Street photographer or voyeur?

The 'street' is about life in all its facets (facts). If I am there and take that moment then great. I would remind people (and often have to) that in the UK we are photographed on every street corner, road, shopping arcade etc....


IncongruityPS.jpg



AlterEgo.jpg


WhenTheLoveHasGone.jpg

​
 
Doug said:
Well said! There are nutjobs and predators enough on the street to make it wise to have at hand a means of defense, though often simply being aware of one's surroundings - as photographers tend to be - is preventative.

I make a point of not being sneaky, making friendly contact, maybe asking the "victim" to just keep on doing what they were doing... That my interest is on what they were doing, not making a portrait. If asked, I'll explain truthfully that I'm doing a project of regular people doing whatever they're doing. Some interesting conversations... :D
Click to expand...

There are? I'm glad I don't live where you do.

I'm not 'sneaky' but equally I don't go around asking people if I can take their pictures. I've had perhaps two unpleasant confrontations (people verbally attacking me, in both cases before I'd even said a word) in the last 30 years or so. Most of the time, if they make any fuss at all, it's a polite question, politely resolved.

Given that I've taken literally thousands of pictures on several continents, the fact that I've only encountered two episodes like that suggest to me that the people who objected are the sort who will object, vociferously, to ANYTHING.

Cheers,

R.
 
Street photography is like sales and customer service, some people can do it, others cannot.

You sell people the idea that you're not taking anything from them and you use customer service skills to reassure them in case they object or get annoyed.
 
Last edited:
As a matter of fact, many of my subjects on the street seem as confident about themselves as I wish I was.

Granted, humour is an important aspect of street. Good, smart humour can poke fun at a situation or a person without ridicule or disrespect. Ridicule, in fact, is a rather cheap form of comedy.

When you look at the humourous images by Weegee, Erwitt, or Winogrand, is yor first reaction to feel ashamed for the subject? Do you feel the subject has been disrespected or ridiculed? I don't. I smile.

By the way, portraits are not always flattering to the subject either. See Avedon. Hell, most of his subjects payed a lot of money for the sitting. And they got their money's worth.

So, there is no right or wrong inherent in all street photography. As with many other things, there is only good and bad street photography.

- N.
 
jky said:
A smile & a nod goes a long way. Occasionally, if I'm getting a bad vibe, then I'll put the camera down, but for the most part I'll take the photo.
Click to expand...

Yep, I smile and nod. I've never had a bad reaction. I've been scowled at only a couple of times. Smile and a nod goes a long long way, seems less sneaky if you acknowledge your taking a shot.
 
sig said:
Roger, just my personal view.... I would not take a picture of a person drooling on the street because of a heart attack, because if that happened to me, my mother or in general everybody I would not like it to be photographed. You on the other hand feel differently, all the power to you.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between embarrassing and degrading. I have few problems with the former, serious problems with the latter.

I don't worry too much about these issues when shooting. Here are the questions that I ask when editing:

• Am I taking unfair advantage of someone's social or financial position?
• Does the photograph say something interesting?
• Am I being true to my subject?
• Am I being true to my conscience?

As a moderator in a couple of fora, I see a lot of really unhelpful (cliched, non-empathetic, uninformative, and generally badly done) pictures of people on the street in various states of distress. Making photos like this that are worth something is difficult work. Most attempts fail, and are jettisoned.

Here's one of the best street portraits that I have seen in a long while: http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulpepera/5353611184/

It meets all the above criteria, and then some. I only wish that I'd taken it. :)
 
Last edited:
ndnik said:
When you look at the humourous images by Weegee, Erwitt, or Winogrand, is yor first reaction to feel ashamed for the subject? Do you feel the subject has been disrespected or ridiculed? I don't. I smile.
Click to expand...

Weegee was definitely over the line at times. Bruce Gilden pushes the envelope pretty hard, too. Both have produced important work that works in part due to the viewer's discomfort. Yet both of them at some level love their subjects, and are being true to themselves and their visions. There's no question with either one: they are fully committed, immersed in their situations.

This stuff isn't always easy to think about, is it?
 
ndnik said:
AGood, smart humour can poke fun at a situation or a person without ridicule or disrespect. Ridicule, in fact, is a rather cheap form of comedy.
Click to expand...

Even ridicule has its place. Mussolini deserved all the ridicule heaped upon him, and more. As do many on Wall Street today. But the average person who's down on his luck, or just having a hard day, doesn't.
 
Too much thinking and the moment is gone. See, compose, shoot. Move on.
Street photography is about life. And sometimes life is brutal. Being able to raise a camera in these moments is important.
Because without street photographers, these moments are lost in time.




35 1.4 Summilux on Leica MP on 160 ASA
 
Last edited:
Nah, that's backwards, when people bring their s**t out into street, they're putting it where everyone can see & record it.

kbg32 said:
When you are out on the street photographing, especially people, you are getting into their s**t. No way around it.
Click to expand...
 
Sometimes it takes far more skill, experience and sensitivity to know when not to take a shot then actually taking the shot.
 
Last edited:
GSNfan said:
Sometimes it takes far more skill, experience and sensitivity to know when not to take a shot then actually taking the shot.
Click to expand...

Experience and sensitivity yes, but skill? Is there skill in not photographing?

A skill is the learned capacity to carry out pre-determined results often with the minimum outlay of time, energy, or both.

Hmmm, perhaps you are right.
 
Jamie Pillers said:
How do you react when someone on the street catches you taking their picture? Do you lower the camera and move on, or take it anyway?
Click to expand...
If the moment is ruined, I don't make the photograph. Unless someone insists. I usually smile and nod to people who notice me.

And how do you react when you see the final image? Excited? Proud
Click to expand...
If it turns out very good, why not?
 
...funny thing about street photography... ask a few people its definition or methodology and you'll get several different answers.
 
voyeur (vwaɪˈɜː, French vwajœr) — n a person who obtains sexual pleasure or excitement from the observation of someone undressing, having intercourse, etc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top