Topic: Street photography - why I DON'T do it

[zapsnaps]

A thought: my interest in photography is the figurative nude. Apart from holiday snaps, that's all I take.

So, for me, it follows that if I did street photography, I would only take photos of beautiful women in the trendy parts of town (in London, that's Mayfair) where the monied and cultured buy their expensive shoes and bags. That has moral overtones (and sounds creepy too). But why?

What is the difference between photographing 'ordinary' people in the street and only snapping the pretty ones? I believe there is a difference, but I don't know why it feels different.

Thoughts from those with a deeper knowledge of philosophy than me (not difficult) would be much appreciated.

[02Pilot]

Photographers take pictures of things to which their eyes are attracted. Landscape photographers shoot landscapes, street photographers shoot street scenes. It would not make much sense to go looking for scenic mountain vistas in urban areas, or bustling city life in a remote national park; if you prefer to shoot nudes, why look in the streets? I'm not entirely certain there is a real distinction between shooting only attractive people and shooting across the spectrum of physical attributes, inasmuch as you're taking photos of what you find interesting. Whether or not your subjects accept that philosophically detached approach or not is a different question.

[gsgary]

I prefer people that are not so pretty in street shots but I'm drawn to people with dogs, but if I lived in London I probably would shoot around the trendy areas and also businessmen on the way to work seem to make good shots

[Late Developer]

For me, it's about being reasonable / polite and not exploiting anyone.  If people are going about their business in a public place, I don't see why they would expect privacy or their government should legislate to prevent a photograher taking a photo of them (whether they're just in it or they're the main subject).

There are some simple tips like asking permission and heeding the response and not being aggressive. Bruce Gilden and his like get what they deserve if they stick a camera (and flash) in someone's face - but maybe that's the reaction they're seeking.

Beyond this, I'd rather give up shooting on the street than have to accede to some draconian law with which I'd be unfamiliar or, even if I were familiar with it, would be completely opposed to.

[gsgary]

I never ask permission soon as you ask the moment has gone, I would never ask in London most don't pass the time of day with you, last time I was at my sister in laws I was walking the dog on Clapham Common I said good morning to everyone not one reply in 1.5 hours so I started to say it louder still nothing

[Francois]

Photography styles are a matter of taste and comfort.
Shooting the streets is probably the most ruthless school of photography there is. You just can't stand there waiting for a thank you, you're welcome like comment.
When I was beginning in photography, our teacher who was into street photography tried to get us to do some.
Lets just say people were pretty rude and I was not prepared for that. I wasn't technically proficient and I soon discovered that this is the first thing you do need when attempting this sort of photography.
You need to know how to get your settings ready before jumping in. You need to react fast. It's get ready, jump-in and get out before the subject even realizes you took their picture. If you have to ask for an authorization first, the moment is long gone.

While looking at Bruce Gilden, I think I know why he uses the electronic flash. With flash you just set your camera on the shutter sync speed, set the aperture to the proper value and let the flash's computer deal with the exposure. It's a very fast and foolproof way to work.

[Indofunk]

I said good morning to everyone not one reply in 1.5 hours so I started to say it louder still nothing

 

[Late Developer]

London is, in my experience, the least friendliest city I've visited in the UK and probably right up there worldwide.  I've all-but given up with street photography in London and, when I do any, I always shoot candid and keep on the move.  I wondered whether it's because there's such a diversity of ethnic backgrounds and languages that people don't understand what I'm saying - but I've concluded that it's just because they're a bunch of miserable, anti-social, po-faced sods.

What I posted earlier relates (mostly) to what I do when abroad when most people will, at least, acknowledge your existence and, if they catch you pointing a camera at them, let you know if they are happy for you to take a photo (with or without money exchanging hands) or if they definitely don't want you to take their photos.

[gsgary]

They don't understand you your from Greater Manchester

[limr]

Photography styles are a matter of taste and comfort.
Shooting the streets is probably the most ruthless school of photography there is. You just can't stand there waiting for a thank you, you're welcome like comment.
When I was beginning in photography, our teacher who was into street photography tried to get us to do some.
Lets just say people were pretty rude and I was not prepared for that. I wasn't technically proficient and I soon discovered that this is the first thing you do need when attempting this sort of photography.
You need to know how to get your settings ready before jumping in. You need to react fast. It's get ready, jump-in and get out before the subject even realizes you took their picture. If you have to ask for an authorization first, the moment is long gone.

While looking at Bruce Gilden, I think I know why he uses the electronic flash. With flash you just set your camera on the shutter sync speed, set the aperture to the proper value and let the flash's computer deal with the exposure. It's a very fast and foolproof way to work.

I think that is one of the reasons why I do enjoy street photography: it pushes my skill. Also, I've always been a people-watcher. I don't like to interact with strangers, but they are fascinating to watch. Photographing them seemed like a logical step. People confuse me and do odd things, and so taking pictures of them in candid moments (as opposed to portraits, which I don't care for) allows me to contemplate that moment without being creepy and staring

Perhaps we photograph that which confuses us, not just that which we find attractive. Either way, we establish a relationship with our subjects, be they people, objects, or scenes. Perhaps that's the line you're feeling, Zap? I don't think it's about who you would want to photograph, but how and the relationship (or lack thereof) between you and those women. Posing nude and photographing a nude woman involves trust. Maybe you feel uncomfortable with the lack of interaction involved in street photography because no trust has been established between you and the subject. It feels "sneaky," regardless of if you are shooting only beautiful women or only ugly men or anyone in between. What do you think?

[Indofunk]

Also, I've always been a people-watcher. I don't like to interact with strangers, but they are fascinating to watch. Photographing them seemed like a logical step.

This is me as well. In general I hate interacting with people, but they do fascinate me endlessly.

[Late Developer]

They don't understand you your from Greater Manchester

When I was born (March 1961), Stockport was in Cheshire  . We don't speak like the Gallagher brothers nor do we walk, as do they, like a chimp wearing a nappy full of cold porridge.

[gsgary]

They don't understand you your from Greater Manchester

When I was born (March 1961), Stockport was in Cheshire  . We don't speak like the Gallagher brothers nor do we walk, as do they, like a chimp wearing a nappy full of cold porridge.

I was born at the posh end Heaton Mersey

[zapsnaps]

I was born in Wallasey. So why do I feel so at home in Mayfair?!

Love the Gallaghers wearing a 'nappy full of cold porridge'.

Limr - we seem to have lost the point of the original question - you are right - it would feel 'sneaky'. But only if it was a pretty woman. If it was somebody 'ordinary' that would feel different. That would be OK. But why?

[tkmedia]

it could be the sneaky idea of a 'older man' taking pictures that is often so common.
Women taking photos with when a kid walks into a frame not so much trouble, but with a man wielding a camera a no no.

[02Pilot]

When I do street photography, my objective is to get the shot and be gone before anyone knows I was there. If I get caught scoping it out I generally won't bother taking it, unless somebody pisses me off, in which case I'll make it a point of obviously taking their picture, but then I'm naturally belligerent. The simple point is this: if it feels wrong, for whatever reason, don't take the shot. If it feels right, take it and be prepared to live with the consequences.

Why any given shot feels wrong to any individual is likely to require years of expensive therapy to decipher.

[limr]

I was born in Wallasey. So why do I feel so at home in Mayfair?!

Love the Gallaghers wearing a 'nappy full of cold porridge'.

Limr - we seem to have lost the point of the original question - you are right - it would feel 'sneaky'. But only if it was a pretty woman. If it was somebody 'ordinary' that would feel different. That would be OK. But why?

I suspect it has something to do with how we think a pretty woman vs an ordinary-woman would react. A pretty woman probably gets more attention in public because of her looks, and it might be welcomed if it seems flirty and ultimately harmless, or it might be greeted with hostility and offense if it's overtly sexual and threatening. Perhaps she's at the point at which any attention is tiresome and is treated as offensive. She just wants to be left alone. A man photographing her in the street, then, might be considered just more sexually-motivated attention that she does not want.

Ordinary-looking women, however, presumably don't get the same kind of attention, and maybe we think (erroneously or not) that they might actually feel grateful for attention, for "finally" being noticed. Of course, many of us ordinary women like to be left alone in public, too

[Late Developer]

What is an "ordinary woman" please?  I've always believed that people of both sexes are ordinary and extraordinary, simultaneously.  For me, those subjective terms are about what people do and who they are - rather than whether they are regarded as ugly, plain or attractive by whatever convention to which society is subscribing at the time.

Whether we, as photographers, are amateur or the pushiest of paparazzi, I still don't see why there should be rules / laws aimed at punishing us for taking photos in public places.  Do the same rules apply to CCTV cameras?  I'm assured that I'm recoded, going about my lawful business, by around 150 CCTV cameras during my 1 mile walk from Liverpool Street station to where I work. Do I regard this as an invasion of my privacy? Yes, but I'm also prepared to put up with it as at least some of the cameras will be there for genuine security purposes.

[Francois]

I have an idea! (OK, that's already a bad sign in a way...)
Maybe we should disguise our cameras as CCTV cameras, attach them to lamp posts with the others and remote trigger them... Camouflage is the name of the game... then again... probably a very bad idea 

[limr]

What is an "ordinary woman" please?  I've always believed that people of both sexes are ordinary and extraordinary, simultaneously.  For me, those subjective terms are about what people do and who they are - rather than whether they are regarded as ugly, plain or attractive by whatever convention to which society is subscribing at the time.

Hey man, preachin' to the saved. I was just trying to look at it from the point of view of a society that looks at people as "beautiful" or "not beautiful." And many many people are concerned about whether or not they fit into society's standard of beauty du jour (hello, behemoth diet industry!), and their determination of that question (or their judgement of others) can influence behavior - including, perhaps, how people react to being photographed on the street.

[Indofunk]

whatever convention to which society is subscribing at the time.

I completely agree with LD here, and I was going to post a huge feminist tirade in support of it, but instead this phrase made me realize that standards of beauty are just like the caste system in India, or the feudal system in medieval Europe, or the current economic class system in America ... ways for certain people to keep others down. And just like the caste system or feudal system, standards of beauty can change over time or even flip entirely as different segments of society come into power.

What's that system of thought that describes all of society in terms of a power struggle? Communism? Whatever it is, I guess that's me 

[02Pilot]

What's that system of thought that describes all of society in terms of a power struggle? Communism? Whatever it is, I guess that's me 

Marxist historical materialism, technically. Communism is more economically focused and derived from broader theoretical work.

[Indofunk]

What's that system of thought that describes all of society in terms of a power struggle? Communism? Whatever it is, I guess that's me 

Marxist historical materialism, technically. Communism is more economically focused and derived from broader theoretical work.

Thanks /joins CPIM /bombs a few buildings

[Indofunk]

What's that system of thought that describes all of society in terms of a power struggle? Communism? Whatever it is, I guess that's me 

Marxist historical materialism, technically. Communism is more economically focused and derived from broader theoretical work.

Thanks /joins CPIM /bombs a few buildings

/takes pictures of it /brings thread full circle

[02Pilot]

Nah, if you stage it it's not street photography. More like performance art.

[gsgary]

I'm going to show no mercy this weekend when i hit London well Clapham Common and around the market, if the weather is ok i'm hoping to get through loads of film

[Indofunk]

Run around like a madman screaming "GOOD MORNING!!!!" to everyone you see.

[zapsnaps]

I just love the thought processes of the people on here. Never, ever, did I expect to read 02 Pilot's phrase 'Marxist historical materialism' on FWs, let alone in a thread I started about feeling creepy about photographing beautiful (in this context, read probably affluent) woman in Mayfair.

It's enough to make me want to get me long lens out (200mm - that will surprise street photographers) and stalk Bond Street the next time it's sunny. Which is likely to be about April or May.

Jokes apart, this thread has made me decide two things. One: I need another camera (fact: whatever the assignment, it nearly always requires a new camera), the Instax 90 Neo Classic. Two: I'm going to go to a relaxed, arty part of town and actually ask pretty girls if I may snap them.

This will do a couple of things: either I get my face slapped repeatedly or I get a pack or two of public street portraits. It is the opposite of Ninja shooting with a 35mm lens, which really isn't for me. Towards the top of this thread, somebody spoke about implied trust between the snapper and the nude model, my usual choice of subject. Perhaps it's that implied trust is missing is what bothers me about street photography. By choosing carefully and asking permission, I am expecting a reasonably high acceptance level, as it will be in a relaxed, arty part of town and I will only approach people who look like they are trying to make a statement (I'm thinking about Brick Lane on a Sunday, for UK readers). I shall let you know how I get on.

[gsgary]

28mm and 35mm for me zone focused camera buy my side

[Late Developer]

Zapsnaps,

Brick Lane is a challenging place to take photos, in my experience.  Some of the locals / businesses / staff don't like having their photo taken - and trying to do so surrepticiously using a long lens is even more likely to raise the hackles if you get caught doing it.  I've actually had more success asking people for permission and telling them I'm an amateur and not working for HM Govt's Benefits Office.

You shouldn't have much difficulty finding glamourous ladies around Bond Street / Burlington Arcade and I'd love to see the end results if you get them to pose for you.

Nigel has done some excellent work on impromptu portraits of strangers. If my memory serves, they were posted on his website.

[zapsnaps]

Late Developer:

I agree! The 200mm lens was an attempt at humour - that would look dodgy and and would likely get folk worked up very quickly. I have in mind the tourists to the Sunday market,  rather than local businesses & their employees.

I was onced asked by a London council to do a calendar for their tenants. When they rejected my initial 'concept' of a local nude lady for each month, we settled on local buildings and well known scenes. There was this fantastic mini-market with stalls on the pavement with every kind of exotic fruit and veg on display. The sun was on the scene and locals were walking past in their ethnic dress. The shot didn't have a lampost or a street sign in it - this was straight out of Asia, rather than London. Setting up the tripod to take the shot, the manager came out and told me that I needed to ask the (absent) owner's 'permission' to take the shot. I explained that this was for the local calendar with a print run of tens of thousands, all delivered to local addresses. Unpersuaded by the offer of free advertising for a month in the homes of locals, I packed up and wandered on to take a photo of a lake. Out of a sailing clubhouse (about 100m distant) bursts this officious fool that tells me that I am 'not allowed' to take a snap in the park overlooking the empty lake because 'children learn to sail here'. 'But there are no boats out there today' I countered. 'Doesnt matter he said - there might be'.

Given the fact that the job was for the council, I resisted telling him that I was perfectly entitled to snap what the devil I wanted and slap him across the back of the head with my Manfrotto tripod, with extra ballast being supplied by a Leica R8. 

So yes, I am very used to people not wanting to be snapped, which is why I have decided to ask for this Instax moment.

But what I really don't get, is the ignorance of the public. If I wanted to surrupticouly snap a brat in a boat or a supermarket which may or may not bank all its cash, would I really mess around with a tripod, big camera, light meter etc? Or would I be more likely to use, say, a mobile phone? Or I hear that one can now get film-free cameras, where one just point and clicks while looking vacuous and disinterested.

[gsgary]

Late Developer:

I agree! The 200mm lens was an attempt at humour - that would look dodgy and and would likely get folk worked up very quickly. I have in mind the tourists to the Sunday market,  rather than local businesses & their employees.

I was onced asked by a London council to do a calendar for their tenants. When they rejected my initial 'concept' of a local nude lady for each month, we settled on local buildings and well known scenes. There was this fantastic mini-market with stalls on the pavement with every kind of exotic fruit and veg on display. The sun was on the scene and locals were walking past in their ethnic dress. The shot didn't have a lampost or a street sign in it - this was straight out of Asia, rather than London. Setting up the tripod to take the shot, the manager came out and told me that I needed to ask the (absent) owner's 'permission' to take the shot. I explained that this was for the local calendar with a print run of tens of thousands, all delivered to local addresses. Unpersuaded by the offer of free advertising for a month in the homes of locals, I packed up and wandered on to take a photo of a lake. Out of a sailing clubhouse (about 100m distant) bursts this officious fool that tells me that I am 'not allowed' to take a snap in the park overlooking the empty lake because 'children learn to sail here'. 'But there are no boats out there today' I countered. 'Doesnt matter he said - there might be'.

Given the fact that the job was for the council, I resisted telling him that I was perfectly entitled to snap what the devil I wanted and slap him across the back of the head with my Manfrotto tripod, with extra ballast being supplied by a Leica R8. 

So yes, I am very used to people not wanting to be snapped, which is why I have decided to ask for this Instax moment.

But what I really don't get, is the ignorance of the public. If I wanted to surrupticouly snap a brat in a boat or a supermarket which may or may not bank all its cash, would I really mess around with a tripod, big camera, light meter etc? Or would I be more likely to use, say, a mobile phone? Or I hear that one can now get film-free cameras, where one just point and clicks while looking vacuous and disinterested.

I think this is just a London thing

[Indofunk]

When they rejected my initial 'concept' of a local nude lady for each month

Please say this was an attempt at humor as well

[gsgary]

When they rejected my initial 'concept' of a local nude lady for each month

Please say this was an attempt at humor as well

I don't think it was

[Late Developer]

Late Developer:

I agree! The 200mm lens was an attempt at humour - that would look dodgy and and would likely get folk worked up very quickly. I have in mind the tourists to the Sunday market,  rather than local businesses & their employees.

I was onced asked by a London council to do a calendar for their tenants. When they rejected my initial 'concept' of a local nude lady for each month, we settled on local buildings and well known scenes. There was this fantastic mini-market with stalls on the pavement with every kind of exotic fruit and veg on display. The sun was on the scene and locals were walking past in their ethnic dress. The shot didn't have a lampost or a street sign in it - this was straight out of Asia, rather than London. Setting up the tripod to take the shot, the manager came out and told me that I needed to ask the (absent) owner's 'permission' to take the shot. I explained that this was for the local calendar with a print run of tens of thousands, all delivered to local addresses. Unpersuaded by the offer of free advertising for a month in the homes of locals, I packed up and wandered on to take a photo of a lake. Out of a sailing clubhouse (about 100m distant) bursts this officious fool that tells me that I am 'not allowed' to take a snap in the park overlooking the empty lake because 'children learn to sail here'. 'But there are no boats out there today' I countered. 'Doesnt matter he said - there might be'.

Given the fact that the job was for the council, I resisted telling him that I was perfectly entitled to snap what the devil I wanted and slap him across the back of the head with my Manfrotto tripod, with extra ballast being supplied by a Leica R8. 

So yes, I am very used to people not wanting to be snapped, which is why I have decided to ask for this Instax moment.

But what I really don't get, is the ignorance of the public. If I wanted to surrupticouly snap a brat in a boat or a supermarket which may or may not bank all its cash, would I really mess around with a tripod, big camera, light meter etc? Or would I be more likely to use, say, a mobile phone? Or I hear that one can now get film-free cameras, where one just point and clicks while looking vacuous and disinterested.

I think this is just a London thing

It is definitely a London thing - but I don't think it's a uniquely London thing.

The tool from the boating club who accosted you is oh-so typical of the "peaked cap brigade" - probably some minor rank in the forces, police or parking warden, desperately yearning for the good old days when he could push someone around and sees a photographer as "easy game" because, of course, everyone knows we're all weirdo voyeurs.

Some moral crusaders just can't resist the temptation to impose the rules on others - even if the rules don't actually exist. 

Incidentally, the idea of a head and shoulders massage using a Leica / Manfrotto combo - especially if it can be delivered out of sight of CCTV cameras or other witnesses - sounds like poetic justice...

[Francois]

I don't know if anybody's seen Daido at work?
We might not realize it but he is a street photographer. He also almost never uses the viewfinder. He knows his camera's coverage and shoots pretty much everything from the hip.

I might try his method one day using my small Stylus Epic with the flash turned off.

[zapsnaps]

Daido Moriyama is the epitome of the cool street photography. He's the master. Love his work. Shooting from the hip (often) using inexpensive kit - he should be a FW!

[limr]

I would need a LOT of practice! I'm not sure I could afford the amount of film I would need to get that practice, given these as my starting point 


Day 283 - Off kilter wall by limrodrigues, on Flickr


Day 283 - Off kilter crosswalk by limrodrigues, on Flickr

But then again, people don't seem to feel nearly as threatened by a woman taking pictures in public. Fools! 

[Francois]

Here's what I learned from seeing him do it.
When you shoot a subject, you don't want to be facing him as this will get you noticed.
You hold the camera pointing at a 90° angle on your side, holding your arm straight down.
For landscape shots, you use your thumb on the shutter button, the index for vertical shots.
You make sure that the camera is level before taking the shot.

I tried it a few times with my digicam and I must say that it's fairly easy to get the tricks... I'd say 45 minutes of practice and you'll be a pro

[imagesfrugales]

I do a lot of people photography, just looked through my 2014 pictures and had to notice that I only took one single "street" picture this year and I showed it here in an extra thread. But I more often took pictures of strangers after asking them, and most of them agreed after a short thinking.

The reportings about the billionfold violation of essential human rights by the NSA and their their worldwide partners -  blackmailing journalists, social networks and many others - made me change my mind. Besides of all laws it's also an act of respect not to publish unasked pictures of people who could be recognized easily and if they are the main subject of the picture. Think also about automatic face identification and the possible abuse. In times of the omnipresent internet and the already insane abuse of our data we have to find new and strong codices for protecting the privacy of us all. Otherwise democracy becomes a ridiculous farce - or is it already? Big brother is also watching YOU! The easygoing times of HCB and Vivian Maier are gone - forever?

Just some thoughts.

[Late Developer]

Big brother is also watching YOU! The easygoing times of HCB and Vivian Maier are gone - forever?

Just some thoughts.

Here's my take on it;

Big brother IS watching us and has been doing so for a very long time. It's widespread and hugely insidious but we've grown to accept it.  Just count how many CCTV cameras you will appear on in just one day (assuming you live in a big town / city).  If people are going about their lawful business, they need fear little from being captured on CCTV or by having their fizzog posted on the internet.  If they're up to no good then I'd be delighted to think that a CCTV image or one of mine posted on the internet managed to catch a criminal (and I'm not talking about someone dropping litter or parking in a "mother and child" bay at a supermarket.)

"The easygoing times of HCB and Vivian Maier" will only be gone if we allow it to be. Governments are only there because we put them there.  If they become too invasive and/or impose laws that work against us, vote the buggers out.