Ethics in the street

[Ray Sachs]

Ray, you have it in a nutshell. That will teach me to work and play at the same time - I am a bloke and cannot multitask. When writing Winogrand I was thinking for some reason of Bruce Gilden; Winogrand was an incessant photographer, a man to whom every evolving scene was a potential target. Gilden, on the other hand, is a mugger with a camera...

Kind of what I thought might have been the case. And I couldn't agree with your characterization more...

-Ray

 

[pdh]

I shall refrain from commenting on contemporary attitudes to children and their protection otherwise I shall get irritable (more irritable, actually - I'm in a right grump today).

anyhoo, one thing I have noticed in these sorts of discussions is that strong views about what's OK and not OK about street photography can become quite personalised to particular practitioners (Gilden is an excellent example - one only has to look at a YT vid of him working to think "What a complete arse that man is" ... yet the reports of acquaintances indicate a man of charm and wit and whose interpersonal skill are well-honed)

 

[rbelyell]

ive really enjoyed this discussion. on so many other forums this particular debate turns ugly very quickly. how nice, and what a wonderful reflection on this forum and the participants that we remain respectful, but not obsequious.

as my final thought, for me, even though i previously said rules were unworkable, there really are two 'rules' that i personally follow: i try to do to others what i want to have done to me, and i try to put being a good human being over being a good photographer.

 

[pniev]

If it had been followed by all photographers we would have no documentation of historical injustice, or more generally large slabs of history at all (think Dorothea Lange, Doisneau, Henryk Ross), and our record of (for instance) contemporary urban deprivation would be entirely absent (think Don Springer, as an example close to our hearts here at SC)

Thanks! Their photos show great ethical considerations such as reflected in Ray's reply

 

[Ray Sachs]

First post here, so let me start by saying hi. A special shout out to Ray Sachs for turning me on to a photography forum that seems quite helpful, informative, and from what I've seen so far, incredibly civil. Such a nice change from a certain gear-driven website owned by Amazon!

Steve, Welcome! Hope you like it here. It's a bit sleepy, but much nicer, IMHO. Any luck finding an X100s yet?

-Ray

 

[pniev]

I am a bloke and cannot multitask. /QUOTE]
Lol. If it helps: women are not better multitaskers than men! No one can do two tasks consciously without seriously impacting performance! That is a relief isn't it.

 

[Luckypenguin]

But also only a personal rule, and not one to be applied willy-nilly.

If it had been followed by all photographers we would have no documentation of historical injustice, or more generally large slabs of history at all (think Dorothea Lange, Doisneau, Henryk Ross), and our record of (for instance) contemporary urban deprivation would be entirely absent (think Don Springer, as an example close to our hearts here at SC)

Exactly, hence why the statement needs to be read in it's entirety and especially with the section bolded below.

I also don't take pictures of the homeless or disadvantaged (although my impression from being in America recently is that this is a large problem in that country so the views from anyone who lives there may be different). I don't have an outlet to use such images for positive means in a way that would actually help their plight, and if we're talking about having a reasonable expectation of privacy in your home, what happens if the street IS your home?

 

[Luckypenguin]

On a similar note, the sad situation we have today is that photography of children is viewed with suspicion at best and accusations of perversion at worst. As a result, in 200 years time will our ancestors look back on images of today and wonder where all the children were kept? Clearly they were not allowed on the streets at all... I freely admit that I will not point my camera in the direction of a child in the street these days - such is the world we live in.

Don't worry, all the pictures of children are on Facebook. There are way, way too many pictures of people's children on Facebook...

 

[pniev]

I stumbled on this 2012 article. I found it very interesting!
Criminalizing Photography

 

[BBW]

ive really enjoyed this discussion. on so many other forums this particular debate turns ugly very quickly. how nice, and what a wonderful reflection on this forum and the participants that we remain respectful, but not obsequious.

as my final thought, for me, even though i previously said rules were unworkable, there really are two 'rules' that i personally follow: i try to do to others what i want to have done to me, and i try to put being a good human being over being a good photographer.

I couldn't agree more with what you've written, and that second paragraph is so beautifully put rbelyell, that I feel it sums up so much of what everyone has said.

Peter/pniev - thank you so much for starting this thread and sharing your thoughts throughout because this thread is a gift to anyone who thinks with their camera.

I've greatly appreciated everyone's posts and don't feel I can add anything more to the mix. I'll just say "what he said".

P.S. Welcome to SC, Steve Miller! I can't help but wonder if you're the Steve Miller of my younger days

 

[Jock Elliott]

Fascinating topic

Okay, I'll confess: I am intrigued by street photography, but I do very little -- almost none -- of it. In my distant past, I have done the corporate equivalent of street photography . . . where I was assigned to get picture of people being candidly themselves while being as unobtrusive as possible. I managed this with a 135mm lens, high speed film, and available light.

To me, that is the soul of street: to capture people being themselves while shooting unobtrusively. Henri Cartier-Bresson embodies that ethos, in my opinion. I've read a couple of stories about how HCB worked, and it seems that he aimed at being the invisible man.

Contrast that with some of today's street photographers, who insist on using wide angles lenses and then moving in very close to fill the frame. I have even seen one "street" photographer blazing away with mamiya rangefinder and a flash at a distance of about 7 feet. It seems to me that what these photographers are capturing are not pictures of people being themselves, but people reacting to the intrusion of a photographer.

Recently, I covered a steamboat rally in Waterford, NY and captured this picture:

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I don't claim it is great photography or great street. It was shot at 78mm equivalent. I'm pretty sure that the gentlemen in question did not know that he was being photographed. My wife and I later had a long conversation with him about steamboats. He saw the camera around my neck and never mentioned it.

For me, the ethics are pretty simple:
1. People in public places are fair game.
2. Be unobtrusive.
3. Treat others as you would like to be treated.

Cheers, Jock

 

[Ray Sachs]

To me, that is the soul of street: to capture people being themselves while shooting unobtrusively. Henri Cartier-Bresson embodies that ethos, in my opinion. I've read a couple of stories about how HCB worked, and it seems that he aimed at being the invisible man.

Contrast that with some of today's street photographers, who insist on using wide angles lenses and then moving in very close to fill the frame. I have even seen one "street" photographer blazing away with mamiya rangefinder and a flash at a distance of about 7 feet. It seems to me that what these photographers are capturing are not pictures of people being themselves, but people reacting to the intrusion of a photographer.

Jock, I agree with you about the soul of street photography, but I disagree regarding wide angle lenses. Cartier Bresson shot with both 35 and 50mm lenses - 35 is arguably wide-ish angle. Winogrand shot almost exclusively with 28mm.

These were shot with 24-28mm, where I do almost all of my street photography. And, quality aside, I don't see too many people reacting to the intrusion of a photographer, despite the fact that I was quite close for all of them. You can get close with a wide angle and NOT disturb your subject. Its easier if its crowded, but its doable even if its not...

This one's even done with an ultra-wide fisheye lens:

-Ray

 

[kyteflyer]

... I try to do to others what i want to have done to me, and i try to put being a good human being over being a good photographer.

This. I don't need any more.

 

[Steve Miller]

Steve, Welcome! Hope you like it here. It's a bit sleepy, but much nicer, IMHO. Any luck finding an X100s yet?

-Ray

Hi Ray,

ephotocraft.com (Photo Craft in Burke, VA) had some X100s's a couple of weeks ago but I was still going back and forth on pulling the trigger. When I finally decided to take the plunge, they were sold out. I think I'm #2 on their list so with any luck, I'll be shooting with it in the next few weeks. Of course, if Amazon Warehouse has another fire sale on a Like New X-E1/18-55 ($900 - $950), that may be tough to pass up...even more so if I could combine it with the yet to be released Fuji 23/1.4! That would be a high quality problem to face.

Steve

 

[Steve Miller]

P.S. Welcome to SC, Steve Miller! I can't help but wonder if you're the Steve Miller of my younger days

Thanks BB! I'm old enough to say that I grew up listening to some of his music...and had the "pleasure" of having more than a few people ask me if I was THE Steve Miller!

However, I was able to play a few songs with some buddies at my wedding back in 2000 (I sang and was on rhythm guitar). I had it all rehearsed in my head that I was going to say something like "I grew up my whole life asked if I was THE Steve Miller, well today I AM...". Of course, I was so nervous at the thought of playing in front of my bride, family, and friends, that I totally spaced on using that line, but at least managed to play some cool tunes.

Steve

P.S. No, I didn't play The Joker or Jungle Love. Didn't seem appropriate, especially with my 5-year old step-daughter/groupie sitting on the dance floor (which our photographer captured beautifully).

 

[Steve Miller]

Jock, I agree with you about the soul of street photography, but I disagree regarding wide angle lenses. Cartier Bresson shot with both 35 and 50mm lenses - 35 is arguably wide-ish angle. Winogrand shot almost exclusively with 28mm.

These were shot with 24-28mm, where I do almost all of my street photography. And, quality aside, I don't see too many people reacting to the intrusion of a photographer, despite the fact that I was quite close for all of them. You can get close with a wide angle and NOT disturb your subject. Its easier if its crowded, but its doable even if its not...

-Ray

Hey Ray,

It's funny. I was replying to your earlier post, then saw these images before seeing who posted them. I could tell immediately from the PP of the first three that they were yours (not necessarily for the last one).

I love that you can get so up close but I have always wondered what method you use. Unless the 3rd shot is heavily cropped, you can't be more than 3-4 feet from the mother and daughter. Correct? If so, do you shoot from the hip, or more appropriately, anywhere but raising it to your eye? Or do you usually capture your images using the viewfinder? Although people can be in their own little worlds, I would think that when you're only 4 feet from someone, they would notice you if you pulled your camera to your eye, and in so doing, what drew you into the scene may have changed.

Thanks,

Steve

By the way, that shot of the mother and daughter is fantastic.

 

[rbelyell]

ray those shots are awesome. i'm very jealous...

 

[Ray Sachs]

Hey Ray,

It's funny. I was replying to your earlier post, then saw these images before seeing who posted them. I could tell immediately from the PP of the first three that they were yours (not necessarily for the last one).

I love that you can get so up close but I have always wondered what method you use. Unless the 3rd shot is heavily cropped, you can't be more than 3-4 feet from the mother and daughter. Correct? If so, do you shoot from the hip, or more appropriately, anywhere but raising it to your eye? Or do you usually capture your images using the viewfinder? Although people can be in their own little worlds, I would think that when you're only 4 feet from someone, they would notice you if you pulled your camera to your eye, and in so doing, what drew you into the scene may have changed.

Thanks,

Steve

By the way, that shot of the mother and daughter is fantastic.

Yeah, I was real real close for that one, and really on all but the second, which I was a few feet farther back on. I never hold the camera at my face, sometimes down at waist level, sometimes belly/chest level. Occasionally using a flip up screen if I have one (a couple of these are OMD shots) but usually just framing on instinct, not through the LCD or viewfinder. But finders are pretty useless to me for street photography about 95% of the time.

-Ray

 

[Petach]

I took this shot of Bruce Gilden some while back in London. I love his documentary stuff about the Yakuza and the North East of England grit. He is a gifted camerasmith..........honestly, you do not get to be a member of Magnum by being crap. But he does everything I hate about aggressive street photography. Yes, the overt invasion of personal space, barking instructions at the unwitting and unwilling subjects.....startling them as if under attack,, All unforgiveable in my view.

Bruce Gilden by petach123 (Peter Tachauer), on Flickr

 

[Ray Sachs]

I took this shot of Bruce Gilden some while back in London. I love his documentary stuff about the Yakuza and the North East of England grit. He is a gifted camerasmith..........honestly, you do not get to be a member of Magnum by being crap. But he does everything I hate about aggressive street photography. Yes, the overt invasion of personal space, barking instructions at the unwitting and unwilling subjects.....startling them as if under attack,, All unforgiveable in my view.

Yeah, he's kind of the ultimate example of someone who's work, when I'd seen it prior to knowing anything about him, I liked a lot, but learning about his methodology absolutely ruins it for me. I can't look at his work objectively anymore because I'm so turned off / offended by his process. To where I'm better off not even looking at it anymore because I can't just react to the images as images anymore.

I don't doubt he can be a nice guy in other contexts, as someone above alluded to, but he's a photographer and he's decidedly NOT a nice guy in that role. And I can't look at his images independently of that.

-Ray