War on Street Photography

[wgpinc]

<p>Photo District News published an article about Street Photography and what WBZ-TV found to be 'strange behavior and it is raising red flags in downtown Boston' about photographers taking 'unusual pictures of people going by'.<br>

http://pdnpulse.com/2011/04/war-on-street-photography-moves-to-boston.html</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>this has nothing, I repeat nothing to do with any war on street photography. They are just a bunch of fools (at best) creeping up behind a bunch of girls, bend over and try to get some shots. These aren't streetshooters, just a bunch of nitwits.</p>

[c_wyatt]

<p>As someone wrote in the comments, 'trash journalism'. Some interesting responses in there, including a link to one of the photographers' reply: <a href="http://thephotorecession.webs.com/">http://thephotorecession.webs.com/</a></p>

[c_wyatt]

<p>Ton, how can you make that blanket judgement from one small piece of film shot from quite a distance?</p>

<p>Check out shot five of the lovely Mr Bill Cunningham: <a href="http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/behind-38/">http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/behind-38/#</a></p>

[studio460]

<p>Regardless of how you feel about the coverage, that was the perception, and that perception was genuine. I love a shot of pretty girls' legs as much as the next guy, and I'm guilty of stealing a few of those shots myself. Perhaps these guys could just learn to be a bit more subtle, and try not to hang out in groups. Also, being male, middle-aged, or older, does have its drawbacks, as unfair as that may be. I'm sure if it were Ashton Kutcher (or Dianna Agron, for that matter) shooting the same shots, the perception would be different.</p>

[starvy]

<p>I guess a Pen saves on cost when you can get over 70 frames to a roll, just ideal for street photography.<br>

How does the pen compare in final image quality to the latest point and shoot offerings from Canon, Nikon, Olympus or Panasonic?</p>

[tonmestrom]

<blockquote>

<p>Ton, how can you make that blanket judgement from one small piece of film shot from quite a distance?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So how graphic do you need it to be Camus? It doesn't leave much to the imagination does it? But then, I'm not into upskirt photography let alone trying to sell it as "art"<br /> Trash journalism or not these guys are hardly in a position to complain as far as I'm concerned. "War on streetphotography"? Don't make me laugh.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Also, being male, middle-aged, or older, does have its drawbacks, as unfair as that may be.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>at 51 I'm considered middle-aged Ralph but perception has less to do with age but more with how you deal with it out there.</p>

[studio460]

<p>C Wyatt said . . .</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Check out shot five of the lovely Mr Bill Cunningham . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I love that shot! (Beautiful picture, by the way, in the random photo thingie below.) This brings up an issue that I've been thinking about that I've touched upon in other threads. I don't feel the "right" to shoot anyone (even though I do have the right). My "best" street shot so far, was done with permission. Although much of great street photography is done without permission, or even knowledge, of or by its subjects, I'm still uncomfortable with the idea. I think people certainly have a right to <em>feel</em> like they have a sense of privacy, even when they're in a public place (even though, legally, they don't). This is different now since the rise of social media and the instantaneous nature of the internet. People are aware that images are "used."</p>

[studio460]

<p>Ton said . . .</p>

<blockquote>

<p>. . . at 51 I'm considered middle-aged Ralph but perception has less to do with age but more with how you deal with it out there.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Certainly, I agree, and I'm sure we're generally on the same page. Yet, being a female street photographer, or being attractive and younger, does have its advantages. As far as age goes, I'm just about up there with you.</p>

[studio460]

<p>I've noticed something unexpected in my recent street attempts. It seems, 9 out of 10 times, anyone who sees my lens and realizes they're being photographed, responds with a slight smile. I've also seen the, "What the f--k are you doing taking my picture," look, but it did surprise me how many don't seem to mind.</p>

<p>Also, mind you, I'm rather new to this, but twice now, I've been called "paparazzi." I suppose they see the pro body, and they just assume . . . (I live in L.A., so there's tons of paparazzi here). I mean, no one ever sees a guy with a pro body and says, "Aha! Street artist!" Or even, "Aha! A photojournalist!" Sadly, it seems the only term the general public knows for "photographer" these days.</p>

[parv]

Also look up why (mis)use of "hacker", instead of "cracker", offends some in computing.

[c_wyatt]

<blockquote>

<p>Ton said: So how graphic do you need it to be Camus? It doesn't leave much to the imagination does it? But then, I'm not into upskirt photography let alone trying to sell it as "art"<br />Trash journalism or not these guys are hardly in a position to complain as far as I'm concerned. "War on streetphotography"? Don't make me laugh.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>What a leap of logic. I must have missed this part of the video. What I saw was a guy who looked to be standing several metres from people, probably with their legs as the photo subject, while the reporter says they 'aggressively hunt', was the term I think he used. </p>

<p>Like this perhaps? <a href="http://www.camuswyatt.com/latest/h1b140631#h1b140631">http://www.camuswyatt.com/latest/h1b140631#h1b140631</a></p>

<p>Somehow you took that small clip and made this generalisation: <em>"They are just a bunch of fools (at best) creeping up behind a bunch of girls, bend over and try to get some shots. These aren't streetshooters..."</em></p>

<p>And did you look at the image of Bill Cunningham? Does that make him a fool?</p>

<p>I would like to see evidence of any of the claims made in the video before I believe them.</p>

<p> </p>

[tonmestrom]

<p><em><strong> </strong></em>right, you sneak up <strong>behind</strong> a few girls, bend over and take some shots. Sure, it's other peoples fault. How can anyone not get that it's art.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[Brad_]

>>> War on Street Photography

 

There is no war on street photography. What a joke...

 

In the world there are jerks, and they deserve the suspicion and attention they draw. Twice I've seen a

small group of "street photographers" with long lenses show up in downtown San Francisco and shoot

women provocatively from a long distance. They apparently belong to a club with members all over. And

have a website displaying their loot.

 

I call them creepers...

[Brad_]

>>> Yet, being a female street photographer, or being attractive and younger, does have its advantages.

 

Not true. I know a number of female street shooters in SF and they don't feel that way at all. Because many

times any sort of engagement with subjects is interpreted as a come-on. Which of course is unwanted.

[philipward]

I agree that these guys are behaving like nitwits,they are also victims of journalistic bottom feeders using selective editing to sensationalise the storey.Reinforcing the public's fears:Old+male+camera= perv.

[Spearhead]

<p>I'm not getting into a debate, I haven't seen any "wars" involving street photography. I do want to point out that it is possible to photograph undressed women, with permission, both <a href="http://spirer.com/pride2008/slides/pride1.jpg">on the street</a> and <a href="http://spirer.com/barbaryapril2011/content/images/large/_57P5706.jpg">off the street.</a> (Usual NSFW notices apply.) I suppose there's a thrill to the anonymity, but I get much better shots with permission or even invitation.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the most provocative candid shots are shot close-up, with no subterfuge.</p><div></div>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>Just about everything in that video looks like every street shooter being videotaped I've ever seen.<br>

There is only one video clip that shows the photographer appear to be shooting the legs of women. And, do we know what he was really shooting, from forty feet away without knowing what lens he's using or how close he really is to the subjects, or if he was even aiming at the women?<br>

Somebody posted recently a shot of human legs juxtaposed against a pigeon walking-- a fun shot, with nothing sexual about it. How would you shoot that without bending over and shooting, not unlike what we see in the video.</p>

<p> </p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>Followed a link from a comment and came to this--<br>

http://thephotorecession.webs.com/</p>

<p>If one of the photographers explaining his street photography.</p>

<p>The writer is Joe Gallo. Some of you might remember him as a regular here, a couple of years back.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>"The spot was heavily biased, and can serve as an excellent example of how news is created, how fact is distorted, and how WBZ got the story they set out to find. All by design. If this is what happens with a minor story about street photographers, imagine what happens with major news stories."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>as far as the story, i would have to agree with Joe that you're looking at a classic example of slanted media biases influencing perception. this is exactly why TV news should always be taken with a grain of salt. it's a bit hypocritical too, as nothing is more intrusive than a TV camera. it's interesting that some of the more experienced SPs here bought the story hook line and sucker without wondering, "was this piece fair? did it show both sides? what are they not telling me?"</p>

<p>in other words, the 'war' is entirely a fabrication of the media. scary.</p>

[c_wyatt]

<p>Ton, so a blurry shot from quite far away where you can't see too well what's going on = them <strong>all</strong> being a <em>bunch of fools</em>, and <strong>not</strong> street shooters? Like I said earlier, there's just no evidence for the generalisation, especially against all of them, whoever that may be - implied in the video is any man with a camera near this busy spot.</p>

<p>Even if he was using legs as the subject, big deal. I posted a shot earlier where I did, and I have no problem with taking <em>that</em> shot - it's more about the bench and shadows, and yet I just had a camera pointed at someone I didn't know's legs. And again you ignored the image of Bill Cunningham. If you think that what you posted above makes someone someone a fool, what about the great Bill? He is doing exactly what you are taking exception too. When this shot came up in the theatre where I was watching 'Bill Cunningham, New York', everyone had a laugh. If you don't know much about him, he's about as far from doing this for some sexual perversion as you can get.</p>

<p>So I see a blurry clip of someone possibly doing what seems to be a less intrusive way of what Bill might do, and I'm thinking I'd like to see some actual evidence before I condemn every guy around there with a camera. Who knows, maybe he does just go around attempting to take 'upskirts' as you call it (quite a stretch from what I see in your video still!), but I'd like some evidence!</p>

<p>Now I never hang around one place for ages, or shoot with others, which helps avoid this kind of thing, in that way I think they seem to not be so smart, but I still see no evidence for the reporters claims, or the claim they're not street shooters.</p>

[spanky]

<p>A news cast that distorts and spins the facts? Why I've never heard of such a thing, how absurd, what's this world coming to when you can't expect a news cast to be unbiased???</p>

<p>Really, what a joke. The sad part is that some people who see it will now think anyone with a camera shooting in public is a perv up to no good.</p>

<p>Is anyone else amused by the irony that WBZ-TV received clandestine video taken in public of other citizens taking clandestine photographs in public for the purpose of calling attention to it? I guess this was lost on the staff of WBZ-TV. I would think that this news cast which took place on 4-15 would have been tossed aside for more important news like how the US is going to get out of it's massive debt, what with it being tax day and all. I guess some people don't really want to think about the real issues but rather be titillated with stupid stories like this one.</p>

<p>I also have to say I think it's a bit ridiculous to point out photographers like Model and Levitte. Not are women able to take such pictures with less suspicion then men, but it's a different world now then it was in the 1940's and 1950's. Have a look through William Klein's "New York" which has many pictures of kids in the street. In the back of the book where Klein describes the pictures, even he says at one point that it's near impossible to take such pictures like this nowadays.</p>

[john_robison3]

<p>Starvy, that's not a film Pen but a digital Pen. I do shoot a lot with film Pens, both VF and Pen F and your right, 70+ shots are a blast. However, reading all those little negs is not so much fun and that is why I'm experiementing with a 6X6 folder. Only 12 shots but at least you can read the contact prints.</p>

<p>I know this comment is off topic, sorry. </p>

[johncrosley]

<p>I looked at Gallo's work. It was respectable. I also read what he wrote. It also was respectable.</p>

<p>I learned early on, as an attorney, that very many times news directors in television will send crews to GET FILM that enforces an already determined viewpoint which is aimed to 'sell' the story, rather than to gather film, then have someone with skill determine whether or if there is a story there and how to present it. </p>

<p>The presentation has often been predetermined and the film crew's job, despite appearances, is to 'get film that carries a point of view'.</p>

<p>While in many cases major market news crews may get ALL the footage, much of it, a news director and his reporte, on scene once confided to me me off the record, is discarded if it does not fill a predetermined point of view decided on by the news director that dispatched the film crew.</p>

<p>From learning that until now, this onetime print journalist, has never spoken on the record to a television journalist for any reason, despite numerous requests.</p>

<p>As a print journalist (and quomdam photographer) for Associated Press, I learned early on there were mainly three ways to lose your job almost at once: 1. Take money or gifts from those seeking publicity or to push a story. 2. Steal a typewriter 3. Slant the news. </p>

<p>Any one of those three would quickly result in a lost job. </p>

<p>Those were the sacrosanct three rules; all the other rules were somewhat negotiable, if you were a good, productive worker, but those were NOT, EVER.</p>

<p>One look through Gallo's photos and reading of blog discussion suggests to me that he and probably the whole group were on a mission to do some genuine street photogrraphy.</p>

<p>Before making a judgment about such things, I suggest that anyone seeking to reach a decision about the WBZ-TV report try to do complete research, as I have tried to do.</p>

<p>john<br>

John (Crosley)</p>