[creampuff]

You got a special gripe with me, or what, Puff? Are you still sulking because I wouldn't sell you a lens? Get over it. You've got to have something better to do, perhaps learning how to offer criticism of the idea without attacking the person offering the idea? You might want to start by looking up argumentum ad hominem.
As always, a pleasure to hear from you,
Brian

Boy I can't even recall if I tried to buy anything from you on the forum so what is there to sulk? Who you want to sell your stuff is your perogative so there's nothing to get over. As a retired publicist and former college professor (from your bio), I would have thought you would have been intelligent enough to realize that the your idea and definition of street photography have been thoroughly debunked and shown to be flawed. Yet you persist in pressing the case for your position in dogmatic fashion. All I can say is I wish you well but unfortunately you're dead wrong on this one topic...

[alohadave]

Of course people have an "expectation of privacy," otherwise why do some people object when they feel that privacy is invaded? And, reporters and paparazzi are not the same thing; unless you're an accredited media photographer, you don't have the same standing; you may want it, you may think you have it, but you don't and you remain an amateur taking photographs of individuals without their knowledge and/or permission,
Brian

Yes, I do have the same standing. If you are in public, you can take a picture of anyone or anything you can see, whether you are a private citizen, press photographer or paparazzi. There are no qualifications or requirements that allow the press any special rights that no one else gets.

As far as being an accredited media photographer, all that means is that a news organization has vouched for you and you can get special access that the general public cannot (and those places aren't typically where the public can't go, so it isn't really germane to this discussion).

[jamonation]

Only 2 photos I've taken that I think are decent street photos, and they weren't intentional (e.g. it isn't something I've ever set out to try).


By an evacuated building that was on fire, everyone else had cameras out. No subterfuge needed.


I was a tourist and looked the part, liked the landscape and needed something/someone to balance the composition.

[David Glazebrook]

I was a tourist and looked the part, liked the landscape and needed something/someone to balance the composition.

Really enjoy this shot ... nice capture

[FHPhotographer]

Yes, I do have the same standing. If you are in public, you can take a picture of anyone or anything you can see, whether you are a private citizen, press photographer or paparazzi. There are no qualifications or requirements that allow the press any special rights that no one else gets.

As far as being an accredited media photographer, all that means is that a news organization has vouched for you and you can get special access that the general public cannot (and those places aren't typically where the public can't go, so it isn't really germane to this discussion).

Well, we can go round and around on this, but the real test would be to try publish a photograph that you didn't have permission to take of a private individual and, without the status of a news photographer, trying to defend it in court. I'm afraid you'd find out that there is a difference, and it's not just in access. But again, we aren't talking law, we're talking ethics... not what you can do but what you should do,
Brian

[FHPhotographer]

jamonation,
thanks for the examples, proving once again that there are situational exceptions to every rule, law or ethics. The first would be ethical by my standards and constitute fair use as a news photograph; the second would pose an ethical conundrum: if the subject was unaware of the photograph being taken, if she can't be identified and it wouldn't be published in such a way that would allow her to be identified, would it still be unethical? I'm going to have to think about it, but thanks for getting me to that point,
Brian

[FHPhotographer]

Boy I can't even recall if I tried to buy anything from you on the forum so what is there to sulk? Who you want to sell your stuff is your perogative so there's nothing to get over. As a retired publicist and former college professor (from your bio), I would have thought you would have been intelligent enough to realize that the your idea and definition of street photography have been thoroughly debunked and shown to be flawed. Yet you persist in pressing the case for your position in dogmatic fashion. All I can say is I wish you well but unfortunately you're dead wrong on this one topic...

You still don't get it, do you? Your use of "dogmatic," isn't directed at the topic but at the speaker; that makes it ad hominem, and that's outside the bounds of fair play and argument. I've got nothing against you, Puff, and I don't mind your stongest language directed at the message, but let's keep the messengers out of it, okay?
Brian

---

Last edited by FHPhotographer; 10-02-2009 at 07:52 PM. Reason: typo

[alohadave]

Well, we can go round and around on this, but the real test would be to try publish a photograph that you didn't have permission to take of a private individual and, without the status of a news photographer, trying to defend it in court. I'm afraid you'd find out that there is a difference, and it's not just in access. But again, we aren't talking law, we're talking ethics... not what you can do but what you should do,
Brian

Well, if you are going to keep moving the goal posts, it will go on forever. Originally you were stating that it is unethical to take pictures without the person's knowledge, now you are talking about publishing. No one else has said anything else about publishing the pictures.

If you are going to go down this road, you need to specify which kind of publishing you are referring to. Art, commercial, editorial, advertising. They have different legal obligations to them, and you can't use a blanket set of rules for all of them.

And just so you know, I have had pictures of 'private' individuals who were in public published by my local paper, and I am not a press photographer.

[Votesh]

As I said in my first comment, " (if this behavior) is ethical explain ... terms such as 'conceal' 'stealth' and 'sneak up behind them'.

Concealment and stealth can be used in ways which are not negative or unethical. If you want a natural expression out of a stranger the best way to get it is for them to not know you are taking a photo of them, or that you even have a camera.

Sneaking could possibly be used in the same way, but probably not sneaking up behind someone.

I know, you'll say that sneaking, stealth, and concealment are without a doubt unethical because in your opinion any photograph of a stranger is unethical unless taken by a member of the press. However, opinions differ.

[FHPhotographer]

Concealment and stealth can be used in ways which are not negative or unethical. If you want a natural expression out of a stranger the best way to get it is for them to not know you are taking a photo of them, or that you even have a camera.

Sneaking could possibly be used in the same way, but probably not sneaking up behind someone.

I know, you'll say that sneaking, stealth, and concealment are without a doubt unethical because in your opinion any photograph of a stranger is unethical unless taken by a member of the press. However, opinions differ.

First, presuming you know what anyone is going to say is insulting.

Second, you are making a statement attributing to me something I didn't say and then arguing from that attribution, i.e., I did not at any point advance the opinion that "any photograph of a stranger is unethical unless taken by a member of the press." You do read the posts before commenting on them, correct? You do know there is a difference between what other people actually say and what you allege they say, right?
Brian

[FHPhotographer]

Well, if you are going to keep moving the goal posts, it will go on forever. Originally you were stating that it is unethical to take pictures without the person's knowledge, now you are talking about publishing. No one else has said anything else about publishing the pictures.

If you are going to go down this road, you need to specify which kind of publishing you are referring to. Art, commercial, editorial, advertising. They have different legal obligations to them, and you can't use a blanket set of rules for all of them.

And just so you know, I have had pictures of 'private' individuals who were in public published by my local paper, and I am not a press photographer.

You're right, I shouldn't have introduced the "use" issue, it was not germane; I stand corrected,
Brian

[Votesh]

First, presuming you know what anyone is going to say is insulting.

Second, you are making a statement attributing to me something I didn't say and then arguing from that attribution, i.e., I did not at any point advance the opinion that "any photograph of a stranger is unethical unless taken by a member of the press." You do read the posts before commenting on them, correct? You do know there is a difference between what other people actually say and what you allege they say, right?
Brian

You could just respond to the answer I provided to your question, rather than openly insulting me.

I don't see how anything I've said could be seen as insulting.

You have said that candid, street photography of strangers is unethical. When candid, street photography in the name of photojournalism was mentioned, you expressed that that was different than unethical, candid, street photography by amateurs.

Also, you speaking down to me and nearly every other poster in this thread with an opinion opposing yours is truly insulting.

If you want direct quotes I can provide them when I next get my laptop to a free wifi area. Anything more than simple posting is cumbersome on my phone.

[c.r.brown]

But again, we aren't talking law, we're talking ethics... not what you can do but what you should do,
Brian

Let me state that I categorically, 100%, emphatically and unequivocally disagree. The act of taking someones photo , to me, has no ethical connotations to it at all, the only ethics that come in to play is the intent of the photographer for which they plan to use the photograph. Period.

A person can have the expectation of privacy but that same person would be wrong. I can expect it to rain cupcakes but it won't. You are in the world with other people who happen to be doing their own things. You may want privacy but you have absolutely no valid reason to expect it.

And please when you parse my statements I am using the 'royal' 'you'.

[lodi781]

When i'm shooting street, I don't look at stealth as a way of getting around someones permission or consent, I look at it as a way not to spoil a moment. If i see two people kissing under a lamp light for example, i'm not gonna run up in thier face and take a picture, that to me is invading their privacy. Yes its on a public street, but have a little decency about it. so.............

I take 2 lenses with me when ever I go to NYC. My 50 mm and my 60-250. If people are cool with me taking their photo, I use the 50 (prefer to anyways) but sometimes I sit across the street from someplace public, the stairs of the library, times square, etc, and shoot things I see that I think are cool. I try not to shoot people in outside resturants. I'll find a nice setting with a cool store front, set up out of the way, then just hang out for a while and see what happens.....

[lodi781]

oh, and one thing I won't do, is take pictures of children without consent.