PDA

View Full Version : Street photography without pissing people off?



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9

dnjl
08-18-2012, 05:27 PM
I have found that many people are annoyed by digital cameras, but feel strangely appreciated when someone takes their picture with a really old-looking ("antique" to their eyes), beat-up analogue camera. They seem to think that using such a camera makes one an artist, and they want to be included in the 'artwork' that is created.

cliveh
08-18-2012, 05:30 PM
You are deluded, they don't even notice.

Ken Nadvornick
08-18-2012, 06:12 PM
Hi Walter,

I can't speak for the digital side. I've never owned or even used one. But the Crown was an amazing conversation starter.

I'd release the shutter, usually also firing a Sunpak 544 for fill on a sunny day,* and people would immediately head straight for me. Not to chew me out for intruding. But to excitedly ask, "How old is that camera? Where'd you get it?" Followed by, "That's so cool!" And once in a while, "Can you send me a copy of the picture?"

This year (beginning next Thursday, actually) I'm going to go with a Fuji GF670. As an old-fashioned looking bellows folder I'm hoping for similar non-threatening reactions by my subjects. But this time with all of the modern features for me. And no heavy 4x5 holders to carry.

Ken

* Makes life easier for me in the darkroom.

Felinik
08-18-2012, 06:45 PM
Compose as much as you possibly can before you even take up the camera, shoot quick, walk along as nothing has happened. Most people do not notice until after you've shot, if at all, unless you stay and fiddle around for too long.

I live in France, here it's illegal to use pictures with peoples faces in public without their explicit permission.... Lot's of people seems to know about this, so the only way to go here, unless you want pictures of people posing, is to be fast and discrete.

I wear a hat, sunglasses, and have my 35mm SLR around my neck hanging down in front of me so I look like a tourist. Perfect disguise... (plus that I am way taller than any french person I've ever met, and blond (scandinavian) so I really look like I dont belong here...).

Maris
08-18-2012, 07:12 PM
You are deluded, they don't even notice.
cliveh is right. It's amazing what people don't register.

I have found that using a big camera on a tripod makes me transparent when doing street photography.

I set up by prefocussing and framing on an interesting spot, shop window, ticket booth, fountain, and the like, where interesting looking people may do quirky things. I watch the unfolding scene attentively but casually and I never look at anyone through the camera. Sometimes the reflection in the lens filter tells me my "target" is in the right spot. Because I fuss with the camera controls, make meter readings, occasionally press the cable release, wind the film while standing in front of the camera, no one knows (or seems to care) when I have made an exposure or who has been photographed; not even the small, easily bored, transient crowd that pauses to watch what I do!

My most "conspicuous" camera is the Mamiya RB 67, a TLR is even less visible, and the 8x10 view camera may as well not be there at all. City crowds mind their own business. If they do not perceive themselves to be in a predator/prey relationship to the guy with the camera they move on without flinching. Drunks passed out in gutters get the same treatment; they may be seen but are not looked at.

batwister
08-19-2012, 01:20 PM
Have you considered using a telephoto? Harry Callahan did some great long lens candid photos on the street. It's also rarely done and might give you the edge on that oh-so-typical wide angle stuff.
https://d30dcznuokq8w8.cloudfront.net/works/r/pi-artfinder/0/6/0/3428-060_full_570x382.jpg

benjiboy
08-19-2012, 02:22 PM
Have you considered using a telephoto? Harry Callahan did some great long lens candid photos on the street. It's also rarely done and might give you the edge on that oh-so-typical wide angle stuff.
https://d30dcznuokq8w8.cloudfront.net/works/r/pi-artfinder/0/6/0/3428-060_full_570x382.jpg
Street shooting with long lenses is more like spying and if you think that people sometimes react badly to normal street shooting if they catch you doing it with a long telephoto lens you'll get mobbed, and that "oh so typical wide angle stuff" has a sense of involvement that can't be obtained with long lenses.

batwister
08-19-2012, 03:11 PM
Street shooting with long lenses is more like spying and if you think that people sometimes react badly to normal street shooting if they catch you doing it with a long telephoto lens you'll get mobbed, and that "oh so typical wide angle stuff" has a sense of involvement that can't be obtained with long lenses.

There really is no way of getting around the suspicion that people have for photographers now. Long lens or not, I think it's just a case of being forthright in your approach. Looking presentable and perhaps clean shaven helps too! Leave the trench coat at home. I have to say that the Callahan images have a unique intimacy that you don't often see in street photography. Have a look at Michael Wolf's 'Tokyo Compression' series too. The involved or 'caught in the middle of a circus' approach has been done to death, there's little left to say.

ColdEye
08-19-2012, 03:44 PM
There really is no way of getting around the suspicion that people have for photographers now. Long lens or not, I think it's just a case of being forthright in your approach. Looking presentable and perhaps clean shaven helps too! Leave the trench coat at home. I have to say that the Callahan images have a unique intimacy that you don't often see in street photography. Have a look at Michael Wolf's 'Tokyo Compression' series too. The involved or 'caught in the middle of a circus' approach has been done to death, there's little left to say.

+1

I looked at the Tokyo Compression and it's really refreshing to see. I also agree that using telephotos for street stuff is a nice way to have a different view. From what I see now this genre is too flooded with up close and in your face pictures. :)

Benoît99
08-19-2012, 03:46 PM
(...)

I live in France, here it's illegal to use pictures with peoples faces in public without their explicit permission.... Lot's of people seems to know about this, so the only way to go here, unless you want pictures of people posing, is to be fast and discrete.

"...peut-on photographier dans un lieu public ? La réponse est oui, c’est la diffusion sans autorisation de ces photos qui est interdite." http://www.eschon.com/photographie-de-rue-la-loi-en-france/

Translation: Can you take pictures in a public place? The answer is yes; it is publishing such photos without permission that is prohibited.

For more information, see the follow site on photography and the law in France:
http://blog.droit-et-photographie.com/

summicron1
08-19-2012, 04:30 PM
taking pictures without being noticed takes a bit of skill, but surprisingly little -- ditch the digital slr and find a small point and shoot -- Olympus XA, leica CL, something small and black and inconspicuous to start with.

pre-focus, learn to shoot from the hip, even be looking in a different direction while you shoot.

i've had this happen often -- I will snap a coupla shots of a homeless person, begger or something of that sort, and then the person will notice the camera, at that point smile, say hi, ask if you can shoot them, give them a buck, take a couple of posed shots (everyone loves to post) and then when they are tired of your game they will go back about their business and you can shoot them without them noticing again, but this time with their permission.

A rolleiflex, by the way, makes a GREAT camera for this -- everyone is trained to look for big honking digital cameras, or telephones, or something. Nobody is looking for this black thing hanging at waist level that you look down into a few times.

all about being something other than what people are used to seeing.

markbarendt
08-19-2012, 04:35 PM
Don't know about France but it the USA it depends on how it is published too.

My understanding is that for news there is almost no protection for the subject, as long as the reporter/photographer is in a public space or has permission to shoot from the property owner.

For commercial uses, advertising and stock, a release is required before publishing.

Art though is different. So street (public) photography sold by a photographer through a gallery for display in an office or at home doesn't require a release.

Diapositivo
08-19-2012, 06:18 PM
There's a lot of talk about how French law regarding photography would differ from what is in place in the rest of the world. When somebody happens to actually cite a norm, it turns out that it is just like exactly in the rest of the world.

The blog cited in post #150 ends up quoting norms whereby you can take pictures of anybody in the street without their consent (as is everywhere). Publishing follows the old common rules: commercial use needs release, non-commercial use doesn't. Not hard to grasp. And yes, derogatory use is not admitted without consent. That's more or less all there is to know, in France as elsewhere.

The Tour Eiffel at night can be photographed and published just like any other building, and the Moulin Rouge can also be photographed just like any other building. There are laws for buildings, there are not specific laws for Tour Eiffel and Moulin Rouge.

As a stock photographer I wrote twice to the Tour Eiffel guys - they have a web site where they say that I cannot take pictures of the tower at night - asking them to quote the norm which they think should apply. I asked that once in French and once in English, stating both times that in case of no answer I will obviously continue to take pictures of the Tower in every way and to distribute it as I see fit. Never received an answer.

The problem is that ignorance runs so high that I know a couple of agencies that have withdrawn their pictures of the Moulin Rouge after receiving an email from the cabaret. Your rights are useless if you don't know, understand and exercise them. We'll end up living in a society governed by dogs' barks rather than laws if we don't begin understanding the basic principles of Law.

Fabrizio

PS The only peculiarities I know are:

USA and Belgium: sculptors have rights on publication of pictures of sculptures also when they are on permanent exhibition (normally a sculptor would not have right on the publication of pictures of his work if it is on permanent exhibition).

Germany: the "right of panorama" is explicitly restricted to the ground level, it does not apply to pictures taken from a higher floor (such as a picture taken from a restaurant terrace). That's according to cited jurisprudence and one always ask to wonder how correctly the sentence(s) is read or understood.

In any case this only refers to publishers. Photographers, by and large, take pictures, maybe sell them, and it's generally fine. It's publication which crosses lines. Those are crossed by the publisher, not the photographer.

Steve Smith
08-20-2012, 02:11 AM
I replied similarly to a thread about taking photographs in France. When I found the actual law, it stated that it did not apply to photographs taken in a public place - just like most of the rest of the world.


II. Criminal offences relating to violations of privacy.
The offences which relate to violations of privacy derive from the Act of Parliament of 17 July 1970; as amended in 1994, they now constitute articles 226-1 to 226-9 of the new Penal Code. Under article 226-1 of the Penal Code it is an offence, intentionally and by means of any process whatsoever, to infringe another’s privacy:
1. By receiving, recording or transmitting, without the consent of their author, words uttered in private or confidentially;
2. By taking, recording or transmitting, without his or her consent, the picture of a person who is in a private place.
In both cases, therefore, the offence requires the absence of the person’s consent, and such consent is presumed where the recording or the taking of the picture takes place in a meeting and openly and publicly. The purpose of article 226-1 is to curb the behavior of the paparazzi.
By virtue of article 226-1.2, privacy is not protected where the violation is committed in a public place.

Last line made bold by me.


Steve.

Felinik
08-20-2012, 07:49 AM
There's a lot of talk about how French law regarding photography would differ from what is in place in the rest of the world. When somebody happens to actually cite a norm, it turns out that it is just like exactly in the rest of the world.


Possibly it does match up against the same laws in other countries, undoubtedly, I never opposed that in my post.

For more details see here:

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bepub.com%2Fview_fiche_pratique .php%3Fid_fic%3D18


Regarding your Eiffel photos:

"According to the Civil Code, only the owner has the right to use his property in any form whatsoever. However, after many trials abusive jurisprudence believes that "the ownership of a property situated in the public domain and exposed to the view of all does not authorize the holder to oppose the exploitation of image of the property, but can only act against abuse and damaging the image. "

Diapositivo
08-20-2012, 05:18 PM
Regarding your Eiffel photos:

"According to the Civil Code, only the owner has the right to use his property in any form whatsoever. However, after many trials abusive jurisprudence believes that "the ownership of a property situated in the public domain and exposed to the view of all does not authorize the holder to oppose the exploitation of image of the property, but can only act against abuse and damaging the image. "

When I take a picture of the Eiffel tower I dont "use" it in any way. I am taking a picture of it. The Eiffel tower might well be in "private property". It would be possible to create some form of entity, "Tour Eiffel Trust", to endow it with the property of the land it stays on, and then to claim that it cannot be photographed without authorization, but it wouldn't work in preventing me from taking pictures and selling them.

I can actually take a picture of any private house from the public land, whether or not the house itself sits on private ground or public, and make most any use I like of it, excluding commercial use and derogatory use.

Actually this operation (creating a Trust etc.) was made with the Tour Eiffel and the Tour Eiffel "Trust" does not even try to ask payments for pictures taken during the day - which they would if the Civil Code said what the quotation above says - they only try to extract payments for pictures at night.

Regarding the Tour Eiffel, the myth actually is that it cannot be photographed by night, because the light scheme is copyrighted. The myth was spread by the Tour Eiffel "Trust" which so claims in its web site. So what? Every building design is "copyrighted" by default as soon as it is born on paper. I cannot copy it (I cannot build an identical building without the architect's consent) but I can take pictures of it. Taking pictures is not "copying it" in any way. Neither it is "using it".

Copyrighting a building does not prevent me from photographing it and copyrighting a light scheme of a building does not prevent me from photographing it at night.

@ Felinik, I'm not saying this as if I disagreed with you, I refer in general to the myths regarding France and certain (especially French, but not only French) buildings. The Sidney Opera house being another famous case. If you ask a number of stock photographers you will find that most believe that the Sidney Opera house is "copyrighted" and cannot be photographed.

Apparently people believe this is a privilege granted to only that one Opera house in the planet... or maybe they believe that in Sidney they are smart people while in the rest of the world people is dumb and don't copyright buildings.

marciofs
06-01-2013, 06:47 AM
Usually people seem to don't mind when I take their shot.
But some people sometimes looks annoyed but they never say anything.
I never had any problem.

ToddB
03-14-2014, 12:14 PM
Shoot with a beautiful camera.. ? I go out with my FE or Rollei.. So people are very curious on the camera and come to me. It's a great segway for me to ask to take thier picture. Either a street portrait, or the activity they are engaged in.

Todd

benjiboy
03-14-2014, 12:24 PM
Shoot with a beautiful camera.. ? I go out with my FE or Rollei.. So people are very curious on the camera and come to me. It's a great segway for me to ask to take thier picture. Either a street portrait, or the activity they are engaged in.

Todd

Once you "ask their permission to take their picture ", and they start posing it's no longer candid photography but street portraiture.

Kiron Kid
03-14-2014, 12:43 PM
Yes, an older film camera can be a segue into conversation and more casual shooting.