Think I've used most of these ruses at some point or other. Using a stooge is a good one. Another I occasionally use with my point and shoot is to openly shoot your subject, but look at the camera and mutter bad temperedly to yourself while doing so as if your camera's not working properly and you're just testing it out.
Living somewhere quite small makes me think twice about most street photography. It seems to me the reason people are comfortable with doing it is that they are taking pictures of strangers, isn't it? Rather than a neighbour you chat to regularly? The few times I've put faces up, I've been brought up short by the comments. How comfortable would we be if it was someone we knew in the pictures we're putting up?
I was also brought up even harder yesterday when I was legitimately filming a couple of clips to be a part of a slide show / film clips running during an event in December, openly taking pictures in church, something I've been asked to do. When I wandered over to the Brownie leaders who were there for Harvest to check permissions, those groups have lists of girls who are not to have their faces published anywhere, not film, not photographs, which I need to double check, then check against the videos - or I can just scrap the videos.
Sometimes families will have real reasons not to publish faces - if that child is at risk of abduction, publishing a picture that places them somewhere where they can be looked for is actually risky for the child.
There may be reasons to be careful of candid street photography
Street photography draws me right now. I have a strong desire to do it. I like this guide as a gentle way to begin, as I am not an intrusive person.
But, as so many other guides, this fails to address the ethics. Brusquely brushing aside the issue as some guides have seems a bit ridiculous to me.
There are legitimate reasons why some may not wish to have their photos taken.
Stalkers, witness relocation, child abduction, etc.
And the homeless. The only street photography I have done so far has been the homeless, as I feel their plight is important to not forget. And yet, taking their photos can be the equivalent of someone entering your home uninvited during a private moment and snapping your pic.
Brush it aside if you wish, and some will, but the quandary and complications are real.
Thanks for comments guys. There have been, unsurprisingly, several discussions as far as I can remember on the ethical side. The one I remember was this http://365project.org/discuss/general/4782/ethics-of-putting-up-photos-of-people-we-capture-in-the-street where I summarised my take on this. I've moved on since then and the people in some of my photos are not always just incidental characters. However I stand by the rest of it - as long as there is no particular way of identifying someone I feel the risk of putting someone in danger is very low - and yes it's definitely different in a big city than in a small village or even town. I post pics of children rarely and would be wary of photographing someone who was obviously vulnerable.
I wondered about posting there, but then decided that as this is a more recent discussion I'll stay here. For what it is worth ... some thoughts:-
I'm one of the ones who is perfectly happy for others to take pictures of me. That's possibly in part because I'm involved with busking and street performances (see my profile pic), but I'm happy at any time. I can't think of any circumstances when I wouldn't mind as I can't see that it harms me or is offensive in any way. Plenty of circumstances when no-one would want to though!
Photos of children - I can't see the problem, so long at it is being done openly, not furtively. A photo of a child behaving normally, doing wonderful, engrossed, childish things, isn't obscene or offensive. A paedophile is no more likely to see it than to see children in any other context. Does it harm the child or make them more vulnerable? I can't see how. But I would respect their wishes, or their parents, of course.
Some cultures are more superstitious and people feel that you are taking a little of their soul when taking a photo; perhaps some of those who object to their photos being taken are feeling a little of this? Not a criticism of their feelings, just a possible explanation. I'm with Isla that any pics I take and post are highly unlikely to put someone in danger. 30 or 40 people might look at my photo on line, but hundreds of people probably saw that person on that day alone.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I was also brought up even harder yesterday when I was legitimately filming a couple of clips to be a part of a slide show / film clips running during an event in December, openly taking pictures in church, something I've been asked to do. When I wandered over to the Brownie leaders who were there for Harvest to check permissions, those groups have lists of girls who are not to have their faces published anywhere, not film, not photographs, which I need to double check, then check against the videos - or I can just scrap the videos.
Sometimes families will have real reasons not to publish faces - if that child is at risk of abduction, publishing a picture that places them somewhere where they can be looked for is actually risky for the child.
There may be reasons to be careful of candid street photography
But, as so many other guides, this fails to address the ethics. Brusquely brushing aside the issue as some guides have seems a bit ridiculous to me.
There are legitimate reasons why some may not wish to have their photos taken.
Stalkers, witness relocation, child abduction, etc.
And the homeless. The only street photography I have done so far has been the homeless, as I feel their plight is important to not forget. And yet, taking their photos can be the equivalent of someone entering your home uninvited during a private moment and snapping your pic.
Brush it aside if you wish, and some will, but the quandary and complications are real.
I'm one of the ones who is perfectly happy for others to take pictures of me. That's possibly in part because I'm involved with busking and street performances (see my profile pic), but I'm happy at any time. I can't think of any circumstances when I wouldn't mind as I can't see that it harms me or is offensive in any way. Plenty of circumstances when no-one would want to though!
Photos of children - I can't see the problem, so long at it is being done openly, not furtively. A photo of a child behaving normally, doing wonderful, engrossed, childish things, isn't obscene or offensive. A paedophile is no more likely to see it than to see children in any other context. Does it harm the child or make them more vulnerable? I can't see how. But I would respect their wishes, or their parents, of course.
Some cultures are more superstitious and people feel that you are taking a little of their soul when taking a photo; perhaps some of those who object to their photos being taken are feeling a little of this? Not a criticism of their feelings, just a possible explanation. I'm with Isla that any pics I take and post are highly unlikely to put someone in danger. 30 or 40 people might look at my photo on line, but hundreds of people probably saw that person on that day alone.