[RioRico]

An interesting essay: The Camera Fiend by Bill Jay

I first read a version of this called THE PHOTOGRAPHER AS AGGRESSOR in OBSERVATIONS: Essays on Documentary Photography (Untitles 35 - The Friends of Photography, Carmel California, 1984). I've considered scanning and PDFing that piece, but now I find the author has done that for me!

(Not to be confused with the 1911 novel of the same name.)

Are you a camera fiend, the sort that inspires notices to appear at the entrance to every village: ”All vagrants and photographers entering the village will be prosecuted with the utmost rigour of the law.” ?? Are you one of those snapshooters who ignore the restraints of common decency and good manners? No, of course you aren't -- you are a PENTAXIAN!

With lightweight cameras came action, and reaction. From the essay:

A somewhat forthright answer to the amateur was published in 1885: “There is but one remedy for the amateur photographer. Put a brick through his camera whenever you suspect he has taken you unawares. And if there is any doubt, give the benefit of it to the brick, not to the camera. The rights of private property, personal liberty, and personal security – birthrights, all of them, of American citizens – are distinctly inconsistent with the unlicensed use of the instantaneous process.”9

In England “several decent young men” were reported to have formed a Vigilance Association “for the purpose of thrashing the cads with cameras” who take pictures of ladies at the seaside. The writer wished them “stout cudgels and much success.”10

We've had discussions here before about the ethics (if any) of street photography. I don't wish to revisit those, other than to note that cam.phones and security.cams are now ubiquitous, so the issue of privacy in public may be largely irrelevant. If you can be seen, you can be shot, and you can't do much about it.

What I want to know is: Are you now, or have you ever been, a camera fiend? Have you ever been aggressively obnoxious with your camera? Have you ever been the victim of such a shameless toad?

[er1kksen]

so the issue of privacy in public may be largely irrelevant.

^^^I find that sentence, and the implied concept of privacy (in a visual sense) in public, to be very interesting.

I was photographing a show last night in a small coffeeshop venue and I developed a paranoia that other audience members were becoming irritated with my constant presence up by the stage, moving back and forth for different angles and occasionally activating the wireless flashes I had positioned around the stage. I have no evidence that such irritation actually did occur, so perhaps I'm just overly concerned with being polite to fellow audience members. At the end of the night, though, what really matters is the fact that I was doing exactly what the performer onstage had hired me to do.

[Ira]

Who do you think I am--Kierkegard?

I just wanna have some beers and take some shots and not drop or fall on my camera.

But now that I think about it, maybe I would get better shots that way,

[RioRico]

Who do you think I am--Kierkegard?

I just wanna have some beers and take some shots and not drop or fall on my camera.

But now that I think about it, maybe I would get better shots that way,

But are you aggressively obnoxious about it? Have you taken shots where the subject comes at you and threatens violence? (I've been threatened, but I didn't think I was obnoxious. Go figure.) When you wave your camera around, do people cover their faces? (Certain vendors in Mayan marketplaces in Chiapas Mexico do, but I steal their souls anyway.) Hey, let's have a little self-critique here!

And on the other side, has anyone's camera-pointing driven you to violence or face-hiding? (The one time I took a cheap cruise, I did a lot of turning away from Canon hacks there to sell cheezy shots. But they were pros.) Have you ever felt like carrying a can of spray paint, to dust snapshooters?

[Ira]

But are you aggressively obnoxious about it? Have you taken shots where the subject comes at you and threatens violence? (I've been threatened, but I didn't think I was obnoxious. Go figure.) When you wave your camera around, do people cover their faces? (Certain vendors in Mayan marketplaces in Chiapas Mexico do, but I steal their souls anyway.) Hey, let's have a little self-critique here!

And on the other side, has anyone's camera-pointing driven you to violence or face-hiding? (The one time I took a cheap cruise, I did a lot of turning away from Canon hacks there to sell cheezy shots. But they were pros.) Have you ever felt like carrying a can of spray paint, to dust snapshooters?

I'm usually too drunk to notice anything.

[redeleon]

this has been my case also,
when i try to take pictures on the streets I always have this feeling of someone might not be too happy with me shooting other people without them knowing....

well I cant approach them and ask them "Hi, im taking your pictures while you walk, dont mind me"

[mysticcowboy]

That's an interesting concept of "camera fiend." At what point does taking photos become intrusive. I had a job taking photos of corporate seminars. I found that acting with confidence but not pushiness allowed me to walk into a room and take photos, with flash, without getting people upset.

That experience has translated into a comfort with street photography. I shoot openly. If someone looks my way, I'll wave my camera and look a question at them. If they show any kind of upset or hostility, I point the camera in another direction. But that's rare. Most people will either ignore me, pose, or nod okay. I think that the secret is no real secret: respect people, act as if you belong and be polite.

Of course, it's possible to be obnoxious. I've observed that and believe that's what you mean with the phrase. They're pushy, get hostile when challenged and are generally insensitive. Paparazzi wannabes. Give no respect - receive no respect. Turn into a predator or "camera fiend."

What's interesting is that I've seen other people shoot in the same settings, trying to be undercover or something. That seems to uniformly upset their subjects. So, according to the definition you propose the more cautious people slip into the camera fiend category with the too pushy ones.

michael mckee
My Port Townsend – A City in Photographs – 365

[RioRico]

Since anyone with a phone could be shooting everyone and everything in the vicinity, and since tiny P&S's hardly look like cameras, do we just not notice the intrusion? Is everyone with a phone or P&S a fiend now? In destination locales, where throngs of shooters abound, have the rest of us become desensitized to their presence? (I hearken to my residencies in San Francisco and the Sonoma and Mendocino coasts, and Bisbee Arizona, and Antigua Guatemala, and even New Yawk City.)

Another excerpt from the essay:

The Amateur Photographer proposed its own rules for the snapshot photographer. Although this journal had earlier defended the rights and activities of the camera fiend, it had later recognised the severe damage that this type of photographer was doing to the reputation of photographers in general.

The magazine advocated these six, self-imposed guidelines:

1) Never photograph a man in such circumstances as you yourself would not like to be photographed in.
2) Certain classes should be tabooed:

a) Public personages travelling incognito.
b) People labouring under physical deformities.
c) People suffering from temporary accidents, e. g., the occupants of a Channel steamer after a stormy passage.
d) In general, people who implicitly or explicitly express a dislike to be photographed.

3) Never use an expedient to prevent a person knowing he was being photographed, when, if he did know, he would probably resent it.
4) Never let the fact that the victim “didn’t know” excuse a violation of good taste.
5) Never use a camera as a medium for “a thundering good practical joke.”
6) Finally, remember that though you may escape without penalty, your misdoings will be held against the brotherhood in general.

This was sensible advice – but it was too little, too late, like attempting diplomatic negotiations between opposing trenches. The photographer was more likely to heed the advice of those writers who advocated “that a small revolver may on occasion be a not altogether undesirable addition to the [photographic] kit; or perhaps some enterprising inventor will ‘combine’ a shooting instrument with a shutter”!17 Snapshot enthusiasts were encouraged to “take the precaution to carry a thick stick as part of their equipment, otherwise they may find their cameras reduced to a wreck in consequence of their inability to defend themselves.”

Another suggestion was the formation of a Photographic Defence Association in order to act as bodyguards to amateur photographers while they were shooting in public. This and similar suggestions might seem an overreaction today, but they were seriously considered in the late 19th century, particularly when prominent writers were merely reflecting public sentiment by asserting that because “the hand camera fiend ... respects nothing except the exercise of muscular Christianity upon his carcase, there are cases when damage to person and property would not only be pardonable but meritorious.” 18

Yes, times and attitudes have changed, although some of us do carry stout sticks (monopods) as part of our kits. (Not to mention carriers of concealed handguns.) Maybe the proliferation of n00bs with Rebels will further desensitize the population. Will we all learn to behave very carefully in public, lest we end up on YouTube?

[Pentaxie]

That's an interesting concept of "camera fiend." At what point does taking photos become intrusive. I went on travels in other countries and sometimes I shoot "lifestyles". Only sometimes (about <10% of the time) I was being "shooed" for taking pictures of the people.

That experience can be termed as street photography. I shoot openly. If someone looks my way and started to look hostile, I point the camera in another direction and say "Sorry". Most people will either ignore me, pose, or nod okay. I think that the secret is no just take it "with a pinch of salt" and be polite to your subject. If they refuse to be taken by you, just move along.

What's interesting is that I've seen other people shoot in the same settings, trying to be undercover like some paparazzi. That seems to uniformly upset their subjects.

[rparmar]

I am not a camera fiend and find such behaviour obnoxious and self-centred. The question I would pose fiends is: Since when is your picture more important than my enjoyment?

[jct us101]

Are we talking about photographers who have egos bigger than their head or photographers who don't like censorship and don't think photography should be banned anywhere, or both?