Have you ever been called a SICKO doing street photography?

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>As a novice, may I raise a dilemma at this point? I've just had a rummage on Brad's site (very nice) and I certainly agree with the concept of being courteous and avoiding offence. However, I think there's a distinction between styles: Many of Brad's and Daniel's images are portraits of interesting-looking people posing for the camera in interesting surroundings, and I completely accept that asking nicely (and caring about, and understanding, the subject) is the right way to capture such images.<br />

<br />

However, what should one do if it's what the person is doing in a given moment that's interesting? Assuming, of course, that it's not convenient to interrupt them and ask them to resume - and even then, the self-consciousness of being in front of a camera might ruin the opportunity. Say, for example, a street seller is engaged in a photographic bit of banter with a customer; would you always wait until you'd asked, take the shot and check for permission afterwards, or accept that it was a candid situation and try not to impinge on the subject at all? If it was possible to catch someone's eye without distracting them I might try to request permission by gesticulation, but it's not always feasible to "capture the moment" by doing that. It may also be harder, on this occasion, to seek forgiveness than permission.<br />

<br />

It's the difference between wrangling a stranger and passive journalism. As I've said, I don't think it's on to keep an image that shows a stranger in a way they wouldn't like, and I doubt I'd put any images of strangers somewhere public without express persmission anyway, but it seems like the rules for capturing the image as a bystander and when given the ability to interact with the subject might differ.<br />

<br />

By extension, it's impractical to talk to everyone in a crowd and check they were okay being in the background of a photograph. In the case of the image Daryl posted, is it the case that going (some distance) and asking the couple in the foreground of the image whether they minded being photographed is more of an imposition on them than actually photographing them? At least with a DSLR, would you have gone up to them afterwards and said "I hope you don't mind, I thought the two of you were photogenic and I just took this image, are you okay with it?" or would you leave them in peace? How about the people in the background? It is always creepy to photograph someone who's not posing for the camera? I'm curious where people draw the line when it comes to getting permission.</p>

[martinangus]

<p>Andrew, I do believe the law-makers have invested some serious time debating this whole subject. That's good enough for me. At the risk of being further attacked by those who disagree with my philosophy, the law is based on a <strong><em>"reasonable expectation of privacy".</em></strong></p>

<p>Its obviously unethical (and illegal) to shoot through someone's window into their shower because they have a certain <em>reasonable expectation of privacy</em>. However, anything in the public street is fair game without prior permission as far as I'm concerned.</p>

<p>Just tossing a bit more gasoline onto the fire...LOL</p>

[DB_Gallery]

Hi Andrew, a clarification, while most of the images of mine on this site are like you say, looking into camera, the vast

majority of what I shoot which does not show up on internet sites is more like you say, candid. About half the time

when making these shots if it is for one of my book projects, I go up and introduce myself later which is almost always

a positive experience leading to great leads for feature stories, other subjects, etc. If I am on assignment for let's say,

Der Speigel on the Boulder CU campus when 15,000 people are smoking pot on 4/20 and I single out a group of

people that is more than 6-8, I simply keep on shooting. If I single out a cop getting a massive contact high on that

same assignment, I get standard AP style caption info or as much as the subject will allow.

 

In other words, candid or not, I act professionally and always with consideration of my subjects at the forefront.

This morning, I shot two frames for a 25 year book project in black and white. They were candids of people, I

approached them afterward, told them of the photo and what it was for and offered up my card. One took it and the

other gave me his blessing and said it was not necessary and that he would probably lose it anyway.

 

Take the candid, but be prepared to answer questions by either the subject or a passerby as to why you took it. Laws

or not, it is the way it is now, people want to know why and where and who and you have to try and see it from their

side...

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Martin - thank you for braving the thread again! I agree about the legality, and I would take that into account when trying to decide whether someone would likely grant permission were I to ask them - but I'd still delete (or, on film, ignore) an image if someone asked, or not shoot if I thought they'd object. I would, perhaps, be less worried about sensitivity in a group shot or something showing context than in a close-up of an individual. (As a random example, I'd be a lot happier snapping a girl in a bikini walking down a shopping street if I included the street and others reacting, than if I zoomed in and just captured her, however pretty the girl or flattering the image.) I guess it's the difference between someone being prepared to be seen and being prepared to be scrutinised.<br />

<br />

Daniel - thank you; for someone not experienced in this area, that's good feedback on the way people react. (I would wonder whether merely asking was more of an intrusion than photographing them, but obviously it's a judgement call, and your experience may improve my judgement.) Digital helps when queried: I've had someone aggressively tell me off for photographing him outside a pub in the past; I actually only photographed the illuminated pub sign, and he was well out of shot, but it was very hard to prove with a film camera and I don't think he believed me. In the case of the prostitute I mentioned earlier, at least I could show her she wasn't in-shot. Now I just have to be able to take images that are sufficiently flattering that people won't object! (And print some cards.)<br />

<br />

Thank you again to the contributors in this thread. I've had a lifetime of shooting landscapes and nature (badly) for which I don't have to worry about this kind of thing, and it's good to have expert advice before branching out. I'll report back if I get mugged for my camera...<br />

<br />

Incidentally, there's an interesting contrast between (some of) what's been said here and the advice in <a href="http://www.photo.net/columns/mjohnston/14-tips-for-photographing-in-public/">this column</a>.</p>

[steve_t.1]

<p>John H, it is a fact, opinion (and even evidence) has nothing to do with it- the lady throwing accusations of being a sicko <em>did not know</em> what the subject matter was being recorded by that camera. </p>

<p>I do sincerely apologize for causing you to go into a tirade. I humbly bow to your expertise in the areas of discerning fact and opinion, mind reading, and judging competence. All the best to you.</p>

[richardsperry]

Martin Angus,

 

What does legality have to do with it? Of course it's legal to photograph people in public. We all know that.

 

I'll reiterate my previous questions.

 

Do you cut line in front of people in public, because it's legal? Would you fart in someone's face in public, because

that's legal too? Or any number of other completely legal, yet socially unacceptable behaviors.

 

It's perfectly legal for some old woman to call a photographer, in public, a Sicko too. It's legal. But it's causing at least

one photographer discomfort. Legality is not the point of your transgression, or the topic of this thread.

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>it is a fact, opinion (and even evidence) has nothing to do with it- the lady throwing accusations of being a sicko <em>did not know</em> what the subject matter was being recorded by that camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>People are sometimes able to discern what the subject or probable subject of a shooting photographer is. Please explain how you are able know whether some lady knows or does not know what the subject of a photographer is when the only information available to you is a vague statement that "a woman who glanced in the direction I was pointing [my] camera, and saw another woman in my field of view"? If we are going to claim that "he wasn't worthy" based on her conclusions of what she saw, there should be some basis for that. When performing street shooting, its seems prudent not make unfounded assumptions about people that will be encountered. Given your advice given on how to proceed in such a situation then, how are you able to know what this lady was or was not able to determine relying, as you did, on this one statement while at a computer?</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>However, what should one do if it's what the person is doing in a given moment that's interesting? Assuming, of course, that it's not convenient to interrupt them and ask them to resume - and even then, the self-consciousness of being in front of a camera might ruin the opportunity.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's a very important question. In my admittedly limited street photography experience, I've noticed that people who are "doing something interesting" tend to not notice what's going on around them. The opportunities for capturing candids are higher when the subject is fully engaged in an activity rather than just standing around, talking on the phone or waiting for a bus. Plus, I believe that people who are doing something are a bit more receptive to being photographed than they are when they are "minding their own business."</p>

<p>Further, you can sometimes get people to re-enact what they were doing. I have a photo of two young ladies looking at a map. They only glanced at it momentarily, and I didn't have enough time to get a good shot. I asked them to pose for me while looking at the map. They agreed to, and I was able to take my time and get a better composition. Some very notable and famous street photographs have been taken this way including the sailor kissing the woman in Times Square at the end of WWII. The photo was snapped during a re-enactment of a previous moment.</p>

<p>By the way, Brad's shots are not all posed portraits. There are several candid action shots on his website. Go back and have a look.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> By the way, Brad's shots are not all posed portraits. There are several candid action shots on his

website. Go back and have a look.<P>

 

That's true, but actually there are at least a couple hundred on my personal site (citysnaps,net). But most of

my daily shooting activity I post on another site with three other brotographers, Allcitysf.com.<P>

 

Here are my contributions to that site, loads of candids: <a href= "http://allcitysf.com/author/brad/">Click here...</a><P>

 

Also, for about the last year I have been spending a lot of time engaging strangers in a single SF

neighborhood. By nature, most of those are portraits. But still a lot of candids.

[Brad_]

Thanks Daniel and Dan for the nice words about my shooting.

 

>>>If the direct approach like Brad talks about is taken, often in the style of portraits, then permission is far less an issue,

you either get a yes or a no.

 

A little clarification... I shoot a lot of both candid street photography and street portraiture (always of strangers).

 

By nature street portraiture is direct because an engagement is necessary. People always say yes. Well, most of the time.

Maybe 19 times out of 20. Of those that say no, 50% of the time I can convince them to say yes.

 

My approach to candid street photography is also direct. That means if I see something that's interesting, rather shoot from

the shadows or edges, or with a long lens trying to conceal myself, or a hip shot, or a shoot-n-run, etc, I just quickly frame

up the shot and shoot. It's over in a second. Most of the time people are not aware. Of the times people become aware after I've pressed the

shutter, most just don't care. Sometimes, if discovered, people ask why I took their picture. An easy, direct, and honest

response is, "I'm just documenting the city." Or, "I write for a San Francisco blog." That always works. If on the very rare occasion I think there

might be some potential hostility, I go on the offensive with a big smile, thumbs up, and engage the person and say

something nice. I think that positive approach might be a bit disarming, not allowing a conflict to materialize. I never

saunter/run away from situations.

 

Common sense is always in order. If in a bad neighborhood and I'm walking down the sidewalk I see a group of people

engaged in something sketchy, money being exchanged, etc, I don't do something stupid and frame-up and take their photo.

OTOH, I don't put my camera away either. I'll nod and walk on. And get a nod back. It's giving people respect. And getting it back. Later on I

might engage for a portrait.

 

>>> And this post, I do this too, give back to people who complete my life long journey as a photographer by giving them a

print:

 

It's a great thing to do. Whenever I do a stranger portrat, and expect to see that person again in the neighborhood, I'll make a

4x6 print to give back on a subsequent encounter. I always have 30-50 prints in my bag. And have given away hundreds

over the years. Giving back is a nice gesture. People always love them.

[GerrySiegel]

<p>I do so little street candid type photography myself anymore so I found Daniel Bayer's and Brad's thoughts of real interest. The decorum of shooting strangers, I mean. If someone calls me sicko or another name or gives the fickle finger of fate, and I were not a paparazzo who has the impenetrable skin for that , you bet i would be a little bothered, maybe embarrassed, and wondering what gives. Mostly, I would do some self searching about my approach before getting annoyed with the unknown yeller. Why- because that leads to no change in anyone's behavior, hers or mine. <br /> Easier to think about how one can adjust one's behavior to conform to what we may call the mood of the day. And the location of the day. And at least some individual subjects of the day. My thought is that Daniel B above is describing something genuine and observable about the mood of the day.</p>

[steve_t.1]

<p>Well, John, the OP said nothing about the critical woman looking through his viewfinder to see for herself what he was viewing. Heck, a wide lens would probably catch the women in his field of view, where if he were using a tele the other woman may not be in his view, but the critical woman will never know this without looking through the viewfinder and seeing it with her own eyes. Based on that, I am fully confident that this is how I "am able [to] know whether some lady knows or does not know what the subject of a photographer is."</p>

<p>I stand by my initial statements to the OP, and my statements weren't worthy of the tone and sentiment of your reply. This is getting us nowhere, let's you and I shake hands now and stop.</p>

[ldavidson]

<p>The person who called you SICKO probably thought that you were violating the privacy rights of others. Apparently you believe your desire to photograph a person (woman) overrides her right to privacy. Unless it is a public person, a celebrity, or someone doing something newsworthy, you should always ask permission. You may not be legally required to do so, but it is the most ethical approach in my mind.</p>

<p>Regarding the angry woman photo; ”Martin says, “I happened upon a young lady in the street who was behaving very strangely. So I took her picture. She was very upset about it so I took another...the latter was the better shot.” Martin, she didn’t want you taking her picture! If it were a large muscular man would you continue to shoot? Richard says, “Women are biologically and evolutionarily pre-wired to require permission, much more than men are”. Andre says, “first woman just jealous no one pointing camera her way.” Are you kidding me? Is this sex or photography we are talking about. Either way I find your comments creepy.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p><em>"... Either way I find your comments creepy ..."</em> -</p>

<p>@Linda: Ditto, and not just his comments, but his behavior as well! Self-centered, to say the least. I do hope that someday he meets up with the muscular man that you hypothesized. ;-).</p>

<p>BTW, we should consider that this was somewhat of a troll. Mr. Sawatzky joined photo.net some time ago, but he has only posted messages for the last three days under that name, ie, July 10th - 12th. Since he knows something about photography, my guess is that he is a more frequent poster using that pseudonym.</p>

<p>Also, FWIW, there was a very similar thread back in March:<br>

http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00YQXl?start=40</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[richardsperry]

"Either way I find your comments creepy."

 

Linda, were you referring to my statement that you quoted?

Your paragraph is confusing.

[tom_mann1]

<p>RS, I assumed she was taking about the OP when I made my comments.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[john_macpherson]

<p>At risk of yet again referring to Brad's work (sorry Brad)......can I just quote something he recently said which I think offers a lesson we all should heed. It may not seem like much but it demonstrates (to me at least) a key aspect of his character, and the reason why he is so successful in his work.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Whenever I do a stranger portrat, and expect to see that person again in the neighborhood, I'll make a 4x6 print to give back on a subsequent encounter. I always have 30-50 prints in my bag. And have given away hundreds over the years. Giving back is a nice gesture. People always love them.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Simple isn't it! But its not quite as simple as it seems.</p>

<p>How the hell does he remember ALL those faces, to take hundreds of pictures, to be able to carry 50 or more and select from them when he meets one of his subjects a second time. How does he do that?</p>

<p>Well I'd guess its quite simply because his motiviation is people. He likes them, in all their predictability, and weirdness, and happiness and sadness, enthusiasm and tardiness. Meeting people. Engaging directly with people. Seeing their faces, really SEEING their faces, and enjoying the experience. Photographic skill aside, thats a great quality to possess.</p>

<p>Successful (street) photography requires that the practitioner possess far more than just a camera and an aspiration. Although thats a good start, respect for, and interest in, your fellow man will take you much much further.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>the critical woman will never know this without looking through the viewfinder and seeing it with her own eyes. Based on that, I am fully confident that this is how I "am able [to] know whether some lady knows or does not know what the subject of a photographer is."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>People are sometimes able to determiner the intended target of a photo being shot or even the very likely target and often it is because of surrounding circumstances and without "looking through the viewfinder". Moreover, you claim to know what the subject of a photographer is merely by looking through the viewfinder when, in reality, what happens to be in the viewfinder at any given moment, even when a shot is made, may not be the part the intended target. According to your explanation, the method of discerning the photographers thoughts and intentions, at any given point, are seeing what is in a viewfinder at any given point. According to this theory, anyone who happens to walk in to the viewfinder is an intended subject.</p>

<p>Your reliance on what happens to be the viewfinder as the sole or final arbiter of someone's thought process is nonsense. Its curious you are able to discern that the woman was "unworthy" and she didn't even have a viewfinder for you to look through to determine and judge what she knew. So you ,with virtually no information whatsoever and not at the scene knows what she is doing, and some woman, who is at the scene has no possibility of discerning what someone there is doing.</p>

<p>Sure.</p>

<p>The realty is that we don't know if he conclusions were reasonable or not. We can't magically read her mind.</p>

<p> </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Thanks again, everyone - especially for the response to my queries (and I'll have a longer look at Brad's images!) As someone who's not done much street photography there's a bit of a start-up problem, that I can't show people a site with appealing photos on it until I've actually photographed some people, but I can only overcome that by getting away from my desk and using my camera. That's something I really need to do anyway.<br />

<br />

I'll raise again what I suspect is a benefit of digital photography: you can show someone a picture and check they're okay with it at the time - or in Daryl's case it might have been possible to just show that the image was harmless. If I had a D3 I could also voice annotate the image so, if someone contacted me and wanted a print, I could track it down - otherwise I think I'd be reduced to writing file names (well, image numbers) on a card I handed out, although if I went to the level of subject interaction that Brad goes to, I may well take notes (at least after I'd stopped talking) anyway. The down-side is that I don't really want to carry my D700 around the streets in case I'm mugged for it - not such an issue with an old film camera. I have an Eos 300D (digital Rebel) which might be my saviour here (usable, not worth much), or perhaps I'm better just using a cheap compact. Still so much to learn...</p>

[michaelwarren]

<p>If you want people to think you are a creep, look and move like a creep. If you want them to think you are a photographer, look and move like a photographer. Body language says more than your mouth ever could. Try to wear professional clothes. Be clean and well groomed. When you move, move like you own the place. Walk with a purpose. Even if you don't, always make it look like you know exactly what you are doing. Make it look and seem like you are doing it for a routine purpose. Try to photograph the same area a few times. If you want to blend in to the background, become the background. Don't try to hide your camera, or your business. If someone confronts you, smile and offer a handshake.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>Once I did a photo project with a pair of hooded black and white female "art rats". Imagine my joy coming upon this: A police officer at a busy transit terminus for street types was trying to explain to a young women why having her pet rats out and about on the sidewalk wasn't a good idea. <br>

I ignored polite requests by the girl's cohorts to not take pictures of the goings on. Usually I honor people's wishes, only this time I claimed my right to shoot in a public space and said so. When the cops were through talking to her they came over to me and we had a little talk. These cops were of the infinitely patient with everyone variety. They surely take pride in their sensitive and nuanced interpretation of a<em> situation</em> as it plays out. I repeated my legalistic justification and they didn't argue my point - "Yes sir, we just spent a lot of time explaining 'public space' to the young lady." They said I would make their jobs easier if I'd just not photograph there for a while. Even though the facts on the ground did lean in my favor I felt kind of a jerk about it - disrupting the social harmony like I was. Psyched me good, they did! A few days previously at this very spot I photographed a young street person and his dogs. I asked permission first and gave him a buck. I do the reciprocity thing with certain tableaux-type pictures, same as one would with a street performer. I couldn't ask rat girl permission while she was conferring with the cops so I just went ahead. In my view she was a street performer. Show up, you're on the stage. One would not go there in the first place seeking anonymity!</p>

[daryl_sawatzky]

<p>Tom I find that inference offensive. I have never posted under any other name but my own.</p>

[richardsperry]

Daryl,

 

It's not offensive. It's a valid observation.

 

Typical message board poster behavior is different than yours. Typically a person will lurk a board without registering

for some time, then find an urge to post in a thread, then register to post at that time. So registration and first post

date are the same.

 

Registering a name, then posting in a flurry of posts 5 months later is not at all typical poster behavior.

 

But it is typical of previous posters/trolls to have alternate names or handles registered previously, then post later.

They think it might set up some legitimacy or credibility, and do so accordingly.

 

A board admin(sometimes mods too) would be able to quickly see if a poster has been posting under more than one member name. He sees the poster's IP address on every post. And has the tools to see all posts made by any IP address.

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Richard: It's valid to flag someone who might be trolling (although typical troll behaviour might be to run away, rather than deny it as Daryl has). However, I'm not sure Daryl has exactly posted flame bait - I've valued this discussion.<br />

<br />

Daryl: please accept that Tom is, perhaps unjustly in this case, entitled to draw to our attention an oddity about your posting history that people might like to take into consideration when deciding whether and how to respond; I hope he did so without malice, but merely voicing a concern. You've defended yourself against one possible inference that could be made from that bit of information - I don't think any harm has been done, and an anomaly has been cleared up; I hope you see it that way.<br />

<br />

Unless we've reached the end of the discussion, let's return to the topic at hand?<br />

<br />

Alan: I'd be very uncomfortable taking a photograph in that situation, unless the discussion with the police was purely amicable. Any published photo of someone interacting with the authorities might give a negative impression of them, for example to their employer. I appreciate that it may have been a coincidence that you didn't want to pass up, but - from your description - I think I would have tried to find a way that didn't rile anyone up (although I appreciate that the young lady in question might not have wanted to hang around for a portrait shot). That said, I might have been kicking myself for not getting the shot afterwards; 20:20 hindsight is so easy to have.</p>

[daryl_sawatzky]

<p>Richard,<br>

Typically I would not publicly call someone out on a hunch. I would explore the proof first. Ask the admins to investigate, if there is validity to the suspicion, then alert the other posters in the thread.<br>

Tom called me out on a hunch. He has no evidence and he will find no evidence. If you are going to slander people based on a hunch, you are no better than the woman in the original post called me a sicko for taking a picture of a bird on a shopping cart!.<br>

I happen to sign up for all kinds of websites when I find them, so I can choose my own name, and not get stuck with 'sawatzky13' or some other such nonsense. If it takes me a year to get back to the forum, I know what my account name would be if I had one. I'm not sure that's all that unusual. I can't even remember all of the other photo forums I've had to sign up for just to post one response.</p>