Discussion in 'Weekly Poll' started by Chrissie_Lay, Aug 19, 2015.
Take part and vote on this week's poll - Do you feel comfortable taking street photographs?
Yes, in most countries.
Never tried North Korea.
a huge giant resounding NO! I will take photos of buildings and other inanimate things in the 'street' but not people. I respect people's right to privacy, regardless of what 'public' place they are in. More especially I will never post pictures of people online because of the inherent risks of placing an image of a person online. Even if others are unaware of the risk, or ignore the risk, that is their choice, but I will not put someone at risk just for my own benefit. There are many other things that are risk free to take photos of.
I am not comfortable taking street photographs but ZenTog's response challenges me to do so.
What a surprise to see you here! People like Cartier-Bresson, Doisneau and Ronis clearly add nothing to your world picture, not to mention Gilden or Parr or Sutcliffe of Whitby or... well, hundreds or more likely thousands of photographers who have shown us how people live over the last 150 years or so.
Why do you wish to hide the present from the future? Or even from the present? What are you ashamed of? What do you think other people should be ashamed of? Why are you ashamed to use even your real name?
Years ago, I read something to this effect: When you are young, you are worried that everyone might know your business. Then you grow up and realize that nobody cares: you're just not that interesting. Do you know about the mediocrity principle? Try https://edge.org/response-detail/11272 where you will find the following quote: The mediocrity principle simply states that you aren't special. The universe does not revolve around you, this planet isn't privileged in any unique way, your country is not the perfect product of divine destiny, your existence isn't the product of directed, intentional fate, and that tuna sandwich you had for lunch was not plotting to give you indigestion.
I'm never quite sure what "street photography" is supposed to cover.
I like to take candid, unguarded pictures of human beings doing human things. I don't want them to notice me, because then the observer would have altered what is observed. Is this "street"? I don't know and I don't really care...
I'm quite happy taking street photographs, whether there are people in them or not.
No, I am never comfortable doing it. I am a naturally shy person. It all zaps my energy. That being said I do lots of street work. It is a love / hate deal w me. I've been at it nearly 50 years, never get used to it. If I have laid off for a spell when I get warmed up it gets easier. Still it is not my normal way to stick a cam in someones face.
Wow talk about an ad hominem attack.
There are risks in placing information online which include photos of yourself. It is only a matter of time before someone gets sued for putting someone at risk by placing images of them online. The law is reactive not proactive and this is an area in which the law has not kept up with the times. Personally I will not assume the risks for someone else, nor am I willing to take the risk if something does go wrong and I end up being the one carrying the can, even if the risk is small my conscience will not allow me to put another person at risk just because I took liberties with their image and put it online.
If your conscience is so seared that you are willing to enforce your 'right' to take a photo over the other person's safety - that is your choice.
Until such time as there is a law in place protecting a person's right to refuse to be photographed I will not assume the risk on their behalf. No-one else has to do what I do, you are all free to do as you like. Given the generally fairly bolshy and insensitive attitude of street photographers to anyone's concerns but their own I'm pretty sure that you will do exactly as you like anyway.
I really hope that none of the following situations occur:
A photo of mother and child fleeing their abusive husband who has threatened to kill them which is geotagged automatically by your camera / social media is placed online and he tracks them down and kills them.
A rapist uses social media to stalk a victim (which they do BTW), and uses that photo of the woman jogging past an identifiable location to locate her and rape her.
A paedophile takes that image of the cute kids in the park you just 'had' to take and distributes it.
A porn site takes that image of the girl on the beach and uses it.
However I really hope that some-one who has been photographed and their photo put online by the photographer and has fallen victim to some kind of online risk does sue the arse off the photographer for doing so. Ideally it will be also some one who asked for their photo to be deleted and the photographer refused, or used some kind of ruse to pretend to have done so (as I know happens).
To accomodate your wishes, every picture should look like this...
...or would the gentleman in the walker be at risk from disabilityphobes?
Full of Beans by Marty Greenwell, on Flickr
A few days afterwards she was attacked and killed by a manager from Costa who saw my photograph on flickr and took exception to her drinking other company's coffee **
** may not have happened.
Well because I was curious, I decided to track down your lady with the coffee cup. It took a bit of effort, but I can tell you quite categorically that the photograph was taken outside a coffee shop in Stamford; and that's all. I can surmise from the woman's clothes that she is either going to work or taking a break from work but while she might work next door or in walking distance of the coffee shop she could equally be a passing saleswoman who will never be in Stamford again. If I really felt like doing her some harm I suppose I could get myself to Stamford and hang around on the off chance that she'd turn up again but frankly I think my murdering tendencies would be better satisfied by hanging around a coffee shop I actually know and offing someone I have a vested interest in getting rid of.
I'm not meaning to make fun of you Zentog but surely you can see how little information can be gleaned from a candid photograph of a stranger? People are at far more risk from putting their own information out there than they are from the results of street photography.
It really is true that there are no people so opressed as those who opress themselves...
Actually there is a very simple solution. Get a model release. You have to get one if you intend to sell the photos and/or benefit financially from them so you should be getting one anyway. If the person doesn't wish their photo to be used - tough luck chum.
This is simply wrong. You don't need a model release for pictures to be used editorially or fine art. Tough luck chum.
Do you know what "ad hominem" means? Or are you as vague on that as on your concept of someone's "right to their image" and when you do or don't need a model release?
"Ad hominem" means an attack on the person, not their arguments. I know nothing about you as a person, so I can't really attack you. Nor do I need to. It is more than sufficient to suggest that your proposals are unrealistic, paranoid, rabidly authoritarian, historically deluded and unworkable.
I'm wondering at what point we're not allowed to publish a picture under this proposed new regime. Is this profile going to be illegal?
Back in a bit...just going to collect all the model release forms I handed out ahead of this shot....
the thing is that street photography is not entirely just 'art'. You are capturing a real person who has a real life who may have any one of many legitimate reasons for not wanting to be photographed and/or have their image posted online. I would suggest that unless you are intent on being the epitome of the exploitative insensitive a-hole street photographers come across as being you might want to remember that.
Shoe on other foot for a moment - if some d-ck with a camera came up and took photos of your wife on the beach and posted them online and subjected her to ... lets keep this at the absolute minimum level of cr-p that happens - the ridicule that photos posted online (please read some of the comments on this very forum) are subject to, the neanderthalic drooling some commentators make and the various other less than savoury things that are said ... are you still so ra-ra on the 'rights' of the photographer?
Hey let's make even simpler - some d-ck comes up to your wife on the beach and takes photos - you object because hey - it's your wife and the aforementioned nice person gets aggro and says 'it's my right'. Still feel so supportive of your 'rights'?
Or do you think that just MAYBE there might be something to the idea that not every one is so happy being photographed and they might have a point?
That's correct, I'd be interested to know how you got it as I don't think I had tagged that particular pic as such, as is the above from the Friday street market there. It was a fun time for everyone.
Separate names with a comma.