last thing I'd let him do is get close enough to see the back of my camera for proof I erased....I'd walk away, run away, call for help, and as a last resort, let him taste the long end of the monopod...That's your gear and your livlihood on the line!

 

Eitherway, find a system that gives you hte confidence to approach people and get the shot you want. Don't worry about making a goof of yourself, you'll just be a goof with a sweet looking photograph!!

[mvw photo]

That is excellent advice and just what I wanted to hear.

 

In fact I am not as hesitant as I may sound here. I do not mind looking like a goof - I recall some shooting I did at the British Museum in London recently where I was sitting on the ground in the middle of the Great Hall, with people trying to avoid me all over.. and yes, I looked silly but got some good shots.

 

As for the two bill-sticking guys in Toronto: they were clever. Clever enough not to actually threaten to bust up my gear: but there was no doubt about the way they said "We are being nice... we are NOT threatening to throw your equipment on the ground.. that looks like very nice equipment... it would be a pity if it fell, wouldn't it...".

 

:)

[erin.e]

And don't forget to use the good advice from the poster above that will delete the image if nessesary to solve the immeadiate problem then change to another CF card, as he said the files are still on the card even if deleted, and not permanantly erased until overwritten by another image and can be recovered quite simply by an image recovery programme such as this <a href="http://www.z-a-recovery.com/digital-image-recovery.htm ">Freeware</a> program

[kiliii]

Michael, my 2 cents here.

 

I do believe that photography is an active process, and that the very act of shooting impacts the world being photographed. In fact, I think the physicist Heisenberg showed that to be true on the atomic level for any level of observation-- as soon as you observe something, it changes!

 

However, I am a freelance photographer, and an activist one at that. I believe that if we can honestly justify to ourselves that the price paid for shooting with a camera will be paid by the beneficence it creates, then it is worth it. It's an experience call and matter of opinion on whether you've balanced all the factors to come out positive!

 

Six years ago I left my small design and photography boutique, not wanting to ever again sell something to someone that they didn't actually need. Three years after that, I began again, and this time making a vow to myself that every step I took would benefit my children and my children's children's children. So today I shoot as an activist photojournalist and a non-profit photographer. I'm a long way from making any significant difference in the world, but it doesn't really matter. My soul is more peaceful, and my photography is driven with pure passionate inspiration today.

 

Good luck looking for your place as a photographer in this world! I know we all do, every day.

[to-mas]

my 2cents

 

CREDIBILITY

- I agree that is much easier to say ,,I am from press" then ,,I am student/freelance/etc".Mostly if you shoot on the street just the street life.

 

If you shoot some demonstration its mostly enough to act like pro.

 

ABOUT POLITENESS

- i have often the similar problem as MIKE.I use to work for newspapers and now after 2years doing something else I get back to press photography.

On many occasion I have feeling that I am just to polite or take more care for others members of public/object than for my photos.

Some examples

I made some shoots on final casting for MISS of Buety in my country.I made some basic shoots, than check them them with colleague, than try to find some good angles as my first photos where to basic/boring.But to the point.

I had feeling that some of the photographers took many photos just for them self (thats still ok) but the way how they took them leave feeling in me (and in some models as well probably) that they used that young girls just as sexual objects for they non artistic photos with no respect to the person. Its hard to describe for me. Its true that that girls should be OK with that, if they came there but anyway.If my memory dont lie to me I saw one photographer going with wide angle lens so close to one girls breast that he nearly touch it.

I need to say that maybe my point of view is different as I have no interest in TAKING sexual/act photography.

 

Another general example

On the concert or in the theater I am of course looking for good angle, moment, light etc.But meanwhile I try to dont disturb the paying audience.

Many times I have right to stand in the front of first line of chairs for whole concert/etc and that paying costumer behind my 186cm tall body cant don nothing about it.

But I try to find angle, wait for the light, be prepare for the moment and when I think is worth it I stand up.And If I have for a example 50 photos of singer from that angle and I know nothing will change and my work is done I just sit down on the side.

Maybe its sound that this is normal, but I have feeling that some of my college dont act like this.