What I've finally realized about "street" photography

[erikhaugsby]

is that people really do not seem to care if one sticks a small camera in their face. I shot two rolls through my M2 earlier today (one with a 50/2 DR, the other with a Minolta 28/2.8) in St. Louis (Missouri) and damn near tripped over some of the people I was trying to photograph; they did not miss a beat in their paths. I've even had people comment at my camera or say "Hi" after I took their picture.

Granted, the inebriation surrounding tailgates at an annual college football trophy game (the Arch Rivalry Game, Mizzou v. Illinois) might have reduced the inhibitions of a few, but I guarantee you the dad with his kids was not pounding down a six-pack on the side.

What are your experiences with people whom you photograph in an "in-your-face" fashion?

[btgc]

From my experience, people are more comfortable with formula "smaller can be closer", except exhibitionists which are happy with huge camera/lens in their face - simply because they are WAITING for audience of them.

And true - seeing unusual for today old film camera, people react more peacefully than to [d]SLR. I guess, simply because latter associates with that bad 'parazzi image. Older cameras sometimes raise questions "does it really takes pictures?" so probably this explains why people aren't afraid of them.

[sanmich]

I agree that the kind of camera you are using has a tremendous impact on the way people will accept to be shot.
I also found that tiny, flat lenses, are less agressive, as the direction you're pointing at is less clear.

[alansoon]

There's nothing like a 21mm lens. No one will care about where you point it.

[jbf]

I've put a 28mm lens in peoples faces for over a year now and ive only had a few ever get upset. Yes, it does humble you, but if you really want to be a photographer you will learn to have a thick skin.

[Steve_F]

Hi,
I read this thread with interest. I have found that when I'm out with my Nikon FM3A and 50mm 1.8 (still saving for the German RF) lens its very discrete. People do notice and many is the time I have stood/sat patiently waiting for somebody to walk in to the frame and then they stop so as you can take the shot. I then politely ask them to keep going. I've never had anybody refuse or complain. The point about the thick-skin is something I have to get used to. Several months ago I was in London and a lady wearing black clothing sat on a wooden bench reading a newspaper, the light was on her and the almost white stone work behind her. I visualised the shot including printing on warmtone fibre paper and adding further warm with a dip in selenium toner. I approached her (FM3A & 50mm 1.8) and asked politely 'did she mind if I took her photo' to which replied (politely) that she didn't want her photo taken. Oh well.

[gns]

The size of ones camera may have a little to do with it. Attitude or demeanor much more.
But the real reason people don't notice you or care is that they are busy with their own lives.

Cheers,
Gary

[robbert]

Last friday someone nearly bumped into me saying she didn't see me. I was in the middle of the street with my M3

[gb hill]

I think it was the enviroment that you were in is why people didn't care so much. People are so hyped up before a football game they don't care who is doing what or what's going on. Did you stick your camera in someones face during the game who's team was losing? If you did that not only takes thick skin, but really big balls.

[erikhaugsby]

Originally Posted by gb hill

Did you stick your camera in someones face during the game who's team was losing? If you did that not only takes thick skin, but really big balls.

No, I wasn't that callous. I shot in the hours before the game started, while there was still light in the early-afternoon sky.

[Audii-Dudii]

Originally Posted by gns

The size of ones camera may have a little to do with it. Attitude or demeanor much more.

I both agree and disagree. While my DMC-LC1 and Digilux 2 are reasonably small and discrete, I've noticed that many people still react to them when I bring them up to my eye. On the other hand, my (late) Sigma DP-1 rarely drew any notice from passers by and I was able to use it in many situations (for example, at concerts) where photography was officially discouraged, if not formally prohibited. This was true even when I damned near stuck it in people's faces due to the short focal length of the DP-1's lens.

[lorenbliss]

My huge preference for M Leicas stems largely from the fact they seem to vanish from people's consciousness. Part of this is their smallness, another part of it is their great quietude. Even in projects like my current work -- a commissioned biography in which I am constantly photographing my subject as he talks about his life -- the Leicas made a huge difference: while my SLRs (K Pentaxes) not only distracted him but made him obviously self-conscious, the Leicas quickly receded into the environment, whether in his study or outdoors, with the result that what materializes on the film is the real person, not a facade.

Another part of this is that when one shoots with an SLR, one's entire face is masked -- the photographer becomes a cyclopean camera-face -- while when one shoots with an RF camera, at least half one's face remains visible, reassurance that the subject is interacting with a human being not a robot. Then when the subject relaxes, so does the photographer: the doorway to the Zen aspects of photographing.

Don't know when or how I learned this save that it was a very long time ago, no later than 1967, more likely earlier, and probably a composite of working experience and reading (mainly Susanne Langer, Daniel Schneider, Eugen Herrigel).

As to street photography, I find there's a huge geographic difference in how people react: in NYC you're invisible or an object of amusement, in Seattle (where there are severe statewide legal restraints including at least one successful lawsuit against a newspaper), street photography can land you in the hospital as an assault victim, with the judge subsequently throwing out your effort at legal revenge by ruling that you started the fight merely by pointing the camera at your assailant.

The newspaper lawsuit is particularly instructive: one of the Puget Sound area's major dailies published a photo of an accident victim -- shot on a public highway by a staff photographer. The subject sued for invasion of privacy and won a huge judgement under state law. This occurred in the late 1970s -- the judgement was handed down maybe in '79 or '80.

If I remember correctly, the paper was The Everett Herald -- its loss in court all the more significant because it is -- or was then (don't know today) -- owned by The Washington Post, which lost the case despite all the legal resources at its command.

In this instance, WaPo ownership probably hurt far more than it helped: in the Puget Sound area, the hatred of Easterners and indeed anything associated with "Back East" was (and remains) the most intense and violent brand of xenophobia I have ever encountered anywhere, including as a civil rights activist in the Jim Crow South. It is venomousness of a magnitude that really cannot be imagined until it is encountered in person: note for example the region's 40-year rejection of adequate mass transit as "Manhattanization."

Because of this court case, local editors will not buy human interest pix -- street photos -- without signed model releases, and are very reluctant to purchase (or publish) even news photos that might be in the least bit controversial.

By the way: I moved to the Puget Sound area for its wilderness access, its trout fishing and the truly breathtaking beauty of its natural environment, not its (savagely anti-intellectual) local culture. When I left Manhattan in 1986 it was only because I believed the 1983 fire that destroyed all but a tiny fraction of my work had also ended my career. Twenty-five years later -- with that part of my life unexpectedly resurrecting itself -- I find it beyond ironic I'm in the one part of the U.S. where street photography is effectively illegal, prohibited both by law and the huge antagonism toward anything that bears an "outland" taint -- especially of Europe or "Jew York."

[Nh3]

Once again this thread is a great example of photographers reaffirming their own preferences/prejudices.

Just remember that you can put a large camera or a small camera into someone's face but the more important question is not sticking the camera into someone's face but "what is it that you're trying to achieve".


In my opinion if I were to stick the camera into someone's face on the street, it should be because of a very good reason, not simply my own enjoyment.

[back alley]

but why would we not reaffirm our preferences?
i would assume that, like me, most have tried different techniques along with various cameras and even formats and after careful consideration then decided upon a way of doing things.

[Nokton48]

I went to a street fair this weekend, with M2 and my new 35mm f2 Canon. Took many frames of +X Motion picture film, sometimes in the "Winogrand" style of psyching your subject out. Nobody reacted to me, nobody particularly cared.

[dryice66]

I would suggest that a lot of us here would 'stick a camera in someone's face on the street' purely for enjoyment.

However, I would concur with Nh3 that we should have a very good reason. As part of our enjoyment process in our hobby, wouldn't we stick a camera in someone's face (whatever that means - and that's a very wide spectrum) because it told a story / captured a moment as part of the creative process? Cartier Bresson anyone?

I, for one, certainly wouldn't, if it were not for creativity and the narrative - I wouldn't want to risk arrest or a punch in the face. Still, we're often reminded of Robert Capa's much-quoted phrase - if you're photos are not good enough - you're not close enough....

Just my tuppence worth as it were...

[stefan_dinu]

It is not true everywhere. Just try this approach, of snapping in people's faces in Morrocco. Or even in my home country, Romania. It could get nasty.

[Nh3]

Robert Capa's much-quoted phrase - if you're photos are not good enough - you're not close enough....

I think this quote by Capa has been confused amongst photographers (amateurs mostly) to mean 'close to the subject' where as Capa, a photojournalist meant 'close to the story/action'.

[erikhaugsby]

Originally Posted by stefan_dinu

It is not true everywhere. Just try this approach, of snapping in people's faces in Morrocco. Or even in my home country, Romania. It could get nasty.

And I'm quite sure the Amish communities in parts of rural America would express similar sentiments. It really is all about 'location, location, location!'

[yanidel]

Originally Posted by Nh3

I think this quote by Capa has been confused amongst photographers (amateurs mostly) to mean 'close to the subject' where as Capa, a photojournalist meant 'close to the story/action'.

exactly, Capa was known and respected (from likes such as General Bradley and Patton) because of its guts to go in the frontline with the soldiers (for example, he took part of the first wave to land on D-day in Normandy). He said this sentence referring to the war photographers that stood behind, taking pictures of what was going on either after the battle or before.

[itf]

Originally Posted by Nh3

In my opinion if I were to stick the camera into someone's face on the street, it should be because of a very good reason, not simply my own enjoyment.

Why? Don't get me wrong, I like to have a theme/story or whatever, but this seems like you feel you're taking something away from people, and that that needs justification. Everyone has their enjoyments, most of those impinge on other people.

[mknawabi]

Nh3, you think about it too goddamn much. Just let go, go out, and start shooting

[Nh3]

Originally Posted by itf

Why? Don't get me wrong, I like to have a theme/story or whatever, but this seems like you feel you're taking something away from people, and that that needs justification. Everyone has their enjoyments, most of those impinge on other people.

I use to be like that but lets face it, when you put the camera into someone's face, it causes a feeling of discomfort to that individual even if they smile and walk by.

And also its not like we usually put the camera into the face of a big guy with tattoos but the more vulnerable ones like old people or young women. People whom we know are unlikely to hit back at us.

So, I have concluded that I really don't need to make others uncomfortable for my own pleasure.

[maddoc]

Originally Posted by Nh3

I think this quote by Capa has been confused amongst photographers (amateurs mostly) to mean 'close to the subject' where as Capa, a photojournalist meant 'close to the story/action'.

I think the same. Capa`s "street photos", he took in Japan in the early 50s, show that he kept some distance to his subjects (people) while being amidst the action.

[gns]

So what do you all think of William Klein? Isn't he sort of the antithesis to the stealthy type street photographer? Pushing his camera right up to his subject to deliberately get a response and make them an active participant?

Cheers,
Gary