Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2017 · Food for thought - no imagery

  
 
Bob Jarman
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Food for thought - no imagery


Came across this, perhaps you might find it worth reflection.

Link

And while there, another as well. Hits home with my own internal battlea re photographing strangers.

link 2

Bob



Aug 09, 2017 at 10:05 AM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Food for thought - no imagery


Good read, I agree with many of the statements. We each need to know what it is we want to achieve. I suppose knowing your own goals is about the first item to consider. For me, photography is often just going along for the ride.


Aug 09, 2017 at 11:38 AM
eeneryma
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Food for thought - no imagery


Bob Jarman wrote:
Came across this, perhaps you might find it worth reflection.

Link

And while there, another as well. Hits home with my own internal battlea re photographing strangers.

link 2

Bob


Thanks for posting these links Bob. Re: stealth street photography, whether it is appropriate or an invasion of privacy is a hotly debated topic. From a legal standpoint (and I'm not an expert), the NY Stae Supreme Court ruled some time ago in favor of a street photographer who was sued for sureptitiously taking someone's portrait on the street. The court's rationale was that as long as the photo was used for artistic purposes, not commercial usage, it was permitted. As far as I know, this has been operative in most cases. There are some exceptions where someone might be taking photos that could be considered damaging to national security, or those where shooting through windows is an invasion of privacy. Also, private establishments have the right to prohibit street photography on their premises.

But aside from what is legal or not, each photographer must decide what they feel comfortable doing. In my mind, the street photos that work best are the ones that contain an "epiphany", a revealing scene or moment, without embarassing or demeaning the participants.

For better or worse, we live in a world today where there are few secrets. Where I live in NYC there are video cameras on almost every corner tracking people's movements. The internet providers know what our buying habits and predelicitons are, and are regularly targeting us. Anyone carrying an iphone or android phone is being tracked as they move about. The government regularly surveils people, legally and probably sometimes illegally. It's only going to get worse. Just read up on facial recognition software and other advanced methods of sureillance. Some might say this is paranoia, but the world has certainly changed.

With all this in mind, the ethics of taking street photographs is a miniscule issue, at least for me.

Steve




Aug 09, 2017 at 01:01 PM
Bob Jarman
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Food for thought - no imagery


eeneryma wrote:
Thanks for posting these links Bob. Re: stealth street photography, whether it is appropriate or an invasion of privacy is a hotly debated topic. From a legal standpoint (and I'm not an expert), the NY Stae Supreme Court ruled some time ago in favor of a street photographer who was sued for sureptitiously taking someone's portrait on the street. The court's rationale was that as long as the photo was used for artistic purposes, not commercial usage, it was permitted. As far as I know, this has been operative in most cases. There are some exceptions where someone might be
...Show more

Well said Steve. Certainly locale matters. Personally I have trouble benefiting at someone else's expense or misfortune - homeless street people for instance. And that is solely my guideline, not judging that other's are right or wrong. I full well understand the documentary aspect, but I still won't do it.

There is another whole realm re litigious parents and photographing kids - again, something I will not do without knowing the family and with permission.

Bob



Aug 09, 2017 at 02:37 PM
beanpkk
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Food for thought - no imagery


I have always thought that unrecognizable people (silhouettes, people with their back turned, etc) are fair game and not forbidden fruit for any use commercial or otherwise. The people in most of these photos are not the center of the image, but add some value to it. If those people saw my image, they would probably know themselves, but no one else would.

The out-in-public (aka "street" even through there may not be an actual street in the photo) images that do bother me are ones where, say, the person/people involved suddenly turn and look back at me! I have one like that that I'd like to ask about here on this forum but I've been too chicken to even post it. I wonder if I'm being over-sensitive -- we were all on public property -- or if this is an area of genuine concern. Obviously, if a person turns and looks directly at the you/the camera as you shoot, they are now recognizable unless they're so far away that it doesn't matter. And the unanswered (and in all probability unanswerable) question is why were they concerned -- do they ~care~ if they're photographed? Does their look back at you signify anything at all other than curiosity? I don't know. But I'm afraid to post it. I wonder what you folks think.

keith



Aug 09, 2017 at 04:14 PM
Bob Jarman
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Food for thought - no imagery


beanpkk wrote:
I have always thought that unrecognizable people (silhouettes, people with their back turned, etc) are fair game and not forbidden fruit for any use commercial or otherwise. The people in most of these photos are not the center of the image, but add some value to it. If those people saw my image, they would probably know themselves, but no one else would.

The out-in-public (aka "street" even through there may not be an actual street in the photo) images that do bother me are ones where, say, the person/people involved suddenly turn and look back at me! I have
...Show more

If you are uncomfortable posting it, don't post and move on. If you do post it, what would you gain in doing so? Is that worth your discomfort?

Bob



Aug 09, 2017 at 07:34 PM
eeneryma
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Food for thought - no imagery


Bob Jarman wrote:
Well said Steve. Certainly locale matters. Personally I have trouble benefiting at someone else's expense or misfortune - homeless street people for instance. And that is solely my guideline, not judging that other's are right or wrong. I full well understand the documentary aspect, but I still won't do it.

There is another whole realm re litigious parents and photographing kids - again, something I will not do without knowing the family and with permission.

Bob


For street photographers, two of the most controversial subjects to photograph are the homeless, and children, each for different reasons.

In NYC where I live, the homeless are easily found on the street in most neighborhoods. Some are temporarily down on their luck, but most are mentally ill, disabled, or have drug problems, without family members who can assist them getting the help they need. They are an easy target for someone with a camera as they are generally helpless. I rarely photograph the homeless, and when I do, I usually don't show their faces in my photos. The way I see it is that this subject matter is probably more sensitively and professionally handled by documentary photographers who seriously engage with the homeless on a deeper and more caring level.

As far as photographing children, the savvy street photographer is fully aware that parents are very protective of their offspring and rightfully so. My advice is to exercise extreme caution and use your best judgement in deciding when to pull out your camera. On the other hand, there is much that can be revealed about life and human nature when photographing children. As an example, one only has to look at some of the photos taken by Cartier Bresson, Diane Arbus, and Helen Levitt, to name a few, which are iconic.

Steve



Aug 09, 2017 at 08:48 PM





FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.