Anyone Else Feel Weird Shooting In Public?

[manaheim]

OP... you get used to it over time. Well, I think most people do. I generally feel a little twitchy about it, but some of my favorite shots are from when I just nerved up and shot.

Now, I think many of us here are assuming you mean pictures of people... but you didn't explicitly state that. If you mean nervous taking your camera out at all, then you have a long ways to go to get rid of the heebie jeebies. Just do it and be sure to smile and wave any time anyone looks at you and over time you'll see that cameras (particularly big ones) draw a lot of attention, but as long as you don't run and hide people assume you're just a crazy enthusiast and they go on their way.

If you're shooting people, just be prepared for the occasional grumbler. At which point you can either be super nice and tell them "Oh, I'm sorry, I'll delete the picture", or do like I do and say "Oh. Oh, no. I was shooting that thing behind you there. Sorry about that." (I know... I'm a jerk.)

I'd say go ahead and shoot away. The way anti-photographing laws are growing, you may not have too much more time to take them. Los Angeles police have been coached to stop and question photographers as potential terrorists. Then there is the potential copyright violations when shooting architecture, even in and from public locations. These types of laws should be of concern to all of us. I can see the future coming where cameras will have to be registered like firearms and permits required to use them in public. Note all the prohibitions at the Olympics. No interchangeable lens cameras allowed into the events.

I love positive posts

It's a valid point, though.

 

[joel28]

I use a 70-200mm f2.8 that is a humongous and extremely noticeable lens when shooting in town.

100 Strangers - a set on Flickr

Since i'm kinda new to street photography and shy, which lens would be ideal for street photography? I have the Nikon D5100 camera.

 

[StreetView]

Since i'm kinda new to street photography and shy, which lens would be ideal for street photography? I have the Nikon D5100 camera.

Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G. It's fast, sharp, AF's with the D5100, and gives a nice field of view on the D5100's cropped sensor.

And to the OP; as others have already said, shooting in public only gets easier in time. Think of it like this; that awkward feeling lasts for about 4-5 seconds as that person moves on and continues with their day, thinking "wtf was that person doing??", while the shot you nailed that caused that awkward moment in the first place will last forever.

Definitely worth it imo.

 

[The_Traveler]

My impression is that when people first start shooting street stuff, the pictures are crap because they think they are taken pictures of people and it's enough to get pictures sharp and well exposed.
Well, it's more than that.

It isn't people that you are capturing, it is situations with people in them.


It is important to understand why you are taking a shot and what you want to show.

If someone doesn't want to be in the shot, no problem, let them move over.
If you look at it as your 'job' to get something interesting then perhaps it will be easier.

I skip around people who don't want to be photographed because I like to catch people who are unaware of the camera, to get a look into their real reactions and facial expressions.
Ambush photography, jumping up and catching a snap is, imo, a total waste.
I try to catch reality that is interesting, not create artificial scenes.

And it isn't easy.
I toss way more than 90% or more of my shots not because of focus or exposure but because I didn't capture with the camera what I saw in my mind.

 

[rexbobcat]

Honestly. I don't even look at it from a philosophical level anymore. Since I've begun working at my university newspaper I have basically resigned myself to just generally not giving a damn how people look at me or what they think of me taking a picture of them.

I think it's mostly because at the beginning of doing it I would get so worked up over seeming creepy and intrusive, but then I realized that this is my freakin job and getting all worked up over how strangers perceive me makes me less effective. I don't know how ethical this claim sounds (and right now I don't really care lol), but some of the best photos come from just doing it regardless of the subject's feelings.

And thus...I have finally become "that ******* with a camera" who does not care whether you did your hair this morning or not. Heh...

 

[amolitor]

Quite often people won't realize that you're taking a picture of THEM. If you're putting them somewhere in the frame that's not the center, they'll assume you're taking a picture of whatever's over their shoulder.

 

[manaheim]

My impression is that when people first start shooting street stuff, the pictures are crap because they think they are taken pictures of people and it's enough to get pictures sharp and well exposed.
Well, it's more than that.

It isn't people that you are capturing, it is situations with people in them.


It is important to understand why you are taking a shot and what you want to show.

If someone doesn't want to be in the shot, no problem, let them move over.
If you look at it as your 'job' to get something interesting then perhaps it will be easier.

I skip around people who don't want to be photographed because I like to catch people who are unaware of the camera, to get a look into their real reactions and facial expressions.
Ambush photography, jumping up and catching a snap is, imo, a total waste.
I try to catch reality that is interesting, not create artificial scenes.

And it isn't easy.
I toss way more than 90% or more of my shots not because of focus or exposure but because I didn't capture with the camera what I saw in my mind.

Quoted for emphasis. Totally agree with each and every point made.

 

[TJ K]

I'd say go ahead and shoot away. The way anti-photographing laws are growing, you may not have too much more time to take them. Los Angeles police have been coached to stop and question photographers as potential terrorists. Then there is the potential copyright violations when shooting architecture, even in and from public locations. These types of laws should be of concern to all of us. I can see the future coming where cameras will have to be registered like firearms and permits required to use them in public. Note all the prohibitions at the Olympics. No interchangeable lens cameras allowed into the events.

Correction. Firearms do not have to be registered. I just wanted to clear up that common misconception. Although in communist California there are more strict laws towards firearms.

 

[The_Traveler]

Although in communist California there are more strict laws towards firearms.

There is a general prohibition here on TPF against political statements and sliding in this little comment is impolite and a bit sneaky..

 

[TJ K]

Although in communist California there are more strict laws towards firearms.

There is a general prohibition here on TPF against political statements and sliding in this little comment is impolite and a bit sneaky..

Sorry if that offended anyone? That's just a common term used by gun owners from California and elsewhere in the country. Sneaky part I don't quite get. It's right there for everyone to see and read.

 

[rexbobcat]

Sorry if that offended anyone? That's just a common term used by gun owners from California and elsewhere in the country. Sneaky part I don't quite get. It's right there for everyone to see and read.

It's not the offensiveness it's just he unnecessary drama-factor.

It would be the same if you said fascist Texas.

 

[manaheim]

How about The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts?

Is that equally offensive?

Hm?

Is it?

Anyone else want to suggest things that might be offensive in case we've missed one?

 

[rexbobcat]

How about The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts?

Is that equally offensive?

Hm?

Is it?

Anyone else want to suggest things that might be offensive in case we've missed one?

The People's Republic doesn't have a widely viewed negative connotation to it.

That other post was made to stir the coals, which is something the mods don't appreciate.

We could have an entire infinite regress about political correctness but that doesn't prove anything.

This isn't exactly a place of free and equal speech. The whole "what about" argument is irrelevant to the mods. We've been down this road before. It usually ends in a locked thread

 

[manaheim]

How about The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts?

Is that equally offensive?

Hm?

Is it?

Anyone else want to suggest things that might be offensive in case we've missed one?

The People's Republic doesn't have a widely viewed negative connotation to it.

That other post was made to stir the coals, which is something the mods don't appreciate.

We could have an entire infinite regress about political correctness but that doesn't prove anything.

This isn't exactly a place of free and equal speech. The whole "what about" argument is irrelevant to the mods. We've been down this road before. It usually ends in a locked thread

My point was essentially that you're posting something "offensive" in response to something else "offensive" was basically just as much a problem as the original person posting the "offensive" thing in the first place. And yes, the "people's republic" can be considered quite offensive... but then being offended or not is totally subjective (and silly, imo).

 

[StreetView]

No wonder some people in this thread are nervous about photographing in public. Thicken up that skin and fire away people.