Street photography in the UK. Need tips!

[rammgeist]

Street photography has been something I've put off trying since I'm unsure of how people will react once they see a stranger snapping away in the street. I've only ever taken pictures of buildings in the street.

I'm in the UK, so have any UK street photographers had any problems with the public? Have you ever been asked to stop what you're doing, delete the picture, got yelled at for it?

Should I ask permission before taking pictures of people?
Should I keep it discreet and try to look like I'm not doing anything?
Also what lens would you recommend for street and architecture photography? I currently have a 50mm, 18-55mm and a 55-250mm.

Any help would be great.

 

[Lumixdude]

I can't answer for the UK but you need to grow some steel balls and just enjoy what you're doing. I take my E-PL5 out all the time, most people figure I'm just a tourist.

For street photography you want your 18-55, all things being equal you shouldn't need to shoot outside of that range in the street.

 

[Paulmorgan]

Street photography has been something I've put off trying since I'm unsure of how people will react once they see a stranger snapping away in the street. I've only ever taken pictures of buildings in the street.

I'm in the UK, so have any UK street photographers had any problems with the public? Have you ever been asked to stop what you're doing, delete the picture, got yelled at for it?

Should I ask permission before taking pictures of people?
Should I keep it discreet and try to look like I'm not doing anything?
Also what lens would you recommend for street and architecture photography? I currently have a 50mm, 18-55mm and a 55-250mm.

Any help would be great.

Also what lens would you recommend for street and architecture photography? I currently have a 50mm, 18-55mm and a 55-250mm.

Personally I mostly use my 14 and 19mm and on occasions a kit zoom or if I`m using a compact it will be the entire focal range between 28 and 112mm.

Should I ask permission before taking pictures of people?

No, to be honest unless your asking someone to pose for a street portrait there is no need, if your capturing a fleeting moment it will more than likely be impossible anyway.

Should I keep it discreet and try to look like I'm not doing anything?

This is entirely up to you, what ever your most comfortable with

I'm in the UK, so have any UK street photographers had any problems with the public? Have you ever been asked to stop what you're doing, delete the picture, got yelled at for it?

I get questioned every once in a while ( who dosen`t) but there is never any aggression or anything like that, often once I`ve explained myself some are even game for more pictures.


If your feeling very nervous to begin with why not start with tourist and simply blend in, its a bit like getting a free kick in a game of football

 

[meagre offerings]

the above two posters are pretty much on the ball in my opinion, just dont forget the steel balls.

good luck

pc

 

[Art Jacks]

Just my opinion but anticipation and keeping you eye open for possible situations is a big help, I always have my camera ready for use, switched on and set to f8, that way I can get a shot off and if time allows I can make some adjustments for a second attempt but I do shoot and move on, that way it minimises the chance of someone ' speaking ' to you

 

[Harbinder Marok]

Personally I would not take direct photos of children and if they happened to be in the photo and recognisable would certainly NEVER post online.
--
Please find the link below to a selection of my photos on this site.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6003691572

 

[rammgeist]

Thanks everyone.

 

[Bill from Oregon]

I suppose that each of us has his or her own standards or values. In my case, I don't ever take a picture of anyone in a "compromised state." That is, I don't shoot blind people or homeless people lying down in the street.

And yes, I've been yelled at just once. It was in an airport where I took a picture of a fellow at a newspaper box. His wife, apparently seeing what I was doing, gave me a good scolding. I denied aiming my camera at her husband specifically claiming I was taking some "general airport" shots. That didn't go down so well and the confrontation ended when I simply walked away.

Bill

 

[Harbinder Marok]

Have never had anyone challenge me personally here in the U.K. over street photography. Although not an avid street photographer feel I can take street photos if I choose to quite freely here within the law as I understand it and my personal ethics.

If I was somewhere I couldn't as I said previously "in my mind" (and from my armchair) I like to think I would be the champ with "st--- b---s" (which some said you need to grow) and challenge the system and take a photo that needed to be taken on ethical grounds that was being prevented from being taken, but in reality I would more likely be one of those who does not do that and may support a more democratic campaign for change.

I appreciate the point you made about "compromised" people which adds to the discussion in terms of considering all the factors that come into play when you press that shutter button.

We explored this in the thread "Sad Subject but I love this camera" on the Nex Forum (link below) which some may find of interest. I took the photo in this thread called"Fantastic day" but actually did not realise until after posting for the first time that one of the people in the background may be visually impaired.

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

Dpreview Gallery

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6003691572

 

[Paulmorgan]

I suppose that each of us has his or her own standards or values. In my case, I don't ever take a picture of anyone in a "compromised state." That is, I don't shoot blind people or homeless people lying down in the street.

And yes, I've been yelled at just once. It was in an airport where I took a picture of a fellow at a newspaper box. His wife, apparently seeing what I was doing, gave me a good scolding. I denied aiming my camera at her husband specifically claiming I was taking some "general airport" shots. That didn't go down so well and the confrontation ended when I simply walked away.

Bill

I suppose that each of us has his or her own standards or values. In my case, I don't ever take a picture of anyone in a "compromised state." That is, I don't shoot blind people or homeless people lying down in the street.

Not even if there were a good story behind it ? photo journalist, war photographers etc have always done this, why should it be any different on the street.

 

[letx]

I suppose that each of us has his or her own standards or values. In my case, I don't ever take a picture of anyone in a "compromised state." That is, I don't shoot blind people or homeless people lying down in the street.

And yes, I've been yelled at just once. It was in an airport where I took a picture of a fellow at a newspaper box. His wife, apparently seeing what I was doing, gave me a good scolding. I denied aiming my camera at her husband specifically claiming I was taking some "general airport" shots. That didn't go down so well and the confrontation ended when I simply walked away.

Bill

I suppose that each of us has his or her own standards or values. In my case, I don't ever take a picture of anyone in a "compromised state." That is, I don't shoot blind people or homeless people lying down in the street.

Not even if there were a good story behind it ? photo journalist, war photographers etc have always done this, why should it be any different on the street.

Exactly because of that, because it is documentary and the street photographer forgets. Its not to say that the opportunity shouldn't be taken but that it is not the opportunity for the street photographer just as a drunk lying in the street is not the domain of street photography. The messages are very different. To be honest the photograph would likely be improved upon by a documentary style of portrayal, the street photographers just use them as something they can see that to them is somehow 'classified' as street where the documentary photographer is trying to say something in the context.

It must be said too that a homeless person is not always in a compromised state and that they are circumstances that present them as the street photograph just as the world does but it would be nice if the photographer knew what a street photograph was when clearly they know what a homeless person looks like. That they suddenly revert to a pseudo-documentary photographer shows when they post those awfully taken pictures and to me that homeless picture is the measure of all their photographs.

 

[Paulmorgan]

I suppose that each of us has his or her own standards or values. In my case, I don't ever take a picture of anyone in a "compromised state." That is, I don't shoot blind people or homeless people lying down in the street.

And yes, I've been yelled at just once. It was in an airport where I took a picture of a fellow at a newspaper box. His wife, apparently seeing what I was doing, gave me a good scolding. I denied aiming my camera at her husband specifically claiming I was taking some "general airport" shots. That didn't go down so well and the confrontation ended when I simply walked away.

Bill

I suppose that each of us has his or her own standards or values. In my case, I don't ever take a picture of anyone in a "compromised state." That is, I don't shoot blind people or homeless people lying down in the street.

Not even if there were a good story behind it ? photo journalist, war photographers etc have always done this, why should it be any different on the street.

Exactly because of that, because it is documentary and the street photographer forgets. Its not to say that the opportunity shouldn't be taken but that it is not the opportunity for the street photographer just as a drunk lying in the street is not the domain of street photography. The messages are very different. To be honest the photograph would likely be improved upon by a documentary style of portrayal, the street photographers just use them as something they can see that to them is somehow 'classified' as street where the documentary photographer is trying to say something in the context.

It must be said too that a homeless person is not always in a compromised state and that they are circumstances that present them as the street photograph just as the world does but it would be nice if the photographer knew what a street photograph was when clearly they know what a homeless person looks like. That they suddenly revert to a pseudo-documentary photographer shows when they post those awfully taken pictures and to me that homeless picture is the measure of all their photographs.

Exactly because of that, because it is documentary and the street photographer forgets

Telling a story plays a big part in street photography and it dosen`t all of sudden change to documentary simply because it is, go and google there is no shortage of good examples.

https://medium.com/stories-behind-photography/70e1bc261937

Loading…

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Bill from Oregon]

Paul...

I'm not sure I can offer an explanation as to why I won't shoot people in a compromised circumstance. All I can say is that I don't want to feel that I'm "using them" for my own purposes. I think though, that were I working on an assignment (paid or unpaid) for a cause to help a compromised person (or persons), I'd then feel that taking their picture would be OK as it would be for their own good.

Having said I won't shoot those in a compromised circumstance, I should also point out that, somewhere or another (likely in my own head), there's a fine line. I will (and I do) shoot pictures of both people and property of "lower class." And upper class too, by the way. I guess that the fine line for me is somewhere around blindness, crippled and homeliness.

Bill