[Clavius]

Wether street photography is impolite or not depends on its purpose. And I haven't been able to unravel its purpose yet.

My photography-interests are all over the place. I like almost any aspect of photography. But I haven't been able to grasp the appeal of street-photography at all. What's the fun in taking snaps of strangers? I admit my ignorance is fully to blame here. But maybe that's also exactly why my opinion might have some limited value here, because the people that are captured by street photographers might suffer from the same ignorance as I do.

If some random stranger is taking a picture of me, without asking, then I think he/she must be some kind of creepy idiot at best. I just walk on, only quicker. When they do the same of my wife, my blood will boil and not reacting might become difficult for me. When I catch someone taking pics of my daugher, I will turn green, instantly double in size and start destroying stuff starting with culpret and his/her gear.

All jokes aside though, some techniques used for this kind of photography do indicate a certain degree of sneakyness. One is the technique where you pretent to be taking a picture of an object or building, but wait for your real subject to "accidentally" walk into your shot. Another sneaky one is the use of a screw on lens extention with a angled mirror in it, enabling the phototgrapher to take pictures of subjects that are located at his camera's 3 or 9 o'clock. Employing either technique is the same as confessing to not feeling comfortable with it yourself.

The only way it's not going to be impolite is if you ask those people first. But what explanation are you going to give them? What are you going to tell them what you're going to with those photos and how do they know you're telling the truth?

[wullemaha]

I think it depends on what kind of street photography.
E.g. the pictures posted by dtmateojr are basically really well done portraits in my point of view. The fact that it is a stranger that the portrait is taken off, does not matter in this kind of street photography, because obviously that guy knew he is being photographed and he was fine with it.

That kind of street photography I find really interesting.

[rbefly]

What's the fun in taking snaps of strangers? I admit my ignorance is fully to blame here

Yes.

But maybe that's also exactly why my opinion might have some limited value here, because the people that are captured by street photographers might suffer from the same ignorance as I do

Hopefully not. Oh, I see, you're merely trying to help. Got it.

If some random stranger is taking a picture of me, without asking, then I think he/she must be some kind of creepy idiot at best.

That's what you get for thinking. Everyone using a camera that aims in your direction is a creepy idiot. Right, got it.

All jokes aside though, some techniques used for this kind of photography do indicate a certain degree of sneakyness

Huh? Pointing a camera anywhere and clicking the shutter is sneaky? We're all doomed! A straw man argument.

Another sneaky one is the use of a screw on lens extention with a angled mirror in it, enabling the phototgrapher to take pictures of subjects that are located at his camera's 3 or 9 o'clock

Do you really think those cheapy plastic lens-add-ons have any application to this conversation? Does anyone even sell them anymore? Junk product, straw man,again.

The only way it's not going to be impolite is if you ask those people first

Oh, yes. Remember the famous photo of the sailor kissing the nurse in Times Square? Think the photog asked first? According to your (???) logic, that shouldn't even exist.

If I thought you were honestly looking for a reasoned, clear visual explanation of the appeal of street photography, I'd refer you to the link I posted earlier. Then, how about you post here and list the photos that shouldn't even have been taken and thereby wouldn't ever have been shared. OK? Just the photographs that have absolutely no value or make no real contribution to society. Worthless, in other words.
Because, after all, each was taken on the street, (usually) without permission, model release, by a sneaky, random stranger, creepy idiot. Some were professional photographers, many were not. Regardless, they qualify as street photography.
Ron

[Clavius]

Huh? Pointing a camera anywhere and clicking the shutter is sneaky? We're all doomed! A straw man argument.

Didn't I give a clear example or two of the techniques that I was referring to? Yes I did. Like the technique where one pretends to be taking a picture of an object or building, but waits for the real subject to "accidentally" walk into the shot. If that's not sneaky then I don't know else what is. And the fact that the photographer is hiding his intentions like that means that he's fully aware of how weird it is.

Do you really think those cheapy plastic lens-add-ons have any application to this conversation? Does anyone even sell them anymore? Junk product, straw man,again.

Humor me. Look on Ebay, you'll be so very surprised then. They come in metal, plastic, and other materials. Various colours and various designs. All so to match the gear you're carrying. And they come in each and every thinkable filter thread variant. Aren't those items built for the sole purpose of taking shots of people without them detecting it? It's the sole reason for their existense.

Oh, yes. Remember the famous photo of the sailor kissing the nurse in Times Square? Think the photog asked first? According to your (???) logic, that shouldn't even exist.

No, I don't remember that. You don't consider sneaking up on two people kissing to take their photo creepy at all then? And what do you think would have happened if that photographer had been caught doing what he did? Or, is getting away with it the appeal of street photography? Part of the excitement?

If I thought you were honestly looking for a reasoned, clear visual explanation of the appeal of street photography, I'd refer you to the link I posted earlier.

I had already accessed the pictures in that link earlier. Because believe it or not: I genuinely would like to overcome my own ignorance and understand the appeal of street photography, because it's the one and only aspect of photography that completely and utterly eludes me.

Why are some photographers willing to risk so much to take a snap of strangers? Where I grew up, street photography would be considered a dangerous sport. But don't tell me it's any different in the US. We've all seen or read the incidents with the people wearing the google glasses on the news. Clearly people exist that don't like it one bit.

The pictures in that link are technically very nice pictures indeed. The technique is great. But what does the photographer do with them? How can those pictures have meaning to the photographer or the viewer?

[steve1307]

And if you are this guy it is not,

https://www.flickr.com/photos/thomasleuthard/

I remember he published a couple of interesting books a couple of years ago.


Looks like they are now hosted on his own website, along with a couple of additions.

eBooks ‹ Thomas.Leuthard.Photography

[DeadJohn]

Didn't I give a clear example or two of the techniques that I was referring to? Yes I did. Like the technique where one pretends to be taking a picture of an object or building, but waits for the real subject to "accidentally" walk into the shot. If that's not sneaky then I don't know else what is. And the fact that the photographer is hiding his intentions like that means that he's fully aware of how weird it is.

Yes it's sneaky but not weird. The only way to get a candid photo is to be covert - once people are aware of the camera they behave differently even if they want to be photographed. Street photography is a bit like wildlife photography in that you often don't want the subject to notice you because you don't want to change their behavior. Posed subjects become portraits taken on a street, arguably not "street photography".

No, I don't remember that. You don't consider sneaking up on two people kissing to take their photo creepy at all then? And what do you think would have happened if that photographer had been caught doing what he did? Or, is getting away with it the appeal of street photography? Part of the excitement?

Are you still talking about the post-WW2 photo? Those two people were kissing in the middle of Times Square, the least private place in all of NYC. It doesn't seem like the photographer did anything sneaky or creepy to get that photo. Many other people were in the street looking.

[rbefly]

Didn't I give a clear example or two of the techniques that I was referring to

Yes, one was pretending to take a picture of a building, but actually waiting for someone to walk into view. How horrible! My gawd, they should be shot, then hanged. Do you ever run out of straw men? How is wanting to snap a natural pose so terrible? It's legal, honorable and time-proven. But, of course, you know that.
The other? Oh, yes, Clavius...the lens extensions you are so enamored with. So, you found them for sale on eBay, thereby validating everything you hate about street photography. Definitive proof, if ever there was. They sell them on eBay, 'nuff said. Get real, even by your lowly standards, this is the worst straw man yet.

Humor me. Look on Ebay, you'll be so very surprised then

Humor yourself, thanks anyway. Have you ever seen one of these? Ever seen anyone use it? Me neither. Most photographers won't even put a clear filter in front of a lens, for fear of degrading the I.Q. But, yeah, we're all lining up to put a cheap 45-degree-mirror extension onto our lenses. Get real!

No, I don't remember that.

After 'Already accessing the photos on that site?' How could that be? Featured right within the first 1/8 page of scrolling. You wouldn't be fooling us, would you?

I had already accessed the pictures in that link earlier.

No, you didn't. See above.

Because believe it or not: I genuinely would like to overcome my own ignorance

As to the first part, I'll chose the latter. To the second part, mission impossible. You've never changed your mind, never apologized, never been wrong and have absolutely no reason to start now. Your posting history speaks for itself.

Why are some photographers willing to risk so much to take a snap of strangers

Ain't gonna bite here. This is too stupid to honor with an answer.
Let's line them up, OK?
You start by saying you honestly want to know what the appeal of street photography is. Sounds pretty reasonable, unless someone's been on this forum for more than ten minutes, or have seen previous posts by you. You quickly follow by describing how lowly, sneaky, weird, covert, dangerous and rude S.P. is. In the same post. Now, it sounds like your mind is made up. You hate it. But, perhaps some kind soul won't know that you're trolling, and believes your B.S. So they try, you get to make 20 or 30 replies, wearing them down. Others get so discourged, the thread dies. Mission accomplished, eh? Is this fun for you? It must bring some satisfaction, you do it often enough.
You've done this too many times before and it's time you were 'Outed'. An issue you really don't care about, it's just enough of a 'hot button' issue for you to play with. Pulling wings off flies, arguing for the sake of it.
And, not too suprising, you didn't respond to my request to list the photos that shouldn't have been taken, from the link. Why? Because that would require you to look at the link. You never did and never will. But, hey, the Times Square shot is there and you've already described your response to it; Without ever seeing it, by your own admission.
Does any of this even remotely sound like someone who is willing to see another point of view?
No, but it's typical Clavius.
With your kind permission, we'll move on now. Find another thread to troll.
Ron

[wullemaha]

I remember he published a couple of interesting books a couple of years ago.

Thanks, will be checking it out.

Weirdly enough, even though he behaves like a giant a**hole, the pictures by Bruce Gilden also have their charm.

[Clavius]

Yes it's sneaky but not weird. The only way to get a candid photo is to be covert - once people are aware of the camera they behave differently even if they want to be photographed. Street photography is a bit like wildlife photography in that you often don't want the subject to notice you because you don't want to change their behavior. Posed subjects become portraits taken on a street, arguably not "street photography".

Thanks, that's exactly what I was getting at. If you do the polite thing and ask, even get a model release maybe, it's no longer considered street photography. Just like the beautiful portraits earlier in this thread. But if you don't make the subjects aware, then there's a risk. And I guess in some place the risk is bigger then the other.

In that respect the google glass must be a street photographers dream come true then? I hear the next version is going to include Raybann design and is going to be less noticable.

-snip-

This doesn't make any sense at all.

[johnyates]

google glass must be a street photographers dream come true then?

Not so much.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/02/25/woman-wearing-google-glass-says-...francisco-bar/

[DeadJohn]

Thanks, that's exactly what I was getting at. If you do the polite thing and ask, even get a model release maybe, it's no longer considered street photography. Just like the beautiful portraits earlier in this thread. But if you don't make the subjects aware, then there's a risk. And I guess in some place the risk is bigger then the other. In that respect the google glass must be a street photographers dream come true then? I hear the next version is going to include Raybann design and is going to be less noticable.

Just because we're in agreement about the definition of street photography doesn't mean I agree that the practice of street photography is wrong. I'd much rather people just snap my photo than waste my time asking permission then handing me a legal contract (that's what a model release is) to read and sign.

[dtmateojr]

How is this being sneaky? It's totally candid

[PPPPPP42]

I kinda bounced ahead when things started sounding defensive, so some of this may have been covered already, but here are some of my pessimistic (realistic) thoughts on it. Keep in mind there are always people who are fine with it, but these are pretty safe and unfortunately usually accurate generalizations.
I personally see nothing wrong with street photography done politely and respectfully.

It varies a lot in different countries or parts of this country (USA) by population and culture, but to the public if you are a single guy randomly snapping pics of people on the street you are at best a person of suspicious motives, at worst a genuine creeper.
If you are a guy who takes pictures of children on the street expect people to assume you are a pedophile and react accordingly.
This is just the suspicious, post in on the internet, everyone is evil sort of world we live in now and your innocent opinion of what you are doing is irrelevant to them.
Surprisingly (or not) if you are a woman photographer you are viewed in a very different light as it removes most of the creeper half of the equation and only leaves people to wonder what you are up to with your pictures and where they will be posted to.
Your average person is very suspicious these days of everyone and everything.

You can significantly mitigate your "creepiness" by bringing along a friend to show you are socially capable, especially a woman if you are a man.
Somewhat contrary to what you would expect, I find that people are less suspicious if I have a tripod and camera bag slung over my shoulders because then I look more official and professional which also tones down the creepy, people often ask if I am with a newspaper or something when I am out and about.
It also helps if you are physically attractive, much more than you'd think, in how people perceive you socially.
How you dress is important too either in neatness or for effect. I have actually been told by friends that wearing the ridiculously geeky photographer gear vest and wide brimmed hat makes them seem more harmless to people.
Where you are and how many people are around totally changes peoples perceptions and expectations as well, probably more than any other thing.

You really do need to be somewhat sneaky or just really quick for true street photography because it has to be totally natural.
Street portraits are a different matter entirely. I would consider the above in dtmateojr's post an example of really well done street group portrait work, and not true street photography, but that's all debatable semantics.

That fine fellow that jams his camera and flash in peoples faces would get tossed into traffic if he tried that crap with me, very rude. (video was down but I am pretty sure its the same video I saw before)

[Kerrowdown]

I've been known to do a bit a street work.

I'm just really obvious about it, me and my "Good Lady".

[AquaDome]

Just don't BE creepy.
I stand against a building so I'm not blocking the sidewalk. My arm is up in the air, hanging the camera in portrait-orientation in front of my face. I stand there for several minutes and take a few pictures. Anyone who is walking down the street can see me from a long way off, if they care. Some people stop so they won't block my shot. I smile and tell them its okay. I do wear a photographer vest and a floppy hat, but because I need them, but the get-up very well could help put people at ease.

This picture shows the most emotional reaction I have ever gotten taking a photo on the street: