Street Photography

Bookmarked! Looking forward to perusing. And how the heck did we get that URL? Would have certainly thought that one was gone long ago.
 
NickTrop said:
Luuuukeeeey! Wow. Use that URL to sell stuff in addition to (sure to be great) content! Swag, cameras, used gear. Don't be British (reserved) about this, be US capitalist crass! (In addition to great content :)
Click to expand...
Dear Nick,

With your permission I'll copy that and pass it on to Johnny (the owner of the site). Or write to him and suggest it yourself!

Incidentally, there are now two more of my pieces up: I know it when I see it and a little bit about Arles.

Cheers,

R.
 
How is it even possible to use this site?

Their terms and conditions for uploaded content state "[you must not upload or download anything which] contains images of individuals who have not given their permission to feature in any image".

http://streetphotography.com/terms-and-conditions/

I suspect that I just violated their T&C just by looking at their own front page...
 
So the question is: did Roger, Sergio, Michael, Jill Freeman, etc. get model releases from the individuals of whom they posted images in their articles? Does "permission" for the purposes of the Terms and Conditions include "legally entitled" or "tacit permission" by appearing in public?

The T&C also provides:

"By breaching provisions 7.4.4, 7.4.5 and 7.4.6, you may be committing a criminal offence under the Computer Misuse Act 1990."

Fortunately, there are no provisions 7.4.4, 7.4.5, or 7.4.6, so you are safe there.
 
I certainly enjoy reading your writing far more than I do Ansel Adams. For a guy with such a fun, party-hearty, reputation his writing is pretty stiff.

I really enjoy viewing street photographs and I am sincerely in awe of those who seem to be so much at ease with the genre. Though I continue to try, and I will be trying out some of your own suggestions, my efforts have not produced anything of interest yet. I don't think that street photography is really my cup of tea but I don't think it hurts to try to move outside your comfort zone once in awhile.
 
Thanks for these. There are some useful suggestions here. May I offer a suggestion for another article? It's something a couple of the linked articles hit but only tangentially -- and that's becoming personally comfortable with taking pictures of strangers in public. Many people aren't including, often, me; and that timidity means missed opportunities and pictures that mean less than they could even when one works up the nerve to take them. And some of that actually can be mitigated with good advice. E.g. the fear of being asked by a person why you took their picture can be a deterrent to actually taking it but that fear largely goes away if you head out in the world armed with an answer to that question -- when you know you can say "it's an assignment for a photo class -- I'm supposed to take pictures of people going about their daily business" or "I'm just a tourist" or "I'm working on a project documenting life in this neighborhood" it becomes a lot easier to just go out and take pictures in comfort. There are quite a few other things like that, some of which I know and some I probably don't that help get over that discomfort and that discomfort stands in the way of progress for an awful lot of people. I suspect you have sensible things to say here.
 
I disagree with the premise that by appearing in public you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. I do not believe that logically it follows that the obvious consent to be seen by others when in public necessarily extends to consent to be photographed. I am sure to be in the minority in that view. I will say that much of what passes for street photography is candid photography, whereas in the images of a significant number of past greats, the subject is engaged with the photographer and looking into the lens, giving implicit permission to take the photograph.
 
Me looking at your camera does not mean I give you permission to take my photo. I'm just looking at your lens. Not sure how my gaze implies I have no expectation of privacy.
 
ptpdprinter said:
I disagree with the premise that by appearing in public you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. I do not believe that logically it follows that the obvious consent to be seen by others when in public necessarily extends to consent to be photographed. I am sure to be in the minority in that view. I will say that much of what passes for street photography is candid photography, whereas in the images of a significant number of past greats, the subject is engaged with the photographer and looking into the lens, giving implicit permission to take the photograph.
Click to expand...
And with a significant number of others, they weren't aware or giving implicit permission. In fact, on the basis of having seen very large numbers of street photographs, I'd argue that the ones who weren't aware were almost certainly in the majority.

Cheers,

R.
 
From experience, very few people looking directly into my lens when on the street are giving implicit permission to have their photograph taken. It usually happens because I have been too slow or too intrusive while shooting.

I think that too much modern street photography is about the photographer trying to get away with as much as possible, much to the distress of the subject. Street photography should be about discovering emotion, not creating it in an unwilling victim...
 
:: Mark said:
From experience, very few people looking directly into my lens when on the street are giving implicit permission to have their photograph taken. It usually happens because I have been too slow or too intrusive while shooting.

I think that too much modern street photography is about the photographer trying to get away with as much as possible, much to the distress of the subject. Street photography should be about discovering emotion, not creating it in an unwilling victim...
Click to expand...
Dear Mark,

Elegantly phrased, and very true.

Cheers,

R.
 
ptpdprinter said:
I disagree with the premise that by appearing in public you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. I do not believe that logically it follows that the obvious consent to be seen by others when in public necessarily extends to consent to be photographed. I am sure to be in the minority in that view. I will say that much of what passes for street photography is candid photography, whereas in the images of a significant number of past greats, the subject is engaged with the photographer and looking into the lens, giving implicit permission to take the photograph.
Click to expand...

"Reasonable expectation of privacy" is a legal term and your opinion about what it means is less interesting than the opinions of those in whom the judicial power of whatever jurisdiction you are in is vested. Throughout the United States, those people disagree with you so you will always lose there.

Moving away from the is and talking about the ought, your preferred rule means every time someone goes out in public they privatize the space they pass through. A scene that was once public that any member of the public could walk through or photograph at will becomes quasi-private: something that people need your permission to access in certain ways. That point of view seems irritatingly arrogant to me. And I don't like it apart from any chafing I may feel at the limits it would impose on me, I don't like it because many photographs that are quite clearly candid have meant a lot to me and I wouldn't want them to not exist. I have also loved photos in which the subject is engaged with the camera. I have also hated photos in which the subject is engaged with the camera precisely because it's so clear that the subject doesn't want to be engaged and that the photographer had clearly intruded upon and actively disturbed the subject and I see nothing in the photo beyond that simple reaction to provocation. And then there are photos I like where the subject is engaged with the camera and maybe the subject isn't entirely at ease with that but I still like them because they say something more to me. I'll give an example. A photo of mine:

med_U49953I1489117668.SEQ.1.jpg


The boy had been playing, he saw that he was observed and that made him a bit shy. I, at least, see that shyness in the picture but I like it because it reminds me of me when I was his age -- the vivid play life that was suspended when someone else is around at least until I determined whether the interloper would ridicule me or join with me. I don't know whether that's something anyone in the world but me sees in the photo but it's there for me so I'm glad I have the photo to remind myself of it and of the importance of giving the literal or metaphorical wink to people I catch off guard to let them know I'm on their side. Which is how this interaction ended. So I'm glad that I can take such photos and dislike rules that would stop me.

And I also like photos where there's no interaction at all between subject and photographer and where such interaction might have made the photo disappear. Another example:

med_U49953I1489117669.SEQ.3.jpg


It isn't, as I note above, just that I want to be able to take such pictures, I want to see such pictures taken by other people and I want other people to see them too because I think they have something to say about our lives together that will make those lines a little bit better.
 
JHutchins said:
"Reasonable expectation of privacy" is a legal term and your opinion about what it means is less interesting than the opinions of those in whom the judicial power of whatever jurisdiction you are in is vested. Throughout the United States, those people disagree with you so you will always lose there.
Click to expand...
My argument was not legal in nature. I recognize that in some, perhaps most, jurisdictions I would lose, though there are some in which I would win. It is an example of where law and ethics do not always coincide.

Moving away from the is and talking about the ought, your preferred rule means every time someone goes out in public they privatize the space they pass through.
Click to expand...
In a sense I do privatize the space as I pass through as I also expect people not to push me aside so that they may occupy the space I am occupying. It is a form of courtesy we mutually extend to one another. Why should not such courtesy extend to not photographing me without my consent?

A scene that was once public that any member of the public could walk through or photograph at will becomes quasi-private: something that people need your permission to access in certain ways. That point of view seems irritatingly arrogant to me.
Click to expand...
So it is not arrogant that you think your desire to take my photograph trumps my desire that I not be photographed?


And I don't like it apart from any chafing I may feel at the limits it would impose on me, I don't like it because many photographs that are quite clearly candid have meant a lot to me and I wouldn't want them to not exist.
Click to expand...
So it is not arrogant that you think your desire to see photographs of other people because they mean a lot to you trumps their desire not to be photographed?


I have also loved photos in which the subject is engaged with the camera. I have also hated photos in which the subject is engaged with the camera precisely because it's so clear that the subject doesn't want to be engaged and that the photographer had clearly intruded upon and actively disturbed the subject and I see nothing in the photo beyond that simple reaction to provocation.
Click to expand...
In other words, because such person is being arrogant in his reaction to being "intruded upon and actively disturbed"? It is a shame that the persons desire not to be photographed ruined the image for you.

And then there are photos I like where the subject is engaged with the camera and maybe the subject isn't entirely at ease with that but I still like them because they say something more to me. I'll give an example. A photo of mine:

med_U49953I1489117668.SEQ.1.jpg


The boy had been playing, he saw that he was observed and that made him a bit shy. I, at least, see that shyness in the picture but I like it because it reminds me of me when I was his age -- the vivid play life that was suspended when someone else is around at least until I determined whether the interloper would ridicule me or join with me. I don't know whether that's something anyone in the world but me sees in the photo but it's there for me so I'm glad I have the photo to remind myself of it and of the importance of giving the literal or metaphorical wink to people I catch off guard to let them know I'm on their side. Which is how this interaction ended. So I'm glad that I can take such photos and dislike rules that would stop me.
Click to expand...
Yes, who cares what the mother or boy thinks as long as it it says something to you, stirs up a fond memory of your youth, and make you glad.

And I also like photos where there's no interaction at all between subject and photographer and where such interaction might have made the photo disappear. Another example:

med_U49953I1489117669.SEQ.3.jpg


It isn't, as I note above, just that I want to be able to take such pictures, I want to see such pictures taken by other people and I want other people to see them too because I think they have something to say about our lives together that will make those lines a little bit better.
Click to expand...
And if the persons in the photographs didn't want to have their photographs taken is beside the point? How is that making their lives a little better?
 
Of course we should NEVER interact with one another. EVERYONE is entitled to ABSOLUTE privacy at all times.

Sorry, no. Interaction is an essential part of being human. If you can't handle interaction, with give and take, stay at home and do everything over the internet.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top