People shots - how close is acceptable ..?

And as I said, I probably wouldn't have taken that particular photo. My response concerned people who were having an affair and cavorting in the public eye.
--



http://www.pbase.com/jfinite

If your front lens element is touching your subjects nose/ear/chin/beard/nose ring/earing/nose hairs/eyebrows/etc, you are unacceptably close.

Not only the above but you can also foul your front element with all kinds of disgusting/foreign matter.

To avoid this scenario always use a lens hood to give yourself that proper "acceptable/comfortable" distance. Especially with strangers.
--
Bill

CharlesB58 said:

David J Heinrich said:

Ideally, everything would be private property, and it would be up to
the owners. Look, in that case, the right thing to do is to do what
the Church's policy requires. They can prohibit taking pictures of
people unless you ask them, or they can allow it. As the property
owner, it would be their right, right? Just like in my house, I can
allow or not allow picture taking of people without asking them. My
property, my right. The key issue is who's property?

Click to expand...

David,

Yes you are right in your thought that the policy of the church
should be followed. It can be an odd situation, since some
churches-mostly liturgical types such Roman Catholic and
Anglican/Episcopalian-make a habit of allowing free access to their
sanctuaries. So people assume it's a "public" venue. It must be
noted, however, that there is usually a priest or a staff member
present, even if off in some napse somewhere unseen. Most Protestant
churches are different. Clergy of beautiful, old churches accept that
people will come in wanting to take photos and so are pretty liberal
concerning cameras. On the other hand, if they spot someone taking
photos of congregants or people who may be there to pray, or just
enjoy the atmosphere, they may ask the person to refrain. I would,
were I rector of such a church (I'm an ordained Episcopal minister
btw.) Take pictures of my stained glass windows and wonderful
architecture all you want. You can even take pictures of me-unless
I'm attending to someone personally. But those who walk into my
sanctuary are there, ostensibly, to commune with God, not be the
subject of photos. Respect that.

Click to expand...

I'm glad to see that it's something you've thought about. I think that that's probably a reasonable default-presumption for Churches -- that they would rather not have people there to commune with God be photographed without their knowledge or without being asked first.

jfinite said:

And as I said, I probably wouldn't have taken that particular photo.
My response concerned people who were having an affair and cavorting
in the public eye.
--



http://www.pbase.com/jfinite

Click to expand...

People like that deserve whatever they get. ;-)

... important in terms of what's acceptable. In New York City the streets can be very crowded and it is not unusual in Manhattan to find yourself cheek by jowl with lots of people. In those circumstances when you're already in close, taking pictures is quite different from charging up to someone in a normal city or rural area and cracking off a shot with flash. Gilden's style works for where he shoots.
--
Street: http://www.wonderworks.com/streetphotographydigest.html
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kyle_jones/

Louis_Dobson said:

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?

Click to expand...

Sorry to drag an old thread up, but I remember a fairly controversial one started by you Louis that was taken with your E-330 and seemed to show a woman in distress. I'm glad to see you've moved on from your voyueristic past...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=17546039

"I do lots of bad things".

If it is interesting enough, I'll take it - sod 'em. But wandering about the place poking my camera at people in general, well, I would think it a poor show if people were doing it to me, so I prefer not do it to them.

You'll see I posted examples here, including one that was an amazing cheek - I was trespassing in search of a shot, and when the owner appeared from below, instead of apologising profusely I took a shot of his surprise.

I'll do anything for what I think is going to be a really good shot. I'll do very little for an ordinary one.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

Jeff Charles said:

New York has a relatively low violent crime rate compared to other US
cities.

Click to expand...

Want high crime? Try Los Angeles. Drive-by shootings are a sporting event.

I've taken and posted pictures of people quite close, but if I see a blemish, or if someone is obese, or anything that is not quite right (in my judgment), I won't post it. A long time ago, I had a bad experience on another forum, where someone made some derogatory remark about someone I photographed, so I won't every do that again...post something that can possibly give reasons for bad remarks (again, in my judgment). Some people can be so cruel and I do show lots of people pictures. But that was before Dpreview started moderating more closely too.

What I see there looks very good. I've taken candid pictures, where the face will nearly completely fill the frame. Once it was by accident. A young lady got in the way with her camera, while I was taking pictures of others in a Santa parade, and I didn't even look into the viewfinder. I just pushed the shutter. The Olympus E-510 did all the work so perfectly and I was lucky enough to capture her taking pictures with her camera too.

...didn't you just ask them after the fact if it was OK to publish the pictures? If it had turned out they were both married to other people and expected privacy in a church, you could at least make a more educated decision on whether to publish. To publish something like this without consent is borderline stuff in many countries. You can get done for invasion of privacy unless the pictures are clearly an artistic expression or in the public interest. Since the latter is out of the question in this case, you could potentially find yourself having to prove that you're an artist, in the legal sense. Not always an easy thing to do.
Soph.

. . . . these photos are exceptional !

The subject matter is perfect ! Their "mood" is REAL and the "place" positively accentuates all of this (for me).

The photography is . . . . "as expected" !

Thank you.

Paul
Vancouver, WA . . . (USA)

galleries at:
http://www.pbase.com/spdavis/just_between_us_

I've been much more aware while taking candid photos of whether I'm intruding on the individuals. I was walking thru the park with my wife, camera in hand, when a lady was throwing a ball into the lake, and her beautiful golden retriever was fetching. I started to raise my camera to snap some shots, and my wife started nagging me about how I shouldn't just start taking pictures of strangers. Then I felt guilty...

Today I was downtown at our annual streetball (3 on 3 basketball) tournament, shooting some action shots. I had no issues with photographing the players, but felt hesitant to shoot crowd photos? Go figure... Mentally I felt the players were 'on display', and 'public figures', but at the same time the crowd was more 'anonymous'.

Steve

You have a point to consider. In the USA, in public places, it's perfectly legal to take pictures of strangers (as long as any other law isn't broken). But if there is an expectation of privacy, then that may be not considered public in that sense of the word.

On the other hand, what happens if a person takes pictures of a wedding inside a church, and strangers become part of the photograph? Was there an expectation of privacy? I don't think so in that case at a wedding, but each country's laws can be different and it's important to understand them.

I take lots of candid people pictures, but I would not take them inside a building unless it was at a wedding or function where photos were expected to be taken and I was clearly seen taking them. At a wedding and events like that, I would think it's OK, but you bring out an important thing to think about and review further. Things can certainly get complicated and I think will get more complicated, with all this high-tech stuff...with telephoto lenses, cell phone photos, and powerful video cameras.

My thought is that as close as you are happy with is the right place. Some of the great images of the past are candid, news photographers are almost always invading someone's privacy so having the front to go out and grab great images like yours increases the sum total of Good Stuff in the world. There will always be people who prefer not to, and the others who are happy pushing things to the edge.

Personally, I like using my Canon A650 compact with flip out screen and no shutter noise for candids, but much as I often see people and think - "oh I wish I could capture that" my preference is often to keep the camera switched off.

--

Ham
===
http://londondailyphoto.blogspot.com

Digirame said:

Digirame wrote:
I've taken and posted pictures of people quite close, but if I see a
blemish, or if someone is obese, or anything that is not quite right
(in my judgment), I won't post it.

Click to expand...

!? You don't post big people? How about really skinny people, or really tall people? Are they 'not quite right'? Blemishes are easily removed in about 2 seconds in PS, unless it's a permanent mark, which I leave in as they're usually part of a person's character.

Digirame said:

A long time ago, I had a bad
experience on another forum, where someone made some derogatory
remark about someone I photographed, so I won't every do that
again...post something that can possibly give reasons for bad remarks
(again, in my judgment). Some people can be so cruel and I do show
lots of people pictures. But that was before Dpreview started
moderating more closely too.

Click to expand...

Wow, as you said, it was a long time ago. Even if it were today, why would you worry about what someone says on an internet forum? You won't post something that people could possibly have a negative comment on...ok, that includes...everything!? You could post the most beautiful model in the world in the most gorgeous sunset bikini, and someone would find a speck of dandruff in her hair.

I agree that when giving critique, people should not be personally attacking the subjects of a photograph. There's a difference between criticizing a model's technique/attitude/posing, and attacking their looks/race/size, etc.

--



http://www.pbase.com/jfinite

Only because I don't like it. People will do what they want, when they want. But even if these people are strangers, and we are strangers, I still think we need to respect the people being photographed. That's just how I feel about it, beyond laws or anyone else's opinion.

A little edit.... You need to read about the legal ramifications about changing a person's image. Also, it's just my preference...my call...my judgment of what to post. I'm not saying that it's the right thing for everyone.

Rich,

I've found this whole thread very interesting to read and have read every reply. The one thing that strikes me is that no one said it's really, at least in part, up to the subjects.

How close you get is really determined by how comfortable your subjects are being photographed... if they indeed know they are. If you are in a public place (and I supposed a church is questionable) and you aren't violating their personal space -- according to them -- in theory, you are not invading their privacy.

Of course, powerful zooms these days make it very easy to get VERY close without really physically being anywhere near your subjects... and that is where the true dilemma comes in. I remember a few years back reading a debate here about the ethics of using powerful zoom when shooting street photography... I have mixed feelings about it myself but I primarily shoot with wider primes anyway (approx. 100mm max), so it's rarely an issue for me to consider.

I love to take photos in cemeteries. Always have. However, I have never taken a candid photo of a mourning family at a funeral... though I'm sure other photographers have. Now, not taking into account that a cemetery may be private property, how would you feel about taking such a photo? We all draw our own lines that we decide not to cross.

I sometimes ask permission before or after, and sometimes I don't. Sometimes getting permission is nearly impossible. Sometimes I'm uncomfortable taking the shot (candid/street style people photography is an area I constantly challenge myself to improve on)... sometimes it's feel so not okay, but that's more the result of my own insecurity about it... and sometimes it's a fun comfortable experience. People respond in all kinds of ways, from annoyance to pleasure, from ambivalence to voyeuristic. The most important thing is that if I'm ever given an indication that the subject isn't pleased with having their photo taken, I won't take it.

In addition to all that, I HAVE to say that I love your series here. The last, in B&W, showing more of the church is nearly perfect... but I could also feel my own frustration as a photographer. I LOVE the fact that your male subject had an almost Jesus-like look to him, and it would have prompted me to want to get the crucifix (if there was one in the church) somewhere in the background along with the couple.... but that's me just being a bit of a nut and seeing what I want in YOUR photo -- LOL!

Really nice job... both on the photos and getting everyone talking about such an important topic!

Amy

ps. A recent candid/street photo I took where I COULD NOT get permission... I was in a moving car in NYC!



--



Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.
http://www.DangRabbit.com ~ http://www.PetSnapshots.com

So basically what you are admitting is that according to your own criteria, your own line in the sand that you draw, it's ok for you to do so if you think it makes a good shot but not otherwise.

I hate to say this but you can't have it both ways.

I remember you commenting on this a while back on a thread I had on street life, so I find this ironic. That said, I am still coming at grips with the ethics of this. One thing I do is that if someone asks me to not photograph them, I don't. If they ask me to delete the shot- even if it's a great shot, I do. But there are many shots I have where the people haven't had the opportunity to make such choice.

Louis_Dobson said:

"I do lots of bad things".

If it is interesting enough, I'll take it - sod 'em. But wandering
about the place poking my camera at people in general, well, I would
think it a poor show if people were doing it to me, so I prefer not
do it to them.

You'll see I posted examples here, including one that was an amazing
cheek - I was trespassing in search of a shot, and when the owner
appeared from below, instead of apologising profusely I took a shot
of his surprise.

I'll do anything for what I think is going to be a really good shot.
I'll do very little for an ordinary one.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

Click to expand...

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'

I missed this thread before and I absolutely love the chapel shots. The lighting and emotion is perfect. I wish you would've mentioned to them that you took a shot and asked if they'd like you to email it to them. If someone had captured those shots of me, even if I was cheating on my husband (lol) I would want them. When you sent them the shots, you could've asked for permission to submit them for publication, because they are certainly worthy of being published.

Thanks Raist for bringing this thread back up.