No, I am not confused about anything. It was the tone of the reply, intended or not, that was very condescending.
[snip]
as it was you, who several post above has called to your aid almost
indeed. However, you seem to like extending boundaries of what "constitutes"
okay, fair enough--the op said 'travel street candid' and i did largely subsume that into 'street photography'. classically, street photography is a form of documentary photography, with the emphasis on a true and unstaged representation. i disagree that i am 'extending the boundaries' of what constitutes a candid, however. candid photography can certainly mean photographing a subject unawares, but the word candid equally means 'true', 'unaffected', 'lacking dissimulation'--exactly the values of street photography. capturing a candid moment can happen in a portrait studio during a formal session--the ability to do this is precisely what is most highly praised in portrait photography (whether it should be, or whether the notion of a subject revealing his or her true self ought to be given such inordinate weight, is another matter, as sontag and many others have discussed. you're certainly correct that the value placed on 'candid' representations is historically and culturally peculiar). it can also happen in the intimacy of the subject's home, as in nan goldin's various projects. now, i was not suggesting that there is no value to trying to photograph unposed vignettes off the street--i was simply saying that this is a field which has been pretty extensively developed, and the techniques which have proven themselves are to use standard or wide lenses and to get in close; there is no reason why if one does this one cannot achieve unposed results. by sneaking around, one is actually more likely to provoke an 'unnatural' (which is to say, entirely reasonable) response; photographing openly in public generally works better. yes, sometimes people will want to pose, or indicate that they don't want to be photographed at all; okay, fine. in the former case, no problem, sometimes those pictures turn out well too and in a few moments you can go back to taking unposed shots. in the latter case, there are other fish in the sea. what is generally notable about photographing openly in public is that if done unobtrusively and unabashedly, much of the time people don't even notice what you are doing; the rest of the time they don't much care. this seems to be hard for many aspiring street photographers to believe, but it is generally true. i already mentioned the documentary film war photographer , above, as one illustration of this. gary winograd used to speak a great deal on this subject as well in his workshops; i also know it to be true from my own practice and both from personal interaction with some of the best street photographers on the planet, and from indirect sources such as interviews and documentary films engaging street photographers. for instance, check out the photography (all done at focal lengths of 50mm or less, on film) here: http://insurgentimage.myweb.hinet.net/
sometimes the exception proves the rule. i don't think this is one of those times. most of the canon of street photography (done in a candid idiom) is comprised of such 'exceptions', which makes a mockery of the "rule".
i am not looking to cause unproductive arguments, though i welcome discussion and disagreement. i think ethics is entirely apropos here. i think that it is worth thinking about whether taking photographs of people in secret is something we want to embrace. i think it is reasonable for people to be upset if they discover someone is spying on them--which is a loaded way to describe it, but an accurate way, as i think you will agree given your emphasis on candid as 'secret'--and while it may not do them material harm, i tend to think that the notion of being in public entails responsibilities and obligations rather than that we can do whatever we want regardless of what other people think about it.
. ).
Wow. The pontificating that this thread has spawned is amazing. And it's not even really addressing the original question.
