Street Photography

asark

I would love to do street photography, but I find it very challenging in terms of ethics. You feel like you are invading someone’s space without permission.

Any advice on how to go about it, or any stories you might have had you could share, when doing street photography.

bullpost

Take a look at the wonderful legacy the "street" photographers of times past have left us - just think of it as continuing the tradition:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nlireland/with/11510934884/

fret_wimp2

Taking pictures of strangers is one of the toughest things I have faced in my photography journey.

I suggest you first look up Eric Kim, who has a massive amount of info on starting street photogrphy:

http://erickimphotography.com/blog/about/start-here/

his "start here" page has all you need to get into the genre, see where it came from, the big hitters, gaining confidence and everything in between:

Overcomming your fear:
http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2...ing-in-public/

Can also give my own blog a look. Ive properly gotten into street photography in the past few months and am documenting my progress here:

http://www.fintangphotography.com/blog/

asark

Thank you fret_wimp2, the links are very helpful, informative and inspiring.

Cheers.

pixbyjohn

asark wrote: »

I would love to do street photography, but I find it very challenging in terms of ethics. You feel like you are invading someone’s space without permission.

Any advice on how to go about it, or any stories you might have had you could share, when doing street photography.

How often have you walked around the streets with your camera? Get used to having your camera first. After a while you will begin to get confidence to take a shot or 2 then as you see the reaction of those you shoot your ability will improve and before you know it street photography will be second nature for you. Good luck.
Dubliners in Temple Bar by pixbyjohn, on Flickr

DubVelo

asark wrote: »

I would love to do street photography, but I find it very challenging in terms of ethics. You feel like you are invading someone’s space without permission.

Any advice on how to go about it, or any stories you might have had you could share, when doing street photography.

Personally I'm not a fan of photogs stalking random people like paparazzi.
If you feel ethically like you're invading someone's space and doing something not totally ok then maybe you're doing something not ok.
If you were on holiday taking photos in the local market or whatever you wouldn't give it a second thought and you'd probably have fun but now because you're 'doing street' you think and act all differently about it.

Not saying that all street photography is bad, I just think there is maybe as much an art to how you go about it as much as how you go about the photography end.

There's some very practical advice in this:

Edit: Oh, they've just added a new one as well:

asark

http://youtu.be/mJHfT7lYqCo

DubVelo

Interesting article on law and ethics around it:
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/paris-city-of-rights/

Almost any negative reaction could probably be avoided by not going out as 'Mr/Ms Canikon' with a great big DSLR in peoples faces. If you look like a tourist with a compact camera, no-one is going to notice you.

I say go equipped with a small camera, but a big heart.
(How cheesy was that? )

thebaz

one of the things I don't like , is people copying Bruce Gildens style , of firing flashes in random peoples faces. Street photography should be all about personal creativity , and that was Bruces style in a deferent era . Copying it is an irritant to the public.

BTW I think i learnt more than any online tutorial , reading/perusing the americans by Robert Frank - the only rules when I started were good sound ethics. Street photography has changed a lot in 5 years.

fret_wimp2

thebaz wrote: »

one of the things I don't like , is people copying Bruce Gildens style , of firing flashes in random peoples faces. Street photography should be all about personal creativity , and that was Bruces style in a deferent era . Copying it is an irritant to the public.

BTW I think i learnt more than any online tutorial , reading/perusing the americans by Robert Frank - the only rules when I started were good sound ethics. Street photography has changed a lot in 5 years.

This comes down to a few things:

Definition of street photography:
Its debatable if the Americans is true Street photography and its more likely to be photo documentary. Its getting a message across certainly but not specifically looking for or displaying a lot of juxtaposition, surreal within the ordinary images. Amazing images certainly, im not putting them down in any way, but i wouldn't (and others too) class them as street.

Street its not about documenting a place, people or event. is looking for the strange within the ordinary, the out of place in every day life, the surreal. What definies surreal and juxtaposition is up for debate also, and blurrs the lines further leaving it all open to the viewers interpretation really.

Ethics and what is unethical:
A lot of people dont like the in your face Bruce Gilden method, saying its invasive, brash and causes distress on the subject. Thats a matter of opinion really. Look at videos of him shooting, most people almost ignore him, the odd time someone will turn, have a look at him and then keep walking. I think people are more uncomfortable wtih the fact that they would be very uncomfortable getting so up close to take those pictures, so its not the pictures or the method thats the problem, its the viewers discomfort with getting so close to people. I also think thats why so few people really try to copy him.
Contrast Bruce's method with that of a paparazzi and then you really see what unethical is(in my opinion of course!).

thebaz

fret_wimp2 wrote: »

This comes down to a few things:

Definition of street photography:
Its debatable if the Americans is true Street photography and its more likely to be photo documentary. Its getting a message across certainly but not specifically looking for or displaying a lot of juxtaposition, surreal within the ordinary images. Amazing images certainly, im not putting them down in any way, but i wouldn't (and others too) class them as street.

Street its not about documenting a place, people or event. is looking for the strange within the ordinary, the out of place in every day life, the surreal. What definies surreal and juxtaposition is up for debate also, and blurrs the lines further leaving it all open to the viewers interpretation really.

Ethics and what is unethical:
A lot of people dont like the in your face Bruce Gilden method, saying its invasive, brash and causes distress on the subject. Thats a matter of opinion really. Look at videos of him shooting, most people almost ignore him, the odd time someone will turn, have a look at him and then keep walking. I think people are more uncomfortable wtih the fact that they would be very uncomfortable getting so up close to take those pictures, so its not the pictures or the method thats the problem, its the viewers discomfort with getting so close to people. I also think thats why so few people really try to copy him.
Contrast Bruce's method with that of a paparazzi and then you really see what unethical is(in my opinion of course!).

Personally i way prefer Robert Franks documentary style to the quirky eric kim school of photography - each to there own I guess , but if the Americans is not street , i'd have little interest in the genre - then again its just a label