Why people dont like to be photographed?

[Spearhead]

<i>Some people with cameras are sleazeballs.</i><p>Some people without cameras are sleazeballs.<p><i> Or some people with cameras behave in sleazy ways.</i><p>Some people without cameras behave in sleazy ways.<p>I haven't gotten a reasonable response to the comment that "people think photographers are sleaze balls. " It could be said about any profession.

[gary_watson]

Who needs "generalizations at ten paces" duels, Jeff? Professionals, strictly defined, usually have enforceable rules regarding "due care." Just ask any doctor, lawyer, or accountant about what that term means, as well as about the consequences for non-compliance. Photographers aren't under any similar regulations. They may make a (good) living taking pictures but they aren't necessarily "professionals" in this sense, and many seldom hesistate to bring disrepute on the "profession" through their actions.

[michael_darnton1]

But Gary, photographers aren't doctors, lawyers, or accountants--they're tradesmen.

[Spearhead]

Who needs generalizations? There's no validity to what was said, so there's no point in generalizing.

[tonmestrom]

Gary, with all due respect but your comparison is quite beside the point here. I come from a profession which has

enforceable rules regarding "due care" so I know exactly what that means. You're comparing two entities. The

subject at hand has everything to do with social interaction and although that has also known rules it's not the same.

 

What I find rather disturbing is the premise that some of you think that having social skills is not compatible with

being a street photographer. It's not just here but I see this crop up quite regularly.

What Jeff rightly pointed out is that "sleazeballs" are to be found everywhere. Who can contest that?

But implying that is a generalisation and a very ignorant one at that.

 

".....and many seldom hesistate to bring disrepute on the "profession" through their actions" That's a generalisation.

[michaelchristensen]

Agree. People react differently depending upon the social-cultural settings. Usually, directly photographing someone involves an exchange of intimacy and cultural rules and ethics apply.

 

We all have our comfort zones .. and some are more tolerant than others with being photographed. We live in societies that govern our behavior and interactions and how we approach each encounter determines our success. Most people will tell you they don't want to be bothered with looking at a camera by their facial expression ... however, I've seen some actually enjoy the encounter and smile or produce a more appealing posture when they see you with a camera.

 

In close encounters with street scenes I have asked women and men unknown to me if they would allow me to include them in my picture .. I've sometime asked for a parent/child photo if the scene interest me .. sometimes I've been a considerable distance where a vocal exchange is not possible due to ambient traffic/noise and used sign language to communicate .. whatever works .. just be respectful of your subjects and environment and you'll be surprised how lucky and successful you will be.

[craig_gillette]

It is my experience that there are people who think that some photographers are sleazeballs. I have no doubt

that there are other people that connect sleaze with pictures and pictures with photographers.

 

I know some sleazeballs that take pictures. Not all of the photographers I know are sleazeballs. I don't know

if all of the sleazeballs I know do or don't take pictures.

 

I wouldn't argue with Jeff that not all sleazeballs are photographers.

[ronda]

Not all photographers are sleaze balls not all sleaze balls are photographers! But I do think if you want my picture you should ask me first. I will ask you what you intend to do with it. If you plan to post it on the internet don't be surprised if I say "no" . If I wanted my picture posted on the internet I would post it there myself. Call me paranoid I could care less! With all the tecnology out there namely PhotoShop you never know what someone may do with the picture. Now if I happen to be standing with a crowd of people and all you are getting is a profile of me at a distance along with 10 to 20 other people I could care less if I'm in the shot. Now if the photo is of my underaged daughter Im going to go postal especially if its a clear shot of her whole face and the location is identifiable. My daughter was videoed at a basket ball game for the news broadcast one night (yes it was a clear shot of her whole face close-up) while I wasn't terrifically pleased she was out of town that night and came home to our town later that night. So she had left that identifiable location. Like I said if thats paranoid well then so be it. I'm a private person I like it that way. And dont feed me that stuff about banks and such I have worked in a bank we never looked at those pictures enless we thought you where the bank robber or the police did.

[gary_watson]

It's funny, Tom, but this issue has always involved a virtual parade of misjudgement by photographers who kvetch endlessly about rough rides for being offsides. Look through the PN archives and you'll see I'm making no generalizations. Funnier still is that sleazeball photographers usually resort to endless hypocrisy and self-justification to explain away their problems. Sleazeballs are as sleazeballs do, however they choose to make a buck.

[maris_rusis]

Curiously, when I photograph in the street with a tripod mounted 8x10 or 4x5 view camera I might as well be

invisible. People don't seem to care or they figure it's none of their business, or they feel uneasy about

staring, and just move on. Occasionally strangers have extended conversations in front of a camera the size of a

trash can bearing a lens with a front element the size of a soup plate. Instead of these people running from the

camera I often have to ask them (politely!) to move out of shot. What is the psychology behind this? Here's my

theory.

 

The photographer snapping away with an eye-level hand-held camera elicits the primitive "predator" response in

the target subject matter. The photographer ceases to be fully human and becomes a cyborg, part man part machine,

human from the neck down, camera from the neck up. This cyborg tracks and snaps the prey, the subject matter, in

a way parallel to a lion sizing up a herd of gazelles as possible lunch. No wonder the "victims" feel nervous.

 

The view camera, on the other hand does not track anyone. I sit or stand near it but it never becomes a physical

extension of me. The camera looks directly at my subject matter but I don't so they never feel oppressed. The

actual moment of exposure is an imperceptible movement of the thumb on a cable release. Shutter noise is swamped

by street noise. Changing film holders is an activity not perceived as the act of photographing. I even get asked

if the dark-slide is the film.

 

What is really happening is that I have, in advance, set up a subject plane on the pavement and have memorised

right, left, top, and bottom frame borders. Any thing interesting moving into this zone gets exposed onto the

piece of film waiting quietly in the dark at the back of the camera. No one gets pursued, no one gets blitzed, no

one notices, no one cares.

[lex_jenkins]

Try to tell the kids in my family that people don't like to be photographed. They're like moths to a flame when I pull out my camera.

 

Heck, I don't even have much trouble photographing strangers. I think a lot of it is the unspoken communication projected by the photographer. Some folks got it, some don't. I'm a mediocre photographer, merely competent at best technically, which is badly revealed in my fine art pretensions. But I'm usually comfy with people so their expressions help overcome my meager talent.

[tonmestrom]

Gary,

 

that's too easy. I haven't been here that long but I've read threads like that and others. Some indeed go sour. Generalisation leeds to polarisation. The fact of the matter is that all too often nuance is lost in these discussions and I think that's mainly because of the anonimity that internet provides.

 

Yes some people become defensive in the same way that some become offensive. What IS funny is that in almost every thread of that kind you can find people that hardly know what they are talking about and often make ludicrous statements they would never make vis-a-vis.

 

As for myself, I'm never defensive here, just trying to provide some nuance, something that most of these discussions are in dire need of.

[jbs]

In public, sometimes I ask, most times I don't. When I ask, no one, so far, has said no.

[jaketerrey]

Has anyone seen one hour photo? Not really applicable to street photography but mildly relevant. It's about the abuse of the intimacy and personal boundaries of people in photographs by a stranger. If you look at photography in that way you can understand why people don't appreciate being photographed sometimes. I think it has a lot to do with how people can perceive the intention of photographers nowadays - somewhat sinisterly and as voyeurs, maybe this isn't the case in other countries but in Australia I would find it really awkward to photograph a beach scene in fear of someone accusing me of shooting kids or sunbaking women. There are probably greater reasons to be suspected at a beach but as an example.

Bill Henson (maybe you've heard of this in America and other places or not) but he was recently accused of being a child pornographer because one of his works had a under aged girl as the subject - off topic to street photography but it is relevant in displaying the tensions and assumptions of photography and photographers on privacy.

 

This isn’t to say that the only reason people don’t like being photographed is privacy though. it is also probably a lot to do with how you present yourself, manners would go a long way if someone asked me if i could be in a photo but also if someone was taking a photo with me in the frame without my consent the way they did it and how they presented themselves would influence my response, a tourist taking a photo of a scene would be completely welcomed and someone who was obviously a photographer interested in whatever i was doing would be welcomed too but someone lurking in the shadows trying to be inconspicuous would attract my attention as someone will ill intent, even if it wasn’t as sinister as that it could be easily perceived by someone in that way.

[lex_jenkins]

I have a theory - unprovable, of course - that this overreaction to perceptions of invasion of privacy by photography is driven by a normal need humans have to feel they are in control of their lives. We're increasingly scrutinized and deprived of privacy and even dignity by government, other authority figures and commercial enterprises. It's understandable that people will sometimes feel driven to take a stand where they are still able to and protect what they perceive as their last remaining bit of privacy.

[ted_marcus1]

I don't like to be photographed. I'm not "photogenic." And some day I might actually need my soul, so I certainly don't want someone to steal it and imprison it in a one of those little SD cards.

 

I make the same assumption about other people, so I don't shoot people. I usually take pictures when I'm traveling solo, so the only people I'd be able to to photograph are total strangers. While some photographers have the talent and practiced skill at warming strangers into making excellent images (and then charming them into signing a model release that includes their souls), I'm not one of them.

 

I have no problem including unrecognizable people as "elements" in my pictures, but I have to draw the line at recognizable images of people who are aware I'm taking their picture. Different strokes for different folks, I suppose.