Jerk with a telephoto

[williams473]

So I'm coming back from having some great Chinese food with 2 of my coworkers on our lunch break. We're walking along 5th avenue which is one of the main drags through Oakland in Pittsburgh. It's a very crowded sidewalk, and yet I notice a guy across 5th avenue on the opposite walk with an SLR and some kind of telephoto lens on it - like a 300 or bigger - really long lens. As I turn my head to look at him full on, he whips the lens up towards a building, and pretends he wasn't shooting me. I sort of smirk and keep walking, then quickly look back at him. He's got it pointed at us again! And again, he does the (whoops - no I was shooting the sky!) move.

I have to say, I felt violated. I know it's legal. But honestly, I am very seriously considering dropping the street game as a result of this experience. Or at least, working with a little more consent first. But grabbing closeups at long range with a telephoto - that's just freakin' wrong. It sort of goes against the code of street photography, you know? To be able to get into a sort of intimate proximity usually reserved for my wife with someone through a lens, to fix that image to do with what you please, but not have the stones to admit that's what your doing is just gutless. This guy was truly "taking" pictures.

But I swear, it was constructive for me - it really made me think about how many people I've made feel that way. I very well may miss out on some good photographs if I quit doing street work, but I think I'm just reaching a point in life where I'm starting to care a lot more about my subjects - how they feel about the image "we" are making. Am I overeacting? Maybe if he had been in my face with a 28 and I coulod have said "hey" I wouldn't have minded. Something about staring down the barrel of that long lens and knowing how tight he had us framed just torqued me off.

[oftheherd]

You just know a lot of members here are going to say you are over reacting. That since you have been doing it you shouldn't mind. But, now you know how the person of the other side of your camera may feel.

It is one of the reasons I am not big on "street" photography. I don't want to think I am so unusual in some way that someone would want to photograph me. Doubtless others feel the same way. Any idea why he was anxious to photograph you?

Granted my feelings are my own. Others may not feel that way. In fact many have said so. Good for them. I just happen not to think that way and wish to be respected for it.

[M. Valdemar]

I'll bet he stopped taking your photo when you put your pants back on.


So I'm coming back from having some great Chinese food with 2 of my coworkers on our lunch break. We're walking along 5th avenue which is one of the main drags through Oakland in Pittsburgh. It's a very crowded sidewalk, and yet I notice a guy across 5th avenue on the opposite walk with an SLR and some kind of telephoto lens on it - like a 300 or bigger - really long lens. As I turn my head to look at him full on, he whips the lens up towards a building, and pretends he wasn't shooting me. I sort of smirk and keep walking, then quickly look back at him. He's got it pointed at us again! And again, he does the (whoops - no I was shooting the sky!) move.

I have to say, I felt violated. I know it's legal. But honestly, I am very seriously considering dropping the street game as a result of this experience. Or at least, working with a little more consent first. But grabbing closeups at long range with a telephoto - that's just freakin' wrong. It sort of goes against the code of street photography, you know? To be able to get into a sort of intimate proximity usually reserved for my wife with someone through a lens, to fix that image to do with what you please, but not have the stones to admit that's what your doing is just gutless. This guy was truly "taking" pictures.

But I swear, it was constructive for me - it really made me think about how many people I've made feel that way. I very well may miss out on some good photographs if I quit doing street work, but I think I'm just reaching a point in life where I'm starting to care a lot more about my subjects - how they feel about the image "we" are making. Am I overeacting? Maybe if he had been in my face with a 28 and I coulod have said "hey" I wouldn't have minded. Something about staring down the barrel of that long lens and knowing how tight he had us framed just torqued me off.

[williams473]

I can completely respect your view - after all it's sort of what I realized all of a sudden. I mean I always knew what I was doing was intrusive, but it was something about the guy not acknowledging us that really irked me - which I have also done. In a way it violates the recipricol agreement between shooter and subject, you know?

I very well may joing your camp after all - it was just a sort of BANG epiphany for me, and I just had to sit down and post and see if anyone else had felt this way.

I don't why he was shooting us specifically - I think he grabbing shots or everyone walking by.

[feenej]

I was at the Storm the Bastille run last night in Milwaukee and some guy with a jumbo dSLR and zoom took my picture. No big deal.

I had actually shot two rolls of film with my little Minolta XG-1 and 45mm Rokkor pancake lens. I was taking a photo of some people at an outdoor bar from as close as I could get and some guy started yelling at me pretty good. I moved off and was glad he did not follow. I did also get a little bit of a negative reaction when I got in somebody's face later too. So, anyway, despite stuff like that I guess I'll keep at it myself, at least for now.

[pesphoto]

I'll bet he stopped taking your photo when you put your pants back on.

Valdemar, didnt you say you were going to be in Pittsburgh this week?
Fess up fella!!

[swoop]

There was a post like this maybe two weeks ago.

I know how you feel. I wonder if somewhere out there, there's a forum of people who are in photographs instead of ones that make photographs.

I think I've caught a camera on me maybe 3 times. And it's easy to get over. Someone points it at you, snaps and then that's it. And you just keep on walking. And mostly it's harmless. I've done it myself a few times. If I'm caught, I smile and nod, maybe say hello. If I'm not, I keep walking along. But there are people that just go about it in this really skeazy way.

[oftheherd]

... but it was something about the guy not acknowledging us that really irked me - which I have also done.
...



Maybe that was it. In Korea I once had a young man tell me "Yankee go home." I wasn't overjoyed at it, but what really got me was the way he did it. He bowed his head, didn't look at me, and spoke softly so other Koreans around wouldn't hear him. That made me mad. He didn't even have the courage to face me and declare how he felt loudly enough for others to hear.

Otherwise it was almost funny to think I had been in the US Army for about 26 years, and in the far east over 12 years, and that was the first time I had been told Yankee go home. He must have been watching old US movies or something. :D

[Al Patterson]

There was a post like this maybe two weeks ago.

I know how you feel. I wonder if somewhere out there, there's a forum of people who are in photographs instead of ones that make photographs.

I think I've caught a camera on me maybe 3 times. And it's easy to get over. Someone points it at you, snaps and then that's it. And you just keep on walking. And mostly it's harmless. I've done it myself a few times. If I'm caught, I smile and nod, maybe say hello. If I'm not, I keep walking along. But there are people that just go about it in this really skeazy way.

Every day at work, at the bank or while going through airports, I'm on camera, so I don't mind the odd street photographer taking my picture, although I'll state that I doubt I'm really interesting enough to photograph...

[williams473]

Haha - you know Valdemar's pants comment (this is a tangent) reminds me of the movie Batman, with Michael Keaton. Do you remember the scene when the reporter asks the photographer Vicky Vale if she will photograph him with his pants off? He says (as if bragging) "You're going to need a long lens!" As in, a telephoto to search for what might be down there? Always bothered me :) Clearly the writer of the film didn't do his research on lenses...

I know I've been photographed before too - this time it just really did bother me. I guess as Herd stated - it was the way it was done. I think the photographer owes his or her subject the respect of at least an acknowledgement huh?

[pesphoto]

I think the photographer owes his or her subject the respect of at least an acknowledgement huh?
I dont really agree no. I often shoot this way.......doesnt mean I dont respect a subject. Just the opposite actually.

http://www.paulshelaskyphotography.com/Photos/PhotoOfWeek/Office.jpg

[williams473]

Al,

True, we are always pictured, but the act of photographing as he was, as WE do, has different intent. I don't equate being recorded by a camera, whether digital or film or video with being photographed for Photography's sake. I probably wouldn't have been irked at all if the guy was doing a government survey of Pittsburgh residents for some reason or another - but it had the look of a street shooter taking an image and being afraid to even admit he had done it. I've always considered myself a little geeky-looking - I can't imagine I scared the guy...

[back alley]

there's a code of street photography?

[feenej]

Aknowlege? Probably. Maybe. I don't always. Not usually. My friend's wife kept calling me a creep one time that she happend to be along and I was photographing. She sat me down, took me to school, and said that I need to introdcuce myself first, take the picture, then give the subject my card after. HAHAHAHA. Guess I'll just stick to being a creep.

[williams473]

Pes,

I understand, but the respect may be one-way. If I hadn't noticed the shooter, I wouldn't be angry of course, because I wouldn't have known the image was made. I guess I am questioing how ethical it is to "snipe" a subject at long range.

Don't get me wrong - I still plan to work on the street - but I think my days of grabbing shots are over. I would rather settle into a spot for a while and let people know what I intend to do before starting to work the area.

[williams473]

Back,

Yeah, I have a code. I'm not imposing it on anyone else, but I have a code of ethics for working in public that guides me when I work.

[pesphoto]

Pes,

I understand, but the respect may be one-way. If I hadn't noticed the shooter, I wouldn't be angry of course, because I wouldn't have known the image was made. I guess I am questioing how ethical it is to "snipe" a subject at long range.

Don't get me wrong - I still plan to work on the street - but I think my days of grabbing shots are over. I would rather settle into a spot for a while and let people know what I intend to do before starting to work the area.

Fair enough.......

[feenej]

On the other hand, I would never use a telephoto or big zoom. Yikes, somebody sees me scoping his girfriend with a tele, it's game over.

[back alley]

i have developed a mode of working on the street but i doubt i could call it a code of ethics.
i have no problem taking a shot of anyone in a public place. if they indicate their displeasure, i smile and move on as i have no great need to upset people in the persuit of a hobby. while i do not sneak...i may not act in an overt manner either.
if someone wants to shoot me on the street then more power to them.

[tbarker13]

I don't really see any difference between
1) sniping at long range without the person realizing it.
2) getting close and shooting with a wideangle without the person realizing it.

I see a lot of street photography that relies on the capturing images of people who don't know they are being photographed. If you think that's ok, then it doesn't seem to matter whether the capturing is done with a telephoto lens or a wideangle lens.

This is something I think I pretty much suck at. I'm horribly introverted and just find it tough to walk around a street shooting strangers. But I don't really have a problem with it. I was out flyfishing a couple months back. At one point, I looked behind me and realized that some other tourist had stopped by the bank and was photographing me. I thought it was kind of cool.

[williams473]

Back,

So it wouldn't bother you to know there was a 16x20 inch print of your face, with every line and whisker clearly defined, hanging on someone's wall somewhere? I guess I'm more self conscous than that - it's cool that you're not. I'm not sure why that scenario creeps me out, but it does.

I wouldn't mind being in a photo on someone's wall where I'm a figure, or doing something - but it's something about the intimacy of the drilling right down on someone and violating their personal space, albeit with the lens and not actually.

[williams473]

Tim,

Brother fisherman! :) In that scenario, I'd be okay with it too. But if I was starting to feel woozy from heat or something and waded back to the bank, sat down with my eyes closed and realized someone was 20 feet away with a 300, I'd be miffed. Or they could be 2 feet away with a 28 - either way it's an invasion of privacy the way I see it.

[ijohnnyz]

I don't mind being photographed. I would much rather be in an unacknowledged street photo than fake a smile for a posed group shot. People are going to photography what interest them in their own style within their own comfort zone. There is no "street code."

[Bobfrance]

Relax, he was probably just a terrorist.


;)

[williams473]

Well, codes are not universal. I can have a street code if I so choose - no one has to follow it. In my world this guy violated a part of my code which says if you want to get close enough to kiss me, I'd appreciate an introduction first.

[Todd.Hanz]

I've caught other photogs shooting my way, I just smile or make a goofy face like "who farted" and move on.

[kxl]

Probably a P.I. working for a divorce attorney? Any reason why you or your co-workers may be the subject of some investigation? :rolleyes:

[williams473]

Bobfrance,

Yeah I should have gone over and asked him if he had his "Terrorist's Statement of Rights as a Photographer" pamphlet on him :)

[williams473]

PI?!!! Cripes!

Hmmm, well the only thing I can think that I've done that's shady is that I voted against Bush twice. But Mr. Bush was kind enough to allow me to remain in the Country.

[pesphoto]

how can you be sure hew was trying to photograph you anyhoo?

[WoolenMammoth]

All the people, *ALL* the people who use those white telephotos on the street are simply the biggest cowards out there. the end. Im not a fan of street photography in general, but for the people who are heralded as gods, they all did it, for the most part, with 50's or wider and got right up close to people, close enough to have some sort of human interaction. Every time I go to my favorite park in town to take some photos I always see those white lens people and wonder what sporting event they had just come from. I swear to god, even though those lenses are in consumers hands to stay, that is honestly the first thought that comes into mind every time.

[Bobfrance]

Bobfrance,

Yeah I should have gone over and asked him if he had his "Terrorist's Statement of Rights as a Photographer" pamphlet on him :)

The good news is terrorists don't have Flickr accounts so your visage is probably safe.

:D

[back alley]

Back,

So it wouldn't bother you to know there was a 16x20 inch print of your face, with every line and whisker clearly defined, hanging on someone's wall somewhere? I guess I'm more self conscous than that - it's cool that you're not. I'm not sure why that scenario creeps me out, but it does.

I wouldn't mind being in a photo on someone's wall where I'm a figure, or doing something - but it's something about the intimacy of the drilling right down on someone and violating their personal space, albeit with the lens and not actually.

it might be strange to walk into someone's place and see that photo of me, no doubt, but as long as there isn't a dozen of them and jars of body parts in the kitchen i think i could live with it.
for me, it would be hypocritical to hang a photo of a stranger in my place and then freak out if the reverse happened.
lately my photo goal has been to move in as close as possible with a wide angle, a 25 or 35, and shoot away. i tried it during a few lunchtime sessions at the local street performer's festival and so far no problems.

joe

[Gumby]

How does anyone know the guy was a jerk?

[williams473]

Pes,

Well with a long lens like that, the angle is so narrow that you pretty much have to point it right at someone, and he was so clearly jerking the camera away when I made eye contact witht he lens, that I'm pretty sure.

Then again, I could be finally losing it entirely... Guy could have been doing architectural work or something...

[pesphoto]

Bob, youre avatar freaks me out some.....

[williams473]

Yes Woolen, I think the human interaction part is what makes the act different than taking the image at long range. I think it shows in the images, too.

[Gumby]

... and he was so clearly jerking the camera away when I made eye contact ....

Ahhh... thanks for the answer! :rolleyes:

[Bobfrance]

Bob, youre avatar freaks me out some.....

Thanks. ;)

[williams473]

Joe,

I'm cool with your methods - that's how I usually do it. I just never had it happen to me, and sort of all wondered how it felt. And I personally (just my opinion) don't like it enough to consider not doing it to anyone else.

My curse is I love to photograph people, so I'm going to see about starting a portrait project - and continue to work street style at events at which people expect they are going to be getting photographed.

[Jason Sprenger]

Photography in public without consent while legal, is indeed rude. Yet, it almost goes without saying that folks who make their living and/or their art by documentary photography are going to get the shot and leave their sensibilities for the light table. These types will not miss a shot.

However, the problem with the guy and the telephoto lens is that he persisted when he lost "it". He wasn't going to get anything "natural" from you folks after he was "made".

To my mind, he should have either moved-on or better yet, close-in, apologize for bothering you, chat, and if you guys were cool, request some posed shots.

I look at photography like poker, it can be a fun, it can be rewarding, but it isn't always friendly.

[Bobfrance]

Yes Woolen, I think the human interaction part is what makes the act different than taking the image at long range. I think it shows in the images, too.

I agree.
You have to be in with the action to know what's going on and where to look for the shot.

[williams473]

Jason and Bob - good points both. Well I hate to cut out with the conversation so good, but man I actually have to WORK. Can you believe that? They want me to WORK here! I'll check in later tonight. I appreciate the conversation folks.

[pesphoto]

Photography in public without consent while legal, is indeed rude. .

Again, I have to disagree with that. I find images more interesting to look at and search for if the subject isnt aware of the camera. IM talking about out in public places of course.

[back alley]

matt, i hope you don't think that i have been arguing with you all this time, just explaining how i do things.
i used to use long lenses many years ago but it now feels like hunting a rabbit with a machine gun, much overkill!
now i like the wide or moderate wide lens and move closer with my feet.

what i really prefer is when a hot young thing checks me out but that hasn't happened in a many a moon...;)

[Rey]

Ok,

I really do not see the difference, from the subject's standpoint, whether one takes the photo with an SLR/tele from a distance or rams a rangefinder in the subjects face. Historically, rangefinders were employed for street photography precisley because the are stealthy. No mirror slap, small, handy. SLR's overcome their noise and size issues by shooting from a distance. So what. Either way the subject gets photographed without his/her consent. Some feel violated, some don't. if you feel violated when someone takes your photo, why do you do street photography?

[Bobfrance]

I only came here because I read the title and thought it was a 'How To' guide. :p

[pesphoto]

Bob, I hope thats not a self portrait.....

[Bobfrance]

Bob, I hope thats not a self portrait.....

It's cold in the North of England you know!

But to make my position clear on the subject.
Here's a picture of me taken by another RFFer without me knowing.

I'm the one with the cameras BTW :)

[Solinar]

Oh yeah! Folks with their paparazzi rigs are roaming the streets. To tell you the truth most of them are too fearful to hit the streets with 28mm lens. He or she would have to walk over to your side of the street to photograph you. Yipes!

[pesphoto]

Even when I get close I dont let them know Im taking their photo. Of course, not always possible, but I try.

http://www.paulshelaskyphotography.com/Photos/Gallery2/ManVsWoman.jpg

[Nh3]

The sheer hypocrisy and almost puritanical outrage at someone taking your picture/stealing your soul from a distance - and using the term being "violated" and a long lens in the same context is not only hilarious but quite disturbing considering the fact that you also mention that you "shoot street", or some variation of it.

You were walking down the street and you were visible to everyone and whats the fuss if one of those photographed you? You were not in drag or some other compromising outfit to demand privacy... Also whats the difference if he shot from a distance or right in your face - its not like in the wild west - its a guy with a camera not a gun.

Please refrain from calling random people "jerk" while they were just doing what you also 'pretend' to do - being a photographer.

I'm really sick and tired of these amateurs who point fingers at those who really are into this game and are not afraid to go out there and take pictures... Is it a case of sour grapes I don't know but if you want to shoot street then you can't be a shy alter boy.

Sorry for the rant...

[Bobfrance]

The sheer hypocrisy and almost puritanical outrage at someone taking your picture/stealing your soul from a distance - and using the term being "violated" and a long lens in the same context is not only hilarious but quite disturbing considering the fact that you also mention that you "shoot street", or some variation of it.

You were walking down the street and you were visible to everyone and whats the fuss if one of those photographed you? You were not in drag or some other compromising outfit to demand privacy... Also whats the difference if he shot from a distance or right in your face - its not like in the wild west - its a guy with a camera not a gun.

Please refrain from calling random people "jerk" while they were just doing what you also 'pretend' to do - being a photographer.

I'm really sick and tired of these amateurs who point fingers at those who really are into this game and are not afraid to go out there and take pictures... Is it a case of sour grapes I don't know but if you want to shoot street then you can't be a shy alter boy.

Sorry for the rant...

And breathe...

[pesphoto]

oops...end of discussion then.

[Al Patterson]

what i really prefer is when a hot young thing checks me out but that hasn't happened in a many a moon...;)

The last time that happened to me she was checking out my camera...

:bang:

[pesphoto]

The last time that happened to me she was checking out my camera...

:bang:

You sure it wasnt your "telephoto" she was checking out?:D

[anselwannab]

Can we as RF shooters start a 'gang' sign to tell other shooters to we're on to what they are doing.

To me with a street shot, you had better be able to explain to the subject why you took it. If your only answer is "I wanted your picture", that is really creapy. If you feel uncomfortable telling them why (Madam, you are incredibly ugly standing in front of fashion models), maybe you are not as dedicated to the art as you need to be.

Too bad you weren't 'carry'n' and you could have snapped his pic.

[Bobfrance]

If asked, I give out Flickr Moo cards with my email address in case they want a copy emailing and tell them I'm 'doing a project'.

A gang sign sounds cool though. :cool:

[back alley]

If asked, I give out Flickr Moo cards with my email address in case they want a copy emailing and tell them I'm 'doing a project'.

A gang sign sounds cool though. :cool:

i do that too!
those moo cards are great.
i have part of a photo printed on them and i tell people if they want to see the whole photo then they need to go to the address on the back of the card.

joe

[retnull]

Here in New York City, I get "street-shot" all the time. It's incredibly annoying.

One time my wife and I were in the elevator in the New Museum, and some guy with DSLR started shooting us in continuous-shooting mode. In an elevator! Four feet away from us, no social interaction, just click-click-click-click.

My wife said in a loud fake stage-whisper, "I think this guy wants to be a photographer."

[Al Patterson]

You sure it wasnt your "telephoto" she was checking out?:D

I had the 40 on my CL that day...:(

[Cale Arthur]

My wife said in a loud fake stage-whisper, "I think this guy wants to be a photographer."Brilliant!

--c--

[sepiareverb]

I tend to jerk with something else. Gear doesn't get me going- oh I thought this was a question. sorry.
:angel:

[mfunnell]

Another thing that creeps me out: Photographing people who are working. A cute waitress, for example, is a captive subject.You mean like this:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/174/443190313_22860208fa_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mfunnell/443190313/)

or even this:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/102/264778003_72aecec76d_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mfunnell/264778003/)

Neither ever struck me as 'creepy'. :confused:

Does the fact that there's a waiter rather than waitress in the second one make it less 'creepy'?

I'm not offended nor really arguing. I just don't understand...

...Mike

[miklosphoto]

Somewhat related to this topic; how many of those of you who do street photography, actually ask people on the street if you can photograph them? Not in a posed manner, but explaining to the subject to ignore you as you photograph them? I know many street shooters think that asking people is killing the main purpose of the street photography, that is the natural, unstaged scene. But I often think that the ethically the most correct thing is to ask first.
Ideas?

[aad]

At Epcot one year, a fellow came into the restairant we were at and video'd us-so my wife clearly and silently enunciated "get the f@#$ out of here with that camera". He left.

I stopped the "street" thing, as in sneaking pictures of people I didn't know. I thought it was rude, and the pictures were worthless.

[sepiareverb]

As stated elsewhere, I avoid people in each and every image (family images excepted)
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff221/sepiareverb/treeenclosedharrison.jpg
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff221/sepiareverb/45088trottoirbarremontreal2.jpg

[swoop]

oh, this reminds me of something. I was once walking somewhere near West 4th with a girl and I saw these two guys with the huge white lenses hiding behind trees. I was looking in the direction they were shooting in and didn't see anything and I thought it was really weird. I was figuring maybe they were spying out some celebrity. But apparently they were just snapping pics of people across the street. Weird.

[Matt White]

There's something creepy about being furtive. If he jerked away twice, he was being chickensh*t about it. I say have the guts to admit you are photographing people if you are noticed.

Quite so. I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with using a long lens (other than a memory card full of dull photos), but it's pretty spineless to try and hide what you're doing when you get busted.

Despite it being my new favourite thing, I do think It's fairly uncouth to be taking people's photo without telling them first, so if I'm spotted, I feel under some kind of obligation to own up and explain what I'm doing. Anything less is either cowardly or a contempt for the subject - which to me goes against the spirit of this kind of shooting.

[ChrisN]

Here's my take on this: I don't think I've got any right to impose my values and preferences on others when it comes to photography. I'm just grateful that photography in public places is still allowed (where I live). I'd suggest us photographers should support each other and stick together to protect our rights and privileges, even if we don't like their style.

And as to the "taking" versus "making" photos argument (short lens up close is morally or ethically superior to using a long lens from a distance) - that might win you brownie points from photographers and "artists" that share your values, but it doesn't cut it with the other 99.9% of the population! Joe Public isn't interested in your eithics and can't tell the difference..

[f/stopblues]

I've been photographed (that I noticed) two or three times while walking around the city, I'd guess because I'm freakishly tall and stand out like a sore thumb :)

My initial reaction has been different depending on how the photographer acted about it. None asked for consent first.

One time I reacted like the original poster and was a little put off by the shot. It was somewhat close range with an SLR, but he acted sneaky and tried to play it off when I made eye contact with him. I felt like he was trying to steal something from me.

Two other times there were photogs who were just gingerly wading through the people and raised their camera to me, took the shot, then politely smiled and nodded. Both times I felt comfortable with it and it didn't trigger that negative gut response.

I've since adapted the polite smile and nod method which seems to work wonders. I'm a nice guy and I try to project that without dialoge on the street. One day I'll actually scan and post some of my adventures, but I HATE scanning and fiddling with photoshop :)

[WoolenMammoth]

(short lens up close is morally or ethically superior to using a long lens from a distance)

for me this is neither a moral or ethical thing. Its just a question of skill. What skill could possibly be required to shoot portraits of people on a 300mm lens? I see this daily in the city and I always wonder what degree of satisfaction this could possibly bring to the camera operator. Standing 40 yards away from someone and taking headshots is about the most ridiculous thing I can think of. It just smacks of cowardice to me. This didnt used to bother me until it became such a staple to see in parks in New York City. This is "street" photography. I just have to laugh sometimes. As if street photography wasnt boring enough to me, there couldnt be a more "who cares" kind of photograph than a completely condensed 300mm shot that doesnt contain a player in a uniform catching a ball of some type or a raptor carrying some kind of dead thing in its talons. Here is suzy sitting in the park. I was three hundred million feet away from her when I took this, look how great of a photographer I am... yawn.

[gb hill]

I usually shoot at events that are camera friendly. Last week at the Heavy Rebel Car show practically everyone had a camera. There was one dude that really stuck out. He was shooting with a Canon Rebel & a white tele lens. I watched him for a bit & the guy would stand almost hidden in a doorway & point that tele & take his shot. I never could figure who or what he was shooting & thought him weird. Short time later it started raining so I made my way over to a shelter where the guy was standing. So I started making conversation with him & immediately noticed he was a shy person. But he was very nice to talk with & I came to the conclusion that even though he loves photography, he is quite shy, so purchased the equipment best suited for his comfort zone. So next time a fellow street shooter points a tele or even a 28mm in your face remember he is a fellow brother so I would get over it.

[Russ]

Forget it. He was a rookie street shooter. Once he becomes more experienced, he'll be getting close with a wide angle, and he'll drop his "big game" ways of shooting. It's common amongst new street shooters. Heck, we all started somewhere. :)

Russ

[John Rountree]

I shoot a lot of "street" with my lovely little 40mm Rokkor. Personally, I really like it when I make eye contact with my subject. Ninety per cent of the time I don't ask permission, it would change the scene too much. As someone else said, street shots that are all compressed and foreshortened just look stupid. But, as Diane Arbus said, "If you go out in public, you might have your picture taken." It is done and over, though I do understand how powerful it is when "misery loves company." If it was a life changing experience for you, that's okay too. But it doesn't require anyone to impose a set of "rules" or "ethics" for street shooting.

[gb hill]

Here is a good method for photography out on the streets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3HXILo9Znk&feature=related

[pesphoto]

Here is a good method for photography out on the streets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3HXILo9Znk&feature=related


yeah, he's cool and his work is good. But its not for me. People posing and smiling at the camera.

[WoolenMammoth]

So I started making conversation with him & immediately noticed he was a shy person.

nobody ever made an excuse for beethoven's crummy music because he was deaf. Usually, its just the opposite.

shooting people anonymously from half a mile away is cowardice in my book regardless of what kind of social affliction you have.

I have worked in the arts professionally my whole life and have had the (dis)pleasure of working with some of the most socially misaligned personalities of all sorts who couldnt deal with life on their own, but shined as bright stars when they stepped into their creative roles in life, whatever they happened to be. Every single one of them would have been appalled and insulted if a critic had used their social ineptitude to function as a foot note crutch to justify their creative output. You are either awesome or you are not and sometimes this requires stepping up to the plate. Or you can buy a white lens. whatever.

white lens is awesome for shooting in places where you absolutely CAN NOT be, like the 50 yard line. But in a park, where you can take the same exact photo just by walking two thousand paces up to someone and shooting it with a 50 or a *gasp* 90? sorry... White lens street takes a skill level of one half to become proficient at and is just laughable at all costs.

[mfunnell]

I dunno. White lens or not, I quite approved of this photographer:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1379/1106100980_63c97776d1_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mfunnell/1106100980/)

And, yes, she saw me taking the photo. Though quite what she thought of the M3 I don't know.

...Mike

[Keith]

Reading through this thread reminds me of why I like the gallery gigs that I get once a month or so. I get to wander around with a rangefinder photographing people randomly as you would do in the 'street' genre without my somewhat timid nature being an issue. I can walk up to a group of people or individuals and photograph them at very close range if I so choose and I have the freedom to photograph them where and how I like.

This gets this whole 'street photogaphy' thing out of my system and allows me to get on with my life and not obsess about photographs I find it hard to take!

[gb hill]

nobody ever made an excuse for beethoven's crummy music because he was deaf. Usually, its just the opposite.

shooting people anonymously from half a mile away is cowardice in my book regardless of what kind of social affliction you have.

I have worked in the arts professionally my whole life and have had the (dis)pleasure of working with some of the most socially misaligned personalities of all sorts who couldnt deal with life on their own, but shined as bright stars when they stepped into their creative roles in life, whatever they happened to be. Every single one of them would have been appalled and insulted if a critic had used their social ineptitude to function as a foot note crutch to justify their creative output. You are either awesome or you are not and sometimes this requires stepping up to the plate. Or you can buy a white lens. whatever.

white lens is awesome for shooting in places where you absolutely CAN NOT be, like the 50 yard line. But in a park, where you can take the same exact photo just by walking two thousand paces up to someone and shooting it with a 50 or a *gasp* 90? sorry... White lens street takes a skill level of one half to become proficient at and is just laughable at all costs.

I'm not trying to make excuses, I just don't think a person should be judged a jerk because he or she uses a long tele lens. Not my style though.

[Jamie Pillers]

My "code of behavior" whenever being photographed on the street... Wave! :-)

[WoolenMammoth]

I just don't think a person should be judged a jerk because he or she uses a long tele lens.

on this note I agree with you.

[Anupam]

I suspect you would have felt differently if he had just smiled and given you a thumbs up or waved when you made eye contact. In general, I try to be respectful of my subjects - some sort of acknowledgment when they are clearly recognizable or the main subject of the photo is nice too, but often after the shot. Sometimes I'll see a good shot and grab it first without bothering to ask - asking would spoil the following shots, IMO. You can be respectful of the subject without having to ask explicit permission etc.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3277/2588755352_7a9de61829.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3180/2568305609_0558aa93ce.jpg

[btgc]

What a great thread! On subject, I once tried 135 on street (half a roll) and know what? Not a fraction of that emotional engagement that normal lens gives! I got only one frame I like more or less and it could benefit from being taken from closer distance.

I think all of those who go street with wide or normal lenses, are looking for emotional fulfillment - if street photography would get hypotethically prohibited, I'd go by street saying phrases to people "Love your gesture" "What an expression" on so on.

Back to tele's. If someone is repeatedly sneaking towards me with tele lens, and trying to hide when caught, I'd show him some Mickey Mouses face or like, showing what I think about inability or not willing to come closer. I wouldn't mind if someone would come close and raises camera because eye contact already makes bridge between us. Each day to office I'm taped by security camera, sometimes I leave funny messages and I can just guess if operators see them or not.

Below is picture I kind of like but not proud of.

[williams473]

A lot of good conversation here - haven't been able to check the thread since Friday - been helping a friend with a documentary over the weekend.

As the OP I just wanted to try and respond in general to everyone and reiterate that it was specifically the long lens that bothered me, but more so, the photographer acting guilty. I think it is a lesson we can all take. I say all the time, when working on the street don't act guilty, and you won't emanate guilt. As with a lot things, I believe very good photography is the result of cultivating a lot of things that don’t seem to deal directly with photography itself – social grace, compassion, empathy etc. go a long way in making good images on the street.

I also wanted to point out that there is a way to work on the street with permission. In one of Cartier-Bresson's books he mentioned that all about all the street work he did when he visited China only began after he was granted clearance by his Chinese government "guide" (babysitter) to work in a particular area, which he honored. There is a time and place for the confrontational street image, in which the subject is complicit with the photographer, ala Diane Arbus. But it is possible to enter a space, let people know you’re there, then sit back and watch things unfold. It takes more patience than just walking and snapping, but I believe yields better results because you can get your intuition and brain more involved. People are going to just stand there for a half hour staring at the camera and smiling – they will eventually go back to whatever they are doing, and assuming they are okay with your presence, then you can work freely, and obtain spontaneous images.

The only detractor’s comments I feel a need to address is NH3’s comment, because it was unconstructive, and contained the simplistic insult that I am pretending to be a photographer. Well, apart from the obvious idiocy of the comment, seeing as anyone who takes photographs is by definition, a photographer, I would say let’s compare portfolios buddy. It’s true I am an amateur – it’s French for “for the love of it.” And that’s why I do it. The only professional photography I would want to do would be photojournalism, and I am not able to move from city to city and take the low pay at the moment as I am raising a family. Are you insinuating you are a pro? If so, I’ think you probably ought to have some stones and put up or shut up. Send me a link to your site, or perhaps a list of the shows you’ve been in. If YOU had any idea how much of my heart, soul and time goes into photography, you’d have made your point without it being a “rant.” To be amateur is not to pretend to do something, but to be pro means you do something for money. What involves more passion do you think? Getting paid to do something under the guidelines of an employer, or actually PAYING one’s own money and time to work for one’s self?


With my defensive “rant” out the way and my blood pressure lowering, I will address your point, because it is similar to one several others raised – I realize it seems like a double standard for me to have an aversion to being photographed. That’s sort of why I posted. Not everything in life is so clear. And yes, the lens absolutely does make a difference, to me anyway. If you are not schooled visually enough to know there is an intimacy in a telephoto closeup of a face that is not there when taking the same image with a wide angle lens form the same spot, I can’t help you. Yes, if he was in my face with a 28, it would obtain the same intimacy, but then I could have also said something to the guy, and I would have respected him more – he probably wouldn’t have gotten the label of “jerk.” The guy seemed a “jerk” to me for being such a pansy about being discovered.

Regardless, it wasn’t a direct insult to him – as I stated I didn’t even talk to him. I didn’t post his name, or his face or anything – to you he’s just a nameless jerk with a long lens. I’m glad you decided to stand up for our faceless, nameless “jerk,” though and instead attacked me personally, insulting that which is most dear to me. You’ll note I know your “fake” name – NH3 – and I haven’t called you a jerk. My name is Matthew Williams by the way, and I live in Pittsburgh PA, there “NH3.” That’s actually a picture of me taken by my daughter in my avatar, too. Why are you hiding? Is it because you enjoying flaming people more than talking photography in a civil manner?

Alright – that was too long but I feel sufficiently defended now. See you all tomorrow, back at work!

[shimo-kitasnap]

would you have felt any different if he had pointed a rangefinder at you? I probably would've smiled back no matter what kind of camera/lens the photographer was using.

[shimo-kitasnap]

I've always found it amusing to photograph people who are photographing. Maybe next time you see a guy point a telephoto at you, spin round and take a picture of him, maybe that might scare him off.

[peterc]

The photographers.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3153/2663006954_fef23aa431_o.jpg
Sorry, not RF. Nikon F3, AI-P Nikkor 45/2.8

[Roger Hicks]

Back,

So it wouldn't bother you to know there was a 16x20 inch print of your face, with every line and whisker clearly defined, hanging on someone's wall somewhere?
Why would it worry anyone?

Cheers,

R.

[Roger Hicks]

Be careful Roger. Your statement should be qualified.

No worry for "adults" to be pictured this way maybe......

Dear Richard,

I'd not have thought it a great concern for a child's face, either. Besides, to be a little legalistic, it's not the child that's likely to be doing the worrying about their own face. More likely a paranoid parent.

Actually, how disastrous is it to have any part of anyone's anatomy as 20x16 inches? (Aesthetic considerations aside). Is this not conflating stalking of a specific person, adult or child, with taking their picture?

Incidentally, anyone who can get a super-sharp 30x40cm pic with a hand-held 300 must be some kind of superman anyway.

Cheers,

R.

[gb hill]

Your "rant" has been well taken. The guy probably did act like a jerk but I wouldn't let this dissuade you from going out and taking photos in the street. Looking at some of your work @ smug mug, street doesn't seem to be your style anyhow. Your work by which, far from being amateurish, seems more documentary. Very nice BTW. When I think of street photography I think of Winogrand, Meyerowitz, Gilden, Boogie & others. Who are you going to ask permission of? HCB was in a Communist country. You almost need to ask permission to sit down over there. We live in a free society. In this short documentary http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkIWW6vwrvM&feature=related
Bruce Gilden is right when someone said "not here" Some people think they own the street & the rest of the word should make a clear path for them. If you shoot street your just going to come off as being rude. Face it. If we are going to document this era of time we now live in we have to put feelings aside and just do it.

[Roger Hicks]

Though street photography in general is tolerated by French law, the concentration on an individual, head shots, with "telephoto lenses" is definitely illegal.

Though with children, I would be more worried about the parental lynch mob.

Dear Richard,

Unfortunately I have lost the reference but within the last year substantially this question was addressed in a lawsuit over a book showing Parisians going about their business, not always in a flattering light. The court decided that a free press was more important than their rights.

I should be most obliged if you could help me track the case down. I think it was a Paris court, in the last quarter of 2007.

EDIT: Success! Le Figaro 14/10/2007. Sorry, the link doesn't seem to want to happen. 'Le sacro-saint droit à l'image battu en brèche'. Have you heard any more about this case?

Cheers,

Roger

[mfunnell]

Incidentally, anyone who can get a super-sharp 30x40cm pic with a hand-held 300 must be some kind of superman anyway.In these days of stabilised lenses and/or camera bodies I don't think super powers are needed so much. While I seldom use it for "people photos", and then mostly for sports, I can print quite sharp A3+ photos (generally of birds and other wildlife) taken hand-held at 400mm focal length (640mm equiv field of view) with a stablised lens. And kryptonite sure wouldn't hurt me! For that sort of work, I'll take all the gizmos and electronic aids I can get.

...Mike

[Roger Hicks]

Ah, yes, I'd forgotten aboit VR -- thanks. that woukd certainly make a majpr difference.

Even so, I've never seen anything off 35mm or small-format digi (35mm or less) yjat I'd call super-sharp at 16x20 inches --as compared with an MF shot using a tripod, which is where I'd say 'super-sharp' begins. Mike's 'quite sharp' seems likelier, or even 'remarkably sharp'.

Cheers,

R.

[MickH]

Watching that u-tube piece on Gilden I wouldn't be surprised if he occasionally gets slotted on the nose. Talk about a jerk!

[Nh3]

A lot of good conversation here - haven't been able to check the thread since Friday - been helping a friend with a documentary over the weekend.

As the OP I just wanted to try and respond in general to everyone and reiterate that it was specifically the long lens that bothered me, but more so, the photographer acting guilty. I think it is a lesson we can all take. I say all the time, when working on the street don't act guilty, and you won't emanate guilt. As with a lot things, I believe very good photography is the result of cultivating a lot of things that don’t seem to deal directly with photography itself – social grace, compassion, empathy etc. go a long way in making good images on the street.

I also wanted to point out that there is a way to work on the street with permission. In one of Cartier-Bresson's books he mentioned that all about all the street work he did when he visited China only began after he was granted clearance by his Chinese government "guide" (babysitter) to work in a particular area, which he honored. There is a time and place for the confrontational street image, in which the subject is complicit with the photographer, ala Diane Arbus. But it is possible to enter a space, let people know you’re there, then sit back and watch things unfold. It takes more patience than just walking and snapping, but I believe yields better results because you can get your intuition and brain more involved. People are going to just stand there for a half hour staring at the camera and smiling – they will eventually go back to whatever they are doing, and assuming they are okay with your presence, then you can work freely, and obtain spontaneous images.

The only detractor’s comments I feel a need to address is NH3’s comment, because it was unconstructive, and contained the simplistic insult that I am pretending to be a photographer. Well, apart from the obvious idiocy of the comment, seeing as anyone who takes photographs is by definition, a photographer, I would say let’s compare portfolios buddy. It’s true I am an amateur – it’s French for “for the love of it.” And that’s why I do it. The only professional photography I would want to do would be photojournalism, and I am not able to move from city to city and take the low pay at the moment as I am raising a family. Are you insinuating you are a pro? If so, I’ think you probably ought to have some stones and put up or shut up. Send me a link to your site, or perhaps a list of the shows you’ve been in. If YOU had any idea how much of my heart, soul and time goes into photography, you’d have made your point without it being a “rant.” To be amateur is not to pretend to do something, but to be pro means you do something for money. What involves more passion do you think? Getting paid to do something under the guidelines of an employer, or actually PAYING one’s own money and time to work for one’s self?


With my defensive “rant” out the way and my blood pressure lowering, I will address your point, because it is similar to one several others raised – I realize it seems like a double standard for me to have an aversion to being photographed. That’s sort of why I posted. Not everything in life is so clear. And yes, the lens absolutely does make a difference, to me anyway. If you are not schooled visually enough to know there is an intimacy in a telephoto closeup of a face that is not there when taking the same image with a wide angle lens form the same spot, I can’t help you. Yes, if he was in my face with a 28, it would obtain the same intimacy, but then I could have also said something to the guy, and I would have respected him more – he probably wouldn’t have gotten the label of “jerk.” The guy seemed a “jerk” to me for being such a pansy about being discovered.

Regardless, it wasn’t a direct insult to him – as I stated I didn’t even talk to him. I didn’t post his name, or his face or anything – to you he’s just a nameless jerk with a long lens. I’m glad you decided to stand up for our faceless, nameless “jerk,” though and instead attacked me personally, insulting that which is most dear to me. You’ll note I know your “fake” name – NH3 – and I haven’t called you a jerk. My name is Matthew Williams by the way, and I live in Pittsburgh PA, there “NH3.” That’s actually a picture of me taken by my daughter in my avatar, too. Why are you hiding? Is it because you enjoying flaming people more than talking photography in a civil manner?

Alright – that was too long but I feel sufficiently defended now. See you all tomorrow, back at work!

I still think you overreacted and the more you complain and make threats the more silly you look.

"Lets compare portfolios...".

Forget that how about we see who has the longest telephoto lens.

[rbsinto]

Wow!
So now anyone who uses a telephoto on the street is a coward or worse an asshole, and "real" street photographers only use short focal length lenses, and in time the newbies might learn this secret and then become "real" street shooters as well.
Who, by the way comes up with these Truths?
I've been doing this for a while myself, and use triplets of lenses. SLR's: 17~28, 35~105, and 80~200, and rangefinder 21, 35, and SLR 180 for more reach. In either case, the longest focal length is the one I use the least, but in any number of instances it was absolutely the best choice (in my opinion at the time) to get the shot, and so, was the lens I chose. And if someone called me a coward or an asshole for using it? I got the photo I wanted, I've been called worse, and I got over it.
As for someone feeling "violated" by a photographers intrusiveness using a long lens to snipe, I agree that street photography is intrusive by it's very nature. One's privacy is being invaded to an extent by a stranger with a camera. But I think it's a tempest in a teapot. Everyone of us is likely recorded a hundred times a day on surveilence cameras, as we go about our lives, and while we may not like it, it is a fact of life in our world today. My short answer to the Original Poster's feelings about being photographed by someone using a long lens is to suck it up and move on. There are vastly more important things in this life to worry about.

[Chris101]

Interesting that such angst would come from being photographed by an amateur photographer who will probably post his photos on some online forum or other. How about all the photographs of you that are made by the government or security company with their 'hidden in plain sight' cameras that are all over any metropolitan setting. Traffic, store security, schools, Homeland Security, etc., with face scanning software pouring over your every move. In any American city, average citizens are photographed about a dozen times a day. In parts of Europe, twice that or more.

[sjones]

Street photography is popular in Tokyo, as are film cameras for that matter. So far, I have caught two guys taking my photo, and I generally felt flattered. Do I worry about a bad photo of my mug; impossible!

Even if I developed some ethnic aversion to taking photographs of strangers, I would still find pleasure in looking at the works of others, thus arguably undermining my own convictions.

[varjag]

So now anyone who uses a telephoto on the street is a coward or worse an asshole, and "real" street photographers only use short focal length lenses, and in time the newbies might learn this secret and then become "real" street shooters as well.
Yes, that's how it works :)

[nextreme]

I had something similar happen to me, except I was taking the picture (with a yashica lynx), and the person objected to it. Even though technically I was within my rights (in a public space), it made me think what do "everyday people" think or feel having their picture taken either without their knowledge or their consent ? Fact of the matter is, they have no idea what your intentions are (artistic or creepy).
I think it's a good thing to question the methods, equipment, manners we use. Even though photography is permitted in public spaces, leaving a person with the feeling they've been violated or intruded upon in some way is not pleasant (and certainly not my intention). For myself, I've suspended my meager attempts at street photography while I have a think about the best way to proceed.

[nextreme]

Watching that u-tube piece on Gilden I wouldn't be surprised if he occasionally gets slotted on the nose. Talk about a jerk!
Couldn't agree more !

[nextreme]

Here is a good method for photography out on the streets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3HXILo9Znk&feature=related
Very interesting ! Thanks for the link.

[Roger Hicks]

A couple of weeks ago I took a photograph of a municipal campsite for a new travel site. Some young woman came steaming out of a caravan and it, "It is not allowed to take pictures here!"

I said, "Yes it is. This is a public place."

She said, "Why are you taking pictures?"

I said, "For a web-site about travel."

She said, "Were you taking pictures of my caravan?"

I said, "I don't think so. I was taking a picture of the showers-and-toilets block. The cirner of your caravan may or may not have been in it. The corner of this car was."

She said, "Don't take pictures of my property."

Unfortunately I failed to think fast enough to ask her how I could tell her property from anyone else's.

Most people, even if they start out angry, will calm down if given long enough. But this sort of thing is just crazy -- unless she had something to hide. In which case she should just have stayed inside the caravan, and I'd never have known she existed.

Cheers,

Roger

[williams473]

Yeah Net - that's sort of the conclusion I'm coming to - Is the payoff worth the intrusion? I'm just trying to figure out where to go from here if I'm going to do less intrusive work - it makes me think about the value of personal aspirations in the first place.

Roger - don't know why it bothers me - just does. It really doesn't bother me that my image is taken routinely - I used to work at a Casino/horsetrack and there were 900+ cameras on the property! So I got used to that - what bothers me is the eye of the photographer - it always has - I just don't like being photographed.

NH3 - I didn't mean to get into a pissing match - just didn't like being insulted and the portfolio comment wasn't about "my work is better than yours," it was just getting to the fact that, if you aren't going to show your work, it's not really fair to insult mine, which is out there for all to see. Actually, I could take criticism of my work, but devaluing it as non-photography forced me to ask you where yours is. Anyway, you were probably originally just reacting to the combative tone of my original post, which I will refrain from taking in the future, so I am partly to blame and I'm not holding this against you.

RBS - I wouldn't call you an asshole - I think of the entire series Eugene Smith made out of his apartment window - telephoto shots of passersby. I'm not advocating one way of working on the street over another, just 1, noting how weird it felt to be photographed like that, and 2, how wrong it all felt when I noticed the photographer not acknowledging me. I did move on, but I can't deny how it made me feel, and as it turns out, it has been a pretty good experience in totality, and I think it is something a lot of us think about as evidenced by the response to this topic.

GB - Thanks for the compliment and I do believe you may be right - I might be more of a portraitist after all - there was a time when I was a pure street shooter, but over time I found that the meat of the imagery I wanted to get to was rarely right on the surface, and I really do enjoy working at a slightly slower pace than street photography demands. Even so, I can’t see going into a studio – I really enjoy working from life.

[williams473]

Roger,

Yeah you can just never tell how people are going to react. Most photographers I've ever known are well-intentioned, but it is interesting to realize that for many people, right or wrong, justified or not, being photogrpahed is perceived as invasive and/or rude.

I once had to slip away when a guy went to get a friend when I was shooting in a Russian open-air market - I guess this guy was probably selling somehting illegal out of his truck, but he was LIVID that I photographed him. The police actually came and amazingly told the guy I was within my rights, and to calm down. When the cop left, the merchant was still hot and told me to "wait here!" Course, I didn't. Scooted for my life. That guy was going to grab a buddy and probably drag me behind the truck to give me "what fer." Course I assume he was selling something illegal - he may have just felt as violated as I did at having his picture "taken."

[nextreme]

A couple of weeks ago I took a photograph of a municipal campsite for a new travel site. Some young woman came steaming out of a caravan and it, "It is not allowed to take pictures here!"

I said, "Yes it is. This is a public place."


Does the fact that her "property" is in a public space mean she has relinquished her right to decide if it can be photographed or not ? I'm sure most of us would answer yes (I would), but it might not be an obvious answer to the "non photographically inclined" general public. And does this (or should this) directly translate to a persons "self" ? That might not be so easy to answer.

[varjag]

Does the fact that her "property" is in a public space mean she has relinquished her right to decide if it can be photographed or not ? I'm sure most of us would answer yes (I would), but it might not be an obvious answer to the "non photographically inclined" general public. And does this (or should this) directly translate to a persons "self" ? That might not be so easy to answer.
The simple answer here would be "I'm not on your property", but from Roger's recollection of the encounter, she would probably not be satisfied.

[nextreme]

I think she meant "of her property", meaning her caravan, and they were on a municipal camping site, which I guess means public camp site.

[Roger Hicks]

The point is, I don't even know if I was taking pictures of her property. The corner of her caravan may or man not have been in the shot. The corner of the car in front -- a wing/fender, no registration plate -- probably was. Was that her car? Who cares? If I am worried about taking pictures of 'private property' I can't photograph anything.

Over 200 MPs have now signed Austin Mitchell's Early Day Motion urging Parliament to issue a statement of photographers' rights in the UK. The Parisian court quoted in Le Figaro has clarified French law. We need more of this sort of clarification, and fewer paranoid buffoons.

Incidentally I've had grief at markets too, in the UK. I'm told by The Authorities that this may be because quite a frew market traders claim unemployment benefit. But equally I've found most market traders in most countries treat the whole thing as a bit of fun; a lark.

Cheers,

R.

[Gumby]

I've had grief at markets too, in the UK. I'm told by The Authorities that this may be because quite a frew market traders claim unemployment benefit. But equally I've found most market traders in most countries treat the whole thing as a bit of fun; a lark.


Ha... me too. I once took a photo of a town crier in an obscure Northern English town center (centre) on Market Day... only to have him chase me down crying "you took a photo of me and now you must pay me two pounds." He was so obnoxious that I was tempted to give him two pounds... the two pounds that is supended on the end of my right arm -- a fist. Instead I asked him how he knows I took a photo since all he really knows is that I pointed a camera in his direction. He was baffled and walked away muttering something -- perhaps "well then, how about one pound?"

p.s. I guess that make me a "jerk with a telephoto," eh?

[nextreme]

The point is, I don't even know if I was taking pictures of her property. The corner of her caravan may or man not have been in the shot. The corner of the car in front -- a wing/fender, no registration plate -- probably was. Was that her car? Who cares? If I am worried about taking pictures of 'private property' I can't photograph anything.

Yup, I completely understand your point and what the implications to our hobby/profession would be if we couldn't point our lenses towards 'private property' in public places. I guess I'm questioning does the same 'property in a public place' permission extend to 'person in a public place' ? I think the general thought is, yes it does (a lot of street photographers seem to say so).

[amateriat]

Back,

So it wouldn't bother you to know there was a 16x20 inch print of your face, with every line and whisker clearly defined, hanging on someone's wall somewhere? I guess I'm more self conscous than that - it's cool that you're not. I'm not sure why that scenario creeps me out, but it does.
When my my image has been taken and stored by almost every bank, store, subway platform, office building lobby/atrium, and home surveillance system I've walked past or into, some untold number of times each day, I'd say no, my appearing in a print like that wouldn't bother me, even if I wasn't looking quite my best that day.

People with big-ass SLRs and their associated lenses do sometimes annoy me, but that might be because I resembled them in a previous life. :cool:


- Barrett

[Pherdinand]

So it wouldn't bother you to know there was a 16x20 inch print of your face, with every line and whisker clearly defined, hanging on someone's wall somewhere?

A 16x20?? It would flatter me enormously.

[Dektol Dan]

Maybe that was it. In Korea I once had a young man tell me "Yankee go home." I wasn't overjoyed at it, but what really got me was the way he did it. He bowed his head, didn't look at me, and spoke softly so other Koreans around wouldn't hear him. That made me mad. He didn't even have the courage to face me and declare how he felt loudly enough for others to hear.

Otherwise it was almost funny to think I had been in the US Army for about 26 years, and in the far east over 12 years, and that was the first time I had been told Yankee go home. He must have been watching old US movies or something. :D

I can relate. I was working for the Metro Parks in Tacoma WA in an all black part of town and I was told, 'Whitey, you belong on 6th Ave.'

Later during the Nam years I was a rocking and rolling long hair. More than once I was served at the back doors of restaurants. I was afraid both times.

As far as being photographed goes, there's paranoia and legitimate fear. What would a legitimate fear of being photographed be?

[DelDavis]

there's a code of street photography?

There's an implicit code of conduct in public. Street photography is usually performed in public, ergo, there is an implicit code.

I've been thinking about this lately, and I've realized that when I perform what is usually described as "street photography" (i.e., shots taken without permission for non-documentary purposes), I feel I'm taking advantage in a way that degrades both myself and the subject. There are times it's hard to restrain myself, but lately I've been taking my camera out on the street less and less because of this.

Perhaps it's a subconscious reaction to the increasing surveillance we experience. Or perhaps it is simply my interest in the subject changing. I don't know.

[peterm1]

I feel uncomfortable shooting street photos. I almost always feel as if I am invading someone's privacy. There is no doubt though that its easier to do if you have a telphoto lens. There is at least less reason to invade the person's personal space as well. But these days there are so many freaking phobias as well. If you photgraph kids you are a potential pervert. If you photograph a group of young women you are a sexual creep. If you are photograph a building you are a potential terrorist. If you photograph a bunch of old farts playing canasta in the sun, then you are a young wippersnapper and just a plain annoyance. Jeez Louise! Our damn society is SO uptight. But all of this negativity does affect me and what I photograph.

I have occasionally had people glower at me when I photograph them but the most unusual reaction I have had was that on one occasion while sitting in an outdoor cafe (with a Leica M no less) I had an old guy come up and insist that he knew I was an undercover cop doing surveillance work. He was not aggressive, just interested. I simply could not convince him that I was a dumb amateur who only liked to photograph strangers in the street (and that not too many Police department budgets run to Leica kit.) He was equally adamant that (nudge, nudge; wink, wink) he understood that I could not break cover and that I had to lie to him but that as a law abiding citizen was on my side and would not give my "true" identity away.

On the other side of the coin, While I am not a cop, I do work in a government building and recently when I stepped out the back door into the alley behind the building , I noticed a nice shot of the buildings at the end of the alley, framed nicely by buildings on either side and with the sun in just the right position. As I brought the camera up I noticed a policeman standing beside me. He waited politely for me to take the shot then demanded (equally politely) to explain why I was photographing in an alley behind a government building. Fortunately he was quite a nice bloke and even more fortunately I had my Government ID card so it was no big deal, but it just demonstrates how paranoid almost everyone is about photographers these days. Ya gotta smile.

[nextreme]

I don't think stopping is an answer (at least not for me). I prefer to have a think about what I'm doing, and determine how it could misconstrued or simply unwanted. Then try to operate in a manner that would avoid it. For instance, I don't think I would take any more photos that would single out a person, unless that person was the centre of attention in a given scene (a street performer for instance).

[jim sparx]

I'm old and I am pretty, if you want to take my picture, I'm honored.

[noisycheese]

Every day at work, at the bank or while going through airports, I'm on camera, so I don't mind the odd street photographer taking my picture, although I'll state that I doubt I'm really interesting enough to photograph...

I agree with Al.

I remember the last time someone photographed me on the street. My first thought was, "Oh, gee - there's someone doing street photography. Sweet!!" It honestly did not bother me one iota.

Shooting street with a long lens is not inherently objectionable in my outlook. Jay Maisel has made a nice living doing it. He has never "hurt" anyone by doing it as far as I know.

The whole point of using a long lens for street shooting is to either stay out of the way if you are photographing construction workers (for example) or to capture the unguarded moment and to be undetected in doing so. Mr. Long Lens failed miserably at two out of three of those reasons for using a long lens.

the longest lens I have ever used for street photography was 90mm and that has been probably 4 years ago. Over the intervening years, I have evolved into an adherent of the Cartier-Bresson ethic of street photography: "A velvet hand, a hawk’s eye- these we should all have." I must have a strong influence from Winogrand at work too, as the 28mm is my primary street photography lens.

The guy who was photographing you from across the street and then whipping his long lens up at the sky was either a very green newbie to street photography or an inveterate chicken sh*t, it would seem.

I suspect that the original poster (williams473) would have had a totally different reaction if Mr. Long Lens had smiled and waved when you saw him photographing you.

Just another example of why we street photographers must tread lightly when pursuing our craft. We can't think only of what we want (the photo); we must consider the impact of our method of photographing on our subjects and others who see us at work.

[DominikDUK]

To play the devil's advocate here who says that he actually used a tele and not a mega zoom, they can get very big, at the wide setting. Andreas Feininger by the way was a big fan of Teles because he felt they gave a more correct representation of reality. Rules of street photography based on HCB, Winograd's etc... work are in my opinion pure stupidity and not very innovative. Do you like using a wide angle for street work good but don't choose a focal length based on a big name's photographers choice.

It's also ok for a photographer to feel violated by being photographed, many photographers don't like to be photographed and aren't we all little hypocrites

Dominik

[michaelwj]

Every day at work, at the bank or while going through airports, I'm on camera, so I don't mind the odd street photographer taking my picture, although I'll state that I doubt I'm really interesting enough to photograph...

I know its an old thread, but the difference between surveillance and street is the end use. I know I'm being filmed at the airport, train station, etc, but I can't see them getting away with printing out an 8x10 from the footage and putting on their wall or FB or wherever, thats the real difference.

[peterm1]

I am at peace with myself. I feel much more comfortable than I indicated in my other post, below which was made quite some time ago (2008). So where am I now?

As a matter of principle I do not photograph people in demeaning situations, when doing something embarrassing and I do not photograph people who are down and out particularly without their permission.

Lets not kid ourselves. Most of us are not photo journalists and we are not taking pictures because there is a great redeeming social value to the images we make. We are doing this stuff for our own gratification.

So I owe it to my subjects not to catch them doing something that will embarrass them and if they ask me not to take their photo - even when I am able to do it from a legal or ethical viewpoint I respect them and their wishes. And I try to be human and establish some kind of contact with them. If they look at me and their look says "Why are you taking my photo?" (Most people's body language can be read after all) I try to respond by nodding my head, smiling politely and quietly thanking them once the image is taken.

If I follow these "rules" I do not feel that making images of people in a public place is too objectionable. Most people certainly do not seem to find it objectionable for tourists to take photos all over the place - be it in the middle of the Spanish Steps in Rome or in some main street in any other city so why should we think it to be objectionable if a keen amateur photographer does the same!!!

Although what I am doing is taking photos for my own gratification I never the less am making them to turn them into something with some artistic merit. I feel that this has some value, even if its only the value I put on it.

So lets not over analyse these things. We should be polite. We should respect peoples' wishes. But by the same token we should not feel too diffident about what we are doing either. It is not illegal. It is not immoral. There is no ulterior motive. No one particularly benefits and certainly, no one loses.

After all if we do not value it and feel it has legitimacy then society soon will not do so either and the naysayers, the doogooders and the others who want us to feel guilty for living our life as we wsih to and indulging our artistic impulses will have won.

[CameraQuest]

So I'm coming back from having some great Chinese food with 2 of my coworkers on our lunch break. We're walking along 5th avenue which is one of the main drags through Oakland in Pittsburgh. It's a very crowded sidewalk, and yet I notice a guy across 5th avenue on the opposite walk with an SLR and some kind of telephoto lens on it - like a 300 or bigger - really long lens. As I turn my head to look at him full on, he whips the lens up towards a building, and pretends he wasn't shooting me. I sort of smirk and keep walking, then quickly look back at him. He's got it pointed at us again! And again, he does the (whoops - no I was shooting the sky!) move.

I have to say, I felt violated. I know it's legal. But honestly, I am very seriously considering dropping the street game as a result of this experience. Or at least, working with a little more consent first. But grabbing closeups at long range with a telephoto - that's just freakin' wrong. It sort of goes against the code of street photography, you know? To be able to get into a sort of intimate proximity usually reserved for my wife with someone through a lens, to fix that image to do with what you please, but not have the stones to admit that's what your doing is just gutless. This guy was truly "taking" pictures.

But I swear, it was constructive for me - it really made me think about how many people I've made feel that way. I very well may miss out on some good photographs if I quit doing street work, but I think I'm just reaching a point in life where I'm starting to care a lot more about my subjects - how they feel about the image "we" are making. Am I overeacting? Maybe if he had been in my face with a 28 and I coulod have said "hey" I wouldn't have minded. Something about staring down the barrel of that long lens and knowing how tight he had us framed just torqued me off.

you or your buddies probably had a smart phone camera in your pockets.

turnabout is fair play.

I wonder his reaction with you marching up to his face and taking his pic with an iphone.

Stephen

[B-9]

I experienced a similar situation this past weekend at our local farmers market. I spotted a big old DSLR slung over a gentlemens shoulder, so I walked by and snapped a candid. About 20 minutes later I was the focus of his lens. I noticed and quickly looked away, hoping I didn't mangle his attempt at a candid. There was never conversation, or even a nod.

I think there is TO MUCH intimacy associated with photographing people.
I really have no interest in my subjects as individuals, but how they contrast or connect with the scene. Call me inconsiderate, but Ide never intentionally put Somone in an uncomfortable position. Ide be Lieing if I denied getting a good ol' rush when capturing a candid.

I can imagine the telephoto shooter in question, had equally as much emotion invested into this as you. Nervously concealing his intentions, it sounds like a very stressful time.

In all honesty, I think you should have brushed it off, possibly play fun at the situation. It is rather ironic isn't it?

Kudos for having street ethics, to each their own!
Thanks for sharing!

[Boris Stupak]

You guys do realize the original post was five years ago?

[Tijmendal]

Whenever I see a guy with a long telephoto taking pictures the only thing I can do is laugh. To me anything longer than 135mm (and that's the far extreme) makes for an ugly image. Not just that, it attests to what crappy photographers they are. Whenever I see people walking with those ugly Canon 70-200's in the city the only thing I can do is wonder what they're going to use it for... Especially on a crop body.

[mugent]

I don't think people have a reasonable expectation of privacy when they are in a public place, however... Just because we have a right to stick a camera it someones face and take pictures of them, doesn't mean we should. I think the OP is over-reacting a little bit, and frankly I'd rather someone did from across the street than stick a camera in my grill.

My honest opinion, is that street photography is very often invasive, and the results are rarely worth it, with a few honorable exceptions, it usual fairly derivative and boring.

[Contarama]

Last summer I had to go to downtown Tulsa to pay a traffic fine and while walking across the courthouse courtyard I saw a young dude in skater regalia with what turned out to be a black Canon AE-1 with a 50 on it hanging around his neck. I think I about scared him to death when I said hey man is that a film camera? So I got into a conversation with him he said he was downtown shooting a roll of some kind of lomography film I don't remember and I told him I was into film cameras too. I said so you are a street shooter? He said he just shot mainly buildings and stuff because he was to nervous to shoot people. I told him to not be nervous and just if you find someone interesting to shoot smile at them nod your head and just act like you belong here doing this. I said take a picture of me man and gave him my email and said send it to me. Also told him if he ever wanted to go street shooting to holler at me. As we were fixing to part company a couple of women were approaching from the courthouse and I said let me see your camera man. They were watching us we were watching them approach. He handed me the camera and when the two girls were about 15 feet away I rattled out three shots at them by the third one they were smiling. As they past I nodded my head said thanks handed the camera back to him and said see it is easy you just have to act like you are supposed to be shooting pictures. Believe it or not I am an old guy who has a real bonafide film shooting hipster for a FB pal. LOL

[dct]

You guys do realize the original post was five years ago?
Of course. And it is a good thread. Just read most of it.
My own feeling is a mixed bag, still. I see the point as photographer, but I'm also a possible object on the streets.

[peterm1]

Whenever I see a guy with a long telephoto taking pictures the only thing I can do is laugh. To me anything longer than 135mm (and that's the far extreme) makes for an ugly image. Not just that, it attests to what crappy photographers they are. Whenever I see people walking with those ugly Canon 70-200's in the city the only thing I can do is wonder what they're going to use it for... Especially on a crop body.

I am sorry but I think this is a weird attitude that reflects a common bias in the wider community about long lenses. Whilst I suppose I can understand it when it originates from the uninformed and ignorant wider public I find it odd and not a little disappointing that another photographer who presumably should know better, shares this bias.

While I seldom use something longer than 135mm myself I certainly do not think that the use of a longer lens by others signifies anything other than that this represents the photographer's photographic preferences and style. In short there is nothing wrong with it at all. To draw the conclusion that those who use long zooms are "crappy photographers" is a sweeping generalization that has no basis in reality and says more about the poster's own biases than anything else.

Speaking of biases, I share the opinion of some here that sticking a camera with a wide angle lens into someones intimate personal space a few feet from their face is potentially much more offensive to many people who are the subject of this style of photography.

[thegman]

Personally, like another post, I'd rather have someone take my photo from a distance than all up in my face.

Any photo of a non-consenting person could be considered a little rude, if they consider it to be a violation. This is not about rules, just about the very grey area of manners.

I don't especially like street photography, but it would seem to me that if you want to catch the 'decisive moment' without your presence interfering with it, a long lens would seem like a good idea.

It would seem if you really want to capture human nature, undisturbed, then this guy with the long lens has the right idea.

[Stelios]

I have to say, I felt violated. I know it's legal. But honestly, I am very seriously considering dropping the street game as a result of this experience. Or at least, working with a little more consent first. But grabbing closeups at long range with a telephoto - that's just freakin' wrong. It sort of goes against the code of street photography, you know? To be able to get into a sort of intimate proximity usually reserved for my wife with someone through a lens, to fix that image to do with what you please, but not have the stones to admit that's what your doing is just gutless. This guy was truly "taking" pictures.


Speaking for myself, I never care who it is in my picture as long as there is a person filling a gap in it to balance the image. So don't take it personally, noone 'cares' if it's you or someone else. I've seen a project done with a telephoto in the same fashion you mention and it was fantastic. I'll dig it up later.
However him not acknowledging taking pictures is not nice. If someone notices you taking pictures, you smile and wave and if possible show them what you are doing. That's no code. It's just being nice.
Let's not ban street photography, let's just be nice.

[Photo_Smith]

Yes long lens is good, better that than having your face taken at a low angle with a 7mm fisheye, making your bald head look like a mekon...
:-)

I've had my photo taken hundreds of times, I guess I'm not sensitive enough to feel 'violated'–unless the 300mm ƒ4 was placed somewhere else...

[Stelios]

haha I didn't! hm..

You guys do realize the original post was five years ago?

[jsrockit]

There is no wrong or right way to photograph.

[Photo_Smith]

JS my nan managed it. We bought her a 110 camera, she looked into the lens and pointed the VF at the subject–I'd say that was the wrong way to photograph :-)

[jsrockit]

JS my nan managed it. We bought her a 110 camera, she looked into the lens and pointed the VF at the subject–I'd say that was the wrong way to photograph :-)

Haha, true... I wasn't speaking technically though, I meant philosophically. :p

[Eric T]

The Boston marathon tragedy taught us that we are all being photographed all the time, especially in any big city. There is no way around it and we might as well get over it. Cameras are everywhere these days.

[konicaman]

Come on guys and gals - it is not that complicated: Shooting unaware people is fine and hip if you use a Leica with a 35 or 28. If you use a Canikon with a long tele (or any other camera for that matter) it is very,very wrong indeed ;)

[micromontenegro]

Come on guys and gals - it is not that complicated: Shooting unaware people is fine and hip if you use a Leica with a 35 or 28. If you use a Canikon with a long tele (or any other camera for that matter) it is very,very wrong indeed ;)

You've said it in a nutshell. Bravo.

[Fraser]

Come on guys and gals - it is not that complicated: Shooting unaware people is fine and hip if you use a Leica with a 35 or 28. If you use a Canikon with a long tele (or any other camera for that matter) it is very,very wrong indeed ;)

Yes its just not cool:rolleyes:

[Exdsc]

Telephoto and even mid telephoto lenses on a SLR looks intimidating when you point it at someone, especially from a distance.

Once I came upon group of amateurs on their day out and one of them pointed a telephoto lens at my direction as i was standing to cross the intersection, I was the only person there, I felt a little 'challenged' that's all, and the guy sensed my displeasure even from that distance and pointed the lens the other way.

But the guy was a wimp and had he simply smiled in a friendly way and made it obvious that he was photographing me, I'd have not felt any challenge.

As I have said before, the problem is always with the photographer.

[btgc]

Come on guys and gals - it is not that complicated: Shooting unaware people is fine and hip if you use a Leica with a 35 or 28.

but...ASPH or PRE-ASPH ?!?

[btgc]

Now vote who is more jerk - jerk with telephoto or jerk with a superwide?

Also, specify if jerks with manual focus fixed focal length lenses stand out of jerks with AF zooms?

[Sparrow]

JS my nan managed it. We bought her a 110 camera, she looked into the lens and pointed the VF at the subject–I'd say that was the wrong way to photograph :-)

... my grandma once came back from a holiday in Bournemouth with 24 photos of her ear ... and when we explained she had been looking through the wrong end of the VF commented "ah, yes, they did appear to be a long way off at the time"

[konicaman]

but...ASPH or PRE-ASPH ?!?

Ohh dear, hadn't thought of that - maybe it is complicated after all...

[j j]

Next time I am out with my telephoto lens minding my own business taking a few wildlife pics and someone walks right up to me scaring my subject away and demanding to know what I am doing I shall recall this thread and know it is me who is being the jerk.

[ped]

I hate 'street photography' - why do I want pictures of strangers going about their daily business? Sometimes there will be one or two interesting shots buy 99% of the time it's photos of people carrying shopping or on mobiles.

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Next time I am out with my telephoto lens minding my own business taking a few wildlife pics and someone walks right up to me scaring my subject away and demanding to know what I am doing I shall recall this thread and know it is me who is being the jerk.

I only ever had this happen once, when I was photographing roof lines in a conservation area, for a project. However, that was one very disturbed person and I couldn't really feel anything except pity, once I'd calmed down.

I rather think that 99% of people who accost photographers do so because they feel powerless. They think the photographer is an easy target to vent their spleen on. The other 1%, I imagine, are like my chap. Just rather sad, ill people who a caring society would protect from themselves.

Just my two old pennies' worth.

[music_healing]

So I'm coming back from having some great Chinese food with 2 of my coworkers on our lunch break. We're walking along 5th avenue which is one of the main drags through Oakland in Pittsburgh. It's a very crowded sidewalk, and yet I notice a guy across 5th avenue on the opposite walk with an SLR and some kind of telephoto lens on it - like a 300 or bigger - really long lens. As I turn my head to look at him full on, he whips the lens up towards a building, and pretends he wasn't shooting me. I sort of smirk and keep walking, then quickly look back at him. He's got it pointed at us again! And again, he does the (whoops - no I was shooting the sky!) move.

I have to say, I felt violated. I know it's legal. But honestly, I am very seriously considering dropping the street game as a result of this experience. Or at least, working with a little more consent first. But grabbing closeups at long range with a telephoto - that's just freakin' wrong. It sort of goes against the code of street photography, you know? To be able to get into a sort of intimate proximity usually reserved for my wife with someone through a lens, to fix that image to do with what you please, but not have the stones to admit that's what your doing is just gutless. This guy was truly "taking" pictures.

But I swear, it was constructive for me - it really made me think about how many people I've made feel that way. I very well may miss out on some good photographs if I quit doing street work, but I think I'm just reaching a point in life where I'm starting to care a lot more about my subjects - how they feel about the image "we" are making. Am I overeacting? Maybe if he had been in my face with a 28 and I coulod have said "hey" I wouldn't have minded. Something about staring down the barrel of that long lens and knowing how tight he had us framed just torqued me off.

hmm

I remember a big expert in my country, writting photo essay in biggest newspaper here, about street photography

He said ... use FF DSLR with super zoom lens, range from wide to 200-300 mm... also bring tripod ...

well... actually he is a respected model photographer but he is a celebrity photog.. so everyone mostly in my country are following his advice....


secondly ... this week , i have some discussion with some senior famous photog.. (doing model , still life product , wedding .. by Medium format and DSLR)..
they are protesting about me, the newbie who love street photography (public domain, non setup non directed, tell fraction stories about culture)...
that I must always take consent letter of approvan and letter of release

for every object I took on street, I must respect them, by asking each of them consent

just in case , 1 day , i will get famous and exhibited, have lots of money as street photograher, while all the street object get zero money

they said ... you must be fair like we are fair to our models


well they are the GURUS... so as a hobbyist , I just keep silent...


Sincerely
William

[1750Shooter]

Very interesting points, all. I know it's a sign of a real "street shooter" if you use a 20-28mm lens, but having been on the receiving end numerous times - I live in Portland where every other person carries a camera - I wish poeple understood courtesy. I know it's great to get a "real" shot & all, but about the 3rd time someone steps in my face shooting, I do wish they had a longer lens. I don't often shoot on the street, but when I do it's almost always with an 85mm lens. I'm a big guy so it's not that I'm afraid of people, but how you can talk about "your rights" & be surprised when someone objects when you're standing on someone's shoetips baffles me.

[Pioneer]

Interesting conversations from the past and from today. I have played a bit with street photography but I typically don't feel it is my cup of tea. However, I have caught pictures of others while photographing something entirely different. I take a lot of pictures while attending my grandchildren's sports events. Though the intent is primarily to take pictures of the kids, there are always opportunities to grab shots of other people doing interesting things on the sidelines. A lot of those shots are being taken with telephoto lenses.

[Bob T]

I was once in a hospital ER waiting room with my wife and sister in law who was ill when a gentleman with a Leica SLR sat down across from us. As we sat there I noticed him hip shooting us from about 10 feet away. Initially I thought what could be interesting about us then I realized the red coat my sister in law was wearing probably caught his eye. We played a game of cat and mouse with me catching him snapping then looking away when I would look him in the eye, I must say he was determined. I only wish I had my camera and I would have given him a dose of his own medicine. As I think about it now the location was very inappropriate and it's a wonder he didn't get thrown out, unless he was there "working". Later when I mentioned it to my wife she had no idea all that was going on. I guess I caught it because I'm aware of those tactics and it's rare to see someone using a Leica SLR in such a situation. He never said a word and eventually got up and left the area.

[froyd]

The line between photographer and stalker is drawn at 85mm :p

Below 21 you have a different type of problem all together (see post 155).

[JoeV]

I suppose you could classify a paparrazi as a "street photographer," since that's where they often ply their trade, and they're know to use long-lensed DSLRs.

~Joe

[zauhar]

You shouldn't give a flying f-ck.

Personally, I would be fascinated that someone found me interesting enough to train a 300mm lens on me.

You are already being recorded - every move you make, every breath you take, to quote the old song.

Randy

[raphaelaaron]

oh, this reminds me of something. I was once walking somewhere near West 4th with a girl and I saw these two guys with the huge white lenses hiding behind trees. I was looking in the direction they were shooting in and didn't see anything and I thought it was really weird. I was figuring maybe they were spying out some celebrity. But apparently they were just snapping pics of people across the street. Weird.

ah yes, West 4th's very own grassy knoll.

[raphaelaaron]

i don't ask to take pictures of people. some probably consider that creepy. perhaps. but it really doesn't phase me. i don't have anything to hide in terms of just wanting to pull a great scene from the mundane, even if it comes out with someone's face in it.

to the OP:

it's okay to get a little flustered. you have every right to express how you feel. for me, i'm used to it. i even have fun with it when i know i'm being shot photographically. perhaps that may change if something were to happen soon, but for the most part in the past, i simply have no control over what a person chooses to shoot. and so far (knock on wood) they have not been a bother to me.

my girlfriend and i are both photographers (pictured in avatar) and she and i were walking the streets in k-town 32nd street. i spotted someone shooting on a NEX-7 with zoom lens. i said to my girlfriend 'hey look, he has a Sony NEX' as we were passing by him. he was shooting the crowd of passers-by. when we got in his field of view, my gf flips her head right at the lens and starts smiling. you could hear (even on a busy street) that guy went into full auto burst. he must've gotten 20 shots with her.

it's those times of just knowing, and still enjoying it that make it enjoyable for the both of us. i personally like it when i see someone on the street shooting. it makes me feel a certain bond with that photographer. now if he/she turns out to be a creep, that's not up to me to know at that time. i try to give people the benefit of the doubt about it.

[koven]

Ive noticed myself being shot a couple times, it was flattering.