Topic: Would you... in the street?

[zapsnaps]

A question to street photographers.

My primary interest in photography is figurative work for a number of reasons: I have a couple of thousand years of art history to tell me that while I may be out of fashion, I can't be wrong; I find it creatively rewarding; I like meeting people and view the process as collaborative, rather than a snapper/sitter thing. 

I don't photograph people in the street because I'd just hang around Bond Street all day for the most beautiful women to walk into view. And that's creepy, even for me. A question for street photographers - why is it OK to photograph the poor/homeless/elderly/manual labourers in the street, but not pretty women? I instinctively think it would be 'wrong' to just photograph beautiful people in life-affirming parts of a wonderful city, but why is that? Yes, it might be shallow and without much social documentary value, but it could also look like fashion or advertising. Why is an immaculate affluent person worth less of my time as a snapper or a viewer, than a poor person or a homeless person in a rough part of town? For readers in France, providing both the subject and the photographer are in plain sight in a public place, in the UK I am legally permitted to photograph whomever I please, without their permission. So why wouldn't I do it? But I wouldn't take a picture of a homeless person either.

For anybody freaked out by this question, I am happily married, as normal as a film junky can be and only stalk antiques and old cameras.

[hookstrapped]

Street photography is very easily creepy and exploitative. A simple test is, Does the photo further undermine the dignity of someone whose dignity has already been compromised by life and circumstances? 

[Sandeha Lynch]

The barrier question I ask myself concerns the vulnerability of the subject.  Is the subject, by personality or circumstance, more vulnerable than me?  If yes, then no, I don't photograph them. 

I don't look for the archetypal 'street photography' image as I feel it has become debased by an over-emphasis on visual punning - it's only fun until the novelty wears off.  And I don't look for reportage shots either as my interest is primarily form, composition and light, rather than documenting anything.

I do look for performers though, as musicians and sometimes jugglers, etc, who use the street as their stage do have a lot to say about the world we live in - and if the spectators/onlookers add to that, that's fine by me.

Good example



Better example


Best example


It's not OK to photograph those who are easy targets, (as you suggest, the poor/homeless/elderly etc) and it annoys me that people do - you find a lot of this on photo.net.  There's a self-evident lack of empathy in this kind of shooting, I think, and it would only be valid if the shooting were from within my own world - more Tish Murtha say, than Martin Parr.  But then again, among moving crowds I'm not going to think too much about the status of those included - if I'm recording my life then my shots will include anyone who might be in my view if the composition warrants it.

[Aksel]

I can only speak for myself, but Frankly Mr. Shankly, to me, pretty is boring. I need something with a deeper meaning, something which  offers more food for thoughts. Personally I avoid anyone who is obviously not there out of their free will. eg. homeless, drug addicted etc. Besides that, no rules, if you can see it you can shoot it.  Pretty in combination with bad taste, interesting posture, bad behaviour - you name it. Go for it  There is nothing wrong in documenting contemporary life with a camera, especially not a filmwasting camera.

[Late Developer]

Woah.....that's a BIG series of questions.

As a fellow Brit, I can only comment from my understanding of the law - which I think is is the same as yours.  I'd clarify it slightly in that "public place" doesn't include railway stations, airports, public galleries.  Even though we might initially regard them as "public" they are usually owned privately and the owners may impose restrictions on whether we might be allowed to photograph (and how we might be allowed to photograph - no flash, etc).  Stood on a public pavement, however, I understand that we can photograph anything and anyone, even though it / they might be in / on a privately-owned property.

I'm not street photographer or, at least I don't regard myself as one, even though I enjoy snapping away at anything that interests me.  And that's the distinction ......"anything that interests me". 

I don't do it for a living, or I might find myself applying a different approach; I'm not really sure.  Equally, I don't differentiate between whether the person is rich / poor, well-dressed / shabby, drunk / sober, etc.  That said, I really don't like what I've heard referred to "poverty porn".  That, for me is exploitative and demeaning to the individual.  If the photograph is used to tell a story which will raise awareness and, possibly, lead to someone actually doing something about the individual's plight, I'm less concerned.  It's a fine line and a complex issue but "intent" is a major factor in whether I'd regard it as acceptable.  All of that said, if the individual being photographed isn't happy to be photographed, I would respect their wishes and move on.  I've done it several times, here and abroad.  I think Peter makes a good point about not adding to a person's woes by making their situation more difficult to bear.

As for spotting the most beautiful women, in my limited experience, most tend not to aggregate around Bond Street.  The ones that do, tend to be "trophies" of the rich and vulgar rich.  Unless one wants to document the tangerine-skinned and botoxed poodle-carriers of this world, there are many better places to frequent.

A couple of years ago, I was sat having a sandwich in Green Park when a guy with a camera caught my eye.  He was far enough away for me not to be able to see what camera he was using but, whatever it was, it had a 300mm or 400mm lens on the front.  He was being very careful to use trees, etc, to disguise his covert snap-shooting of women in the vicinity.  His victims were varied and I assumed, as a result, he wasn't a private detective or paparazzi.  The point of this anecdote is that I believe if one is going to photograph people, doing it covertly isn't really on and it could even get nasty if spotted and someone calls the authorities (whether the photographer was within their rights or not).

At the other end of the scale is the like of Bruce Gilden.  I'm not a great fan of the work of his I've seen but he is at least honest enough not to make any bones about the fact he's taking your photo.  I don't know but I suspect he might have had a few run-ins with those affronted by his methods.  I do know that I wouldn't appreciate his attentions and wouldn't hesitate for a second to swat him.

For me, the subject's station in life / garb isn't the attraction, it's the situation, the light, the shadow and whether the photo will hold my attention for more than a few seconds once it's processed.  Proper street photographers might disagree and I have no issue with that but that's why I'm probably ,ore of a documentary photographer than hard-core "street".

[SLVR]

Zap

I wouldn't be too worried about shooting just the "beautiful" people (full knowing here that those PC people out there consider everyone beautiful yadda yadda. I get it were all beautiful, whatever. But there are more attractive people than others  )

As long as you aren't going about it in a creepy way there's nothing wrong in looking for the right person for a shot. I've done it numerous times. Waited over an hour for a shot just for the right person to come along. They have to have the right look to tell your story or finish your image. It's fair.

It's not OK to photograph those who are easy targets, (as you suggest, the poor/homeless/elderly etc) and it annoys me that people do - you find a lot of this on photo.net.  There's a self-evident lack of empathy in this kind of shooting, I think, and it would only be valid if the shooting were from within my own world

This is the reoccurring ethical aspect of street. I agree with you and I stick to my ethics and don't entertain any exploitative shots. But ethics in street photography ethics need to be developed along with the shooter. It's easy for people who are new to it to look at the obvious "edgy" "grit" "drama" by shooting the homeless and easy prey. But they don't know any better. They just think thats what you do. After a while a shooter will develop their style and look for content that fits the bill. Hopefully by then they have gotten over shooting the homeless.

Really though, in the end people shoot whatever they want. Just like freedom of speech, people are entitled to make the images they want.

[SLVR]

A couple of years ago, I was sat having a sandwich in Green Park when a guy with a camera caught my eye.  He was far enough away for me not to be able to see what camera he was using but, whatever it was, it had a 300mm or 400mm lens on the front.  He was being very careful to use trees, etc, to disguise his covert snap-shooting of women in the vicinity.

HA yeah don't do that. A 50mm should be the longest focal length for street. Anything past that and it gets into creep territory.

For me, the subject's station in life / garb isn't the attraction, it's the situation, the light, the shadow and whether the photo will hold my attention for more than a few seconds once it's processed.  Proper street photographers might disagree and I have no issue with that but that's why I'm probably ,ore of a documentary photographer than hard-core "street".

Pretty much on par with what I look for. I don't understand a lot of street these days. Very much so random street snaps, overprocessed digital, no context or narrative. Usually pawned off as "graphic" or the like.

[Francois]

In France the laws are essentially a nightmare of model releases and property releases...

I think what people like about homeless photography is that their faces tell a story and you can "hire" them for cheap. Deep crevassed faces look good in B&W it seems.

There were photographers taking exclusively photos of beautiful people on the streets. Bill Cunningham comes to mind.

The few times I did photograph people on the streets, I tend to be discrete and fast. For me, not seen equals less hassle... a hard thing to do with bright red hair!
But I did pull it off a few times. I also got more than my share of unhappy people. The problem with taking photos of women is that they often feel like potential victims of creeps, kidnappers and rapists. Anybody who stands out of the crowd because they have a camera could be a stalker in many's mind; even though it rarely is the case. So unless you want to get into street portraiture like Eric Kim and ask them to pose before you take their photo, you're bound for trouble with some explanation to give men in blue.

Also, beautiful people are often rich people. And rich people have attorneys...

I really want to get more into this style as I like the action part, but it's pretty hard to do in suburbia.

[calbisu]

I think the debate is a bit biased. Or lets say I believe the debate can be moved to many other photographic fields, be it, travel photography; have you seen tourists arriving with their cameras to iconic places, or not so iconic places? Or we could also speak about documentary photography, is it derisory to shoot at a mental asylum, or document prostitution?

Bruce Davidson or Cartier Bresson, just to mention a couple, were street photographers. Without their work photography would be just different. I believe street photography is as any other photographic field. When you are a beginner you are attracted by the most evident situations. If it is Travel photography you will be attracted to the ¨cliches¨, the Tour Eiffel in Paris, the Gondolieri in Venecia and so on. If you are a street photographer you want to give your photos something (as any photographer), that something that will attract people´s attention. At first you just go for the ¨easy¨. And that usually means the cliché again. But as time passes, and you improve your skills, you are prone to find that ¨thing¨ anywhere, as in other photgraphic fields.

What I believe defines street photography is not just he photgrapher´s eye (common to other photography styles), but the fact that you have to react quickly, the famous decissive moment. Most of the times whatever you are going to shoot at is not going to wait for you to be ready. And I think that is what defines and what is fun about street photography. It does not matter when or where, it can pop up in front of your eye, anytime and anywhere. You have to think quick and you have to react fast. And yes, sometimes you ask permission, and sometimes you do not. And through time you may learn what is appropiate and what is not.

Rolleiflex 2.8E by calbisu, on Flickr

Rolleiflex 2.8E by calbisu, on Flickr

Contax G1 kodak tmax 400 28mm biogon by calbisu, on Flickr

[02Pilot]

Though much of his work is not particularly interesting to me, I follow the Garry Winogrand school of thought on this: "I don't have anything to say in any picture. My only interest in photography is to see what something looks like as a photograph. I have no preconceptions." To me, photos are an end, not a means. I want to see how things I see translate into photographs. That's it. If there are people in them, so be it. Sometimes (rarely) the people are the subject, sometimes (usually) they're part of the scenery, and sometimes they're a distraction. If I see a scene or a subject that I want to photograph, I do. I'm not as confrontational or overt as someone like Bruce Gilden, to be sure, but I don't hide what I'm doing. I work fast and move all the time. I rarely, if ever, have time to consider whether something's appropriate when shooting; that's a decision I make when I see the photo, but given my criteria, there are very, very few photos I feel are inappropriate.

[Flippy]

I think it's because a lot of men are intimidated by pretty women. Plus if they look wealthy they might sick their lawyers on you for making them momentarily uncomfortable. 

Homeless people (mostly) aren't intimidating, they've already been beaten.

[rpmdrd]

when I first started walking the streets with my camera, these cliche subjects of the homeless and poor were easy targets. looking back at some of my photos there were a few but more of sleeping individuals variety. gradually, I have ruled out photographing any of these targets but the occasional sleeping persons sometimes comes into frame. I don't want my photos to be classified as street but more of urban exploration.

is it okay to photograph beautiful women? why not, but if this is your sole goal when out on the streets then I think it is something else.
is it okay to photograph homeless people? maybe, if you are making a statement a point or presenting it to a wider audience to show awareness in this way providing a positive outcome of the exploitation/invasion you may call it.

I am mostly an introvert when out shooting and rarely do ask for people for a portrait. I don't think we should restrict ourselves with what we shoot but before you take a frame know that you have that social/emotional responsibility if it is worth taking and keeping or showing.

[lharby]

I think it's a question of execution.

Many photographers have taken photos of homeless people, people in poverty, but generally if those images are compelling and help tell a story, the photographer will have some vested interested in the story and plight of that person, and would/should speak to them, and seek some sort of consent. Or at least I hope they would. The same is true of snapping 'beautiful women'.

I think if it is just voyeurism, this will certainly come off in the photograph.

I realise anyone can take photos of people in a public place, but I also think people have the right not to appear in an image, if they wish. I certainly wouldn't be happy about it, if I was singled out in a photograph without being approached first.

Having said that, I think times have changed. I think if you went to Sicily in the 30's/40's for example, you would have people queuing up to be in an image. But you can't apply those standards now. 

[chris667]

Before I got back into photography, I used to employ a man who was a keen amateur photographer.

He is nice enough, but around attractive women, it is fair to call him predictable.

He's got a Flickr account, which I won't link to, because frankly I find it a bit creepy. It's full of pictures of young women who are unaware they are being photographed. The images tend to focus more on bodies than faces. I'm not a prude, but I feel it is all a bit exploitative.

It's very popular. Apparently, his account has over 9 million views.

There's obviously a massive appetite for this stuff.

[SLVR]

^ I know someone like this. Can't get into more detail about it. (no its not me  haha)

[02Pilot]

I suppose the interesting follow-up question is whether or not photography that falls into (or risks falling into) the "creepy" category can also be good. Winogrand has been accused of this, perhaps deservedly so, but much of his work is not of this sort. He is considered an accomplished photographer; is his reputation because of or in spite of his propensity to shoot attractive young women? What about someone like Miroslav Tichy? His photos are clearly taken surreptitiously, and almost exclusively of young women in various states of undress. He is certainly acknowledged as a skilled photographer; again, is this because of what and how he shot, or in spite of it?
 

[Sandeha Lynch]

Well, there you go - there's only one Winogrand, only one Gilden, and (thankfully, perhaps) only one Tichy.  That they are, is to me absolutely great, as exemplars of what has been possible in the arts over the last fifty years.  That they have imitators is ... absolutely pointless.

[Francois]

It always feels a bit strange to think that we have come to a point where pretty much everything that can be photographed has already been photographed in every imaginable way.

I also feel it's a bit of a weird state of affairs when you photograph people on the streets. On one hand, some people will ask you not to photograph them or delete their photo. Yet their image is broadcast to the world on a daily basis through the hundreds of unprotected IP cameras that watch our every moves at every moment of the day; and yet they are completely comfortable putting all sorts of pictures of themselves in often less enviable positions on Facebook so that the entire world can see what they were doing.

Personally, I don't get why people would object to photographers taking often flattering (or at the very least simply boring) photos of them that will only be seen by a handful of people and yet would agree to put online pictures of themselves passed-out drunk at a beach club with a fake mustache drawn with a sharpie while wearing a cowboy hat...

[02Pilot]

It always feels a bit strange to think that we have come to a point where pretty much everything that can be photographed has already been photographed in every imaginable way.

There's even a term for it: vemödalen. See here: http://www.dictionaryofobscuresorrows.com/post/59306080288/vemodalen