To all aspiring street photographers

Obviously, I can't speak for how anybody else shoots. It's possible that some street photographers specifically target homeless folks and shoot a number of them to get the right shot. I constantly observe a lot of people on the street looking for interactions, situations, expressions, gestures, whatever, that looks like it might say something in a photograph about that individual or that couple or the human condition in general. In some situations I specifically try to avoid shooting the homeless for reasons discussed previously. In other situations, if they're just among the swirl of people out on the sidewalks I don't specifically aim for them or aim to miss them - they're just like everyone else to me in those situations. But as you can see from my Flickr stream, the number of shots involving the homeless that actually make it that far is EXTREMELY limited.

To me, the whole exercise feels nothing like I envision the paparazzi shooting experience, where you're doing everything possible to get the payoff shot of a particular celebrity or celebrity couple or possibly celebrity event. You know WHO you want to shoot and what you're after. Any street photographer I've communicated with is looking at the whole area with radar attuned to as many people as you can take in waiting for someone or some group of people do do something interesting that might make for a photograph that says something, that tells a story. The people are the stars of the show, but you don't a have a clue who's gonna be in your next photo from shot to shot - they just present themselves. It's much more of a spontaneous sort of a thing and far less pre-meditated than it sounds like you're thinking of. At least, again, in my case. There are a lot of people out there shooting and I'm sure everyone approaches it a little bit (or a LOT) differently. So I can only really speak for myself...

-Ray

Great civil conversation on a touch subject Ray & thanks for your perspective! :) (At the moment, I've said everything that I've wanted to say)
 
The streets are not all the same.

Culture differences have a role in what is considered acceptable in different places.

In China, taking photos of children does not make you creep and people on the streets have very little expectations of privacy in public, homeless or otherwise.

Just as there is no 'one size fits all' for the photographer, there is no 'one size fits all' for the locations either.
 
Thanks for posting Ayala's perspective! I'm still reading it but this is the first immediate take-away for me:

all actions are reflective directly upon your person as seen by others and as seen by yourself, all to varying degrees.


Respect

Growing up in America as a minority (Latino), I am hypersensitive to respect. Much of my life centers around respect, respect for self, respect for others deserving of respect and finally earning respect. Respect is a commodity, which cannot be bought. It is a commodity of great value in all society but in particular the minority communities.

Shoot with Respect

Life is a two-way street. Shoot how you would want to be captured if you were on the other end of the camera. To me shooting from the hip is sneaky. Sneaky is disrespectful. I tried shooting from the hip. When I was finished I wanted to take a shower. Other photogs are fine with shooting from the hip, they call it stealth … and that’s okay, I don’t give a rat’s what others do. Shooting from the hip just isn’t me. Remember that you are on your subject’s street. That is where they work and play. It is their front yard and their backyard … treat it with respect.

Just because you legally can do something, does not make it ethically right. I no longer shoot the homeless. As a former journalist, I recognize that there are at least two sides for every story. I also recognized that my homeless photos were only telling my side of the homeless story. I knew what I had to do to shoot homeless with a fair and equitable presentation. So until I sit with them and spend some time with them and learn and capture their story … my images were exploitive at best. So I no longer shoot the homeless.
 
I agree with Gary about almost everything, particularly regarding being there with respect, not condescension or anything of the sort. The one place I differ with him is on technique, which is getting pretty far OT. But I do shoot quite a bit from the hip - well, not really the hip, more like the belly, but the same idea. Not exclusively by a long shot, but quite a lot. I guess it is sneaky, but it doesn't make me feel sleazy at all, or make me want to take a shower. It allows me to get shots without becoming a participant in them by making it much less likely that someone is going to be aware of their photo being taken. I reject the notion that it's disrespectful, but we're all entitled to our opinion. There's certainly nothing disrespectful in my attitude when I'm out there shooting that way, and I think that's the bottom line. Sometimes I shoot from the eye, but then my shots too often become reaction to the guy with the camera shot, which isn't any part of what I'm after. Although those shots sometimes work well anyway - it's not what I'm after. We all have our tolerances and our goals, and I'm sure they develop from the same internal place. Some people don't want to get in close and instead shoot with telephoto lenses. I've tried that a couple of times and THAT makes me feel like a voyeur, like I need a shower when I'm done. But I've seen some really fine street photography done with long lenses, so I can't criticize it across the board any more than I accept Gary's criticism of shooting from the hip. It comes down to shooting how you're comfortable and how you get closest to the results you're after. For some, that's in your face Bruce Gilden style, for others it's with a very long lens from a very removed distance. I think for most of us it's somewhere in between and nobody shoots every shot the same way, so it's quite variable...

-Ray
 
I agree everybody has their own technique. I watched the Vivian Meier video a week ago. Her photos are beautiful and she shot with a big Rollei from the chest/belly also, but again it was different back then vs now everybody has a phone camera in their pockets... Her photos from google search:
vivian maier - Google Search
 
I agree everybody has their own technique. I watched the Vivian Meier video a week ago. Her photos are beautiful and she shot with a big Rollei from the chest/belly also, but again it was different back then vs now everybody has a phone camera in their pockets... Her photos from google search:
vivian maier - Google Search
Yeah, and those old TLRs are one of the first types of camera I shot with as well when I was a kid. So I always felt really comfortable with shooting from belly level and still do. Of course, the debate raged way back when too - HCB hated TLRs and took Gary's position, saying something like 'if God had wanted us to shoot from the belly, he'd have put our eyes down there"! So, you know, the more things change...

-Ray
 
Thank you very much for all the responses, I quite like a spirited discussion, especially when it is civil and quite intelligent.

I will say though, that after reading the responses, especially Ray's explanation, it has changed the way I think. I don't I will be changing the way I shoot in the same way it has also changed the way I see photographers who shoot homeless people.
 
To keep the lively discussion flowing and since the thread has caught the eye of people who shoot street also Bruce Gilden was mentioned earlier, what are your thoughts on this article. There's no denying that Bruce Gilden is one of the most famous street photographers in the world, but how do you feel about his principles when shooting his images?
 
To keep the lively discussion flowing and since the thread has caught the eye of people who shoot street also Bruce Gilden was mentioned earlier, what are your thoughts on this article. There's no denying that Bruce Gilden is one of the most famous street photographers in the world, but how do you feel about his principles when shooting his images?

I quit watching the video when he got bent out of shape just because someone bumped into his bag and didn't say "excuse me"...
 
Gilden is an overt photographer; he is in and of himself "part of" each photo he takes because by his actions he influences the scene. He is what my dear old mother would have referred to as "a burr under a saddle" - he forces a reaction. Someone like HCB is a covert photographer; he set out to capture the scene as it would have unfolded had he not been there - hard for a tall French aristo, which tends to lend strength to the argument that the size of your equipment matters less than what you do with it (in terms of attracting attention, that is...)

The advantage to Gilden's approach is that nobody can say they were not aware he was there. Conversely the advantage to HCB's approach is that his subject may have not been aware of him at all. But both are also disadvantages.

What they both had in common was the desire to get in close; neither shot (or shoots) with long-focus lenses. They are immersed in what they are shooting, and therefore are sensitive to the ebb and flow of the situation. They are not sitting in a window, or at a cafe across the street.

F8 and be there...
 
I could never do what Gilden does. I have a "do unto others" philosophy of most things, street photography included. I would be really pissed if someone came at me like Gilden does, so I'd never do that to anyone else. I would not and do not have any problem with other's photographing me on the street if they're either discrete or obvious but polite about it, so that's how I shoot.

So I find what Gilden does viscerally upsetting. BUT I can't really condemn him for it. People confront other people on the street all the time for all manner of reasons. To ask for money, to offer goods or services, to express an opinion about someone's looks, or just to yell at the world out of anger and/or insanity. I don't like any of those things either, but they're part of street life. And I put Gilden into that same category - I don't like it, but he's totally within his rights to do it and is really no worse than so many other things that people can do on the streets. And I like some of the photographs he makes that way. So if I'm judging him strictly on his results, he's obviously very accomplished. I don't like all of it and I don't love the general style, but I like some of the work anyway.

So the guy is just one of many irritants out on the street. We put up with the others and we can put up with him too. And at least he's producing something with all of that assaultive energy...

-Ray
 
Ray, I think we are on the same page, if not exactly the same paragraph.

I have no time for anyone who accosts me on the street in an unwelcome manner. I have a visceral dislike in particular of "chuggers" - charity muggers.* In parts of London they are so aggressive they will actually stand in your way and start to try to engage from ten yards away. Rather than passive-aggressively "ignore" them, I make a point of eye-contact while saying something like "I am not your target demographic", "Did you miss the briefing this morning?" or even a simple "You really haven't thought this through, have you?" My objective is to take the initiative away from them - and it works.

Conversely, if someone wants to take my picture, as long as they do not in any way interfere with me while doing so, they can fill their boots.



*I give directly to deserving charities. I do not give my bank details and sign up to direct debits on the street with companies that screw the charities that they are supposed to be benefiting.
 
Very very VERY damn few street photographers are making any money at it, maybe very rarely selling a print or two.

I have some doubts about the idea of making money from street photography, particularly in the form of direct sales as opposed to indirect forms (i.e. "read my blog, look at my street photos, click on my affiliate links").

For instance, when an agency such as Getty "suggests" images for uploading into their pool of stock images they require a model release form signed by the subject/s to accompany any image that contains one or more people in it, but I'm unsure about how much of the reason behind this is driven by legal requirements and if it even applies when no face or faces are recognizable.
 
I have some doubts about the idea of making money from street photography, particularly in the form of direct sales as opposed to indirect forms (i.e. "read my blog, look at my street photos, click on my affiliate links").

For instance, when an agency such as Getty "suggests" images for uploading into their pool of stock images they require a model release form signed by the subject/s to accompany any image that contains one or more people in it, but I'm unsure about how much of the reason behind this is driven by legal requirements and if it even applies when no face or faces are recognizable.

Nic,

In the US, you can use someone's likeness for "fine art" purposes without any sort of model release, but not for "commercial" purposes. So you couldn't sell an image to a stock agency (or use it in any sort of advertising or publication) with a recognizable face in it, but you could show and sell your stuff at a gallery or online or however. That's my understanding of it anyway. Obviously there are very very few people who are good enough, driven enough, and good enough at promoting their work, to actually make anything beyond the occasional token amount of money from street shooting. So I think you can sell it directly, but only in prints or a book of "art" or something like that. Which I don't think there's any money in except for a very rarified few...

That's my understanding of US law anyway. Not sure if it's the same in other nations...

-Ray
 
In the UK it is straightforward. When in a public place an individual has no right to privacy. Equally an individual cannot copyright their own face.

However, you may not use a photo of an individual in a manner likely to cause them offence, distress or harm. That would be libellous and is a tort in the eyes of the law.

Thus if I took a photo of you and posted it with an insulting or derogatory caption, or sold your image for use in a campaign for, for instance, haemorrhoid cream, you would have a case against me.
 
In the UK it is straightforward. When in a public place an individual has no right to privacy. Equally an individual cannot copyright their own face.

However, you may not use a photo of an individual in a manner likely to cause them offence, distress or harm. That would be libellous and is a tort in the eyes of the law.

Thus if I took a photo of you and posted it with an insulting or derogatory caption, or sold your image for use in a campaign for, for instance, haemorrhoid cream, you would have a case against me.

How about if you took a street photo and someone was in it who saw it on Flickr or if you got it in a gallery show or something and they just didn't like how they looked the day you took it? Could they claim offense, distress, or harm and sue you? I'm guessing not, but if so, that could have a pretty notable chilling effect...

-Ray
 
They could try, but they wouldn't get far. You are not "profiting" from their image, nor deliberately presenting them in a defamatory or libellous way. Not liking is not enough.

That said, there was a case not so long ago of a woman in Scotland, I dimly recall, who sued for "emotional distress" because she had been snapped, blind drunk, outside a nightclub, throwing up in a gutter. The judge found in her favour, amazingly...
 
Back
Top