THAT GUY HAS A WRISTWATCH!
Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick
THAT GUY HAS A PEN IN HIS POCKET!
THEY'RE TAKING MY PICTURE!
KILL! KILL!! KILL!!!
Yeah, right. No wonder "artists" are using Google street view to do their "photography." And the wristwatch is a 12Mp still camera with HD video.
So far, nobody has complained about my and my Graflex Super Graphic. It's bug-eyes, "huh?," "Is that a Hasselblad?," "How many megapixels is that?," and "Can you still get film for that?"
I think that times have changes and that we need to be aware of the personal space of others. We are constantly being observed whether it is by a store video camera buying cheese or walking into a making a personal deposit in our bank. I think that people need to give each other a break from the barrage of cameras and videos. It has nothing to do with capitalism.
I was struck the other day by this photograph. Nobody in that tight, cramped public setting is paying the least bit of attention to the photographer. And the photographer is covered head-to-toe with obvious camera equipment. No hidden snapping going on here. No secretive smart phone or Google Glass. And yet, not a single glance up by any of the background subjects. Amazing by today's ubiquitously paranoid standards.
Originally Posted by photopriscilla
Times have certainly changed.
P.S. Welcome to APUG.
I think that some people who comment on street photography MO donít really appreciate what it involves. I canít really describe what I mean in words, but some may understand.
If someone takes your photo in the street and you punch them for the intrusion, it's not the photographer that's getting arrested.
I'm not as active as some people here, and I don't have the benefit of being in a big city (Raleigh truly is a small town), but I've never had more than a couple of dirty looks cast in my direction. The police are the worst. If they see a camera aiming at them, that is.
As a street photographer, I think like others have mentioned, I need to be mindful of not publishing a photo that I could construe as embarrassing or similar.
I think Western culture's emphasis on individualism (which I actually like on the surface) gets to our heads and we take it too far, thus making us take ourselves way too seriously. What really is the harm of a candid photo being taken in the public? The real boogeymen are going to be far more discreet than shooting from less than a meter away with a 35mm lens. Yet we go after the guy who isn't trying to hide anything. I get it from an instinctual level, but it is very illogical.
Luckily, most people are amused or flattered or intrigued or are slightly put off but just go on with their lives anyway. Or they don't notice. Still there are those with a higher state of self-importance who will get in your face occasionally.
Most people are cool with their photo being taken, or are at most, slightly put off. So your perspective is actually common.
Originally Posted by Paul Goutiere
Ah, the classic "why not just ask for permission?" I think if we as street photographers could get what we wanted out of our photography asking permission, we would probably solely do just that. But most only dabble in what usually amounts to street portraiture; when you ask permission, people are suddenly very aware of their being photographed where they otherwise may not be or may have only realized after the fact. Because of this, people tend to put on a face when they know they're being photographed and it isn't as genuine and candid and real. That's what street photography is about -- documenting real life, not posed life. We have our Instagram selfies and Facebook albums for that.
Yes, it is interesting. I find in my street photos that are more of a crowd, it is hard to find someone who isn't aware of their being photographed. A scene like that in Vivian's photo, while not impossible, would be a lot harder to find these days in our culture of hyper-paranoia.
Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick
With the Vivian Maier photo, I suspect that if anyone on the rail car saw her, they thought, "look at that kook with all the cameras taking a picture of herself in the mirror".
Firstly times have changed.
We all acknowledge that and HCB's day was different. Most people didn't even own cameras then. Having someone care enough to take your picture may have been a cool novelty.
It was still illegal to take a picture of someone (unless you worked for a newpaper/news publication) and publish it without their permission making money off it without a photo release . At least it was a gray area.
But times have changed, values have changed, as people have noted, the 24 hour news cycle has learned that fear is a great ratings boost, so lets keep them scared of everything.
So that's the world we live in and if we want to do street photography we have to adapt.
Personally when I did it, I would size up my shots with my camera pointed away and at the last second move it, take the shot and move it back. Using a reflex camera the mirror slap would attract attention but the subject would look at me and I'd be looking like I shot something else.
If the subject was looking at me when I took it and acted offended I'd simply go up and say that I was a photographer and that I loved to capture street scenes and give them my card. If they wanted to contact me they could and I'd send them a picture. Nobody ever did.
So I guess the moral of the story is, it's not 1940, do what you want but be respectful and take all the damn pictures you want.
I'd dispute that by HCB's day that cameras were an uncommon novelty. Remember that Kodak had already become the industrial juggernaut it was before WW II, and it did so by putting cameras in the hands of common people - "you push the button, we'll do the rest". So photography wasn't a novelty anymore. Frankly, I'd argue that the Civil War documentary efforts and cardomania in the mid-19th century ended the novelty factor of photography. I think it was just the zeitgeist of the mid-20th century that allowed people to be more trusting of the use of images. Today, with instantaneous global distribution, and extremely easy manipulation of images, the possibility for use or misuse of your image in a way you wouldn't like or approve appears to be much greater. In reality, the probability that it will be used/misused is about the same, but with global, instantaneous distribution channels, the probability of your discovering it is now exponentially greater, thus the apparent increase in misuse/abuse. I think it also connects to some degree with the whole notion of anything online should be free for any and all to use as they see fit. It's a bit paradoxical, that people want to be able to use others' content for free, but are more afraid of their own content being abused without compensation.
That's true but they were usually only brought out of the closet for a special event, a birthday, family get together or vacation.
Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera
When they made an appearance it was "special".
Cameras were like cake.