People shots - how close is acceptable ..?

I was curious to find out how others feel about capturing images of people that can be quite special, but at the same time, might be thought to be too intrusive.

I was alone in a small church near the west Brittany coast yesterday, or so I thought, until I turned a corner to see a couple seated in a pew, and clearly very happy together.

I would normally have moved on, but the light was falling perfectly, and it was one of those rare moments that I find is hard to ignore when I have a camera in my hand! If my presence had been a disturbance, I would have apologised and moved on. But I did have a long lens on (Leica 14-150) I was quite a distance away.

In this case it was the Leica 14-150 OIS + E330, using Live View, so all very discrete and they even didn't react to the shutter going off!





I then zoomed back to 50mm to include the window ...



Any thoughts?

--
Kind regards,
Rich Simpson

UK Safari Group

Wow, that third shot is amazing. I love that shot about as much as those two love each other!

I think that's fair enough in terms of distance. I have a friend that can get away with really close shots of total strangers, me, I'm happy at 300mm. It's why I photograph animals, they don't answer back!

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/private_custard/

I did a B&W version of that one and cropped it a bit - I think its a bit stronger.

I tell you one thing - they were totally immersed in each other .... very special moment.



And another one ... (I've got a whole series here!)



And hasn't the 14-150 done a great job!

--
Kind regards,
Rich Simpson

UK Safari Group

That guy looks familiar

Beautiful shots, particularly the black and whites down the thread.

I'm sort of curious about the responses but for myself there isn't any question - I personally feel it is certainly being intrusive. I like going about my business confident in my anonymity in a public place. While completely unjustified its good to walk around with the belief that no one cares about me to capture what I am doing.

Anybody taking a picture of me is certainly invading that privacy (whether that sense is justified or not). Like it or not I'm in a public place and am fair game though. But it would certainly annoy me if I caught someone taking my picture - again my sense of privacy in a crowd is completely unjustified but I have it anyway. We all do to some extent. I've spied people picking their noses, sticking gum under seats, scratching themselves in inappropriate areas all in broad daylight in public places, and that is just the nice stuff.

Chances are though that I wouldn't notice if you stuck the camera up in my own face - people are so often in their own dream worlds that they just don't notice. Which is why we all get away with it. It is certainly hypocrisy, given my own stance on how I'd feel being photographed, but that is honestly how I feel about it. If I think I can get away with it and I feel comfortable taking the shot in the first place then I most certainly will try and I don't feel badly about it at all. Sometimes you get caught and very few of those times you get yelled at but that is the extent of the consequences.









First with the 14-42 at 42, next two with the 25 and the last with the 12-60 at 12. Getting away with it is also one of the big reasons, apart from my general comfort why I like smaller cameras and lenses, and the twisty lcd on the E3.

--
C&C always welcome.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gnarayan/

The fact that it was in the small church probably raised their expectation of privacy. It might have been good to offer to send them copies of the photos, but that might have been awkward.

Here is one I took of a private moment.



Jeff

Please understand that I completely respect your efforts as a photographer and your contributions to this Forum.

These images, as great as they are, appear to have been made in a chapel where there may be an expectation of privacy. Were these shot on the street, no issues.

While it's rare that I shoot "street" type images, when I do, I'll always make certain that the subjects are somewhat aware that they may be photographed as in a street demonstration or in a very public place.

I'm not a fan of surrepticious photography using long lenses. In a recent posting I made some images at a demonstration and the longest focal length I used was ~ 40mm. I thought that was a bit too long.

I'm sure that there's a story behind this couple and, from what I see, they met in a place where they hoped that privacy would be respected.
If I've misinterpreted, please let me know.

--
Troll Whisperer
Bill Turner

Recent Images:
Please do not edit my images without asking permission.
Thanks.
http://www.pbase.com/wmdt131

my business unphotographed, and I generally assume other people are the same. I'm dubious about street photography, and although I do shoot strangers sometime, on the whole I think it is A Jolly Bad Thing (I do lots of jolly bad things). Shooting pictures of loving couples in quiet places and posting them on the net? What are the odds at least one is married to someone else?

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

Hi Bill,

Well, the couple were certainly aware I was busy all over the church taking photos. They were as as well, with the girl using her own camera to record the wonderful vibrant colours on the floors, as well as the soft reflections off the stonework.

To be honest, I'm sure they were aware I was shooting. It was a small church right in the centre of a French medieval town - and absolutely quiet inside. I was using a a E330, I can't imagine anyone would not notice the clattering shutter of that camera!!

As the old lady doorkeeper showed us out, we chatted & talked about the impression the light had on the quality of the space, and outside the couple continued their obvious warmth for each other ... so to me, they hadn't sought the inside of the Church as a particular place of privacy.

I think the special light that happened to illuminate the position at just that moment gave them that special feeling of closeness - hence the moment happened that I was in a position to capture. And I would feel awkward I think, to offer to show them the images ... If they were seated on the bench just outside I would have done exactly the same.

Its a hard one, and I understand your reservations on this type of shooting, but as in most cases when capturing a moment, one's instinct (mine anyway) is to get the image, which in this case (particularly as with the wider focal length shot) was very powerful.

One shot of the Church entrance:



And floor detail:



--
Kind regards,
Rich Simpson

UK Safari Group

... to take the shot and worry about ethics later. The harm will almost always depend on whether you publish the image and how you do it. You can think about those issues at home, taking all the time you need to decide.

How close is too close? Well, ask Bruce Gilden.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkIWW6vwrvM
--
Street: http://www.wonderworks.com/streetphotographydigest.html
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kyle_jones/

Brillinant link - many thanks.
I empathise with the guy.

I've done very close as well, but more often than not, using a Ricoh GDII in the palm of the hand. It makes many other forms of shooting docile by comparison and can be risky when up against a group of unfriendly looking hoodies ...

But street is a great challenge and has the big benefit of honing your camera skills at fast pace.

Longer lenses can lose the intimacy of the place - this one happened to be using the Ricoh at the next table:



This one across the street, E3 + 50-200, so more observational. The exposure was wildly wrong so hence the sooty & sweep look, but I like the central guy and his amused "look"!



--
Kind regards,
Rich Simpson

UK Safari Group

Hi Rich

Mmmm interesting question, I suppose it all depends on the situation that you are in at the time, the shots in the church are lovely, all the elements are there to make a great shot, the lighting is superb and has created a lovely atmosphere, I can see why you have taken them and I'm sure a lot of people stood in the same place would have also have found it hard to resist, I would have certainly taken a few shots although I don't think I would have made as good a job as you have being very new to this street shooting thing (see my latest attempt here)
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=28133221

I can also see why you may have questioned whether this would be acceptable, there is a feeling of intruding on the couple which is obviously a private moment, you have the weigh one against the other, the photography is superb but maybe in this setting it could be construed as being invasive, close call but I think they are fantastic
Cheers Steve
--
UK Olympus Safari Group Member
UK Photo Safari Group Events : http://www.ukphotosafari.org

http://www.stephenelliottphotography.co.uk

Hi Steve,

Crikey - its 4.50 am ... 45 mins and it'll be light enough for the birds & dawn mist down at the estuary! Stars are out so it could be a good one.

I missed you first post of the Spanish shots - I think you've taken to it like a duck to water! There are some smashing shots there - real charicature stuff. I love #1,2,5,6 & 10.

I've started paying much more attention to backgrounds these days. I find its easy to get carried away, and then find the composition misses something due to too much going on behind the subject. I really like the guy's body shape in #10 for example, but I'd like him to have more space around and less going on behind him. So it can pay to move back a little, find a "blank canvas" or stage, and let him walk into it so to speak. For #6 - he's great! No choices there but I'd like to see B&W as well. #1 & #2 are just brilliant expressions!

As for my church pics, just like a magic sunrise on the Derbys hills, it was one of those images that I knew would never happen again .... when light, mood and the subject all come together. I would never have not taken it, nor would you I guess, nor would most with a camera at the ready, but its interesting to see people's views. I wonder what Austin Mitchell would have to say on it all ...

The 14-150 is doing its job very well I have to say, and I keep filling up the 4 GB cards rapidly! You're getting good practice with the swivel LCD I see as well! One thing in favour of the E330 in LV mode is its speed. I don't think the E3 LV would have been as quick to respond on its own, even with pre-focus used.

--
Kind regards,
Rich Simpson

UK Safari Group

Bruce Gilden is rude and abrasive. Sure the pictures he gets are good, but if I told him I didn't want my picture taken and he gave me that sort of lip, he'd quickly find his camera in more than one piece.........and probably under the first car that I see coming down the road! I'm not a nasty person, far from it, I just have manners and like others to have them too.

He's making money, which (in the UK) means if he takes my photo in the street to profit from it, he'd need me to sign a model release form.

I'm not a fan of his methods (regardless of end result) and I think the only reason he hasn't been murdered is because he's so rude, people are just stunned. Like the first old lady in that video, wrong, just wrong.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/private_custard/

as you would like to be treated by them. That's what I always try to do ( though I'm far from perfect ). I'm with Louis on this, I expect to be able to wander the streets without people taking my photo, so I very rarely take shots of other people.

Not sure how Bruce Gilden got to be 6o+ without being shot or stabbed, especially in New York.
Hope to see you at the BBQ if you're in the country,

Nick

Kyle Jones said:

... to take the shot and worry about ethics later. The harm will
almost always depend on whether you publish the image and how you do
it. You can think about those issues at home, taking all the time
you need to decide.

Click to expand...

Someone here uses as a signature : "It is easier to get forgiveness than permission".

Kyle Jones said:

How close is too close? Well, ask Bruce Gilden.

Click to expand...

This is the quintessential "in your face" photographer.
But at least his subjects are always very much aware of being photographed...

This next image is an "intimate" moment (at least it looks that way):



I first shot another picture of the man alone (very early in the morning, although he was having a beer - last call probably).



When I wanted to move along, he actually asked me to stick around because he wanted to have a picture taken of him and his girlfriend, for which he moved from a chair to a bench. On came the girlfriend and they posed together, which resulted in instant fumbling. So no second thoughts in this case.

--
Roel Hendrickx
--
member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group ( http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg )

UKPSG presents a Tunisia E-3 user field report: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

Thank you for the clarification.
Those are excellent images as are the ones in the above post.
--
Troll Whisperer
Bill Turner

Recent Images:
Please do not edit my images without asking permission.
Thanks.
http://www.pbase.com/wmdt131

Hi Roel,

That's an unusual case indeed.

I'm guessing, but I suspect that by being invited to take an image of the couple, you found it more tricky to get exactly the image you might have liked had you been shooting without their knowledge ...!

To get a "look" which is natural and part of the street scene, I find I need to observe and be very patient, and wait. If it isn't there, I move on. I try and use the overall street / background first and foremost as the main ingredient of the image, and then see how an individual or individuals fit in on the "stage set". Which is why the more distant shot of the couple in the Church is the one I was after - the combination of the window, the light, the pulpit etc. all add up, and convey to the viewer the special atmosphere inside the Church at just that moment.

The proximity to the subject also has a ot of bearing on the perception of "privacy". Had I shown just the more distant B&W shot I doubt if it would have stirred the same reaction.

But had the background and lighting not been there, I wouldn't have taken any of those shots, and had I asked before shooting, there wouldn't have been any image there to be taken! Its interesting to read the background of street shooting in the context of the history of photography, with one of the earliest pioneers taking snaps of commuters on the New York subway using a hidden camera in his clothing or in his case. An observation on life, no more, no less.

--
Kind regards,
Rich Simpson

UK Safari Group

Rich Simpson UK said:

I was curious to find out how others feel about capturing images of
people that can be quite special, but at the same time, might be
thought to be too intrusive.

I was alone in a small church near the west Brittany coast yesterday,
or so I thought, until I turned a corner to see a couple seated in a
pew, and clearly very happy together.

I would normally have moved on, but the light was falling perfectly,
and it was one of those rare moments that I find is hard to ignore
when I have a camera in my hand! If my presence had been a
disturbance, I would have apologised and moved on. But I did have a
long lens on (Leica 14-150) I was quite a distance away.

In this case it was the Leica 14-150 OIS + E330, using Live View, so
all very discrete and they even didn't react to the shutter going off!

I then zoomed back to 50mm to include the window ...

Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

I probably wouldn't have taken it myself, since they seem to be enjoying a private moment, but I doubt any great harm was done taking the picture either.

Thanks Bill,
Glad you enjoyed them.

Bootstrap said:

Thank you for the clarification.
Those are excellent images as are the ones in the above post.
--
Troll Whisperer
Bill Turner

Recent Images:
Please do not edit my images without asking permission.
Thanks.
http://www.pbase.com/wmdt131

Click to expand...

--
Kind regards,
Rich Simpson

UK Safari Group