Why people dont like to be photographed?

[reza motaghedi]

I am living in Canada. Here photography is not as easy as it may apear. Most of the time when I go out for

phtography, I return empty handed simply because I cannot take what I like. Sometimes it is really frustrating.

 

People are usually very sensitive about their privacy. They see photographers as paparazzi and if you point camera

towards then, they immediatly say "NO PHOTO" like a reflex action. If you ask them why no photo, they cannot give

a reasonable answer.

 

The other option is candid shots with a long telephoto lens. But a long telephoto lens on a big digital camera is a

double edge sword. It is too conspicuous. It draws attention.

 

I cannot really understand why people overreact so much to being photographed . With all respect, ordinary people

in the streets are not celebrities to be worried about their images to be published on the cover of magazines. They

should love it to be photographed. After all nobody knows them and nobody cares who they are. Nobody is going to

abuse their photos.

 

]They love to see beautiful photos, taken from others and sometimes they are willing to pay for them but the very

same people dont like to be subjects of photography themselves. This is not fair.

 

I am not sure if other photographer share the same feeling that I have.

[alan_chan4]

If someone doesn't want to be photographed by strangers, then that's it and they don't own you any explanation, period. Freedom goes only so far and you have to respect others while enjoying your own freedom.

[zoewiseman]

1. It is rude to stick a camera in someone's face without asking them first.

2. Stealing someone's face or persona without letting them know is rude.

3. If you would stick a camera in my face, I would probably chase you down the street or throw your camera in the trash or demand that

you take the film out and throw it away.

4. Assuming that everyone should love to be photographed as if it's some compliment that you want to point your lens at them is also

rude and egotistical.

5. Long telephoto lenses - sleazy!

 

Please have some ethics about it. It's no wonder people think photographers are sleaze balls.

 

Ask first! Explain your project! Acquire a photo release like a professional.

[felixg]

This sort of conversation happens over in the "street and documentary" forum. The two sides are always the same entrenched kneejerks.

 

It's not just Canada, and it has little to do with publication. Most people don't like being photographed, and it's to do with self image. I don't like being photographed myself, even though I cheerfully photograph others. Truth is, we all have an idea in our head of how we look, and to see a photograph is a shock because it is different from that ... and we know that, in advance, so being photographed is psychologically stressful.

 

You have two options. One is to ask your subjects for consent; the other is to practise photographing without being noticed.

 

For the first option give them a card (if you don't have one, get some printed), explain your reasons for wanting to photograph them (instead of expecting them to explain why you shouldn't), respect them and accept that you (not they) are the one who wants something out of this relationship.

 

For the second option, learn your equipment so that you can photograph without making a big deal out of it.Most people don't assume that a photographer is photographing <i>them</i> unless you are fairly blatantly signalling "Hey, I'm looking at YOU!" The following were made with a standard lens, without the subjects knowing:<br>

<a target="_blank" http://bp2.blogger.com/_1zdLG4EygSI/SEJE44J70fI/AAAAAAAABlw/PHVaZLwnouE/s1600-h/Today080531.jpg>Bookshop</a><br>

<a target="_blank" http://bp2.blogger.com/_1zdLG4EygSI/SD8vQpojJrI/AAAAAAAABlg/rvIrRiRAJeU/s1600-h/Today080529.jpg>Window</a><br>

<a target="_blank" http://bp2.blogger.com/_1zdLG4EygSI/SCkuiUFGKyI/AAAAAAAABio/HiPk6CZ8yI0/s1600-h/Today080512.jpg>Coffee</a><br>

 

In the last case (also attached to this post), although one of the subjects is obviously looking at me, he got up after I had finished to look into the café and see what I hasd been photographing.<div></div>

[felixg]

Hmmm ... links inside a comment, like those in my last post, don't work ... oh well; the one attached makes the point.<div></div>

[pankaj purohit]

Reza, I would some of my words here:

 

I didn't face this problem so often because I don't need to ask people on city streats to be photographed. But I do shooting in villages (India). Villagers like to be photographed, and it doesn't matter who are you, with which camera you are shooting, doesn't matter wheather it is a huge SLR, P&S or cellphone. But here comes another problem and I face very often that is the 'Expressions'. Those villagers make some 'smiling' or 'ready to photo' expressions, and those expressions goes against our needs or wants. If I want to shoot one or more villagers with their natural expressions, positioning and presence, then their artificial expressions make things bad for us.

 

OK, supose when we are going to shoot a person talking in phone booth with some tension and moving hand expressions, it would be nicer to capture him without his knowledge, but if you will ask him to do that for you, than the problem will come. He can be as you like to show him because he is not a proffessional model or actor. So the imotions you want to capture, won't come great.

 

Some more ocassions called marriages and events, (I don't shoot those) where also everybody likes to be photographed, because they think they can see the album later and they like to be seen them as the part of that ocassion and their presence.

 

But I am very much agree here, when you invite peple as subject for your documentary work, maximum of them wont respond you well.

 

A very few times I got some interesting experiences in my home town when captured some public places with people presence, they wore intereted to be photographed if their photos are going to e printed in newspaper next day.

 

I think, everybody would like to be photographed if he /she can see his/her photograph printed in the purpose for what that was taken and the purpose is good like newspaper, magzine, advertisement etc. But actually if people are affraid for the misuse of their photograph, so they don't want to be captured

[steven_moseley1]

1. They are scared their 'souls' will be stolen away..

2. They are paranoid

3. They have been 'sucked in' by the crazy and almost insane current attitudes of everyone is entitled to be totally left alone even if they are in a public place...so dont go out if you want to be left totally alone...

4. They are more and more aggressive towards, rude to and frankly scared of strangers in the street.

5. Big brother is watching....

[stembaughphotography]

It is just the right thing to ask first. I have found that most people will oblige if you are polite and present your self with confidence and are not over bearing about it. I have only been turned once but she did let me take a shot of the dog she was walking. If they decline- then that's it. Wish them a good day and be on your way. Funny thing not one of the people I have approached on the street has asked for any prints. Maybe they have seen some of my photos. :-)

[constance_cook]

Steven:

 

None of those.

 

I don't want to be photographed unless I agree to it.

 

I like the way I look.

 

Just don't take my picture.

 

No one has to expect to stay inside so photographers can do what they want.

 

Conni

[mike dixon]

<i>I don't want to be photographed unless I agree to it. </i><P>

You should let the government, banks, and stores that record your image dozens or hundreds of times a day know that they need your permission.<P>

<i>3. If you would stick a camera in my face, I would probably chase you down the street or throw your camera in the trash or demand that you take the film out and throw it away.</i><P>

Be sure to keep your lawyer's number handy so you can call him when you're arrested for assault, theft, and destruction of property.<P>

<i>You have two options. One is to ask your subjects for consent; the other is to practise photographing without being noticed. </i><P>

Those are not the only options. I regularly photograph people without asking permission, from close range, in a manner that's quite obvious if they're paying attention. From what I've experienced, about 94% of people don't give it a second thought, 4% will mug for the camera, 1% will try to "not mess up my picture," 0.9% will ask about what I'm doing, and less than 0.1% will look unhappy about it. The only time I've ever been attacked was buy a couple of racist jerks (whom I wasn't even photographing) who were using the camera as an excuse to take a crack at the foreigner--they didn't mind the dozens of university students taking pictures in the same neighborhood.

[gary_watson]

How do you react "junk" phone calls? Unwelcome and intrusive, maybe? That's how many people regard your sense of entitlement when it comes to taking their picture.

[ananda1]

I think first reason is somesort of "unknown fear of intruding their privacy" and this makes every one to protest against.

If one explains the purpose and if possible show some shots then I think Reza may get lots of shots.

Goodluck

[mike dixon]

<i>That's how many people regard your sense of entitlement when it comes to taking their picture.</i><P>

I'm doing something that's perfectly legal in a manner that doesn't upset my subjects or cause any problems. What I'm <b>not</b> doing is 1. demanding that people must ask my permission to do something they have a right to do (and which is, in fact, done very frequently by many others), 2. claiming I'll commit violent and illegal acts if someone dares to not abide by my wishes, and 3. making numerous personal insults and negative insinuations against people who don't behave the way I dictate they should (even though, as noted above, their behavior isn't causing offense or harm).

[will_daniel1]

Since no one else has stated the obvious, I'll take a shot at it (because I've experienced it first hand on numerous occasions). A person who doesn't want to be photographed may be in a place he or she shouldn't be or with someone other than spouse or significant other (cheating).

 

Will

[gary_watson]

Thanks for making my point, Mike.

[reza motaghedi]

Some people got me wrong here. I never shoot people without getting permission from them but the answer is 90% "NO".

Of course everybody has a right and privacy which should be respected but my question is why people are becoming so paranoid. 20 years ago it was not like that. Why is that people have such a negative attitude about photography and all the time think that their photos would be abused. It is not that they feel uncomfortable. They dont want to be in a photo taken by a stranger. Of course they have a right to oppose but my question is why. If everybody thout like that street photography wouldnt exist anymore.

[tonmestrom]

Zoe,

 

"It is rude to stick a camera in someone's face..."

 

yes, if you do it like you suggest it's done than it's rude. It's also an argument that's often used by people that don't know the first thing about street photography. Like Mike, most often work at very close range but that definitely doesn't mean you have to be rude about it.

 

"Stealing someone's face or persona without letting them know is rude" No, it isn't

 

"If you would stick a camera in my face, I would probably chase you down the street or throw your camera in the trash or demand that you take the film out and throw it away" a bit overreacting on your part I should think.

 

"Long telephoto lenses - sleazy" for real street photography, useless. street photographers don't work that way.

 

"It's no wonder people think photographers are sleaze balls" I work on the streets all over Europe in well known areas as well as some less reputable ones.Just like Mike I have never had any serious problems so we must do something right. You seem to be a bit highstrung about it though, I wonder why.

 

Fact of the matter is that not only do most people not care but street photographers don't work the way you describe.

[Spearhead]

<i>It's no wonder people think photographers are sleaze balls. </i><p>Leaving aside the paparazzi, which people think which photographers are sleaze balls? "People" is a very big category. <p>I have yet to tell me that they think photographers are sleaze balls. Ever.

[hjoseph7]

I don't like to be photographed myself because I'm not very phototgenic. Allot of people react negatively to their own pictures, but positively to other peoples pictures. Ask any Stock agency what type of pictures sell and they will say resoundidly "PEOPLE PICTURES !". These days with the Web and everything people would like to know, where their pictures are going to wind up.

[reza motaghedi]

By the way, Henri Cartier Bresson never got permission from anybody in the street. He took candid shots from people with his Leica camera wraped in foil to be invisible and nobody thought of him as sleaze ball.

[Sanford]

A lot of times we point our cameras at older people because they have more "character" in their faces. They don't think they have

character they just think they look old. I also think the general paranoia surrounding 911 has something to do with it.

[michael_darnton1]

Try walking up to a stranger on the street and giving him a $5 bill. I bet many will look at you angrily and refuse. Regardless of what you're asking people to do, the kneejerk response is for people to say "no". This response from bureaucracies is legendary.

 

People on the street do NOT have a right to privacy (regardless of how some people here feel), but they have the right not to be assaulted by strangers. The solution for photographers is to be polite, but don't ask.

 

When I was a newspaper photographer I shot many, many pictures of strangers, and I don't think anyone ever complained, but that's because I wasn't using photography as a vehicle of being a jerk. This reminds me of a video clip someone linked to a while ago of a real jerk of a street photographer. Without a camera, doing what he was doing, he should have been arrested. The camera is not the deciding factor; the behavior is.

[craig_gillette]

Does it matter why they don't like it? They just don't.

 

Some people are capable of shooting on the street in ways that aren't all that noticeable or annoying, some make no effort to not be noticed or not be annoying. It's beyond obvious that there are some people who become annoyed and react negatively.

 

Doesn't matter that there are ATM cameras, store surveillance cameras, street surveillance cameras, red-light cameras, etc. Does anyone seriously think that the general run of the mill public people equate the use of these cameras with some street artist taking pictures for his or her own pleasure or to sell? And it's laughable to think that if the outcry over papparazzi and similar abuses, Google abuses, etc., changes the public and legal attitude that the government can't tailor the laws to continue to permit their own surveillance uses, etc.

 

Are photographers sleazeballs? Some of them, absolutely. Perhaps it might be more appropriate to deal with the "correct" people first language. Some people with cameras are sleazeballs. Or some people with cameras behave in sleazy ways.

[steven_clark]

Having a picture of someone has certain social implications of intimacy too, so taking pictures of random strangers could be considered sorta creepy.

[bernie moore]

Someone who does a lot of street work abroad says street shots in the US are much more difficult. Perhaps our culture is a little obsessed with its rights. Also so many of us live in Suburbia where anyone not in a car is suspect unless you know them.