Street Photography Ethics

[Altis]

Wow, the discussion has really taken off! Thank you all who added your thoughts!

I'm glad at least one other participant pointed out that yes, there is a difference between shooting photos of people literally out on the public street (walking, riding bicycles, roller-skating, skateboarding, whatever) and someone who is minding their own business while browsing or shopping in a store (which while open to the pubic is actually privately owned, a point I made earlier). Yes, of course there are going to be store security cameras and all that, which is expected, but that is very different from some stranger who is neither affiliated with the store or a photojournalist pointing his or her camera at me, whether or not I am aware of it.

You (the conversation starter) still have not yet responded, as requested several times (such as Post 15 and 22), to why you see a difference between taking photos of people in a public setting such as a store and workers at a condo -- the former of which you seem to take issue with, the latter of which you don't as you've done it yourself and posted photos here.

Without addressing this incredible conflict I don't see what more can be discussed.

 

[mollyc]

You (the conversation starter) still have not yet responded, as requested several times (such as Post 15 and 22), to why you see a difference between taking photos of people in a public setting such as a store and workers at a condo -- the former of which you seem to take issue with, the latter of which you don't as you've done it yourself and posted photos here.

Without addressing this incredible conflict I don't see what more can be discussed.

Yes, and by @Clix Pix's logic, it would be perfectly fine for someone else who lived in her condo property to take a photo of Clix out doing whatever she does on the property (photographing birds and other wildlife) and then post it on a forum like this. Because after all, despite being a publicly accessible, yet privately owned property, the other person would be a property owner and therefore allowed to photograph and post whatever they want.

Because that is exactly the scenario that unfolded with the tree people.

 

[bondr006]

That's what you got out of all of those posts???? Wow! Okay.

I don't think she actually gives a rip about the subject of street photography and its ethics or lack thereof.

Did these people (presumably strangers to you) who were casually going about their business of shopping in that store give you permission (i.e., sign a "model release") to take one or more photographs of them and were they made aware that the photo(s) would wind up on at least one very public internet site? And for that matter, does the store itself have a policy regarding people taking photos in it?

Photo in question...

 

[mollyc]

I'm actually really not interested in making this a battle of wills or personalities.

I'm happy to keep the discussion to the actual ethics and legalities of street photography.

 

[bondr006]

I'm actually really not interested in making this a battle of wills or personalities.

I'm happy to keep the discussion to the actual ethics and legalities of street photography.

Sorry. It's sometimes easier and less painful to say what's on my mind than biting my tongue off. I have edited it.

I think the topic in question has been pretty well covered. The legality part says it is legal for us to shoot at our discretion in public. The ethics are left up to the interpretation of the individual. I think it is more about courtesy and respect if the intended subject is another person, and what the photo is going to be used for. If the intended subject is a public scene that people happen to get captured in, imo there is no need for endless debate. It's just a picture!

 

[olavsu1]

It depends on what kind of camera you are armed with. Smartphone or Nikon s3000, take photos of what you want and where you want, except private area, places marked with the InformationLivingStreet sign.

if you happen to have a D850 on your finger, be prepared to be kicked out of most places if don't have a license or invitation. You can only take a picture there if you have been invited there and can prove the existence of the invitation (must wear a spetsific vest). However, it is possible to take a picture in these places before the rooster crows.

 

[Steven-iphone]

I saw a discussion about someone in an apartment building putting a Ring camera on their front door. The neighbor directly down the hall had objections since the camera has view of their front door and the goings on at that door. Who has the right?

 

[laptech]

I'm curious if your objection is to the actual taking of the photos, or the chance that they might be posted on the internet? Cell phones have really only replaced point and shoot cameras, and those were a dime a dozen for decades. I can look at my childhood photos on film and find hundreds of random strangers in the background. I'm sure that I was in the background of other random people over the years as well.

Every once in a while I get tagged on Facebook in some elementary school photo that has been unearthed from someone's basement. Isn't that the point of photos?

Ever since the introduction of photographic equipment, street photography has existed. Professionals (private and trade), enthusiasts and private individuals were all doing it but the only way to get the photo's published was to either send them into the tabloid press, weekly/monthly periodicals or art galleries and each one of them had rules either governed by the state or the company employer on what could and could not be published. A photo would be checked to see if it passes the rules of law (at the time), whether is was in the public interest to show the photo and if it had enough merit to do so. As the years went by, the publics attitudes and tastes for what they wanted to see kept changing with more of the 'sleaze and tasteless' tabloids and periodicals making an entrance publishing pictures of street photography that the more established mainstream media at the time would not publish. But even still these companies still had to abide by the rules of law of what could and could not be published and that it how it stayed until the introduction of the digital media era and especially that when it became so common place available to members of the public. Again this was not so much of a problem because in the early days such digital media was restricted to the private individuals computer devices but then along came the world wide web and oh man the gates of the wild west were truly wide open.

The world wide web opened the doors to hell and it has been that way ever since with countries and their governments playing catch up on what is and it not allowed to be published/shown. Anyone old enough to remember the early days of the internet will remember the two well known sources for digital media which was newsgroups and Internet Relay Chat (IRC). Both had thousands upon thousands of servers hosted all over the world which among the most obvious which was to host servers so people could message others around the world about all sorts of topics, they also hosted areas where people could leave photo's (scanned photo's due to rise of photo/document scanners and digital photo's upload directly from the digital camera). Newsgroups was a peek into the depravity of the human mind with the type of photo's it allowed to be hosted on it's servers. IRC hosted servers were not far behind and following not far behind them was law enforcement making sure photo's that broke existing laws were removed.

And here we are to the present day. A day where people can no longer trust those who take photo's because there is no firm control on just how that photo is going to be used and where. Back in the day if you saw someone with a camera in their hand you knew there were trusted systems in place to prevent that photo from being misused or misinterpreted because it had to go through numerous peoples hands before it could be published but now, stick a digital camera in someone's hands, get them to take photo's and they are then able to upload them to where ever they want without a single check being done and this is exactly what has been happening and continues to happen with social media.

There will always be a place for 'street photography' and continue to do so but do to the immergence of digital media and the internet it needs to be more heavily regulated in my opinion because it is open to abuse. There will always be good ethical and moral street photographers out there but the internet has allowed there to be so much many more unethical and non-moral street photographers and that is a big big problem in my opinion.

 

[bunnspecial]

For all the talk about photos in the past not being spread all over the internet, etc, let me offer one prominent counterexample: Vivian Maier.

She spent a good portion of her life taking photos in Chicago that would very much fit the genre of street photography, but quite literally never shared them. I know only a little of her story in passing, but I'm not sure if she even looked at her own photographs in much more than passing given that many were found only as negatives.

Now, 15 years after they were first published and nearly as many since she's passed, her work is well known in art/photography circles and has been published around the globe.

I think it could pretty widely be agreed that the photographs are in responsible hands now and are largely distributed in appropriate contexts(books and galleries), although when her work was first "discovered" in an auctioned-off storage unit it first hit the internet.

Did she hope or intend to one day publish them herself? From what little I know, it's hard to say as she seems to have been quite an enigmatic person and even the people who knew her don't seem to have a great picture of who she was.

Still, though, the point I'm making is that despite her work originally disappearing into a black hole, now it's out there.

Are many of her subjects still living? Probably not, especially given where and when most of her work was done, but some likely are. Did they think that 60+ years ago when a lady with a camera was walking around taking their picture, their faces would one day show up across the planet? The thought of that happening was likely inconceivable to most of them. Here we are, though, again with books and galleries.

Should her work have gone to the annals of history for the same reasons some are arguing against modern street/documentary photography? If anything, I'd argue that the average person in 2023 likely expects that a photograph taken of them could be shared around the world in seconds, again something that was likely incomprehensible a 1950s or 60s mind.

 

[smirking]

I’ll state at the outset that I’m not clear even slightly why mollyc’s photograph was specifically a point of contention over any other photographs here of recent note containing people in public places that didn’t garner this scrutiny.

As someone who's had his share of angry run-ins with aggressive people who become enraged when someone even points a camera in their general direction, this hits the nail on the head for why this thread rubs me the wrong way. This is hardly gonzo street photography. If we want to have this discussion, it shouldn't be over this photo.

 

[mollyc]

Ever since the introduction of photographic equipment, street photography has existed. Professionals (private and trade), enthusiasts and private individuals were all doing it but the only way to get the photo's published was to either send them into the tabloid press, weekly/monthly periodicals or art galleries and each one of them had rules either governed by the state or the company employer on what could and could not be published. A photo would be checked to see if it passes the rules of law (at the time), whether is was in the public interest to show the photo and if it had enough merit to do so. As the years went by, the publics attitudes and tastes for what they wanted to see kept changing with more of the 'sleaze and tasteless' tabloids and periodicals making an entrance publishing pictures of street photography that the more established mainstream media at the time would not publish. But even still these companies still had to abide by the rules of law of what could and could not be published and that it how it stayed until the introduction of the digital media era and especially that when it became so common place available to members of the public. Again this was not so much of a problem because in the early days such digital media was restricted to the private individuals computer devices but then along came the world wide web and oh man the gates of the wild west were truly wide open.

The world wide web opened the doors to hell and it has been that way ever since with countries and their governments playing catch up on what is and it not allowed to be published/shown. Anyone old enough to remember the early days of the internet will remember the two well known sources for digital media which was newsgroups and Internet Relay Chat (IRC). Both had thousands upon thousands of servers hosted all over the world which among the most obvious which was to host servers so people could message others around the world about all sorts of topics, they also hosted areas where people could leave photo's (scanned photo's due to rise of photo/document scanners and digital photo's upload directly from the digital camera). Newsgroups was a peek into the depravity of the human mind with the type of photo's it allowed to be hosted on it's servers. IRC hosted servers were not far behind and following not far behind them was law enforcement making sure photo's that broke existing laws were removed.

And here we are to the present day. A day where people can no longer trust those who take photo's because there is no firm control on just how that photo is going to be used and where. Back in the day if you saw someone with a camera in their hand you knew there were trusted systems in place to prevent that photo from being misused or misinterpreted because it had to go through numerous peoples hands before it could be published but now, stick a digital camera in someone's hands, get them to take photo's and they are then able to upload them to where ever they want without a single check being done and this is exactly what has been happening and continues to happen with social media.

There will always be a place for 'street photography' and continue to do so but do to the immergence of digital media and the internet it needs to be more heavily regulated in my opinion because it is open to abuse. There will always be good ethical and moral street photographers out there but the internet has allowed there to be so much many more unethical and non-moral street photographers and that is a big big problem in my opinion.

To be fair, even in the 70s and 80s, there were a fair amount of sleazy photos published in the likes of National Enquirer. Sleazy people have been around as long as people have been around.

I also think that if you are worried about photos of "depravity" those don't really fall in the street photography genre and a separate discussion altogether. Taking a photo of someone walking down Times Square or an open air farmer's market is and always has been fair game; if it really bothers you that much that on the off chance you'll be photographed and published somewhere, then a) conduct yourself in a matter of integrity and/or b) never leave your house and have all your purchases delivered.

And no one other than the photographer has ever had "firm control on just how that photo is going to be used and where." I assure you that the sleazy people of yesteryear were just meeting in alleys or basements passing along photographs of an illicit manner.

 

[bunnspecial]

And no one other than the photographer has ever had "firm control on just how that photo is going to be used and where." I assure you that the sleazy people of yesteryear were just meeting in alleys or basements passing along photographs of an illicit manner.

Let's face it too-the really nasty sleazy and illicit photographs still exist(heck I watched the house across the street from my parents house in their nice quiet middle class neighborhood spend an afternoon getting cleaned out by the state police tech unit and then him later getting sentenced to a prison stay for what they found).

Not that I'm exactly up on where they get traded, but it's not openly on Instafacechat-tok but at least at one time it was P2P sharing and the dark web. Those are figurative "basements and alleys" in today's world.

 

[laptech]

To be fair, even in the 70s and 80s, there were a fair amount of sleazy photos published in the likes of National Enquirer. Sleazy people have been around as long as people have been around.

I also think that if you are worried about photos of "depravity" those don't really fall in the street photography genre and a separate discussion altogether. Taking a photo of someone walking down Times Square or an open air farmer's market is and always has been fair game; if it really bothers you that much that on the off chance you'll be photographed and published somewhere, then a) conduct yourself in a matter of integrity and/or b) never leave your house and have all your purchases delivered.

And no one other than the photographer has ever had "firm control on just how that photo is going to be used and where." I assure you that the sleazy people of yesteryear were just meeting in alleys or basements passing along photographs of an illicit manner.

I think you have taken my use of sleaze out of context. I made reference to sleaze as a way to highlight that the need for controls on photography (all photography) need to be increased and strong due to the insatiable wants and needs of many in society but obviously my efforts in doing so got missed and thus viewed upon differently because I did not make my point clear enough. My error.

 

[bondr006]

I think you have taken my use of sleaze out of context. I made reference to sleaze as a way to highlight that the need for controls on photography (all photography) need to be increased and strong due to the insatiable wants and needs of many in society but obviously my efforts in doing so got missed and thus viewed upon differently because I did not make my point clear enough. My error.

No one has missed your point. I think we all understand that you want "all" photography controlled, including the family on vacation, at the beach, having a picnic in the park, friends at a social gathering in a restaurant, at a football game, and the list goes on. We just don't agree with you. Laws for sleaze, or other nefarious and illegal photography already exist, and are enforced.

I'd like to believe that the vast majority of people snapping pictures out there are doing so for simple and innocent reason's like memories, sharing with friends, enjoying nature, as a hobby, etc., and that there is absolutely no reason or justification to make laws regarding them. I have never been or ever will be, one to want to take away people's simple freedoms. There are always options for those unhappy with the current state of photography.

1. Never leave the house.
2. Don't do anything they would be ashamed of others seeing.
3. Move to a country with stricter photography laws and moral standards.

 

[laptech]

No one has missed your point. I think we all understand that you want "all" photography controlled, including the family on vacation, at the beach, having a picnic in the park, friends at a social gathering in a restaurant, at a football game, and the list goes on. We just don't agree with you. Laws for sleaze, or other nefarious and illegal photography already exist, and are enforced.

I'd like to believe that the vast majority of people snapping pictures out there are doing so for simple and innocent reason's like memories, sharing with friends, enjoying nature, as a hobby, etc., and that there is absolutely no reason or justification to make laws regarding them. There are always options for the paranoid and those with control issues though.

1. Never leave the house.
2. Don't do anything you'd be ashamed of others seeing.
3. Move to a country with laws more inline with those views.

no, you have missed the point because your misquoting my post using my reference to sleaze as some kind of justification for wanting all photography to be controlled, which I never said I wanted by the way and are now attacking me with use of the words 'paranoid' and 'control issues'. I knew this would happen, I would make a slight reference to something and then I would get misquoted and attacked for something I did not actually say.

No point in continuing this discussion anymore if that is how some in here are going to treat this debate.

 

[bondr006]

no, you have missed the point because your misquoting my post using my reference to sleaze as some kind of justification for wanting all photography to be controlled, which I never said I wanted by the way and are now attacking me with use of the words 'paranoid' and 'control issues'. I knew this would happen, I would make a slight reference to something and then I would get misquoted and attacked for something I did not actually say.

No point in continuing this discussion anymore if that is how some in here are going to treat this debate.

First off, you are the one who typed these words. How are we supposed to interpret them? I did not misquote you. I replied to your whole post.

I think you have taken my use of sleaze out of context. I made reference to sleaze as a way to highlight that the need for controls on photography (all photography) need to be increased and strong due to the insatiable wants and needs of many in society but obviously my efforts in doing so got missed and thus viewed upon differently because I did not make my point clear enough. My error.

Second, I made no personal attack on you, but gave general options for those who have problems with their percieved lack of photographic controls on society, which by the way have already been stated by others in previous posts.

@laptech

You cannot make laws that control everyone's ethics, because not every society or individual has the same moral standards. "Ethics" just have to be left up to the individual. Not everything is cut and dry or interpreted the same by everyone, and that freedom has to be left alone. I do not want to live in a society that controls our every action, or our very thoughts and every moral standard. You plainly said in your post above that there is a need for strong controls on "all photography". I did not misquote you or take you out of context. How would you like your words interpreted?

 

[mollyc]

I think you have taken my use of sleaze out of context. I made reference to sleaze as a way to highlight that the need for controls on photography (all photography) need to be increased and strong due to the insatiable wants and needs of many in society but obviously my efforts in doing so got missed and thus viewed upon differently because I did not make my point clear enough. My error.

I acknowledge that I might have misinterpreted your post. I am interested in having a good faith discussion of this topic, with opposing views. Please rephrase if you thought something was taken out of context.

 

[Jumpthesnark]

And here we are to the present day. A day where people can no longer trust those who take photo's because there is no firm control on just how that photo is going to be used and where. Back in the day if you saw someone with a camera in their hand you knew there were trusted systems in place to prevent that photo from being misused or misinterpreted because it had to go through numerous peoples hands before it could be published but now, stick a digital camera in someone's hands, get them to take photo's and they are then able to upload them to where ever they want without a single check being done and this is exactly what has been happening and continues to happen with social media.

It sounds like you are not upset about photography per se, but about sharing photos online. It used to be that those who owned printing presses and bought ink by the barrel were the ones who decided what was widely published. Add to that the people who visited art galleries, shared snapshots in family albums, etc., and you have photography publishing pre-internet.

The tools of publishing have been democratized over the past decades, though. That genie is out of the bottle. So it sounds to me like you want legal/social controls on what images can be shared online.

My biggest questions are these: are you concerned that people who are photographing others are breaking some law or doing something morally indefensible by sharing images taken in public? Or is it simply that you want all photography in public to be restricted and controlled due to privacy issues? And who decides what public photography would be allowed?

Because if someone is breaking a law by taking and sharing illicit photos or something, then let them be prosecuted for breaking a law. But if you want a world that is filled with "NO PHOTOGRAPHY" signs in all public spaces (metaphorically) then I don't think that's ever going to happen. At least not until we become a dystopian fascist state, where the state takes control of our means of expression.

Just look how vital and important it has been to be able to see the realities of recent anti-government protests in Iran and China, thanks to photos and videos taken and published on social media despite the wishes of those governments. Look how much has been revealed as citizens with cell phones showed the police killing of George Floyd and many others, when the evidence of state actions was only revealed because a person had a phone, and they showed that the reality of what happened ran counter to the narrative that the government wanted to present, by sharing images on social media.

@laptech I'm not comparing you to the oppressive governments in charge of those countries, or people trying to hush up the killing of a citizen by police. But I am trying to make the point that in a world where the tools of publishing photography and videos made in public have been taken away from citizens, that leaves more space for bad actors to do what they want, outside of the view of the public.

 

[Steven-iphone]

And all this over a photo-shopping venture to Costco. Next it will be outrage of images of Furry's at Walmart. Stop the carnage.

 

[deep diver]

Ever since the introduction of photographic equipment, street photography has existed.

The first picture of people (which is also the first picture of Paris) was a street image shot by Lois Daguerre in 1838.

 

[mollyc]

There is a difference between shooting a photo of someone walking or doing something on a public street/sidewalk and shooting a picture of a stranger in a privately-owned facility (and, yes, although it is open to the public, per se, a store is still private property owned and/or rented by someone). So are shopping malls, theaters. bars, etc.

As we've seen in discussions here before regarding street photography, a good approach to this is to make a connection with the person, ask permission, etc, rather than just shooting them with or without their knowledge.

There is also a difference between shooting a photo of the display of fresh fruit, produce, canned goods or other products to text home quickly to be sure that the selected item meets with a family member's approval. People also use their phones to scan QR codes, too. I've used my own iPhone to take an occasional snapshot of something interesting, but I always make sure that I simply focus closely on the object or food item. The canned goods, the fresh fruit, the produce and QR codes are objects, not people. The objects and pieces of fruit or vegetables don't care if someone takes a photo; some people do.

I would hope that anyone would have the common courtesy to ask a stranger if it is OK to take their photograph, giving them the option to respond either yes or no and/or to simply move out of camera range. If someone is dressed up in a clown suit or modeling new fashion, then there would be greater likelihood that they wouldn't object to their photo being taken and might even expect it to be. If a customer is simply minding their own business and busy doing their shopping that is a different situation and the person probably would not appreciate a stranger standing there taking their photo, regardless of what the actual subject matter is intended to be.

Yep, depends upon who owns the property upon which the building is situated. I think it is usually large corporate campuses, schools, universities and federal property where the exterior grounds may also be privately owned, not just the building(s).

No need to ask permission of those men because they were actually working on the grounds of our condominium complex. I am one of the many owners of these buildings and common grounds areas. That was (partly) my tree they were cutting down!

Aside from that, it was fairly early in the day [for me] and I had not yet showered and dressed. I certainly would not go running out there in my nightclothes! I was able to shoot the photos from the comfort of my own home, right out the window.

As it happens there is construction going on at the public school building in my neighborhood, too, and tempting as it would be to shoot photos of that and men at work doing interesting things with fascinating machinery, I am not doing so because that would be inappropriate: it is not my property (although of course my county taxes do help pay for the public schools and construction projects on schools, libraries and other county properties).

This is good to have a separate thread for this type of discussion. Things which turn into a discussion quite definitely need to be pulled out from what is primarily meant to be a photo thread, not a discussion thread. Unfortunately this all kind of escalated.... I had actually deleted a couple of my posts, deciding that they were unnecessary responses when there was later reiteration of some of the points anyway. Appreciate the new thread!

Yes, Deep Diver, I agree that this IS indeed a legal as well as an ethical matter. Also let's throw in a little common sense and courtesy as well, regarding people who are merely in the situation of shopping in a store, riding the escalator in a mall, eating in a restaurant, relaxing in a bar, simply doing their own thing.... It really is quite intrusive of someone who either openly or stealthily shoots photos of other people without their consent and often without their knowledge. To add insult to injury, then the image(s) might be posted on a very public website. Maybe ask first, then shoot? Give the person the opportunity to say "yes" or "no" and/or if they're right smack in the middle of the area that is really the subject, the chance to say, "oh, excuse me, let me move out of the way!" What makes anyone so special that he or she feels they have the "right" to pull out a camera and take a stranger's photograph?

That last sentence is indeed one aspect of this whole situation which has been something on my mind, too.....right now things seem to be pretty volatile in many areas of the US, and frankly, it seems rather foolhardy in many environments, even those which seem innocuous, to pull out a camera and start shooting photos of strangers.... One or more of those strangers may indeed have a violent objection and respond by pulling something of his or her own out which, unlike a camera, could be a deadly weapon.....

I think something needs to be considered, too, in exactly what the situation is where the photographer is shooting..... Is it a public event? Is it a massive fire in the neighborhood? Is it something happening in what is indeed truly "public space" and where no expectations of privacy would exist? Or is the photographer shooting images of strangers shopping in a store, browsing through a mall, eating in a restaurant or relaxing in a bar where most people are just doing their own thing and aren't expecting some stranger to be taking their picture at all?

Wow, the discussion has really taken off! Thank you all who added your thoughts!

I'm glad at least one other participant pointed out that yes, there is a difference between shooting photos of people literally out on the public street (walking, riding bicycles, roller-skating, skateboarding, whatever) and someone who is minding their own business while browsing or shopping in a store (which while open to the pubic is actually privately owned, a point I made earlier). Yes, of course there are going to be store security cameras and all that, which is expected, but that is very different from some stranger who is neither affiliated with the store or a photojournalist pointing his or her camera at me, whether or not I am aware of it.

I would really love if you would come back and address the direct questions posed to you. The "escalation" happened because your comments were out of line in the first place. But, we'll skip over that now, since I asked for the original comments to get moved to this separate thread.

1. How is your tree service photo any different than my store photo?
2. Would you be okay if your neighbor posted a photo of you in your private community without asking, solely because s/he is also part owner.
3. You don't like the idea of shooting someone in a restaurant "doing their own thing" (even if the restaurant allows it). What if that restaurant has outdoor seating and a photographer shoots someone sitting under an umbrella while standing on a public street? That is okay with you?
4. What harm comes to a person simply from existing in a photo? What damage (emotional or legal) comes of it?

It is frankly quite trollish of you to instigate a conversation like this and then to simply abandon it because it didn't go your way. It is your pattern as you've done this with my images in particular numerous times. When it gets to hard for you, you just stop posting. It's cowardly.

I am genuinely interested in @laptech's comments on this thread, and I sincerely hope he (I assume you are a he, if not, my apologies) comes back to continue the discussion. I welcome opposing view points, because I hope to learn more about the subject. I don't want or need an echo chamber, I'd like a good discussion about an important topic.

It's also kind of ironic that you clicked the Like button on jumpthesnark's most recent comment, given it's in direct opposition to your original post.

I had honestly hoped to have an actual, real conversation with you, but once again, after digs over the years about me shooting Lensbaby, self-portraits, out of focus images, the way I've set up a P52 on this board, and now for some images with strangers (by the way, some of those people in those photos are actually my family, so thanks so much for just assuming bad intentions from me) I would really appreciate it if you would just follow through with this conversation. And in the future, if you aren't willing to continue the conversation, then don't start it.

 

[arkitect]

I've been following with interest as an enthusiastic amateur photographer.

I will admit first off that I am a timid street photographer.

I always err on the side of caution. Especially when I sense people are doing something personal and I'd be invasive. Interiors of religious buildings? I just stick to the architecture — which probably would have been the main purpose for me in any case.

Out on the street I try to use as long a lens as my shaky old hands will allow. I will never ever get in someone's face.

If appropriate I will ask permission. — make eye contact — give a smile — whatever to establish it is OK. But you know what happens? People freeze! They smile and pose — and you lose the spontaneity.

If people don't like being photographed, I assume they will let me know.

Anyway…

So I am including a shot I took in Sicily this November past.

Was I being invasive? I think not. Imagine none of the people there… it'd be a picture of dead fish.

Am I making any money of it? Nope.
Did I publish it on my Instagram and have thousands of people pointing and laughing at the bloke in the red jacket? Nope.

I like this photo. It is a fond memory of a time and place. Its not going to win any prizes.

Spoiler: Hope this doesn't trigger too many folks. A photo of people in public! Oh the humanity! 🙄

 

[bondr006]

I've been following with interest as an enthusiastic amateur photographer.

I will admit first off that I am a timid street photographer.

I always err on the side of caution. Especially when I sense people are doing something personal and I'd be invasive. Interiors of religious buildings? I just stick to the architecture — which probably would have been the main purpose for me in any case.

Out on the street I try to use as long a lens as my shaky old hands will allow. I will never ever get in someone's face.

If appropriate I will ask permission. — make eye contact — give a smile — whatever to establish it is OK. But you know what happens? People freeze! They smile and pose — and you lose the spontaneity.

If people don't like being photographed, I assume they will let me know.

Anyway…

So I am including a shot I took in Sicily this November past.

Was I being invasive? I think not. Imagine none of the people there… it'd be a picture of dead fish.

Am I making any money of it? Nope.
Did I publish it on my Instagram and have thousands of people pointing and laughing at the bloke in the red jacket? Nope.

I like this photo. It is a fond memory of a time and place. Its not going to win any prizes.

Spoiler: Hope this doesn't trigger too many folks. A photo of people in public! Oh the humanity! 🙄

View attachment 2152783

Great photo! I 100% agree with you. As I mentioned earlier, I firmly believe that the vast majority of people just love their photo's for very simple and innocent reasons. I hope we never get to the point that some people desire, that sees every miniscule detail of our lives regulated. There are plenty of countries that have that already, up to and including "thought police", where you can be jailed just for your perceived intentions. No thank you!

 

[mollyc]

I've been following with interest as an enthusiastic amateur photographer.

I will admit first off that I am a timid street photographer.

I always err on the side of caution. Especially when I sense people are doing something personal and I'd be invasive. Interiors of religious buildings? I just stick to the architecture — which probably would have been the main purpose for me in any case.

Out on the street I try to use as long a lens as my shaky old hands will allow. I will never ever get in someone's face.

If appropriate I will ask permission. — make eye contact — give a smile — whatever to establish it is OK. But you know what happens? People freeze! They smile and pose — and you lose the spontaneity.

If people don't like being photographed, I assume they will let me know.

Anyway…

So I am including a shot I took in Sicily this November past.

Was I being invasive? I think not. Imagine none of the people there… it'd be a picture of dead fish.

Am I making any money of it? Nope.
Did I publish it on my Instagram and have thousands of people pointing and laughing at the bloke in the red jacket? Nope.

I like this photo. It is a fond memory of a time and place. Its not going to win any prizes.

Spoiler: Hope this doesn't trigger too many folks. A photo of people in public! Oh the humanity! 🙄

View attachment 2152783

thanks for sharing. ❤️

i think most people prefer photos with other people in them. it humanizes the story, personalizes it in a way that a human less image cannot.

does every photo need a human? of course not - i personally take a lot of nature/plant/landscape images. and i know you have your amazing architectural paintings that you create. but still....the human element cannot be overlooked to help create a compelling image.

 

[Jumpthesnark]

Out on the street I try to use as long a lens as my shaky old hands will allow. I will never ever get in someone's face.

If appropriate I will ask permission. — make eye contact — give a smile — whatever to establish it is OK. But you know what happens? People freeze! They smile and pose — and you lose the spontaneity.

A lot of photographers have real difficulty getting into someone's personal space for photos, or even getting into their line of sight. So your approach is not at all unusual. Likewise, most people don't know what to do when a lens is pointed their way. So they tend to stop what they're doing and smile for the camera. Which ruins whatever moment interested the photographer in the first place.

All of this takes time for the photographer to get past. The skills of putting one's own discomfort aside in service to the photo and of letting the person know that they shouldn't pose are developed with experience. As you mention, once the spontaneity is gone, it's difficult to get it back (if it ever truly comes back at all).

When I was just starting out, I was lucky enough to have some really good newspaper photographers as mentors and I learned how they managed these skills. One photographer liked to use long lenses to photograph people and only afterward would he approach them to get their IDs and permission. If they turned him down, oh well. He worked this way because he knew from experience that if he approached people first, the natural, real moments were gone. People couldn't help but think "oh my, I'm going to be in the newspaper!" and they'd adjust their hair, suck in their gut, change their behavior. The photographer had changed reality by intruding on it (sort of the photography version of the observer effect).

That's great but then your images all tend to have the same long lens look. To use shorter lenses, and work closer to people, the first thing you need to do is put aside your own hesitation, and simply know that you are right where you need to be in order to get the photo you want. Yes, this requires a conversation and tacit consent. No model release needed. But I found that it also is better to respect that the people in my photographs have their own agency, and I get better photos when they know I'm not being "sneaky" or surreptitious when taking photos. Likewise I've found that my patience tends to last longer than their desire to "act" for the camera, and eventually they get bored with me and they go back to being themselves, and I can get more honest photos that way. It's an investment in time, but getting a good photo is worth it.