Ethics of sticking a camera in someones face?

[marko_kovacevic]

I do it, but some people are against it.

 

 

Whats your opinion, and no flame wars please.

[SCL]

If they are in a place with an expectation of privacy, that privacy should be respected. If they are in a public forum where privacy is not a reasonable expectation, let the paparazzi have a field day.

[Spearhead]

We just went through something that was essentially the same:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Mzls

 

and you can see how that ended.

[mike dixon]

What exactly do you mean by "sticking a camera in someones face"? Walking up, shoving the camera up to within a few inches of the subject's nose, and snapping the shot?

[john_hughes4]

I suppose the question is 'would you mind someone sticking a camera in your face'?Personally I use my 70-200 for portraits because 1/ I'm a hypocrite 2/You catch natural expressions 3/the background can be completely detached, and of course 4/Nobody knows you're a peeping Tom, except yourself.

[john_hughes4]

I will add that in my many travels to China, my big nose and curly hair have been photographed god knows how many times, and has often allowed a first contact with people (verbal not physical).Doisneau was a case of what, and what not to do.He used to sit for hours in Parisien bars, so as to become part of the furniture, an ordinary client, part of the scenery, and eventually pull out his discret Leica (not 26 tons of alloy and a lighthouse flash)and take his photos.Whereas the famous 'Baisers de l'hotel de ville' was a retake.He asked the kissing couple to do that again, and I believe that decades after they are still fighting over the copyright money.

[root]

Most of these were shot with either a 10.5 fisheye or 12-24, so "in your face" isn't too much of an exaggeration. People react in various ways, as you can see. The only "subject" I actually spoke with first is the one with her hand in front of the camera, laughing the whole time.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=742817

[._._z]

Ask Bruce Gilden.

[doug grosjean]

It depends.

 

I'd say (speaking as a subject when kayaking or speaking publicly), asking first is the polite thing to do even in public where you don't legally have to ask. And that putting a camera close to somebody's face w/o asking is a good way of getting it damaged, even if accidentally.

 

No, I don't mean I'd break a camera intentionally. My own experience when the damage thing could easily happen is when I've been kayaking, and I'm carrying my boat and gear over boulders, dripping wet myself and trying to keep balance and momentum, and suddenly there's a photog in my face. Some people need to think a little more before they put themselves in harm's way.

 

I'd also say (as the father of a son who hates to be photographed), that sometimes in public, who cares? But you likely won't get any excellent shots w/o shooting a lot if your subject is unwilling. Easier to find a willing subject than to beat yourself up with an obstinate one.

[jtdnyc]

Ask Bruce Gilden's subjects.

[bobtodrick]

I think it depends on how you present yourself. RE: John Hughes...it is exactly your reasons #1 and #4 that give street shooters a bad name in my opinion. Skulking 10m away trying to 'sneak' that shot to me guarantees that the subject is going to wonder just what the hell you are doing...gives him a sour taste about street shooters (sneaky bastards) and just may get the crap beat out of you.

 

I've always used a wide or normal. I've always been close enough that no one has ever accused me of sneaking a shot. And I've very seldom missed a shot because of it.

[sjluke]

Being new to the "big bad city", every day brings jaw dropping--to me--scenes. Today I witnessed the most in your face shooting I've seen so far.<div></div>

[maris_rusis]

Australia is a pretty relaxed place but even here I am resigned to being permanently on camera (or many cameras) in any public concourse or any big shop. If someone points another camera at me so what.

 

Really, I have no expectations of outdoor privacy. Nevertheless I am privileged. Because I have no public profile the extra camera cannot take from me the last thing I own, my anonymity.

[john_hughes4]

Fortunately,unlike the self-righteous Mister Todrick (whose doubts about my parents marital status are totally unfounded)I live in a civilised society where photographers dont get beat up.Such behaviour we regard with the same comtempt as the courage of being agressive on an internet forum with people who live ten thousand miles away.Which seems to appear more and more on this site.For my next trip to Tibet'(I work with an NGA who wants to stop forced prostitution amongst Tibetan women).I will be only to pleased to share it with fearless Rambographers.In the meantime, might I suggest that certain people buy themselves a f 1:2 sense of humour,whilst waiting for an 'I'm the best forum'on which evan after only a few weeks on this site I know who will be on it.'And some fell on stony ground'.

[petemillis]

Come to UK - we have more CCTV cameras than anyone - 4,200,000 cameras - that's one for every 14 people. If we pop into town we can enjoy being caught by, on average, 300 cameras. We even have "talking" cameras where the CCTV controller can tell trouble makers that they've been caught on video, or can tell people to pick up a piece of litter they dropped. We have cameras that read out car registration plates so a computer an check us automatically against the police national computer database. Most of us I think are kind of immune to CCTV cameras. They serve a purpose in reducing crime in certain areas, they have got a huge number of untaxed and uninsured vehicles off the road and enabled location of stolen vehicles, the fact that they have helped target dodgy and stolen vehicles has resulted in successfully catching drug dealers, robbers etc. But they have also led to the displacement of things like anti social behaviour on burglary to areas where there are none, or fewer, cameras, in exactly the same way as increasing police patrols in problem areas does.

 

HOWEVER, I still say there is a difference between CCTV and being photographed by another person. We don't take CCTV personally - yep, it is an invasion of privacy, but saying that they're in public places where everyone keeps saying we can't expect to have any privacy anyway. But CCTV is something that watches us all - it's just like increased background noise to which we become desensitised. Another person taking a picture of you is something far more personal. If you don't notice them then of course you won't take it personally - they've just caught a snap of someone who they haven't interacted with and you don't even know it. But if you and the photographer catch sight of this then it is personal, and whether it feels ok for the subject depends largely on the attitude and appearance of the photographer. If the photographer is sneaky then the subject may feel they're being spied on by the Department of Social Security or something. If the photographer is, or looks to be, aggressive in their approach, shoving a camera straight in the subject's face, then the subject is likely to react either defensively and hide or return the aggression. It's all to do with feelings and understanding. If it feels right then it probably isn't wrong. But then for some shots I see - photos of police arresting drug dealers, photos of dodgy deals, then the approach is going to be more stealthy init?

 

Over here, the photographers that I think people feel most comfortable with are Japanese tourists.

[clive1]

'I'm the best forum'on which evan after only a few weeks on this site I know who will be on it.'And some fell on stony ground'.

 

What does this mean, John?

[john_hughes4]

Seeing as you asked Clive...I came on photo net as I was told it was the most interesting.As an ethnologist, photography for me became a necessary part of explaining and alas sometimes preserving the last elements of condemned cultures.The arty part was never my style.I've been amazed to see beginners make basic questions on photo net,and be answered immiediately by 'veterans'who can still take there time to help,thats what its all about.Unfortunately I wandered blindly into the Philosophical and Casual Forums which are often anything but that.People like myself who try to minimise post-treatment are treated as 'Purists'who have no Ps knowledge etc.If there is one thing that I cant tolerate ,its intolerance.A forum is an exchange not a personal ego outlet.In fact the 'i'm the best' forum will create itself.Those who consider themselves the cream '(you know the thick stuff on top)will eventually isolate themselves, as I am about to do in China, to take interesting photos.Sorry Marko this has nothing to do with your question, but as I was asked.

[bobtodrick]

Ohhh...a little touchy aren't we Mr. Hughes? In case you haven't noticed, this forum is not about helping newbies with their tech problems...it's about discussing ethics and DIFFERING philosophies of photograpy...sorry if I impinged upon YOUR obviously CORRECT philosophy.

 

I hope (truly do) that your upcoming series is successful...but we're not talking here about curing the worlds ills...we're discussing if there is a morality behind photographing people who expect some degree of privacy in their day to day lives.

 

I think they do.

 

Just because they are sitting in a public cafe...if they are engrossed in a personal conversation you can bet your damn ass they do not feel they are fair game for someone sitting the other side fo the cafe with a long lens snapping away because they feel they look interesting.

 

But I'm assuming Mr. Hughes that in your opinion they're wishes or thoughts do not matter?

[waltflanagan]

Sticking a camera in someone's face may be legal but I consider it unethical. Ethics are personal values and I try to follow the golden rule. I don't want someone sticking a camera in my face so I won't stick one in their face.

 

Personally I don't find "street photography" interesting at all. If I see someone I want to take a picture of then I ask them.

[Allen Herbert]

Sticking a camera in someone's face may be legal but I consider it unethical

 

It's unethical to sit eating your big fatty juicy burger while the odd million are dying of starvation. That's unethical. Taking photos of life, so what. If you see it,why is it a big deal to photograph it.

 

Perhaps the wicked,unethical,callous, candid photographers should stick to a few back shots.<div></div>

[Allen Herbert]

Carry on folks, just a photo break....<div></div>

[Allen Herbert]

Or,perhaps...<div></div>

[Spearhead]

Bob Todrick hits on an important point with his comment on #4. How can it be considered "better" to shoot someone sneakily from a distance than to obviously stick a camera in someone's face? Also, with #3, what street shooter (which is who generally are regarded to be the ones "sticking a camera in someone's face") chooses to remove the "street" from their photos?

 

Also, forum threads are not the place to whine about the forum.

[petemillis]

Jeff, I think there is a difference from the point of view of the subject between having a camera shoved in their face and being photographed from a distance. If someone was photographing me in the street, I would feel far more uncomfortable with a camera being shoved in my face - not because of the fact that someone was taking my picture, but because of the fact that the act of the photographer would be so blatantly drawing attention to me. If everybody started looking at me as they knew a photographer had just shoved a camera in my face then I know for a fact that I would get hot and bothered, get a bit sweaty, and then it escalates - I would get even more hot and bothered and sweaty knowing that people had noticed me getting hot, bothered and sweaty. If someone were to be more discrete about it and photograph me from a few metres away, then in all likelihood it wouldn't draw any attention to me from anyone else, and it wouldn't bother me.

[bobtodrick]

I'm a strong believer in Capas' "If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough."

 

When I look at all of the 'famous' street photo images...HCB, Doisneau, etc it is usually obvious that the people knew they were being photographed...often they are looking directly into the camera.

 

Nothing to me is more boring than a photo that, because of it's perspective it is obvious the shooter stood at a distance and 'sneaked' the shot. Any photo of people (IMO) needs some interaction from the subject. Otherwise it is just a boring photo that could have been taken with anyone with the skill to set the camera on auto and press the shutter...really great street photos have an intimacy that does say something about the person being photographed.