pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Ethics of Photographing Strangers  (Read 25880 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: April 14, 2015, 17:17 »
+2
There's quite a good documentary on a street photographer has just been released on DVD, Finding Vivian Maier


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #26 on: April 14, 2015, 17:21 »
+3
There's quite a good documentary on a street photographer has just been released on DVD, Finding Vivian Maier
It was shown on the Beeb a couple of times last year and was excellent, but I'm not sure which of these YouTube options it was:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=finding+vivian+maier+full+movie

« Reply #27 on: April 14, 2015, 17:56 »
+2
There's quite a good documentary on a street photographer has just been released on DVD, Finding Vivian Maier
It was shown on the Beeb a couple of times last year and was excellent, but I'm not sure which of these YouTube options it was:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=finding+vivian+maier+full+movie
It should help dissuade anyone from thinking there isn't a purpose behind photographing strangers.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #28 on: April 15, 2015, 03:31 »
+7
street photography it's 100% ethical, especially if done in your face as Bruce Guilden,  there's nothing immoral or unethical on it.

200% quote.

unethical may be the use of these pictures... but that's another story

50 yrs from now all these street photos will be an invaluable treasure trove depicting our times, without street photographers covering all these obscure and non commercial subjects we would have no way to know how the past looked like.

said that, of course images can be used unethically but that's not our fault and on top of this if reality su-cks is not our fault too, all we're doing is documenting what's really going on without bells and whistles.

« Reply #29 on: April 15, 2015, 06:16 »
+4
If it is unethical to photograph a person then it is unethical to look at a person.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #30 on: April 15, 2015, 08:52 »
+1
Shoot em in the face I'd say. I don't have the balls for it though. I need a longer lens. Shoot from obscurity.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #31 on: April 15, 2015, 09:59 »
+1
Shoot em in the face I'd say. I don't have the balls for it though. I need a longer lens. Shoot from obscurity.

i don't think people using long zoom are real street photographers, and besides this their shot are not candid and the subject won't look straight into the camera.

i hate that so many take pride in being low profile and think their stuff is "artsy" when in fact their shots just show that there was no interaction between the photographer and the subject.


dpimborough

« Reply #32 on: April 15, 2015, 15:42 »
0
50mm B&W film

all the way :)

« Reply #33 on: April 15, 2015, 20:42 »
+5
Shoot em in the face I'd say. I don't have the balls for it though. I need a longer lens. Shoot from obscurity.

i don't think people using long zoom are real street photographers, and besides this their shot are not candid and the subject won't look straight into the camera.

i hate that so many take pride in being low profile and think their stuff is "artsy" when in fact their shots just show that there was no interaction between the photographer and the subject.

I don't do street photography, but I would have thought that no interaction between the subject and the photographer would have some value. Especially in the context of historical records of our times.

The Hawthorne Effect says that subjects will modify their behavior if they know they're being observed.  That seems like an argument in favor of covert street photography for the purposes of objectively recording events..

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #34 on: April 16, 2015, 00:00 »
-2
I don't do street photography, but I would have thought that no interaction between the subject and the photographer would have some value. Especially in the context of historical records of our times.

The Hawthorne Effect says that subjects will modify their behavior if they know they're being observed.  That seems like an argument in favor of covert street photography for the purposes of objectively recording events..

interaction can be the subject looking at the photographer, it doesn't need to turn into a staged shot.

covert street photography is like picking up a frame from a CCTV video camera, nobody see you, nobody notice you're shooting .. where's the beef ? where's the skill ?




Semmick Photo

« Reply #35 on: April 16, 2015, 00:39 »
+1
Capturing the moment at the right tine and the person in their own little world.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #36 on: April 16, 2015, 16:01 »
+2
Me neither except if someone paying says, "go get some candid lifestyle shots".

There's no right or wrong answer to any of this. How it's done can be accomplished many ways, with a smile or a telephoto. How it's used can be a different complication.


I don't do street photography, but I would have thought that no interaction between the subject and the photographer would have some value. Especially in the context of historical records of our times.

The Hawthorne Effect says that subjects will modify their behavior if they know they're being observed.  That seems like an argument in favor of covert street photography for the purposes of objectively recording events..

And don't forget Rosenthal I think it was KCR = experimenters giving signs that change the reactions of the subjects, intentionally or not.

But here's the basic answer:

Undisguised: people in the setting know
they are being observed

Disguised: people dont know they are
being observed

Disguised participant observation helps
control for reactivity, one of the main
problems associated with observation.

Reactivity occurs when people change their
usual behavior because they know they are
being observed.


« Reply #37 on: April 17, 2015, 11:40 »
0
There's quite a good documentary on a street photographer has just been released on DVD, Finding Vivian Maier


Watching it right now. Impressive, interesting. Street photographer that never showed much of her work to anyone and was very reclusive.

http://www.vivianmaier.com/film-finding-vivian-maier/

http://www.vivianmaier.com/gallery/street-1/#slide-1

Twin Lens Rolleiflex for much of it.


Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #38 on: April 18, 2015, 00:37 »
0
with a smile or a telephoto.

i disgress, because using a long zoom should be left for wildlife photography and it's ridicolous to see guys hiding behind a car with a 500mm zoom to shoot their subjects "low profile".

i mean, what's the biggest valuable skill of Bruce Guilden ? that he keeps his frame and doesn't give a sh-it about anything and anyone while on the street, he owns the street, he would flash and shoot even at police officiers or bouncers twice his size ... check out his videos, he's a real mean piece of sh-it and that's the purest example of street photographer in my opinion.


dpimborough

« Reply #39 on: April 18, 2015, 02:26 »
-1
with a smile or a telephoto.

i disgress, because using a long zoom should be left for wildlife photography and it's ridicolous to see guys hiding behind a car with a 500mm zoom to shoot their subjects "low profile".

i mean, what's the biggest valuable skill of Bruce Guilden ? that he keeps his frame and doesn't give a sh-it about anything and anyone while on the street, he owns the street, he would flash and shoot even at police officiers or bouncers twice his size ... check out his videos, he's a real mean piece of sh-it and that's the purest example of street photographer in my opinion.

That deserves a video about Bruce I love his comment about ethics :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkIWW6vwrvM

« Reply #40 on: May 20, 2015, 08:43 »
0
Basically, I agree with you; I like your post!

I wouldn't go as far as forbidding street photography but people should use common sense with it. If someone is sick, drunk, poor, injured, mourning, I think it is pretty sick and questionable to go take a photo of them. Nowadays that people post photos where ever it is ok not wanting to be photographed. I think every photographer should as themselves - and be honest - How would YOU feel in front of the camera, and not behind it?

Every photographer should have the integrity to choose what to shoot and not to hide behind "art", and the selfish "I have the right to blah blah" attitude.

Personally, I do not ever photograph accidents, illness, poor, ill, drunk, injured, anything that I imagine the person in question would not want to be photographed.

People give signs if they like to be photographed. A smile, a nod is a yes, a go ahead sign. It's a good idea to look for that.


I shot a lot of strangers, probably thousands, during my newspaper photojournalist job. I personally think is unethical, except for politicians, celebrities and such, since it's part of their job after all. Also, except situation where people call for attention intentionally, like protests, strikes, performances etc.
But taking pictures of passerby, homeless, children, mentally ill, victims of any kind (disasters, car accidents etc) is, in my opinion unethical. If you ask me, I would forbid street photography completely. And I have many years of experience of doing street photography.

« Reply #41 on: October 31, 2016, 23:10 »
+3
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2017, 11:07 by Spinfield »

« Reply #42 on: October 31, 2016, 23:55 »
+2
I also take many photographs of strangers in my travel photography and submit them as editorial with no problems at all.
I do however check that the strangers in the images are not shown in any disparaging light that may embarrass them if they see and recognize themselves.
IE: a women's dress caught in the wind or someone stuffing a hamburger into their mouths or things of that nature.
It is up to you the photographer to initially decide were you draw the line on what is acceptable and for the very few times someone in the street has asked about why they may be in one of my photographs i always will show them the image i have just taken and find that they are always OK with it as they can find no hidden motive or agenda on my behalf.

Lastly though you should give regard to children and people with obvious police/military uniforms or insignia's as they may have sensitive information (serial no's etc)
But if any member of the public ask to not be in a photo they have seen me take I  would also be happy to delete that image and take another without them in it think along the terms of women escaping domestic violence or any similar situations.

But in reality you will be OK 99% of the time as long as you behave in a proper manner and show respect to all.

FYI i will stand in an open area during any public photography and will be visible to all around me with my intentions quite clear that i am taking photographs of what is around me.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2016, 00:05 by seanh »

« Reply #43 on: January 02, 2017, 18:51 »
0
in most countries, including the US, it is 100% legal to film anything that is in the public view, including people.

this is not true in all countries, I don't think it is legal in India for example. there are countries where you need to have written permission to film people in public, before you film them.

in the US, people are recorded on video throughout the day without knowing it from a multitude of security cameras.

When I went to Hong Kong 15 years ago, we were told not to photograph the locals, and when people tried to photograph the locals, they would demand to not have their photos taken because it is against their beliefs.

there is a right to privacy; if a person has an expectation of privacy (such as in their own home), it is illegal to film them in the US without their permission.

in terms of ethics, that has to be your own determination. I would argue that if there is something else worth filming, film what brings the least risk.

« Reply #44 on: January 02, 2017, 18:54 »
0
you said: "Personally, I do not ever photograph accidents"

I also agree that there is enough to film in the world that I do not seek out profiting from filming accidents (and the other content mentioned) either.

dpimborough

« Reply #45 on: January 03, 2017, 09:00 »
0
in most countries, including the US, it is 100% legal to film anything that is in the public view, including people.

this is not true in all countries, I don't think it is legal in India for example. there are countries where you need to have written permission to film people in public, before you film them.



You base your statement on Indian legality on what?

Quote "Recently, an RTI query by a Mumbai-based photographer caught the attention of photo enthusiasts across the country. The question was does India have a law prohibiting photography in public places, the answer to which was no"

However "In another incident, in May 2014, an IPS officer was caught taking photos of a woman in a coffee parlour on Cunningham Road. The cop was booked under Section 354 of IPC (outraging the modesty of a woman)." which is not a ban on photography but legislation relating to women specifically.

Full article http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/Photography-in-public-Who-draws-the-line/articleshow/50610322.cms

« Reply #46 on: January 03, 2017, 10:19 »
0
the source I read about india was wrong, further research says that there are restrictions in india but it does not say where.

I did read on wikipeadia just now that in Macau you are not allowed to film people in public without their permission, because they have a right to privacy in public places.

sudan requires a permit for photography in the country.

however you can film in most countries.

« Reply #47 on: January 03, 2017, 10:34 »
+3
I like taking street photos.  I have no problem taking photos of strangers in public places, there are some people that don't like it but that's their issue, I don't like people spitting and dropping chewing gum on the street but they still do it and that's far worse than taking a photo.

« Reply #48 on: January 04, 2017, 04:17 »
+5
This topic is too hot a potato, but I have my say anyway.

I hate poverty and misery photography.

I hate it when photographers think it is cool and artsy to go to miserable places or undeveloped countries and shoot people who look ill, ugly, poor, old and miserable.

This stupid trend his so OLD and dated. Move on and shoot something NEW and MODERN!

alno

« Reply #49 on: January 04, 2017, 13:15 »
+4
This topic is too hot a potato, but I have my say anyway.

I hate poverty and misery photography.

I hate it when photographers think it is cool and artsy to go to miserable places or undeveloped countries and shoot people who look ill, ugly, poor, old and miserable.

This stupid trend his so OLD and dated. Move on and shoot something NEW and MODERN!

Such a well-to-do stupidity.
This kind of non-glamorous photography is needed and being sold till poverty and misery exist whether you like it or not. And you can go shoot something new and modern in some nice developed places like Abu Dhabi or LA.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
28 Replies
11424 Views
Last post January 28, 2009, 15:03
by avava
6 Replies
3341 Views
Last post November 11, 2010, 06:58
by rubyroo
9 Replies
6090 Views
Last post April 23, 2015, 12:30
by ShadySue
7 Replies
2904 Views
Last post February 07, 2017, 10:47
by niktol
6 Replies
2593 Views
Last post July 22, 2020, 20:52
by angelawaye

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors