pniev
Student for life
Jordan Steele's recent post of the homeless man - in which he mentioned that he asked for permission to take a photo (which I appreciated very much indeed) - triggered a question: what are the ethics in street photography? I am curious what your thoughts are with respect to ethics (so I am leaving out the legal aspects because I asked that earlier, if I recall correctly, here or at fujixspot).
Let me share my - evolving and strictly personal - view. The more I see, the more I dislike the "secret" shots (including my own) and the more I appreciate shots taken openly, like Jordan's shot and Karin/Briar's posts such as the 'mostly-monotone' and 'cool' shots which seem to taken without being secretive. Wouldn't anyone of us be offended when we would find out that someone put a microphone in our houses to listen what we were saying? To me that seems to be similar to taking a photo of person, who is clearly visible, without his/her permission. Who likes voyeurs? How does it differ from agencies quietly monitoring the internet?
So I browsed a bit and found this article: Conscientious Extended | The Ethics of Street Photography. The writer refers to Winogrand and his followers who believe that everyone can be photographed anywhere and any time without permission. Isn't this what paparazzi believe? (of course, after taking the photo paparazzi are really upset when someone uses their photo without having paid for it and without their permission).
Based on what Joerg Colberg wrote, I tried to come up with basic rules (again from an ethical perspective, not a legal one) for myself. But I got stuck after two basic rules:
1. Shots are taken 'open, so not from the hip, while the camera is hanging around the neck, etc. So basically shooting should be done while viewing the LCD or looking through the viewfinder. Bottom line is that it must be (potentially) noticeable that the photo is taken.
2. When a person or multiple persons will be clearly visible/potentially recognizable, those people are asked upfront for permission. If that is not possible of spontaneity would get lost, ask for permission after taking the photo. Asking permission is not necessary when taking photos of crowds, during demonstrations and large-group gatherings, and/or when people are not clearly visible (eg silhouette, viewed from the back).
Did I miss anything? Am I talking nonsense here? I am curious what you think (really).
Just to be clear: it is not my intention to insult anyone or step on toes. If I did, please accept my sincere apologies. I am just trying to learn more about street photography!
Looking forward to your opinion,
Peter
Let me share my - evolving and strictly personal - view. The more I see, the more I dislike the "secret" shots (including my own) and the more I appreciate shots taken openly, like Jordan's shot and Karin/Briar's posts such as the 'mostly-monotone' and 'cool' shots which seem to taken without being secretive. Wouldn't anyone of us be offended when we would find out that someone put a microphone in our houses to listen what we were saying? To me that seems to be similar to taking a photo of person, who is clearly visible, without his/her permission. Who likes voyeurs? How does it differ from agencies quietly monitoring the internet?
So I browsed a bit and found this article: Conscientious Extended | The Ethics of Street Photography. The writer refers to Winogrand and his followers who believe that everyone can be photographed anywhere and any time without permission. Isn't this what paparazzi believe? (of course, after taking the photo paparazzi are really upset when someone uses their photo without having paid for it and without their permission).
Based on what Joerg Colberg wrote, I tried to come up with basic rules (again from an ethical perspective, not a legal one) for myself. But I got stuck after two basic rules:
1. Shots are taken 'open, so not from the hip, while the camera is hanging around the neck, etc. So basically shooting should be done while viewing the LCD or looking through the viewfinder. Bottom line is that it must be (potentially) noticeable that the photo is taken.
2. When a person or multiple persons will be clearly visible/potentially recognizable, those people are asked upfront for permission. If that is not possible of spontaneity would get lost, ask for permission after taking the photo. Asking permission is not necessary when taking photos of crowds, during demonstrations and large-group gatherings, and/or when people are not clearly visible (eg silhouette, viewed from the back).
Did I miss anything? Am I talking nonsense here? I am curious what you think (really).
Just to be clear: it is not my intention to insult anyone or step on toes. If I did, please accept my sincere apologies. I am just trying to learn more about street photography!
Looking forward to your opinion,
Peter