Reading mode: Light Dark

"Street" Photography over the line?

Go to last post
S

SteveS58

Veteran Member
Messages
7,101
Reaction score
4,307
Location
New York, US
Saw this article today online at USATODAY about photographer Arne Svenson taking photos from his NYC apartment into open windows across the street:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-+Top+Stories)&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

I'm pretty liberal about my tactics shooting in "public", but I wonder whether this crosses the line, even though the photographer claims you can't see people's faces. My guiding principle in my street photography is not to embarrass anyone.

This negative publicity is bound to ignite the flames against street photography.
 
SteveS58 said:
SteveS58 wrote:

Saw this article today online at USATODAY about photographer Arne Svenson taking photos from his NYC apartment into open windows across the street:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-+Top+Stories)&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

I'm pretty liberal about my tactics shooting in "public", but I wonder whether this crosses the line, even though the photographer claims you can't see people's faces. My guiding principle in my street photography is not to embarrass anyone.

This negative publicity is bound to ignite the flames against street photography.
Click to expand...
.

I'm a very vocal advocate of the freedom to photograph in public spaces, but people's own homes/apartments are not public spaces. This crosses the line in a major way.

.
 
He isn't a photographer. He's a voyeur.
 
moving_comfort said:
moving_comfort wrote:
moving_comfort said:
SteveS58 wrote:

Saw this article today online at USATODAY about photographer Arne Svenson taking photos from his NYC apartment into open windows across the street:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-+Top+Stories)&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

I'm pretty liberal about my tactics shooting in "public", but I wonder whether this crosses the line, even though the photographer claims you can't see people's faces. My guiding principle in my street photography is not to embarrass anyone.

This negative publicity is bound to ignite the flames against street photography.
Click to expand...
.

I'm a very vocal advocate of the freedom to photograph in public spaces, but people's own homes/apartments are not public spaces. This crosses the line in a major way.

.
Click to expand...
 
gfspencer said:
gfspencer wrote:

He isn't a photographer. He's a voyeur.
Click to expand...
Bingo. Street photography is generally done on the street, It's about urban life, not a remake of "Bedroom Window." IMHO street photographers shouldn't try to hide that they're taking photos, so they can honor requests to delete pictures and actively engage their subjects.
 
Juat wondering if anyone will reply in support of Mr Svenson?
 
I think this crosses a line for me. You may argue that people have a right on the air between the photographer and themselves. Can you not photgraph anything between the person and photographer even when nothing is between them? Am I not allowed to shoot this. Far fetched I think, but it is the only thing I can come up with in this case.

When it comes to shooting women on beaches in bikini's I think no one has any exclusive right on the place they are in. So if I want to shoot women, topless or in bikini'sin a public space I think their should be no problem. It is not their beach, their air, their part of the beach because they happen to occupy it. But in someones home...no: I think this is a private space.

Indeed: this is no streetphotography.
 
Jorginho said:
Jorginho wrote:

I think this crosses a line for me. You may argue that people have a right on the air between the photographer and themselves. Can you not photgraph anything between the person and photographer even when nothing is between them? Am I not allowed to shoot this. Far fetched I think, but it is the only thing I can come up with in this case.

When it comes to shooting women on beaches in bikini's I think no one has any exclusive right on the place they are in. So if I want to shoot women, topless or in bikini'sin a public space I think their should be no problem. It is not their beach, their air, their part of the beach because they happen to occupy it. But in someones home...no: I think this is a private space.

Indeed: this is no streetphotography.
Click to expand...
The key here is when people have a reasonable expectation of privacy. When a person is in their own home, or a private area such as a restroom, for instance.
 
I wont support or condemn it. Here, it is perfectly legal to photograph FROM public grounds. While this does not mean it is ethical, its not an invasion of privacy if the subject has the ability to be hidden. Anybody in their own home has the ability to be hidden. I take this stance bc we have to draw a line somewhere and it cant be on the complete privacy side. Would i have the right to stand nude in my front window and get mad if somebody lookedat me? Of course not, bc i have the power to prevent it. I can draw curtains, or stand somewhere else. rights are only rights if they don't violate other peoples' liberties. There is some moral grey area but i dont think we should handcuff ourselves in public, and if people can see you from outside, its still considered public.
happysnapper64 said:
happysnapper64 wrote:

Juat wondering if anyone will reply in support of Mr Svenson?

--
lee uk.
There are old pilots, & there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots.
Click to expand...
 
Although I tend to agree here, I still have some reservations. I do understand the privacy and if we keep things superficial, to my mind, the discussions ends quickly. If we broaden our view, we may ask (or at least I do):

- Am I allowed to look at the woman?
- Is it a form of tresspassing to picture what I see?
- Does she own the image of herself in her house?
- She is not recognisable, she is not naked or anything close. What is there to be offended about when we look at this and similar pics?
 
It's an invasion of privacy. If a person walked up to my window and took a picture of me sitting on the couch and watching TV, I'd insist that they delete the image and I'd possibly call the police.
 
Not on the street, with a tele lens, and through windows. This has nothing to do with street photography. I find it creepy.
 
Just to reiterate here, i agree with you that reasonable expectation should protect privacy, but i dont think its reasonable to expect it when you are within view of public space. Again this is the same reason one cannot/should not stand nude in their window or in their back yard.
Binary Hulled Ion said:
Binary Hulled Ion wrote:
Binary Hulled Ion said:
Jorginho wrote:

I think this crosses a line for me. You may argue that people have a right on the air between the photographer and themselves. Can you not photgraph anything between the person and photographer even when nothing is between them? Am I not allowed to shoot this. Far fetched I think, but it is the only thing I can come up with in this case.

When it comes to shooting women on beaches in bikini's I think no one has any exclusive right on the place they are in. So if I want to shoot women, topless or in bikini'sin a public space I think their should be no problem. It is not their beach, their air, their part of the beach because they happen to occupy it. But in someones home...no: I think this is a private space.

Indeed: this is no streetphotography.
Click to expand...
The key here is when people have a reasonable expectation of privacy. When a person is in their own home, or a private area such as a restroom, for instance.

--
- Burnnie
* Any opinions expressed may not reflect any common sense, logic, or reason.
Click to expand...
 
This is a combination of lack of talent and lack of ethics. When people go out onto the street, they know that strangers will see them, and are prepared, and so extending that to taking pictures is fair. But in your own home, you have the right to privacy, it is not acceptable to peep with a telephoto lens. If I was a parent living there I'd be livid.

Added to that, 90% of street photography is facial expressions in my opinion. By not showing faces (quite rightly in this instance) you are destined to take a dull and poor set of images, which seems to be the case from the example on that story. If I had taken that photo, which I wouldnt, Id delete it as boring and pointless even before thinking of ethics.

People without talent will always over compensate by going to extremes.
 
The gallery owner justified the exhibit because no faces or identities were revealed. How many pictures were taken, showing faces, stages of undress, embarrassing situations etc that the photographer has, but not made public? I , for one, will always wonder.

There is no acceptable excuse for secretly taking telephoto shots through windows without permission. Its quite creepy.
 
John Waine said:
John Waine wrote:

I wont support or condemn it. Here, it is perfectly legal to photograph FROM public grounds. While this does not mean it is ethical, its not an invasion of privacy if the subject has the ability to be hidden. Anybody in their own home has the ability to be hidden. I take this stance bc we have to draw a line somewhere and it cant be on the complete privacy side. Would i have the right to stand nude in my front window and get mad if somebody lookedat me? Of course not, bc i have the power to prevent it. I can draw curtains, or stand somewhere else. rights are only rights if they don't violate other peoples' liberties. There is some moral grey area but i dont think we should handcuff ourselves in public, and if people can see you from outside, its still considered public.
John Waine said:
happysnapper64 wrote:

Juat wondering if anyone will reply in support of Mr Svenson?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I think this is a dumb way to be "creative". I know artists all want to do something different from the others, but this is the wrong idea.

A couple of questions come to mind:

- how long did he spend watching private citizens? I seriously doubt he took all his pictures in a couple of hours. He could have been doing this for weeks or months...

- who exactly is going to buy his photos? what kind of person is going to justify a purchase, and thereby support the "art" of invading peoples' privacy?
 
micronean said:
micronean wrote:

I think this is a dumb way to be "creative". I know artists all want to do something different from the others, but this is the wrong idea.

A couple of questions come to mind:

- how long did he spend watching private citizens? I seriously doubt he took all his pictures in a couple of hours. He could have been doing this for weeks or months...

- who exactly is going to buy his photos? what kind of person is going to justify a purchase, and thereby support the "art" of invading peoples' privacy?
Click to expand...
I think we have all agreed hes an idiot and voyar but the more interesting question will be the legal one. Sadly we can point the finger of blame at this kind of sillyness for eroding our freedoms as photographers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top