[FHPhotographer]

Rather than go around and around on the other thread, let's start a new one on the craft of street photography. Here's my final post on the previous thread with three images taken with permission of the folks being photographed:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-pentax-photography/50523-finding-...tml#post518024
Brian

Edit: I'm prepared to keep arguing this issue, in the best sense of the term, as long as anybody wants to share his/her opinion, but just so we have this up front, majority opinion doesn't carry the day; arguments based on "everyone else..." or "everybody I know..." or "everybody but you agrees..." ectcetra have no place in a constructive discussion. Also, I for one will not respond to any poster who engages in attacks on individuals rather than speaking to the issue. Hopefully this thread will stay on topic and focus on the basic question: is street photography ethical without the permission of the subject(s), and, if you do street photography (with or without subject permission) what is your method, approach, or whatever term you want to use .

---

Last edited by FHPhotographer; 03-09-2009 at 10:35 PM.

[sholtzma]

I enjoyed the other thread (yes, I know it devolved some), so I'll play.

As I posted in the other thread, I am even LESS likely now to care about whether a "street subject" (actually a person in any ordinary public setting) would approve of my taking the photo of him/her. If the person objected, I would certainly talk with them about myself and my use of photos, offer a business card, offer them a copy of the photo, etc. In other words, I would go out of my way to reassure them about my use of their image. But I would still make the image.

Now, matters would be quite different if we were a culture that believed that a person's image was theirs alone, along the lines of how some cultures believe that if you make an image of a person then you have stolen something of the person's soul. We find that kind of thinking in voodoo, too. But clearly we are not that kind of culture. That, to me, removes the major ethical obstacle to "street photography".

Think about what I give up when I go out in public, say on a public street. Do I have any ethical grounds to tell people not to curse around me, not to look at me weirdly, not to speak to me, or to speak to me? Are there ethical reasons for them not to ask me for a dime, not to say that my clothes are ugly, not to ask directions from me? Don't I open myself up to an extraordinarily wide range of interactions when I go out in public? I'm not saying that the public realm is an ethics-free zone; quite the opposite. But exactly what ethical requirements apply that are relevant to making photos of people (including disapproving people) in public places?

And note, the issue here isn't one of etiquette, but ethics. It clearly is bad etiquette to curse around someone, to look at them weirdly and point at them, etc. There are all sorts of rude acts, unkindly acts, thoughtless acts. But this does not rise to the level of ethics. Perhaps you want to add matters of etiquette to this thread....

Looking forward to our discussion.

EDIT to add that I'm not a professional photographer, but I am a philosophy professor, who sometimes teaches ethics. So, I'm quite interested in this subject. And, needless to say, I am interested in discovering if my views are wrong.

I'm interested to hear whether things were different back in the twentieth century when the twin towers were still there.
Are photographers really having a tougher time of it now, taking pictures in public?

[alohadave]

I'm interested to hear whether things were different back in the twentieth century when the twin towers were still there.
Are photographers really having a tougher time of it now, taking pictures in public?

I know a photog on another board who takes a 4x5 camera around NYC, including the subway and she hasn't any problems with having a tripod setup for up to 30 minutes at a time.

She occasionally has issues with transit cops on the subway, but in general it's not an issue.

I know a photog on another board who takes a 4x5 camera around NYC, including the subway and she hasn't any problems with having a tripod setup for up to 30 minutes at a time.

She occasionally has issues with transit cops on the subway, but in general it's not an issue.

I'm just making an assumption here but I would guess that there is a lot more tolerance for female photographers. They are automatically seen as non threatening. The female forum members with a different story will probably give me a hard time here, I did use the word assumption.

[FHPhotographer]

I'm interested to hear whether things were different back in the twentieth century when the twin towers were still there.
Are photographers really having a tougher time of it now, taking pictures in public?

There is on dp a link to a lengthy video piece about a public protest staged by photographers in England over the new stop and inquire law that may/may not be implemented by now. It's allegedly based solely on the need to control terrorist activity, i.e., photographing potential targets. I don't have the link, but it's out there, but this is a text commentary on the protest and underlying issue Philosopher's Tree: British Journalists in Mass Photography Protest Outside Met Police HQ,
Brian

[FHPhotographer]

I enjoyed the other thread (yes, I know it devolved some), so I'll play.

As I posted in the other thread, I am even LESS likely now to care about whether a "street subject" (actually a person in any ordinary public setting) would approve of my taking the photo of him/her. If the person objected, I would certainly talk with them about myself and my use of photos, offer a business card, offer them a copy of the photo, etc. In other words, I would go out of my way to reassure them about my use of their image. But I would still make the image.

Now, matters would be quite different if we were a culture that believed that a person's image was theirs alone, along the lines of how some cultures believe that if you make an image of a person then you have stolen something of the person's soul. We find that kind of thinking in voodoo, too. But clearly we are not that kind of culture. That, to me, removes the major ethical obstacle to "street photography".

Think about what I give up when I go out in public, say on a public street. Do I have any ethical grounds to tell people not to curse around me, not to look at me weirdly, not to speak to me, or to speak to me? Are there ethical reasons for them not to ask me for a dime, not to say that my clothes are ugly, not to ask directions from me? Don't I open myself up to an extraordinarily wide range of interactions when I go out in public? I'm not saying that the public realm is an ethics-free zone; quite the opposite. But exactly what ethical requirements apply that are relevant to making photos of people (including disapproving people) in public places?

And note, the issue here isn't one of etiquette, but ethics. It clearly is bad etiquette to curse around someone, to look at them weirdly and point at them, etc. There are all sorts of rude acts, unkindly acts, thoughtless acts. But this does not rise to the level of ethics. Perhaps you want to add matters of etiquette to this thread....

Looking forward to our discussion.

EDIT to add that I'm not a professional photographer, but I am a philosophy professor, who sometimes teaches ethics. So, I'm quite interested in this subject. And, needless to say, I am interested in discovering if my views are wrong.

"Wrong" is a slippery term, as you know better than most of us. I continue to maintain it is unethical to take (identifiable) photographs without the subject's permission. I would very much like to be persuaded otherwise, it would simplify the process, but so far I haven't seen a reasonable argument but do see mush verbal and formal fallacy that turns on the basic "if it isn't illegal, nobody can stop me from doing what I want" proposition.

As I pointed out in my final posting on the original thread, street photography with permission works, and I have shown the images to support that position. However, what I can't prove is the negative, whether there were images I didn't get because of that self-imposed restriction.

I tried to set a framework in another thread by stating a proposition and looking for pro/con arguments, but so far, nobody is positing. And so it goes,
Brian

[sholtzma]

I thought I WAS responding to your concern. It isn't unethical for someone to talk to me in public even if I don't agree to it. It isn't unethial for someone to stare at me in public even if I don't agree to it. It isn't unethical for someone to beg money from me in public even if I don't agree to it (I know that some cities have ordinances against this, and that might be different). It isn't unethical for someone to make a charcoal sketch of me in public even if I don't agree to it. It isn't unethical for a reporter to come up to me in public and prod me for a story, even if I don't agree with it. What is different about someone making a photo of me in public, even if I don't agree with it?

This is why I brought up etiquette. If I do something in public that in some way affects someone else, and that person registers their disapproval with me, surely etiquette often requires that I take that person's disapproval into account--and sometimes requires that I desist from what is bothering that person. Heck, that can apply even if the venue isn't public. If my neighbor doesn't like hearing the cheers on election night coming from inside my house (with my windows and doors shut), he can call me to ask me to keep the noise down. It would be nice of me to agree, but it's not an ethical issue whether I do or don't.

I think you are wrong to be using the words ethical and unethical in the absence of a code of ethics for amateur photographers.
Street photography is, more and more, being portrayed as antisocial so why not use the words social and antisocial in the discussion instead?

[rfortson]

Ethics and etiquette are personal opinions. What's fine for one person may not be for another. That's the problem today. Too many people confuse their opinion with fact.

[StevenVH]

Brian, good idea and I appreciate and share your methods on this subject.

First and ironically, I seriously dislike and object to being photographed in public w/o my permission, especially by amateurs and tourists. If I see a camera crew or a PJ working, I generally avoid the situation.
Conversly, as a college student and for a short time after graduation I worked the streets of No Virginia and DC at every opportunity and had numerous photos published in small and big time newspapers.

At this point, general street photography doesn't interest me much at all. To me, with the advent of automation and then the digital revolution, it seems practically everyone is a shutterbug. Not only that but a large portion of those seem to be middle-aged men grabbing pics of pretty girls. As I pass 40 and start to see some grey in my whiskers I've decided I don't want to be one of "them". And, as much as I like pretty girls, the results typically hold my interest for a few seconds at best.
The exception to this opinion for me is the occasion of special events or exotic places in which case I'll work the streets searching for something I feel is truly interesting. Such as:



In my experience, in larger cities and especially tourist centers people don't mind being photographed or just as often are too busy to notice or care. In smaller cities, towns and rural areas people do tend to notice and care. Also in larger cities my experience is people are less apt to be friendly and cooperative. Whereas in other places people expect to be asked and are then more willing to cooperate. The exception to this for me being that when I carried press credentials and a big camera bag people did notice, wanted their photo taken, often wanted to be paid and would request a copy of the photo and/or publication.
In my area of the US people are generally friendly and polite and expect the same in return. Taking someones photo without permission is often considered rude and being rude 'round chere is a good way to get your ass kicked. Having lived here for most of my adult life I've pretty much adopted the same attitude. I don't ever sneak pics of people on the street, I always make sure they notice me and approve and I usually speak with them if possible at least afterwards. If I was a busy Pro on the streets this method might prove impractical, but for the little street shooting I do when I'm home it works well for me.
At work part of my job is to document the daily happenings on our ships and to back up the full-time Pro's when things get busy (I'm a Communications/Radio Officer for a small private fleet). When I join a ship and introduce myself at a meeting or meal I always ask if anyone minds or objects to being photographed. Our ship's crews are deliberately very culturally diverse and quite a few people do object for various reasons. Unfortunately for them they don't really have a choice as a paid crew member, but do take note and try to be considerate of their wishes without compromising the performance of my duties. Also we operate webcams on our ships and upload almost constantly via satellite. I always remind the crew of this and make sure everyone is aware of the webcam locations.

While legalities and ethics must be considered for obvious reasons, I feel etiquette is just as important if not more so. Etiquette is a major part of human relations and I feel life is ultimately an exercise in how we relate to our fellow humans, our environment and fellow creatures. IMO, at the end of our day how we did and what we learned is all we are left with.

Whew !

cheers

[RioRico]

Tell all security agencies and private firms that place surveillance cameras in public places that you disapprove of their ethics, since they haven't asked your permission to record you. Ask everyone with camphones not to use them amongst people they haven't interviewed and begged leave to snap. Tell traffic cops not to aim radar guns at you, since you didn't agree to be irradiated. Ask merchants not to track your credit card purchases. Tell Mormons not to baptize your ancestors. Et cetera.

I hope you get my gist. When you are outside your private domain, you are subject to forces you cannot control, whether they be governmental, commercial, personal, or whatever. Societies that inhibit personal intrusion in public tend to be really nasty dictatorships. You probably needn't worry much about snapshooters in North Korea, eh?

The trade-off of living in a free society is that, while you can do what you want, others can do what they want too, short of actually damaging you. If you could show that being unwillingly snapped causes you material harm, you might have a moral/ethical case. Oh, but what if that snapshot shows you committing a crime, and leads to your jailing? Are you harmed then? Work it out...

[FHPhotographer]

I hope you get my gist. When you are outside your private domain, you are subject to forces you cannot control, whether they be governmental, commercial, personal, or whatever. Societies that inhibit personal intrusion in public tend to be really nasty dictatorships. You probably needn't worry much about snapshooters in North Korea, eh?

Nope, as a matter of fact I don't get your gist. Let's stick to the issue at hand and not go off into metaphor/analogy land that confuses the issue. The basic question remains: is it, or is it not, ethical to photography somebody in public without his/her permission?

Not in North Korea. Not with photographs taken by security cameras. Not in the land of "nasty dictatorships." In whatever country you reside in, there and now, is it ethical for you to take photographs of people without their permission? And if so, why; if not, why not?
Brian

[FHPhotographer]

While legalities and ethics must be considered for obvious reasons, I feel etiquette is just as important if not more so. Etiquette is a major part of human relations and I feel life is ultimately an exercise in how we relate to our fellow humans, our environment and fellow creatures. IMO, at the end of our day how we did and what we learned is all we are left with.

Whew ! cheers

This is close, but for the terminology, to my position; just substitute "ethics" for "etiquette."

Maybe this can be resolved by asking ourselves just one simple question: does my right to take photographs in public supersede the subject's right not to have his/her picture taken? If we ask, and he/she says no, then good manners, or etiquette, or ethics, or just common decency, requires that we do not take that photograph. If we go ahead and take the photograph regardless of the wishes of the other person, that is unethical,
Brian

[FHPhotographer]

Ethics and etiquette are personal opinions. What's fine for one person may not be for another. That's the problem today. Too many people confuse their opinion with fact.

As I like to say, opinion is just a statement of belief, belief isn't fact, and fact isn't truth. It isn't a simple issue and we do well to be honest and reflective in its consideration,
Brian