When Things Go Wrong

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I think being prepared, or going through a heart pounding situation we weren't prepared for, is all a part of practice."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Steve, maybe for us "street-shy photographers" it's more a case of conducting oneself in a way that isn't perceived as inappropriate. <br>

<br>

Legality aside, perception is reality to the people affected and take offense to being photographed without permission, so at least in my case maintaining the appearance of discretion is just an unspoken social rule many citizens abide by and expect in return. <br>

<br>

There wouldn't be heart-pounding if there wasn't something deep in our psyche telling us to think twice about it. :-) </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Michael, as a bit of counterpoint, that heart-pounding-ness can also be the thing art and/or moving photos are born of. Uncertainty deep in the psyche is a place from which great photos can arise. Which is not to dismiss also being mindful and respectful of others. There is bound to be such a tension in so many of our actions and endeavors. I find not kidding myself and trying to be straight with myself (definitely no pun intended!), even if healthily uncomfortable, works for me. Then again, I have to be honest and admit to sometimes living in a bit of a fantasy world. Actually, it's almost impossible to nail it down, which seems only human to me.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Fred, it's hard not to agree with you, but with few exceptions, modern recording by way of video and stills is often nothing more than voyeurism with little consideration than to pursue a prize worthy of sharing, and in so doing promote ones status within the sharing community.</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong; that's not a blanket comment on all street shooters many whom I respect, rather it's a commentary on motive and its often lack of reflection. <br>

</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I think that I shall walk with eyes downcast as I walk down the street lest I violate someone's privacy.</p>

<p>I might grab a quick glance of something that looks like it might be interesting, but one glance and I'm done unless I'm at a parade--or seeking a <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/01/28/690017/-How-the-Coneheads-Saved-America"><strong><em>spousal unit</em></strong>.</a></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Steve, maybe for us "street-shy photographers" it's more a case of conducting oneself in a way that isn't perceived as

inappropriate.

 

Indeed, for many it's (at least a good portion is) about trying to be empathic towards other people on the street (ie subjects) who know zip about "street

photography" and have know idea why someone with a camera is behaving suspiciously taking pictures of them from a

distance. I would say most people would be somewhat alarmed experiencing that. Some of those alarmed will want to

find out what's behind that behavior and will confront for answers.

 

>>> "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.

 

Not sure what you mean, or if you really understand what I'm doing. I assume you have or perused a copy and there are things

you take issue with, or maybe that I'm not walking my talk? Please reveal what that is.

 

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

 

Up at the top you said: "Please feel free to offer your own observations." I assume that was an honest/genuine request, and I gave you

honest and direct answers based on your narration and photos, and my experience shooting on the street. How is that being a troll? With 79 responses to

your thread in less than a day, your post and follow-up responses have definitely stirred things up.

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Not sure what you mean, or if you really understand what I'm doing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, Brad, with street sauce there is definitely the possibility of being misunderstood. The same sort of goes with calling someone "CS," as you did somewhere above. Trolls have been known to say things like that for no particular reason. In fact, my definition of a troll is a bit iconoclastic: for me a troll is a person who routinely does or says things for no particular reason that I can discern.</p>

<p><strong>ALERT</strong>: I would like to offer the thesis that one can take shots all day with an iPhone and rarely if ever be perceived as a threat.</p>

<p>Corollary: Stalkers who shoot iPhones are either very clever or very dumb.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Indeed, for many it's (at least a good portion is) about trying to be empathic towards other people on the street (ie subjects) who know zip about "street photography" and have know idea why someone with a camera is behaving suspiciously taking pictures of them from a distance.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Brad, that is actually quite good. People have to be educated in a nice way so as to realize that photographers rarely mean any harm.</p>

<p>You also get extra points for using the word "empathic" and avoiding "empathetic."</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>One thing about people who stop you from photography of buildings....<br />United States Copyright Law--<br /><br /><a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/120"><strong>17 USC § 120 - </strong></a><br /><strong>Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works</strong> <br />The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed <em>does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs,</em> or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>That had nothing to do with my case of photographing a building in 2010. The owner knew that I had the legal right, but he simply thought it would be "common courtesy" to ask.</p>

<p>He was "drunk as a skunk," as we say down South.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Two23]

<p>I don't sweat this kind of thing. I sometimes roam the streets of the small surrounding towns late at night. Usually I'm using a vintage camera such as a Leica or a Brownie. I've had a few concerned people come up to me, but being the salesman type I have always come out fine. People on the Northern Plains are friendly enough anyway.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<p>So far no one in uniform who has asked me why I was photographing buildings or structural details has brought up copyrights or related issues. It's usually been terrornoia or pararism or whatever they were halfway trained to be frightened about. I've quoted those anecdotes so often even I'm bored of 'em.</p>

<p>There was one instance when I was standing on a privately owned parking lot immediately adjacent to a public sidewalk, but the bicycle mounted security guard actually helped - he radioed in to get me permission to set up my tripod there. But that's pretty typical of the bicycle patrol folks around downtown Fort Worth who are really great folks. Yeah, I've told that anecdote before too, but because it's an example of how things usually seem to go - which is pretty well - I like to tell it again. I've even chattered about the hobby of photography with the bike mounted patrol folks.</p>

<p>The other incidents were all obnoxious drunks who don't understand why anyone would take a photo that didn't consist of a spousal unit posed in front of a Micky Mouse or an Eiffel Tower. Just shrug 'em off and move on.</p>

<p>The great experiences far outnumber the handful of negatives.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Most photographic lay people (non-photographers) don't understand or appreciate the concept of being photographed by a stranger. Non-photographers tend to take photos only of people that they know - family members, friends, team mates and colleagues. It's natural for folks to become suspicious when a stranger points a camera in their direction. In some cases they react defensively. They can't imagine a legitimate reason to be photographed by someone they don't know.</p>

<p>I would have interpreted this as a private family moment, and I probably would have resisted the urge to photograph them. If I had decided to take a shot, I would have considered the options. One option would be to take a single shot and move on discretely. Another option, if you have the ability to park and get out of your car, would be to approach the group, explain politely that you have this amazing camera that can take photos in darkness and ask if they would mind re-enacting their tender moment for a photo op - you'll share the photos with them, of course. Maybe they'll refuse and tell you to get lost, but there won't be any awkward surprises. Maybe they'll like the idea and give you enough time to take a variety of shots.</p>

<p>Some photographers don't like shooting re-enactments, and that's fair. I don't like to make people suspicious or angry. Hopefully, that's fair as well. I enjoy it when I can get subjects to cooperate. It doesn't always work out, but when it does, we all get to have some fun, there are no hard feelings (against me or against photographers in general), and I might get the time and the access that I need to make the pictures that I really want - or even be surprised with a better idea offered by the subjects.</p>

<p>That's my two cents, nothing more.</p>

[bobatkins]

<blockquote>

<p>I think that I shall walk with eyes downcast as I walk down the street lest I violate someone's privacy<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No need for that. Just don't stick a camera in their face and repeatedly take pictures of them, especially if they appear to be engaged in a private family moment.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Some photographers don't like shooting re-enactments, and that's fair. I don't like to make people suspicious or angry. Hopefully, that's fair as well. I enjoy it when I can get subjects to cooperate. It doesn't always work out, but when it does, we all get to have some fun, there are no hard feelings (against me or against photographers in general), and I might get the time and the access that I need to make the pictures that I really want - or even be surprised with a better idea offered by the subjects.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That sounds like a pretty good compromise approach to me, Dan--takes a lot of the stress away.</p>

<p>Since I knew that I was not a threat, <em>the fact that I thought that I was unseen</em> was a big factor in my decision to go ahead and shoot what to me was a public scene.</p>

<p>Bob:</p>

<p>Private family event less than one block from the busiest downtown intersection? Maybe, Bob, but it obviously could not have been that private in that location. I was not worried about invading privacy in that public a place. The lens was set at 70mm on a full-frame camera--not too intrusive at all, really.</p>

<p>One shot and only one shot? Well, I couldn't tell what I had after the first two or three shots, but even through the viewfinder I could see that I was getting mostly backs, not faces--and I didn't see the guy leaning around to look at me.</p>

<p>Hang around and talk after the fact? Seemed better to wave broadly, hold my hand in the air a bit longer than usual, leave and slowly pull away in my noisy old car, turning and going slowly up Main St. right in front of them--thereby signaling as best I could non-verbally that I was nobody to be worried about. Give them time to read and interpret the situation. I was wearing a white shirt from having taught a class that day (not that I usually wear white shirts, but they are cool, and the cool front had not gotten here yet). For most people, I would not have fit the image of the prototypical terrorist. Stalker? Nah.</p>

<p>Overall image: an old man with a camera in a red, worn-out Civic with a decaying muffler. Not a great, fast and quiet getaway vehicle. I wasn't too worried, but neither did I see much point in explaining after the fact. Had I engaged them before the fact, then I would have tried to offer an explanation, but, under the circumstances, waving broadly and moving on by <em>turning to pass right in front of them</em> seemed to me be the most likely way to defuse a potential bad situation--and allay their fears as to who I might have been. It went a bit bad, with the guy coming at me but not fast enough to get to me before the light would change, but not bad enough to get panicky about. I headed back to the same area where I had earlier shot down near the train station a few blocks away (after noticing that I had shot two stops slower than I meant to--and perceiving the need to reshoot hand-held and get <a href="/photo/17525940"><em><strong>this</strong></em></a>).</p>

<p>I wouldn't do it again, or else I would do it differently, but, given the mix of circumstances and perceptions, it didn't go as far wrong as it easily might have--depending on whom I might or might not have been dealing with.</p>

<p>I did finally get a group picture with faces of sorts, though hardly the one I wanted.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p><div></div>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Yep, it was cousin Jimmy and his son Billy Bob and all the rest. They could hardly believe their eyes. We were all home at last, together. And I got to see Lisa, just back from Afghanistan. What a night it was!</p>

<p>[Your story line may differ. Alternative title: "Charge of the Bull Elephant." Alternative story line: Let's just say, not a good ending.]</p>

<p>I am just so glad I got to see little Billy Bob giving me the thumbs up. It is so wonderful when you can make people happy just by being yourself.</p>

<p>I still can't believe it. They just ran out to meet me, soon as I stepped off the bus!</p>

<p>Man, after living by myself for eight years, it was good to be home at last, back among family and friends. You just had to be there to appreciate the moment.</p>

<p><strong><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-yKq-FsFyk">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-yKq-FsFyk</a></strong></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Next time, if there is a next time, I'll do it on foot--not from a car.</p>

<p>Not even from <a href="/photo/16080332&size=md"><strong>my '95 red Civic with a busted muffler</strong></a>. . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Sanford]

<p>I have encountered so much hostility out there lately that going forward all my people photos will be taken only with the knowledge and consent of the subjects, unless it is an event where people expect to be photographed.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>A lot of my reactions to street work (and other types of photos) rest on the quality of the work. I wouldn't think to question the ethics or wisdom of Brad's work or Steve Gubin's work. When a strong perspective and point of view are expressed in photos, when a good story is told visually, when compelling compositions are provided, compositions that support the content, and when the tonalities and/or color seem part of the narrative, ethics seem to fade in favor of my being drawn into or moved by the photo. Often, good photos come about through good instincts. Not always, of course.</p>

<p>The ethics that work for me in photos are usually ones the story of the photo makes me think about. That's why so many of the FSA documentary photos are so rich with texture. Not because I'm made to dwell on the ethics of the photographers and what or who they're shooting, but because I'm made to think about poverty and suffering in a country where that doesn't have to exist. The latter, IMO, are much more compelling questions of ethics. On the other hand, when I'm led to think about the ethics of the photographer and his or her shooting, it's usually because I'm not moved by the photo and, instead, saying to myself, <em>"It wasn't worth the effort."<br /></em></p>

 

[Two23]

<p>I don't take these kinds of photos from a car, and that might have been part of your problem. Second, I use a small vintage camera such as a Leica. When I use a DSLR, it's a Nikon D5100. I use it with the LCD swiveled out so I can hold the camera at my waist and look down into the viewfinder. No one even seems to realize I taking a photo! Same with the Rolleiflex (Vivian Meier's favorite camera.) When in town, I like to roam the Loop in Chicago. Almost always I'm using a vintage camera. These don't seem to attract attention and when they do no one is threatened by them. Here's a shot I made with my 1935 Voigtlander Bessa (6x9 format), in Chicago. I held the camera at my waist and used the waist level finder. No problems. Most of the time when I hear of people having problems, they were using a big camera like a D800 with a big f2.8 zoom.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

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

[cyanatic]

<p>Kent -- Nice. I like that photo. I don't always photograph in The Loop, but Adams & Wabash feels like the heart of my "home turf" so to speak. I would like your photo even it had not been taken in Chicago due to the urban atmosphere I derive from it. Just as an observation, based on my experience in this very area, shooting from this distance diagonally across the platform, a photographer should easily be able to raise the camera to their eye without any problem. </p>

<p>Getting somewhat back to the OP, but related to shooting from a car -- with or without a telephoto: I would never, ever, tell another photographer NOT to attempt such a technique because it was "cowardly" or "sniping" or "surveillance". (Sorry, Brad. I respect you, your work, and your experience. But I strongly disagree with the idea of removing car photographs, telephoto lenses, or any other technique, from a photographer's repertoire.)</p>

<p>I don't want to get into a whole essay on the subject of street photography techniques. I've written about it on my blog and on many a thread here at PN. But I do want to offer an opposing argument to those who have spoken negatively of photographing from a car, or using a telephoto, for street photography.</p>

<p>In my opinion (and Fred has already stated something similar), every situation can call for a different technique. Including photographing from a car (not while driving, obviously) and/or using a telephoto. The conventional wisdom in street photography is that the use of a telephoto is heresy and cowardly. I call BS on that notion. If a photographer does NOTHING but use a telephoto for street photography, then yes, it is a liability and probably a crutch. But I am not advocating that. I am just saying that <em>on some occasions</em> it is perfectly acceptable, and even desirable, to photograph from a car and use a telephoto lens.</p>

<p>In Lannie's case, he had the camera on his front seat. He saw a photographic opportunity, and he took it. Looking through his portfolio, I don't see a preponderance of such photographs.</p>

<p>On my way to and from work, I almost always have my camera on the front seat. Often, the lens that I have on is whatever I last used. It could be a 21mm, a 35mm, a 43mm, or a 80-320mm telephoto. When I am driving, if a photo opportunity presents itself, I take it. I can't offer any firm percentages, but I will freely admit that the vast majority of photographs I take from a car do NOT work for me. <em>But...</em>every once in a while, I do get a photograph that I am pleased with. If that occurs only 2 or 3 times a year, or even only once, then I would say that it is worth it. I'm not saying that this is the only thing that a photographer should do. I am saying: "Do not restrict the techniques you utilize on the basis of other people's opinions."</p>

<p>I'll offer two examples below. Some may like them, some may say they're no good. They please me. That's all I can say.</p>

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

[cyanatic]

<p>43mm, from car, during snowstorm</p><div></div>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>One last shot from my outing two night ago:</p>

<p>One never knows for sure what was being said at the distance I was shooting. The question of what the kid was thinking with his "thumbs up" in a later frame came up more than once. I interpreted it to mean that he was glad that his dad was going after the "spy" or "stalker" or whoever I was presumed to be. (Had that been voiced in the group by the dad? I have no way of knowing.)</p>

<p>Although this is hardly definitive, this 100% crop from my seventh shot does show a rather unpleasant look on the kid's face. What this means is open to dispute. Remember that I was not doing continuous shooting, but single shot, and so I cannot say what the time interval was between the various shots in the posted eleven-shot sequence at the outset of this thread.</p>

<p>Again, what is shown here in this 100% crop photo is from the seventh of those eleven shots that I posted at the outset of this thread.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p><div></div>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Here is a 100% crop from the ninth shot in the sequence found at the outset of this thread.</p>

<p>(In addition, is that more camo on the guy on the right? Looks like hunting culture camo, not standard military issue.)</p>

<p>--Lannie</p><div></div>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Here are some faces from the tenth shot of the eleventh-shot sequence--including the "thumbs-up" gesture, which I interpreted earlier as a "Hot dog! Get 'im, Dad."</p>

<p>--Lannie</p><div></div>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Here is a 100% crop from the eleventh and final shot of my eleven-shot sequence, posted at the outset of this thread.</p>

<p>(I took a total of eleven shots that night.)</p>

<p>Why did things go wrong? Was it just my presence with a camera, shooting from a car stopped at the red light? What else might or might not have been operating to affect the way things unfolded? Since one can hear nothing, it is difficult, impossible to know. I interpreted this one as meaning that the kid's mom might have verbally reined him in. Who knows?</p>

<p>What might have the Dad said? One never sees his lips moving, but, as I said above, the interval in single shot shooting varied and so I cannot say how far apart the shots were in my eleven-shot sequence. I cannot thereby validly infer that he said nothing simply because I did not capture his lips moving.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p><div></div>