Ethics of sticking a camera in someones face?

[petemillis]

Bob, why does a street photo need interaction from the subject? Interaction from the subject turns it into an environmental portrait shot with the street as the environment. Isn't it just as good, or maybe better, for a street photo to have interaction between subjects? The image is then that of an observer looking on with the photographer not having intruded on whatever is going on. I know this stuff has been covered to death, but I sometimes get the impression that by being too prescriptive in what constitutes a street photograph it can lead to lack of variety, and maybe a picture of someone waving a fist at the camera, or scowling at the camera, or whatever becomes a bit cliche.

[sprouty]

<I>"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.</I>

<P>

Demonstrably untrue. Interaction with the photographer has been used to great effect by some street photographers (William Klein comes to mind immediately) but to suggest that it was an overriding aesthetic element of "all the famous street photo images" is far from the truth.

[Norma Desmond]

I agree with Pete and sp ... . I think street photography can be many things, and can be as

effective and brilliant with knowing subjects and with unknowing subjects.

 

 

I agree with Bob that a lot of so-called street photos are boring because of a distancing of

photographer and subject. I don't think the subject has to know what's going on in order

for the photographer to bridge that distance (and, yes, sometimes distance is effective and

warranted). I think many so-called street photographers think that simply snapping the

shutter in the general direction of a protest, a hooker, or a homeless person conveys some

sort of great meaning. Often it does not. Engagement with the content of a photograph

doesn't require disclosure or the subject knowing. It involves the photographer knowing

how to take a compelling picture (and some luck at coming across photogenic situations

or great skill at creating them).

[sitemistic]

Fred, I agree. A lot of street photography amounts to someone snaping a lot of random

photos with a wide angle lens and then "discovering" photos when they get the prints

back. You can sometime get some interesting photos that way, but I don't know that it has

much to do with the photographer.

 

<p>I don't personally care if people take photos of me on the street. The fact that I'm

almost aways carrying a camera makes me something of a subject for other photographers

anyway. In fact, the only photo I have of myself in my office is one another photographer

shot of me shooting on the street at some event or another.

 

<p>I don't really think it's an ethical issue. Any expectation of privacy in a public place is

confused thinking. If you don't want others to see you, to look at you, or even to snap

photos of you, you should stay behind locked doors at home.

 

<p>Dozens of people see us everyday going about our business. They mentally criticize

our size, weight, what we are wearing, etc. The fact that we are not aware of their

observation doesn't take it away. So what is different when a camera is involved? The

photographer has taken nothing from us. She can't use our images commercially without

our permission. And if someone wants to post a photo of me to a forum like this, or hang

that image in a gallery, what has that taken from me? I was simply walking down the

street? I didn't do anything remarkable that deserves some kind of compensation.

[ilkka_nissila]

I would find it offensive if someone came really close to me on the street to take a picture. I don't mind at all if someone takes a picture of me as long as they are not right next to me, invading my space. I think the photographer should give the subject room and thus respect whatever they're doing by not interfering. Sometimes this "get close" "rule" some photographers have gets abused badly - photographer standing 50 cm from the subject (e.g. a trumpet player in a band) and taking the picture with a wide angle. Come on, the person is playing, surely you are making them nervous. You could even accidentally collide with them if you're not careful.

 

A more discreet approach from the photographer, where they do not directly affect what the subject is doing is much better in my opinion. Anyway, that's how I feel.

 

I also think that pictures where the subject is isolated with a clean smooth background nicely complement pictures which show the environment.

[Spearhead]

<i>photographer standing 50 cm from the subject (e.g. a trumpet player in a band) and taking the picture with a wide angle. Come on, the person is playing, surely you are making them nervous</i><P>Then you haven't tried this. I stand inches from musicians and other performers. If they are good at what they are doing, I am not even there. I have worked so close to fire performers that I have been singed, but they have not once said anything. I've never been told I was too close to any performer, and I do this almost every week. I don't see any photos of yours that show you have experience with this, I highly recommend trying it.<p><i>I also think that pictures where the subject is isolated with a clean smooth background nicely complement pictures which show the environment.</i><p>It depends on what you are trying to do. For street photography, which is typically where one "sticks the camera in someone's face," isolation is usually a bad thing, making the point of doing it that way irrelevant. Much easier to ask them to stand somewhere with a background that is easily isolated.

[petemillis]

Jeff, I think this is where the photographer has to be sympathetic to the feelings of the subject - you say "I stand inches from musicians and other performers. If they are good at what they are doing, I am not even there.", which is fair enough if the musician or performer is good. But, not all are exceptionally good or confident - I know many who are dead nervous about performing in public and find it very hard when their band or whatever is called on to do so. A camera close in could well see one go to pieces. But I know many others as well who are extremely confident and outgoing who will either play up to the camera or not even notice it as they are so engrossed in what they are doing. I suppose it must come as sort of second nature knowing how a particular performer is going to react - I certainly don't have any experience of this myself, but it's something I am going to be doing with my mate's band. I know they'll either play up or ignore me, and there's no chance of making them cry!

[bobtodrick]

Quote: "And if someone wants to post a photo of me to a forum like this, or hang that image in a gallery, what has that taken from me?"

 

Jim, can you please pinpoint the exact point in time in which it became accepted that how YOU feel about you're being photographed, is how everyone should feel.

 

You don't really get it...for example in some cultures and religions taking a photos does, in that persons mind, steal from their soul. So they probably wouldn't want you taking their photo...but of course your response seems to be that as long as I do it at a distance and they don't know I'm photographing them...so what?

 

I guess ethics are dead in our society.

[bobtodrick]

Have a look here: http://www.joeyl.com/index2a.php specifically the 'Homeless' and 'Photojournalism' sections. I find these images far more compelling than any image I've seen of some homeless guy wandering down the street from a block away, totally unaware of the fact that he was someones photo subject.

 

Images like these show the plight of these people, yet also shows that they are human beings with emotion and dignity...something that is pretty difficult to show from 100yds away.

 

As an aside...this guy is 17!

[sprouty]

Bob, what modern culture has a fear of soul-stealing cameras? And besides, since when do we lump street photographers and anthropologists in the same photographic genre?

 

The point is simple: no one appreciates a stranger invading their personal space, we could all agree on that. But we could also agree that that isn't how most street photographers practice the craft.

 

And Pete, as a practicing musician, I can tell you that a camera or two is the last thing anyone worries about once they're on stage in front of an audience.

[bobtodrick]

sp...firstly, no where did I say 'modern cultures' had this belief.

 

But here is a quote from of all things a publication from 'Wedding Directory'..."The religious belief that a photograph can steal a soul, imprisoning it within its amalgam of polyester, celluloid, salts and gelatin (or perhaps a CCD if you are into digital photography) is still shared by many cultures across the globe. From Native Americans to the Aborigines of Australia, there are those who refuse to be photographed."

 

So, from what I get from your post, because old cultures (Aborigines and Native Americans) don't count?

I actually live in a Canadian city with a fair number of Cree and Mohawk decendants...and I have a friend on one of the Tribal councils. And yes, the elders do not like thier photographs taken.

[Norma Desmond]

I think there are valid personal ethical reasons for not shoving cameras in people's faces

and for avoiding taking certain photographs in certain situations.

 

I am not persuaded by religious arguments.

 

Religion is, by nature, illogical.

 

Many religions have many tenets which I find bizarre. I feel no compelling reason either to

respect beliefs which I consider, in many cases, to be irrational and, in some cases,

to be harmful and deplorable.

 

We all have to live with many modern-day intrusions, bank cameras, street cameras, cell

phone talkers on our streets and roads. There are always trade-offs when going out in

public. In a big city one will especially be accosted by all kinds of offensive behavior, from

unsuitable parents yelling at kids for no reason to dogs barking endlessly in the middle of

the night, to taxi drivers blowing their horns relentlessly. It's called civilization. Can I insist

that parents not discipline their children in public in a way I find offensive? I think not,

unless they cross a legal line. Same is true for those who find public photographers

offensive. Those people's rights end with the photographer's rights begin.

 

I try to

have respect for others as humans. I think we all deserve basic humanitarian treatment.

It's more a collective matter. I don't feel the need to provide special treatment for

everyone's individual beliefs.

[sitemistic]

Bob, I do "really get it." It's not just a matter of "my" reaction. The reality is that people are

looking at you, watching you, sizing you up every minute you are in public. I'm doing the

same thing, only I have a camera in my hand.

 

<p>And if someone is afraid of having their soul stolen, perhaps a crowded street in New

York City isn't the best place to be.

[Spearhead]

<i>A camera close in could well see one go to pieces.</i><P>I've shot several hundred musicians and performers in the last year, and not one has cared. I've never heard from any of the performance photographers I talk with regularly that this is an issue. Once again, "could" doesn't mean much here. I do it all the time, nobody has ever "gone to pieces." Neither have I.

[waltflanagan]

What is the definition of in your face? I don't want a photographer within 2 feet of me or obstructing my progress. I'm basically picturing paparazzi. Further back than that and on the sides I don't care.

[bobtodrick]

Sorry Jim and Fred...but in essence you are both saying that because you feel a certain way, everyone should be treated the way you wish.

 

And Fred...I find your comments on religion deplorable (and I don't consider myself to be religous in any way). But your statement ' I feel no compelling reason either to respect beliefs which I consider, in many cases, to be irrational and, in some cases, to be harmful and deplorable.'...well lets draw the logical conclusion (arrording to your statement)...there is not one thing wrong with the roadside bombings/murders in Iraq...most of these people truly believe the Wests' involvement in their country is 'harmful and deplorable'.

 

And according to your statement they don't have to consider our feelings at all...you say you don't care.

 

Sad...really sad.

[ilkka_nissila]

Bob, some of those images in that website in the PJ section were taken with telephotos. The lens does not dictate the content of the picture or whether it is compelling or not. Sometimes a long lens is appropriate, and sometimes not. It is up to you. The tele is not what makes a shot lifeless in case of a failure, it is usually the timing of the photographer.

[Norma Desmond]

Bob--

 

You have made a really quite outrageous leap and I've read enough of your comments to

expect a more thoughtful response than the one you gave.

 

My finding religion illogical and deplorable and not giving the feelings of religious people

any special weight doesn't mitigate the fact that I would fight for their right to have those

feelings. I just won't personally infringe on my own rights in order to respect or obey their

tenets.

 

As far as the bombings and murders in Iraq, it is a much more complicated matter than

most of us are really willing to look at. That having been said, I don't think they have to

respect or like our beliefs and I don't think they do respect or like our beliefs. But

murdering us for our beliefs is a bit of a different matter, no?

 

I was

suggesting my not altering my own behavior because of others' beliefs. I was not

suggesting proactively doing anything to harm religious or any other people, which would

be against my own and most other ethical codes. Your analogy to Iraq fails to recognize

this quite basic consideration.

 

You see, I can draw a distinction between not respecting someone's ideas and hurting

them. Unfortunately, many can't. Ironically, many of those people throughout history who

didn't draw that distinction and who murdered in the name of their beliefs were religious.

[ilkka_nissila]

Bob, a few of those images in that website (in the PJ section) seem to have been taken with telephotos. Good timing and light can make a shot spring to life, irrespective of the distance between the photographer and the subject.

<p>

Jeff wrote: <i>Then you haven't tried this. I stand inches from musicians and other performers. If they are good at what they are doing, I am not even there.</i>

<p>

If everyone acts professionally, then there is no problem.

[ilkka_nissila]

I remember visiting the Vietnam Memorial in Washington DC a couple of years ago. I saw a photographer using a Mamiya medium format rangefinder and taking shots off the hip. I looked at him and he seemed to be angry with me for noticing what he was doing. In any case he was trying not to be seen, and very obviously he was taking shots very close to the people. Is this somehow more respectful of the people than taking a shot 7 meters away with a telephoto? I don't think so. Distance is not the same as (intended or otherwise) secrecy. Also, even if you do intend to take a shot at a distance to avoid being seen, that's not the same as voyeurism.

<p>

I think we can all agree that different people have different comfort zones. I don't think there needs to be any intolerance about different photographic approaches. They all produce different visual results, adding to the collective riches of the art.

<p>

As for the subject's view of the topic, I would not take pictures of people who object to their pictures being taken. This can happen sometimes when people expect those pictures to present them in a negative way. I've never run into a person who did not want their pictures to be taken for a religious reason. My goal as a people photographer is always to portray the subjects in a respectful way, showing them at their best as far as I can manage. Distance or lens choice is not the primary determinant here.

[bobtodrick]

Fred, this is where sitting down over a beer could clear things up. But your statement "I feel no compelling reason either to respect beliefs" is then a bad choice of wording.

 

If someones religious beliefs (or beliefs of any kind) are that they would not want to be photographed...I read your statement (no reason to repect their beliefs) to mean you would go ahead and photograph them anyways.

 

If I'm wrong and would not photograph them then I stand corrected.

 

If you would photograph them you are trying to defend the indefensible.

[bobtodrick]

I'll just add this.

 

I find this is a touch subject, but in a world where people are willing to cut you off in traffic, endanger your life, just so they can be first at the next red light...or butt in line at the supermarket because...well their time is just so damn important...or whatever...our current western society has been on the decline ever since the 'me' generation.

 

Sorry, but your right to a photograph does not in my mind exceed someone elses right to their privacy. If you don't see this I know I won't change your mind because only your opinion is the right one.

 

Just don't ever cut me off...otherwise you'll have 3/4 ton of GMC crammed into your trunk.

 

(yup, your right...the general lack of manners, ethics...whatever you want to call it in todays society is really beginning to piss me off)

[angkordave]

Contrary to the assertion that it is OK to point a camera that anyone; does not take away the feelings from those who in certain cultures, find image taking offensive. It is at the very least impolite to do this.

 

There is a world of difference going down a Western city street to for example a village in an Islamic country where (illogical or not) it is still offends against the culture of the people there. For those who take the time to get to know villagers or townspeople or have a local guide or friend to make contact; there are plenty of opportunities for good people photography without upsetting anyone.

 

My experience of many years of photography in South East Asia, is that generally, tourists and photographers are seen as a bit strange. Locals cannot really understand why anyone would want to take photos of themselves.

 

In the Buddhist regions of SE Asia most people are OK, if sometimes embarrassed, about being photographed. Ladies in particular are concerned about their appearance. That applies equally in third world street markets, as in a City street. Some feel quite honoured in the attention; others don?t care; but a good many in remote areas are not comfortable about it.

 

Having someone pose especially for the camera may not have the spontaneity of a grabbed shot. But if I look at all my grabbed shots and compare with the shots where I have the approval of the subject and been able to control the background and have a relaxed subject; I know what I would prefer to see!

[Spearhead]

<i>does not take away the feelings from those who in certain cultures, find image taking offensive</i><p>Can anyone provide real evidence of this? I see a lot of assertions about this and the whole "steal the soul" thing, but never anything concrete. I have photographed in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America, and even in Muslim countries with exactly one incident. That was on a street in Vietnam, I thought I was photographing a card game but got waved off angrily. It turned out they were gambling. So much for "soul stealing." I've had people demand payment (and always refused), but that's different.

[bobtodrick]

Jeff, as I mentioned earlier I have had dealing with the native community in Western Canada. I have found that whilst the younger people (and by younger...say anyone under 50) are comfortable being photographed, many of the elders are not. If approached and asked they will usually agree...but some definitely feel it is improper to do so without their permission.