Don't leave home without it!

[Thomas Wilson]

Thomas, do you disagree with any and all photography in a public place?

No.

[Andy K]

No.

So how do you avoid photographing people in a public place, if you are going to 'respect their privacy'?

[Thomas Wilson]

It's not easy.

One example that comes to mind was a recent shoot I did of the Monocacy Aqueduct. While viewing the negatives at the lab, a fellow customer asked how in the world I was able to get that early evening shot with no one standing on the aqueduct? I replied, "That one was easy, the high that day was 12 degrees."

[Domenico Foschi]

The piece of paper offers good guidance first and foremost, having it on your person might offer some help as demonstrated by the OP.

Viewing pictures taken of people reacting to having their picture taken is something that can be interesting. It represents a significant portion, if not the majourity of images taken of people, including some of the most famous or highly regarded. Taking pictures in a public place: ditto. I'm not too sympathetic to people who over react when they suspect they have been photographed. It is probably not a good idea to try and provoke people into angry reactions.

FWIW if "being obnoxious" and or appearing "egotistical" are things that you wish to avoid then shooting in public places probably is not for you.

JD, I appreciate your post.
It really wasn't my intention to provoke a negative reaction.
All I did was to move slightly to the right at the point of being in front of them, justa few feet away.
It was their choice to react negatively, which actually looked great in the viewfinder. :-)
Someone could have reacted by laughing, some by shying away some with an expression of surprise.....
When you do street scene you have to put your ego and fears aside and allow Life to happen in front of you.
It is actually exhilarating.

[canuhead]

...allow Life to happen in front of you...

This is exactly what shooting street is about.

Couldn't have said it better Domenico.

[Q.G.]

The argument has been taken to extremes again.

Photographing people in a public place is not necessarily, or automatically, an invasion of their privacy.
Sticking a camera in someone's face, to record their reaction, most certainly is.

There is entire world separating the two. Use you discretion.

And you cannot defend doing the latter of the two by pointing out that doing the first is quite o.k.
All that would do, perhaps, is show that your discretion is not to be relied upon, and perhaps there indeed is a need for legislation prohibiting photographic loutism.

The very worst point, by far, that has been put forward has been that of the "artistic need".
Yes, some people may have an artistic urge to be an obnoxious so and so.
Doesn't make them less of an obnoxious so and so.

[jd callow]

People give up a portion of their privacy when they leave their home -- including the right not to be looked at, talked to, photographed, and on and on. If you wish to extend them more privacy than they are rightfully owed it is your business. Shooting people in public to record their reaction to being photographed is not inherently obnoxious nor does cross some imaginary threshold. I've pointed my camera at people to get and have received great reactions. I've also had people turn away. I don't do it often, but having done it I know where I see it standing in the grand realm of things -- pretty insignificant to all concerned. In the OP case he chose individuals who could have 'played' to the camera as most do, but instead they tried to take his camera. No question in my mind who was being obnoxious.

[Q.G.]

Yet again a claim to do what is "rightfully" yours to do.
Yes, as mentioned before, you do have a right to be that obnoxious so and so i mentioned.

People "played to the camera" the OP put in their face. He didn't like the game they chose to play.
Well boohoo.

But no: hell and damnation to them if they don't like to play the game you and the OP want to force upon them. And you have a piece of paper saying so, so there!

Again, use your discretion. Be a civilised member of society.

And that begins by acknowledging that the reaction you and the OP object to is a reaction, something consciously provoked by putting a camera in people's faces.

It continues by putting away as good as you give out, and not running to seek succor, whimpering about how the bad people treated you.
To that perhaps a short and simple "grow up already!" would be the best answer. If you cannot stand how the game is played, don't play the game. If you are looking for someone to complain to, look no further than yourself.
Hiding behind a piece of paper saying that it is not actually illegal to be a pain in the backside is as childish as claiming that an artistic intent will dissolve you of all blame.

And that simplistic "people give up [etc.]"?
People do not give up being part of a civilised community. They rightfully expect to be treated as one expects people in civilised communities to treat one another. The reactions that are complained about here show that people in fact were not. What's more, the express intent of the OP was not to treat them as such, so he could provoke and capture their reactions to that.
And now he says he didn't, but that it was their choice...

He says he "allows life to happen".
But he didn't. He wanted to create his own bit of life. And succeeded too.
And then he comes complaining, because he didn't like 'the life that happened'.

Have i already said something like "Grow up!"?
Good...

[Louis Nargi]

thanks for the post.

[jd callow]

Wow QC I think you need to relax a bit.

The document Domenico posted is a useful guideline and something that may be helpful when people try to keep you from shooting. A fact of life is that when you are out in public you may photograph people or be photographed. You may find this to be obnoxious and try to make your point seem more valid and important by raising the temperature of your post and by using phrases such as "putting a camera in people's faces", "whimpering" and "Grow up already." Few photographers put their camera in people's faces, no one is whimpering and the other bit I'll leave alone as I don't think I need to state the obvious.

I guess if we lived in a perfectly civilized (numb?) world we'd just let the CCTV record the events of the day, but we don't so we have laws that try to strike a balance. In this instance I guess you are further from the fulcrum than some.