# Etiquette of Street Photography



## spaced (Jan 19, 2012)

Street photography is one of the areas I enjoy - in particular photos of people - however I must admit I always hold back from taking the pictures I truly want to take because I feel nervous about taking photographs of the public.

For example, the other day I saw someone asleep on the metro so out came the camera, but I was paranoid that the guy would wake up or the passers by saying something to me. My heart was beating and the adrenaline pumping - I just took one picture and hoped for the best.

When I looked at the photo afterwards, there were so many ways I could have improved on it if I wasn't in such a hurry.

I guess I'm unsure if we're allowed to take pictures so brazenly of the public (admittedly in public places).

Has it ever happened to anyone where a member of the public has taken offence to having their picture taken?

This is a subject which has bothered me for years, and I'd love to hear peoples opinions: Is there an etiquette to street photography?


----------



## AprilForever (Jan 19, 2012)

spaced said:


> Street photography is one of the areas I enjoy - in particular photos of people - however I must admit I always hold back from taking the pictures I truly want to take because I feel nervous about taking photographs of the public.
> 
> For example, the other day I saw someone asleep on the metro so out came the camera, but I was paranoid that the guy would wake up or the passers by saying something to me. My heart was beating and the adrenaline pumping - I just took one picture and hoped for the best.
> 
> ...



People argue hugely about what is the appropriate behaviour for street photography. Weegie used to walk up to people with a crown graphic and a flash bulb and get the shot. Others in the past were more subtle...

But, if you are calm, and act like there is nothing wrong with what you are doing, most people will not really notice you taking pictures. Occassionally, I've gotten looks, but normally people do not mind. This, however, can change drastically depending on the country and culture.

The most important point is to try to not hurt others; but, if you are careful and subtle, none should mind terribly... most of the time, anyway...

In the USA, it is legal to take pictures of people in public places, as long as in that public place there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (ie, restroom or changing area). Find out what you are comfortable with, then push yourself! Once you get past the fear, it will be tremendously fun!


----------



## Maui5150 (Jan 19, 2012)

Take a look some time at Kelby Training's "A Day with Jay Maisel" Really is all about this.

Shoot. Be nice about it. Smile. You may encounter angry people, just apologize, and say "Sorry, I really liked your look" Most people will not notice if you are comfortable in the environment and relaxed.


----------



## distant.star (Jan 19, 2012)

spaced said:


> Street photography is one of the areas I enjoy - in particular photos of people - however I must admit I always hold back from taking the pictures I truly want to take because I feel nervous about taking photographs of the public.
> 
> For example, the other day I saw someone asleep on the metro so out came the camera, but I was paranoid that the guy would wake up or the passers by saying something to me. My heart was beating and the adrenaline pumping - I just took one picture and hoped for the best.
> 
> ...



Your reaction is completely normal, Spaced. "Street photography" is an aggressive act; you impose an intimacy on people who may not want it. It's unnatural, but for some of us it's irresistible -- and the results are universally enjoyed. Here's a good primer you may want to look at:

http://2point8.whileseated.org/wow-footer/

My epiphany came after my first year or two of taking pictures. I wasn't satisfied so I took all the prints I'd made, laid them on a table and started looking. Painfully apparent was the absence of people. There were pictures of trees and buildings and sunsets and cars, etc. -- but no people. When I wondered why I realized I was scared to take pictures of people. So, I went on a tear sticking cameras into people's faces, and I learned a lot. (As a young guy I quickly learned when you take a picture of a young woman she is usually flattered, and you're already at first base!)

Since you asked, yes I get challenged all the time. I've had police throw me out of places. I've also been welcomed. So it goes both ways. My concern is to always make people feel comfortable and to make them a partner in this intimate act if I can.

I had an informational card printed; I call it my "Who the hell are you?" card since I'm not soliciting business. It has my photo URL, email address, phone number. It has a great image on it to establish credibility. It does not have my physical address.

Most people who challenge, and all the ones too timid to challenge, are thinking the same thing -- Who the hell are you and why are you taking MY picture? So, I make it a rule to always engage people after I take their picture. I rarely ask permission because that ruins the look I want. Someone else here talked about smiling -- great advice. I always smile and use open and non-threatening body language. I reassure people I have nothing to sell and that I'm just doing this for fun. I give them my photo URL and tell them the pictures will be there if they want to see them -- and they can have them if they like. I tell them they can't be copied by anyone I don't give them to and they can't be printed and I don't sell them or use them in any promotional way. This is almost always sufficient to seal the deal, so to speak. People want to believe they're special, and if you suggest you took their picture because they're special, they will buy into that naturally.

I've had people tell me they don't want me to have their pictures. I took a picture one time of a lovely red 1966 Mustang parked on the street -- entirely within my legal rights. The woman who owned it ran out of a beauty shop, hair in curlers saying she did not want pictures taken of her car. Nothing I said would assure her so I told her I'd delete the pictures. I can still hear her saying, "I don't know who you are." I don't think a picture is worth upsetting people in most cases. I did subsequently delete them, and I would have done it in the camera if she had been astute enough to ask. Most people have enough stress and trouble in their lives -- they don't need me adding more.

For me, street photography is sort of like an intimate relationship. It has its ups and downs, there are good times and bad, there will be arguments, but the end result is usually worth it. If you don't like people (individually) and you simply aren't comfortable interacting with people you don't know, street photography is a lot more difficult. It can still be done, but you're going to have to be a lot more surreptitious and you'll deal with people a lot less.

One of the joys of street photography for me is the interaction with people after I've taken their picture. I took some pictures of a young couple on a waterfront a few weeks ago. I ended up talking with them for a long time about photography, work, school, etc., and they asked me to take a few more pictures of them -- so we had the luxury of setting up the right light and background, etc. They got some nice pictures out of it.

I'm glad to hear you like this kind of photography, and I was pleased that you critiqued your effort. That's where you begin and how you learn. There are a thousand ways to do street photography, and you will have to learn what works for you.

One thing you should know is the basics of legal rights. Look at the ACLU guide on this:

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers

If I have any specific advice... You will never get over the anxiety about taking pictures of strangers. And if you do, beware you've probably entered a dangerous place. You'll almost always find the results are worth the emotional stress. And most important, have fun, and enjoy the images you make.


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 19, 2012)

Although I occasionally use the 400 f/2.8 (lots of jests about my big one ) I normally use either the 135 f/2 or the 200 f/8 as they are quite inoccuous.


----------



## jcns (Jan 19, 2012)

it varies a lot
I never take pictures of someone's face. I focus on the action and not the people.
It also varies from country to country. In the US, I think most won't care and if you are confronted you apologize and if need be offer to delete the photo.
In Japan, no problem at all.
Some Latin countries, DO NOT DARE TAKE PICTURES OF CHILDREN without permission. Unless, you are in the mood for a fist fight. Literally, villagers will come down and beat you.
England, cops might want to see your DSLR and might go through your pictures. 
Something to consider, if you want to focus on people, is a long lens.


----------



## AprilForever (Jan 19, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Although I occasionally use the 400 f/2.8 (lots of jests about my big one ) I normally use either the 135 f/2 or the 200 f/8 as they are quite inoccuous.



Nice picture, but even nicer still for using a big gun for shooting! I've read on some street shooting forums, and if you shoot anything other than black and white, wide angle, f1.4, you are abomination. If you DARE to shoot a tele-zoom, you are anathema!

I once took my 300 4r shooting street in downtown Fort Lauderdale. No one looked twice. Now, time for me the 300 2.8...


----------



## AprilForever (Jan 19, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Although I occasionally use the 400 f/2.8 (lots of jests about my big one ) I normally use either the 135 f/2 or the 200 f/8 as they are quite inoccuous.



Sorry for double posting, but also this picture would not have been the same at all with a wide angle lens... So, thanks for sharing!


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 19, 2012)

I dislike wa lens - very rarely take anything under 50mm


----------



## AprilForever (Jan 19, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I dislike wa lens - very rarely take anything under 50mm



I'm drifting more and more in that direction...


----------



## Harley (Jan 19, 2012)

Thanks for posting the question and for the great responses. This is a subject that has bugged me for a long time. 

I have done street photography for years and in several different countries including places like Russia and Nigeria where it's more taboo. I have never been terribly comfortable about photographing people regardless of the location and I have missed out on a number of great shots because of self-consciousness. But it's a rare occassion that someone has taken me to task for taking a photo. When it has happened, smiling and being polite seems the best thing to do. Showing the picture to the person (as long as the shot isn't likely to be embarassing) can be a good way to help diffuse a problem. 

I'm now shooting with a 7D for the last six months or so. This isn't a huge SLR, but it is significantly bigger than my old Rebel XT. It feels a lot more intrusive to pull this camera out and snap away. Sort of makes me want to have a Sony NEX...!


----------



## unfocused (Jan 19, 2012)

Interesting discussion.

From what I have read, Cartier-Bresson was quite circumspect – circling the scene, sizing things up and then quickly taking the shot. Cartier-Bresson credited his success in part to hunting as a youth. In fact, later in life he clarified his use of the "Decisive Moment" to draw an analogy between hunting and photography, explaining that he was looking for the right moment to take a "shot."

Garry Winogrand was apparently more brazen, relied on a smile to disarm the subject, shot rapid fire and was constantly on the move.Someone described his approach as the camera being secondary to his making quick connections with the people on the street as he photographed them.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 19, 2012)

I'm one of those people who hate to be photographed, and I do take offense when someone takes my picture, ironically, even though I also love to *take* candid photos of people. (which is one of the reasons I've enjoyed wedding photography) As a result, I don't do much street photography.

It's hard. When I do choose to engage in street photography, I make myself very visible; anyone who shows signs of shyness -- I avoid them. Do I miss a lot of shots? Yep, but then nobody owed me those shots to begin with.

True, it may be legal in the US, but legal does not imply ethical. There is a certain arrogance in assuming that others are (tacitly) willing to be your models. I'm sure I'll get some smites for that, but it's true. Imagine if, instead of a camera, you had a parabolic microphone and liked to record conversations at a distance. Even if you deleted those that were "too private" many people would feel intruded-upon by such an act. What makes photography different?

On the other hand, anyone who engages in willful attention-seeking behavior (street performers, skateboarders, etc) is fair game. "Crowd shots," where individuals are not readily distinguishable, are also fair game.


----------



## VerbalAlchemy (Jan 19, 2012)

I don't generally follow the strategy that just sticks the camera in someone's face, but I think a street photographer nonetheless has to reconcile him/herself to the likelihood that someone is gonna get upset at some point. I was documenting protests in the Bay Area late last year and watched a young woman throw a bottle at an Oakland Tribune photographer. "I know my rights!" she bellowed. "Evidently not," I thought to myself, given that a public protest fits the very definition of an event in which photographers have (barring police declaration of an unlawful assembly, which happened a lot) carte blanche. 

The law enforcement angle, as a poster mentioned above, is also a consideration. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/police-overreach-in-the-name-of-fighting-terrorism/2012/01/17/gIQADluG9P_story.html?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost

This article describes the situation. 

At demonstrations and protests, I've generally found the police to be as accommodating as they're supposed to be-- though I've also been around some situations in which the crowd became unruly, and in which the police attitude (toward everyone, photographers and protesters alike) became abruptly impatient in a manner that, at best, asks for a liberal interpretation of legal process. 

I've never had trouble with the sort of photography described in the linked article--i.e. photographing an industrial building at night. The police are told to suspect photos that lack obvious aesthetic value, so street photographers who go for abstract urban images (among other things) might get more officer attention than they want. Given how little Congressmen know about the Internet ("it's basically a series of tubes"), I'm not sure that all policeman, especially without training, will properly gauge the aesthetic efforts of an isolated photographer. There's also the matter of photographing the police on active duty, which can be a gray area for street photographers. Generally it's legal, though some states have wiretap laws that muddle the issue, especially if you record video that includes live sound.

In any case, to me, street photography etiquette depends on the ambiance and environment:

- If I'm just walking around somewhere in which there are few, if any, cameras, and in which my picture taking will be conspicuous, I am much more circumspect. I circle the scene, take shots distance with longer lenses, and am generally more likely to engage subjects if I want more intimate shots that single out individuals, frame as portraits, etc. This type of photography is perhaps one of the few in which _gear can matter._ 

With a kit lens, you'll be pretty limited as a street photographer. Slow aperture means you'll lose most functionality at night, and the limited telephoto range means you'll need to be in fairly close proximity to your subject. My 85mm f1.8, though, allows me to take great shots from a decent distance (i.e. across the street) and to continue shooting after dark. My 50mm 1.4 is less useful if I want to maintain distance but it still allows me to work in the middle of the night. My Tokina 11-16 f2.8 is harder to use discretely, as you need to be close to the subject in most wide angle street applications-- but the short focal length means you can get away with low shutter speeds, which - when combined with the wide aperture - enables the lens to shoot well after the sun goes down. My Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and (especially) Canon 70-200 f4L are awesome for daytime street photography but too slow in most night uses. If I ever have the resources, I'd like the 135mm f2L, the 24mm f1.4L, and the 35mm f1.4L. Can you get great street shots without this gear? I have to hope so (and I do), since I don't have any of these lenses-- but given the nature of street photography, I think they'd really open up some flexibility for night shooting. Gear lust aside, a good, bright lens and/ or a telephoto lens open up some street flexibility that allows one to circumvent some of the awkwardness between photographer and candid subject.

- If I'm walking around in a touristy area (i.e. Union Square in San Francisco), there will be tons of cameras, so I generally shoot whatever I want. If you get in someone's face and single them out, you'll need to be prepared to engage them-- but if you shoot someone with some remove (i.e. isolating a person against a backdrop), then I think you'll be fine, as long as you don't look so uncomfortable as to draw attention and suspicion. A poster above mentioned emphasizing action over faces. I don't follow this rule, per se-- but I also don't try to shoot people like they're in a portrait, with their attention directed toward me. Consequently, I end up emphasizing dynamics in which the subject's attention is elsewhere. I might still photograph a face-- but it's a face that's not remotely concerned with me. Generally, none of these people notice that they're being photographer-- but if they do, I've just learned to shrug it off and go somewhere else. If you pay attention, you'll normally see another photographer committing the same "offense" within minutes, meaning that your action doesn't really stand out in a meaningful way.

- Public events are incredibly liberating. In San Francisco, for example, you have not only the aforementioned political protests but also Critical Mass biking events, the Fulsome Street Fair, Halloween in the Castro, and a million other public spectacles. At these events, there will be so many cameras and so many people clearly vying for attention that you can basically feel free to shoot as you see fit. At it's best, this can be one of the environments in which the camera becomes an extension of my intentionality, in which I react and adapt with the camera as much as with my physical senses.

Ultimately, though, I look at it like this: One's ability to take pictures in public is a protected right because creative and artistic expression are important liberties. If you're taking a picture that you feel fulfills that kind of expression, then own it. Not everyone values expression the same way (a reality basically codified in the courts by Potter Stewart), but if the moment fits your convictions, exercise your right to express. If you have some suspicion, though, that your action might be more exploitative or invasive than artistic, then trust your gut and back off. I suggest going to some public events in which photography is welcomed, as it will help you to grow a bit bolder about your photographs as worthwhile acts of expression-- but ultimately everyone has to find the middle ground individually.


----------



## gmrza (Jan 19, 2012)

scrappydog said:


> Just today I read a website article that street photographers in the USA are being increasingly hassled by police, who have been requested by the Dept of Homeland Security to be vigilant of street photographers for concern that they are terrorists casing a site targeted for attack. If a cop is nearby and if you are shooting anything that could be construed as a "threat" to national security (which could be very widely and subjectively interpreted), it may be prudent to ask the cop if it is okay to take shots. This is what I did last weekend in the NYC financial district and the cop was cool with it. I was taking shots of the NY Fed building.



My only direct interaction with police while taking street photos was last August, when I was waiting for the gas brigades at Crown Casino on the Southbank Promenade in Melbourne to light up. I was bored waiting, so I struck up a conversation with 2 officers who were on the beat there.  They weren't concerned about the fact that I was taking photos, but commented that I obviously knew what I was doing, because I had a "serious" camera (gripped 5DmkII). They went on to ask why I was interested in the gas brigades when there were so many pretty girls walking past!

When I was taking photos of the Occupy Melbourne protests, the police were not interested in me, but some of the protesters played to the camera.

I have never had issues with people not enjoying being photographed, but I generally tend to be fairly discreet. I won't forget one shot I took of a girl buying flowers in Swanston street, who rewarded me with a broad smile when she saw me taking a shot of her. On the other hand, I am aware of people in Australia, who have had issues with police. In Australia, you cannot have any expectation of privacy in a public place - it is legal to photograph people on the street. Melbourne is also such a tourist city - when I walk to the station in the evenings I sometimes play "count the tourists with DSLRs".

The only hassle I have had was being accosted for taking photos without a permit at Yarraville station.... I claimed ignorance and moved on.


----------



## MarkB (Jan 19, 2012)

> Just today I read a website article that street photographers in the USA are being increasingly hassled by police, who have been requested by the Dept of Homeland Security to be vigilant of street photographers for concern that they are terrorists casing a site targeted for attack. If a cop is nearby and if you are shooting anything that could be construed as a "threat" to national security (which could be very widely and subjectively interpreted), it may be prudent to ask the cop if it is okay to take shots. This is what I did last weekend in the NYC financial district and the cop was cool with it. I was taking shots of the NY Fed building.



I would also recommend you be very aware of taking photos if there is a military installation anywhere nearby. They provide very strict training for employees to be on the lookout and report people with cameras. There are so many military installations it is sometimes easy to be unaware, or in many cases, some interesting visuals (planes/ships) are a big draw. I am not sure what their legal rights are relative to the police, but I would guess they are going to err on the side of caution and question you pretty thoroughly. Just food for thought.


----------



## Stu_bert (Jan 20, 2012)

jcns said:


> it varies a lot
> I never take pictures of someone's face. I focus on the action and not the people.
> It also varies from country to country. In the US, I think most won't care and if you are confronted you apologize and if need be offer to delete the photo.
> In Japan, no problem at all.
> ...



In UK the police have no rights to view your images unless they believe a crime is being committed. Normal photography should not attract such a response in a public place (nor do they have rights to impound your gear). Things have improved a lot based on public & media complaints but alas the private security firms have no proper education and work on FUD....


----------



## spaced (Jan 20, 2012)

Thank you so much to all who replied - I'm finally able to give karma, so +1 to all!

The responses have been fantastic and there is definitely a lot of food for thought - thanks for all the useful links too!

I like the advice to smile - I would agree that a smile should diffuse most situations - as does looking natural and relaxed.

And I particularly liked distant star's "who the hell are you?" card idea - I may give that one a go!

I'm not so paranoid about police - I'm in central london which is quite touristy and the people are colourful - I just don't know what I would say in case I'm asked why I'm taking peoples photographs.

**** 
On a side note, I used to live opposite a pub, and subsequently managed to capture some fantastic shots of late night punch-ups and people vomiting on the street(!)

Unfortunately those images are currently on a corrupted hard drive, but assuming I ever get round to recovering the images, would I be allowed to for example use them as part of a portfolio or otherwise publish them in any way?

What are the ethical and legal implications of publishing street photos where the people are potentially identifiable?

****
On another side note - I just watched the video of Bruce Gilden linked by passerby - omg! I would love to be able to do that!

Incidentally the link didn't work (black screen), but this link works:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc1RrQXidlY


----------



## squarebox (Jan 20, 2012)

I'm not 100% sure of this, but you might want to check with local laws as well.

I get the impression that in Japan you have to get permission from people specifically in the photo. Though it may just be more a politeness thing than steadfast rule, but almost single picture I see in japan has people's faces blurred out. Sometime the entire picture is blurred out and makes me wonder what was the point of showing this picture at all.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jan 20, 2012)

On the legal issue, in most civilised places around the world, you can take a photograph of someone in a public place, publish the photo and sell that photograph without the consent of the people in the photo.

However, if you take a photograph for a commercial purpose (which generally means using the photograph to market or advertise something other the photograph itself) and you don't have consent (ideally a written model release form), you could be liable for damages. The damages would generally be the financial loss suffered by the subject. This could be the income you earned from the photograph. It could be a reasonable modelling fee. You would be liable for more damages if the use of the photograph led to emotional distress, injured their reputation etc. For example, you used the photograph to advertise your local adult shop.

No sane person would start a legal action if there was no prospect of reasonable damages (unless you really annoyed them). Therefore, you just have to be worried about the defamation side. The good news is that you control this risk by deciding how to use the photo.

FYI, stock photography sites will require you to hold model release forms.

Also, there are a lot of landmarks around the world that will require you to have authorisation if you want to take photos for commercial use. Otherwise you might face copyright problems.

Therefore, from a legal perspective, generally if you do it for fun, or to sell the photographs you take, there's no real problems. If you have identifiable landmarks, or use the photos in advertising or promotion, you should have approval. 

Different people have different views on the ethical issues. I always have reservations about uploading photos, but I'm not really into street photography and I'm very privacy conscious. Whereas my sister uploads page after page of random people. She's probably got half of Australia on there.


----------



## gmrza (Jan 20, 2012)

Hillsilly said:


> Also, there are a lot of landmarks around the world that will require you to have authorisation if you want to take photos for commercial use. Otherwise you might face copyright problems.
> 
> Therefore, from a legal perspective, generally if you do it for fun, or to sell the photographs you take, there's no real problems. If you have identifiable landmarks, or use the photos in advertising or promotion, you should have approval.



That is another entirely different can of worms - the concept about whether somebody (be they a natural person or some other legal entity) can "own" a view. The Sydney harbour foreshore immediately comes to mind as one of the most controversial cases. - Just to explain for the non-Australians here, any professional photography of landmarks on the Sydney harbour foreshore requires a permit, and amateurs with "professional looking" equipment are often harassed.
These restrictions start to become ridiculous when you consider that I could take an awesome photo of the Opera House with a 600D, and then sell it as a stock image in South Africa, and I doubt the SHFA would ever be the wiser.


> Different people have different views on the ethical issues. I always have reservations about uploading photos, but I'm not really into street photography and I'm very privacy conscious. Whereas my sister uploads page after page of random people. She's probably got half of Australia on there.



I have to admit, from the other perspective, given that we are all potential street photography subjects, I always conduct myself in a way, when I am in public, so that I would have no problem (with the exception of possible self image issues - but that is my problem) with a photo being exhibited or published.


----------



## mortadella (Jan 21, 2012)

Anyone try these lens skins to turn their white teles black and a little more discreet? If nothing else might make you feel more comfortable.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/832736-REG/LensSkins_LS_C70200X3FB_Lens_Skin_for_the.html


----------



## quaz8r (Jan 25, 2012)

Great read....Street photography is one of the hardest things a photographer can do. I had a photo project to do last year for my digital photo class that required to take pictures of ten strangers. Many of the students in my class failed because the photos could not be of anyone you know of a friend/family knows. This one girl just walked through a call center and took pictures of people in their cubicle. I was really stressed out about this assignment and waited until I just had a few days to complete the assignment. I was on vacation in Phoenix, AZ in the spring time and went to a Spring Training game. There were a lot of people with cameras and I just let it fly. I concentrated on taking kids and families enjoying there time at a baseball game. I did get some looks from people as my camera was not pointed out onto the field. After the first few shots I became comfortable with what I was doing. I did have a few people ask me what I was doing and I honestly told them that I am a photo major completing an assignment on 10 strangers.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 25, 2012)

With face recognition coming or already here on search engines, posting images online will bring a lot of lawsuits. It is possible to find the offender if the offended person is willing to spend the effort and money.

It may also be easy for a stalker to track down someone that he becomes attracted to from the image, so that is a very serious concern. 

Most online sites like Flickr are for profit ventures, meaning that they make money from advertising. That probably constitutes using a image for profit, and is sure to be tested in court, and just the attorney's fees to defend a lawsuit would be very expensive. A takedown notice will likely get you suspended from Flicker as well.

Be smart, have a release form before posting. There are smart phone apps for that. Many subjects will be flattered if you ask, if they are not, just delete the image. Be aware that 5 years from now, they may come knocking with a court subpoena. Those images sometimes take on a life of their own.


----------



## ghosh9691 (Jan 25, 2012)

A DSLR is not the ideal camera for street photography. Can it be done? Sure! But it is just too big and bulky and does not allow a photographer to be discreet. No wonder then that the Leica is still the king of street photography - and similar cameras (Fuji X-series, Sony NEX, Olympus PEN, etc.) will be better suited to such a pursuit...

Just my $0.02 worth...


----------



## ghosh9691 (Jan 25, 2012)

scrappydog said:


> ghosh9691 said:
> 
> 
> > A DSLR is not the ideal camera for street photography. Can it be done? Sure! But it is just too big and bulky and does not allow a photographer to be discreet. No wonder then that the Leica is still the king of street photography...
> ...



The problem with the M9 is: cost, poor high ISO performance, and lack of lenses . When I say lack of lenses, I do not mean that there are no good lenses - the Leica M lenses are the best in their focal length range, but not easily available. Since all of this is hand built, one often waits for a long time for a lens to become available and on eBay, competition can be fierce!

I am hoping that the M10 (rumored: Photokina 2012) will have much better high ISO performance (possibly Sony CMOS sensor) and their mirror-less solution with an APS-C sensor and using R series lenses at a lower price point will make these cameras available to all street photographers.

But, there is always the Sony NEX-7, Olympus PEN and Fuji X-Pro 1 to look at for street photography - just need really good lenses for them...

But till then, my little Leica D-Lux 5 works well on the street with my Canon 5D2 covering other duties including extreme low light


----------



## AprilForever (Jan 25, 2012)

ghosh9691 said:


> scrappydog said:
> 
> 
> > ghosh9691 said:
> ...



Or a 7D!


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 25, 2012)

Not my best - but taken with 1d4+400 f/2.8 just to show a Leica isn't needed


----------



## AprilForever (Jan 25, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Not my best - but taken with 1d4+400 f/2.8 just to show a Leica isn't needed



Love it! Three cheers for iconoclasm!!!


----------



## ghosh9691 (Jan 25, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Not my best - but taken with 1d4+400 f/2.8 just to show a Leica isn't needed



That is not the point. Street photography can be done with any camera - some are just more suited to it than others. A DSLR is much more noticeable and much more intimidating, particularly in close quarters.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 25, 2012)

ghosh9691 said:


> A DSLR is much more noticeable and much more intimidating, particularly in close quarters.



Sure it is...but Brian with his 400/2.8 were well outside of intimidation range, which is the point of the 400mm lens...I'm guessing about 150' (~50 m).


----------



## Ryusui (Jan 25, 2012)

passserby said:


> If you think that buying a Leica will turn you into a great street photographer, you are wrong.


I don't think anyone here is insinuating that having a Leica will make you better, just that it _can_ be easier and more discreet than an SLR. It's more discreet and doesn't require you to carry around large glass so you can be "outside of intimidation range".

Personally, I really like shooting on the street with my 5DII and 70-200. But I'd love to find me an itty-bitty I can use with decent IQ and ISO performance for those days when I just want to blend in a little more. Just like ghosh9691, I love my D-Lux 5 as a discreet-use camera. But take it out at night and you're screwed.


----------



## distant.star (Jan 25, 2012)

I think this is a good post about the sensitivity of the whole "street photography" issue.

One reason I've always been the one taking the pictures in my world is sort of self-defense. Like Orang, I don't like having my picture taken, never have. However, it's part of the world, so if it happens, so be it.

As for being offended, a big part of life is being offended. Most of what I see in this world offends me. The idea that people think they should live life without being offended deeply offends me. What offends us is a primary part of what we are. We either accept, reject or change. Since change is so difficult and challenging, most people never go there. Unless we're outraged, we generally tend to accept -- the meek will inherit the earth, I guess. Famous philosophers have depicted hell as a place of total boredom where offense does not take place.

The mention of people who are "shy" definitely touched a nerve with me. If you pay attention, you really can tell when someone doesn't want their picture taken. I tend to not take their picture. I once saw a man at a county fair who seemed deeply afraid I might take his picture. To reassure him, I told him I knew he didn't want his picture taken and I wouldn't. As I've said before, I'm not out there trying to make people feel uncomfortable.

Suggesting that street photography may be unethical is beyond the pale. And the comparison to audio recording is simply inaccurate. Here's why I believe this. What I believe is the best street photography/candid portraiture captures humans at what I call an "interior moment." They have briefly abandoned their public mask and have gone somewhere inside. You can see that in the eyes, the face, sometimes the body language. That's a rare event, and it's why I have so few pictures I really love. It's sort of the holy grail for me. In contrast to an audio recording, this portrayal of the person does not intrude on what he's thinking or where his mind might be -- only that his public self is temporarily suspended. An audio recording, on the other hand, is going right to the mind. That's the basis of why police can prohibit video recording (with sound) in the U.S. on the basis of wire-tapping laws. Recording someone's thoughts is a far sight from recording their vacant stare.

Orang asked what makes photography different -- that's what.

As for arrogance in assuming other people will tacitly be your model, I agree. That's why street photography is so hard for most of us. I am not arrogant, and I don't think most of us are. But you have to act aggressively sometimes if you think it will produce art of value. Art itself requires arrogance. I think it's arrogant to publicly display my pictures -- who am I to think anyone would want to see my work? Yet, we do it, and I'm sure there are a variety of reasons behind that. The OP talked about the adrenalin, heart-pounding rush of taking a street picture. That's the arrogance of it. But he believed the image would be worth it. He saw something in another human that he believed was worth sharing with other human beings.

Visual art can be a form of storytelling. Our human brains make sense of the world through story. And people are the heart of stories we value most.

Probably more than anyone wanted to read -- but I do have an abiding interest in this topic.

Thanks for the thoughtful post, Orang.






Orangutan said:


> I'm one of those people who hate to be photographed, and I do take offense when someone takes my picture, ironically, even though I also love to *take* candid photos of people. (which is one of the reasons I've enjoyed wedding photography) As a result, I don't do much street photography.
> 
> It's hard. When I do choose to engage in street photography, I make myself very visible; anyone who shows signs of shyness -- I avoid them. Do I miss a lot of shots? Yep, but then nobody owed me those shots to begin with.
> 
> ...


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 25, 2012)

passserby said:


> If I have a great street photography, it is okay to sell to someone, or to charge people for seeing it in a gallery.



Legal: likely. "OK" is a different story. Please see my previous post.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,2902.msg60957.html

Legal does not necessarily imply ethical. It is not ethical to assume everyone is happy to be your model.


----------



## Minnesota Nice (Jan 25, 2012)

First solution:

Use the 800mm and get real posty somewhere. Maybe a block or two away ;D

Second solution:

Be casual about it, don't make too big a deal about taking pictures, and if worse comes to worse and someone gets upset just be as polite as possible to avoid making it any worse!


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 25, 2012)

Didn't read this until I'd responded to a previous post. I appreciate the thought that went into your post, and I can tell you understand what I'm saying, but I still disagree. I might have more to say when I'm not at work. In the mean time, it's a worthwhile conversation: even for those who disagree with me, I hope they'll understand that not everyone sees this the same way as ardent street photographers do.



distant.star said:


> I think this is a good post about the sensitivity of the whole "street photography" issue.
> 
> One reason I've always been the one taking the pictures in my world is sort of self-defense. Like Orang, I don't like having my picture taken, never have. However, it's part of the world, so if it happens, so be it.
> 
> ...


----------



## distant.star (Jan 25, 2012)

I agree.

While I accept that everyone has their own way of doing "street photography," for me a 400mm lens feels more like voyeurism than street photography. I couldn't do it.







passserby said:


> AprilForever said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...


----------



## spaced (Jan 26, 2012)

I like this conversation - and I'm surprised with the direction it has taken.

I actually see both sides of the argument that distant.star and Orangutan present.

I personally would tend believe that the intention behind the photograph is just as important as the photograph itself, hence there is a part to be played by street photography, especially if there is a message behind the photograph.

For example, when you watch the video posted earlier on Bruce Gilden, although his photographs are striking his attitude comes across as somewhat rude and overbearing. Jumping in people's faces and taking photographs is a little over the top. Although his pictures are cool, I'm not sure how much real value there is in this.

On the other hand, I came across another street photographer called John Free - and he presents himself in an entirely different way all together. He speaks from the heart, and you can just tell he has a passion for the message he's trying to convey, rather than just getting a shot that looks cool.

If you're interested, it's well worth watching this video where he gives a brief intro to himself, and then talks through some of the photos he's taken over the years:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if1V0RBj_qs

(There is the occassional noise of trains passing by which can make it a little hard to hear what he's saying sometimes, but I believe what he's saying has a lot of value, so it's worth sticking to it and listening).


----------



## Minnesota Nice (Jan 26, 2012)

scrappydog said:


> Ryusui said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think anyone here is insinuating that having a Leica will make you better, just that it _can_ be easier and more discreet than an SLR.
> ...



Having a Leica might throw off the "Creepy photographer" vibe a bit as well, seeing as it's not a gigantic camera.


----------



## distant.star (Jan 26, 2012)

Thanks, spaced. That's a great video with John Free, and I'm wholly in his camp. As an aside, I'm a little surprised he doesn't articulate the real power and story of the first image he shows. The vulnerability of the child literally surrounded by the protecting strength of the man/father. That's exactly what I mean by this kind of photography telling stories we relate to.

I also agree that I don't care for Gilden, and I don't see a lot of worth in his "product." They mostly look like startled or surprised people. He injects himself into the scene (which is one way of legit street photography), but all his subjects are merely showing a different reaction to him. So, as his attitude would suggest, it's really all about him. I don't mean to condemn him, it's just not what I see as worthy in street photography.

"It's about love," is the one thing Free said that glued his video together. As I've said in past posts, I talk with people after photographing them. That tends to make the intimacy of the photographic act okay. Free seems to have spent a lot of time with the throwaway people of our world, as have I. And, of course, he talks with them. One thing I can assure you is these folks want someone to tell their story. They yearn to be heard. Generally, they live in a pragmatic world where other people are valued only for what they have or don't have. No one they interact with, either in the street or in bureaucracies, cares for them, and they know it. When they come across someone who just wants to tell their story in a photo, who values the person they really are...their hearts soften. Now that doesn't mean they might not ask you for money, but the caring enough to photograph them AND talk with them is what they really care about.

The higher up the socioeconomic ladder you go, the more resistance you will have to photos. A Wall Street banker will have a negative reaction to ANYONE taking a picture of him as he walks from his glass tower to his limo.

Anyway, as I keep saying, the image is the point. Had Free not taken that picture he starts his video with, one or two people may have seen that event in time -- and probably neither would have seen the power in it. But now, thousands of people have seen that image and recognized it -- and felt the bond between vulnerable children and their adult protectors, the visceral love of a father for a child -- those things are in that image, and I defy anyone to not feel it as they look. Free's image froze that moment. What I'm trying to do is freeze a few moments of time so people can look at what we're really about, hopefully at our best.

So, thanks again, spaced.




spaced said:


> I like this conversation - and I'm surprised with the direction it has taken.
> 
> I actually see both sides of the argument that distant.star and Orangutan present.
> 
> ...


----------



## AprilForever (Jan 26, 2012)

passserby said:


> ghosh9691 said:
> 
> 
> > A DSLR is not the ideal camera for street photography. Can it be done? Sure! But it is just too big and bulky and does not allow a photographer to be discreet.
> ...



Indeed!


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 26, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> ghosh9691 said:
> 
> 
> > A DSLR is much more noticeable and much more intimidating, particularly in close quarters.
> ...



This was a nearly full frame shot so I think about 100ft ;D ;D ;D Just set up the tripod with gimbal and away I go.

This is also my setup for landscapes too  I am not into wa lens as a rule, I dont like perspective distortion which is why my portraits are usually done with a 135 or longer.

I think an 800 might be OTT but a 600 sounds like fun in a busy street - if I go ff instead of 1.3 then this is probably what I will do


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 25, 2012)

"I think it takes time to develop balls."

HAHA. True statement.


----------



## BobSanderson (Apr 25, 2012)

spaced said:


> Street photography is one of the areas I enjoy - in particular photos of people - however I must admit I always hold back from taking the pictures I truly want to take because I feel nervous about taking photographs of the public.
> 
> For example, the other day I saw someone asleep on the metro so out came the camera, but I was paranoid that the guy would wake up or the passers by saying something to me. My heart was beating and the adrenaline pumping - I just took one picture and hoped for the best.
> 
> ...



Yes There are elements to street photography that could create a confrontation. I was once chased down Fifth Ave. in NYC by a homeless guy for apparently photographing a stray cat he said was his. It was hard to keep any dignity after that!

I think feeling comfortable with the area and having my equipment set for the shot are most important factors to making a shot that I will remember and want to keep. I concentrate on my breathing and quickly take the shot(s) with a smooth natural motion. For some of the shots, I preset the camera (usually with the 17-40 L) and take the image as I move towards the subject(s). For others with the 135mm L or 70 mm - 300 mm - F/4.0-5.6 I take my time and preset where I want the subject to cross the pre-focused spot. I sometimes feign shooting my wife and take my time on the subject I want. She is a great sport. 

I have shot in all places but I like the subway because it is loud and I can position my camera on my lap or discretely away from my face and shoot away.


----------

