Candid Street Photography

Started Feb 16, 2009 | Discussions thread
OP Skafe Regular Member • Posts: 277
Re: Not my best....

G4orce, I don't think you understand the mindset of the average Street Photographer and so I hope you actually read this.

Of all the people I've ever met who partake in street photography, particularly of the candid sort, that there isn't any predatory or exploitative element to their intentions.

The goal is to capture life as it's happening without any intrusion by the photographer, without any poses and without setting up a shot. This art form is born from an appreciation for how beautiful things - especially people - are naturally.

In this digital age especially, if perv shots were what the photographer was looking for, there's no need to shoot those images and risk being found out when a google search should more than satisfy such an appetite.

G4orce Studios wrote:

omel wrote:

G4orce Studios I guess we all didn't have the opportunity to hide
behind a microphone in a studio making cat calls at the public
.............. hang on we do now it's called the internet.
The first image works for me
blink and remember..................

Ooh. Good one omel. You are cat calling pretty good yourself, Mr.
Internet. The difference? I get paid good money to do it on the
radio. You pretend to be important for free, on a message forum.

I guess anyone walking down the street, having dinner, or going to
the store has "the right" to have their, or their children's likeness
stolen and plastered who knows where by the likes of some
self-righteous fool who thinks, because he has a camera, he can shoot
anything and anyone he pleases, at anytime.

There isn't anything self-righteous about it - it's an artform with a long history that I suggest you make yourself familiar with before you continue to insult whomever your paranoia dictates.

Of course, the erosion of all our rights just feeds into the mindset
of people like you, who think they can intrude on anything and
anyone, outside of someone's homes, for their own personal enjoyment
and/or gain. Hell, some photog maggots will hide in trees and zoom
into people's homes, to feed their own personal gain.

I'll repeat, more often than not, there isn't any intrusion at all. Capturing things as they are is the point. My first shot included nothing but grown men - I haven't sold the image nor have I gained anything from it but a few photo comments. How is this in anyway predatory or exploitative?

I mean, it's called "LIFE" right? Just because you have a camera,
you capture, manipulate, publish and do whatever you want with it

Well, yes.

Taking a picture of a guy playing guitar on a stage (and being paid
BY THE GUY) is quite different than taking someone's pic without
their permission and publishing it, especially if you sneak around
and hide your camera. Do that and you are a thief. I, as do people
like Britney Spears and John Doe, have a right to walk down the
street without having some fool harass, sneak pictures, and invade
personal space. Zooming in and taking a pic, without consent, is
invading personal space.

Don't conflate issues and confuse the average street/candid photographer with the paparazzi. No one has a right not to have their picture taken in a public place. As for my own particular style, I don't shoot on the street with anything longer than a 50mm lens. I'm not sneaking and between my D80+Battery Grip - the fact that I'm taking a picture is easily noticeable.

Celebs should have the right to be in their backyard, on the beach,
etc., without some cockroach hiding somewhere zooming in on their
asses. Britney should be able to get out of a limo, without some
slime zooming in on her private parts.

As a public figure, no she doesn't. And frankly, sticking to the topic at hand would serve you better. These off-topic tirades paint you as nothing more than emotional and your arguments as nonsensical.

People should be able to go outside, without sneaking street
photographers snapping away. I am not saying all street
photographers are bad, some do approach those they photograph and
inform them. If the subject gets away, you don't use the pic.

There's no need to inform a person unless you're considering using their image for commercial purposes. This isn't a matter of anything but the law.

Of course, who cares about THOSE people and how they may feel about
their pic being stolen, as long as you get your "candid" shot and
plaster it on the internet, right, Mr. cat-calling morality expert?

In this day and age, there's a lot more out there to be up in arms about.

As I've been saying in both of these threads, street photography has a long history and it plays a significant role on photography as an art form. If you are so interested in photography it'd do you better to lose the high horse and presumptive tone and taken an art history course.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow