Topic: People: In shot or not...???

[Late Developer]

What I'm on about is when you visit a place of interest - a monument, historic building or some other place where you want to be able to choose whether you have people "in shot" for scale / additional interest, or not - as the place itself is all you want to photograph.

Please note that I'm not anti-people or a sociopath but there are times when I would like just a few seconds to compose and take a photo without some ignorant cretin plonking themselves in front of me just at the point when I'm about to press the shutter button. Worryingly, a lot of them seem to be photographers who should know better.

Asking people - very politely - to back off has little or no effect these days. Standing around waiting patiently for the right moment is futile as these places are busy and the right moment seldom comes.  Risking damage to my camera by using it as a weapon to beat the offenders repeatedly round the head is also off the agenda as I don't want to get blood into the workings of my Nikon.

Does anyone else experience this frustration? Are there any tips that might help?

[Ezzie]

Yes, quite often I get quite agitated when trying to compose a picture free from (unwanted) human contamination.

The worst example was when taking a picture of the change of the (Norwegian Royal) Guard (I used to one myself), when a person came wandering into the frame with a huge orange folder under one arm. He looked at me, but just didn't give an f.... I looked up from my WLF and saw it was Morten Krogvold, Norway's most known portrait photographer, carrying a carton of Agfa copying paper, no doubt to show some copies to his buddy HRH the King. I should have triggered the shutter. But I could not have used the picture for anything but personal use, as publishing in any form or manner, without the subject's permission, is forbidden in this backwater of the world.

[calbisu]

In my case it´s a pretty easy choice as I generally shoot at people, in the case I shoot at a building I look for ¨human contamination¨ as it makes more ¨human¨the picture. The difficult part is how to make both human and non-human elements interact in a clever way, so they are enhanced by each others presence... 

[Sandeha Lynch]

I see the problem from the opposite end of the lens, I guess.  When I'm lining something up, maybe a building or a street scene, I often find a queue of people waiting at the edge of the frame.  I have to wave them on and tell them to keep moving. 

Ezzie, you should have taken the shot to put in your archives.  Publish when they are dead.

[AJShepherd]

Yeah, like the time I thought I could have got some really good pictures of a beach and dunes, apart from the fact the beach was crawling with enormous lobstermen* who were unavoidably in shot. Quite a few times I've had to pass up shots because of too many people in the way, and sometimes had to circle back for a second look.

Sandeha - Last time i used my Horizon 202 I had people stopping thinking they were staying out of shot, when they'd have had to be standing beside me to be out of shot. I just took the camera down until they'd gone past.

*fat blokes who on the first sign of a sunny day strip down to shorts and sandals until they turn the colour of a freshly boiled lobster. Seriously, what's with that?

[Late Developer]

My most recent "experience" was at Lacock Abbey in Wiltshire. There are some lovely old stores with vaulted ceilings and dirt floors and gothic arch windows through which some very soft sunlight was flooding in.  I (eventually) managed to get some shots - off for processing as I write this.

On a couple of occasions I was tempted to forcibly insert a Nikon F3HP where the sun doesn't shine or, alternatively, take it by the neck strap, get a really fast swing going before delivering a telling blow to the temple of one particularly annoying oaf who stood in the middle of the room (for what felt like an eternity) buggering about with the menus on the back of a Canon digi-cam.

Incidentally, Ezzie, how close do you have to be for that ruling to come into play? What's the punishment tariff? If it's only a requirement to delete the "offending" image, it's worth the risk. Otherwise, I can imagine that street photography isn't ever going to catch on in Norway.

[02Pilot]

Clearly, the solution to the problem is to purchase a second cheaper and heavier camera for beating purposes, thus sparing your precious Nikon from contamination.

For me, it very much depends on what I'm after, but almost invariably I will have to contend with the opposite of what I want. Shooting street and people wait politely out of the frame; trying to get a clean landscape shot and people seemingly come out from under rocks and behind trees to dawdle about with their cell phones and ill-mannered children.

One method that I have found tends to send the more oblivious ones scattering is to point the camera directly at them. This, of course, may lead to the occasional adverse reaction, which is another reason to invest in the aforementioned second camera.

[Late Developer]

Clearly, the solution to the problem is to purchase a second cheaper and heavier camera for beating purposes, thus sparing your precious Nikon from contamination.

One method that I have found tends to send the more oblivious ones scattering is to point the camera directly at them. This, of course, may lead to the occasional adverse reaction, which is another reason to invest in the aforementioned second camera.

I like this idea.

A non-functioning Hasselblad body full of sand would probably be ideal 

[hookstrapped]

Photoshop

[charles binns]

Assault with a deadly camera gets my vote too - get rid of all that pent up frustration!!

Being serious though, I like people in shot to give the sense of scale - obviously not some idiot gurning in the back ground or somebody wandering across the image oblivious to you or the world in general, but people are part of the landscape in a city or other tourist attraction so why not include them.

And as for the person who plonks the back of his head right in the middle of your shot, I think patience is the best strategy, it's not worth getting stressed about.  And if he doesn't move then change your position or park the back of your head in the middle of his shot, take your photo and move on.  Or beat him to a bloody pulp with your Kiev 60 .

I do think photographers need to be patient and good natured and usually a polite request and a smile will get the desired response.  In Egypt a couple of years ago my mother in law and I were admiring a statue or something inside a temple and an English woman with a very large digital camera started huffing and making rather rude gestures for us to get out of the way.  I turned to my mother in law and very loudly and very sarcastically said to her in Spanish "We better get out of the way because this woman thinks she's on a photo shoot for National Geographic"  looking straight at the woman.  She understood from  my tone and looks exactly what I was saying and looked rather shame faced.


 

[Sandeha Lynch]

Street photography in Norway, circa 1925 ...



One of my dad's shots.

It does look as though the cyclist is about to fall off his bike, though maybe he was intentionally trying to block my dad's view of the Royal Palace.   

[Late Developer]

Assault with a deadly camera gets my vote too - get rid of all that pent up frustration!!

Being serious though, I like people in shot to give the sense of scale - obviously not some idiot gurning in the back ground or somebody wandering across the image oblivious to you or the world in general, but people are part of the landscape in a city or other tourist attraction so why not include them.

And as for the person who plonks the back of his head right in the middle of your shot, I think patience is the best strategy, it's not worth getting stressed about.  And if he doesn't move then change your position or park the back of your head in the middle of his shot, take your photo and move on.  Or beat him to a bloody pulp with your Kiev 60 .

I do think photographers need to be patient and good natured and usually a polite request and a smile will get the desired response.  In Egypt a couple of years ago my mother in law and I were admiring a statue or something inside a temple and an English woman with a very large digital camera started huffing and making rather rude gestures for us to get out of the way.  I turned to my mother in law and very loudly and very sarcastically said to her in Spanish "We better get out of the way because this woman thinks she's on a photo shoot for National Geographic"  looking straight at the woman.  She understood from  my tone and looks exactly what I was saying and looked rather shame faced.

When it comes to these things I'm very patient. In fact, I go out of my way, very deliberately, not to get into anyone else's photo. As my wife, Lara, will attest, I've also pulled her out of several people's photographs as can be a bit "single minded" when it comes to getting the shot she wants.

I agree that sometimes it's good to have people in-shot for either local interest and/or a sense of scale. The issue here, on the other hand, is where you specifically don't want anyone in the way and yet, despite doing everything you can to smile, ask people if they'd mind stepping to one side for a moment and generally retaining a sense of dignity, respect and politeness, others seem hell-bent on screwing up your shot.

On a linked note, the job I always wanted to do as a "yoof" was to be a staff photographer for Nat Geo 

[zapsnaps]

Unless the scene is so difficult to read that the viewer will have no sense of scale, I prefer people not to be in my pics. If I need a scale guide, I park the car in shot to demonstrate scale and then reverse it out before taking the 'proper shot'. Not tried this 'technique' at the Grand Canyon yet, but I think most viewers will know that it's sorta massive.

[EddieB]

I guess it depends on the photographer. I was comparing photo's of Rome with my pal (yes, I have got one! Not just the imaginary one I used to have when I was wee, either!).  We had taken the same places and areas, but he was up early to get there before the crowds - he likes to photo' landmarks and buildings. I was waiting until the places were full of people, so I could get some street stuff.

He was cursing people walking into his shots - I was herding them up from several streets away...

[zapsnaps]

Eddie - I'm with your friend. I photograph cities before breakfast, go back to the hotel, dump the gear and then spend the day with Mrs Zapsnaps, like a good husband.

Oh - and I abandon her after dinner to get some night shots, too. But apart from that, I spend the day with her. And carry a film camera, just in case. And a light meter. And sometimes a mono pod. But apart from that...

[charles binns]

Paul,

I agree -  the trouble is, as one of my friends puts it, 1% of the world's population are @holes and there ain't much you can do about them except maintain a buddha like calm whilst pitying them for their selfishness!  Some people do seem to go out of their way to ruin other people's photographs mainly because,  I suspect, they have "issues" and are perhaps not as happy or self confident as they would have you believe..

[Francois]

Somehow, I feel this would bring something to the discussion
BBC Documentary - Stupidity "Full Movie"

[Ezzie]

.....

Incidentally, Ezzie, how close do you have to be for that ruling to come into play? What's the punishment tariff? If it's only a requirement to delete the "offending" image, it's worth the risk. Otherwise, I can imagine that street photography isn't ever going to catch on in Norway.

Not sure what sort of punishment I would be risking. The subject has to be indentifiable. Exceptions are if subject is partaking in a public venue of some sort, a march, prosession et al. Street photography is not that popular here. But then again, the Facebook and Instagram age is playing havoc with the law, hardly anybody is aware of the ban, nor the fact they are protected.

[johnha]

Some years ago I took some shots of a local bus station, taking great pains to avoid people in the shots if possible (apart from one 'Decisive Moment' attempt that was too good to miss). There were lots of obviously recognisable objects to show scale, so that wasn't a problem.

The resulting shots though do feel a bit 'empty' with the building seemingly deserted. They're obviously not architectural photos of a new pristine (or elegant) building and whilst I still prefer not to have people in them, it gives them a different feel to what I'd anticipated.

[John]

I'm sure you are all lovely people, but some of the posts on this topic are really mean. The world doesn't revolve around you and your camera.

I've had the problems with people in railway photography like moving into the shot at the last moment. This is really annoying. I find that using a tripod helps as it makes you look 'serious photographer' and sort of stakes your claim. Just ask politely, people are normally happy to oblige. And just be patient, people have just as much right to be there as you have.

[astrobeck]

People don't bother or worry me.  For pinhole it isn't much of an issue and people are more likely to strike up a conversation about the camera, which is always interesting.   

The thing that does bother me, is the people that rush up to a site, snap a photo and don't really bother with really looking at the scenery or subject they have just snapped a photo of. They are well on their way to the next scene like a duck chasing a bug.  Sad 
This puts me off a bit, but everyone has their own agenda..so be it..

[Francois]

I must admit that I'm pretty peculiar when it comes to putting people in shots.
I used to avoid having people in my shots at all cost. I just didn't feel comfortable with that, especially at the time when there was that big supreme court case concerning a local street photographer.

But now, I like having at least one person in the scene as it adds scale and life to the image. But they have to be at just the right place at the right time.
But when there's a crowd, I usually find this less interesting as you can't easily use them to compose a shot. It's usually just a blob of people with not much going on.

[imagesfrugales]

It depends on the subject or the the mood, wether I want people in the picture or not. Usually, I love shooting people and I often ask strangers if they agree being photographed. And often I take the picture without asking, if the situation asks for being "quick and dirty". Sometimes I do not show the pictures, but I avoid taking offending pics. Here's an example, I only give the link here because it's a digital capture:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/imagesfrugales/8109964699/#

The young woman most probably would recognize herself. But this picture would be not the same without her, and I like it very much how it is. It's a capture of a very ephemeral moment, without her it would be a static scenery.

Sorry for the digital shot, I will soon show some real filmwasting pictures.

Best - Reinhold

[Ezzie]

Street photography in Norway, circa 1925 ...



One of my dad's shots.

It does look as though the cyclist is about to fall off his bike, though maybe he was intentionally trying to block my dad's view of the Royal Palace.   

Very nice too. I have several of that stretch in my flickr stream. Not that much has changed, apart from the number of cars. It's not as if I want pictures vacated of all life, it's just that if anybody gets too close, I can't use them without a realease form (in practice a short yes would do, but not if they later change their mind)

[Late Developer]

I'm sure you are all lovely people, but some of the posts on this topic are really mean. The world doesn't revolve around you and your camera.

And just be patient, people have just as much right to be there as you have.

For the avoidance of all doubt, I'm not suggesting for one moment we act like a bunch of prima-donnas and expect everyone in our vicinity to fall into a respectful stillness and silence while we take our masterpieces.

We are a nice bunch and a lot of what we say / write is "tongue in cheek". Most (if not all) of us are happy to include other fellow humans in our photos most of the time but there are times when we specifically don't want to.

If there are hundreds or thousands of people milling around, it's stupid and futile to expect a clear shot. Get what you can and move on. However, if there's just a few people and you're obviously trying to get a shot without those people, I don't think it's much to ask that they respect our wishes and let us do so. It takes a few seconds and costs zero.

The circumstances in which I found myself recently was particularly frustrating as people were deliberately walking past me and straight into what I was about to photograph without any care for anyone other than themselves.  It wouldn't occur to me to walk in front of them in a gallery and block the view of what they were looking at. It was that level of ignorance.

If we can be aware of others taking photos and give them a bit of time and space, it's not unreasonable for others to do likewise.