Your views about candid/street photography versus privacy

SquirrelFace

I am in two minds about this... I'm not a photographer myself but often browse Flickr and have to say many of the most interesting photos appear
to be candids. However for some unknown reason, every single time Ive been in Dublin Ive had photos taken of me and to be honest I find it quite annoying.(Im not sure if this still counts as candid cos I know about it :P)
Its not as if I dress outlandishly/look like angelina jolie :P or anything like that, and yet every single time Ive been the subject of a photo...

Im a somewhat secretive and shy person (don't even have a facebook/bebo) and I dont like the thought that there could be photos of me on forums or being used for things like competitions and stuff..
Also I found it quite intrusive, and almost awkward and embarrassing to have someone step in front of me and start snapping away, i just dont like it and indeed have given out to one rather persistant individual....
Also i remember someone taking photos of me saying goodbye to someone which was quite emotional, I know its in a public place and all
but if you werent a photographer you wouldnt go up and stand by someone watching them because itd be a bit weird..

Anyway, if you had taken a photo of someone, and they said they werent happy with you taking photos of them, would you delete it?

swingking

Ever hear of CCTV?

Chances are your every move is being filmed and you don't even realise it.

Sadly, those are the disadvantages of being in public space.

SquirrelFace

Its not quite the same though.....

Dimy

SquirrelFace wrote: »

Anyway, if you had taken a photo of someone, and they said they werent happy with you taking photos of them, would you delete it?

Absolutely, although I would try to convince them to keep it. I like to take pictures of interesting people or interesting moments in people's lives. Behind the camera you try to tell a story or make people think what's happening in the scene of the picture.

But yeah, if someone would come up telling me not being comfortable with me taking a particular picture of them I would delete it. I'd also give them a flickr card to browse my pictures and contact details .

To be honest it never happened to me though, I only had a lot of random people asking me to take pictures of them or their party with their own little point & shoot camera's...apparently assuming I'd know how to take a picture... of course they'll laugh at me when I try to look through the viewfinder only to find out there is none :P But that's another story....

-Dimy

.Longshanks.

....every single time Ive been in Dublin Ive had photos taken of me...

Half serious.....you must be female and hot

melekalikimaka

i have no problems taking photos of people in public, if they ask me to delete it i have no problems deleting it, out of respect.

SquirrelFace

Well like when i say everytime, its not like im up there 365 days a year, i go up a couple of times a year like.....so it could just be that the days i go up have lots of photographers...:P

pixbyjohn

Firstly, are you a celebrity of some sort ? How many times has a photographer stood in front of you and snapped away ? I just want to get some background to your post. Now to answer you. I have taken a lot of candid/street photos and if I am ever asked not to by anyone I respect their wish. I have never been asked to delete a street photo yet. I understand that many people don't appreciate their photo being taken.

GavinZac

SquirrelFace wrote: »

Anyway, if you had taken a photo of someone, and they said they werent happy with you taking photos of them, would you delete it?

Depends how good the shot was!

If its something like a parade or a gig or an event, people expect photographs and cant really complain unless you're being very obnoxious.

In principle I dont have a problem with unsolicited photos on the street, but honestly, I guess Im more timid and want to be inobtrusive when it comes to photographing strangers or even friends who havent expressed an interest in my photos.

Here's a few of my shots of strangers. They tend to be unimposed, and the subjects usually unaware. Maybe that's a little bit cowardly? But I think its very fair that if the subject isnt readily identifiable and it makes a nice scene, they cant complain, like, at all. They become part of the composition.





I'm moving to Thailand soon, I'm going to try to develop a brass neck so as to be able to photograph people. People make almost every scene more interesting.

ThOnda

kev_Longshanks100 wrote: »

Half serious.....you must be female and hot

With a squirrel face?

Honestly, you are in a public place, so you might get photographed.

It is more question of attitude and respect of the photographer. For me, the most important about photography overall is respect to people in front of the camera. Most of the time. If they are not drunk

Hugh_C

According to Ken Rockwell:

Bad rich amateurs think fuzzy B/W images of poor people are art.

That'd be his assessment of the Rich Amateur: Level 2

Personally, I probably wouldn't shoot randomers in the first place.

Thecageyone

Shoot, I hope I wasn't one of the snappers who caught you in Dublin recently!? I do have some street candids from the other week. I rarely take random pictures of people on the street unless there's something interesting about them, like street performers or whatever. But after buying a zoom lens I gave it a test run in the City, nothing special, just people crossing the street, walking along the quays. I kinda like them, but I haven't posted them anywhere in case of something like this, where someone would recognise themselves and attack me!

Waking-Dreams

I always use the 70-300mm lens for such public photos; allows me to keep a nice distance from the subject and not 'intrude' on their personal space, because, yeah, some people don't like their photo being taken.

AnCatDubh

SquirrelFace wrote: »

every single time Ive been in Dublin Ive had photos taken of me and to be honest I find it quite annoying.

I know you say you find it quite annoying but have you considered it from a different perspective- that the photographers in question are paying you one of the highest compliments possible.

Occasionally, I'll do photography on the street (note; not what I consider street photography is and not to be mixed up with the art of street photography). It is predominantly candid in scope. I sometimes spend a little time processing the image. I sometimes publish them on-line. Sometimes other people like them.

Why???? Some might see it as pointless as I don't know the individuals and am unlikely to ever come across them again. The reason is likely that I find the subjects of the image interesting, or beautiful, or different, or distinct, or attractive, or handsome, or representative of the time, or scary, or aesthetically pleasing/challenging, humorous, or all of the foregoing - mostly interesting or aesthetically pleasing in that order.

So, anyone who I personally photograph is most likely to be a subject that I find interesting or aesthetically pleasing and why I sometimes publish them on-line is that I think that others may also find them interesting and/or aesthetically pleasing. I am, in effect, paying an incredible compliment to anyone that I photograph, spend time processing their image and publishing that image.

It can actually be as innocent and well intentioned as that.

thebaz

melekalikimaka wrote: »

i have no problems taking photos of people in public, if they ask me to delete it i have no problems deleting it, out of respect.

agree fully - i was down the courts last week and there were 2 paparazzi style photographers shooting (agressivly) everyone who passed by - i thought that was poor form -

to me its more about moral rights - rather than legal rights

Paulw

Have a look at this NY street photographer (very well known) and his style -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkIWW6vwrvM

Or if that doesn't work - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkIWW6vwrvM

Or if even THAT doesn't work - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRBARi09je8&feature=related

I don't think it's about rights at all (moral nor legal) but down to style and respect. All personal tastes.

mdebets

SquirrelFace wrote: »

Anyway, if you had taken a photo of someone, and they said they werent happy with you taking photos of them, would you delete it?

It always depends on the occasion and how the person is asking.

I was at a demonstration at the Central Bank last weekend and a family was standing in the front row with their child in the buggy and a nice poster with slogans on the top of the buggy. i was taking a picture of it and the father came storming oer, shouting that I don't have the right to take pictures of his child. I just told him that he was wrong and then ignored him, but he continued shouting, until Joe Higins told him to be quiet. (In the end I deleted the photo, because it didn't made my cut, but not because the father demanded it).

I normally have the rule that if someone is asking nicely I will delete the photos, but not if he is shouting and abusive. Also if it is a public event (be it a demonstration or St. Patrick's Day parade) I would normally not delete them.

jpb1974

I think if someone approaches you and says "Please stop taking my photo" then the request should be respected by the photographer and he/she should move on.

I'm in work at the mo and that YouTube link is blocked... but I'm betting it's Bruce Gilden. I like his work, have a couple of his books. Seeing him in action is certainly interesting to watch, sometimes entertaining... but I'm not sure everyone would get away with his approach. I think he does most of his work on 5th Avenue where I'm guessing people are possibly a bit more tame to his approach... I wonder if he headed West a few avenues would he still have his teeth?

magicbastarder

AnCatDubh wrote: »

I am, in effect, paying an incredible compliment to anyone that I photograph, spend time processing their image and publishing that image.

that's quite absurd in its one sidedness though. it's no justification for taking a pic of someone who doesn't want their photo taken; it doesn't matter to them how innocent your intentions are, some people find objectionable the idea that there are people taking photos of them without their knowledge or consent and sharing them with strangers to comment on.

regarding the argument that we're already monitored - it's still somewhat an issue of consent, notwithstanding the fact that ignorance plays a large part in general acceptance of it. the purpose and intent of such CCTV monitoring is different, and people are usually happy that it's never going to see daylight. but it's still a very thorny issue.

magicbastarder

mdebets wrote: »

I normally have the rule that if someone is asking nicely I will delete the photos, but not if he is shouting and abusive.

what's the rationale behind that policy? i can understand it somewhat on an emotional level, but it doesn't really stack up under colder scrutiny.

gizmo555

Interesting article on this subject here, describing a very heavy handed approach by London police officers to a teenager taking photos of a military parade last Saturday.

The photographer stood his ground and the audio he recorded is extraordinary - "Laws? We don't need no stinkin' laws!"

mdebets

magicbastarder wrote: »

what's the rationale behind that policy? i can understand it somewhat on an emotional level, but it doesn't really stack up under colder scrutiny.

If I would go purely by the law, I would delete none of the pictures (at least in Ireland), because it is clear that I have the right to take these photos, if the person is on public ground.
I understand on the other hand that people might not like having pictures of them taken I don't like it either and try to avoid geting mine takens as much as possible. I also think that it might be the start to a slippery sloap if every photographer would delete photos of people, just because they want them to be deleted. It might end up like in other countries (e.g. Germany) where it is heavily regulated as to which photos of people you can take.
I therefore try to strike a balance and the best and workable policy I could find is, the if they ask nicely, I will delete them (unless it's a public event, where you can expect to see photographers). In the past I didn't have too much requests for deletes. So I think at the moment it's working.

magicbastarder

it's usually my mum who insists i delete photos of her.

Paulw

gizmo555 wrote: »

Interesting article on this subject here, describing a very heavy handed approach by London police officers to a teenager taking photos of a military parade last Saturday.

That should be an easy one for this teenager to take a case against the Police and win. Silly police.

smelltheglove

gizmo555 wrote: »

Interesting article on this subject here, describing a very heavy handed approach by London police officers to a teenager taking photos of a military parade last Saturday.

The photographer stood his ground and the audio he recorded is extraordinary - "Laws? We don't need no stinkin' laws!"

Thanks for that. It still shocks me that even those representing the law dont understand it. Has anyone heard of such incidents in Ireland?

who the fug

smelltheglove wrote: »

Thanks for that. It still shocks me that even those representing the law dont understand it. Has anyone heard of such incidents in Ireland?

We are talking about the MET, who only take their feet out of their mouth to change socks


PTA great for keeping Old people and teenagers under control.

Effects

jpb1974 wrote: »

I think he does most of his work on 5th Avenue where I'm guessing people are possibly a bit more tame to his approach... I wonder if he headed West a few avenues would he still have his teeth?

You should look up his work from Haiti. He went places a lot of others wouldn't.

I prefer not taking candid shots if I can help it. I've no problem putting my camera in peoples faces. I'll be friendly about it though. Last week I photographed a cool looking old geezer coming out of a shop. He wasn't happy so I told him I'd delete it and then had a bit of a chat with him. He lightened up when he realised I wasn't up to anything malicious and then posed for some other photos. I showed them to him and the ones he didn't like were the ones I did.

jpb1974

You should look up his work from Haiti. He went places a lot of others wouldn't.

Aye, done a series in Ireland too -

http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/book/9781899235179/After-the-Off

Effects

jpb1974 wrote: »

Aye, done a series in Ireland too -

http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/book/9781899235179/After-the-Off

I met him that time. Some good shots in the book.

padocon

gizmo555 wrote: »

Interesting article on this subject here, describing a very heavy handed approach by London police officers to a teenager taking photos of a military parade last Saturday.

The photographer stood his ground and the audio he recorded is extraordinary - "Laws? We don't need no stinkin' laws!"

Very interesting. Thanks

IamBlip

gizmo555 wrote: »

Interesting article on this subject here, describing a very heavy handed approach by London police officers to a teenager taking photos of a military parade last Saturday.

The photographer stood his ground and the audio he recorded is extraordinary - "Laws? We don't need no stinkin' laws!"

Extract:
"There is new legislation to protect the identities of some police officers but only those working undercover or in instances where an officer genuinely believes a photographer is collecting data for terrorist purposes."

In the near future, I wonder how many times we'll hear the words "genuinely believes" to be used as a reason to detain a photographer.


I think the OP should upload a photo of themself so we can see who not to photograph about the city.

eas

SquirrelFace wrote: »

. However for some unknown reason, every single time Ive been in Dublin Ive had photos taken of me

What I don't like is when normal looking everyday people think I'm taking pictures of them for some reason.

smash

SquirrelFace wrote: »

However for some unknown reason, every single time Ive been in Dublin Ive had photos taken of me and to be honest I find it quite annoying.

Obviously they're not candids then, so you'll have to give us more info about how you're approached by the photographers, or is it that you just think people are taking photos of you?

SquirrelFace

"Obviously they're not candids then, so you'll have to give us more info about how you're approached by the photographers, or is it that you just think people are taking photos of you?"

Nah im not paranoid just observant... and one or two werent exactly subtle, dropping to their crouching position and using a VERY FECKIN BRIGHT flash..(and no i dont wear seethrough clothes :-P)
the one i gave out to kept taking photos while i was giving out to him for taking photos!!!:mad::mad:

I mentioned this to one of my friends before and she has the same thing, except she knows its because of her quirky fashion sense that she always gets photographed..she doesnt mind it though and usually poses when she sees what theyre doing. I think it kind of annoys me that people wouldnt ask if I minded.. I dont know how to explain it really!

youllneverknow

if your taking photos of people do you have to approach them e.g "hi do you mind if i take a photo of you. just carry on doing what you where doing" or can you just take a photo of them

magicbastarder

if you're on public ground, legally you can just snap away.
what you do with those photos is more controlled, if you want to use them for commercial purposes.

youllneverknow

ok

humberklog

youllneverknow wrote: »

if your taking photos of people do you have to approach them e.g "hi do you mind if i take a photo of you. just carry on doing what you where doing" or can you just take a photo of them

You don't have to ask you can, fully within the law, snap away to your hearts content. As said though this is only within the law and the person you're snapping my well act outside the law and give you a good toe up the hole.


I snap away on the street and have never, ever been questioned nor given out to. I really don't understand how that could happen with what would appear such regularity as what I've read over the year or so on Boards when this comes up.
It's very hard to go from an average of 80% photos I take happening on the street with the net result of zero comments from subjects to reading about so many people with stock answers or attitudes for when confronted with this problem.

Maybe if you are confronted by someone that takes umbridge at you taking their photo then it's much more to do with your technique than someone's personal choice. Just a thought.

Thecageyone

I was asked to stop taking pics of the side of a building once ... but never had any hassle taking photos of or around people. I've even taken pictures in playgrounds [of my own children obviously] but clearly other kids were running in and out of my shots. That's their parent's problem.

People are too bloody paranoid lately. Shoot away, worry about it only if you are confronted. On the flip side, if it really does bother you, and someone is blatantly taking pictures of you - of course you can ask them to stop. But they really do not have to delete the images.

AnCatDubh

magicbastarder wrote: »

that's quite absurd in its one sidedness though. it's no justification for taking a pic of someone who doesn't want their photo taken; it doesn't matter to them how innocent your intentions are, some people find objectionable the idea that there are people taking photos of them without their knowledge or consent and sharing them with strangers to comment on.

One sided, accepted. Absurd, I don't think; as I tried to explain the logic. But the alternate is kinda one sided too if you think about it (but not absurd if there is logic to the thought).

There is an issue that no one really has ever explained in any rational discussion; which is why there is an expectation that you can't/shouldn't be photographed? I mean the Indian belief of your spirit being stolen has been proved incorrect right? Joking aside I understand some cultures have irrational fears. But in our culture, we understand that this is the case (well maybe them film cameras do but not digital ) so where does the harm begin. Where does the reasoning come from. I do understand that the feeling is there and I do agree; you shouldn't be harassed. You also shouldn't be stalked. You shouldn't be followed. You shouldn't be made feel uncomfortable. If someone wants you to formally or informally 'pose' then permission being sought / granted is the order of the day. I'm 100% understanding and sympathetic. So, in this respect I can see where the OP is coming from. I mean, ffs, someone flashing a camera in her face while being asked to stop. Surely at that stage she was being harassed and would have had some legal recourse if she had considered it strong enough.

charybdis

AnCatDubh wrote: »

There is an issue that no one really has ever explained in any rational discussion; which is why there is an expectation that you can't/shouldn't be photographed? I mean the Indian belief of your spirit being stolen has been proved incorrect right? Joking aside I understand some cultures have irrational fears. But in our culture, we understand that this is the case (well maybe them film cameras do but not digital ) so where does the harm begin. Where does the reasoning come from. I do understand that the feeling is there and I do agree; you shouldn't be harassed. You also shouldn't be stalked. You shouldn't be followed. You shouldn't be made feel uncomfortable. If someone wants you to formally or informally 'pose' then permission being sought / granted is the order of the day. I'm 100% understanding and sympathetic. So, in this respect I can see where the OP is coming from. I mean, ffs, someone flashing a camera in her face while being asked to stop. Surely at that stage she was being harassed and would have had some legal recourse if she had considered it strong enough.

I don't think the point is really about photography. There are certain expectations about how we should act in public places and deviation from this can be seen as impolite. In the same way staring at someone for a significant period of time can be construed as impolite, I can absolutely understand how someone would feel imposed upon having someone take several photographs of them. It also seems like a lot of people take having a camera as some sort of pass for transcending social convention and expecting to be treated differently to others.

If you study the work of Cartier-Bresson, many other Magnum photographers (possibly with the exception of Bruce Gilden), and someone like James Nachtwey, you can see that they all take photographs of strangers in public places, but they do so by working close to their subject in a very respectful manner and usually by being as unobtrusive as possible, not firing 10fps bursts with a 70-200.

I don't think the expectation is that the person shouldn't be photographed, it's the idea that someone is imposing themselves on that person (possibly in an exploitative manner) and as such are being disrespectful and impolite. Actually, in a lot of ways I think this is something Bruce Gilden purposefully uses in his photography, as he seems to hate it when his subjects react positively to the camera.

GavinZac

charybdis wrote: »

Actually, in a lot of ways I think this is something Bruce Gilden purposefully uses in his photography, as he seems to hate it when his subjects react positively to the camera.

He seems to be keen to portray his shots as being of serious, working, busy people, that he has happened to catch completely unawares. They just seem annoyed to me, and their reaction is just as much a product of his behaviour as if they posed and waved.

Hugh_C

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

I always use the 70-300mm lens for such public photos; allows me to keep a nice distance from the subject

that just sounds sneaky to me, one of the reasons i'm not big on st photog

Thecageyone

Hugh_C wrote: »

that just sounds sneaky to me, one of the reasons i'm not big on st photog

BS. It's not sneaky at all IMO.

Effects

Well it's making sure you don't get spotted so it is sneaky. But street shots taken from a distance at 300mm rarely look as good as something taken closer to the subject.

Morrisseeee

Interesting topic. I personally find using a telephoto lens to take photos of people a little unsettling ! Example, (and there are loads of examples on popular photo sharing websites), a photographer has loads of pics of young women in.........well.......natural sexy poses !! These are then posted up, and discussed online, but what rights do these people have ? Surely there's a line there that shouldn't be crossed, where your private space in a public venue is not abused !!

Simplicius

This is not a moral question ..... people are confusing it. The law says you can snap anyone on the street. end of story. To moralise this is to move it out of the realm of what is permitted. So in answer to the OP, expect to have your picture taken, you have no right to ask for it to be deleted, but you should ask and the photographer may oblidge.

I have taken loads of candids, as well as requested street shots. I have never had a serious objection, except from Garda when they were arresting someone and a few junkies here and there. In all cases I never deleted anything ( I shot film anyways. but point is same). those would be an absolute minority. Those who approach me after I take their picture generally don't mind once they understand the motivation.

In fact some of my best memories are after snapping someone, how it opened up an enlightening conversation that added so much to the picture.

I should clarify I am never more than 6 foot from my subject and don't have some huge phallic 500mm lens... that's not street in my opinion that is something else --but those thought are not relevant to this post.

jpb1974

This is not a moral question ..... people are confusing it. The law says you can snap anyone on the street. end of story.

Well, it's not really end of story as you put it... it is a question of morals for some people depending on their own personal viewpoint. I don't think anyone is saying it's morally wrong to take street photos, it's more so a discussion associated with isolated incidents where people have requested that the photographer stop.

Some people will solely operate by rules of the law and others would have a more sympathetic view towards the privacy of others.

I don't take picture of other people's kids in public... even though according to the law I could. But based on my own personal morals I prefer not to. I've been in a situations in the past where people didn't want their photo taken and I totally respect that.

So... I've stated my moral viewpoint and for me my moral viewpoint is above the law. Everyone is going to have their own stance.

I think that most people here, irrespective of the law, are willing to show a bit of respect towards the personal preference of others... and basically that sums it all up for me.

bullpost

Simplicius wrote: »

I should clarify I am never more than 6 foot from my subject and don't have some huge phallic 500mm lens... that's not street in my opinion that is something else --but those thought are not relevant to this post.

6 foot :eek: Is that you Bruce Gilden?

Effects

bullpost wrote: »

6 foot :eek: Is that you Bruce Gilden?

A lot of that time you have to be that close, or closer.

jpb1974

Closer..