PDA

View Full Version : Street Photography: What dont you take photos of?



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

John McCallum
06-28-2006, 07:27 PM
Well said.

In our country extreme 'Political Correctness' is the current modus operandi for living. Everyone walks around on tiptoes, worried they might have inavertantly miffed a minority group somewhere.

Further on HCB; if he had followed the current trend in PC he wouldn't have used a right-angled viewer to fool subjects. But it's also unlikely he would have been labelled 'Greatest Photographer of the 20th Centry'.

These things go in cycles and certainly imho our society needed to change, here anyway. But, also the pendulum has swung a long way in the opposite direction. It'd be easy to step into the political discussion out that.


Because unless it is done to aid the homeless and disenfranchised, or as a photojournalist to highlight their plight, it can be seen as exploitation. Yes it can be seen as exploitation, but this is in the eye of the beholder. A photographer may also make a comment on society with their camera whilst maintaining responsibility for and awareness of affects of their images without a vehicle to aid the subject or the intent to exploit.

In a round about way Salgado is a good case in point. I follow his photography avidly, spent a small fortune on his books. His cause constantly seems noble and admirable and it is easy to assume all his work is motivated by the will to aid. Perhaps this is true of his excellent Narration of the Brazilian coffee routes, which was incidentally sponsored by Illy.

What did his End of Polio portfolio really do? The campaign to eradicate Polio by the end of last year was executed by aid workers around the world. The photographer mearly witnessed it and through his fame for this kind of work was able to give it a wider audience. Don't know how much he actually aided the eradication of polio though.

I don't mean to be disparaging in any way. Merely making the point that "if you photograph a displaced person when you have a good and widely regarded reputation it's aid but if you photograph the same when you don't it is exploitation" is too black and white for me.

A simple image taken by an amateur photograph that makes an audience see something they wouldn't normally see in their own environment, could be very beneficial.

Jim Chinn
06-28-2006, 11:44 PM
I refuse to take pictures of mimes or clowns. I just don't want to encourage such behavior.

John McCallum
06-29-2006, 12:38 AM
Booo !

http://www.apug.org/gallery/data/500/MimeOrClown.jpg

unregistered
06-29-2006, 01:55 AM
Scared the $%@#% out of me!

now I can't sleep...thanks

John McCallum
06-29-2006, 08:41 PM
How 'bout another marginal dissertation on the ethics of Street Photography? Would that help?

firecracker
06-29-2006, 09:02 PM
A simple image taken by an amateur photograph that makes an audience see something they wouldn't normally see in their own environment, could be very beneficial.

I agree. It just shows what an individual can do with such a little personal tool, but they can't be so naive about the effect of the photos being produced with it.

Peter Jones
06-30-2006, 06:31 PM
Sorry to hear NZ has gone all "PC" :( sad news as I'd like to live there. Is the South island safe from this scourge ?


"Street photography" is not my cup of tea, although record shots, of town centres etc., appeal to me , for the interest would be several years or even decades down the line much as with street shots.

John McCallum
06-30-2006, 07:22 PM
It's Ok Peter I believe it is a temporary affliction and mostly confined to the cities, especially Auckland. The South doesn't change much at all (bless 'em). No time for niceties and salt o' this big ol' earth. Great people.

A mother in Alexandra was interviewed on the 6 o'clock news the other night. She'd been without power for 9 nights. The hoar frosts had frozen the pipes, and she was cooking dinner by candle-light on a wood stove for 3 small children. Interviewer observed "your spirits seem to still be up". She just said "yeah, why not?"

haris
06-18-2008, 12:30 PM
And I am waiting answer to same question Roger asked. Me too, I am really puzzled: Why not?

rpsawin
06-19-2008, 10:36 PM
I once asked a group of bicycle cops if I could shoot them. Based on their collective reaction I quickly re-worded my request to "May I take your picture". I usually avoid them so as not to appear I am interfering with them. We have had a few cases up here where photographers were roughed up and some had equipment damaged by police.

Bob

Aurum
06-30-2008, 05:16 AM
And this is the sort of thing that happens in the UKSSR

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/23/police_photographer_stops/

Don Wallace
06-30-2008, 10:22 AM
Street photography is by definition, I think, candid photography of people. I photograph "in the street" so to speak, but now only as tourist. If there are people in the photograph, they are incidental and not the subject. I simply do NOT do street photography anymore because of the generalized social paranoia over such things. I photograph a lot of children but I would NEVER take a candid photograph of a child unless it was a relative or the child of close family friends, and even then I would get the parents' permission beforehand.

In the 1970s, I used to love going to fairs and photographing people, including a lot of children, but the reaction to cameras has changed dramatically. I do understand that some people do not like to be photographed and I always tried to be sensitve to that, but these days, it is quite different. The last time I took a picture of children at a fair, someone asked me, very aggressively, why I was taking that picture. It seemed to me to be completely obvious: absolutely gleeful children on an antique merry-go-round. Isn't that a great subject? Well, he didn't think so, and they were not even his kids. The craziest example was about 10 years ago when I was photographing a lovely art deco apartment building my city. One of the residents came right across the street and was furious with me for photographing the building where she lived. She threatened to call the police. I told her to go ahead, and she backed off, but today, I would simply pack up and leave, based on what I read about encounters with the police.

I am sure that someone will write a dissertation in the near future on the source of this new paranoia but it makes absolutely no sense to me. What do people think is at risk? How does a candid street photograph threaten them or their children?

gr82bart
06-30-2008, 12:08 PM
If it's interesting and on public streets, I take the picture.

Regards, Art.

Andrey
07-13-2008, 11:49 PM
I dont take photos of homeless, druggies, preformers when asking, and petty criminals and drunks.
I DO however take photos of anyone with a camera.
What about you?
Cops at work - more trouble than it's worth.

And pretty girls for the wrong reasons.

Andrey
07-14-2008, 01:22 AM
Maybe instead of debating ad nauseum which is the right choice, occasionally take a deep breath, step back, and thank whomever you hold responsible that you have the ability to make a choice to begin with.
Being grateful doesn't remove the problem of choice.

2F/2F
07-14-2008, 03:25 AM
Nothing. Despite the issues with shooting that we all must have run into, we are quite spoiled in this regard here in the U.S. Public property and/or public view = public domain. It is yours to use artistically and journalistically, for money or not, with a few exceptions such as government buildings, power plants, use of telephoto lenses to look onto private property, etc. You are allowed to shoot and publish children unless part of a court order (e.g. you are a registered sex offender). You are even allowed to publish shots taken on private property that is considered to be a public area, such as a mall or a fair. The very first thing I do with anyone who asks me to stop shooting is to explain this calmly and politely. I carry a printout of the photographer's rights with me. Any more trouble, and the conversation ends with me calling the police, who have backed me up 100% of the time.

"commercial" shooting, as in shooting for hire, having a crew, props, models, set dressings, is another issue altogether and requires permits.

Most of all, once snapped, the pictures are your property, and my not be confiscated regardless of whether you have broken the law in doing so or not or not. They can be collected against your will as evidence in a crime, but even then, you can get them back (if they haven't been quote-unquote destroyed, damaged, lost, erased, etc.)

There is a crime in continuing to take pictures on private property *after* you have been asked to stop. The crime in that case is trespassing alone; nothing else.

In any case, they pictures are your property and may not be taken from you.

What I do try not to do is to be ham-handedly exploitive of any individual who is suffering and/or incapable of at least asking me to stop shooting for one reason or another, even when it is technically allowed. Even though it is allowed, I feel that the camera can be an unfair advantage to the mentally ill (and that means probably 75% of homeless people around here). Basically, I feel that anyone who, whether they are right or wrong, chooses not to ask me to stop, or does not notice me due to incapacity or an unfortunate situation, where a person in a "normal situation" would notice me or ask me to stop, is at an unfair disadvantage to me. If they are not equipped to have the argument, or feel that due to their circumstances they have no right to have the argument, it isn't fair that I shoot them.

I also will not shoot when I can help instead. For instance: someone just got hit by a car and I am the closest person who knows how to render whatever aid I can. I will shoot once I can no longer be of help, however. As the phrase goes, $hit happens, and there's nothing you can do about it in the grand scheme of things. However, I do not value my *possible* pictures more than I value my ability to *possibly* improve a stranger's well being.

Grey areas abound. Do you shoot a parent illegally beating his or her child in public, or intervene? Depending on what you do with your photos, taking the pics instead of intervening could actually do far more for the cause of child abuse prevention than stopping that one beating...but how do sit there are coldly decide that? It's all a heat-of-the-moment gamble.

This is why I love street photography. Every frame is an ethical decision in some way.

benjiboy
07-15-2008, 06:20 AM
And this is the sort of thing that happens in the UKSSR

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/23/police_photographer_stops/ I once went to Hull,it was closed,

benjiboy
07-18-2008, 02:30 PM
Street photography is by definition, I think, candid photography of people. I photograph "in the street" so to speak, but now only as tourist. If there are people in the photograph, they are incidental and not the subject. I simply do NOT do street photography anymore because of the generalized social paranoia over such things. I photograph a lot of children but I would NEVER take a candid photograph of a child unless it was a relative or the child of close family friends, and even then I would get the parents' permission beforehand.

In the 1970s, I used to love going to fairs and photographing people, including a lot of children, but the reaction to cameras has changed dramatically. I do understand that some people do not like to be photographed and I always tried to be sensitve to that, but these days, it is quite different. The last time I took a picture of children at a fair, someone asked me, very aggressively, why I was taking that picture. It seemed to me to be completely obvious: absolutely gleeful children on an antique merry-go-round. Isn't that a great subject? Well, he didn't think so, and they were not even his kids. The craziest example was about 10 years ago when I was photographing a lovely art deco apartment building my city. One of the residents came right across the street and was furious with me for photographing the building where she lived. She threatened to call the police. I told her to go ahead, and she backed off, but today, I would simply pack up and leave, based on what I read about encounters with the police.

I am sure that someone will write a dissertation in the near future on the source of this new paranoia but it makes absolutely no sense to me. What do people think is at risk? How does a candid street photograph threaten them or their children?

My experiences have been very similar to yours Don, and if I'm ever tempted to do any street photography again I'll make sure I use my quietest least professional looking camera, but above all my smallest, in case someone who's bigger than me, takes offence and sticks it " where the sun don't shine ! "

Polybun
11-08-2008, 08:44 AM
I dont take photos of homeless, druggies, preformers when asking, and petty criminals and drunks.
I DO however take photos of anyone with a camera.
What about you?

I like to photo drunks, particuraly ones that are passed out, they put up the least fight and always give you the responce you want!
http://polyhead.net/coppermine/albums/userpics/10001/normal_FujiNeopan400_ZiessIkonNettar515_112208_01. jpg

I have also photoed homeless that were fist fighting, but damn if i didn't forget to stop the camera down and over expose that shot. However, in my defence, he was walking my way and did end up assaulting me, and then assaulted the woman that called the police, and her 10 year hold, then proceded to assault a police officer... that was the last mistake he ever made too. :D

Joe Grodis
11-30-2008, 08:24 AM
Telephone poles and wires.... IMHO they ruin the whole shot.