Dont quit before you even start...work blind.

[Iluvmycam]

Your mind can keep you from even trying...don't believe it.

https://danielteolijr.wordpress.com/2015/06/13/dont-quit-before-you-even-start-work-blind/

[Otto Phocus]

Well the author has some interesting attitudes.  Logic does not seem to be his strong suit though

He automatically condemns the photographer to failure based on the photograph only saying "I believe the red light district is a no-no for photography".

The Author then goes on that the photographer is correct in that photography is not permitted in the RLD.  Seems like the photographer was right in the first place, huh?

The article then proceeds to discuss how the author just decided to break the rules and photograph in the RLD.  I guess what the author wants to do is all that matters. 

This author is the type of photographer I despise.  It is all about what they want to do.  No regard, empathy, or concern for how other people may feel.  He is above such things as following rules.  He must be one of those important people.

I sure would not want to hang out with this type of photographer.

Street photographers already have a tough time with public perceptions.  Self-centered photographers like this only make it worse.

[stamper]

I think he was using the RDL as an example of restricting ones thoughts rather than saying going ahead and shoot in the area. It is imo hypothetical rather than a concrete example and I can see where he is coming from. I have been trying to do Street since the beginning of last year and have negative thoughts about some subjects. What is the worst that can happen. A punch in the mouth? Highly unlikely. Being told you can't take another person's picture. It happens once in a while. A dirty stare. Happens sometimes. Or people moving away. It happens. 95% of the time people ignore you or don't see you. I have yet to be punched so the other examples should be overcome by thinking positively or smiling at people.

[Otto Phocus]

The other thing you should be concerned with with regard to street photography is making people feel uncomfortable.  Just because no one is hitting you in the mouth does not mean that they are not uncomfortable.  It is a personal ethical issue.

I, for one, would not like my photography to make other people feel uncomfortable.

Much has and could still be written about the street photography and empathy. 

[stamper]

If you mean that pointing a camera at someone means that you feel they might be uncomfortable then Street photography isn't for you??? In the UK if you aren't harassing someone then what you are doing is perfectly legal and that is all you should be worrying about. Despite this I still have reservations which I should get over and  which will mean I can get "better" Street photographs.

[Otto Phocus]

In the UK if you aren't harassing someone then what you are doing is perfectly legal and that is all you should be worrying about.

To some photographers, the issue is more complicated than what is simply legal.  There are many things that are legal that a person may choose not to do for ethical reasons. 

For some photographers, the issue ends with the legality and after that they have no empathy or concern for the feelings of the people around them. Other photographers don't agree with this attitude. 

Everyone has their own set of what is and is not ethical to do. They use their sense of ethics to govern their actions.

[stamper]

What bothers you other than the legality?

[Otto Phocus]

The making people feel uncomfortable.  Empathy for people and their feelings
If what I am doing can make people feel uncomfortable, I try not to do it.

[stamper]

Then I think landscape photography - without people in them - would be a better bet?

[Otto Phocus]

Then I think landscape photography - without people in them - would be a better bet?

Yeah, I would agree.  Or photographing people performing in public where photography is allowed.

I like taking pictures of things that don't move.  Fits my slow methodological photography style.   

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Or photographing people performing in public where photography is allowed...

Which is street (photography). Where is the ethical issue then?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

.... What is the worst that can happen...

In RLD, that could be yelled at and threatened to be thrown into the canal Which is exactly what happened to me. I was there with my wife and, in my infinite wisdom of a landscape and cityscape photographer, decided to lift my camera with a telephoto lens and aim it at a lovely bridge and canal scene just across from the girls in windows. One of which came out approaching, yelling, threatening to throw me and my camera into that lovely canal.

[Otto Phocus]

The difference, in my opinion, is the word performing.

If photography is allowed, I feel it is safe to presume that someone performing would not mind their photograph being taken.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Everyone in public view is performing.

[AreBee]

Slobodan,

Everyone in public view is performing.

How so?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

We prepare for going out into public view. We act, thus we perform for the public. We put on a suit and tie (used to), make up (still, mostly), shave (not often enough). We do not walk out in our underwear or pajamas (scratch that, some do). We behave. We do not show our emotions openly and loudly, we do not cry, wail, or scream (although we often feel like that). We act/perform appropriately. We put on our Sunday best, and a pleasant facade and off we go into public view. We know we will be seen and judged. So why then uncomfortable being photographed as such when we actually are prepared for the public? Even those who walk out in their pajamas, unshaven and grumpy know they will be seen and judged. They just do not care. In which case they don't (or shouldn't) care being photographed.

I have much more respect for some primitive cultures who fear that being photographed will steal their soul. I get that. On the other hand, I feel like punching (just feel, wouldn't do it, of course) anyone in the contemporary society who complains about being photographed (or their children) in public.

[Otto Phocus]

To me there is a difference between being seen (a fleeting image that is only stored in someone's memory and linked to a context) and a photograph which is a more permanent image that can be transported and shown to people who were not there.  It can also be shared independent of context.

To me it is like recording a person's conversation.  There is a big difference between overhearing a personal conversation and recording a personal conversation.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... To me it is like recording a person's conversation.  There is a big difference between overhearing a personal conversation and recording a personal conversation.

There might be, but it has nothing to do with photography. Personal conversation is meant to be that, personal, where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Recording it might be invasion of privacy. Showing up in public, however, you can't argue you meant it to be a private or personal affair.

[Otto Phocus]

It is a complicated issue with several different viewpoints that's for sure.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Remember the time when people, including proud parents, would be pleasantly surprised that someone is taking their (or their kids) photo and would acknowledge that with a smile? It was seen as a compliment. It still happens in less "civilized" and litigious societies. Or New York.