Street Photographers, concealment of the camera.

[jgredline]

Originally Posted by Ratmagiclady

Maybe it fits the times in some ways. For me, this angle has had a lot to do with me quite often feeling inhibited about my usual meet-and-greet when I feel like certain physical discomfort is showing all over my face. I'm told I'm better at hiding it than I think, but it still *feels* like I'm walking around with a sour puss.

Oh, I know what you mean and how you feel. Same here. Now you have me wondering if we don't subconsciously shoot what we are feeling like?

[alohadave]

Originally Posted by FHPhotographer

If "street photography" ( taking an individual's photograph without their knowledge, consent or permission) is ethical explain why a thread like this one exists that includes terms such as "conceal" "stealth" "sneak up behind them..." etc.

I suspect if you (collectively) asked the same question, and offered the same suggestions, on a non-photography website, y'all would be stunned by the overwhelming negative response. Your "right" to take a photograph exists in your world but not in the world where the vast majority of your subjects live.

Ask permission. If you (collectively) don't get it, don't take the shot. And if it "ruins" the shot, maybe you (collectively) need to become a better photographer and a more honorable human being,
Brian

There might be an uproar because most people think that they have a right to privacy in public. They are wrong. You can take a picture of any person in public, as long as you don't do perverty things like upskirt/downblouse.

If you don't feel its ethical to obscure the camera, that's your prerogative, but other people do it differently.

[jgredline]

Originally Posted by alohadave

There might be an uproar because most people think that they have a right to privacy in public. They are wrong. You can take a picture of any person in public, as long as you don't do perverty things like upskirt/downblouse.

If you don't feel its ethical to obscure the camera, that's your prerogative, but other people do it differently.

I agree and nice blog by the way

[Ratmagiclady]

Originally Posted by jgredline

Oh, I know what you mean and how you feel. Same here. Now you have me wondering if we don't subconsciously shoot what we are feeling like?

Well, I think that's really part of 'keeping it real.' Art's kind of about evoking stuff from your subconscious perceptions. It's part of why I prefer to be interactive: really multiplies the possibilities, that way.

[libbyh]

I'm not a street photographer by any means either, but funny enough, my technique for it comes from being asked to shoot events. I personally hate posed photos so had to work very hard at capturing candids quickly or unintrusively as a result. I have a few strategies that I adapt as the situation calls for:

1. using manual focus set for distance and stopping down a bit and then shooting from the hip (almost like i was relaxing with just the camera in my hand)

2. engaging the people i'm around and interacting with them and taking a few snaps. As someone else noted, you'll be surprised how oblivious people will become to the camera despite how imposing you might think it would be.

3. be outgoing and good natured. If you think taking the snap could put you in a dicey situation, ask first.

[FHPhotographer]

Originally Posted by Ratmagiclady

Well, one thing that distinguishes street photography from *spying* is that it's not actually about the individuals photographed. (Not really *as* individuals, anyway. You don't caption em with names, do you?

It's about life.

It's why I don't really advise *hiding* the camera as if it's some illicit thing not to be looked at. The key's to be *unobtrusive.*

Running around generally brandishing it tends to actually disrupt what you're photographing before you even have a shot. There's catching people unawares, and then there's spontaneity. (And, yes, 'permission' can be quite spontaneous. If you're paying attention to the people in the first place, it's obvious when the attention is unwelcome.)

Well, that's one way of looking at it. Unobtrusive means not blatant, or inconspicuous. Are you suggesting that it is ethical to take somebody's picture without permission as long as the subject doesn't know he/she is being photographed? Sorry, from my point of view, that dog don't hunt.

I expect very few on this forum will agree with me; a lot of folks have strongly held contrary views. Last time I raised this issue it got ugly fast because we got off into the legality of street photography. I don't want to go there again, but I do think this is a practical ethics issue that we, as photographers, should occasionally revisit. If for no other reason than to make sure we are individually clear what our standards of behavior permit,
Brian

[FHPhotographer]

Originally Posted by alohadave

There might be an uproar because most people think that they have a right to privacy in public. They are wrong. You can take a picture of any person in public, as long as you don't do perverty things like upskirt/downblouse.

If you don't feel its ethical to obscure the camera, that's your prerogative, but other people do it differently.

I think you missed my point, Dave. I didn't say it was unethical to "obscure" the camera, I said it was unethical to use the camera like that without permission.

And you don't want to go into the legality of this, Dave. The legality issue was roundly thrashed through in a much earlier thread; suffice it to say, the laws can be broadly construed, seem to be situational, differ from country to country, and are open to some interpretation. This, however, is an issue of ethics. I'm not concerned whether the photographer can do it, rather with the question is should the photographer do it?
Brian

[Ratmagiclady]

Originally Posted by FHPhotographer

[B]Well, that's one way of looking at it. Unobtrusive means not blatant, or inconspicuous. Are you suggesting that it is ethical to take somebody's picture without permission as long as the subject doesn't know he/she is being photographed? Sorry, from my point of view, that dog don't hunt.

Considering that's not what I said, that doesn't concern me.

As for whether it's 'ethical', what *you're* talking about, sure it is, if they're in public. Ethics mostly come in regarding what's *done* with the images, and for what purpose.

I don't, for instance put a lot of my people shots on the Internet where anyone can see and possibly appropriate them. (Probably it's actually a little pointless to have that attitude lately in days when anyone doing anything might end up on the Web regardless of any artistic or journalistic/documentary merit. )

What photographers have the right to do, and what people have a reasonable right to expect, is made pretty clear. Beyond that, well, I'm not out there to make anyone unhappy or hurt anyone, so I show as much consideration as I can. Same as anything else, really.

Fact is, too, I don't usually range too far these days. Places where I shoot, I have to *live,* and you don't make a very good part of a community like that by pissing people off. You want a certain amount of trust between you and your subjects, if they're going to be recurring. And especially for if it comes around to where you want to say something more 'challenging.' Bigger cities, well, that's more like being part of the city itself.

[jgredline]

Originally Posted by Ratmagiclady

Well, I think that's really part of 'keeping it real.' Art's kind of about evoking stuff from your subconscious perceptions. It's part of why I prefer to be interactive: really multiplies the possibilities, that way.

Agreed! Take a peak at my blog. Lots of interaction.

[jgredline]

Originally Posted by libbyh

I'm not a street photographer by any means either, but funny enough, my technique for it comes from being asked to shoot events. I personally hate posed photos so had to work very hard at capturing candids quickly or unintrusively as a result. I have a few strategies that I adapt as the situation calls for:

1. using manual focus set for distance and stopping down a bit and then shooting from the hip (almost like i was relaxing with just the camera in my hand)

2. engaging the people i'm around and interacting with them and taking a few snaps. As someone else noted, you'll be surprised how oblivious people will become to the camera despite how imposing you might think it would be.

3. be outgoing and good natured. If you think taking the snap could put you in a dicey situation, ask first.

Agreed on all points

[Ratmagiclady]

Originally Posted by jgredline

Agreed! Take a peak at my blog. Lots of interaction.

Think I'll do that. I'd actually be out doing a little pavement-pounding now if I weren't waiting on someone. (As it is, I'm pacing around trying to strengthen my pesky knees. Always a bit of a hump to get over after I've had to rest them. It makes me think maybe I should think more seriously about finding some kind of athletic kneebraces in order to improve my photography, speaking of sour pusses. Not to mention general quality of life. )

[FHPhotographer]

Originally Posted by Ratmagiclady

Considering that's not what I said, that doesn't concern me.

As for whether it's 'ethical', what *you're* talking about, sure it is, if they're in public. Ethics mostly come in regarding what's *done* with the images, and for what purpose.

Well, as a matter fact this is exactly what you said, The key's to be *unobtrusive.* , and I was responding to that. In any case, I agree that there is an equally serious ethical issue involved in the use of the image(s); in fact, that's where the legality comes into the picture concerning fair use and misappropriation.

Brian

[jgredline]

Brian, What would you do if you caught a street shooter shooting you?

[Ratmagiclady]

Originally Posted by FHPhotographer

Well, as a matter fact this is exactly what you said, The key's to be *unobtrusive.* , and I was responding to that. In any case, I agree that there is an equally serious ethical issue involved in the use of the image(s); in fact, that's where the legality comes into the picture concerning fair use and misappropriation.

Brian

No, it's not 'exactly what I said. What I said, was exactly what I said. There's a difference between being unobtrusive and trying to get shots on the sly. 'Obtrusive' is when your subject and anyone around starts feeling like a camera might be on them before they can meaningfully communicate whether they'd like that or not.

What I call 'presenting the camera' is all about letting people behave naturally, become aware of the camera when they need to, (not before, when they'll likely just become uncomfortable,) and let them make that decision before they move to where you're inside that comfort zone. They need to be able to give that little, 'No' cue comfortably, too. It's one reason I like the short portrait lengths, too. It's almost exactly like any other way you would greet someone for any other purpose, except there's a camera involved: you don't want them to feel sniped at voyeuristically, nor ambushed. It's like a little conversation. Being unobtrusive helps make it a pleasant one.

Doesn't affect the issue of the 'rights' of the matter, but that's about being considerate. About doing things with respect. The way I like to see it is giving someone a chance to express something. If they ain't breaking news, you gotta respect the 'No' part of that, too. If it doesn't feel right, you just wave off and give a gesture of respect. People appreciate that. In that way, showing the camera from too far away can be as bad as having it suddenly pop up out of nowhere.




Some nice work there, btw, Javier. I approve of the care packages. Not the kind of stuff I can hump around, but I was thinking when I was out earlier that it'd be good to have one of those microfleece blankets on me. This town's actually got pretty good services to all appearance and report, but I'm starting to get to know a few of the street people: there's a few who are apparently in and out of hospital, maybe run out of Atlanta by one scene or other, that I meet fairly often. It seems like a few minor comforts would be good.

[mysticcowboy]

I recently spent a day in Seattle with a friend who does a lot of street photography, which he's quite good at. He has a gift of gab and interacts with people to the point where they hardly notice his camera. His take on it is that there are three basic ways to do street shooting.

You can be friendly and talkative with your subjects. You can just shoot and be neutral, not hiding, but not interacting. Or you can do the spy thing and try to remain unseen.

There are times when you need to be clandestine: when cameras aren't allowed, where the subjects don't want to be recognized or when your camera might stolen. Unless you're real practiced at it, spy shooting is going to make you uncomfortable and you're going to act a bit weird. That's going to make people more nervous around you than shooting openly. If you're uncomfortable taking the shot people will get your vibes and be uncomfortable around you.

What I'm doing now is what my friend recommended, just taking a lot of shots. So far they're pretty awful but I'm getting less nervous just shooting at people around me. I'm even starting to ask people if I can take their pictures. If done with respect that doesn't seem to put most people off.