Angry Subjects who want Your Film!

[sk_arts]

<<I do street photography with a mamiya RZ, which is the least inconspicuous

camera ever made>>

 

Thanks for your reply, this has been helpful...

 

The thing is, the RZ67 is not a very threatening camera, especially with a

waste level finder. I have heard that people are much more comfortable with

waste level finders, even with 35mm cameras.

 

There is something to being "shot at" by a pentaprism-equipted camera that

really makes people feel uncomfortable.

 

I suppose I could do street photography with my RB Series B, which would be

pretty pricey. I am pretty sure people would be non-threatened. This goes

along with my view camera statement, no weirdo is going to be using a

camera like this... they imply something different, you *know* that some

pervert isn't going to be using a camera of this size or value... or in the B's

case, age.

 

Only a photographer without reasons other than to make photographs would

be using these cameras.

[ward]

Yes, Anno, the waste level finder is vital. It literally and emotionally keeps the camera from coming between you and your subject. And it is also true that the more odd or cumbersome a camera is, the less threatening it is.

[Spearhead]

<i> And it is also true that the more odd or cumbersome a camera is, the less threatening it is.

</i><p>

 

As I have pointed out before, this is nonsense. It is almost always about the photographer's presence, not the camera's. I've been shooting on the street for years, often with a Mamiya 7 with a finder on top, hardly a small kit. I've worked with another street photographer who uses a large dSLR without being looked at.<p>

 

As the song goes, "It ain't the meat, it's the motion."

[sk_arts]

Jeff- While I agree that a good street photographer can get good results with a threatening DSLR, I think that isn't the point.

 

The point is that an odd or professional camera is *less* threatening because it does not have the same connotations of servalience(sp) as the 35mm/DSLR's do.

 

I do not think a rangefinder, atleast today, as that connotation as, in particular a Nikon would.

 

I think that the brands even make a psychological difference, specifically how I am not sure.

 

I do know that a Leica RF, Mamiya, or Hasselblad says "photographer" more than a Nikon or Canon would, which in the minds of most say's "Stalker" more. Even for me, if I saw a "dirty old man" taking pictures of a pretty little girl with a Nikon or Canon I'd be more concerned than if i saw the same "dirty old man" taking pictures of the same little girl with a Leica or even less so with a Hasselblad. Somehow because he was taking pictures of her with a hassy the dirty old man would seem less dirty.

 

More regular folks carry Nikons, while a Leica, Mamiya or Hasselblad are only carried by serious photographers. In particular the Hasselblad-style MF SLR's are recognised by most people as a professional-style camera, even if it is a Keiv. They have all been to weddings or had their senior portrait taken, they know that professionals use these cameras.

 

Joe Shmoe doesn't know the difference betwene the pro Nikons and the cheap Nikons at Wal-Mart, all he knows is that he knows someone, like him, uses a camera with the letters "N-I-K-O-N" stamped on the pentaprism. And if this person is just some regular guy, the why the f*ck is he taking pictures of his 7 year old daughter?! Why would a regular, grown adult be interested in photographing his child, wife, house, HIM...

 

These cameras in a sense illustrate, often times falsely, the intentions of the person taking the picture. This might be unfair, but I feel it is true.

 

Still in any case, over all the photographer will make the difference, and I am not certain that street photography is something that can be learned. People are either born with the gift to aproach people on the street with a camera or they aren't.

[Brad_]

<I>While I agree that a good street photographer can get good

results with a threatening DSLR,....</I><P>

 

DSLRs are not threatening, people acting suspiciously are

threatening. FWIW, I've shot with people using MF, SLR, DSLR,

RF, and digicam. Makes absolutely no difference. Behavior

makes a difference though.<P>

 

<I>and I am not certain that street photography is something that

can be learned.</I><P>

 

Why not, I've learned. BTW, I've seen Jeff engage strangers

(subjects) while shooting, multiple times - he speaks the truth -

pay attention and you'll learn something.

[ward]

Jeff, I appreciate your candor in saying that my perspective is nonsense. I will follow your example and tell you that your response is nonsense and you are arrogant to boot. When I am sitting with nothing clamped up against my face it allows me to have full eye contact and casual conversation with the person I am shooting. Perhaps you don't shoot this way, but I do, and have for many years. Of course that is not to say that an arrogant prick with a waste-level finder couldn't alienate his subject; he certainly could. I don't see the point in arguing that there is no difference between two very different approaches.

[leanne_newton]

You know, Anno, this is an interesting discussion. My take on this is that with the advent of the internet photo-site galleries, with people vying for ratings etc., we now have literally anyone out on the streets shooting pictures of people they don't know...

 

And , in the not so recent past, this activity was perceived as being restricted to "artists" of the street - shooting genre, or at least to people working on a coherent series of photographs...people serious about their photography.

 

( How you are perceived has more to do with your behaviour, I think, than the camera you are using.)

 

In a previous thread on this forum, I mentioned being snapped by an old lady...using her digital p&s, actually a neighbour I only know by sight, and I ask you ? What did she take my picture for ?

 

So, I'm with the general public on this. It is one thing to be photographed by a "real" photographer working on a body of work, and quite another story to have people lurking with cameras who think of you as a bit of movement to record on film.

 

In a recent critique I (unfortunately) got involved in, the subject was a couple kissing outside a pub. The photographer snapped this while pretending to tie his shoelace.

 

Now, just for a moment, think of this situation from the couple's point of view. What if these are people having a "secret" love affair, had a bit too much to drink and risked being photographed in public in a compromising situation, and now have this moment of indiscretion published on the web ?

 

What is our "moral" position on this ? Do we all need to watch our backs , dress well at all times and try to avoid any contact with people holding cameras? How do we protect ourselves and our children from this unwanted surveillance? This invasion of our privacy?

 

To me, there is a difference between people who are unable to find models shooting randomly at pretty girs in the street, and "street" photographers who are recording our times through their art/vision.

 

The law currently favours the artists but I wonder how long this will last.

 

Joe Soap is putting the entire genre at risk, IMO.

I am very interested in hearing what others think.

[Brad_]

<I>My take on this is that with the advent of the internet photo-site

galleries, with people vying for ratings etc., we now have literally

anyone out on the streets shooting pictures of people they don't

know... </I><P>

 

Leanne, can you provide some URLS to these sites where street

photographers are vying for ratings?<P>

 

From reading you post, one would come away thinking SP is a

new national pastime and the average citizen's privacy and way

of life are threatened. Can you provide some sources on this?

Thanks.

[leanne_newton]

Well, I'm just thinking out loud here, wondering whether people ( subjects of street photography) are shy about being published on the www. I am interested in what others think of this possibility....

[philmorris]

Great point Leanne. Yeah yunno, I think there's some possibilty that some people might be shy about having their picture on the internet. The same goes for peoples' homes or so I was informed by certain owners. Thanks. But that wasn't the point of your first post was it? All this about wondering...

 

To come back to the question, it seems to me that if I place myself in a situation where I am at risk of harm I am in large part to blame for my own predicament. And as a photographer I should like to think, bringing every sensory antennae to the job in hand, that observational and people skills would alert me beforehand. And with that I can modify my behaviour to suit the situation, exercise some discretion or simply leave. A ruck in the street can occur for a dozen reasons but for it to originate with photography the photographer must first have been observed to be photographing in some sort of underhand, suspicious way. That's why I think it's best to not even be noticed. It's not that difficult either. Most pedestrians go about with blinkers on and only those who draw attention to themselves get noticed.

 

So if you do get noticed, in all likelihood the objector will be the person who twigged they were being photographed. Some people may feel a little peculiar to have discovered they were being photographed but rapidly shrug it off, move on and get on with their business, leaving the photographer to get on with his. For the odd occasion when a person is sufficiently upset to want to make a big deal out of it, is it really likely that he will first say to himself that before he causes a scene he would be well advised to establish if the photographer was a "real" one or not? And if so is it likely that this same person has a working knowledge of the camera brands and systems favoured by "real" photographers of the street in order that he might distinquish the "real" from the "fake"? The fella's using a Leica M3? All well and good. He's most welcome to stay. He's got a DSLR? Lynch him.

 

Being one of those "Joe Soaps" ("and incidentally the photog of "Pub Lovers" which you Leanne, seemed interested in on Tuesday but then trashed on Friday) I have no doubt that your invitation to respond here is primarily to take the opportuinty to once again proclaim yourself as a "real" photographer and elevate yourself from the masses on PN to whom you announced your departing a day or so ago. Leanne I assure you it is insulting in the extreme to be informed that only you and your kind should be allowed to photograph in the street. Allowed, because when you take photographs you take them to record the times you live in, lovingly enveloped with your art and vision, whereas when I and the brutal unwashed masses who couldn't possibly have any serious interest in photography take them, we apparently do so for grubby ratings on internet websites.

 

Yes most legal systems currently favour the artist. But invariably those systems do not set out to define art nor artists save in the very loosest terms So how would you, as a "real" artist, seek to be protected from the infestation of unworthies? So that when a citizen comes across someone wielding a camera in the street they will instantly be recognised as a visionary such as yourself? Is this your special interest? Would your answer be to see the law modified to ensure only licensed persons are permitted to carry cameras in public places? And if so who would you choose to bestow these licences and using what criteria? Or would you prefer to see minilabs obliged to submit all pictures produced by common laymen to the newly formed photo department at the local police station so that they can be examined to establish if anyone in them may have had a bit too much to drink and unwittingly found themselves in a compromising situation. Whilst those containing the precise same people, but being the product of real artists of course and therefore immune from all officious scrutiny, hang roped off and guarded in the gallery next door. Could anyone get more elitist?

 

As for the folks in the street and their right to be able to carry on "secret" love affairs and such like, sure they have rights. A right to carry on the love affair in public and a right to take a risk of being discovered. Well until someone with dictatorial clout withdraws those rights.

 

Your claim that your views are at one with the common people is astounding. As one of the great unwashed I think I'm in a better position to express a view on this one than you are. Your head's far too high in the clouds. Right thinking people (ie the vast majority of the general public) will recognise that any person with a camera has as much right to use it in the street as another has to operate say a mobile telephone. Some might even stop in their tracks to allow you to complete the picture so as not to get in the way of it.

 

Watch out Joe Soap, watch out the HCBs of tomorrow. Keep on doing what you're doing today and you won't have a future. Heaven help us if Leanne Newton, with her out of step assessment of the opinions and preferences of the general public, admiration for her elite and loathing for hammy amateurs, should ever take control of a Ministry for the Arts.

 

You gonna give us that evidence Brad asked for?

[ward]

I think Leanne and Anno and I are addressing a real issue, which is the difference between serious artistic photography on the street vs unrefined pointing and shooting. I have always found that once people are convinced that I am working through an artistic process they are more relaxed and receptive. I have also found that people are more defensive about being photographed now than in years past and when we get to discuss this they tell me it is because "Every asshole with a camera wants to take my picture." (That is a quote from one the the people in my photonet presentation.)

I agree with Jeff that the attitude and behavior of the photographer makes a huge difference, but I still contend that the choice of equipment has an effect on the people I approach. When I carry a standard 35mm, the usual assumption is that I am a casual amateur; the assumption is that I want to take the picture because I am personally interested in THEM for some reason, that the photograph is merely the excuse. When I use the mamiya, it is assumed (by the subject, who is rarely a photographer) that I am a "serious" photographer, that the photograph itself is the goal.

I went to Jeff's website and looked at his photographs and they are indeed very beautiful. It strikes me though that we are doing very different styles of photography. I guess mine is more street portraiture, where his is more reminiscent of HCB or Winogrand, catching moments. If I were him I would make the argument that the eye-level camera is better for the style of composition he favors, observing that my style of close portraits could be better done with a less obvious camera.

I get frustrated with the responses that this is nonsense or that, like Brad requested of Leanne, we need footnotes in order for the point to stand. Can't you offer any more thoughtful contribution than that?

[Brad_]

Ward: I think Leanne said she was thinking out loud - which is

fine as long as that's acknowledged.

 

Somehow I think you missed half of Jeff's best stuff (and may

have come to the wrong conclusion) - street portraiture in styles

similar to Bravo and Iturbide. It's there and striking, take another

look.

 

With regards to the differences between serious artistic

photography vs unrefined pointing and shooting, I suspect the

later eventually fosters the former for those that stick with it.

Would not want to see that regulated or licensed to just a few

practitioners.

[Spearhead]

<i>I guess mine is more street portraiture, where his is more reminiscent of HCB or Winogrand,</i><p>

 

I'm a bit surprised at this too. Almost everything I show on the website with people in it, except the New York City section, was done as a street portrait. It involved contact with the subjects and active discussion. What I don't do is headshots - I find them boring most of the time - but these are portraits, carefully taken as such. (I realize some people confuse headshots with portraits, but that's not my problem.)<p>

 

I have yet to find the camera become a barrier, working at eye level or waist level. I find ways to engage people and get them talking about themselves, and after that it's easy. I was shooting this morning with a Mamiya (at eye level) on a tripod, and the people I shot carried on the same conversations as they would if the camera was the size of a penny.<p>

 

It's all in the photographer's demeanor. I get <i>exactly</i> the same results with a Mamiya, the small 35mm camera (Hexar) I frequently use, and a Canon digicam.

[ward]

Well, I was impressed by your work and I accept that your experience has been as you say. Why can't mine be different without being nonsense?

[adrian douglas]

"Moral:it's nuts out there. Carry a weapon". Talk about your all time bad advice. This is a major problem in America and a contributor to the more than 10000 gun related deaths each year. Just because you have a camera and call yourself a photographer doesn't mean you can just go around shooting anything and everything you see, you should also respect the rights of others and always ask before you shoot pictures of strangers, especially those from other cultures. Respect and thought for each other and our surroundings is the answer to avioding confrontation not carrying a weapon and adding to the astronomical rate of violence in the US. Everyone is so concerned about THEIR rights, what about the rights of others.

[leanne_newton]

I am not a street photographer, which is why I

am interested in the opinion of others on this.

 

I do think it is one of the most difficult

areas of photography to excel in...although

to the untrained

eye it may look easy enough.

 

All of my pictures are posed,

any `candids` are of people I know.

 

Thanks again Anno,

for starting this very interesting discussion.

I appreciate the opportunity of learning from

photographers I admire.

[erin_____grasshopper__rice]

I love you people. LMAO

 

As part of the "general public" (AKA- One of the masses) I don't mind terribly when someone photographes me when I'm out and about and I do try and get out of the way when someones trying to get a good shot in a public place. Occasionally I question the photographer, to inquire to what use the pictures are to be put towards, and have signed a few releases. (Thats me walking past the BART entrance in San Francisco in a picture and movie made by some Berkley students). If I'm not doing anything and I notice someone taking pictures (plural) I may be uncomfortable and most likely I'd just get up and leave. (Unless of course I was doing something I'd rather noone knew about like sending out my next batch of "anti-american, traitorous propaganda")in that case the offender would be run down and the film ripped from his camera before he could get his newest version of "Photograhers Rights" ripped from his camera bag. :) That is of course, a joke. I think that everryone has a right not to be photographed. If I felt strongly about it I suppose I would tell the photographer I don't want to be photographed and I'd expect him to respect that. There is of course the first admendment that must be protected at all costs. If I'm beating my kids or stealing a car I can't exactly expect someone not to take a picture of it. If I'm sitting at the bustop however and the children are coloring quietly, taking pictures of me after I requested you stop would be a violation of my right to privacy. So, perhaps the grandmother didnt want her picture taken, there may be a language barrier and things got out of hand. I think the best thing to do in that sort of situation is keep your cool as long as possible, and just apoligize the best you can and let them know you meant no harm and will now be leaving. I've spent a lot of time in

China Town- things can get volatile quickly with little provacation. Great place to take pictures, though. I hope your friend got some good ones.

[Brad_]

<I>If I'm sitting at the bustop however and the children are

coloring quietly, taking pictures of me after I requested you stop

would be a violation of my right to privacy.</I><P>

 

But Grasshopper, that is not the law - you do not have such a

"right."<P>

BTW, I've shot in SF Chinatown a lot and have had zero

problems.

[sk_arts]

<i>But Grasshopper, that is not the law - you do not have such a "right."</i>

 

You know, I do not have to be polite if I do not want to. I could be as rude and crass as I like. But just as the first ammendment must be protected at all cost, I think society as a whole must be as well.

 

It seems unethical and just plain rude not to obide by someones wishes not to be photographed, we have rights, we also have responsibilities to our community.

[Brad_]

Just to be very clear, one needs to understand the difference

between rights and personal ethical codes.

 

I too would not photograph someone who asked not to.

However, one should understand there is no legal "right"

precluding such, at least in the circumstance described.

[erin_____grasshopper__rice]

A right can be a right even if it isn't legally defined. Such is the right to privacy. Just because it is not specifically written in constitution form does not diminsh. My right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness includes my privacy. Maybe it means something else to others. To me it includes -privacy, and you cannot infringe on that. :)

[mike dixon]

You are certainly not the first person who has tried to define a right as anything you insist it is, but without providing some legal, moral, and/or philosophical support for your assertion, you may have difficulty getting others to recognize your self-defined "rights." By it's very nature, <i>public</I> is not private.

[douglas k.]

"A right can be a right even if it isn't legally defined."

 

That statement is utter nonsense.

 

"Just because it is not specifically written in constitution form does not diminsh."

 

More nonsense. Unless it is not written in (or has been construed from) the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, it is simply not a right. And when you are in public, you do not have the privacy rights that you're claiming -- that's why it's called "public."

[Spearhead]

I sometimes wonder if they still have civics classes in high school...

 

The reason we have laws is to have a set of "rights" and limitations that are agreed upon. That's the purpose of the law. Now the law does change from time to time, and this is necessary, but the "right to privacy in a public place" has never been part of US law, nor has it ever been suggested that it shouldn't be.

 

In other words, Mike, Mr. K, and Brad are dead on. There isn't a second opinion on this, it's simple fact.

[kennethbowen]

<p>

I took a required course titled 'Political Economy.' There was a vibrant discussion of Amendment Nine:

</p>

<p><i>

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

</p></i>

<p>

The meaning of this is simple and clear. I can't see how this could be read to conclude that you have any right to <u>not</u> be photographed in public any more than you can assert your right to not be sketched by those pesky art school goons that draw in your favorite cafe. I once had a mime mimic me on a public sidewalk. Talk about a violation!

</p>

<p>

Sure, I think it's rude to take peoples picture without asking. But that's a social convention and has nothing to do with "certain unalienable Rights." I call it politeness, others might call it a hang-up.

</p>

<p>

It's the same old story: we're talking about rights, when we should be talking about responsibilities.

</p>