Something that made me feel awkward happened to me last week-end and made me realize my impact on people as a photographer.

I was walking down the crowded downtown Chengdu last Saturday and I stopped to what it seemed to be an arranged shoot of various local amateur photographers. There was like 20 of them and a model, most of them with great equipment. They were all shooting her. After a while a mom passed by with a cute baby and they all jumped on him almost hysterically, shot him for a while to later go back to the model. It was quite a show so naturally I decided to shoot them while doing their shoot.

Now, the funny thing happened when one of them noticed ME, the "laowai" (foreigner) in the area. Instantly, five of them surrounded me with their big cameras and lenses and started doing shots of me, moving around, changing positions, everything.

For the first time in my photog's life I understood what it is to be on the subject's side on the street, being the "exotic", being the rarity, and I have to say that even though it didn't bothered me at all (made me flush actually) it was quite intimidating to be surrounded like this and being shot at.

I always thought it would be intimidating for my subjects to have me on the other side of the lens but I never knew it for real. The impact can only be stronger for the subjects I shoot the most, people in rural and remote areas or in slums, which might think of big lenses as much as of bazookas for what it's worth.

Anyway, I just wanted to share the experience and the feeling. When I go shooting I'm always very careful about this but now even more.

cheers!
nico

Hi Nico

How good of you to share this experience.
Even when done more subtle I thing taking streetportraits unasked for is something I feel uneasy with. Nowadays when you sit on a terras having a cup of coffee and you pic your nose the image can be on the internet before you've taken your finger out of your nose... Good streetpics in my opinion focus on story, they are not not just a capture of pretty of freaky people passing by. Especially now when taking and sharing images has become so easy.
But that's just my opinion of course.

Cheers Willem

It's not only a thing of feeling uneasy. It's an unpleasant and here in Germany a low violating action to take shots of people without asking for permission. These images are also often shown to the world by using the internet - also often without permission.

I stated this in other threads before: act like this in Germany and you will be punished. The German law says that everbody has the right to decline that photos will be taken and shown to the public. And it's good to have this right, this law.

Socalled "street photographers" surely will tell us their contrary point of view.

I agree with this Willlem and those are the street shots I pursue.



the subject is very complicated and the line between what's acceptable or not may be diffuse. What I find ridiculous is that a strict law like that one would seek or expect photographers not to do street photography anymore. That sounds absurd and authoritarian to say the least.

i totally agree Robert

????

There were times BEFORE photography. Nevertheless the history of these ages is often wellknown.

But it's a law to protect the right of the majority of people!
Do you also call other laws who have protection as aim "authoritorian"?

Why do you call it paranoid to have the right to say: I DON'T WANT TO BE PHOTOGRAPHED. I DON'T WANT MY IMAGE TO BE SHOWN IN THE INTERNET ???

so that's it? there shouldn't be street photography anymore and all photographers found on the street with cameras should be prosecuted for the possibility that anybody could post a photo of somebody on the internet? Or the police should be authorized to review the LCD's of every person who carries a digital camera and be suspected of doing street photography?

That doesn't make sense to me, times change and history changes us. Trying to enforce these laws brings us back to times that I thought we had got over already.

I have to disagree in that sense. But as I said, there are limits and I agree with restricting those. But where's the limit? that's the tricky part for me...

so true!

I just act normal when taking pictures of people in the streets and all people react normal too. i think what matters is how you do it not if you do. even here in switzerland and germany.

Exactly!

it is true that westerners are so paranoid.... i am lucky that israel isnt 100% western yet but its getting there ..... i agree that people have a right to say no to a photograph even in a public place but i also think that most wouldn't mind

i think the law is meant to protect children more than adults
again i think that using the excuse of recording history doesnt count so much because by looking at most protfolios on 1x i see no real documentary value.
there are several who do but usually they are not street photographers

i guees the answer to this isuue depends on the place you were born... but when talking about children photography i belive that you will feel bad in any western country and adults will be very suspicious... in india and other countries it is the most common to photograph children

You know that I do not mean it this way, don't you? :-)


Indeed! Remo said it: the "how you do it" is the important part.

Let me clarify my position (this time not provoking :-):
I'm not against street photography in general. I'm often fasciated by images that show certain situations, that show emotions, stories. But often when I see these type of images I ask myself what would the photographed people say when they find themself presented in the internet (e.g. sitting in the underground showing an featherbrained face or in other unpleasant situations?). Do you want to be shown in internet unasked if photographed in such situations? For me I can say, no I won't. The German law grants a right to a single human to say "no" for publishing images of this person - nothing more. Granting or declining that an image of me will be taken or presented in the internet is my personal right and belongs to the basic things of personal privacy.I cannot identify how this will "bring us back to times that I thought we had got over already".

of course I do !!! :)



absolutely and that's why I stressed that before this experience I was already very careful and overall respectful and now even more.
I've been told "no", dozens of times and I never ever pushed it, i just smiled back.

I think the key is to never be intrusive. I just came back from Vietnam where in the north where the ethnic groups live westerners with expensive cameras just jump on the tribe's people faces without the least care as if they were objects, it made me feel sick and made me put my own camera in my bag. There's a terrific shot of a similar situation that one user posted here, i think it's in tibet. Looked like a human zoo.

@ Peter,

yes, but there are numerous exceptions.

For instance this one:
"Portraits, which are not made to order, unless the distribution or display serves a higher interest of art"

In german:
Bildnisse, die nicht auf Bestellung angefertigt sind, sofern die Verbreitung oder Schaustellung einem höheren Interesse der Kunst dient.

But it is unclear, what "a higher interest of art" is about.

Frank

Taking a picture of a person is not stealing a soul. Come on, it's just a picture, nothing more than that, just light - stop identifying yourself with an image. I can understand if someone has been caught doing a compromising thing like, I don't know, going naked in a street while being drunk. But for most cases what's wrong with having an image of yours in internet? Everybody has one.

And yes, street photographers document reality. This is part of their job/hobby, independently from the style they have, reality comes through their photographs. Even if you don't want to, even if you only do portraits you are recording people's face which reflect the 'temperature' of a place, of a moment, of an era. It's part of history, "our" history. You can learn a lot about human beings, how we were and how we are looking at Street Photography work. We common people are an integrant part of this reality, so why can't we photographers take pictures of reality? I think this is the point of the westeners campaign. Some governments are a little scared of street photography, they don't want the reality to come through as is. They want people to believe in reality through TV, cinema, commercial and all that fictional stuff, to believe reality is what media project in their mind and not what's before their eyes every and each day. We live in an era where there is no real privacy at all, yet some people get paranoid for just a picture.

i agree fabio
but there are some images that people will be embarrassed to see of themselves not naked and drunk :) just if they make a strange face or sit by a sign with sentence that says something that make them look more miserable or ridicules these are just two motives of street photographers.... i wish some were more respectful and one other motif is homeless people which the street is their house
about reality that you want to show maybe somewhere else but not in 1x (most of the cases)
the images here even street are far from reality just because they need to be special to be published
reality is different

i agree that street photography is important but i also think more respect is needed

in the case of your images fabio i think they are great street and you have respect to the people but many photographers dont
i have seen a few times where image is taken even if the person dont want.... some photographers loose control and just hunt for images with no care for the people... here on 1x its better but in many other places the situation isnt good at all
in india photographers treat people like human zoo they dont even interact
its getting worse and worse with digital
too many cameras out there

reality is different - in its forms. It can be special, it can be common. But even the common can be shown in a special, beautiful way. In a way that makes you think, wonder. Reality is what it is, and street photography take pictures of it through the eye of the photographer. At times you see in the street something that no movies has yet shown, because they just can't, they have not that expressive power. I remember a quote of Francis Bacon about this: "I have always been very interested in photography. I have looked at far more photographs than I have paintings. Because their reality is stronger than reality itself."

But yes, one has to be respectful to people and I won't get tired of repeating it. Street Photography is a view on the human world, one has to be sincerely interested in "our" world, not just interested in taking "nice shots". Idiots are everywhere and in every category. The problem with some laws is that they generalize a category like if it was only about stupid guys. So if you take an interesting photo where 10 people in a public place are recognizable, then you have to have their explicit consent to publish the picture, even if that picture is shown only to other people interested in photography. These are things that HCB, Winogrand and all the others has done with no problem at all. They took picture of strangers and show them in books, galleries and so on, with no consent by their photographed subjects whatsoever. They didn't have internet otherwise, oh yeah, they would have used it.

I agree with the paranoia. But this paranoia is as old as photography itself. Way back a century ago the same anti-photographer feelings were going around, and this hasn't changed because the photographers' arrogance hasn't changed. But in my experience, there's no situation which couldn't be turned to the photographer's advantage by using politeness and charm.

I know it's punishable by death to say this but I believe the vast majority of their photographs was staged, which eliminates all kinds of problems :)

what i say is that we as photographers try to sell a different reality just like tv movies......

Hey, there should be a law for that! You lucky guy you're still alive. ;)

Anyway, I can't agree with you that the vast majority of HCB's and Winogrand's photographs were staged. This is False. Unless you believe they found thousands of excellent actors all over the world ready to act for a pic and some bucks. Extraordinary street photographers existed and exist. And staged street shots are often easily recognizable. The famous Doisneau's "kiss", for instance, isn't that cinema?

Well, yes, talking about "reality", none can really photograph it. I was more talking about the candid nature of street photography and the fact that street photographers do not usually tend to impose a particular, instrumental vision of reality, like TV, cinema do.

oh yes! this is spot-on Fabio! And it relates to what I've seen in Vietnam and what Sassi is referring to about India. Seeing people like objects and not being interested in them.
True love and appreciation for the world and the people is what makes photos special. I said it already but to me the photos I take of people are just the second most beautiful thing I got from them, the first is their acquaintance/relationship.

That's Hollywood, yes. And if you do both staged and spontaneous street a lot, you'll develop a feeling for this. It's like nature photography: if you're experienced enough you can tell which shot is natural and which was "boosted" by certain tricks. But I don't think it actually matters for street (and I know that saying this is punishable by death AND slow torture :)) Street is a form of art and there's nothing wrong by arranging a scene to convey a message or just to have some fun. Of course, trying to sell a staged photo as "captured moment" should be sanctioned by something worse than death.

i guess we all agree :)

for sure Robert :) good thing you dont live in Germany :)
i agree with you but i am sure it would have been a bit harder there
if you were in India it will be much easier

yeah, to the hell ! :))

I've never staged a shot and I think won't ever stage one. It's not a sin, but is not something I'm interested in. It's simple. Sounds like cheating the Street soul to me...just like you said, it's nothing but Hollywood.

Sure, but street is not fashion. Some photographers would capture not-so-graceful moments and do this honestly too for whatever purpose. The world out there is no f&b magazine.

Staged or not ... indeed lots of street shots are nearly staged, even without the consent of people captured. Take the example of many poster juxtaposition stuffs (the favorite stuff here on 1X...), there is few serendipity on that, almost staged.

yes but to publish those images seems unfair
i am sure you will not want your dear ones to be documented and published in this way by strangers
what the purpose by the way ? only arrogance in my opinion

Which way ? I feel sometimes people are more ridiculous saying "cheese" to a camera than captured in their everyday situation. I don't say you should seek for the funny things at the expense of the person, it is not the point. But the energy that came out from people is something worth to be photographed IMO, and it doesn't come necessarily with what is considered the right way. People should not be ashamed of what they are, many suffer much from that.

but you cannot choose for them in my opinion or one has to be to be very arrogant to do that
i am talking about images that make fun of people...

Yes, you're talking about the so-called 'visual puns', I think - the composition at its full power. But it's still capturing something that happened by itself, spontaneously even if predictable. There are no actors - this is the point of those shots, that the subject is not aware of the image he/she is in, that's why they work.

Why do you say that and do not say the same about a photographer who does staged portrait (which I have absolutely nothing against). Why not simply admit that it is photographer's choice of material captured ? It is very same for candid shot and staged shot in fact, it is not that much different. I know there are photographers who want to make fun of people and I don't agree with that, but it is not the case for every of those shooting candid. Do you really think Helen Levitt meant to make fun of the people she captured ? look how they look like on her photographs...

because staged portrait the person agrees to. they have a choice
just search for street images on sharing website
i care not for famous people and not also the people on the street. it is the internet and the incredible amount of cameras that bother people

Hi Robert

In part I agree with you. Streetphotography is important in documenting the present 'human condition' (whatever that may be precisely) It would be a sad loss and a sad day if documenting everyday life and people would become impossible.
But for me that doesn't mean that everybody in a public place, or everybody that forgets to close the curtains is fair game in a 'no rules' never ending hunting season. In my opinion there is a distinction between documenting our times and jumping on any cute baby, pretty woman or freak in the street.
I don't have a golden rule or the definitive wisdom to decide when something is right or wrong. But in my opinion it is a subject well worth discussing.

Cheers Willem

But Sasson the very problem is not people doing some more or less serious street-photo, but instead most of the time people stealing moments (photo or video) with their i-phones or whatever, or using tele focal. This is very different, not only in the outcome, but also the approach is different.


I don't agree at all. They choose to pose, that is correct, but they don't choose about what/how they will be captured, that is the photographer's choice and responsibility (except when involving commercial transaction)

you are right partly on both issues... if the staged image is not liked by the person i am sure that he could refuse the image to get published... at least he knows... in western countries he will probebly be able to sue if he wanted
street image many times the person will just not know that the image was taken since many dont want the direct interaction and trying to catch the moment without the interfernce of contact

and yes cellphones and such are a big problem as well and they help worsen the problem.
also tourism is a big problem

Sure... but don't you think that in this case it is somewhat hypocritical, being OK for posing and not letting photographer having a free choice of what she/he finally wants to come up with ? (again, except when it is an end customer transaction)

Hello Nicolas,

nice experience! I had this too and learned so much. Thats why i put up some rules for my self! I always ask or try to convey to the people that i will photograph them. When not than i do not bother them by running after them or chasing them. I always intent to keep there dignity and privacy and never come to close. If i getting close ( most of the time) i start communicating with them before i go that close. But i never click more than 3 or 4 times as this mostly bothers already there patience!

Robert

More and more the same applies not only for people but also for any kind of private properties, I mean buildings, real-estate, yards or whatever privatly owned. In France people have been suited for photographing part of mountains that were indeed private properties. Great law isn't it ? ... So I guess sooner or later street-photog would be joined by landscape and architecture photogs in their whining.

Typically photographers in the human zoo put the burden on their prey to refuse. They think, "Have camera, will shoot!. Stop me if you can!". Most people are put in an awkward situation as a result, because they are torn between being obliging and being impolite, with the negative consequences of that threatening them. How can you tell a guy in the street pointing a camera at you to f**k off without suffering embarrassment and perhaps getting into some kind of argument? They don't know this guy with the camera. Maybe he has a gun as well! In some countries this social comfort issue becomes a "power imbalance" through the fact that the guy with the camera is from the West, white and wealthy, and their prey is in an underdeveloped country, dark skinned and poor. The guys with cameras often take advantage of the "niceness", reticence, nervousness, anxiety on the part of their prey.

It should be the other way around. The guy with the camera should be prepared to suffer possible embarrassment by going up to the intended subject and asking their permission, and perhaps being refused. A guy with a camera is just that, having a camera does not create a right for them to use it however they might like. They are two different things, commonly confused.

If a photographer captures some action as it happens, or becomes involved in an unfolding scenario, in the street, then afterwards they should fulfill a responsibility to the other people involved as much as the situation allows, and must be circumspect in how they use the material gained from the other people in that situation.

I am talking about the kind of public photography which has identifiable persons as its principal target, not persons incidentally caught in a photograph of some tourist object of interest, for example. I would also exclude taking photographs of persons who have chosen a public role in society, such as politicians, entertainers, and so on, even criminals!

I think it will happen that guys with cameras seeking material which documents private individuals, or groups of private individuals, in public places solely for the interest that those persons possess for potential consumers of such photographs, I think those guys will eventually be required to be licensed.

Of course, nobody will need a license to photograph anybody they like anywhere they like if they have the permission of that person. It's pretty simple really. The subject (or society) gives the guy with the camera the right, not the camera the guy carries. It seems to me most comments in this thread are pretty civilised.

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

This is practically impossible and it represent the death of this important field of photography, which is Street. I mean, if one wanted to know what was the world about in the middle of the twentieth century, one would look at the work of HCB. But if he were to ask to all the people he photographed if it's ok for them to get published somewhere I think that 90% of his shots would have been unknown to us.

Not to talk alwasy about HCB, take for instance this shot by Ruth Orkin:

http://www.artknowledgenews.com/files2008a/hporkin1.jpg

which is nothing but a masterpiece. Apart from being aesthetically very pleasant, it tells a lot about the place, the culture, those people and the human nature in general. But if Ruth had to ask to all of them if they wanted to be photographed like that I think that at least one of them would have said "no, please".
If this is the rule, then there would be no real possibility for Street Photography to show its best.

Well said Fabio.

It's very interesting that you came up with this shot. Because last Saturday, I invested lots of efforts (and money) to reproduce it for Thomas Holzkoetter's Aachen project. And I have to tell you, to re-make a well-known photo is hard work. I am absolutely sure that photo was staged. Such situations do not happen in life, just like there is no wolf jumping over fences in nature, or kingfishers picking up dead mayflies from the water surface :)

Maybe... maybe unless the photographer was licensed, by the city council, perhaps, and for example.

I think we are confronted by a choice of priorities, which is of more value, the privacy of the individual or the voyeurism of future consumers?

Orkin's shot looks staged to me. If it wasn't then I wish it had been. Its value, in my opinion, is not in any documentary merit it might have (none for me) but in the age-old tradition of joking about human nature.

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

This is because you haven't been in Italy so far ;P ...I can assure those things happen in real life. I come from south Italy, and I have seen scenes like that, believe me. :)

Unfortunately the commission was about Aachen and not Naples :))

We have all seen scenes like this, whether in Italy or no.

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

yeah, I guess. Try to capture that kind of scene and then ask each of them if they want to get published somewhere :))

Do you ?

Err... this means you photograph cute babies and pretty women only during war and natural catastrophes? :))

Arghhh... you were faster than me on this one Balazs.

... but most of the time you have just people passing by who are used as pure markers (just like in some of architecture or landscape shot) or to spice up an otherwise rather empty shot. They do not really interact with anything, nothing is really happening, it is mere modus-operandi. Not all of them, but most of them... (and yes I have been guilty of that too and even have such pic in screening)

You can still photograph girls with mustaches in Aachen Balazs :-))

BTW, Susan Sontag said: "Camera is a gun - Loading, aiming, shooting" That's why I don't like street photography so much, but I like it when nobody can see me, like a sniper...One shot is the aim, not a carnage every day...

Certainly! Even in Saudi Arabia, where it is a punishable offense for unmarried and unrelated men and women to have any social communication!

Looking into the future, I cannot imagine a photographer licensed by a city to document its life, taking that photo of Orkin, because it is not documentary. It would have to have been staged to get through to publication, with everyone's signature on the release form.

We have been talking about the responsibility of the photographer, but I think the viewer also has a responsibility. For example there was a shot published in a photo forum of an old decrepit and derelict wine-o. He would never have been sober enough to give his consent. In the photo he was looking out of his filthy face with utter despair into the lens while he stood in trousers that he had just pissed in. I am not a saint by any means, but I could not look at that photograph without feeling shame, without feeling that I had violated that person. I know my reaction is far from unique, and if it were left to viewers to make a judgement, I think quite a few street and pj shots wouldn't pass as important for future generations to have. They are just bad and exploitative sensationalism.

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

staged or not staged doesn't matter for the viewer but it does matter for the photographer. for me the fun about photography is to document a place i find interesting. the product doesnt care if it was staged or not. staging street is cool too, but to me not as interesting.

p.s. i remember a woman calling the police in barcelona because i took a photo of mies van der rohe's pavillon. keep in mind that this pavillon is not the unique one and nobody was standing in front of it. so its not a street-photographers problem, its a problem of our time.

We already have "official" photographers to take care of those situations, and I understand that anything they get is judged to be of value to society before it is published.
brose

http://www.brosepix.com

That scene was only captured because it was staged.

That woman obviously had a strong sense of social responsibility. Leave the door open if you want the thief to come and steal. Horrific loss of life has been suffered in Spain the result of public acts. It is easy to make fun of a woman like that, but there is seriousness in her intent. I doubt we will get far into finding a negotiated path through this issue if we ridicule people's sense of right, no matter how wrong we believe them to be.

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

You said you've seen that scene more than once yet you are quite sure that Orkin's one was staged, why's that? There are many examples of risky situations where great photographers has been able to do their job capturing them, are all of them staged just because they are rare to experience or risky to capture? I don't think so.

Absolutely.

It is my opinion that that shot was staged. I cannot prove so, of course. The whole composition and POV just shout staged to me. In my experience such scenes live for a few short seconds, not long enough to be captured unprepared. Orkin I think recognised a situation with the potential for this event and then primed it in collusion with the guys for the next beauty that happened to pass. I can imagine a very similar shot which was truly authentic, just as I myself have seen scenes like this in reality. My estimation is that Orkin's shot looks far too easy. That is my opinion about this particular shot and nothing can be generalised from it to any other shot. Why would you suggest that it could?

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

I'm not sure why brose is sure, but I'm rather sure that a group of people can gather up in such a perfect composition with absolutely no one standing between the main subject and the photographer.

Balazs, now I'm really keen to see it - was not aware that we have girls like her in our town :-)

What do you mean Balazs, it's confusing. You sure it is possible or you doubt it is possible ?

Which happened to be an American girl walking up right to an American photographer's camera. That sounds very convincing :))) I suppose Orkin gathered some guys from nearby cafés, put every one of them into the right position, told them how and where to to look, and let eventually the model walk through.



I dare to say that I find it impossible. It goes against group dynamics. People don't line up like in the picture unless they are told to do so.

If you look at the shot the woman walked many meters before reaching that point in the frame, there was plenty of time for a good photographer to prepare himself. I don't know if you're passionate about Street Photography or if you go in the street almost everyday with a camera at hand, but when you notice a woman in distance that is going to walk close to a group people belonging to the opposite sex you're likely to have an interesting scene unfolding before your eyes and you get prepared to capture it.

Anyway I don't want to go OT, let's stick to the subject. I'm not sure the shot wasn't staged either, but I've seen a lot of street shots that clearly look staged and this one doesn't to me. But scenes like these happen, and being able to see and capture them often make the difference between a good photographer and the others.

Now you have insulted me Robert!

Many good things come from Australia

Just to show you the wiki links about the current law in Germany :

For persons :
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild

For buildings :
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panoramafreiheit

Then, Robert, you will not be surprised when I tell you that I feel freer in Saudi Arabia than in Australia ;))

When I go home I feel oppressed the very moment I walk out of the plane, by all the signs telling me what I must and must not do, by the relentless PA announcements telling me what I must and must not do, by the officials that call me mate and then tell me I must or must not do this and I must or must not do that, by the dogs that sniff me and my bags as I wait to be released from customs, by the female dog handlers who probably wear Y-fronts telling me with a grim mouth I must not touch the dogs, and so on and so forth...! I feel more relaxed and unmolested here with armed soldiers two metres away on the wall decked with razor wire!

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

That is interesting and witty remark. You may be right but sometimes strange things happen, which is not that strange considering the "real" situation. Imagine it was a very hot day (hot, not because of the girl, but because of the heat outside :)) and then the place where all people stand is in the shadow. It would seem quite logical that the group is distributed that way, isn't it ? It is something you notice as well with harsh oblique light, people don't like to walk with strong rays of light hitting their eyes (unless they have sunglasses).

Now I agree on the fact that the photo title "American girl" brings a suspicion about the scene being staged or not, or at least prepared in some way. whether the girl was actually American or not (which we are not sure by the way) could be a hint. After all in a really candid shot you don't know anything about the people shot (though sometimes you can guess or have some elements to make assumptions, for sure...)

OT for sure, but interesting...

Quite so, Fabio. Even if it was not staged, I think it is not a good shot precisely because its authenticity is not convincing.

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

Thank you for the links Thomas, but they are in German language and cannot read by many:-)

Please be kind and find some translation for it!

Thank you!

But honestly, as i love to take pictures this laws will take every motivation away from me. At the end they force us to be against the law. I think they do not know how much fun it is to make pictures:-)

Robert

What you describe Jacques reminds me of what I saw in a village in the world's largest oasis Al Ahsa, in Saudi Arabia's mid-east, just a couple of days ago. At the Maghreb prayer time, as the sun dipped below the horizon, out of every door and on every street corner appeared freshly washed young men in clean clothes, their hair slick with gel, a freshly lit cigarette in their mouths, to come together in groups to talk and look at life from the street. Any of this would make fine documentary photography.

A similar thing happens in south eastern Europe, where people come out to the street to promenade in the early evening in warm weather. All the photo ops to satisfy even Robert H's insatiability for historical record.

But that shot of Orkin looks not quite like anything that I have seen.

BTW a Saudi friend has given me digital copies of hundred of photographs of life in the Qatif oasis in Saudi Arabia, going back over seventy years, part of an informal unofficial archive kept among his family and friends.

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

.. but with the will of the people! How can your photos have any value if they are not wanted by the very society you are shooting!

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

btw., I think the upcoming and inceasing possibilities to manipulate photos in different ways is also a good hotbed for paranoia.

I have a big suspicion that Robert H is a closet Ockerphile. His fussing over Australia is about as convincing as Orkin's shot ;))

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

Everything is cosmically unimportant - except this.
Street photographer's motto.

The point is that the government recording our life's and this not only with this surveillance cameras everywhere :-)

For such things it is really better to ask the people if they agree to be photographed. The right approach will do so much for it! Then they can regulate what ever they wane!:-)

Example, in Dubai the Burj Al Arab you need pay to go inside and make pictures! That is OK for me!

Robert

Wise words Alex!!

Robert

Will try to find a translation and post it then.

You mean Burj Al Khalifa? Mr Khalifa paid for it, and has demanded it carry his name!

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

What i mean is to take pictures from this hotel you need pay for it! Even to have a visit you need pay.

FYI, some example of restriction in France:
- you should have authorization from both owner and architect to shoot any contemporary monuments. Furthermore many things are copyrighted. e.g. it is forbidden to publish pics of the Eiffel Tower when the lighting system is on (shooting the tower is OK, but the lighting system is copyrighted)
- It is forbidden to shot inside Paris public transport facilities (not specifically people, anything e.g. shooting and empty subway station or any graphical motif is forbidden). Same applies for SNCF (french railway train) except that you can shot but for private use only (i.e. you can be sued for publishing a pic of a french station on 1X)
- The right to shoot public properties of any kind is restricted. You can be condemned by law if shoot anything that might give hints for potential robbers on how to operate. Needless to say this can be very restrictive and expose photographers to be sued by law (successfully or not) for many sort of image. Again, no matter if people are shown or not in the shot.
- ...

a street photographer's concern only ?

(concerning shooting people on the street/public place: it is authorized, but of course publishing without authorization is not)

I see!

But I was just reminding you that that building is now called not the Burj Dubai, but the Burj Khalifa.

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

Really? Anyway its a nice building!:-)

Well a man's gotta do what he has gotta do:-)
But finding a man with a 99.9% clear ethical position, there is a challenge.... ;-)

And who told you that a photographic record is captured correctly??


That's some serious myopia there Fabio!! Very self centered thinking IMO. Far from everybody "has one" on the internet and most people know what's "wrong with having an image of yours in internet" far better then you do.


If not for tourism you would not have the vast development in affordable cameras and lenses that you enjoy today...
And for Heaven's sake what's wrong with cellphone cameras?? Have you gotten so elitist with that fancy gear that you think only you should be allowed to freely photography life on the street. More serious myopia, IMO.


Were you alive and observing life in urban settings in Europe of anywhere in 1951??? I doubt it. There are MANY shots of NY and Philly here in the U.S. from this time period where men are lined along the street corners like this. I agree that this shot is opportunistic and probably not a split second decision. But how many of you guys who shoot this mythical "street photography" are any less opportunistic??? How many of you don't know the sweet places to go and the best times to go??

I was being far from patronizing Robert. There are plenty of photographs and movies that are noting but pure propaganda and have little use in accurately recording history. AND there are MANY that are priceless in doing so. My point (worded in your style, btw) was that just because we now have photographs and movies doesn't mean that we have a more accurate record of life or history.

I am myope for real :) ...jokes aside, whoa, Clyde, let's tone down a bit...
Just think about it: we have facebook, flickr and all sort of social networks containing photos and information about us. This is the internet era, a photo of yours has been probably taken by some stranger and published somewhere in the internet. Maybe you were in a crowd of people or just sitting somewhere. It's not impossible at all. You have thousands of turists taking shots and filming everywhere, cellphones, surveillance cams taking millions of photos of you, satellites and so on. There is no real privacy nowadays, this is the truth. So why bothering if someone has taken one picture of you while walking in the street? That's what I was talking about.

Vote me in and you'll know... ;-)

But I really think street / everyday photography is one of the most difficult games to play within photography. The subject is right in front of you, but to get really meaningful pictures is hard. I really love them street / everyday / documentary ( by training I'm a contemporary historian) but I find them very difficult to make myself. Therefore I rather stick to landscape pictures and pictures of the volunteer group I work with.... (nature conservation)
If you want to see picture made by me, you'll have to turn over the "not published" critique 1x wastepaper basket..... There is still a lot to learn....

LOL!

Certainly the noisiest.

I think I'm going to get a worldwide patent on "1x earmuffs" as part of a full body armour for street photographers... an outfit like the ones for like Ice hockey goalies...

My point about a narrow view like the one you expressed is that it's not right for you or I to say what's important or right or wrong for others. I once got into a serious discussion with a good friend about a photo of her's of a Mennonite man and his son she had taken. I lived for 4 years in a town that had a large Mennonite community and I know that they are very sensitive about photography. I only feel it's a true sign of maturity and grace to acknowledge and respect other folks beliefs and opinions. If someone feels a photograph steals their soul, then, imo, we shouldn't take that photograph.

Nothing wrong IMO, but they record people and things as well as the bigger things. So why stressing on the so called street-photogs whereas everybody does the same ? Why privacy is more precious and holy in a street-photog's camera memory card as opposed to in the shots everyone is doing everyday of anything outside, with whatever video recording device ? And why not the same anti-street photo argument against architecture or landscape shots that use people as a marker. What's the real difference ?

I was just explaining my personal point of view. People can agree with it or not, but I have the right to express it, just like you have.


I absolutely agree with you on that, I wouldn't take the shot. Using the expression "stealing your soul" I wasn't actually thinking or real people believing this...I just wanted to say that an image that contains your face/body is not a part of yours. It's just an image, like a picture of a monument is not a monument and so on. In my opinion. Of course.

Why do you believe that a Street photograph is or has to be the result of a split second decision? This is almost never, never the case. A photog has a brain, he can foresee/suppose how things will evolve in hours, minutes and sometimes seconds. It takes patience and powers of observation of course, sincere interest in what you're looking at. It's a kind of study. And if you know that something is going to repeat in a similar way, why not coming back when it will happen again? This is Street, not opportunism. Koudelka, for instance, used to pass his nights in sleeping-bags, coming back to the very same places a lot ot times, year after year. Because he wanted to capture something that happened only at certain point of time and space.

"you guys who shoot this mythical street photography"... ... if you're not really interested in this field of photography you can't appreciate it for what it is.

Just to bring some light into it :

Burj Al Arab is the 7* Hotel in Dubai which looks like a giant Dhow ( celebrating its 10th birthday this year )
Entry fee there for tourist was / is approx. 50 USD to enter the lobby and strolling around there - making pictures there have never been a problem.
Nevertheless it's a high price although you are getting vouchers of the same value for the shops, etc.
I always avoid paying the entry fee by reserving simply a table in one of the restaurants there .... BTW a fantastic experience.

Burj Khalifa is the new 828 m tower which was opened in January this year. It was formerly known as Burj Dubai and then the name changed to Khalifa which is the surname of the current president of the UAE and ruler of Abu Dhabi : Sheik Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahayan.
It is not his tower although he is owning a part of it.
There is a visitor platform on floor 124 - open for the public with an entry fee. From my best knowledge photography is allowed.

As a student, in my Orwell persona, I was having some grub along with all the deros at a soup kitchen run by Catholic nuns. In front of me in the queue waiting bowls in hand was a rumpled old guy. When he got to the nun with the ladle she exclaimed,"Hello there! Haven't seen you here before! What's your name?" The old codger looked down. "Come on!", said the nun. "I don't serve anybody that hasn't got a name! That'd be like serving a dog!" "Doug," said the guy, barely audible. "Well, welcome, Doug! There you go! Enjoy! And may God keep you in his loving care!"

The guy who took the photo of the alcoholic wreck I described earlier could not have given a name to his victim. And therein lies the crux of the matter. If you can't, or couldn't, put names on the people in your photographs, then you have not done it right (once again, I'm talking about the kind of photo whose premise is a private person or persons).

The nun showed respect for Doug, and in that was more charity than in the soup. Turkish Nobel Prize winning author Orhan Pamuk writes in "My Name Is Red": "Isn't lovemaking the best antidote for love?" For sps and pjs I would paraphrase: "Isn't respect the best antidote for worthless photography?"

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

hehe! Yes it's all sorted now! Thanks Thomas.

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

What if you take a picture of a crowd in a public place? Let's be realistic, brose.


So you would call the work of HCB, Riboud, Koudelka, Winogrand, Capa (you mentiond pjs) and all the others, "worthless photography". Because if, for you, respect means to ask for permission and name of each person that happen to be captured by one of your photograph, then they all have been unrespectful to the people they have photographed.
Pretty radical, brose. There would exist no real Street Photography were for you. I see it in another way, those photographers found those people so interesting to turn their attention to them and take a picture. Those people left a trace in a photograph, a trace that now represent the human nature as a whole and not just James, Robert, Johnny and so on. Street Photography has a form interest and respect that takes the subjects as human beings, studying and showing them through photographs. It's not about specific people but human nature.

Definitely!

Fabio, please read me carefully. I have been at pains to clarify the kind of image I am talking about. It is not the image of a street scene in which people are made anonymous by their incidentality, it is the photograph which exists mainly to use a specific person's (or persons') appearance as its main point. I'm sure you can understand the difference, so why set up straw dogs? It's just mischievous of you, an attempt to make me look a fool. Maybe I will sue you for $2M ;))

To your point, I think some of the names you list with such exhaustivity probably did err on occasion against proper respect for their material. However, on balance, I would say that those whose work we value probably got it right most of the time. When I look at H C-B, to take one you mentioned, I can see in the faces of the people who he made the point of images that there existed a relationship between them and the photographer, there is a palpable collusion in the making of the image between the two. This is one reason why many of his images are so affecting - they are infused with the life of a relationship between photographer and subject. I honestly cannot imagine that there was not some signifcant conversation between them before, after or during the making of the image., that H C-B did not know their names.

But H C-B was not workking in the context of today, and what we are in part concerning ourselves with in this thread is the reality of the conditions which affect us today. You say to me be realistic, and that is exactly what I am being, while you want to continue to play the romantic tune of the "artist's" supposedly specially privileged position in society, insulated from the values and functioning of their society. You are the one who needs to do a reality check! Or pay a fat compensatory check in consequence, possibly.

I have been trying to understand what approach might work today for sps and pjs. I have suggested that the simplest thing for them to do is make a respectful relationship with their subjects if those people are the main point of their images, get their permission. I have suggested that society will create a special official role for documenters of society, and so if that is the kind of work you want to do you will have to apply and compete with others for that role, and your output will be vetted by society before it is published. Whatever, I suggested that we no longer, if ever we did, have unfettered "artistic" freedom to use other people we meet in public as we like unilaterally, for our private purposes . Now, if you have something sensible to add, let us hear it!

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

I do interface with people and ask when doing Street Portrait, otherwise I try remain "unnoticed", not sneaky, just there, with the camera on the hand (or hanging from the neck) where everyone can see it and be part of the street flow. A look into the eyes and a smile are enough to communicate most of the time.

You bring up a very sensitive issue, today everyone wants to find a way to "make a buck", so, if they see a chance to make some profit they will go for it... Sometimes I ask their details so I can send a photo to them but mostly they ask if they can make "any money" out of it.
I don´t do commercial, it's just photography (don't even call it Art). ;-)

This brings me a very dangerous feeling, I born in fascist time and "society". Fortunately, we got a change some 36 years ago.
The sense of Liberty and the Freedom of thinking and will, it's still a big part of myself and I will not let "others" decide (with the exception of the 1X screeners.. that is), what I shoot or not shoot in a Public place.
If I do something wrong, then the courts will play their role and I pay the price to Freedom. Now, if Laws are impose to "screen" what One could or could not present, see or read, I'll fight back again.
Treat me like a Terrorist and I will not disappoint you.

Robert, you and St Augustine are together in that idea:

PRAYER OF
SAINT AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO
(340-430 A.D.)
Love And Do What You Will

Therefore once for all this short command is given to you:
"Love and do what you will."
If you keep silent, keep silent with love:
if you speak, speak with love;
if you correct, correct with love;
if you pardon, pardon with love;
let love be rooted in you,
and from the root nothing but good can grow.

Maybe he would today add the line: "if you photograph, photograph with love".

(BTW I am not a Christian, nor Muslim etc)

However, what you describe, like what Augustine describes, is idealistic, not unrealistic, but almost impossible.

I personally would add the following line to Augustine's prayer: "if you make laws, make laws with love"!

That would make some difference to the world, I suspect!

The thing is, you can do what you want without love, and maybe that is the norm, and the problem.

Laws there are, whether with love, or more likely without. Why throw yourself into the jaws of an unloving beast? Better to tame it first, with love.

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

Correct. So ask before taking a shot or if this wasn't possible or had ruined the situation tell that you took a shot after having taken the shot. Of course ask for permission to use the shot for publishing. That's respectful.


Wrong! (also as simple as doubtless)


Also wrong (and somehow I'm convinced you know that :-)

Interesting thoughts, migtex. There has always been tension between the individual and others, from our parents to our governments. How can it be avoided? It is integral to human life, maybe to all life. We are not at the end of that story, and it is balanced very strongly with cooperation. In many parts of the world it would be impossible for conditions of the past to reemerge in their original forms, despite regresses and lapses. The mentality of humans, once changed, is changed forever, analogously to physical evolution, and to time.

And so it is realistic to hope, and the expression of hope is to remain in the struggle, as an agonist and not as an antagonist.

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

Lucky you are. One week ago I went to a building in a city called Essen which was freely to visit for people and it was also free (no fence) to walk around. Only a few seconds after I took my camera out of my bag a security person came and forced me NOT to take any photograph.

Maybe if you were the photographer it would have been the other way round ;-))

But your statement simply to "take a photos of every subject or people which you want" remains wrong, because it does not cover reality.


I say: congratulations!


From my experiences during life I can say that I'm VERY glad that lawyers exist and that persons with this profession stood beside me when I needed them. And if somebody would take a shot of me without asking and would publish the shot in internet without permission I also would be glad to mandate a lawyer to help me to come to my right (mayby I would consider to do it not if you were the photographer ;-). I cannot see any naivity here.

I can, but there are a number of half-way cases. The only logical rule I can understand (which works for law by the way) is that if someone is recognizable in a photo of yours then you have to have his/her explicit consent to publish the image. This is the only rule that makes sense, otherwise distinguishing people that are the "main point" from people that are "incidental" constitutes a difference of rights and it goes against the equality before the law. So you would soon come to an absurd when trying to shoot a single person in a public place with tens of recognizable people in the background.

And I didn't want to make you look like a fool, we are just debating. Don't shift it to the personal sphere.


Have you read/listened some interviews with HCB? Do you know who he was, have you read any books of him? He used to shoot with a 50mm and apart from his portraits of famous people (his late period) he used to go in the street and shooting strangers. Probably smiling at them when they became aware of being shot or having a little talk with them, but for the vast majority of cases he didn't talk with his subjects at all, and he surely didn't ask for permission to publish the photos nor he did ask their name. He used to press the shutter in a form of empathy with the subject, that was his way of participating at the events he happened to witness (he even shot some people clearly recognizable that were crying at a funeral !). He used to travel around the world and he didn't know all the innumerable subjects he photographed.


This wouldn't work as some/most documentary/street work goes against the "society" (who does represent the society?) interest of this times, but it can be of high value for generations to come. As for the rest I substantially second Robert H.

Robert is right. You can take photo of whatever, if you have a camera, you are there, you just have to frame and click. It is as simple.
The law and ethics issues are something else which every photograph deals with personally - and this can apply to all genre (i.e. not only street). And no one can say he does the "right thing" when photographing out there, with regards to all the existing restrictions (ethics-wise/law-wise) raised in this thread and elsewhere. Because otherwise I think there will be much less pictures submitted and published here (just to speak about 1X)

@ Fabio

Re photography and the law, everything is in a state of flux at the moment, the lines will shift before they are set, only to shift again sometime in the future. My opinion is that in law, as I know it, intenion and motive and circumstances and consequence have a weight which balances the bare words of law. To follow your reasoning, cameras of all kinds would be banned, like smoking, from all public spaces, and the tourism industry would be gravely wounded, because taking photographs is what the majority of people do when they travel, and it is impossible not to get people in those photographs. I really can't see that kind of 100% ban ever happening. The other kind of photograph which I have been talking about, I suggest, would be recognised as different by the law because that kind of photograph would not exist but for the person or persons that are its subject, and it is the rights of that person or those persons which are consequently relevant. People captured incidentally to objects of tourist interest or to the work of a photographer with a subject or subjects in a public place, are not adding value to the photograph, in the sense that the photograph does not depend for its existence on them.

There is a corollary, and it is that people must accept that when they enter a public space they waive some of the privacy to which they lay claim in their own private space. An easy example is that when you speak to another person in a public place you cannot demand that no one else but the person you are speaking to listens. You can demand that no one comes eavesdropping at your house. For an individual in a public place to demand that the space they occupy is exclusively theirs while they occupy it and so must not be appropriated by a photographer in a photograph would be untenable. Just as a photographer in a public space cannot demand that everyone get out of the field of view of their camera, so a person in a public space cannot demand that a photographer not include the space they occupy in their photograph. Individuals cannot demand exclusivity of use of the space - visual, auditory, physical, sensory, psychological - they occupy in a public space. When individuals enter a public space they accept that they will share that space and they accept the collateral loss of privacy. So long as they are incidental to a photogrpaher and a photogrpaher is incidental to them everything is kept within the meaning of a public space. Issues of privacy arise when that treaty of incidentality is transgressed.

Re going against society, you seem to be suggesting that the only way to have an impartial view is to be disconnected. However, photographers like any other member of a society has to know that society very well in order to judge it. An outsider cannot judge what they do not understand. Societies are conflictual, cooperative, negotiative all at once. Everyone has vested interests. We easily recognise the vested interests of others, and if they bring negatvconsequences to enough people they will be resisited. This is the normal functioning of society and it is painful. We are not talking about a utopia here, a society policed by disconnected and disinterested observers (photographers). So, l again I call on you to do a reality check.

Re HC-B, I think he would have had no trouble if he were shooting today keeping everyone around him happy.

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

Do you mean, just as you can shoot everybody in range if you have a gun? Do you deal with your right to do that , and the laws and ethics of that, personally?

I said before, that having a camera does not give you the right to use it as you like unilaterally in a public space. The possession of a camera is irrelevant. It is your use of it that is significant. Where your use of a camera is not incidental to other people also using the public space you are affecting their right to privacy.

You seem to want to dream that these issues are not real, that somehow they can be dissolved away in the private conscience of the individual photographer. You are in for future shock!

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

What's the difference between clicking the shutter and, without the camera, gazing (staring) intently at a scene, as I sometimes do before I ever lift my camera to my eye?

Whistler was known to have a photographic memory for the scenes he observed and could return to his studio after an outing and paint with great detail the scene that caught his eye. Should looking and studying be banned?

Any number of artists have the ability to sketch/draw scenes rapidly and with great detail, especially the salient elements. Should drawing be banned?

If I point my super wide-angle lens away from a subject of interest, the subject is still present in the image.

If I set up my view camera, put my head under the focusing cloth and examine the image on the ground glass, there can be no film in the camera while I'm doing this. Should looking at an upside-down image on a piece of ground glass be banned?

Any clever, intelligent and technically competent person--especially photographers but including law enforcement, intelligence agencies and terrorists--could take photos all day long without being noticed.

However, I am very polite when photographing people in public, and generally ask their permission. When I traveled to China for 3 weeks in 1980, I even had a card printed that asked in very polite and elegant caligraphy, "May I take your photograph?"

@brose

as a matter of fact, we live in a multimedial far west. There's no real privacy. What you suggest a street photographer should do is what all other public operators don't do (think of TV for instance, or cinema when they record in public places). It's really utopian and is something that no street photographer does nor can practically do except for some rare cases. Just think at all the Magnum photographers (those alive and active today, like Gilden, McCurry and so on), they all do street/documentary work. Do you really think that after having taken a shot they go asking to the people they have photographed for explicit consent ? No way, they don't.

And then, following your rule, if I shoot with an analogue camera (which I do), how can I know how many people I have to ask for explicit consent when I don't exactly know how many and which of them has been captured in a recognizable way? And after having developed my rolls where in the world can I find those people to ask them for explicit consent?

If it were for you there would be no real street photography. More than 90% of the best street work would have remained unpublished and this would be a great loss for us all and for generations to come. For what privacy? Would that really change the state of privacy of the people that got photographed in the past? And today with all the multimedia stuff recording us 24 hours a day, 7 days a week?


I am very polite too and discrete when taking a picture, I'm not the one that shoots "in your face". Most of my subjects don't even know they have been photographed and asking people "may I take your photograph?" is not for me, because I want them to appear spontaneous. Not only to "appear" but to be, that's why I don't stage shots. But this is a personal choice. I agree with what you said before.

No, no. I meant taking a photograph. Guns can not take photographs.

I have read a lot the word privacy in this thread. So, please allow me to break the bad news: privacy is a mere illusion (unlike confidentiality, which is not relevant here).

There is out there full record of who we all are, where we are at any given time, where and how we spend our money and how much we spend, what we wrote on journals, magazines, internet forums, text messages and emails.

All our telephone conversations are being monitored. And it is extremely easy to find out the phone number and address of virtually anybody.

There is a record of all the websites that we visit. We are all watched by a camera wherever we go. This very forum entry is public domain.

Whatever photograph or video you ever posted on the internet has been stored and there is nothing you can do about

We all carry in our pockets a mobile phone capable of taking a photo while pretending to do something else and to record your conversation without you even knowing about it.

...etc.

So, please, forget privacy.

It is not privacy that people worry about, when they are photographed, but vanity or profit (or both).

Marcello wrote:


touche Marcello!

Dear Sir
Thank you for make it so simple. In the end, it's all about Greed.
Sincere and deep admiration.

@ Fabio, you continue to put your own agenda into my posts. I clearly said that only people whose presence in a photograph is the point of the photograph, the photograph is about them and them alone, and couldn't exist without them, people who are not merely incidental to the purpose of the photograph, only those people need be asked for their permission. Now if you continue to refuse to see the distinction there is no point in discussing this with you. Your clamouring that having to get permission in this situation is the death knell for street and pj is just totally unconvincing. How the law is developing is making your position untenable and unrealistic. Street and pj will have to adapt, obviously, but why do you say that is necessarily a bad thing? Do we really need to be underhand, to act like thieves, to make photographs of value in public places? I've said that increased respect for the subjects of public photography might just make it qualitatively better, if quantitatively less.

"If it were for you there would be no real street photography." What is this???????? I am trying to understand how street photography can realistically navigate a passage through recent restrictive developments and survive, and here you are accusing me of being the enemy. Really, Fabio, you have gone too far. It is quite inappropriate to turn the heat on me as if I were promoting the restrictions we are discussing. I am interested in dealing with their reality, rather than blaming and wishful thinking.

@ Marcello, it matters not a pinch of dust what other people with whatever technology are doing, what recording and surveillance is increasingly operating in public places, how much information is harvested about our activities from the devices we use, the general state of our privacy, none of that! The point we are discussing is very specific, the increasing restrictions on the use by a photographer of a camera to take photographs of people in a public place. This is a real situation and cannot be made to go away by camouflaging it in the general confusion over privacy. It affects us all the moment we go out the door with camera in hand. People here in this thread have given firsthand evidence of it. What are you going to do about it? At the moment you are just saying that's too bad but everything is too bad.

@ King, fine points, but don't forget we are not only discussing the implications of restrictions on *taking* photographs in public places, but also on *publishing* any such photos. Of course there are ways of taking photos that can escape detection, but publishing them cannot. I guess the authors of the restrictions consider it more sensible to close the barn doors before the horse has bolted, than to get into litigation over images already being viewed across the world.

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

I have been photographed on a few occasions. When visiting some strange countries, some strange guys come up sometimes to have their photos taken with the strange-looking foreigner. Never had a problem with that. I doubt anyone would make money with those images. The only thing that bothers me is that somewhere, on an obscure Indian or Chinese or Arab photosite, some dudes spend their time laughing about me. But it is probably just paranoia.

Maybe true, but isn?t it also the greed, vanity or profit that makes the photographer want to take the picture.? And of course you?re also right about the aspect of privacy. But does the fact that Big Brother is behaving badly mean we have to accept or face it?s a gloves off, no rules game for little brother as well? Not sure about that.
I find it a difficult theme in which to find a propper balance.
Documentary, street of everyday pictures are dear and important to me. I don?t make them othen, but I really love to see them. It gives insight in the times we live in and the wonderous ways of the human species. That realy is a great asset and it would be a sad thing it hat were lost. On the other hand I don?t like being, monitored, followed or my picture (close up) taken just beacause I am out on the treet without a paper bag on my head. I don?t like being photographed in a restaurant when I?m having dinner with my girlfriend, just because we are there and are ?models? free of charge. To me that would feel as someone inviding my personal space. And that space is also surrounding me in public places.
Streetpictures / everydaypictures that touch or interest me are images with a story in it, that make me think, smile or sad? I feel uneasy with streetportraits without any story or relevant context, to me that comes close to portrait photography without mutual consent. A close up of a furious waiter wouldn?t be telling any story in my opinion. The same furious waiter making his way to an unsuspecting man at a table opening his lunchbox could make it a nice picture. A close up of a homeless man or woman wouldn?t do, but the same man or woman flat out in front of a liqour store with posh people walking bye could be an interesting image.
So for me good streetphotography has to do with story, and that is what makes it so difficult (and noisy) But these are my personal borders / or rules if you like.
Over here (Netherlands) finding out what prevails the right to take (and publish) pictures unasked for vs the right to ones privacy (portret right) is a delicate and fuzzy balance.
The reasonable interest of the depicted person to resist publication of a picture is weighed against the reasonable interest of the photographer to publish the picture. Taken into the balance is also the importance of freedom of speech an press, and the fact if the person portrayed is a public figure or not. (For artists and politicians it is a professional risk of the job)
The potrayed person can resist publication on grounds of: privacy, commercial interest, damage to ones good name or honour, damage to the persons image, or the fact that the photographer is making money with the image taken. Or the fact that the image is used to promote a product or idea that the portrayed person does not support or want to be associated with?
Photojournalist can put the ?newsworthyness? of the picture in to the balance.
I think a hobby photographer publishing a close up shot would have a hard time defending his right to publish without consent or without asking.
European courts seem to argue along the line ?if your?e close enough to take a close up picture, youre also close enough to communicatie with the portrayed person.?
I really hope this doesn?t end with a ban or heavy restrictions on the right to take pictures in public places or that photographers do have to get written consent of all recognizable persons in the frame. But I also hope that people in public places aren?t seen as just pretty or interesting ?head?s?. There is so much more to be shown in street and everyday?
Best of luck

It's unconvicing for you, not for the rest of sps and pjs. Ask to Magnum photographers, like I said before. Ask to Bruce Gilden for instance. These are all very famous and successful street photographers, look here these videos where they are in action, look for yourself if they ask for explicit consent:

Joel Meyerowitz
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Qjym5uliDw

David Solomons
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFY4kfqXl2Q

Bruce Gilden
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkIWW6vwrvM

By the way, I don't like how Bruce Gilden approaches people. When I talk of "respect" and "politeness", I'm talking of what Joel and David do, and Bruce don't, just to be clear, not to go asking for explicit consent.


Because I know what is like shooting in the streets. It's already a very difficult thing to do by itself these days, imagine if I have to go around asking for explicit consent every shot I take.


As for this, it seems that you like to interpret my words as bad as possible. It's up to you I have no power on that. I didn't accuse you to be "an enemy" and I have no "heat on" you. I'm not that childish, please stick to the topic and don't go in the personal sphere. I'm not here for a verbal brawl, but for a discussion.
I understand your point of view, which is the strict interpretation of the law and the limitations it gives to street photography. Now try to understand if these limitations make sense and if street photographers can really obey to these laws without losing 90% of their photographic work.

Hi Robert thanks for the title.. I'll try to get that one. Sounds interesting...
I think close ups (head) can be very meaningfull indeed - put in the context of a series of pictures - then they become part of a greater story line.. In an an isolated close up sometimes I can read a lot. But without any threads to link it with a context 'headshots' soon leave me rather blank...
thinking "interesting head, but what next..." ;-)
Photo essay's is what I miss on 1x....

Do you know the book Magnum Magnum? (edited by Brigitte Lardinois) I think it is great over 560 pages of great pictures depicting the "human condition"

Bruce Gilden link is here (the other one I posted doesn't work):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRBARi09je8

I repeat, I don't like this kind of shooting which I find unrespectful for people. It was just to show that Magnum photographer Bruce Gilden doesn't ask for explicit consent when taking a shot.

That's one thing, I find his way of flashing into unsuspecting people's face more annoying. If he would do this to me I'd strangle him with his own flash cable.

BTW I should have mentioned it before but soon before this thread was posted I wrote a story on my blog about being photographed (these are just few recent experience of mine with no further reflexion) : http://jophilippe.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/ive-been-photographed/

Well it's difficult to make me angry or annoy me, but if someone took that approach to me it would spell trouble.... I'm big and love my big personal space.....
There are a load of other interesting clips over there though...
Winogrand, HCB et cetera...

Yes, I absolutely agree, I've said it in another thread here: I find the way BG operates close to a form of violence.

By the way, I posted those links (and not HCB, Winogrand or others) because they are about photographers that are still alive and active in the today's law environment.

Who? You mean Brute Gilden? :)

... Too much buzz about BG. He is not the best ambassador for street photography IMO (euphemism)

I suggest that those of you who are angry against street-photo (but not definitely I hope) check out something else, Alexey Titarenko for example. This is street also.

Frankly I don't see what all the fuss is about if I see someone taking my photo I either poke my tongue out or form my hand into a fist release my third digit & place over my nose it really is very cathartic!

Which is enforced with the excuse that otherwise one would breach the privacy of people.


Probably not until a street photographer will sue a passer by for intruding in his/her work of art without asking for permission. :D


Mind you Bruce is a big man, too (as far as I know), and angry and probably used to being confronted. ;)

And talking about him, I find him rude, too, but at least he is not hiding, if you do not like being photographed you can tell him straight away.

Yet I prefer the method of Henry Cartier Bresson: going unnoticed while being in your face.

Incidentally, I saw sometime ago a street photo with a guy who among the crowd of people walking out of the NY subway noticed the photographer and gave him the finger, making the photo priceless. But I cannot remember the author, does anyone know?

:-)) touché

This made my day, thanks Marcello :)))

Oops, It took me too long to edit my post, so I am quoting myself here (very narcissistic, I know) :))

Hi King

Great Shot !!!!!


I know it is "good" he's out in the open, hiding isn't the way to go about it either but respectfull contact should be an option?

BTW I'm 2 metres tall and about 120 kg.... But very peacefull...... ;-) Generally speaking >-|

What irritated me most in the Bruce bit (apart from the way he takes his pictures) is that at the beginning of the clip he claims the street as his 'right of way' and futher dow the clip, when someone complains he bites back "do you think you own the street!''
I think he is a bit of a an egocentric "Sad Sack" if you ask me... even if you don't ask me....

Thank you Robert! Beautiful images and music and another great poem by Jack Hirschmann: he has such a beautiful face and mind! I had the pleasure to take some photos of him and Ferlinghetti at a poetry reading but, overwhelmed by their poetry, I had give my camera some rest.


That makes it difficult for you to go unnoticed, but easy to get respectful contact! :))

It also makes it much more easy to pin my subjects against a wall.... :-)

A couple of month ago I was trying to get a bit of practice with some clumsy streetphotography and wanted to try out my new camera. So I was leaning against a sturdy wall in Utrecht Central Station, with my equally discrete camera (Nikon D90 with Battery Grip) snapping away, cruising in a rather relaxed mode.... within just a couple of minutes security showed up....

Big Guy with Big Camera does not come with Stealth Mode as an optional feature..... :-)))

King now you have blown my cover! that was taken while I was on an enforced diet of guinness whiskey & over proof rum. I'm back to fighting weight now!

So this is proof that ALL street shots are staged, right??

King, you old dog, you beat me to it!!

Robert, you are confessing to being a stereotype! It doesn't bother me one bit that you won't let me come up to your tree house and be your pal. I am not your type? Tant pis pour toi!

Because I try to bring into this thread something more helpful and something more rational than shared sisterly tear shedding about the bad treatment and misunderstanding of sps and pjs you think I am supporting this lawmaking. Well, I don't know if you could see it in my face, Robert (which I won't show you - but probably you would not because I look nothing like a caricature of one), but in fact I am a committed anarchist. Now, you might with some thought realise that you cannot be a *successful* anarchist if you let yourself be a victim. If you don't want to be a victim but a successful anarchist you have to survive. Surviving means appearing to be not an anarchist.

You can make this thread a maudlin pit of self-pity or you can survive and perhaps contribute to the triumph of anarchy over overlegislated society (and continue to shoot in the street). It's clear which of the two I am doing.

Question Robert, who do you think make the more interesting photos, the crying-in-their-beer sisterhood, or the hard-headed rogue silverback?

No, I *do not want* and I *do not support* overlegislation. I *do* want negotiation rights over what a photographer does with me with a camera when I am the main reason for taking the photo, but not when I am in a public space and incidental or connected in a general way to what the photographer is doing. ?e vi mo?i pretehtati vi mo?i razumeti!

(A) RULES

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

Oh here we go...

One has to be on one's toes to outfox the Hillbilly.

I love this!
Imagine all those white collars with 8-5 jobs, a nice house in the suburbs, a nice car, a couple of well behaved children, a cat and a dog, holidays at the Hawaii, you get the picture, right? Well, probably most of them are pure anarchists in disguise and waiting. I love it!
In fact it is such a fantastic idea, that I feel sorry I did not have it!
:)

Sadly, I do not like the rest of your post, (and I did not understand the last bit) but I am sure we can both live with it.

Yep, reference Ralf not being quick enough to close this before I jumped in:

http://1x.com/v2/#discussions/20036/has-1x-become-a-waterdrop-site/

Naturalmente lei capisce che lei descrivere tutte le persone che hanno fatto la storia umana!

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

Beh, forse più quelle che l'hanno subita.

I will translate:


Well, perhaps more those who suffered it.

Honi soit quy mal y pense is all I can say; something on the lines of the categorical imperative. Why is it when it gets intellectual it gets bitchy & when it gets dumb it gets dumber? few of the commentators here shoot street or will ever shoot street but yet you all have an opinion on it. Few of you have been confronted with having your photo taken by a stranger but many of you know how you will react if it happens. Few of you fail to recognise that the mere fact you are predicting how you will react is sad reflection of your slavery . Why not just go a shake the guys hand & congratulate him on catching you out buy him a coffee & talk about the weather instead of protecting your your long lost freedom. As Jean Jacques Rousseu said in the 18th century man is free but every where he is in chains or something like that!

Touche!

Chi sa che devano essere più compatito?

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

For you American couch potatoes out there, I am amusing myself by imagining Homer Simpson reading (or attempting to read) the exchange between brose and Marcello.
Now I'm going to imagine Lisa explaining it to Homer.

Hahahahahahah!

This Italian twist has definitely taken this thread to a wonderful place. Anybody for a little Russian??

Clyde White or Red?

And why is it whenever we are having fun that someone wants to stop us?!

I agree fully, Gerard, that photography can be just the start of something beautiful! (Where are the emoticons?! Typical of 1X to be so emoticonless ;)) They would help us to enjoy ourselves more, I am certain!)

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

I am already going as fast as I can! (There is a teenage male joke which has something similar for a punchline %0)

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

@brose:

stick to English language or change translator :)) no offence

PS. long live Bakunin!

Don't use His name in vain! ;-)

Comrade, lead by example!

brosepix

http://www.brosepix.com

I know that photo. It's an older guy with a beard if I remember right. Perhaps he was even wearing a NY t-shirt. Thought I saw it on flickr, but not sure, so can't link you. the man's gesture did indeed make the photo. Also remember that the photographer later elaborated on the situation, saying that the man later came back to apologize for his gesture :-)

I saw several photos like that (both men and women).
It is not an unusual situation to come up with, at least in the US where middle finger is raised easily.

You are wrong Wilem, I mean you misinterpret what he says. In the context the "right way" simply means he walks the street on the right way to take better photographs. I guess it has to do with the light/shadows from high buildings. When I go out shooting in the financial district downtown Boston (like today, for St Patrick, great day BTW), and if it is sunny there is a right way, and also the right/wrong streets (depending on the moment of the day)

Jacques,

Willem's correct. Right at the start of the video (6-7 second mark) Bruce says "see how I don't let them ahead of me, OK, 'cause I have the right of way here".

I think the part you're referring to is where he says that he generally walks on the west side of the street.

Hi Jaques Philippe


Well that wouldn't be the first time and I certainly hope not the last time... life would become rather boring then, but In this instance I'm pretty sure I got it right

I checked the video once more, like Heath Carney

In the first 10 seconds I hear him say something like "See how I don't let come ahead of me OK?, I have the right of way here!". Pointing with his finger to the stretch of street in front of him...

It not that important ... I didn't get the impression in that fragment that he was linking that to any photo-technical thoughts, but seeing himself as the 'alpha- human in that situation and location.....
Maybe I put more meaning into these two lines, based on the rest of video, than I should... :-)

Bravo. It was worth reading this thread to find these videos - gems. I will look more another day. Thank you Robert Hutinski.

Phyllis

Well, okay. While you are strangling him I will be beating Brucie over the head with my pocketbook, which is very heavy. If this is not enough my husband - after seeing the video) has agreed to join. We have a date for sometime in the future.

This man is obnoxious! He is a 'type' in NYC - and if you are a New York- er you will understand. This type feels entitled to just about everything. They want the biggest piece of cake, & the second piece of pizza before everyone has had a first. They send back everything in a restaurant if it is not exactly as they want it. They complain about everything, and get annoyed if you don't grant all their wishes. Brucie would embarrass his own mother. I watched the video a few times when I noticed something interesting. The only time he takes pictures by pushing the camera directly into someone's face (using flash) is when they are either older folks or women. For the reasonably younger men in the video he keeps his distance. I would imagine he has excellent equipment insurance because it is certain he is lost some of it more than once.

Jacques, the best part was when he shoved the flash in someones face, and got their attention..then he got annoyed that they smiled and demanded that they stop smiling. He may take great photos, I can't say because after seeing him in operation, I am not interested in even looking at his work.

I think common sense should prevail. Of course when you can make human contact, but as Fabio points out that is not always in every situation possible.


This is a first for me. I mean the first time an anarchist has come out in a public forum to talk about the benefits of being an anarchist and how to go about pretending not to be one. Thanks for the tips.

Phyllis

:-)


Again, I am pretty sure he speaks about photographing rather than "territory", but can be a mix of both though... I relate that to an interview of him. To elaborate on that it is maybe also due to a strategy, or the use of flash. If sun is directed in a certain direction, it has effect on the flow of people. Maybe he want to face people walking in the shadow to avoid the light (i.e. light in the back) which makes the use of flash relevant in that case (though I believe BG uses the flash more as an intrusion device rather than a light device). If it is the contrary (walking with light on his back) then it makes him less noticeable from people coming in front. I guess both situation can be relevant depending on what he/you want to come up with. But the way you walk on those streets (especially the narrow one, or narrower avenue) is not neutral with regards to photographing.... Argh.. I promised not to talk too much about BG... ;-)

For those of you who love irony in your street shots..this will at least make you smile. There is a raging war going on here about health care reform. Without too many details - lets just say - there are two main sides - those who want and need health care no matter what - because they have none and those you do not want reform - not matter what..not even if it benefits them in some way. I might add every shade of gray in between.
I share this little video with you, mostly for the very last shot..and the irony..but really the rest is worth watching, and only a couple of minutes long. At the very end, the journalist doing the story claims that even though all this friction is happening that there are reasoned opinions also possible, and he shows a few people. The last person is a woman speaking out against health care, in an extremely calm voice. Look at the sign behind her. :)))) The journalist doing the story had such an opportunity ..or the camera person..but probably did not even notice it. :))
I don't think these people gave their permission to be in the newspaper or on the Internet..and the guy throwing the money at the man with Parkinsons' and mocking him probably will be upset when he sees himself. :)

I would so love to hear what you think of the woman and the sign at the end. :) BTW don't be drinking anything when you watch this or you might need a new keyboard. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmaKRwUoAIU

Phyllis

Good stuff Phyllis. I don't think too much about the lady+sign juxtaposition you mentioned. It's "good" but not thrilling, photography-wise IMO. But the whole document is very very interesting. The way the guy throw bank notes at the man that has Parkinson is incredible (I mean, it is so shocking). If there was a photo to get from that it will be this one. Would be a great documentary pic.

As a non-American citizen (and furthermore living in the US) this is the sort of thing that is very strange to me, and, to be honest, fascinates me (I mean, this debate and the way it is held on the street as it is shown on that vid)

I am an American citizen and its very strange to me also.:) I guess I understand some of it historically, but still it is absolutely shocking how people are behaving around this issue. Some of it quite comical, but then it is not so funny when so many are dying..so I hope something gives and something passes - even something small. It must be quite amazing for you coming from a country which has one of the best health care systems in the world.

The man with Parkinson..well, without animation & sound..it might look like he is just helping him..I mean with only a photograph. I loved the part where they call Obama a Communist. I thought the people here who actually lived with Communism might find the American interpretation of Communism interesting.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts..
:)

Don't agree, but it has to be clicked at the very right moment. Watch again, there is a very fugitive moment full of aggressiveness. Now to capture that "decisive moment" on a photograph would be a combination of luck and talent.

I suppose "Communist" means the economic mentality of introducing an incredibly expensive healthcare system financed by credits and state debts.

I suppose it means even worse than that...

I won't tempt you any further.... ;-)

Phyllis, not sure why you interjected this subject into this thread or any thread on this site???? But since you did:

Your opening statement is a horrible misrepresentation of the current situation that is so typical of the partisanship that has ruined this opportunity for meaningful and smart change. You start by characterizing this debate as a "raging war" about "health care reform". Then you state that there are 2 sides, those that are concerned that they don't have health care and want it no matter what and those that do not want reform. This is simply not a fair or accurate premise to start a discussion with, it is a slanted, partisan conclusion. You have concluded that the "raging war" is between those who have no health care and those who want no reform at all. That is not true or fair AND it is a conclusion not a premise for further discussion. The "debate" is between those who have proposed and/or support a specific road to reform and those that feel the road is the wrong one to take to get to the same goal of reform.

I have not heard one single Member or Senator who opposes the current bills say that they don't want reform. And among those Representatives and Senators who support the current bills there is not one who has no access to health care. Now out in the street you will find every form of radical, belligerent opinion being voiced on both sides of the argument. If you think these are the folks that will decide this issue then you are just naive, and I don't believe that. I think you are just caught up in the spin and hype that spues forth from the American media on an hourly basis.

I am very much one of those independents that you hear so much about. I can agree with some of both sides of this "reform" issue. One of the things I feel the most strongly about is that you cannot "find the truth" anywhere anymore. The media and the internet has done more to disguise the truth than anything else in the history of man. It would be nice if God would send down a truth oracle so we would know what is really right in situations like this...oh, wait he did and we killed him. But that's another subject that probably has no place here...

Whichever way you look at politics it certainly has been good for sps & pjs. Personally, I interpret all sp & pj politically. It would be interesting to compare sp & pj under different political systems (I'm sure it has been done, just that I am ignorant of it). I am thinking eg of China and Mao TseDong and China now, how different they are in Cuba compared with Japan, before and after apartheid in South Africa, and so on.

It is also going to be interesting to see how they develop under the new wave of political correctness (paranoia, justice). That has always been for me part of the positive side of this discussion, that social forces keep the creative pot simmering, throw up new perspectives and new issues. Some here have been bemoaning that sp & pj are being crippled, but don't we all know how when we are pushed we discover new doors that might be opened?

@ Clyde, I can claim to know the truth about myself less and less. I see more and more clearly how I manipulate myself into grasping distance of what I think I want while not knowing what I am. To me it looks like everyone else is doing something similar. If there is one thing that politicians demonstrate to us over and over and over it is that one does not ever escape one's nature, and one is always surprised by one's nature. It seems to me that humans have a quite delusional sense of confidence about knowing things and about being in control of things. We are always being bitten on the arse as a result.

I have always been interested in the intersection of two modes of life, the private and the public. This intersection area is the home of sp & pj, is it not? It seems to me that the challenge we face is to make them one mode. Our private mode makes politics impossible, and our public mode all but destroys our private selves. It seems to me that this is the story of history. It seems to me that the challenge of the future is to dismantle politics by using the construction of better selves. When private and public modes are congruent we will have utopia, hehe... and where will that leave sp & pj? Facing more new doors!

brosepix

http://www.brosepix.com

Isn't that why the massively successful British multi party system works so well. We all no left or right is right or wrong & anything in the middles is standing on the fence. God bless America it needed a revolution to get where they are today!

:-)
By the way funny how the guy is so often mentioned in street-photo discussions. There are lots of way to do street, it is limitless, BG has his own thing going on and that is allright. In this thread I suggested to check out Titarenko who does something completely different - but that doesn't seem to interest too much people (oh yeah... BG is such a better client!). It is funny because I believe many people judge the process (ethic-wise, law-wise) based on the final product (the photo). As a consequence many says BG is an a**hole, based on the photo he does, whereas I guess the same people would say Titarenko is a "good guy" (again, based on his photographs). But after all when he does the photo, he is on the street too, with his camera (+tripod instead of flash) in front of passing strangers. It is not that much different.

Actually I like Gilden's work much, despite his brute way of shooting, especially thoses picture taken to mafia members are great, for instance:

http://todayspictures.slate.com/20070112/images/NYC7349.jpg

(he even took some great shot at a mafia funeral, but I can't find now in internet)

in Titarenko's I miss the human dimension, it's more about environment than other. Yes, you can feel the human mass moving, the pedestrian flow, but no specific story. Humans are represented like ghosts, I mean, one can hardly see any face or body clearly visible in his long exposures. I believe he even used multiple exposures in some shots (which I woudn't call photographs as they are technically photomontages). If I were to categorize his work in 1x, I would choose Mood not Street, because I think his way of shooting loses much of the documentary feel of street photography, that sensation of witnessing a moment.

I can see what you mean about Titarenko, and I somewhat agree with you. Indeed it is more moody than energetic. But I think that many things he does have great human dimension, something about the interaction of people with their surroundings. It is not the "in your face" kind of thing of course but I believe it tells about some aspect of society, but of course it is personal interpretation (like it always is). Also don't forget where he comes from. I have to say I am tired of ghost people on photographs (such an overdone trick) but what he does and how he does it is very special (to me), and I would say powerful.

Clyde, my answer to that question is rather straightforward. This thread started with a discussion from Nicolas Marino, who wanted to share how it felt as a photographer to be photographed himself on the street. The thread then went into many different directions, as threads in a forum often will.

It appears to me that the theme running through the majority of this discussion is Street photography. Earlier that day I had viewed a video of people on the street protesting. I was struck by the image at the end of the video, which shows an ironic moment, which, as I understand it is one of the things Street photographers sometimes try to capture. A woman speaking quite rationally about health care, which helps to keep people alive, has a large sign next to her head reading KILL, and she is not aware of it. The subject of the video Health Care Reform ? was not what I wanted to discuss, and I think that too is very evident by how I presented the topic.

If I were sending this video to you alone, it would need no introduction, as you and I would find it hard to miss this 24hour a day debate in our news media. However, this is not an American website, people come from all parts of the world. Therefore I introduced the video, trying in as few words as possible to explain the context of what was happening here - in this video.

I would hope that this now answers your question.

Now to respond to the rest of your comments.
I don?t think I have misrepresented anything horribly or otherwise. You forgot to include my sentence which follows that says, ? I might add every shade of gray in between.? Meaning that the issue is complex, and beyond those two points of view. I was not attempting to present all these different points of view. Frankly, I think that would be near impossible ? even if this were about health care.

You actually have no idea how I feel about health care because I have not voiced my own opinion. I will now. I would like all people in our country to have affordable health care. I am open to private, public or a combination of both. For me, it is about a basic human right to have access to health care regardless of my income level. I am willing to pay more taxes to have it ? if necessary. The fact that I have it, and others do not seems immoral & unacceptable to me.

You say,
The "debate" is between those who have proposed and/or support a specific road to reform and those that feel the road is the wrong one to take to get to the same goal of reform.

On this I disagree. I don?t think they have the ?same goal? and many are not interested in reform. On EITHER side. The man in the video throwing money at the disabled guy on the ground does not appear to me to be interested in reform. He has another agenda.

As for being naïve ? sometimes I wish I were! This is a wonderful website which shows how our representatives are voting on issues, and then correlates it to the amount of dollars they have received from various interest groups. It matters not what political party they belong to, in almost every instance that I could find, the vote goes to those who gave the most money. In the end, it becomes quite simple. Follow the dollars. Since you are an Independent voter, maybe you will like the website.
http://maplight.org/

;-)
I would have been able to join you, I was going to take my teenage kids on a holiday to New York in the summer. It was a nice idea anyway ;-) but after some research, New York is too bloody expensive so Brucey is safe for a while. . .

I have a theory, based on pure conjecture, that it is his New York-ness that allows him to get away with what he does. People recognise the 'type' you mention and are at least familiar with it. In London, he would get his camera forcibly shoved where the lack of natural light would cause even a D3 problems at ISO6400. . .

Incedentally, I don't think he used the shove the camera in yer face whether you want it or not approach with those Yakusa guys do you?

Jon

Yes...a very astute observation. In NYC it is a matter of tolerance probably because of the wide diversity sometimes you just let it be - or you would be fighting all day long..

I agree on his choice of victims. :) I mentioned that somewhere above - he is careful. You won't find this man in any rough neighborhoods...like say 5th St and Avenue C where the Hells' Angels use to hang out..don't know if they still do. He is a smart man.

Sorry about your trip. I would have thought with the conversion rate you would have done well in the States. Save up. :)
Phyllis

LOl.. this whole area is gentrified almost beyond recognition. Still pockets of the old alphabet city, but very little...

This brings us back around to something mentioned earlier in the thread: most people's first reaction is to want to be nice, so if you are quick about it - before, during and especially in your getaway after - you've got whatever you got. When people have had a chance to get their wits about them, they might find they didn't really want what happened to them.

One effect of the new legal "sensitivity" to photography in public might be to lower the "niceness" threshold of the average "victim", so their first reaction is way less compliant to the "attack" of a photographer.

What will (some) photographers do when they can't get in under the radar, so to speak, by way of people's natural instinct of niceness?

brosepix

http://www.brosepix.com

Two things I would like to say in reaction to this, Clyde. First the politicians themselves don't know what the truth is. A good example is the circumstances which started this recession. After the fact, everybody could see the truth of what happened, but not before. Of course the truth was always there, but you have to be able to see it, or it's as good as not there. The same applies, as I said in my previous response to you, to knowing the truth about ourselves. We have had in recent decades many examples of politicians being overtaken and brought down by their own natures, because they could not see the truth about themselves. We attribute to our leaders the knowledge of the facts, about what they are doing, about what others are doing, about themselves, but this is a delusion. And it is proved to be so by all the crises which keep coming at us. If our leaders truly did know the truth how could we be facing the things we are?

The second thing is related. It's not a matter of the truth not being there, or being hidden, or warped, that is the problem, nor is it modern media and the modern economy of information. The truth is usually staring us in the face, but we can't see it. The truth can be in facts, but it can also be in experience and inference. To take the causes of this recession again as an example, if you looked at what a diverse group of experts were saying before the crisis, about good and bad, responsible and irresponsible, investment behaviour, if you considered the way the investment market has historically reacted to analogous behaviour, if you meditated on what drives human behaviour blindly toward an unseen brink, then you would have seen the truth.

It's not that the truth is not there plain to see, but that we don't see it!

brosepix

http://www.brosepix.com

Looks like the still do :)
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=5th+St+and+Avenue+C&sll=40.725126,-73.988371&sspn=0.001415,0.002411&ie=UTF8&split=1&filter=0&rq=1&ev=p&radius=0.06&hq=5th+St+and+Avenue+C&hnear=&ll=40.72499,-73.988481&spn=0,359.997589&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.724949,-73.988384&panoid=sboN2nAEESFHpZUyBzoNlg&cbp=12,12.68,,0,11.48

Sorry for the long link :)

Perhaps the majority of the negativity expressed in this thread about the issue of the legality of photography in public places has been directed towards government at various levels, or institutions like the mass media, in particular in relation to privacy. However, there is another process operating in this issue, analogous to the hidden economy, and it's creators are ourselves, and it works on the data we ourselves freely give away about ourselves and about the people we know. There is no need for dark conspiracies of information thieves. Have a read of this:

http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/109095/how-privacy-vanishes-online

brosepix

http://www.brosepix.com

Beautiful clarity here, Phyllis! And what you describe will always damn us for being accessories.

As I said before, I always interpret sp & pj politically, so I think it is perfectly relevant to be discussing politics in this thread. And of course, new regulations about photography in public places is a political act in itself, and our response to that will also be political.

A lot of reactions in this thread are directed against the political source of the regulations, but do not always recognise that they themselves are political in nature. They are often expressed in personal terms, eg the new regulations will cramp my style as a photographer.

Some people here readily see how sp & pj are political acts - personally I consider that is there justification. But not always do these same people explore in what way sp & pj are political.

So in my mind, the issue we are discussing is intricately tangled in how we act as political beings. I think this makes us feel very self-conscious as photographers, which is the last thing that we want to feel. This self-consciousness is a symptom of a sense of responsibility, and this sense should rightly be the political sense. But some people want just to be able to do their own thing, to be let alone, because, as they say, they are harming no one. Clyde mentioned naivete, and I think this is naive.

Maybe, then, the biggest problem the new regulations cause us is not to challenge what we do photographically, but how we behave politically.

brosepix

http://www.brosepix.com

Yes, it was starting to change when I left ten years ago..the eateries were becoming more upmarket, and the people on St. Marks were beginning to look normal. :) I watched that happen to Chelsea, and then to Gramercy Park. So, where did the Hells' Angels go? I sure hope Gem Spa is still there, serving up egg creams. :)
Phyllis

Thank you Andrew..You made my day. It is like a trip down good old memory lane..I had not thought to look at the Google Maps. I have not found the Hell's Angels just yet..but I can see all the new buildings Pat spoke of...change - lots of it. :) I will keep searching for Hell's Angles.
Phyllis

If you use the whole link it should point right at their front door. :) It takes a moment to load.

Got it. :)) I think I have the street wrong..looks like it is on 3rd or 4th Street...Still..its good to know there are some things you cannot gentrify. :) Is that a word?
Thanks again Andrew.
Phyllis

I didn't tell you about my experience of "no photography allowed" regulations in Saudi Arabia.

One evening I was driving from the city where I live to an outlying centre about 70km away. On the outskirts of the city I caught sight of a large sculptural structure off the highway, which was lit and which spanned a roundabout intersection. I left the highway and drove towards this structure. When I got to it I saw that about 300m down one of the roads joining the intersection was a high wire fence with a gatehouse and guards. On the roundabout were signs which seemed to be indicating a military hospital in the vicinity. I assumed that was what I could see down the road. I drove under the large overarching sculpture to the side of the roundabout away from the gatehouse, to where it could not be seen, and parked the car. I got out of the car with my camera and walked around trying different angles and framings of the sculpture in the viewfinder. I heard a car drive into the roundabout and stop not far from me. When I looked I saw it was a soldier. He said in a no-nonsense manner, "No!", and "Give!" I packed up the camera in its bag and gave it to him. Pointing to my car the soldier said, "Come." I was under arrest. I went to my car and followed the soldier back around the roundabout and down the road to the gatehouse. I was taken into an office where the officer in charge of the gatehouse was both napping and watching a movie, I think it was "300BC", with Arabic dubbing. I sat in his office while he put on his shoes, and then made several phonecalls. I was given a cold can of soda, and the movie was left running. The officer and I tried to communicate about the situation we both inconveniently found ourselves in. The possible consequences for me were beginning to worry their way into my consciousness, among them the confiscation of all the photographic equipment I had with me, about $10,000 worth.

Through mime mainly, and as the characters in the movie reached a climax in language unrelated to what their lips were doing, I charaded my story. At the end, I turned on my camera which lay on the desk between us as the prime evidence, pressed replay and showed the officer the message "No images". I had formated the CF card when I put it in the camera, and the soldier had interrupted me before I had taken a single shot. The officer was visibly stunned. More phone calls followed, and then I was taken by armed escort to a military vehicle, and driven back to the city. A half hour later we were at a military base. By now it was going on for 1am. The soldiers went to a closed and lightless building and roused an orderly out of his bed. The orderly in turn had to rouse the appropriate senior office out of his bed. I was again given a drink. We all waited for the senior officer to arrive, which he did about 30min later, a man of forty something, tall, slim and handsome, elegantly dressed in Arab costume of thobe and guttra, rather than military uniform. He had a briefing with the soldiers who had brought me, and then I was led into his office. He greeted me in English and very affably joked about how my plans that night had not gone as I expected, and chatted about his desire to improve his English, asking for my advice about a course that would help him, about my job, while the fever of my worries about my fate continued to rise inside me, and then at last he asked me to relate my story about what I was doing taking photographs under that sculpture that night. I did, praising the beauty of the sculpture which had attracted me irresistibly to want to photograph it, pleading that although I had noticed the military gatehouse down the road, I had interpreted the signs as saying it was a hospital, and nothing else but the beautiful sculpture was visible in the pitch black of the night, and that where I had been was on the side away from the gatehouse. I took the camera which lay on the desk between us, switched it on and pressed replay, and showed him the message on the screen "No images". He was gratifyingly shocked.

As the officer called in the soldiers and the orderly and gave them various instructions in calm and grave sentences, I could see that his mind was working on what he was going to do with me. The orderly brought a bundle of papers. The officer then turned to me and began to explain to me how serious my actions that night were, and how taking photographs near military establishments was inexcusable. He put a form down in front of me and asked me to sign that I understood the nature of what I had done. I signed it. He put another form in front of me and asked me to sign a promise that I would not offend in a like manner again. I signed it. He offered me tea, and resumed his previous chatting conversation, interspersing it with his estimate of my character, so that at last I understood that he was going to dismiss the incident. We finished the tea, he stood and shook my hand and joked again about the unfortunate turn my night had taken, and wished me good of what was left of it. I thanked him very sincerely, mightily impressed by his fairness and courtesy, and his impeccable olde-worldish charm and grace.

The escort and I drove back to the gatehouse. It was now approaching 3am. When we arrived we found a group of soldiers and civilians beside a police vehicle in the carpark outside the gatehouse. The officer in charge of the gate who had interviewed me earlier came up to me and through someone in the group who knew some English explained to me apologetically that a 4WD vehicle that had been leaving the carpark driven by the civilians had revered into my car which was also parked there. I went to have a look and found the boot had a large dent. The civilians, two young Saudi men, cousins, wanted to pay me money for repairs on the spot, but because I was still paying off the car it had to be repaired through the insurance company of the finance company, and the insurance company needed a police report. The boys, the police and I had then to drive back to the city to the police station, where all the paperwork associated with the accident and the police report was completed.

I was on my way again back out of the city as the sky began to lighten in the east. As I passed the tall sculpture off from the highway it had a whole different significance to me!

brosepix

http://www.brosepix.com

... my camera and photo equipment snug-as-bugs-in-rugs in their bags behind me! :)))