Yes, you did.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
The Ethics of Street Photography
- Thread starter theworstphotographerontheinternet
- Start date
Annoyed, sure! Desired them to stop of their own volition? Probably! Thinking that I should do anything about it other than tell them my thoughts on the matter? Nope.
--
Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview. I'm just a regular poster unless explicitly stated otherwise in the body of the post.
https://500px.com/biggs23
Last edited:
That would be a moment I cannot imagine desiring a photograph of. However, that circumstance does not change anything. Public is public, and it's crucial that it remain so.
There is a major problem with that way of thinking. People can be offended (feel intruded upon) by anything. If offense/intrusion is the standard, you have to ask beforehand to find out, which eliminates the ability to capture the moment entirely.
I reject the idea that a person should do so. Standards should be standards, elsewise there are significant problems. If it's okay for one group, but not another, who determines who belongs in which?
Standards should exist for all people, not different standards based on nebulous groupings defined by no one.
1) (Political off topic stuff I want to say but I'm not going to. lol)
2) My comments are US based, I should have mentioned that I suppose.
New Day Rising
Veteran Member
Censorship is intolerable, and the failure of the public square to remain truly public would be a blow against that standard, at least imo.
I think you hit on an essential issue here; until very recently ‘public’ meant the people in your immediate vicinity at any point in time when you were ‘out in public.’ Most of those people, if they noticed you at all, noticed you only briefly and probably couldn’t describe you if asked to do so. It is doubtful that any particular moment of your existence would be frozen in anyone’s memory, and even if one was, it would exist in only that person(s) memory, with all the surrounding context.
Street photography freezes moments and removes some of the surrounding context, which is what makes them so fascinating to look at, trying to figure out what was going on in that exact moment.
If someone took your photograph, maybe someday it would end up in a gallery show, and ‘public’ would expand to include anyone who passed through the gallery and saw the photograph. Maybe the image makes it into a book, or wins a prize and gets shared to an even wider ‘public.’ Those people could speculate on why you were making that particular gesture at that particular time, why you looked so angry or so sad, and so on. Some interpretations might not be too generous. Some might right and some might be wrong. But still, it was only among those relatively few people who saw the photograph, and their discussions were likely just as ephemeral as the moment they were discussing.
Now that same frozen, out of context moment can potentially be seen, speculated upon and judged by anyone with access to the internet, should it go viral. And the discussion would be preserved and searchable. For good and for bad. I think the scale does matter.
I’m not against street photography. People are really interesting. But they also aren’t inanimate objects, like a building, or a landscape. I don’t really do street photography myself partly because of the above concerns, but mostly because I’m an introvert who doesn’t want to risk confrontation. But I do take photographs in public, and sometimes people are incidentally in them, and identifiable, and I don’t examine every photo I take to make sure no one is doing something potentially embarrassing, even though I would feel pretty bad if someone looked at a photo I took, saw someone in the crowd, say, picking their nose, cropped that part and posted it on reddit or something.
So the problem isn't necessarily the act of photography itself, but what the audience does with the photograph. But to just say that I either give up all rights to privacy or stay inside and that is that, strikes me as possessive and authoritarian and turns people into objects. By taking a photograph of someone and publishing it somewhere, you are doing something to them, whether you like it or not, regardless of your intentions. So how much consent do they(we) have in the matter? Like, I walk down my street and I am on camera. I’ve lost track of how many doorbell cameras I walk by. I don’t know. I don’t think it is a simple or easy answer.
I’m not decided against street photography, taking pictures of people in public. But I think it is worth thinking about how and why we do it, and what the consequences are.
Interesting! From the viewpoint of 'the other side,' I view the restriction of photography as authoritarian! I view it as someone demanding that strangers modify their behaviors and give up rights simply because they choose to grace the public with their presence.
If I see someone in the street, I can talk to others about them, right? As long as I tell the truth, I can intimately describe any word they said or action they took, regardless of how they feel about it and regardless of my intentions. How is street photography different?
All things are worth thinking about.
No one can really force you to delete the photo. I would certainly be more resistent if the person was rude, but would probably delete it to avoid further trouble from the individual. A photo is not worth having your camera destroyed by the unhinged.
I completely disagree with the analogy. Slurs are just words, but can have very negative effects on a individuals mental health. Those aren't just "feelings". A very poor argument in my opinion. There are better ways to defend street photography surely.
I'm personally fine if someone captures my photo, but that's me. If someone asks politely to not take their photo, I would oblige. Realistically I think very few people would actually ask.
Last edited:
Different worldviews. Anyone who would threaten violence over a photo is someone I would view as worth opposing.
They are, though.
New Day Rising
Veteran Member
Can I legally walk down the street naked in your city?
Can my wife and I have sex in the park in the middle of the day in your city?
Can I stand on a street corner in your city screaming profanities if I want to?
Can I walk through your town with a pet tiger on a lead?
Can I walk around your city in a **** SS uniform? What about rubber or leather bondage and fetish gear?
I know I can't do any of those things in mine and that I would be arrested and charged with criminal offences if I did.
That would be the authorities and other citizens demanding that I modify my behaviours and give up rights simply because I chose to grace the public with my presence, wouldn't it?
New Day Rising
Veteran Member
Is your position that all censorship is intolerable?
Are you ok with unrestricted distribution of child pornography? Snuff films? **** imagery? Bestiality?
I know these are extreme examples, but yours is an extreme position.
The thing is, I know you make these posts as an ordinary member and not with your DPR mod hat on. But you do have a DPR mod hat. I know that DPR has strict rules on the kinds of pictures that can and cannot be posted here. If I post something that breaks those rules it will be deleted and I will likely be perma-banned. Even my words can see my posts deleted and my account banned, for example if I post political comments.
As members here we all accept and appreciate these rules as it makes participation in the forums a better experience for us all.
As a moderator you play a key role in enforcing DPR's rules and these rules are forms of censorship, right? So you are an agent of censorship. You can't make the claim that you don't like doing this but need the money to feed your family as you choose to do it voluntarily.
So while you say "censorship is intolerable" you really mean, "some censorship is intolerable and some censorship is desirable", right?
--
All lies and jests; Still a man hears what he wants to hear; And disregards the rest
All Bushs Fault
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,157
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 783
I don't want people photographing me candidly, therefore, I apply the golden rule to shooting other people.
arbeterfroyen
Leading Member
- Messages
- 602
- Reaction score
- 521
It's not censorship if it's voluntary not to, and no punishment if you do. Otherwise every social improvement ever has been censorship.
Michael Piziak
Leading Member
The one area that I shy away from, is photographing children. Some parents simply do not approve of it. Of course, it's legal, but I don't like to do it.
Sure, but you should choose your battles carefully.
That's dismissive and old way of viewing peoples state of mind.
T
Travis Nicky Bombastus
Guest
...Paul--well said. Such simple human decency goes a long way--in photography and beyond.
I suspect that sociopaths and certain others espousing a pitifully quaint and unsophisticated position quite out of touch with the zeitgeist would not appreciate such "weakness" and instead see it as an intrusion on their right(s)--to hurt, to offend--with impunity, because...um...you know...words are just wind, not sticks or stones.
PocketPixels
Active member
Nonsense, Biggs23. Existing in the world is not tantamount to signing a model release; else there would be no such thing as a model release.
You've placed two feet firmly in an absolutist position, here. Street photography is always okay. People who step out into the public sphere renounce any claims of privacy. If we don't want to be photographed, we should stay inside and order our groceries online. Do I misread your opinion?
…but…
But even you couldn't resist hedging your bets right from the start. No photographing under skirts, huh? Because doing so is off-limits…why, exactly? (Hey, I know why photographing under skirts violates my ethical code, but I can't see why it should violate yours.) After all, you didn't force that person to wear a skirt. You didn't force that person to leave the house. That person could have worn sweatpants. That person should have stayed inside! You have a camera, and your right to make art prevails.
But of course, nobody's that pure of an absolutist. Not even you. You recognized in your first reply that there are some restrictions, that people do retain a modicum of privacy out on the street. What we're doing here, then is debating what does and doesn't fall inside that concept of "a modicum of privacy."
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum