Reflections on photographing strangers

[Rafael]

My wife and I recently had our first child, an event that changed my photographic life (as well as the rest of my life!) quite dramatically. For starters, I have had far less time to spend on RFF of late! It is no longer as easy as it was for me to just pick up a camera and wander the streets making photographs for a few hours. But on the positive side, I have a new primary subject for my photography. And it has been while photographing my son that I have developed a new perspective, or possibly a new way of describing an old perspective, on photographing people.

It occurred to me the other day that photography is not something that I do to my son. It is something that I do with him. It is a means through which we interact. And this realisation got me thinking about street photography. Many people often worry about how they react when they photograph a stranger on the street and that person notices them. If you think of photography as something that you are doing to people on the street, then you are likely to feel "caught in the act" when they notice you. However, if you approach street photography as a type of interaction with people on the street, I think that your reaction might be quite different.

I have read comments from quite a few people here expressing the view that street photographers should have a clear idea in mind of why they are taking photographs of people on the street. I think that I now better understand why this is so. If you think of your photography as a type of interaction with the people you are photographing, in other words, your decision to press the shutter release at a particular moment is a response to them (be it a statement that you wish to make, or a question that you wish to raise, or a feeling that you have), you are unlikely to feel "caught" when your subject notices you.

Another way of thinking about this is to reflect on the words of Immanuel Kant. Though I am no Kantian, I believe that his injunction never to treat others merely as means but always also as ends in themselves provides us with some important guidance as street photographers. Obviously, a street photographer uses his or her subjects as means to an end to a certain extent. But, if you refrain from ever using your subjects entirely as means to an end, if you think of photography as something that, at least to a certain extent, you are doing with your subject rather than to him or her, I think that you will come to feel much more comfortable making photographs of strangers on the street and you won't feel caught when they notice you. Just my 2 cents for the day.

[ruben]

I sincerely agree.

Cheers,
Ruben

[f/stopblues]

Originally Posted by ruben

I sincerely agree.

Cheers,
Ruben

+1

It's amazing what a state of mind can do for a person outwardly.

On a side note, this makes me wonder what sort of revelations I'll have when I have a son in December

[Steve Bellayr]

If you take a photograph of a stranger it is because that individuals countenance means something to you and you want to record it. It is not a means but an end in of itself.

[rolly]

I like the sentiment of the first post. Yeah, I agree. And as well you could add that perhaps we have all become part of a public life that has a different valance or gravitas to it than in former decades or eras in photography. And the camera has helped push along that sense of "fifteen minutes of fame" thing. Some of us think that's even too much public exposure; others want all they can get. When some stranger shoots a shot of me, sometimes it is annoying. But when I think more broadly, hey, fair enough. I'm out in public. We are also part of a world that light shines into. The sun is ultimately quite a public light source, and shines impartially and impersonally.

[ruben]

Hi Steve,

Yours is a highly legitimate approach. Rafael's is a different one. Both approaches do have their own logics. Yours, I suspect, is aesthetical first and foremost. Rafael's one is more about communication with human fellows, in which the image will be a kind of recording of the meeting.

Cheers
Ruben

[Roger Hicks]

Maggie Thatcher famously said, "There is no such thing as society."

Prove her wrong. Be a part of society, and photograph it.

Cheers,

R.

[ruben]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Maggie Thatcher famously said, "There is no such thing as society."......

I bet she followed by saying: "There is only high society"

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by ruben

I bet she followed by saying: "There is only high society"

Dear Ruben,

No, she followed with something like, "...society. There are individual men and women, and there are families..."

To which I would reply, "If these individual men and women don't think they are part of society, and behave accordingly, then you are right. Remember Hobbes's analysis of the life of man in such conditions: solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."

Cheers,

R.

[John Rountree]

Originally Posted by f/stopblues

On a side note, this makes me wonder what sort of revelations I'll have when I have a son in December

Your personal history will begin in earnest, once your on is born.

[gordonb]

Rafael,

Having kids too changed my view on photography. I've always been more comfortable behind the lens and was very involved in photography in High School in the 70s. I sold all my gear to help finance college and regretted it every time I picked up a film point-and-shoot.

Having my first daughter in 2000 caused me to invest in a decent (at the time) flatbed scanner. When we were expecting our second in late 2002 I bought my first Digital P&S. This led me to rediscover photography and I recently got a DSLR & a rangefinder.

My kids are now in daycare after school & I'm always there taking pictures of them and the other kids. This leads to an interesting dilemma of being an insider taking pictures vs an outsider. People get pretty freaked out when someone they don't know starts taking pictures of their kids. I'm very Liberal but being a parent now I'm suspicious of others intent WRT MY kids. I love photographing children, they are wonderfully expressive little beasts. But I delete most of the shots of other kids unless they are friends of my kids or, if it's a shot I particularly like I will usually print a copy for their parents.

One day I was taking some pictures of the Daycare facility from across the street with my camera on a tripod for use on their website. I got some very nervous looks from the parents and one of the teachers came storming over with a murderous look in her eyes. I had to laugh about it but the primal dad side of my brain was happy that they were so intent on protecting the kids.

Enjoy this new experience. My kids are so comfortable being photographed they have learned not to act for the camera and I love having a shared visual history of our lives together (they have little Disney digital rangefinders).

[nomade]

I've always asked myself that question, frequently ashamed with the attempts I make to do so. But sometimes I just can't resist, when people like to look normal and blend in, it means they wanna be a part of the mass, they forget how unique they are, as a part of the mass they don't want to be distinct, and they certainly do not want you to catch them, but if they are out there, they are already exposed and there's no way to prevent that.

Aesthetically you shouldn't embarrass people and make them feel uncomfortable, sometimes there are photos that demand to be recorded, and to you this person is just a person an anonymous, a tool you made a record with, or it could be a connection, affection, a way to relate. It depends on who's pressing the button.

[Nh3]

One could try the HCB method and use people as props in a classic composition or shock them to get a reaction like Bruce Gilden's technique. From those extremes to a more sentimental approach there are many ways to approach people on the street, but in all these cases one needs inspiration and a concern for people, and an interest in what people do.

But there usually comes a time when people cease to offer anything of interest to the photographer. That's when it gets more difficult and challenging because how could one photograph a subject that one finds boring and not even worth looking at!

Atget photographed empty streets and trees and status while the few people that appear in his photos seems to be photos taken out of politeness or he had no option to get them out of the shot. He used long exposures but he could still have asked people to pose for him but he didn't.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that there are photographers who're misanthropic or simply generic humanity does not interest them.

... And I admit that to me photo of a cloud is far more interesting than a beautiful woman walking down the street or photos of a cute child or a dog etc...

[feenej]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Dear Ruben,

No, she followed with something like, "...society. There are individual men and women, and there are families..."

To which I would reply, "If these individual men and women don't think they are part of society, and behave accordingly, then you are right. Remember Hobbes's analysis of the life of man in such conditions: solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."

Cheers,

R.

She said that?? I wonder why she would want to be in public office?

[pesphoto]

My favorite thing is to go downtown in the city to shoot. I dont go hunting for photos of people but they do show up in some of my images in the background, as silouettes or a "prop" .

[Paul C. Perkins, MD]

Nothing so sterile as cityscapes without people. . . Paul

[JohnTF]

>>Another way of thinking about this is to reflect on the words of Immanuel Kant. Though I am no Kantian, I believe that his injunction never to treat others merely as means but always also as ends in themselves provides us with some important guidance as street photographers. <<



There are other Categorical Imperatives, and whether you are treating them "merely" as a means, while I agree that I believe with what I see as your intent, whether photographing them is using them "merely as a means" or whether you are treating them as an ends in this case may be open to further interpretation, and further to what degree you feel, or they feel, you are "using" them.

Asking a stranger for directions, in the extreme, is "using them as a means" not an end.

I might reserve invoking this particular rule to something more likely to affect the subject more seriously.

I generally photograph children in full view of their parents, and possibly, dependant on culture and location. Generally when parents see what I am doing, they tacitly grant approval. Perhaps silence in this case implies consent.

If someone objects when you raise your camera, then it is something else entirely, but the weakness in this discussion is that you may not know until afterward, but you can choose to not print that image.

Perhaps we are better off with, e.g. HCB, not having interpreted Kant in this way in terms of the body of his work, and I have passed on really good shots because I did not wish to intrude, for example at a funeral procession that happened to pass when I was shooting in a cemetery, but I have also photographed people and returned as much as a year later with a print or two and very positive and kind feedback.

Kant also said something about actions being those that should reflect universal laws, but I think he was talking a bit above the level here?

It has been a long time since I have talked about Kant, so please forgive any unintentional gaffes.

I think I know where you are going, and it may be the case that determining a line you or your subject do not wish to cross may not be of a simple nature.

I used to keep a few "postcard" prints in the back pouch of my case, and if some discussion arises, I can communicate that I am interesting in good (hopefully) images.

Sorry for the long reply, Regards, John

[Spider67]

I like to photograph emptz streets and people.
I saw the boz playing with his little sister and it was cute sight when he noticed me he posed. It was a silent interaction for both of us and the reason I like that pic.
Just to add: That's in the old city of Rhodes and I did not make the scan