Portrait Etiquette

D

Just a quick enquiry into the minds and attitudes of photographers, both amateur and professional.

If you want to take a picture of someone, do you ask their permission first?

I am not a photographer, but I would never take someone's photo without asking them first. Maybe if I knew the person well I would take their photo but if they were uncomfortable or asked me to delete it I would without question.

I had a conversation this evening with a lady who works in photography and she said that she knows a lot of photographers that would not hesitate to take someone's photo even without ever asking their permission.

Don't get me wrong I think that if it was a crowd scene, or if the person in the photo could not be identified, basically that if the person is not that subject of the scene then it would be OK. Otherwise (In my opinion) would it not be at least polite to ask?

Fajitas!

Yes and no, it completely depends on the photograph I want. Sometimes I have to ask the person to get what I want, if not, I'll snap away.

There's nothing legally wrong as long as it's all in a public place, etc.

Borderfox

Some of my work involves taking pictures of people (discreetly) and other work involves asking people so it depends on who is paying.

KarmaGarda

It depends on the type of photo I want. Although, as of yet I haven't needed that photo that required the person to do a certain thing or look at a certain thing etc. Futher to that point, if I took a photo of a person and they asked me to delete it I probably would.

It is quite a funny one this. I'm one of those that doesn't see why we should ask permission to take someones photo on a street. It's just a photograph. As long as you're not portraying them a negative manner then it's no biggie. Seems to be some stigma attached to it these days that I can't quite put my finger on.

melekalikimaka

again it all depends on what i want

sheesh

most photographers would be of the opinion that if you see a good photograph you should take it before its gone you can ask for permission afterwards.

Paulw

Shoot first, ask questions later ... where did I hear that before?? :eek:

It really depends on the shot.

Also, it wouldn't be for portraits, but more street photography.

KarmaGarda

Exactly. Although the dos and don'ts vary dramatically from photographer to photographer. A good example of how I personally wouldn't do it is the Bruce Gilden method: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkIWW6vwrvM

DaireQuinlan

KarmaGarda wrote: »

Exactly. Although the dos and don'ts vary dramatically from photographer to photographer. A good example of how I personally wouldn't do it is the Bruce Gilden method: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkIWW6vwrvM

Ah Bruce Gilden He -does- get some absolutely stunning shots though, you have to admit that. End justifies the means and what not.

"I'm known for taking pictures very close, and the older I get, the closer I get."

sheesh

Paulw wrote: »

Shoot first, ask questions later ... where did I hear that before?? :eek:

It really depends on the shot.

Also, it wouldn't be for portraits, but more street photography.

True of course but the op seemed to be leaning that way. the word 'portrait' seems to be more formal somehow than the spontaneous photography referred to in the post.

GavinZac

It depends every time for me. If there's no faces then there's no problem. If they see me with the camera i'll usually give them a nod or smile and see their response. If it was someone minding their own business and unaware of me, and they would be identifiable in shot, I would ask. However, I've never felt confident enough to ask

D

When I use the work portrait I mean a picture of a person, not a picture of an object or a landscape. I may as well give you the entire story.

Last night I was out dancing (swing) all of a sudden I catch a flash to the face and then realise that there is some random girl standing at the edge of the dance floor snapping at me repeatedly.

It was really off-putting. I paid into the dance club I am there to dance not be photographed. I probably wouldn't have minded if she had come up and asked if it was ok first and if she hadn't been blinding me with the flash. But she hadn't she just walked up and started taking photos. I tried to move away, to the other side of the floor with my follow (the lady I was dancing with) but she followed me down.

So I left the floor, I didn't feel comfortable and a part of me wanted to smash the camera over her head. So I spent some time at the side waiting for her to leave, in fact several other leads (generally men) and follows were talking about how annoyed they were with the photographer as well and we were not dancing till she left.

She was there for ages snapping away and the dance floor slowly emptied. Eventually I saw there was probably no point in me staying as it looked like she was there for the night. So I walked up to the lady who was the organiser for the night and asked her what the story was. She said that it was a student doing a project. Fair enough I suppose but it was completely off-putting, it wouldn't have taken her more than 5 seconds to ask for permission.

Paulw

D wrote: »

So I walked up to the lady who was the organiser for the night and asked her what the story was. She said that it was a student doing a project.

I'd bet the organisers gave her permission to photograph, so the organisers should have informed you or requested your permission.

Photography indoors would require permission, since it's on private property.

I'd have more of an issue with the organisers rather than the photographer.

Fajitas!

Paulw wrote: »

I'd bet the organisers gave her permission to photograph, so the organisers should have informed you or requested your permission.

Photography indoors would require permission, since it's on private property.

I'd have more of an issue with the organisers rather than the photographer.

Well, not really. If the photographer was hired by the organisers/manager/owners, then they've been granted the permission to photograph on private property. The OP was a guest on the property, and by entering, allowed herself to be photographed, non?

Paulw

Fajitas! wrote: »

Well, not really. If the photographer was hired by the organisers/manager/owners, then they've been granted the permission to photograph on private property. The OP was a guest on the property, and by entering, allowed herself/himself to be photographed, non?

Exactly ... is that not what I said?? It's what I meant.

Fajitas!

Well, as in the OP can't really have a problem, as by entering, they've put themselves forward to be photographed - If you don't want to be photographed, stay at home and close the blinds

Similar thing, just emphising another point. Ish.

humberklog

Fajitas! wrote: »

Well, as in the OP can't really have a problem, as by entering, they've put themselves forward to be photographed - If you don't want to be photographed, stay at home and close the blinds

Hmmmm...well there is another option Fajitas! (and has been mentioned) and that is say "hey, get the camera out of my face". Now you'd want to be one pushy 'tog not to heed the request. Especially given the setting.
But to get into a huff without addressing the photographer and having the experience take away from your night is probably raising more questions that could be better answered with a little self reflection.

pixbyjohn

Fajitas! wrote: »

Well, as in the OP can't really have a problem, as by entering, they've put themselves forward to be photographed - If you don't want to be photographed, stay at home and close the blinds

Similar thing, just emphising another point. Ish.

But if the OP didn't know photographs would be taken in the venue surely it is up to the management to at least inform the punters as they enter the place. Photographers are not "normally" in a dance hall snapping away.

Anouilh

There are over 6 billion people on the Planet.
Fussing unduly is probably not necessary.

And when I read about Twitcam,
http://twitcam.com/
which allows you to upload live from your computer to Twitter it's probably time to realise that having a nice cup of tea and relaxing may be the best way forward.

Fajitas!

pixbyjohn wrote: »

But if the OP didn't know photographs would be taken in the venue surely it is up to the management to at least inform the punters as they enter the place. Photographers are not "normally" in a dance hall snapping away.

They don't *have* to - much as when you buy your ticket for a Bus Eireann bus
or Dublin Bus, you're subjected to their bye laws - Not all buses have stated that you're going to be videoed, but there's going to be video cameras there.

Similarly enough, the nightclub probably had a CCTV system, but it does not have to announce it has one to every guest. If you're entering, you're entering on their terms.

Photographers are not "normally" in a dance hall snapping away.

I'd have to say, yes they are! Every single group that goes out has someone taking snaps of them these days. I don't know if they're going out to have fun, or going out to look good on Facebook. But that's a different argument.

Hmmmm...well there is another option Fajitas! (and has been mentioned) and that is say "hey, get the camera out of my face". Now you'd want to be one pushy 'tog not to heed the request. Especially given the setting.
But to get into a huff without addressing the photographer and having the experience take away from your night is probably raising more questions that could be better answered with a little self reflection.

True indeed, 'Klog.

Anouilh

This old chestnut is going to be impossible to resolve.

Some people enjoy being photographed;
others hate it.

I was glad to give up working in a building which
had wall to wall security cameras. I was forever wondering if my hair was flat and my glasses on straight...

Fajitas!

Anouilh wrote: »

I was glad to give up working in a building which
had wall to wall security cameras. I was forever wondering if my hair was flat and my glasses on straight...

My secondary school had CCTV in the class rooms. It had a rather slow frame rate. We had our fun.

DaireQuinlan

Anouilh wrote: »

This old chestnut is going to be impossible to resolve.

Some people enjoy being photographed;
others hate it.

I was glad to give up working in a building which
had wall to wall security cameras. I was forever wondering if my hair was flat and my glasses on straight...

Anouilh's posts are more and more beginning to resemble haikus

wall to wall cameras
is my hair flat, my glasses straight
oh this old chestnut ...



-edit- jeez, and now fajitas as well. What is WITH you guys today ??

cameras in the school
in the classroom slowly strobes
oh we had our fun

D

Thanks for the responses guys.

So basically from a photographers point of view, as soon as you leave your house or other private residence you become "fair game". Most of you seem to think that it is ok to take someone's picture without asking first, but at the same time if the person you photographed approached you and asked for the picture to be deleted and to not photograph them again you would comply.

Is there anyone here who would not delete the picture if asked to? What would your reasons be?

Fajitas!

If I liked the image, or thought it was important, I wouldn't delete it.

Why? It's my image - I own it, and I feel it's worth something - Not nessicarily in monetary terms, but whether it be artistically, politically or sentimentally, I want to keep the image.

I think this thread is looking at the whole 'photographing the public without asking permission' topic in a far too negative light. The point of a photograph, or any record can go much further than it just being a 'snap' of someone. I mean, if, throughout the years, photographers asked permission for every photograph, and deleted/binned when asked too, imagine how many photographs the world would never have seen!

Fajitas!

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

-edit- jeez, and now fajitas as well. What is WITH you guys today ??

Anouilh's having an influence on me.
I've got some links.
I should really share.

DaireQuinlan

D wrote: »

Most of you seem to think that it is ok to take someone's picture without asking first, but at the same time if the person you photographed approached you and asked for the picture to be deleted and to not photograph them again you would comply.

Is there anyone here who would not delete the picture if asked to? What would your reasons be?

I wouldn't. It'd be kinda awkward to take out the roll of film right there and then and try and find exactly where that picture had been taken somehow and then cut it out or something.

Seriously though, if someone got angry and upset about it I'd apologise for having taken it, no harm meant etc etc etc and then if the situtation started to escalate I'd just probably do a legger

Hugh_C

A portrait implies some sort of collaboration or cooperation with the subject. If permission or agreement isn't sought, then it's not a portrait, pure and simple. It's observational. Two different things.

Anouilh

I had a very amusing encounter with a lady who spoke little English on a street in Rome. When asked if I could take her photo, she said "yes" and then got very disturbed when I proceeded to take it.

Really, just snapping away as one walks passes the time and disturbs no-one.
The chances of a person finding a photo of themselves in an anonymous setting on the Internet are quite small.