[audiobomber]

I don't agree with Gliden's technique...

This is more alluring to me: Street Portrait

Now that's a nice technique. The guy has a more professional presentation with his little portable studio. He obviously likes his subjects and tries to make them comfortable, and the photos are interesting. He's the exact opposite of Gilden.

I assume that was a full-frame camera?

[séamuis]

Now that's a nice technique. The guy has a more professional presentation with his little portable studio. He obviously likes his subjects and tries to make them comfortable, and the photos are interesting. He's the exact opposite of Gilden.

I assume that was a full-frame camera?

yes it was.

[flippedgazelle]

You should work at getting the laws changed then. Your reaction would put you on the wrong side of an assault charge.
Street photography is not a crime, it is not an assault to take your picture if you are in public and you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public.
Do you also take baseball bats to ATMs? They photograph everyone who uses them.

If I stuck my camera in someone's face and they did anything threatening, they would be fortunate if they were not hospitalized for their trouble.

I didn't say anything about objecting to getting my photo taken. My objection is with technique. What Gilden does, I would think, potentially falls within the guidelines for attempted assault. Notice that paparazzi don't attempt his technique.

His sudden movement toward the "subject" is clearly sudden and threatening, and the flash is potentially dangerous.

Of course, maybe I'm wrong. I'll have a policeman's response to this video later on.

[flippedgazelle]

I didn't say anything about objecting to getting my photo taken. My objection is with technique. What Gilden does, I would think, potentially falls within the guidelines for attempted assault. Notice that paparazzi don't attempt his technique.

His sudden movement toward the "subject" is clearly sudden and threatening, and the flash is potentially dangerous.

Of course, maybe I'm wrong. I'll have a policeman's response to this video later on.

Finally got around to showing this video to Officer P. I guess I'm a little too aggressive. However, she did mention that using the flash - temporarily blinding or impairing one's vision - could be interpreted as an attempted assault, if the "victim" is dicomfitted ebough. Pursuit of the photographer would be a no-no; but if the camera were to get damaged as the photo was being taken, one may encounter a sympathetic judge, should a court appearance be necessary.

[pentaxian_tmb]

I didn't say anything about objecting to getting my photo taken. My objection is with technique. What Gilden does, I would think, potentially falls within the guidelines for attempted assault. Notice that paparazzi don't attempt his technique.

His sudden movement toward the "subject" is clearly sudden and threatening, and the flash is potentially dangerous.

Of course, maybe I'm wrong. I'll have a policeman's response to this video later on.

Not to get all technical. But people often confuse "assault" with "battery"

"Battery" is the unwanted touching of another by person or object. An "assault" is an intentional act that causes an apprehension of immediate violence in the victim. Battery does not require an actual injury (for example spitting on someone is a techincal battery)

I suppose one could make an argument that what he is doing is a technical battery in that he is touching them with an unwanted source of light.

Also, as soon as someone gets p!ssed off and starts shouting, he could probably be arrested for disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace.

[tcdk]

I would recommend Clays approach as well - I've done it once (with off-cam flash), quite an interesting experience. And you learn something both about photography and people.

Gilden gets interesting shots, but.. well, I find his methods crude and rude...

[opianstate]

I second the comment that Gilden is trying to evoke an emotion by startling these people. He says something like he's "catching them deep in thought" but he does not "catch" any of these people on candid terms because he's literally getting in their face. I was always under the assumption that a "real" candid meant the person literally didn't know you were taking their picture, and wouldn't, ever....meaning their expressions (both facial and bodily) were natural and interesting, rather than being angry/startled/annoyed