Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Street Showcase => Topic started by: Jonathan Cross on September 09, 2019, 04:46:56 am
-
I am ambivalent about street photography. Often I do not see the point, but then I do think that with the passage of time such images can form an archive of social behaviour that will enable people in the future to look back on us.
My main interest is landscape and wildlife, but I photograph for a local magazine that mostly wants people and events. Sometimes I photograph children, e.g when a new skate board ramp opened or at local fairs. I know from when I photograph at events at the local first schools (ages 4 - 7) that I have to submit my images to the Headteacher as some children must not be photographed. Any groups with them cannot be in the magazine. There is also the sad perception about men taking photographs of children. If I take images with children, I always say to the parent(s) or guardian(s) what I am doing and ask if they mind and if the image(s) can be used. I also ask adults if the images are other than general event views.
In the light of this I would be interested to know about the images in this section of the forum. Do those being photographed know, and, if not, are they told afterwards and asked if the images can be used? If the images include children are the parents or guardians asked if they mind?
Best wishes,
Jonathan
-
Asking kinda removes the point of street, which is all about observation and catching that moment when something significant is happening. There the catch: when you see it happen, that's already too late - you missed it. You have to anticipate. I'm not much good at that at all, as I far rather lead up to a picture, which is the pro way I always followed. Hence, my preference for street art which is another idea altogether. Mostly, it doesn't move a lot.
Kids: I refuse all requests to go anywhere near them with a camera, and usually without one, too. Other than my own, I find nothing about them engaging, truth be told. As with my pet white horse, a few grunts and that's conversation done, over and very much out. :-)
Rob
-
Jonathan, As usual, Rob's on the money with his advice, though I disagree with him on kids. On the other hand, if he's talking about "cute" pictures of kids, I agree 100%. I certainly agree with Rob that if your subjects are aware you're shooting them, what results is informal portraiture rather than street photography.
Whether or not you need to submit your street pictures to authorities before you can show them depends on where you are. In the United States, if you're out in public, on the streets, etc., you have none of what the law calls "expectation of privacy," so I can shoot pictures of you and show them and not have to worry about permissions. That applies to kids too, though it pays to be careful. On the other hand, I can't use your picture to advertise anything.
Whatever you do, don't use what you see in "Street Showcase" as general examples of street photography. Street is a genre that's very badly named, and as a result most photographers don't bother to learn what it is.
You might want to read this" https://luminous-landscape.com/on-street-photography/.
As far as I'm concerned, street is the main reason to pick up a camera.
-
An old joke:
How to get your ass kicked (or arrested)
Go to a local playground, wearing dark sunglasses, a hoodie, and a camera. When a concerned parent approaches you, asking “Which one is yours?,” you respond with “Oh, I don’t know... haven’t decided yet.”
-
As far as I'm concerned, street is the main reason to pick up a camera.
The reasons to pick up a camera are it keeps you young, engaged with the world, and it can bring pleasure and delight. The subject matter is of secondary importance.
-
The reasons to pick up a camera are it keeps you young, engaged with the world, and it can bring pleasure and delight. The subject matter is of secondary importance.
+100.
-
The reasons to pick up a camera are it keeps you young, engaged with the world, and it can bring pleasure and delight. The subject matter is of secondary importance.
Hi Rajan, Well, I didn't say it was the only reason to pick up a camera. From my web and from what I've posted you can see that it's not the only thing I do with a camera. But to me real street is the main reason even to own a camera.
-
In the light of this I would be interested to know about the images in this section of the forum. Do those being photographed know, and, if not, are they told afterwards and asked if the images can be used? If the images include children are the parents or guardians asked if they mind?
Coincidentally, I was just reading a post on our local neighborhood list service this morning by a mother who was outraged to discover her children being photographed in their front yard by another woman with a cellphone; the latter, when the mother angrily confronted her, explained that she was inspired to do so because she thought it was refreshing to see urban kids climbing trees. That post triggered sympathetically furious responses from other neighborhood residents, many of whom—erroneously (I was trained as a lawyer)—believed the woman with the cellphone was violating some law.
I'm an amateur photographer. I shoot for my own amusement, and my general policy is (1) to avoid making pictures of children (other than relatives, of course) and (2) if I really want to photograph them, to get permission not only from a parent or other guardian, but from the subjects themselves. However, if I was working on assignment for a news organization, I think I would be inclined to stand on my legal rights, which, as Russ Lewis explained in an earlier post, are essentially unrestricted in the United States if the subject is visible from a public location. My understanding is that U.K. law is similarly liberal regarding photography from public spaces.
Occasionally I ignore that policy, to some extent out of expediency but also when I don't think the kids will individually be very identifiable in the image. I never could have made the attached shot of a children's day camp in Vancouver, Canada, if I had stopped to ask permission. Not only would I have missed the moment—always the key to anything that purports to be "street photography"—but even if the camp counselors had told me to go ahead, I probably would have wound up with the subjects mugging for the camera. (I can't tell you how many attempted street photographs I have missed because one or more of the people in the frame saw me and decided to strike a pose.)
That said, given that there are so many weirdos out there I understand why parents may be concerned about having their kids photographed by strangers, and I'm inclined to be more hesitant to snap the shutter if there are children in the viewfinder rather than adults.
-
The reasons to pick up a camera are it keeps you young, engaged with the world, and it can bring pleasure and delight. The subject matter is of secondary importance.
That last sentence may work for you, Rajan, but not for me. I agree with the first part, the therapeutic, motivational aspect of photography, but in my case it comes totally adrift if there is nothing in my genre, sphere of interest, available. Making snaps of something of borderline personal interest seems somewhat perverse; why would I seek to tie myself yet longer to the computer, when the first part of the idea (as you state) is to get out of the door and do something?
Unfortunately, photography has never been an occupation where anything is equal to anything else. I used to run into the same difficulty when I was working: some family members would suggest I do weddings, this, that and the other just to keep turnover going, the money coming in more regularly instead of in mini-lottery payments now and then as was my norm. I was told that the bank was blind. Of course it was, but I was not! It didn't ever seem to register that I would rather have done something totally non-photographic than to do photography that soured my feelings for it.
Why was that so difficult for people to grasp?
Maybe they envied my lifestyle of relative freedom that they could not have, whatever they earned?
-
It's no use, Rob. It's something most people never will grasp. I spent the last two evenings going back over my Robert Frank books, and thinking about the travels he made and the difficulties, including jail time, he put up with to get the whack-you-in-the-heart result that was The Americans. As I read and looked, I wished I'd been able to do something like that. I remember how close I came to leaving the Air Force at the end of my four year commitment and trying photojournalism as a profession. The fact that I had a wife and two kids made the decision for me, and I can't complain. I had a good 26 years in the service and saw a lot of Asia. But the idea of explicating my country and its people with a camera was large in my life. It still is, but now I'm too old to do it. But in my local retirement community I interact with the people to whom a picture of, say, an eagle means as much as a picture of a person doing something unusual. They're all fine, normal people, but they'll never, never feel the thrill of capturing something beyond the decorative -- capturing something that speaks.
-
... capturing something that speaks.
Different folks, different strokes.
-
Different folks, different strokes.
"Speaks" is open to many interpretations.
;-)
-
It's no use, Rob. It's something most people never will grasp. I spent the last two evenings going back over my Robert Frank books, and thinking about the travels he made and the difficulties, including jail time, he put up with to get the whack-you-in-the-heart result that was The Americans. As I read and looked, I wished I'd been able to do something like that. I remember how close I came to leaving the Air Force at the end of my four year commitment and trying photojournalism as a profession. The fact that I had a wife and two kids made the decision for me, and I can't complain. I had a good 26 years in the service and saw a lot of Asia. But the idea of explicating my country and its people with a camera was large in my life. It still is, but now I'm too old to do it. But in my local retirement community I interact with the people to whom a picture of, say, an eagle means as much as a picture of a person doing something unusual. They're all fine, normal people, but they'll never, never feel the thrill of capturing something beyond the decorative -- capturing something that speaks.
True; thank God that my wife absolutely did get it.
All those years, from when we were kids and she helped me buy my first real camera - a rigid Vito B - she never complained about the ups and downs of the photographic life. Perhaps it was because it came as no surprise to her that I was ultimately going to go to that life; perhaps it might have been because she knew that whatever happened we would stick together. And through it all, she never displayed any jealousy.
I've had almost eleven years now to think about it after she went wherever the good folks go, and in that time it never ceases to astound me that I was so damned lucky that we found one another so young, and had so many wonderful years to share.
;-)
-
It's no use, Rob. It's something most people never will grasp.
As Louis Armstrong said about jazz:
“If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know.”
-
Nice shot Chris. Lots of action and things to look at. Here's my take on kids shots. Never thought about whether I "belonged" as it was in NYC Central Park where everyone is out in open and cameras are popping a lot.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/6170/6176987776_7a99521e7f_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/apQFgf)Marionette (https://flic.kr/p/apQFgf) by Alan Klein (https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/6175/6151920680_a5de17ae6c_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/anCcFW)Woof (https://flic.kr/p/anCcFW) by Alan Klein (https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/6181/6151377587_5c7d23979d_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/anzqfg)Troupe (https://flic.kr/p/anzqfg) by Alan Klein (https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/), on Flickr
-
Sometimes, you can get beaten for taking unauthorized photos:
Photographer Math Roberts experienced every street photographer’s worst nightmare during the Notting Hill Carnival. As first reported by The Phoblographer, Roberts was attacked, beaten bloody, and had his camera smashed to bits for taking a photograph of a couple hugging on the last night of the event.
https://petapixel.com/2019/09/19/street-photographer-beaten-bloody-for-taking-photo-of-a-couple-hugging/
-
Serves him right. Who, in their right mind, believes that it's a clever thing to do at night, on an occasion when the chances are that much alcohol has been enjoyed?
As silly is the editorial attitude, that thinks it's perfectly okay to intrude on a couple having a little tête-a-tête because, well, it's what photographers do. Screw them and their daft snapper too!
I like street photography but I do not like it when it strays into intrusion; we get enough of that already in our lives from all sorts of people. Photographers have no tribal prerogative to intrude. If you insist, accept the consequences, and if you are the camera insurance company, tell the stupid guy it's not covered because it's self-induced damage and he has a responsibility of care.
-
Serves him right. ...
As it will serve them right* when they end up in jail.
* just to be clear, I wrote the above for rhetorical contrast, not because I agree with your "serves him right." I categorically do not.
-
If I was 6'6", 260 lbs, , I'd take more street pictures than I do.
-
As it will serve them right* when they end up in jail.
* just to be clear, I wrote the above for rhetorical contrast, not because I agree with your "serves him right." I categorically do not.
Think of the possibilities here: we could start a thread to rival Brexit and the Constitution (U.S. Variety).
Why do you feel it's your right to photograph people having an intimate moment? Does the fact it's in public make the moral difference, or is it all "jolly good sport!"?
Say it was your own flesh and blood caught in a rash moment on a doorstep, all hot and undone: would you shrug, and say cool, the photographer is right, he's just another hunter after human prey - not a thing to worry about. Hey, why not catch my future grandkids too, whilst you are at it - you could paste them up online and maybe supply their school addresses too?
I very much doubt your mind would slip in that direction when it becomes personal.
The truth about street photography is simple: we are, at heart, voyeurs; we do what we think we can get away with, and when somebody kicks the shit out of us we cry foul! and run to Mummy. I am as guilty as the rest, but don't lie and try to pretend it's my right to pry and be a friggin' pain in the public ass. We all try to be invisible because of our own, inner sense of guilt at what we are doing. And the guilt arises from knowing it's not right.
-
Think of the possibilities here: we could start a thread to rival Brexit and the Constitution (U.S. Variety).
Why do you feel it's your right to photograph people having an intimate moment? Does the fact it's in public make the moral difference, or is it all "jolly good sport!"?
Say it was your own flesh and blood caught in a rash moment on a doorstep, all hot and undone: would you shrug, and say cool, the photographer is right, he's just another hunter after human prey - not a thing to worry about. Hey, why not catch my future grandkids too, whilst you are at it - you could paste them up online and maybe supply their school addresses too?
I very much doubt your mind would slip in that direction when it becomes personal.
The truth about street photography is simple: we are, at heart, voyeurs; we do what we think we can get away with, and when somebody kicks the shit out of us we cry foul! and run to Mummy. I am as guilty as the rest, but don't lie and try to pretend it's my right to pry and be a friggin' pain in the public ass. We all try to be invisible because of our own, inner sense of guilt at what we are doing. And the guilt arises from knowing it's not right.
And you will carry on regardless?
-
And you will carry on regardless?
It depends, Keith, on how threatening the moment may look to me. (More situation ethics - on my part.) Mostly, I avoid people now in my pix, and deal with things that may not actually exist at all except in my own mind. It isn't just a matter of fear of assault or even any trace of morality on my part; frankly, I find most of humanity pretty dull as physical entities. Maybe if I lived somewhere else I'd see more interesting people, as I mentioned in the past. Then, no doubt, my anxiety levels would rise to compensate for the fresh blood. But even so, I know I would really be trying to do fashion work without the assignment or collaboration. Frankly, I just like making pix of pretty people, and to do it well requires some control. I don't want to catch people looking awkward or foolish; selfies are limited in their attraction. ;-)
Thinking about it makes me realise again that much of Leiter's people work - apart fom his black/white, often with friends and lovers - was with people as very secondary actors, often just shadows or blurs through glass and moisture. Even his fashion work had problems being particularly specific to one person, even though he used his girlfriend quite often too. I get the impression from what I can find in my few books and online, that he wasn't much interested (photographically) in people, really, more in a kind of theoretical way as perhaps I am too, with a few snappers I admire, whereas his interest was firmly focussed upon artists with pencil, brush and stone...
;-)
-
... Why do you feel it's your right to photograph people having an intimate moment? Does the fact it's in public make the moral difference...
Yes.
If it is moral to have an intimate moment in public, it is moral to photograph it. Although I do not see it through the prism of morality.
I have nothing against someone photographing my kid in public.
I have everything against physical-violence response to a non-physical perceived “threat.”
-
It depends, Keith, on how threatening the moment may look to me. (More situation ethics - on my part.) Mostly, I avoid people now in my pix, and deal with things that may not actually exist at all except in my own mind. It isn't just a matter of fear of assault or even any trace of morality on my part; frankly, I find most of humanity pretty dull as physical entities. Maybe if I lived somewhere else I'd see more interesting people, as I mentioned in the past. Then, no doubt, my anxiety levels would rise to compensate for the fresh blood. But even so, I know I would really be trying to do fashion work without the assignment or collaboration. Frankly, I just like making pix of pretty people, and to do it well requires some control. I don't want to catch people looking awkward or foolish; selfies are limited in their attraction. ;-)
Thinking about it makes me realise again that much of Leiter's people work - apart fom his black/white, often with friends and lovers - was with people as very secondary actors, often just shadows or blurs through glass and moisture. Even his fashion work had problems being particularly specific to one person, even though he used his girlfriend quite often too. I get the impression from what I can find in my few books and online, that he wasn't much interested (photographically) in people, really, more in a kind of theoretical way as perhaps I am too, with a few snappers I admire, whereas his interest was firmly focussed upon artists with pencil, brush and stone...
;-)
Rob, the question was would you carry on regardless, believing what you are doing is not right? Not, would you carry on regardless, believing you might be caught and deserve to have the shit kicked out of you?
-
One thing I’ve noticed is that the street greats, HCB, Frank, Helen Levitt, etc., don’t make – or at least don’t show – pictures that would seriously embarrass their subjects. But the distinction has to be based on personal judgement. Here’s an example of a situation where the shooter has to make a choice. Had these kids been somewhere private as I walked by I’d have skipped the shot, but there was a crowd around them, so what they were doing was, in effect, a public performance.
I stay away from the pathetics: hoboes, drunks, zonkers. If they were normal people they’d be embarrassed to have their pictures shot or shown. But there are plenty of supposed street shooters who seek out these pathetically easy targets and are sufficiently ignorant of the genre to think they’re making great street pictures.
In the end what you shoot has to be based on your perception of moral norms. Unfortunately, those norms have been descending rapidly since the sixties. We’ve reached a point where anything goes, but that doesn’t mean you have to follow the trend.
-
Nice shot Russ, The lips do it. Here's my take. More innocent and playful.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/5539/12197936803_f75060aa95_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/jzTBDe)Take my hand (https://flic.kr/p/jzTBDe) by Alan Klein (https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/), on Flickr
-
Rob, the question was would you carry on regardless, believing what you are doing is not right? Not, would you carry on regardless, believing you might be caught and deserve to have the shit kicked out of you?
I doubt it, bringing it down to that moment.
I'll give you an example: we were on Rhodes, shooting a Tennent's Lager calendar and had gone down to Lindos a couple of times. On one of those days, we were shooting, on and off, right at the edge of the sea, and got into conversation with the late Reginald Bosanquet who was there with a black friend as well as another tv news man and his wife, whose names escapes me as I write. During the chat, he grabbed a can ring and put it on my wife's finger and told her they were engaged. She laughed. Anyway, we went up to the restaurant to get something to eat because the sun was too high and there was no point wasting film. Whilst there, we noticed Reggie, still at the water's edge, surrounded by a bevy of young, topless girls, having what looked like a perfectly innocent fan session. Our model got all excited and said, look! look! get the picture, the Sun will pay you a fortune (she was one of their models-of-the-year a couple of times), but I said no, let him be; he's on holiday, give him a break. Was that the real me? Probably; to the amazement of almost everyone I knew in those days, I was never money-driven, which was just a bit of good luck on my part, not that I had no need for it. I rather follow my love than my greed.
I hope this answers your question more fully, Keith; it's impossible to tell, with total belief, what might happen until the moment is upon us.
On the other hand, I have made pix of strangers just because they make a perfect illustration to some theme that they cause to spring into my mind. If I can find it, this was one such:
Going all technical: it was probably the D200, but certainly on Matrix metering with, I think, the old manual 1.8/50 Nikkor or the equally manual 2/35 Nikkor, which tells me that five years ago I could still focus manually, five years made one helluva difference, I'm afraid. That said, I must pull out the 35mm again and see how manual works post cataracts. It did take a massive adjustment of the diopter wheel to get to a good point again last week, but as I had the auto 50mm on the camera, that was no focussing test, just a test of seeing the image in the finder!