Is my work ethical?

[c_wyatt]

<p><em>'One thing I don't understand is, why taking candids is considered by some to be more interesting moment than actually capturing the moment a connection is made with someone?'</em><br /><em></em><br />Personally, I prefer candid because the point of it, to me, is capturing fleeting moments of real life. Although 'capturing the moment a connection is made with someone' is <em>real</em>, I don't find the idea of photographing someone's reaction to a camera particularly interesting. The point for me is capturing moments as if a camera was never involved at all, because that's how life was going on before you got in the way with a lens.</p>

<p>Also, in lots of street photography that I like, there's a very definite geometrical precision or moment where things come into a frame in such a way that is very pleasing. To me, the ability to capture those moments is brilliant, but only if they are unposed (or perhaps you can't tell they are partly posed, like Doisneau's <em>Kiss outside City Hall)</em>. There's not much skill in placing people where you want compared to capturing a moment of real, unplanned street life whether things are in such a way that they create a great image.</p>

[c_wyatt]

<p>Although to be clear, what I'm talking about is street photographer <em>for viewing</em>. I mean, for showing people what you see; giving people a different perspective of their life and their surrounding. Street photography that you take so it can rot away in your computer folder where only you see it is altogether different.</p>

<p>Street photography that is about showing people a different version of reality is one of the best things about photography in my opinion.</p>

[ray .]

<p>Not quite sure what you're saying. Photograph where photographer was fly on the wall is more viewable or relevant? Not necessarily. There are plenty of great photographs street or otherwise where the subject was aware of the photographer. It's how the photo works as a whole that's the issue.</p>

<p>To the OP- It's possible using a telephoto lens and being removed from the scene is causing you to question what you're doing.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>"There's not much skill in placing people where you want compared to capturing a moment of real, unplanned street life whether things are in such a way that they create a great image."</p>

<p>Are you sure there's not much skill? what do you base that theory on? Have you done that yourself or watched someone else do it?<br>

I think your comment about geometrical moment, is the so called decisive moment, coined by HCB. Yes, Ilike fleeting moments to be captured, and shooting candidly is one way to get them. Capturing someone seeing you take their picture and reacting to a camera is just as valid a concern in street photography as purely candid decisive moments, in my view. There's too many examples of great street photography from W. Klein to Diane Arbus, W. Eggleston, etc. etc. etc. to buy into what seems to me such an arbitrary, self-limiting perspective Also, I'm not sure Street photography is about showing a different version of reality either. How can it be when so much of it derives from nothing more than everyday moments. I think its just the act of taking and processing the picture that gives a suggestion of a diferent reality. I'm also not sure a photograph itself shows any "reality" as it is always by its nature, an abstraction. At best, a photo shows light, spaces and forms. The rest is created in the mind of the creator and viewer. Images seen in a photo strike sympathetic chords of images in the viewer's mind and merge with personal and cultural/historical/policitcal narratives to create a "reality" for the viewer. However the perspective of the photographer in terms of the image, may be completely different than how viwers see the phtograph. IMO, viewing photography this way, opens up possibilities because any thing is potentially a valid interesting topic for photography. It also means there are no excuses for not producing interesting photos either.</p>

<p> </p>

[karthick_ganapathy]

<p>Oh my god..I never thought there would be so many responses..It's a great place to get diff people's opinions idea..It's always in knowledgeable and informative for amateur like me to step the foot right..I value all your suggestions on the caption part..Yeah i agree i could have done a bit too much with those..I am still learning, soon I'll get rid of those and let the viewers have their own interpretation..Its always good to let the viewers have their own thoughts about the pics rather me narrowing down to just one thought.<br>

I understood that from teh w/nw threads. I am hoping to improve with all these comments. Thanks a lot..Howard I dint take offence and my apologies if i did offend you.</p>

 

[htarragon]

<p>Karthick,<br>

No offense taken. It's all about constructive criticism here.<br>

Howard</p>

[gerrymorgan]

<p>Karthick, I've looked through your photos and I like them a lot. I particularly like the one of the reluctant (and likely unsuccessful) kiss at the funfair. I left some comments for you on Flickr. To answer your original question, I see nothing unethical in what you are doing, but I do tend to agree with Jay that some of your edgier captions are not helpful.</p>

[karthick_ganapathy]

<p>Thanks a lot for your comments in flickr..I truely appreciate them.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>One thing I don't understand is, why taking candids is considered by some to be more interesting moment than actually capturing the moment a connection is made with someone?</em><br>

<em></em> <br>

As soon as people are aware of the camera, they usually start acting for it and this behaviour to me is generally uninteresting. Of course it is possible to interact for a longer time and wait until the obvious acting disappears and find moments of genuine behaviour (behaviour not in obvious response to the presence of the camera) that can be photographed. It's much better to have the subject<strong>s </strong>interact with each other instead of the cameraman. I think a picture is far more valuable when there is interaction but not with the camera.</p>

<p><em>come to terms with the fact that when you try not to be seen taking someones photos, you are being a voyeur in every sense of the word</em><br>

<em></em><br>

This is nonsense. A voyeur is someone who photographs another person either for 1) sexual gratification, or 2) to reveal something scandalous about the subject. Candid street photography has usually nothing at all to do with these activities.</p>

<p>Personally I don't try to hide myself from view when photographing people on the street. I make an effort to photograph people in a respectful way and in some sense giving their best. Sometimes they notice me, sometimes not. The first pictures that go to the bin are those where the subjects put on a show to the camera - yuk. The world has too of those pictures - by a factor of millions.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>"It's much better to have the subject<strong>s </strong>interact with each other instead of the cameraman. I think a picture is far more valuable when there is interaction but not with the camera."</p>

<p>It's certainly one approach, but neither better nor worse than any other. All depends how it's handled and what the final photo winds up looking at feeling like.</p>

<p>It doesn't seem to me that either Steichen or Avedon had this kind of approach.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>It doesn't seem to me that either Steichen or Avedon had this kind of approach.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Right, but they did portraiture, not documentary or street photography. This forum is about street and documentary photography.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>OK, Ilkka, here's a Dorothea Lange . . . hopefully she counts.</p>

<p>http://www.theblogofrecord.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/coca-cola-baby-bottle-mother-and-children-tulelake-siskiyou-county-california-dorothea-lange-1939.jpg</p>

<p>She has avoided the pitfalls you suggest are inherent in engaging subjects in documentary photographs.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>It's arguable whether Avedon's <em>In The American West</em> was either pure portraiture or documentary photography. I never worry about such distinctions in my own documentary photography. The subjects are often aware of the camera and will respond as if they are being watched, which begins to flirt with the boundaries of environmental portraiture. Not really my concern. I'm concerned only with the visual narrative.</p>

<p>Karthick, I think Eric Arnold put it best. Your captions aren't overtly offensive and seem only to reflect your personal interpretation, which is fine. But there's a maxim in comedy that goes something like this: "Dying is easy. Comedy is hard." When an attempt to be clever works, it's great. When it falls flat, it's sometimes worse than not funny - it may be considered offensive by some folks. When in doubt, let your photos speak for themselves. Otherwise, you run the risk of reducing your photos to the level of poster art and lolcat pix.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Personally I think it's important to have the caption truthful to the actual events documented in the photo if it's documentary-style photography. If you make up a caption which unfairly or incorrectly describes what's really going on, to me that's a major offence and as a subject I would not want such things to be published - in fact I might contact the ISP or seek legal action. But that's just me. As long as you're fairly and truthfully interpreting the subject it's fine, but it's important not to make fun out of the subjects in case they do not see the humor.</p>

<p>I am not saying that documentary photography cannot happen with the awareness of the subjects of the photography. Of course it can; it's just that the photographer must be careful to restore (relative) normality to the events after introducing themselves and the camera to the subjects so that it's not just about how the subjects react to a camera. However you do this, doesn't matter but I wouldn't want to record people if they obviously are just acting for the camera. I think photography of people without the subjects being at least vaguely aware of the camera is very limiting and in most of my photos it is at all not the case that the subjects don't know about the camera. I just wanted to point out why one may choose the completely candid approach - it does add a different perspective and gives a hint to the subjects behaviour without camera interference. By observing the subjects without camera you may learn to understand them and that way easier (with the camera's presence) capture something that is true and genuine in the subjects and separate this from acting which so often takes place when a casual photographer takes a picture of a person or people.</p>

[f_r2]

<p>What about the Sad Guys on Trading Floors photo thing? He makes up funny captions for all the photographs he has of people on the job at the various stock exchanges. That's the point, to be funny. You can google it if you're interested in seeing the photographs and captions that I'm talking about.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>@Ilkka</p>

<p>"As soon as people are aware of the camera, they usually start acting for it and this behaviour to me is generally uninteresting. Of course it is possible to interact for a longer time and wait until the obvious acting disappears and find moment". <br /> OK, but you've arbitrarily ruled out many excellent photographic opportunities. Look at Jeff's and Brad's photos for example. Very interesting photos, and with the knowledge of the subjects. It just depends on what you think is "acting". That especially holds true for San Francisco, where people make play acting a part of their identity openly and publically, and know one knows where the line is between "real" and "make believe" ;>}<br /> "Voyeurism"<br /> Ok, so I went overboard with that bit, but don't you think, like Arbus was quoted as saying that taking pictures of people feels a little naughty? Come on, admit it. When you have your little wide angle camera, and you peer over the shoulder of the stranger next to you, see something fascinating or something you think might look cool as a picture, don't you feel a little like your shoplifiting. After all your using your camera to "steal" their little moments..... hmmm that sounds like a good project...I'll call it "Petty Theft" tm ...hmmmm.<br /> <img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/34/73716664_3baea0cccc.jpg?v=0" alt="" /></p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>that taking pictures of people feels a little naughty? ... don't you feel a little like your shoplifiting</em></p>

<p>No, I don't feel that way at all. In those cases where I am successful I'm sure the subjects would be delighted to see the images if I had a chance to meet them again. I'm not removing anything from them so I don't see how it could be considered stealing. I'm quite comfortable with what I'm doing and since I only aim to show my subjects in the most positive way it never crosses my mind that there would be something "wrong" in doing it. The subjects might not always appreciate what I'm trying to do as they're not familiar with the history of street photography or what I'm trying to achieve with it, but in the end I'm hoping my work will become a valuable record of life of this time. I could understand that there is a problem if I presented my work in a way which makes a mockery of my subjects but the opposite is actually true.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>As we walk the streets of most major cities cameras are watching, when we enter most stores cameras are watching, when we cross intersections, when lights are red, cameras are watching, I don't see anything morally wrong with it and I don't think you did either until some questioned you. I have taken some images of people that I would never post, as I feel that they would be embarrased but that is a personal decision.</p>

[frank_b._baiamonte]

<p>Karthick,</p>

<p>I like the photography a lot, and I don't find it unethical in any way. However, I'm in agreement with those who suggest getting rid of the captions.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Ilkka, you are no fun, but at least you know what your about. Do you have any work to be seen online?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Barry, I have to admit I was thinking the same thing.</p>

<p>I definitely think of myself as a voyeur, both in the Sontag sort of way and sometimes in the good ol' traditional titillating sort of way.</p>

<p>Ilkka, it seems to me a photographer removes something (of course, also adds a lot). Anonymity and Privacy are removed by a photographer, especially a street photographer. I mean no judgment by that. I love street photography.</p>

<p>As for the original topic, there is a sense in which a "street person" (different from just anyone walking on a street) lives on the street. Though there are obvious differences, I think of people living on the street in much the same way I think of people who are in their own houses. I would take a picture of someone sleeping under a blanket in a doorway with much the same consideration I would give to walking up to the window of a house and taking a picture of someone sleeping on their couch. Which is not to say I wouldn't do either as a hard and fast rule. But I'd be very aware and honest with myself about what I was doing in each case.</p>