Stealthy street shots showing you busted

Don_D said:

Easy Rider said:

Let's keep it about street photography shall we.

Everyone else would do well to ignore these non street photographers who have just come here because they're getting a bit less action on the open talk forum at the moment / and / or have come off of their psychiatric medicines.

Happens just before Xmas and then again at summer every year lol.

Midwest and friend(s); when your psychiatrist(s) suggested trying to meet new friends and improve your confidence through talking to new people on the internet, this is not what they were thinking about mkay..?

Click to expand...

Leon, you are not this forum's policeman.

"Non-street photographers" have just as much right to participate in this forum as you do.

Click to expand...

dpcane said:

I find street photography shots where the photographer tries to sneak a pic of someone walking past them and gets busted by the subject for it, somewhat disturbing, yet I’ve never heard it discussed. Seems to call into question the entire genre of spy (street) photography for me. Like, you may have right to do it, but it’s borderline creepy when your caught.

it also kind of breaks that wall of illusion that you are viewing a scene without the camera and man holding it there. Now the photographer is part of the scene from behind the scene, this spoiling the moment.

people seem to post these shots right along with shots where the photog is invisible to the scene and subject as if it’s not even thought about. Am I the only one that thinks the difference is huge to the photo?

Click to expand...

Easy Rider said:

Yeah why don't they go to the people and portrait forum and post photos of motorcycles? Sport and Action forum and post photos of cats and type rambling nonsense about the sports participants not giving permission and the infamy of using more than one frame per second and if it's shot at more than 1fps, it is cheating and sneaky?

Makes just as much sense.

There ya go guys, some ideas for ya!

Click to expand...

Native New Yorker by Sam Kanter | Blurb Books

Photographs by New York City Photographer Sam Kanter — Softcover Book (not a magazine) 140 Pages, 100 photographs

www.blurb.com

CURRENT AND ARCHIVED STREET PHOTOGRAPHY - Sam Kanter

iN DATE ORDER, NEWEST ON TOP - Prints available for purchase with BUY button or contact: [email protected]

skanter.smugmug.com

skanter said:

Chato said:

skanter said:

Typos aside, I would, as a news editor, you would be appalled at someone suggesting violence against photographers for doing their work instead of concerned about my being “rue” [SIC].

Click to expand...

Journalists hide their cameras? Who knew? You are SUCH a great source of information. I suspect, except in some "sting" operations, any journalist who his his camera would be fired.

Click to expand...

Give it up already. You are sounding more and more unhinged and ridiculous with each post.

Click to expand...

Chato said:

skanter said:

Chato said:

skanter said:

Typos aside, I would, as a news editor, you would be appalled at someone suggesting violence against photographers for doing their work instead of concerned about my being “rue” [SIC].

Click to expand...

Journalists hide their cameras? Who knew? You are SUCH a great source of information. I suspect, except in some "sting" operations, any journalist who his his camera would be fired.

Click to expand...

Give it up already. You are sounding more and more unhinged and ridiculous with each post.

Click to expand...

What's the problem? Your rather absurd belief that journalists hide their cameras not good enough? You feel you should embellish it further? Maybe you can tell us that journalist use invisoble cameras not yet available for the public?

Like I said, with the EXCEPTION of a rare video sting, Any journalist who hid their camera would be fired ASAP. And don't pretend that I'm wrong.

I posted that you REALLY mean the booming upskirt porn photographers whose work is perfectly LEGAL in most states, and you'd be horrified if people beat them to a pulp for what normal people call "disgusting perverts."

Click to expand...

Chris Noble said:

Whether you like it or not, photographers who hide their cameras to shoot strangers surreptitiously in public places are thought of as creeps by many members of the public.

Click to expand...

mschf said:

Chris Noble said:

mschf said:

I don't know how the above made me recall a post from a couple years back, it wasn't anything of significance but for one reason or other, the content stuck in the back of my mind. I also thought the post was yours, so I checked. Yup:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57954693

Shooting from behind, that's usually but not always a sign of timidness; you stated you do it usually because you're shy. Shooting from behind is essentially one form of "hiding" the camera from the subject... one of the most effortless ways, actually.

Member said:

Candid subjects and onlookers have the moral right to grab the creep's camera and inadvertently "drop" it onto a hard "street" floor. Highly advisable and enjoyable!

Click to expand...

So then... has it happened to you yet? Having someone taking and smashing your camera?

Click to expand...

I never hide my camera from the subject. As you can imagine (but choose not to), when you are behind your subject they are not aware that you are there.

Click to expand...

In other words, you and your camera are "hiding".

Member said:

It is very clear to onlookers if the photographer is purposely hiding the camera, which typically happens when the subject would otherwise see it. I am confident that you realize the distinctions but you are trying to create a specious argument.

Click to expand...

No, I disagree. Raising a camera to your eye or lowering it to waist-level, to get that shot from behind, is very much an action no one around you would notice. There are no "onlookers" who realize exactly what you're doing, for all most anyone cares, you're aiming at something in the distance; moreover, if someone does happen to be on to you, they won't care, it's not them you're pointing your lens at. Shooting from behind is about as "sneaky" as it gets.

Member said:

I realized over time, and observed in others' photography as well, that almost every shot from behind in Street is mediocre and lacking in interest compared to shots from the front (feel free to do some more impressive forensic research to find the obvious exceptions).

Click to expand...

Depends who's photos you're looking at, I suppose. Many inexperienced guys out there do a LOT of shots from behind and yes, the quality (or lack of) shows in the result as the images convey literally no intent. There are, however, plenty of brilliantly done "from behind" images, sadly the sheer amount of the mediocre stuff drowns much of those out, more sadly it's viewers as well who can't be bothered to understand the difference.

Member said:

For a while now, I have followed a rule to avoid shooting Street subjects from the back,

Click to expand...

IMO it's a good rule to follow, however don't be so strict about it as to miss an occasional opportunity where such a photo is worth taking.

Click to expand...

jac justaconcept

Explore jac justaconcept’s 75 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

jacwashere said:

jacwashere said:

Whether you like it or not, photographers who hide their cameras to shoot strangers surreptitiously in public places are thought of as creeps by many members of the public.

Click to expand...

I noticed several times people taking hip shots of me, and honestly i couldnt care less.. i mean whats the harm in that?! In fact the first time that i happened to notice, i went to talk to the guy because i was just starting to have an interest on SP, and after we had a nice and long convo i even found out that he is a great photographer..

Click to expand...

Easy Rider said:

If you won't ignore these clowns I strongly suggest counter trolling these guys in the other forums they post in. I do it and they go away for a bit

Click to expand...

Easy Rider said:

Chato said:

After all, I can "get away with it" and then post on DP Review, and brag about how I got this shot and these guys never knew I was shooting?

Of course Skanter has said many times that none of my photography is "Street."

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

skanter said:

jacwashere said:

skanter said:

Whether you like it or not, photographers who hide their cameras to shoot strangers surreptitiously in public places are thought of as creeps by many members of the public.

Click to expand...

I noticed several times people taking hip shots of me, and honestly i couldnt care less.. i mean whats the harm in that?! In fact the first time that i happened to notice, i went to talk to the guy because i was just starting to have an interest on SP, and after we had a nice and long convo i even found out that he is a great photographer..

Click to expand...

It’s amazing to me that with all the horrific gun violence in this country, with the politicians and right-wing gun nuts doing absolutely nothing about children and adults being continually slaughtered - that anyone is concerned about being shot - with a camera!

At any corner there are 100 iphone photrgraphers taking photos of everything around them, as well as surveillence cameras on every street, and yet here, on a -photography forum- we get these hostile, loony complaints about creative photographers taking photos in public places.

Click to expand...

Chato said:

kevinparis said:

Chato said:

The law in the US states that you are not allowed to take a picture of a person without permission, when they have "A reasonable expectation of privacy."

Both of these pictures seem to be taken in restaurants, which mean you violated their rights. I not only approve of this law, I SUPPORT it. Unless I am mistaken about the locations, (In which case you have my apology) then you have no regard for the rights of other people.

Click to expand...

Wrong on all counts...

restaurants are regarded as public spaces in most definitions I can find, unless they specifically prohibit photography

Click to expand...

You shoot a lot of Public bathroom shots as well?

Click to expand...

Chato said:

Chato said:

As for my regard for the rights of other people... you don't know me so you have no basis for such a sweeping statement...

Click to expand...

You've just told me that you don't give a damn for interrupting people's dinners.

Click to expand...

Paulmorgan said:

dpcane said:

I find street photography shots where the photographer tries to sneak a pic of someone walking past them and gets busted by the subject for it, somewhat disturbing, yet I’ve never heard it discussed. Seems to call into question the entire genre of spy (street) photography for me. Like, you may have right to do it, but it’s borderline creepy when your caught.

it also kind of breaks that wall of illusion that you are viewing a scene without the camera and man holding it there. Now the photographer is part of the scene from behind the scene, this spoiling the moment.

people seem to post these shots right along with shots where the photog is invisible to the scene and subject as if it’s not even thought about. Am I the only one that thinks the difference is huge to the photo?

Click to expand...

Lol this thread needs a tune.

SP can be like a sorded affair it gets you and there can be no escape.

Click to expand...

skanter said:

Paulmorgan said:

dpcane said:

I find street photography shots where the photographer tries to sneak a pic of someone walking past them and gets busted by the subject for it, somewhat disturbing, yet I’ve never heard it discussed. Seems to call into question the entire genre of spy (street) photography for me. Like, you may have right to do it, but it’s borderline creepy when your caught.

it also kind of breaks that wall of illusion that you are viewing a scene without the camera and man holding it there. Now the photographer is part of the scene from behind the scene, this spoiling the moment.

people seem to post these shots right along with shots where the photog is invisible to the scene and subject as if it’s not even thought about. Am I the only one that thinks the difference is huge to the photo?

Click to expand...

Lol this thread needs a tune.

SP can be like a sorded affair it gets you and there can be no escape.

Click to expand...

Yes, it seems this thread has brought them all out if the woodwork: the confused ‘alternate reality” set, the trolls and rabble rousers, the ‘ignorant of and hostile to SP set”, the rejects from the banned and toxic Off Topic Forum (who still miss it), the completely clueless photographers, and those with personality disorders. Of course, some belong to more than one of the above classifications, or all of them.

All in one thread - amazing! It should be locked away and saved for posterity as “the worst of DPR”.

Are there no mods to put it out of its misery?

Click to expand...

Paulmorgan said:

skanter said:

Paulmorgan said:

dpcane said:

I find street photography shots where the photographer tries to sneak a pic of someone walking past them and gets busted by the subject for it, somewhat disturbing, yet I’ve never heard it discussed. Seems to call into question the entire genre of spy (street) photography for me. Like, you may have right to do it, but it’s borderline creepy when your caught.

it also kind of breaks that wall of illusion that you are viewing a scene without the camera and man holding it there. Now the photographer is part of the scene from behind the scene, this spoiling the moment.

people seem to post these shots right along with shots where the photog is invisible to the scene and subject as if it’s not even thought about. Am I the only one that thinks the difference is huge to the photo?

Click to expand...

Lol this thread needs a tune.

SP can be like a sorded affair it gets you and there can be no escape.

Click to expand...

Yes, it seems this thread has brought them all out if the woodwork: the confused ‘alternate reality” set, the trolls and rabble rousers, the ‘ignorant of and hostile to SP set”, the rejects from the banned and toxic Off Topic Forum (who still miss it), the completely clueless photographers, and those with personality disorders. Of course, some belong to more than one of the above classifications, or all of them.

All in one thread - amazing! It should be locked away and saved for posterity as “the worst of DPR”.

Are there no mods to put it out of its misery?

Click to expand...

They should bring the off topic section back and let them all slog it out away from forums like this, it was good for that.

Click to expand...

Chato said:

You shoot a lot of Public bathroom shots as well?

Click to expand...

Chato said:

Chato said:

As for my regard for the rights of other people... you don't know me so you have no basis for such a sweeping statement...

Click to expand...

You've just told me that you don't give a damn for interrupting people's dinners.

Click to expand...

Chato said:

Chato said:

which might be regarded as libelous/slanderous/defamatory in some places

K

Click to expand...

Sue me. Go ahead. You seem to be an expert on the law. See how far that works.

Click to expand...

Midwest said:

A restaurant is not a 'public place' in every sense of the word; it is privately owned and subject to the rules imposed by the management.

Click to expand...

Midwest said:

It's not a freaking photo class full of free models.

Click to expand...

Midwest said:

They sell the patrons a meal and hopefully a good dining experience - that does not include the right to practice their hobby on the other customers.

Click to expand...

Midwest said:

Why should customer A's desire to take photos of strangers supersede the right of customer B to be left alone?

Click to expand...

Midwest said:

Nearly all of these such photos I see posted are total pointless garbage anyhow.

Click to expand...

kevinparis said:

Midwest said:

A restaurant is not a 'public place' in every sense of the word; it is privately owned and subject to the rules imposed by the management.

Click to expand...

No it is a public space. The owners can prohibit photography, and ask you to stop. Thats it

kevinparis said:

It's not a freaking photo class full of free models.

Click to expand...

and visiting a rodeo is not ?

kevinparis said:

They sell the patrons a meal and hopefully a good dining experience - that does not include the right to practice their hobby on the other customers.

Click to expand...

No but they are as fair game as practising the art of photography in any other public space

kevinparis said:

Why should customer A's desire to take photos of strangers supersede the right of customer B to be left alone?

Click to expand...

At no point did I disturb or interrupt the diners experience

kevinparis said:

Nearly all of these such photos I see posted are total pointless garbage anyhow.

Click to expand...

Almost all your comments in this forum are negative.. why the heck do you post here if it seems to be a subject that causes you so much angst?.. Are you actually interested in Street photography or indeed any kind of photography? Beyond your random and threadbare gallery on DPR I have no idea what direction you are coming from

hopefully this post will take us one step closer to reaching the forum post limit and we can get around to ignoring your ignorance!

K

Click to expand...