Is Street Photography Wrong? (Asking The Public) 

very fair point hahaha

I don't use a flash so all good

Just we're on the same page, are we talking about lighting?

@@Elisha_the_bald_headed_prophet Ha Ha Ha.

yep, sticking a camera in somebody's face is highly offensive.

Very good point. Although, I think what might be different is with street photography YOU are the main focus, whereas with public recording everyone gets the same treatment. This isn't even mentioning street photography with flash. Not sure if this is actually correct, but just my view on how a member of the public might navigate this.

Let's not forget that all digital devices that emit some kind of wireless signals can determine the location of people.And of course that each phone manufacturer has the right to access the photos and the camera.

@@christophotosLike most things, whether it is unethical or not really depends on the mindset/reason of the person doing it. If you see someone racing along a city street at 100 MPH you'd think what a %*$%, risking the lives of other motorists and pedestrians, but if you found out later that their passenger was having a seizure and they were heading for the hospital a block away you'd think of it in a whole different light. Now while street photography is not life and death issues, but intent still comes down to it in photography. While one shouldn't be doing something in public one would be embarrassed about anyway, but it's a bit different if one might catch a glance that most likely people will forget about soon after vs. a photo which might be splashed all over social media. And things can wind up out of context which I personally think is the concern of most people. A famous example here in the states was a woman who posted a picture of a guy out with a woman and she, trying to get social media attention, claimed that was her boyfriend who made an excuse about not being able to meet her for lunch. It turned out this guy was not her boyfriend, never had been her boyfriend, not even acquaintances, rather they were total strangers. It turns out he was walking along with a colleague from work that was a woman, and her attempt to portray him that way could've really damaged his reputation the way appearances can "become"" fact. Not only professionally but personally as this man was married. That was unconscionable behavior by this woman that could've ruined lives. Then there is people like Bruce Gilden. That man is a a total grade A arschloch. We are pretty much free to take photos in the USA anywhere in public. For instance, the laws to do with photography usually prohibit it only in places where one has a reasonable expectation of privacy like one's home, specifically a bedroom, or changing rooms in clothing stores or beaches or restrooms at the shopping center movie theaters, etc. But people like Gilden, while technically legal to do what he does, it is very rude and inconsiderate behavior to get right in someone's face and with a flash no less. One can tell a lot of those he photographs are startled to say the least. And do that to the wrong person one could actually be faced with a violent reaction.

@@blqhamuhaThey might be able to access the photos on an iPhone, but a Canon camera I wouldn't see how. Given that the person who takes the photo owns the copyright, it could lead to trouble depending on how they use the access to those images.

@@christophotosEven with the homeless, I don't think taking a photograph of a homeless person is exploitative in and of itself. It still, even in that circumstance, depends on what one does with the photograph. There is one guy that's a street photographer in London that, while he takes pictures of people, does so in a way that they are not identifiable. His work is great, really looks wonderful, but doesn't risk any of the pitfalls. Again, things can so easily be taken out of context and that really is, I suspect, why people are bothered. It can be taken out of context because of editing by the photographer or, even if just as it appears, by people's perceptions.

Thank you, glad you enjoyed! I've always seen a bunch of vids on the ethics of street but never from the view of the subjects ( the public)!

Thanks for coming on nifty! Couldn't agree more, also thinks it would remove any worries a person might have about having their photo taken

I think you're missing the point. It's not the taking of the photo that's the problem as such. It's the distribution. Back in the film days and before the internet; if someone snapped you on the street, the resulting image would be a physical print on a piece of paper and would probably be seen by only a handful of people. Nowadays, anyone can snap you on the street and stick the resulting digital image on the internet ,making it immediately available worldwide for anyone to see, copy, re-use, redistribute. Add the potential for image manipulation into the mix and I can completely understand why people nowadays can be so wary of having strangers point a camera at them. For every aspiring Saul Leiter out there, there are probably as many or more wannabe Bruce Gildens, poised to make your startled gurning expression a global internet sensation.

@@stuzbots-shed I see your point about the impact of technology on street photography, but what is the solution? I did say that people need to be respectful, but I wouldn’t want to see laws prohibiting public photography.

@@Poverello2001 I don't know what the answer is. I wouldn't want to see street photography banned.. But, then again, relying on everyone who weilds a camera on the street to behave with respect is naive. I don't think there is an obvious answer really. But I just wanted to make the point about how, nowadays, anyone with a camera can instantly publish your image worldwide, without your consent. As so many commenters seemed to be overlooking this aspect, which was not really an issue in earlier times, pre-digital and pre-internet.

@@stuzbots-shed One thing to keep in mind though is that all that this worldwide audience will be able to see of you, is what you choose to show in a public setting. If it doesn't bother you that a street full of people sees you in a certain capacity, why should it bother you that a larger audience does?

@@c0ldc0neWhen some idiot jumps out at you and flashes a camera in your face with a 15mm lens, they are not capturing you as you choose to present yourself in public.

Wise words Leon. It made me think, at one point I did ask people round the corner from the photographers gallery which could also skew the type of people we ask. Anyway, catch you soon for sure!

I agree but not going to lie, some works actually an eye opener. I like to point out to works like Pawel JASZCZUK who photograph overwork salaryman. From his comment, he simply wanted to photograph people with nicr suit contrasted with the ground. Meanwhile we got Bruce Gilden. Imo, his works is actually pretty good but i eill not ignore the grey area he stands. I guess it depends on the intend of the photographer.

This is an amazing idea. Can I ask do you think people would be as chill if you were using flash ??

@@christophotos I haven't used a professional flash on the street, only a single use camera. I think people wouldn't care - at least during the summer time. During the dark time, people will notice it more and perhaps start to wonder what you took a photo of

Thanks you legend! 🙌🏼

What if it is homeless people, used as the thumbnail for clicks on the "artist's" video?

@@donaldjuan4934 OK, and is there any legal reason that a photographer may place such an image on his/her website ?? What if it the photograph is a call for people to care about the homeless, or maybe the homeless without food. Your point without reference has no real meaning. Be open about what you believe to be an issue on street photography !

@@john2000l Obviously it's totally legal to exploit the homeless by photographing them and putting them on your thumbnail for clicks and revenue. Obviously I don't mean people highlighting their plight and trying to help them as that wouldn't be exploitation would it.

@@donaldjuan4934 Fair enough, I have taken photographs of the homeless and the forgotten, and I pay them for the images so they can do with the funds as they wish (I don't questions what they need and why), but I also give the photographs to charities and other organizations that might use them to help get people off of the street. I have also removed images if the person asks me to. I guess it goes to motives, but remember a lot of photographers took photos of people on the streets in the 1930's during the Great Depression, and those helped us see how badly things can go against people in our society.

Much appreciated Leon!

That's very fair. I think as a street photographer it's not always about the law or even ethics, sometimes it's about doing what you're doing comfortable with - and that's completely fine! Dos any part of you judge street photographers who do, say take candids of people without consent? And what about children? I've seen many street photographs involving children which I'd assume is without consent

@@christophotos No judgment here. Candids of people are fine, I’m just rubbish at it because I haven’t yet got the confidence to do it, hence me just going up to people and asking if I can take their portrait. I’ve no problem taking pictures with children in them. I took one last month of a dad having a sandwich with his daughter. I’m not saying I wouldn’t but I’d pause to think before taking a picture just of her. Someone needs to though or we will lose images like Bert Hardy’s excellent pic of the two boys playing in the Gorbals in the 1950s. It’s just harder to do these days as a middle aged man

Interested approach but I don’t agree with that entirely, as long as your being respectful and aware I think it’s fine, there’s a difference between filling a frame on a 28mm or 35mm lens which is still arguably close and personal rather than being in someone’s face and blinding them.

Very interesting take, thanks for your comment. Although, I would just say that taking those "generic" photos of a scene may not be inspiring to some. I know a lot of street photographers try to capture very specific "moments" which typically involve peoples faces. This not only makes the image harder to replicate but also builds a stronger connection with the viewer. I also disagree with what you say about "copying" the greats, if anything I think the public now are more used to cameras/getting filmed more than never, so I think their reaction to being photographed would possibly be better than previous decades (I would assume this does largely depends on the individual) Ultimately, I think it's fine for people to photograph other people, but as highlighted in this video, the photographers approach is very important.

Bruce Gilden do portraits of homeless and prostitutes these days. This is found in a "Farm Boys and Farm GIrls" and Skid Row works. He does appear to seek consent in project like this. I tried doing Gilden's approach with the homeless and they don't care nothing about me. It can be sometimes better to ask for consent be present with the world more where everyone had to 'keep up with the joneses'.

@@GPTMagana I agree. The Bruce Gilden example I was referring to was literally putting a camera right up to someones face and taking a shot with a flash. Back then it may have worked but today I would consider it a more precarious if not lethal depending on the subject, who they are and what power be it legal or nefarious. A young shooter called Trevor Wisecup learnt this on one of his videos where he snapped a man walking and the man was very upfront and agressive. Had this man been a crimelord or someone of a serious background, young Trevor may have ended up in hospital or worse. Just saying that original Gilden style photography is not as accepted today as years ago. Cheers.

YES!

And then exploit that homeless person for your own personal gain, right? You wouldn’t hire a model and ignore the terms of the release form you both signed, because that model can ruin your career with a single Twitter post, but it sure seems you would if you knew that model was helpless to stop you like the homeless people are.

Thanks! what's your final opinion after watching the video?

@@christophotos I appreciate the photographer's answers. I agree it's contextual to the situation. Personally, I don't like photography that exploits a person or situation (unhoused individuals for example). The combination of documentation and art is the beauty of street photography, and there isn't always a clear line in certain situations. I think intent of photographers is important but even that is up for interpretation.

Photojournalism is a very very different industry than photography. And it is very much treated differently by the law. For example, in most EU countries, street photography is actually illegal. You can't take a photo of someone where they are recognisable without their explicit consent (though the law isn't enforced very strictly). The only exception to this is if the whatever they are photographing is deemed as newsworthy. As you pointed out, the significance of the event is very much crucial in determining if the event is newsworthy or not. So things like protests, crime, and things with a decent enough social significance. As someone studying photojournalism right now, we are very much taught to separate the ethics and the legal, because taking photos of events as they unfold is part of our professional demands. So while something may be legal, it may not necessarily be ethical. But however since it is legal, its part of our job to do so. We aren't taking photos for the fun of it and posting it like all those social media photographers. We are taking them because a story needs to be told to the general public. Its still a grey area to me and I am still grappling with these thoughts but yea hope this clarifies

Don't be a peeping Tom, don't justify it by "artistic significance and merit" -- it's a lame excuse.

@@USGrant21st Thats a huge generalisation and comes off as dismissive and ignorant. Documenting daily life is something not just present in photography. Its a major theme in art. The impressionist painters like Renoir, Monet and Manet did it. They sat in corners of public places and painted strangers going about their daily life. Doing so does have artistic merit, but only if done in an ethical manner. Documentation is a key part to archival work and its the reason why we more accurately know what life was like in the past. Recording history is important, and photography has the power to memorialise a single moment. However it must be done in a manner that respects the subjects. As I mentioned in my other comment, different countries have different stances on this. Maybe you come from a more conservative background and thats cool I respect that. But you have to respect that other societies have different ethical boundaries than you, and what you consider as unethical may be perfectly accepted by some. Don’t project your own beliefs and stop generalising, it comes off as very ignorant.

@@markysng so many meaningless words just to justify your psychological problems. Why don't all the peeping Toms just admit they find pleasure in voyeurism?

Haven't come across this view yet, wish I asked this q specifically in the video. But I would ask, could this not also be achieved by asking for consent? I would imagine some would not appreciate the photos - what do you think?

@christophotos I have asked street people for consent on many occasions. Usually they are fine. I think today, with such a collapse in social services and the rapid rise in food banks, it's a shameful situation. Using photography to highlight this situation is totally legitimate.

*Belgium has joined the chat*

You haven’t given tacit permission to have your image _published_. I really think you’re missing the woods for the trees. You’re not going out and photographing strangers to keep in a dusty old family album. Having a private collection of photos of people you don’t know is verging on personality disorder territory. Everyone you photograph knows you are going to publish their picture and frankly, you don’t have legal, ethical or moral permission to do that.

@@PippetWhippet What makes you think I have such a collection. I don't. The person who appears in "public" is already effectively having his her or image "published." Note that the two words have the same root and are tied to the same concept. If 100 people see me during a visit to a supermarket, I've made my image available to all of them. If 100,000 see me at a concert or an NFL game, I've made my image available to all of them. How many such availabilities does it take to make it not OK? If RU-vidr X publishes my picture on his or her photography channel, a few thousand people might see it. But way more people than that have already seen my face. Why should I care?

@@playingcasual2024 The reason people get weirded out is they've been conditioned to think anyone who would photograph a child must have nefarious interest in that child. That's not generally the case, but when it is shown to be true it gets a lot of attention, especially social media attention, and people go ballistic. The exception wrongly becomes the rule.

My decision to photograph homeless people is all in the hopes of impressing Pornstars, Onlyfans and Instagram Models. My issue is that I have always felt that I am less than a "perfect" looking woman or instagram model. I feel like that those women are superior and I am always seen as a bad person. At one point, I've always feel the need to race and compare myself with attractive women, because I don't see myself looking attractive and it's all about their money. Being an Instagram model for her is always about their money!

we definitely don't need "street photographers" to take historical records today

It’s more about how you go about taking the photo, what the photo is off, distance etc so many variables bc as a tourist if I’m 20cm from the persons nose or 20 metres it’s going to be a significantly difference image :) Be constructive !

@iftyfilm4457 So if I am in a coffee shop 20 cm away from another tourist, I cannot take a photo? I do that many times, as a tourist too, like sitting inside a tourist bus, underground, theatres, etc.

@@TL-xw6fh it’s more about the approach really are you taking photos of them 20cm away or are you taking photos of your coffee ? I’m not sure you understood the video, it’s regarding to street photography not personal stuff

@@niftyfiftyfilm4457 I perfectly well understood what you said. However, how can we establish a law that says a street photographer cannot take such photos but a tourist can? That will be ridiculous.

@@TL-xw6fh again the video was purely discussing street photography and the approach of ethics in regards to photographing random people going about their day, it’s nothing to do with tourists taking photos of their life and having someone possibly being in the background

Interesting. I saw someone comment recently that they think photographing homeless is fine as it shows the social conditions we are currently living in - what do you think of that?

I think particularly street musicians are fair game, but I always smile and give them a buck to make it even more fair! ;)

Depends on if they allow it or not. Maybe they get their lives back on track in a few years, apply for a job and this street picture might follow them everywhere. @@christophotos

The homeless are not in public by choice, so it is exploitative to photograph them. And you should pay street performers if you are using them as models for your hobby.

I can kind of see homeless people, even though I think part of it depends on intent and use of the photo, since they are at their worst in a bad spot in life. But street musicians? Odd that you include that in the list of people in embarrassing situations in life.

That's one way to prove your point 🤣

You have a pretty closed mind then. There are great photographers in every genre of the field including this one who work hard on their craft and learning the techniques and the innate sense to be in the right place as well as developing their eyes. Your point smacks of snobbery.

photography _is_ picture-taking bruh what are you on about

I'd guess you're not a photographer.