When Things Go Wrong

Landrum Kelly · September 13, 2013

If the same situation arises again, I'd suggest you drum up the courage and go up to folks in question and explain yourself.

</blockquote>

That is very good advice, Tim. Thank you. In this case, given what I thought I saw unfolding through the viewfinder, moving on seemed to be the safer course. Cooler heads tend to prevail with the passage of a bit of time.

As for the cops, so far the cops have pretty much left me alone. Perhaps they recognize my old '95 red Honda Civic with the busted muffler--you know, the one driven by that crazy old guy with the camera and tripod who hangs out near the train station.

Sooner or later, though, the cops are bound to ask me what I am up to. I hope that they do not say, "You're trespassing," or worse.

I would drive on down to Charlotte to get more "dramatic" night shots, but the one time I tried that I had to beat a hasty retreat from what appeared to be an approaching gang. One never knows.

I'm not too big on more drama today, for some reason.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · September 13, 2013

The police also arrived where I explained again what I was doing. No big deal, but the experience did rattle me, but that's the risk of walking around and taking photos out in public.

</blockquote>

Thanks again, Tim. Thanks this time for reminding me about the perennial risk. Could it be that we--some of us--are hooked on the adrenalin highs of risk-taking? Just a thought. . .

I have to say that there are nights that I don't want to go out there. There are also nights when I can't wait to get out there. On those latter nights, I tend to be more bold, sometimes to the point of being aggressive. That could be good. It could also be very, very bad.

I think I need a testosterone meter on my wrist.

--Lannie

Tim_Lookingbill · September 13, 2013

As for the cops, so far the cops have pretty much left me alone. Perhaps they recognize my old '95 red Honda Civic with the busted muffler--you know, the one driven by that crazy old guy with the camera and tripod who hangs out near the train station.

</blockquote>

The cops were called on me because I hadn't realized riding my bicycle to take photos of houses prevents folks from taking down my license plate numbers. There was no way to ID me, so they let the cops do it.

At the time I thought THEY were going way overboard by calling the cops until the police officer pointed at my bike. DOH! WHY DIDNT I THINK OF THAT?! It now made perfect sense.

Learn something new every time I go out and shoot in public which I don't do any more. It's just not worth the anxiety of my not being able to think ahead for every possible cause and effect that may arise when I perceive things getting out of hand.

Landrum Kelly · September 13, 2013

Learn something new every time I go out and shoot in public which I don't do any more. It's just not worth the anxiety of my not being able to think ahead for every possible cause and effect that may arise when I perceive things getting out of hand.

</blockquote>

Yes, Tim, and we absolutely have to remember that we are dealing with human beings. One never knows when a seemingly harmless situation is going to blow up. It happens all the time. People get crazy. I think that the guy who walked toward me is a rational sort of guy, based on the 100% crops that I saw later on the computer.

Then again, he might have gone and filed a complaint with the Salisbury P.D. and the Department of Homeland Security. One never knows.

I think I'll lay low for a couple of days. It might be time to get up into the mountains. Bears, cougars--bah! They might eat you, but they will never accuse you.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · September 13, 2013

Oh, hell, it's Friday the 13th.

Brad_ · September 13, 2013

>>> Thanks, Brad. I knew that a thread like this would snag at least one snide and snarky hypocrite:

For me, one of the elements of hypocrisy is not taking responsibility for one's actions. In the scenario you

painted, late at night you noticed a group of people off in the distance, you rolled up in your car, stuck your camera/lens out the window and

pointed it at them like a divorce lawyer's private detective, took a bunch of snaps, and then when discovered and about to be confronted,

high-tailed it out of Dodge afraid of the impending consequences, with that quick departure creating even MORE suspicion. That really is a

CS move, IMO, taking no responsibility for your actions, and, exhibiting zero empathy towards your "subjects."

Also, thanks for referencing my photos. It's a shame you did not include links to the image galleries which show a more representative view

of what my photography is about.

With respect to your claim of hypocrisy, well, I work a little differently when shooting candidly. First, always using a 35/40 mm lens I'm not off in

the distance stalking people, usually shooting within 10-15 feet. Second, I shoot in the open not trying to hide what I'm doing from within my

car or use other deceptive measures. Third, I enjoy talking to people, and if anyone wants to know what I'm up to shooting candidly (it happens a few times a

year), I gladly explain what I'm doing, taking responsibility for my actions. It always goes good, because I like talking to people on the street about my photography. People respect honesty.

With respect to myself being "snide and snarky," perhaps you can point out the specifics. My first response was simply my assessment of your

actions and lack of empathy, based upon your narrative and photos.

cyanatic · September 13, 2013

Fred G: Steve, did you notice that it was Lannie himself who passed aesthetic judgment on his own photos?

</blockquote>

Fred, that was after the fact, after his initial instinct caused him to take the photographs, and really has nothing to do with the points I was trying to make. Ethical and aesthetic judgments were being passed on Lannie’s photos and methodology (in this particular instance) long before I entered this thread.

Fred G: I guess it's fine to tell him he did nothing wrong,

</blockquote>

If this refers to my post, I never indicated that “he did nothing wrong”. That’s up to Lannie to decide. Which is part of what I was trying to say. Lannie, and any other photographer, must determine their ethical boundaries, their level of comfort, and the degree to which they are prepared to deal with the possible consequences of photographing in public spaces. He doesn’t owe you, me, or the subjects, any explanations or justifications. Unless, of course, he feels that he does.

Fred G: Why does this have to become about ethics or about photographers standing their ground or about patting a photographer on the back for seizing the moment? Why can't it be about the photos? ... much more could be said about how this scene might have been approached to yield photos that Lannie might feel were of more value.

</blockquote>

It doesn’t have to be about ethics or standing ground or patting a photographer on the back. (Is that really what you took away from what I said? My communication skills must really suck.) Given the limitations of Lannie’s situation, I’m not sure what there is to discuss. My interpretation of the OP did not include “how could I best capture a significant tearful reunion”. If that is what this thread is truly about, then my interpretive skills also need a serious makeover.

Fred, I’m not here to argue with you. I know you enjoy parsing posts and analyzing comments. I do not. I’ve said what I wanted to say. If it is interpreted incorrectly, then so be it. I wrote what I did as a counterpoint to what I see as a prevailing attitude among a number of PN members regarding shooting in public spaces. If it’s not a tsk-tsking over ethical considerations, it’s a judgemental delimiting of techniques and approaches. In that regard, I believe that you and I are more in agreement than not.

Landrum Kelly · September 13, 2013

stuck your camera/lens out the window and pointed it at them

</blockquote>

First of all, the shots were made through the car dark within which I was sitting and then through the open passenger side window. The passenger side was next to the curb and thus the sidewalk where the people were standing--thirty to fifty feet away, I would say.

Second, here is what I saw, or thought I did:

<a href="/photo/17526440&size=lg" rel="nofollow">http://www.photo.net/photo/17526440&size=lg</a>

Third, regardless of whether or not I was a threat (I wasn't), it seemed likely (without the benefit of 100% crops at the time) that the guy was on a mission to show off in front of the women--probably a bad guess, but it was my first guess. People already hyped up on adrenaline and testosterone can be dangerous. I am not a coward, but I prefer to talk about things with people who have had a chance to calm down--keep in mind that the view through the viewfinder did not show anything but someone who could be interpreted as posturing and threatening, though that is not the sense that I get from the blown up files--which I saw much later. I preferred to err, if err I must, on the side of caution. That is, I simply did not know who I was dealing with, but he was probably the young female soldier's father. Do you not smell blood in any possible scenario that might have unfolded?

Fourth, I doubt that you have ever lived down South. It is a "whole 'nother world." I am from the South, though I have lived all over. Macho rules. This is a "red state." Expect the "military" to get the nod in the eyes of the police, if there should be an incident. This is not San Francisco. Perceptions and expectations differ.

Fifth, do not assume that no one in that group was carrying a gun. The odds are pretty good that at least one person was. (See point four just above.)

Sixth, ask yourself whether <a href="http://www.magcloud.com/browse/issue/382226">shooting women's rear ends as they walk up steps in front of you</a> is really all that manly a thing to do. Do you ask for permission beforehand? Do you explain yourself afterward? How often do YOU engage in behavior that could be interpreted as "sneaky and suspicious"? (Ergo: hypocrisy)

Seventh, there was traffic to contend with--and the light changed to green. There was the possibility that the man (for all I knew) had been drinking. I could not very well stop and get out of the car there, blocking traffic. I did turn right and drive right by them after waving goodbye. Pulling over and explaining myself was an option. I did not see it as the preferred option, for the reasons already given.

I did the best I could given limited information and the need for a split second decision.

I have not tried to defend the decision to shoot in the first place. After that, I made the rational choice for this culture and that situation, as I saw it. I am an old man with a camera. On the other side is a soldier--and a woman at that. The context is "family." Who is going to be perceived in a better light by the cops, especially in this part of the world, if the cops should be called?

There is an accusatory tone to all of your remarks. Physician, heal thyself.

"Why not stick around and find out? The opportunity was there..."

No, you come down here and try that. I want to watch. I'll bring my camera.

"Film at eleven," as they used to say. We'll try to explain to your mom how things came apart. We will never be able to explain why.

I will repeat what I said in my first response to your first attack: "I knew that a thread like this would snag at least one snide and snarky hypocrite."

Do you not see why you might be perceived that way? I cannot help you if you cannot.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · September 13, 2013

For me, one of the elements of hypocrisy is not taking responsibility for one's actions.

</blockquote>

No, that is simply irresponsible behavior. Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another.

Again, I say to you, Physician, heal thyself: <a href="http://www.magcloud.com/browse/issue/382226" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.magcloud.com/browse/issue/382226</a>

I was trying to capture a family homecoming, the joy of a family upon seeing a beloved son or daughter again after a tour abroad (as I interpreted the situation). Perhaps it was a goodbye--that could be equally poignant and worthy of capture. You were trying to capture. . . what? "Street Sauce" indeed.

I rest my case. I have already admitted that it was unwise, given the situation, to start shooting. The decision not to stick around was the rational decision, given what I did not and could not know.

I saw a military uniform. I am not a militarist, but I saw. . . homecoming.

--Lannie

AmyHelmick · September 13, 2013

This has been a great thread. Lannie, I do think lots of value has come from your post. I personally do admire the many street photographers on this site who manage to "get it right" and furthermore appreciate those who share the knowledge they've garnered over years of experience.

I have had opportunity this week to take a few street photos. including my very first "engaged street portrait". The focus is off because I was nervous and hurried, but still, I see it as a bit of a milestone. I think that especially when first starting, the line between an unaware street photo and "stalking" is a fine one. I tend to believe that's just gonna come with experience. Even at this very early stage in practicing the "Street" genre, I notice a bit of a gut feeling about which is which, however.

My take-aways from this thread and my experience last week are:

Be honest and forthright.

Be smart-avoid situations that make you "look" like a stalker, even though that's not your intention.

Have the backbone to shoot when the time is right. (I applaud you, Lannie, for taking the shot). Next time, you'll do it differently based on what you learned from this experience.

Have (and know) your own sense of "ethics". If it doesn't feel right, don't do it.

Again, I sincerely appreciate Lannie for posting this and to all the previous commenters who share knowledge and experience in this community.

Landrum Kelly · September 13, 2013

Brad, one last thing I would like to say: given my initial error, the rest of my decision-making was based on the premise that I should try at all costs to avoid the worst-case scenario.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · September 13, 2013

Thanks, Amy. I look forward to seeing your street shots.

My take-aways from this thread and my experience last week are: Be honest and forthright. Be smart-avoid situations that make you "look" like a stalker, even though that's not your intention. Have the backbone to shoot when the time is right.

Have (and know) your own sense of "ethics". If it doesn't feel right, don't do it.

</blockquote>

Sounds good to me, Amy.

--Lannie

Brad_ · September 13, 2013

>>> Third, regardless of whether or not I was a threat (I wasn't), it seemed likely (without the benefit of 100% crops at the time)

that the guy was on a mission to show off in front of the women--probably a bad guess,

A guess at best. More likely, he wanted to find out what you were doing sneaking shots at night from inside a car at a distance.

Most people would wonder the same thing.

>>> Fourth, I doubt that you have ever lived down South. It is a "whole 'nother world." I am from the South, though I have lived all

over. Macho rules. This is a "red state." ... Sixth, ask yourself whether shooting women's rear ends as they walk up steps in

front of you is really all that manly a thing to do.

Macho? Manly? It's just photography. Neither male or female; odd association. Honestly, no matter the geographic area, I have

zero interest in taking surveillance photos. With respect to the shot you referenced, It was on the sidewalk (not stairs) during lunch

time in downtown SF, walking with my wife. She pointed out the interesting lines/geometry (she's a painter) and I took the shot. There's

nothing manly/non-manly about it. It's a photo.

>>> Do you ask for permission beforehand? Do you explain yourself afterward? How often do YOU engage in behavior that could

be interpreted as "sneaky and suspicious"? (Ergo: hypocrisy)

As I said up above, when shooting candids, if someone takes issue, I take responsibility and am happy to explain what I'm doing,

which is either "It's for my photoblog," or "I'm documenting the city." Zero problems. With respect to my own "sneaky/suspicious"

behavior, as I said above, I shoot close and in the open. It is very apparent what I'm doing and the overwhelming majority of

people don't care. Even in challenging neighborhoods - if I were to act suspicious and sneak around with my camera, it would be a

much different story.

>>> Fifth, do not assume that no one in that group was carrying a gun. The odds are pretty good that at least one person was.

Interesting... I've shot in challenging neighborhoods where that may likely be true, engaging many people out of the mainstream.

But I've never worried about that, and honestly never crosses my mind. Treat people honestly, openly, with respect you get it

back - even from gang members and dealers. If people carrying guns is something that's always on your mind, troubles you, and

causes you to photograph from within your car at a distance, perhaps you should reevaluate your photography?

>>> "Why not stick around and find out? The opportunity was there..." No, you come down here and try that. I want to watch. I'll

bring my camera.

First, I wouldn't put myself in a position of taking surveillance photos from a distance, hiding in my car. I offered that suggestion

because you were wondering what was on his mind. You had an opportunity to find out. And then drove off, creating even more suspicion. I suspect most others would be similarly freaked out...

cyanatic · September 13, 2013

Speaking of snarky -- Some of my remarks to Fred look harsher than intended. (Not that any degree of harshness was intended!) I don't mean to belittle the idea of analyzing and further defining the things we share here. I think, Fred, that you were attempting to turn this discussion in a more positive direction by thinking about how Lannie could have obtained the kind of photo he was originally looking for. My apologies.

Admittedly, I am bothered by those who pass judgements on Lannie's situation. Whether they be judgements of his ethics, judgements related to the technique demanded by that situation, or judgements related to his reaction to what transpired. Overall, though, an instructive discussion. Wasn't there a recent thread discussing "practicing" photography? I think being prepared, or going through a heart pounding situation we weren't prepared for, is all a part of practice. I hope this experience doesn't hold you back, Lannie.

david_kaye · September 13, 2013

Landrum, take one or two photos, no problem.

What you did was the equivalent of staring at the group.

Nobody enjoys being stared at.

As for uniforms, in my day, one could not go into the main part of an Officers Club wearing a flight suit or fatigues. Many

clubs had casual bars where you could wear anything. Now, when I go on a base, everyone is in fatigues or flight suits.

I don't like it. It's low class. But officers clubs are becoming extinct.

cyanatic · September 13, 2013

Brad: With respect to the shot you referenced, It was on the sidewalk (not stairs) during lunch time in downtown SF, walking with my wife. She pointed out the interesting lines/geometry (she's a painter) and I took the shot.

</blockquote>

Sorry, brother. But when I look at that shot (and I do happen to like it...), I ain't thinkin about Euclid. ;-)

Norma Desmond · September 13, 2013

Steve, no problem. And thanks.

Lannie, it seems to me you have taken adequate responsibility for your actions. Maybe you are even being too self deprecating. We're here to learn and it sounds to me like you are open to learning. I see that as a net positive.

I don't think anyone in this discussion seems more responsible than anyone else and I don't think any of the photos shown or linked to show hypocrisy or irresponsibility.

I don't think either responsibility or hypocrisy are key here.

I look at photos, street and otherwise, and I see differences in photographic quality, the adoption of perspective and point of view, differences in the level of involvement and sense of vision. I see differences in interest in terms of composition and tonal variety, in terms of moments chosen and angles played, in terms of imagination piqued and story told.

Involvement can come even with a lack of engagement. That can be a key to candid street shooting and to shooting of any kind. On the other hand, involvement isn't always necessary, and emotional distance can be effective with regard to the taking of some photos.

There is no one ingredient that will suit everyone's work. And there is certainly no one best way to act when shooting photos. The reason so much street photography is so compelling to me is precisely because there are so many different approaches to it. Styles I appreciate go from confrontational to empathetic, from a sense of easygoing comfort to a sense of tense disquieting.

Hopefully, if you pursue the street, and even in the rest of your photography, you will find a way that best suits you and that allows you to see value in what you produce. I know that some of my own favorite photos came about while I had a feeling of great dis-ease.

Landrum Kelly · September 13, 2013

Brad:

I went to shoot buildings. I got a few frames. (Click on my name if you want to see a few.) I was going just a few blocks to check out another set of buildings, and so the camera was on the seat beside me.

I was not looking for any people shots. I saw the uniform and what looked like a family situation when I stopped at the red light. I saw what might be a reunion or goodbye shot. I took it. People move in those situations. I shot a few more, hoping to get one keeper as people moved around. Then it was obvious that a guy was walking toward me in a determined fashion. When the light changed, I set the camera down, waved with the hand that had been holding it, turned right and drove slowly by the group.

It was all quite brief. From start to finish, it was not too many seconds. (All the shots were made during a short red light, a minor street where it runs into Main St.)

I posted the series simply as a reminder as to how fast things can come apart on the street. As I mentioned elsewhere, I was assaulted in October, 2010 by a businessman who objected to my shooting his building without permission. I was not injured, but I know that things can go wrong--fast.

I was sort of hoping that people would tell about their own experiences of how things can go other than how one plans when one starts shooting people on the street.

The last thing that I really wanted was a troll, but I knew that I would get one.

I got one.

"Street Sauce." So that's your thing. Okay, but it might be better not to sermonize too much if that is what you are doing. Regardless of your motive, some people are going to see you as sneaky and sleazy, regardless of how short your lens is.

My zoom for the evening was 28-70mm. I shot these photos at 70mm--giving 1.4x magnification on the full-frame camera that I was shooting. Any magnification beyond that is from blowing up, cropping, and resizing--just so that I could show people what was really happening. That level of detail was not available to me through the viewfinder.

Your earlier post was ad hominem: CS, you said. I consider that crude and offensive--and most definitely inaccurate. But there is a time to stand your ground, and there is a time to leave. It was time to leave. Not flee. Just leave. My lens did not create that much unease. The reaction of the man was the trigger for that. It is not his fault, but that is the way it unfolded. Had he simply kept a watchful eye, then no one else would likely have noticed.

I am not going to lose a lot of sleep over my decision, except to say that I will be more careful to avoid making anyone feel uneasy.

I am also not going to waste any more words trying to justify my decision to quietly and slowly leave when the light changed. It was the rational thing to do.

--Lannie

Norma Desmond · September 13, 2013

"Sorry, brother. But when I look at that shot (and I do happen to like it...), I ain't thinkin about Euclid."

Steve, LOL. I like it, too.

Steve/Lannie, here's one I took, very much motivated by my finding the two guys sexy. I make no bones about that (pun sort of intended). The geometry was a bonus. Used a 50 mm lens, which was what I had at the time, and got real far back to get a whole lot of the parking lot because I wanted the distance and area (A = l x w).

Landrum Kelly · September 13, 2013

Well, Fred, I don't shoot that sort of thing, but you might like my treatment of. . . reflections:

<a href="/photo/15589532&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/15589532&size=lg</a>

Yessir, that wet pavement is a turn-on. It's even better at night:

<a href="/photo/17342454&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/17342454&size=lg</a>

--Lannie

lex_jenkins · September 13, 2013

Photography in public can get weird sometimes. So far the only notable

conflicts I've experienced occurred when photographing buildings and

inanimate objects. When photographing people, nah, no real problems.

Photograph a detail of an antique door hinge or close-up of an ornate bit

of architectural detail, and some folks think it's weird. Pose your

spousal unit in front of the same building, everything is a-ok.

Just goes with the turf. I suppose if I wanted a normal hobby I'd take up

catfish noodling or running for mayor of NYC.

Landrum Kelly · September 13, 2013

Of course, if one is particularly inept (or insensitive), it is perfectly possible to inadvertently scare people half to death in the middle of the afternoon:

<a href="/photo/15589553&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/15589553&size=lg</a>

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · September 13, 2013

"spousal unit"

That's an interesting usage, Lex. Did you make that up? I do remember "pleasure unit" from one of the James Coburn movies, Our Man Flint or In Like Flint. I forget which. It has only been forty-seven years.

--Lannie

bobatkins · September 13, 2013

I guess I wouldn't have taken those pictures. To me, not worth invading someone's privacy for the remote possibility of something slightly interesting. I might grab a quick snap of something that looks like it might make an interesting picture, but one shot and I'm done unless I'm at a parade.

Spousal units are those chosen by the larthron spheres of Mypzor. I thought everyone knew that.

bobatkins · September 13, 2013

I guess I wouldn't have taken those pictures. To me, not worth invading someone's privacy for the remote possibility of something slightly interesting. I might grab a quick snap of something that looks like it might make an interesting picture, but one shot and I'm done unless I'm at a parade.

Spousal units are those chosen by the larthron spheres of Mypzor. I thought everyone knew that. Mip Mip.

Sign In

When Things Go Wrong

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in