View Full Version : Forget the cameras - what are your working methods?
Imagestreet
07-26-2005, 17:48
I'd like to pose a question to other RFF users based on a great Mike Johnston article "The Importance of Working-Method Goals" available at
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-04-31.shtml
I've been taking photographs for years however my interest in photography has been a bit up and down lately probably due to me not having a real focus for shooting. I try to carry out my Voigtlander R3a as much as possible at weekends and holidays (even occasionally to work), however as often as not, it remains in the Domke F803 bag with the 3 CV lenses I bought for it. I have obviously managed to keep it going through the revitalising effect of buying more gear (this month a 70-200 VR Nikon lens and a film scanner...), however I'm rapidly coming to the point where I have neither the storage space or excuses not to go out and actually take pictures.
My problem is the kind of rangefinder shots I like, are primarily people pictures - candids, lifestyle, and gritty reportage style urban shots. Unfortunately I get really embarrassed by pointing cameras at people either through:
(a) engaging with them directly (I'm not one of these people who is comfortable striking up an unforced conversation with someone I don't know),
(b) lurking around suspiciously,sweating profusely and fiddling nervously with my equipment while building up the courage to grab a blurred shot of them with their back to me (this is also not a good technique to use in London at the moment!).
More often then not this has resulted in often seeing a great potential shot and then realising with horror the sheer effort involved in stopping, raising the camera (or worse getting it out of the bag), framing, focusing and metering, pointing it at the hapless subject, and then dealing with the awkward moment after shutter release where the subject is frowning at you...leading to 9 times out of 10 taking the safe option of walking on and photographing some office block instead.
This has led to a bit of soul-searching as when I look back at my photographs, I'm struck by the realisation that every really good shot I've ever taken has involved me taking a risk and "just doing it". So I've decided to approach this problem from a working methods perspective.
My aspirational working methods for the next 2 months will therefore be:
(1) Get some simple "photographer" business cards printed in the next 2 weeks and carry them while shooting (OK this is not strictly speaking related to taking pictures but it means you can shoot with confidence as you can give curious or alarmed subjects a credible explanation of your activity).
(2) Try one of the exercises that involves taking 6 rolls of film a day over the normal 2 per month.
(3) DON'T BUY ANY GEAR AND AVOID EBAY :eek:
(4) Shoot a set of themed pictures (currently thinking about "Women in the city" as I work in the London financial district AND umm I like pictures of women)
(5) Taking risks (take at least 10 shots every day you can shoot that are out of your comfort zone)
So what are your current or aspirational working methods??
Marc Jutras
07-26-2005, 18:13
Being, like you, not to thrilled by the idea of shooting pure strangers in the street and not being suicidal (due to Quebec laws regarding private life (street photo if not all forms of photojournalism are pretty much dead here) ), I shoot projects or events where I'm either welcomed or litterally hired to shoot.
Luckilly, during the last year, the people I've met have opened the doors of some fantastic but very private and underground circles for me. I have access and can shoot things most people wouldn't even believe exist. But it didn't happen in a day and it's still only in its infancy.
At first and for a while, I wouldn't even mention I'm a photographer. After a while, it became known and some day, I was asked if I'd like to shoot a special show. It was the first time I brought a camera with me there. Since then, it's been a very enjoyable travel into another dimension and it just keeps getting better and better. I'm getting asked to shoot things I'll never be able to show on my site!
So for me, documenting the underground or subcultures because I'm invited to beats street photography any day. It just suits me way better. Others prefer street shooting and are wonderful at it. To each his own.
If you plan to approach a particular group of people because they do something interesting to document (especially sensitive matters), I would strongly suggest to gain their confidence and respect before you show up with a camera. Then everything should be as easy as taking snapshots of your best friends birthday.
That's what has been working for me so far.
You know, in general, I shoot the shot. But I follow two simple rules.
1. If a group or collection of people, raise the camera, snap the shot, immediatly lower the camera.
2. If a single person, ask politily, if they say no, walk on (happend twice this year); else take the shot.
Gabriel M.A.
07-26-2005, 18:28
I think you are either going to have to learn to overcome your coyness, or have to learn how to use it to your advantage, meaning how it influences the photographs you take. No matter what method you take, you must feel comfortable either approaching your subject directly or indirectly. If you're too uncomfortable the only method I can recommend is to practice speed (quick focus, wind, aperture/speed set and shoot).
Imho, that's what it boils down to. Either you feel the photo moment or you don't. Working on technical aspects are great, but are in the end useless if you are frozen by "stage fright".
Trust me, I've been there. It doesn't help to live in a paranoid country either...
Terence T
07-26-2005, 18:34
It's a common thing to be apprehensive in snapping shots of strangers, that's why I shoot from the hip half the time with a super wide. I capture the scene and everything is in focus about 90% of the time.
I do approach strangers to ask sometimes, but more normally I would just bring the camera up and shoot or just let a few off from the hip.
jan normandale
07-26-2005, 20:35
Hi Imagestreet
I walk with my camera raised ready to shoot. I shoot a lot. I also take my camera everywhere all the time except in my place of employment because I think I should be working not engaging in personal activity.
I shoot about a roll every 2 - 3 days. I shoot a lot of things using an Olympus RC set at about 12 feet and using AE selectively. I will sometimes take time to focus if there is something in the street that is stationary. I don't shoot from the hip. I waste film and seldom get what I want. Shooting as it is, is a 50/50 thing even when I’m ready. People in the street move way faster than you think. It’s more like sports photography. Sometimes the shot is a throwaway. Out of focus, out of frame all the usual issues.
Just take the camera and start shooting in the street, eventually you will be so comfortable that few of your subjects will notice you. They will notice a ‘nervous’, ‘edgy’, ‘fumbling for a camera in a bag’ person. There will be things you should not do.
Don’t take pix of children you don’t know, don’t take pix of police, don’t take pix of areas that are noted as being under surveillance. There are more but you will figure that out.
Good luck!
jan
cp_ste.croix
07-26-2005, 20:50
I think you have to figure out your comfortable working distance too...and decide what type of shots you like. I prefer something a little longer so I can stand at least 6' away and still fill the frame to whatever I might desire. Lenses that work for this range from 50-90 for what I tend to like in my frame.
You know what I have actually found? Using a TLR from the waist, because it puts me in a semi-submissive posture (head bowed, shoulders forward) people seem way more at ease, even if they recognise that I'm taking a picture. Anyone else found this?
Stephanie Brim
07-26-2005, 21:09
I love the look of street photography so much and I also love, more than anything, the results that come out of it. I have the problem, though, that most other people also have at some point or another: I get shy and feel as though I'm invading someone's privacy. Now that I use a Canonet 28 for a lot of my outdoor shots I'm not so much that way anymore, but when I was using my Nikon SLR I got kind of self-conscious because of the loudness of the shutter. It took me a lot of time to get over the whole nervousness thing, but now that I am things are going better in that regard.
I am going to a theme park in the middle of August with one thing in mind: I want to take interesting candid portraits of people at the park. These are what I'm truly interested in and what I really love to do. Catching someone with a certain expression on their face is something that I love to do and don't do enough of. I've noted that there are quite a few things that help with this, but these are some of the things which I'm going to do on the trip:
Take my more interesting cameras along for the ride. I have my old Voigtlander Vito CLR and an Olympus Pen EE that I'm planning to take with me, and I'd also like to fix up my Meopta Flexaret and maybe use that a bit. I've noticed, as some of the other people here have, that having an interesting piece of equipment to take pictures of your subjects sometimes helps them overcome the initial squeemishness about getting their picture taken with curiosity about what it is you're taking their photo with.
Take along plenty of film of different speeds and types. Considering the fact that I will have about 3 cameras with me at least and maybe a fourth and perhaps a fifth, putting different films in each is plausible and a pretty decent idea. I'm putting Velvia in the big Nikon, Pan-F in the Canonet, and probably some Tri-X in the Voigtlander. I also have various types of Ektachrome, some Elite Chrome, Fuji print film, and Agfa print film. I'm stocked and ready to go.
I want to also choose my composition very carefully. The problem with my lenses is that there isn't that much difference in their focal lengths; the Canonet actually has the widest lens that I have, and that's just a 40mm. This means that, for landscape photography, I'm going to have to do some careful composing or they won't turn out as I like.
I'm also going to take some night shots...slow film, slow shutter speed. I want to get the look of the park at dusk, just as we leave.
Aperture
07-26-2005, 21:13
Hey, you're in London with another 7 million people or so....
Who cares if you offend a few people by taking a picture of them, chances are small you're bumping in them again. I'd say sod it, if it moves and is in a public area it's fair game....
Have fun shooting!
Don’t take pix of children you don’t know
Good advice. People have very odd ideas nowadays and get overly protective.
don’t take pix of police
Why not? They're out in the open. They're civil servants and paid by my tax money. And who is going to keep them in check if they can't be photographed? In my experience, most police officers don't give a rat's behind whether they are photographed or not, unless they have something to hide. But that last thing goes for others as well.
don’t take pix of areas that are noted as being under surveillance.
Under surveillance of what or whom? Shoot it. It's already under surveillance so one more pic of it won't matter.
Strike up a conversation with a person. It's easy. Imagine yourself having a legitimate reason to be in the area and just walk up to someone. My angle these days is to "pretend" to be looking for a new house (it's atually true, though not necessarily in that particular area). It gives me the confidence to shoot anything and everything and provides an excuse if someone asks what I'm up to. It's also an icebreaker for a conversation. The local people are usually more than willing to talk about their experiences in their neighbourhood, and while talking you can slip in the question (Can I take your photograph?).
With many cities and countries nowadays being potential terrorist targets, I'd say shoot as openly and conspiciously as possible! Let people know you are there. And if they complain, tell them it's already too late. The shot is taken. If they complain more, tell them that in the background of this shot might be the only picture of a terrorist and that the complainer should perhaps think about that for a change instead of his/her misplaced idea of privacy in public.
There's no need to become rude or offensive but it is important to stand firm. If necessary, play at people's fears. Governments and newspapers are pretty good at all the time and claim it as an excuse for many draconian measures or in the name of freedom of news gathering.
As aperture said it, sod them all. Take the shot. All of us photographers (me included) should firm up and perhaps even see ourselves as the last bastion of freedom and peace, the last line of defence against the terrorists [i]and[/] the government.
I'd like to pose a question to other RFF users based on a great Mike Johnston article "The Importance of Working-Method Goals" available at
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-04-31.shtml
I've been taking photographs for years however my interest in photography has been a bit up and down lately probably due to me not having a real focus for shooting.
I dunno, I'm not sure I have a "working method." The way I look at it is that my photography goes along with my other interests -- I'm interested in doing photography of the same things that interest me outside of photography.
I'm very interested in the training and work of dancers: I'm on the board of directors of a ballet academy, I attend a lot of performances, I do a lot of volunteer work for local dance companies, and -- flowing naturally out of all that -- I photograph dance performances and dancers at work. My other connections to the dance community make it easier for me to find opportunities to photograph, and also give me a knowledge of the subject that helps me photograph it more insightfully (or at least so I tell myself!)
I'm also fairly involved, in a small way, with old sports cars: I own one, I belong to a couple of clubs, I go to competitions and track days, I correspond with other people who are interested in this -- and so, when the opportunity arises, I also enjoy taking photos of old sports cars and the colorful sorts of people who enjoy them.
So, I guess you could say my working method is just to live my life, and let the photography happen in whatever way seems like a natural extension of my other interests. I take my photography pretty seriously, but I also try not to force it -- if I start worrying too much about "creating photographs" rather than just interpreting what's around me, I tend to start producing clichés or self-absorbed crap.
Recently I read a novel, Horse Heaven, by Jane Smiley, which is set in the world of Thoroughbred horse racing (which would be a fascinating thing to photograph from an insider perspective) and involves all sorts of people who inhabit it. One of the things I came across in the book is a set of rules followed by one of the characters, a successful horse trainer, which he calls "The Tibetan Book of Thoroughbred Training."
The rules seemed counterintuitive and non-logical at first glance -- but as the novel developed, they started making sense. And after I finished it, I discovered that in a way, they also make sense in my approach to photography! Here they are:
1. Do not pay attention or investigate; leave your mind in its own sphere
2. Do not see any fault anywhere
3. Do not take anything to heart
4. Do not hanker after signs of progress
5. Although this may be called inattention, do not fall prey to laziness
6. Be in a state of constant inspection
As I said, they sound kind of crazy at first. For example, how can you do photography without paying attention? But when I thought about it, I realized that deciding to pay attention to ONE thing means deciding to ignore other possible things, and that can lead to formulaic photographs and missed opportunities.
All in all, it's not a bad roadmap to photography, at least the way I approach it; you could almost rewrite the rules (in reverse order) to say: Keep your eyes open, shoot a lot, don't worry if you don't seem to be getting anywhere, don't get depressed if an idea doesn't work out, don't be over-critical, and be open to experience rather than getting detoured by preconceptions.
Does that add up to a "working method"?
Good article about Garry Winogrand's approach: www.photogs.com/bwworld/xtol1.html
Duncan Ross
07-26-2005, 23:44
I too would feel too nervous about photographing strangers; perhaps it's a 'British' thing! My aim at the moment is to shoot more B&W, I love the results so much. Unfortunately I have shedloads of Kodak Gold film (the lab I send my films to give me two free films for every film I send - you can imagine the inevitable result) and nobody seems to use it apart from me, you can't give it away on ebay.
One obstacle for candit photography (is that the phrase) is that none of my cameras are quiet. Even my cosmic 35 makes quite a racket!
One obstacle for candit photography (is that the phrase) is that none of my cameras are quiet. Even my cosmic 35 makes quite a racket!
Be inconspicious by being conspicious.
The mailman, window washer, parking meter attendant, street sweeper et all are not doing their work inconspiciously but no-one seems to notice or remember them. Do what you do and do it out in the open. It's a normal activity and the more normal you do it, the more inconspicious it becomes.
parks5920
07-27-2005, 00:05
Ask and ye shall recieve. If your polite, don't look like a perv and if asked, xplain. A friend of mine takes ALOT of photographs here in Los Angeles, the snob capital of the world. He posts all of his photo's on his web site and tells people who ask why to check out his site. He always says that if they see the picture and don't like it, he will remove it; he's never had one request.
Kind of a fun and useful article on photographic shyness here:
http://www.pinkheadedbug.com/techniques/index.html
I decided that my more interesting photos were of other people and their activities. So I set out to counter my own diffidence over confronting them with my camera and worked out some forthright and up-front tactics. I always get at least tacit approval for snapping away, even if by non-verbal body language. I snap and then nod or say thanks with a smile. Upon the common question, I may say something like I'm taking snaps of interesting people or people doing interesting things, etc. And I agree with RML! :)
Roger Hicks
07-27-2005, 00:46
Leave the country.
In my teens and 20s (I'm 55 now) I shot LOTS of street pics in the UK. As I got older I found it more and more difficult. I thought it was me that had changed. It wasn't. It was the British people. They have become more and more aggressive and paranoid. Americans don't seem *quite* as bad but it's been a while since I was shooting in NYC where I found them most paranoid. Here in France the big cities are sometimes awkward, but rural France, where I live, is no problem.
But in most of Eastern europe it's the same as it was in the UK 30 years ago. People take it as a bit of a lark to be photographed, which is as it should be. The only ones who aren't happy are about 30 per cent of old women, so I never (or rarely) shoot them unawares: just half-raise the camera and smile. If they turn away, no pic. If they don't, I shoot.
Cheers,
Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)
alansoon
07-27-2005, 01:35
Here's my method:
1) Stare intently at object next to subject, such as a street sign, lamp post, etc.
2) Gently raise camera
3) Focus on decoy subject (hopefully on the same plane, or in focus threshold)
4) Snap
5) Slowly remove camera from face
6) MOST IMPORTANT STEP -- continue looking intently at decoy subject. Do not make eye contact with real subject.
Works everytime.
Imagestrret,
I pretty much have the same feelings of shyness when shooting street-pics of strangers, and have missed lots of potentially good pics because of that.
There were quite a few good suggestions here already - Alan's tip of pretending to take a pic of something else close to the person works best for me, as does using a TLR, using a completely preset (focus & exposure) camera, that you only raise very quickly for framing and shooting - takes 2 seconds at most - in passing a person/scen (that's what I do when using my Leica CL); and I'm also more comfortable with a slightly longer lens, like a 50 - using a 35 I'd have to get closer than what my personal comfort zone is.
Another suggestion: try practising at place where photographers are abundant, and people are occupied with other activietes rather tha watching you - like at street fairs, outdoor markets, open-air concerts, amusement parks, parades, etc.
Roman
I am too a naturally shy person and hate puzzling people by pointing a camera on them.
Having said that, I shoot street every day. You ultimately have to decide what is more important to you: personal comfort and opinions of other people, or the great moments you can capture.
As of the method, it is simple: I carry the camera everyhwere (prefocused, if light conditions allow), and when I notice anything interesting I raise it and snap. I do it openly and trying not to be sneaky. A few times I attempted hip-shots but this is not my thing: makes me feel voyeur and guilty for what I do.
alansoon
07-27-2005, 02:04
Another tip for shyness:
Put on headphones. Turn up the volume. You'll instantly feel insulated from the scene in front of you.
Add beer to increase isulation.
Good point about headphones: should try that tomorrow :)
alansoon
07-27-2005, 02:42
A tip about the headphones: Use big ones. Get those large cans so that they can see you coming. The more conspicuous you are, the less people will take notice of you. Strange but true. People tend to get offended if they realize you're trying to photograph them stealthily.
Yes, if you look bold and confident people tend to see you as someone doing their work and largely ignore.
Pherdinand
07-27-2005, 03:32
You know what I have actually found? Using a TLR from the waist, because it puts me in a semi-submissive posture (head bowed, shoulders forward) people seem way more at ease, even if they recognise that I'm taking a picture. Anyone else found this?
I did! It is indeed like that. All the factors combined - waist level, face not obstructed, old looking camera, "semi-submissive posture" make people feel less threatened as compared to an eye-level camera.
Bertram2
07-27-2005, 03:34
(2) Try one of the exercises that involves taking 6 rolls of film a day over the normal 2 per month.
(3) DON'T BUY ANY GEAR AND AVOID EBAY :eek:
(4) Shoot a set of themed pictures (currently thinking about "Women in the city" as I work in the London financial district AND umm I like pictures of women)
(5) Taking risks (take at least 10 shots every day you can shoot that are out of your comfort zone)
All well thought I'd say, especially 3 and 4 !! :D
A themed series, yes that's what it must be. "Shooting people", what does that mean at all ?
Some seem to understand it as shooting strange people standing or sitting around by chance downtown thus trying to hide they have no vision. People are not a photog's human furnishing for "street" shots.
If you get closer to the people, I mean if you point on them directly, if you want to shoot a personal portrait of somebody you should have a good reason to do it and you have to respect his dignity.
If I were old fat and ugly ( just realized, I am !!) I would not like to land in some stupid web galleries where amateur "street" shooters want to show what strange birds they have caught.
the so called candid photography is often wrongly understood issue.
Communication is necessary, if there is zero relation between photog and object the photo fails if the distance gets too close.
In general the distance is an decisive thing, it solely determines how you have to act and how people re-act. Very old instincts are coming up with distance issue. !!!
BTW Almost all people in the world interpret a long Tele lens a lack of distance, these long dongs attract attention like hell and people react immediately. !!
Respecting other peoples dignity is a VERY important thing for a photog and has nothing to do wih shyness at all !
"Women in the city " is a nice theme, and the more you can focus it to a certain group the more interesting the series will become. You simply must know what your result shall be. BEFORE you start ! :)
Try to communicate whenever it is possible. The biz card is o.k., simply say what you are doing, say it's a project and that you don't know if you can sell it to anybody, no money. Most women will be glad that you find them attractive enuff to photograph them, offer them a photo, thus you get the adresses and phone numbers, nice side effect ! :D :D
Good luck and take care,
Bertram
Well i like street photography, i am stioll an amateur though, trying to promote my self to a higher level, but i'm a bit shy on this matter, i mean yes u can ask people and mostly they'll say yes, but still sometimes it's a pose that u wanna capture as soon as possible if u do that, ur shot is gone for good. And i also fear they'll get annoyed, it's not that their reaction si goin to be harmfull, but it's not nice to walk around annpying people with ur camera...
Yet carrying my camera and talking, gives me a great pleasure, many people make u stop and talk to u and u might end up with a couple of photos...
But still i'm a bit shy...
bmattock
07-27-2005, 05:48
A year or two ago, I was shy about street photography. I just steeled myself and made myself do it. Now, I stick a camera in anybody's face, I don't care. I'm too big and too scary looking to worry about it. If pull a frowny face at me, I just grin and wink at them and move on. If someone catches my eye before I pull the trigger and indicates that they don't want their photo taken, I move on without taking the shot.
I've had one person come up to me and demand that I remove the photo I took. Amazingly, she was an artist - a painter. She said she 'didn't permit photos' to be taken of her. I laughed in her face and told her I'm an artist too, I take photos of whatever I want. Imagine that - if the police aren't telling you that you can't take a photo of a bridge, your fellow artists are trying to restrict what art you can produce - rules they would never accept to be placed on themselves.
My advice is to just start doing it. Keep a grin on your face and a song in your heart. The more you look like you know what you're doing, the more people leave you alone and let you do it.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
The reason not to take pictures of cops is they will almost always tell you no and wont bother to wait for you to ask permission before telling you this. They're very concerned with who might be profiling cops, or trying to identify the entire set of local cops, or other "intelligence" like activities.
(That and he has a gun, handcuffs, baton, and pepper spray, any one of which can make even the bravest of folks uncomfortable, even if he gets in trouble for it later on.)
People are not a photog's human furnishing for "street" shots.
If you get closer to the people, I mean if you point on them directly, if you want to shoot a personal portrait of somebody you should have a good reason to do it and you have to respect his dignity.
If I were old fat and ugly ( just realized, I am !!) I would not like to land in some stupid web galleries where amateur "street" shooters want to show what strange birds they have caught. Bertram
I agree with this one - how would you like to find your picture on mulletjunky.com? Or if you were an attractive woman (for this you only have to think you are), how would you feel wondering if the nervous goofy guy taking your picture is your own amateur stalker, that YOU are the reason he's out taking pictures?
The reason not to take pictures of cops is they will almost always tell you no and wont bother to wait for you to ask permission before telling you this. They're very concerned with who might be profiling cops, or trying to identify the entire set of local cops, or other "intelligence" like activities.
AFAIK this isn't illegal in most of the places with modern democratic governments.
If cops don't want to be photographed or identified, they should work in civil dress. Or they can change a job.
I thought this article was extremely helpful on one mans technique to shooting "Street photography" He shoots mostly from the chest/waist level and offers lots of good tips for when/how to position the camera, where to stand, etc....
from his article:
"The first thing you need to shoot on the subway, is a fairly wide angle lens. The second thing that is helpful is autofocus. The third thing is autoexposure. And most importantly, an auto-winder. Most of this work was done with the 21mm and 28mm lenses. Both are excellent used wide-open."
http://www.davebeckerman.com/general/Contax-g2.html
tp
bmattock
07-27-2005, 06:35
The reason not to take pictures of cops is they will almost always tell you no and wont bother to wait for you to ask permission before telling you this. They're very concerned with who might be profiling cops, or trying to identify the entire set of local cops, or other "intelligence" like activities.
(That and he has a gun, handcuffs, baton, and pepper spray, any one of which can make even the bravest of folks uncomfortable, even if he gets in trouble for it later on.)
I was at the airport in Orange County, CA, waiting on a plane. At the time, I was still a smoker, so I went outside to burn one.
I saw a couple of fat cops in golf carts riding up and down the sidewalks in front of the airport, apparently too lazy to get out and walk. I took their photo as they had a confab. I was using a digital point-n-shoot.
They saw me. One of them wheeled over to me on his golf cart. He got out and walked over to me.
"Did you just take a photo of me?"
"Yes, I did."
"May I see it?"
"No, you may not."
"Why not?"
"I am afraid you'll delete it or seize my camera."
"I may do that anyway. I don't want you to take my photo."
"Too bad. You're a public offical, and we're in public. You don't get a say."
"I want you to delete my photo."
"No."
"I want you to give me the camera."
"No."
"Give me your ID."
"OK."
I gave him my ID. He called in my name, address, etc - waited to find out if I was wanted for any crimes. When I was not, he handed me back my driver's license.
"You know, it's not smart to take photos of cops."
"It's even dumber to interfere with the press."
"Oh, are you the press?"
"Wouldn't you like to know?"
At that point, I put out my cigarette and left. It may sound like I was brave, but I was shaking. Inside the airport, I went through security and watched as the cop spoke to the cop on duty assisting the TSA security guards. They both stared daggers at me, but they didn't do anything to me or try to take the camera away again.
I refuse to give in to police bullying. I may be arrested someday for my attitude. So mote it be.
I agree with this one - how would you like to find your picture on mulletjunky.com? Or if you were an attractive woman (for this you only have to think you are), how would you feel wondering if the nervous goofy guy taking your picture is your own amateur stalker, that YOU are the reason he's out taking pictures?
If people go out in public, including fat ugly bald people like me, they are subject to having their photo taken and used in a variety of ways.
Traditionally in the USA, this meant only that the photographer could not use their photograph commercially (to make money from) or to hold them up to public ridicule, if the person pictured was identifiable. That would require a model release. Therefore, if someone puts your photo on mullets-r-us and makes fun of you, you have an actionable cause. But that's only if you know about it, and only if you care to pursue the civil action. And you take your chances in court.
Look up sometime when you go out. There are cameras ALL OVER. You can't walk too far in most cities without being photographed without your permission.
I am a big advocate of personal privacy. I think the government intrudes too much into our personal lives, and it is getting worse.
However, I accept that privacy only applies if you remain in your private spaces. When you go out, you are 'in public' and if you don't want your photo taken, too bad.
Asking permission to take a public photo is a very, very, bad idea. It gives people the notion that they have the right to say 'no' - which they do not. At least, not in the USA. Don't want your mullet to go a' flyin' - don't go out in public.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
I thought this article was extremely helpful on one mans technique to shooting "Street photography" He shoots mostly from the chest/waist level and offers lots of good tips for when/how to position the camera, where to stand, etc....
Notice that in the footnote link, he reveals that he found that practice inferior and abandoned it in favor of more traditional work with M6.
Thumbs up Bill. The officials should be reminded once in a while who is in charge.
Or better yet get a haircut. As much as I dislike them and the crowd who who wear them, the people who make it their lifes obsession to mock them are about two stops freakier. The press thing works both ways, (I'm not sure how we ever got a canonized press - if you got a blog - you're The Press, congratulations.) I have had people who were fine with strangers taking random pictures who specifically did not want to be in the paper, or on the news, but I dont do a lot of individuals.
bmattock
07-27-2005, 06:54
Thumbs up Bill. The officials should be reminded once in a while who is in charge.
I worked in law enforcement for many years, both civilian and military. I respect the police and the tough job they have to do. They have my full support and cooperation. But they may not infringe on my rights as a US citizen in order to do their jobs. If they're allowed to do that, we'll end up with a police state.
Cops are people too. They are fallible and sometimes they get full of themselves and high on their apparent power - the fact that people tend to do what they are told by those in a position of authority. But to give in to this is wrong - it hurts everyone.
So, as difficult as it is, the police must behave within the limits of their authority and with respect for the rights of citizens, even if that makes their jobs harder.
I feel that I'm doing my job as a citizen when I take a stand and refuse to let my rights be trampled upon. I realize that many will interpret that as 'hating the police' or being 'in favor of lawlessness', which I am not.
I believe in a society that has laws - and that the police are empowered to enforce those laws - and that they deserve our support and assistance. However, in a lawful society, everybody has to live within the restrictions of those laws, or it is not a just society. That means the police, politicians, judges, everybody.
I'm not brave, just stubborn.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
bmattock
07-27-2005, 07:08
The press thing works both ways, (I'm not sure how we ever got a canonized press - if you got a blog - you're The Press, congratulations.) I have had people who were fine with strangers taking random pictures who specifically did not want to be in the paper, or on the news, but I dont do a lot of individuals.
You brought up several issues here. The first is the issue of people who blog declaring themselves 'press' and getting that respect. The second is 'canonized' press, by which I presume you mean the fact that 'the press' gets special treatment that citizens do not.
First - if we decide that bloggers are NOT 'the press' then we have to answer the question - who IS 'the press?' Traditionally, this has been reserved for newspaper reporters and photographers. Then radio and TV. Cable news. Then it got cheaper to print and we got weekly 'alternative' papers and college news and Samizdat. Are all these 'the press?' And if so, why are bloggers NOT 'the press?' In other words, the use of the term 'press' has expanded over the years to include those who report and those who editorialize, complain, carp, raise hell, and just generally behave like a public nuisance. SO....which one is 'the press?'
When you decide who is 'the press' you then have to say a) what 'the press' is and is not and b) who gets to decide.
I would suggest that this is the way the world ends. Nobody gets to decide who 'the press' is, just like nobody gets to decide who 'the clergy' is. It is self-declared. Valid for all or valid for nobody. If you give the power to decide what is and is not 'the press' away - that person or authority will eventually abuse it, and the public will be the ultimate victim. History is clear on this.
So, are bloggers 'the press?' Yep.
Next point - the press getting 'special treatment'. Yep. In the USA, anyway.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
While anyone may declare themselves to be 'the press', once they have, a special rule applies - "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of...the press." That's a special prohibition, put there on purpose. The Framers of the Constitution knew perfectly well that in order for a despotic government to remain in power, they must first stop people from talking about it. No despotic authoritarian government can ever have a free press. Therefore, a free and unfettered press is a cherished hallmark of a free society.
Canonized? No. Given special protected status? Yep. It's in the Bill of Rights.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
I think you severely misunderstood that last post.
bmattock
07-27-2005, 07:57
I think you severely misunderstood that last post.
I didn't intend it as an attack, but a response to the points I thought you made. If I am mistaken, please explain?
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Re: shooting in public.
People will REACT to the way you ACT. If you are uncomfortable, sneaky, tentative, etc, people will probably respond in a negative way. On the other hand, if you just simply go about your work, look busy, look like you are supposed to be there and having a good time, then people will largely ignore you or respond positively. It is all about your attitude.
Personally, I don't see the point of tricks like pretending to be taking a picture of something else or shooting from the hip, but if it works for you, fine. You can't argue with results.
Notice that in the footnote link, he reveals that he found that practice inferior and abandoned it in favor of more traditional work with M6.
and then he sold the M6 in 2003! sadly, imo he moved to digital.....
i still think that the first piece was an interesting account of one mans process shooting on subway's.
i still think that the first piece was an interesting account of one mans process shooting on subway's.
Well, I shoot in subway as well, with a totally different approach. Probably there's just no single right way to do it.
Re the canonized press corps specifically. I said - if you have a blog - congratulations, you're The Press. You seemed to think I was stating that these people are not truly "the press". They are. Even if you only send your monthly flyer to the other homes on your culdesac - you're excersing your right to "freedom of the press".
I think we actually incorrectly refer to "the press" anyway. Perhaps we could call it freedom of the printer to remove the silent "corps" from our thinking - but that doesn't do justice to radio/internet/and the like. While it's obvious "the press" in the 1st ammendment uses the machine to refer to something else, today we use that term to mean "people in the employ of the various Well Known (TM) news organizations". I think it actually - using similar language from the same authors, could be rephrased "the right of the people to keep and use mass communication engines shall not be infringed." (And then we would be having arguments about what's an engine, and how presses driven by electric MOTORS instead of steam or fuel driven ENGINES aren't protected, when the word "engine" just meant "machine" back then.)
In fact the two are rather linked - given the fact that they had just overthrown a government - the language reflects the fact that arms and mass communication are both critical to doing so.
bmattock
07-27-2005, 08:57
XAos, I understand now. Sorry, I seriously thought you were being sarcastic when you said "Congratulations, you're the press." My bad, mea culpa!
And I agree with the rest of your statement, too.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Roger Hicks
07-27-2005, 09:01
Bill
Loved the artist story. Weird or what?
But doesn't it seem to you that people have become more paranoid over the years?
Cheers,
Roger
bmattock
07-27-2005, 09:20
Bill
Loved the artist story. Weird or what?
But doesn't it seem to you that people have become more paranoid over the years?
Cheers,
Roger
Roger,
With regard to the story about the painter who didn't want a photo taken...
I was at an outdoor art fair sponsored by the city of Raleigh, NC. I suspect that the woman was thinking I was trying to photograph her paintings - but I was actually trying to photograph her - she was sitting down next to a mirror that was reflecting back her profile to me - it was a great shot. I whipped my camera up and began composing - she shot out of her chair as I was taking the shot and confronted me, as I described previously. She was quite upset.
With regard to paranoia - yes, I think people are becoming more paranoid. I know I am! I also think that people are being more sensibly cautious - and that's most likely a good thing. Like anything, it can be taken too far, and then it becomes a bad thing.
Should you call the police when you see someone breaking into a neighbor's house? Sure! Should you form a committee of concerned citizens to spy on the people who live down the block, because their skin is a different color and they look dangerous/frightening/suspicious to you? I'm gonna say generally, no. But where in between these two extremes is the line of 'sensibility' drawn? That's the tough question.
My biggest concern is not fear of terrorists or what they might do. My biggest concern is the severe curtailment of freedom that goes hand-in-hand with intentionally increasing police powers in order that they might 'protect us better'.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Allen Gilman
07-27-2005, 09:36
I think you're on the right track about taking risks. For what it's worth, it helps to just "lose yourself" in the shot and forget about everything else. Fact is, it looks pretty strange walking around taking pics of people (especially when you're close in), but all that is secondary to what could happen when you get those four lines aligned in an interesting way. Anyway, after a while, and when you're in the zone, you'll soon forget that jittery feeling. It's just a matter of time.
Rob Ludd
07-27-2005, 10:02
In my first year of photography school I was hired to photograph a master class given by Leon Fleischer, the famous pianist. Also being a musician, this was a jaw-dropping opportunity. Being so green, I lacked the boldness needed to get the shots, so hunkered-down in my front-row seat with a telephoto I shot just under two rolls of 35mm. My employers were not happy, and I still kick myself for the blown opportunity.
I finally overcame my shyness after my first season shooting weddings. I no longer do them, but because of that it doesn't bother my to candidly shoot people, even if they see me doing it.
I do a moderate amount of street photography, and for me it's two things: a) Practice doing it in a comfortable way for a few weeks or months, until one day you're in a rotten mood and don't care, or are otherwise feeling extraordinarily confident, and that will set a future tone; and b) As RML and others have said, if you're just doing what you're doing, most won't notice and those that do, won't care.
Rob
David Doler
07-27-2005, 17:39
Odd cameras open doors.
Odd cameras open doors.
I should be back with a 6x7 of GHWB next week then ;-) My RB67 came today. I want a TLR next!
Re paranoia - I think really more than anything, it's people grasping at the last remaining straws of privacy they have. It may not be ones that matter, but it's more of a reaction borne of frustration. I think too there are regional differences - in downtown NYC, there are just so many people, people react differently to people than in smallville. I may have to take some holstein "Street Photos".
TPPhotog
07-27-2005, 18:10
If your in the UK and ever have any problems taking a shot or three of the Police at work, just point out that Police Review which is the Magazine for Police Officers over here is always looking for new pictures for editorial. The fact that you are telling the truth can't be beaten and it will put the officer at ease as it's a magazine that promotes a positive image of them.
Other than that in the UK if it's in public shoot it, if it can be seen from a public place then still shoot it. As already said don't wonder around like a pick-pocket looking to make a dip, but make yourself inconspicuous by being conspicuous and look happy.
People will seldom challenge someone who looks confident as it under-minds their own confidence.
I also find that my real confidence and the risks I take are proportionate to how much I want the picture. If it's really worth having then it's worth a few extra grey hairs ;)
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.