Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Strategies for stealth on the street  (Read 10633 times)
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #60 on: February 24, 2013, 08:27:30 AM »
ReplyReply

You comparison of street photography to a crime is amusing.


Only if you are not sensitive to being photographed without your consent.

Rob C
Logged

PhillyPhotographer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 334


« Reply #61 on: February 24, 2013, 08:41:08 AM »
ReplyReply


Only if you are not sensitive to being photographed without your consent.

Rob C

People's sensitivity levels in a public place is their problem. Maybe they need counseling or have self-esteem issues. Either way I couldn't care less and I'm wondering why you do.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #62 on: February 24, 2013, 09:38:10 AM »
ReplyReply

I think the word hunting is inappropriate Rob and I think you are using it to try and reinforce a dubious defence of privacy. The Amateur  Photography magazine - UK - stated bluntly that if a person doesn't like their image in photograph then they should stay in the house. It was blunt and to the point. There isn't a privacy law in the UK and imo that should be the norm. Take the argument to it's conclusion then there wouldn't be any street images - with people in them - published in newspapers, magazines or the internet and television. A poorer world? Rob I conclude that you don't like your picture taken in public and this is the nub of your argument. I bet you have taken images that have people in them in public.




1.  ďI think the word hunting is inappropriate Rob and I think you are using it to try and reinforce a dubious defence of privacy.

2.  The Amateur  Photography magazine - UK - stated bluntly that if a person doesn't like their image in photograph then they should stay in the house. It was blunt and to the point.

3.  There isn't a privacy law in the UK and imo that should be the norm. Take the argument to it's conclusion then there wouldn't be any street images - with people in them - published in newspapers, magazines or the internet and television. A poorer world?

4. Rob I conclude that you don't like your picture taken in public and this is the nub of your argument. I bet you have taken images that have people in them in public.Ē




1. I think the word hunting is precise, and to the point: which euphemism would you rather I adopt Ė hanging around waiting for something to happen?

2. The AP has never been my bible. Itís produced for the people it says on the cover, and what else would you expect it to say? Think before you shoot?

3. Are you absolutely sure of that? If you are right, then perhaps itís time to have one. Published pictures of people in the media you mention  almost invariably (today) carry the tag Getty. Traditional magazines mainly use commissioned or stock images of people doing things for which they are either paid or from which they seek publicity. Rights to privacy are very real in that world: try selling model pix without a model release or, in France, shots of somebodyís country estate as background to your car adverts if you donít have a property release. Television regularly shows moving images of fat people walking down the public streets every time thereís a news item about the dangers of obesity; mostly these are trimmed off below the chin. I rather suspect that itís more a legal consideration than any deep sense of friendliness and compassion on the part of the studios.

On Aljazeera today (it might have been yesterday Ė one day runs in to the next) there was a programme about tv reporters and also other types of photographers covering the Arab Spring. It seems that many of them (one actuall bullet killing was shown to happen on camera) are now targeted because no faction trusts them to present a straight report. How quickly they learn the mores of the press!

4. You conclude correctly. Yes, I have made pictures in public places with people I donít know in the shot; these people are not the subjects of the images and as far as I can remember, they are nothing more than stuffing for the main course, which ainít them. I donít think any would be able to identify themselves; they were certainly never held to ridicule.

On this point, thereís a personal tale to relate. Back in í81 I was given an assignment by a tour operatorsí location representative company  to shoot a list of hotels in Spain for possible brochure illustrations. The principal selling points were the pools. I was give a letter of authorisation by the head of the company which I was supposed to show at reception in each hotel on his list in order to get their permission to work. After doing a few of these hotels I realised that no official gave a damn, so I ended up not showing the letter to anyone, just getting on with the job. Big mistake. In one hotel, I was working at the pool when a member of staff came up to me because a complaint had been made by a resident. I was marched off to the reception where I produced the letter. Smiles all round, and I was accompanied back to the scene of the crime, where I was then left in peace to work. I was embarrassed as hell, but also a bit smug to have survived the ordeal. So yes, even back then during the Age of the Deluge, people were sensitive to being photographed. So why was I embarrassed? Because I understood perfectly well the feelings of the person /persons who complained; it just didnít suit my agenda, as it doesnít suit that of the amateur street camera-artist.

During the same shoot I was in Marbella; on  presenting the offical letter to the desk, the PR manager refused permission because of the class of guest he had staying there Ė celebs donít appreciate snappers unless they are invited. I understood. I went on to the next hotel.

I was working at Lindos, in Rhodes, on a calendar shoot; A then-famous tv  presenter was on the beach, stoned out of his mind, and surrounded by a group of topless girls. My model kept urging me to shoot, shoot, the tabloids will pay you a fortune for the pictures! I didnít even raise the camera. In the end, you have to live with yourself.

Nope, Iím no paragon of any virtues, stamper; I just donít happen to like to cause other people discomfort or possible damage, especially for no valid reason at all, which amateur street certainly does not have either. It serves no purpose other than snapper ego: the thrill where we came in.

;-)

Rob C


Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #63 on: February 24, 2013, 09:42:37 AM »
ReplyReply

People's sensitivity levels in a public place is their problem. Maybe they need counseling or have self-esteem issues. Either way I couldn't care less and I'm wondering why you do.



How many times do I have to spell it out: I dislike intrusion as I dislike intruding.

Nothing at all to do with self-esteem; you must have already guessed I'm not exactly underpowered in that department!

;-)

Rob C
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2811


« Reply #64 on: February 24, 2013, 11:39:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Sorry, Isaac, but when it comes to street photography you're sounding as if you're all hat and no cattle.

You are welcome to your opinion -- don't confuse your opinion with knowledge.
Logged
PhillyPhotographer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 334


« Reply #65 on: February 24, 2013, 01:32:59 PM »
ReplyReply



How many times do I have to spell it out: I dislike intrusion as I dislike intruding.

Nothing at all to do with self-esteem; you must have already guessed I'm not exactly underpowered in that department!

;-)

Rob C

Maybe you're just too self important. How does someone standing on a corner taking you picture as you walk by intrusion ? Are you being injured, defamed or are they just stealing your soul ?
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2811


« Reply #66 on: February 24, 2013, 04:01:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Maybe Rob C. expressed consideration for someone other than himself.
Logged
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2700


« Reply #67 on: February 25, 2013, 03:53:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Rob you aren't happy that people get photographed in the street but you are happy shooting people - with permission - at a poolside to earn money. When the hotel owners gave permission for you to shoot did they ask permission of the the hotel guests before granting permission? I see double standards. Okay for you to shoot at a poolside but not for others in the street. Money seems to be the demarcation line.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #68 on: February 25, 2013, 04:49:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Money is indeed one consideration, but not quite in the manner you imply.

You have to think about several important things: one, the location; the next, what people are doing there.

In a street, people are going somewhere, are deep in their own worlds of hope, anxiety or simply lack of time to achieve that which they need to achieve. In a nutshell, they are not on display and certainly not expecting (or prepared) to be immortalised in print.

At a poolside, people get there after a year of planning the where, the when, the impact of what they buy to wear when they are there: in other terms, it's their grand entrance, their Warhol minutes. They seek attention. Mostly, they don't get any because everybody else is doing the same thing. Why else did you imagine the topless craze came into broader popular acceptance during the 70s/80s? Pools are about exhibitionism. That one person complained or felt uneasy about my shoots, in maybe twenty-five different hotel pool locations across the Costa del Sol and the Balearic Islands, tells (and shows) me that when they are on conscious display, people not only seem happy to be photographed, but actually sit up straighter, hold in their tummies and breath a little more deeply... It's a bit like amateur dramatics.

But look, I don't need to join in a war here: I'm only stating my views on a particular type of photographic 'work' and if others disagree, that's fine; I don't have to approve. In fact, some such work can be very interesting indeed, but when it is, in my idea of interesting, it isn't really about individuals ŗ la Arbus, but more like the stuff Seamus pulls off with such apparent and frequent ease.

Rob C
« Last Edit: February 25, 2013, 04:50:42 AM by Rob C » Logged

stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2700


« Reply #69 on: February 25, 2013, 05:22:53 AM »
ReplyReply

This isn't war Rob. So far an interesting thread which has remained on an even keel. Hopefully it will continue because some of us are skating on thin ice and don't fancy the dpreview forum where we will be chewed up. What Seamus does takes nerve and hopefully nobody notices.
Logged

cjogo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1466



« Reply #70 on: March 25, 2013, 03:22:52 AM »
ReplyReply

I still consider myself a fine-art war correspondent with a smile.  Check my other threads > I get the shot but usually with a tripod and 120 camera.   So the subjects do have a chance run ...call for help ...etc.  I mean : non-zoom - manual focus- handmeter - long exposures -large tripod ..they could easy exit~~  BUT for some reason they stayed for the shot.  
« Last Edit: March 25, 2013, 03:28:07 AM by cjogo » Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad