Taking pictures of those subjects who don't want their pictures taken

[Derrel]

What about this guy's attitude? His name is Bruce Gilden...quite a character. Leica street shooter. B&W mostly. Famous or infamous.

I think Bruce Gilden is an overrated jackass.

One could capitalize his name, and the two adjectives, and make a business card that would read,
"Bruce Gilden, Overrated Jackass"

 

[Original katomi]

Wow some really stunning photos.

 

[pixmedic]

I missed responding to some direct questions so let me fill these in now while I hav e a few minutes

.. I never take pictures of the homeless or destitute who live on the street.
They are vulnerable and I won't steal their problems to inject some emotion into a photo that would otherwise be devoid.

do you check with everyone to see what their socio-economic status is before you photograph them?
Or can you tell just by looking at someone?

In case you missed the operative sentence here in your gleeful haste to say something unpleasant, I made it bold.

Lew, I have great respect for you as a photographer; over the years, you have posted some absolutely stellar documentary images, and I KNOW that you can create really great work. HOWEVER... your quoted statement above, "...if I can make a good shot..." implies that the image you have posted is a good one. Really? An under-exposed, almost detail-less image of people on a commuter train/subway doing nothing of interest is a good image? I don't "shoot street" myself, but I can definitely appreciate the genre when it's done well, and as I've said, you have done it well, but using this to try and bolster your position? Come on... if Billy-Bob Brandnewmember posted that and asked for C&C, it would get the gong in two seconds flat!

You say you "honor personal commitments to individuals but don't respect cultural or religious traditions" WTF? You know as well as I that in many parts of the world, particularly in those which you have travelled a lot cultural & religious traditions transcend the individual. It is a complete contradiction to say that you honour ANY commitment to an individual without respecting their cultural/religious traditions.

You also say you " never take pictures of the homeless or destitute who live on the street" - I can take it from that you verified that everyone in the image mentioned above has a good job and a home to which to return?

I don't know if you're bored and just hoping to stir up a little action on the forum, but to be honest, it really feels like you were hoping for someone to take a really strong stand one way or the other so that you could tell them how wrong they were... As you are doubtless aware, I am a HUGE proponent of ethics in our craft and to hear someone, for whom I have great respect for as a craftsman, say that he doesn't respect the cultural or religious traditions of others... WOW! I may not understand or agree with other's beliefs, but they are just as viable as my lack of belief. I am truly disappointed!

If someone indicates to me either by word, gesture or expression that they don't want their photograph taken, I don't.
I have made some contact with them as a person and I honor that.
Except for startling exceptions, like the Amish or the Jains, every religion or culture I have come across has done enough unpleasant things to disqualify them as a group from my consideration.
So, not having the capability to read people's minds, failing a human to human interaction, I go with what I think.

Art, and artists, have a long tradition of speaking truth to power and all art is not flowers and birds and doggies.
I think of myself as an artist, not necessarily a good artist, but at least someone who is trying to capture life as it is.
Sanitizing what I make into art because some cultural or religious group doesn't like it is censorship of the worst kind, supposedly in the name of good behavior.

Street photography is hard technically but also difficult in that the shooter is trying to capture, without words, something with meaning, something that resonates with the sensibilities of viewers.
If I page through the catalogue from Garry Winogrand's show at the Smithsonian, all 420 pages, there are a great many that I just plain don't get, but every once in a while there are just wonderful memorable show stoppers.

I don't expect that everyone likes everything I shoot but my failures don't mean anything about street photography as a craft and an art or even about me as an artist.
Some pictures are easy to understand, some pictures are not.

View attachment 171291



View attachment 171293

View attachment 171296

Fine, except none of your unnecessarily bolded text actually answered my question. You claim to not exploit anyone, yet you have not told me what defining factors you use to look at someone from a distance and tell if they are suffering or not. Do you know that woman on the subway has a home to go to? Do you know if any of the people you photograph are vulnerable or not?
What level of problems can a person have and still be ok to shoot on the street?
You seem to be assuming a lot in your street photography. Very convenient given your bolded claim despite not seeming to have any way to validate said claim.
I suppose however, if i had special "people with problems" vision like you aparantly do i would probably try street photography as well.
Is it something i can learn, or is automatically knowing who is "OK" and who is "vulnerable" an inborn instinct?

 

[mrtenpercent]

I have lately been in a Muslim country where many potential subjects definitely don't want their photos taken because of a disputed passage in their scriptures.

Is Picture Taking Forbidden in Islam? | Synonym

What do you think about this?

The disputed passage in their scriptures is presumably not disputed by them. So you know the answer if you think about it.

How about changing the question slightly? I know a really good travel photographer, but I don't like with all of their edits so is it ok to edit their images and take credit as long as they don't find out about it?

 

[K9Kirk]

I read the article and it confirmed what I already knew, that it's relative. Not everyone interprets the bible/Quran the same way so no one can say that everyone in a particular country is going to feel the same way about being in someone's picture and what do their judicial laws say about it? Here in the U.S. ours say if someone is in a public place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy then you can not take their picture. That being a place like a public bathroom or a clubs locker room. Otherwise, you can legally snap away out in public but just the same, though, if someone asked me not to take their picture here in the U.S. I would honor their request.

If I go to out in public here or anywhere and start taking pictures where there are a lot of people around I am definitely not going to run around asking everyone if they are "OK" with it, that's ludicrous to expect anyone to do that. Instead, what makes much better sense to me is (and I think the potential picture-ees would agree) if anyone doesn't want to be in my picture they can either speak up 'politely' and I'll not take their picture or simply move out of the way like most people do when they see a person taking a picture of something. Most bibles don't preach to people to act like jerks over their religion either. - Sorry that was so long winded.

 

[limr]

I read the article and it confirmed what I already knew, that it's relative. Not everyone interprets the bible/Quran the same way so no one can say that everyone in a particular country is going to feel the same way about being in someone's picture and what do their judicial laws say about it?

Exactly. Islam is not monolithic. One has to take into account the culture and laws of the people who follow that religion.

 

[K9Kirk]

What about this guy's attitude? His name is Bruce Gilden...quite a character. Leica street shooter. B&W mostly. Famous or infamous.

I think Bruce Gilden is an overrated jackass.

Someone should follow him around all day in public where it's legal to do what he does and constantly shove their camera in his face every chance they got. I would bet that he would develop the opinion real quick that that person is a jackass.

 

[lucypaddydog]

Last week I was in a Muslim country, I took over 3000 photographs. I visited a mosque, where I took some beautiful images, small villages and large towns, as well as the Kings Palace, (where I did stray a little from the tourist route and was asked not to photograph certain areas). It was widely accepted that as a tourist, in an open space, where there is a building, or structure of interest and the intent is to photograph that structure, there was no problems from the local folk, even if they were included in the frame. I found occasionally, women turned their backs, or covered their face, but this didn't happen too often.

In busy area's it is almost impossible to exclude locals from the frame, and this is accepted. If I wanted to take a photograph of an individual, then I simply asked, explained why I wanted to take the portrait, and showed the image to the subject afterwards. Some people wanted paying for the photograph, so I paid, some people said no, so I thanked them and left them after a friendly chat, some like the ladies making argon oil in the markets, said I could photograph only their working hands, which was ok.

Subjects and models are human beings, if you treat them as such, I have personally found, no matter what colour, creed, religion or culture, people will respond with either a yes take the picture, or no please don't, or add some condition, as happened in Turkey a few years ago, I was allowed to take a portrait of a lovely Muslim lady, as long as I took portraits of her whole family and sent her prints when I got home. This I did.

Maybe my experience helps or not, but this is what I have found

 

[limr]

Last week I was in a Muslim country, I took over 3000 photographs. I visited a mosque, where I took some beautiful images, small villages and large towns, as well as the Kings Palace, (where I did stray a little from the tourist route and was asked not to photograph certain areas). It was widely accepted that as a tourist, in an open space, where there is a building, or structure of interest and the intent is to photograph that structure, there was no problems from the local folk, even if they were included in the frame. I found occasionally, women turned their backs, or covered their face, but this didn't happen too often.

In busy area's it is almost impossible to exclude locals from the frame, and this is accepted. If I wanted to take a photograph of an individual, then I simply asked, explained why I wanted to take the portrait, and showed the image to the subject afterwards. Some people wanted paying for the photograph, so I paid, some people said no, so I thanked them and left them after a friendly chat, some like the ladies making argon oil in the markets, said I could photograph only their working hands, which was ok.

Subjects and models are human beings, if you treat them as such, I have personally found, no matter what colour, creed, religion or culture, people will respond with either a yes take the picture, or no please don't, or add some condition, as happened in Turkey a few years ago, I was allowed to take a portrait of a lovely Muslim lady, as long as I took portraits of her whole family and sent her prints when I got home. This I did.

Maybe my experience helps or not, but this is what I have found

I lived in Turkey for 3 years and this was my approach on the rare occasions that I was interested in taking pictures of specific people. I generally am not so for most of the photos I took while I was there, it wasn't an issue. I was not doing street photography. I actually didn't do a whole lot of photography at all during my time there, actually. Just figuring out how to live there took a lot of my energy and focus.

 

[The_Traveler]

Question 1) This was taken in the desert about 10 miles outside of Ouardzazarte, Morocco

This is a conservative Muslim area.
Would you take this picture? Why or why not?

Please disregard your opinion of the final product below here.

Question 2) if you were in Paris, would you take a picture of the Eiffel Tower at night? (The light display is copyrighted.)

 

[Derrel]

I WOULD have, most certainly, taken that picture. Just to show the conditions the area's herders encounter, as a way to document the harshness of the climate/geography

RE: Question 2) if you were in Paris, would you take a picture of the Eiffel Tower at night? (The light display is copyrighted.)

YES. The Coca~Cola logo is also copyrighted..and I have photographed it before...

 

[limr]

What is even the point of this whole thread anyway? Seriously? Is it to reaffirm the opinion you already hold if someone says yes to this picture? Or to wait for people to disagree so you can convince them that yours is the 'correct' opinion?

 

[The_Traveler]

What is even the point of this whole thread anyway? Seriously? Is it to reaffirm the opinion you already hold if someone says yes to this picture? Or to wait for people to disagree so you can convince them that yours is the 'correct' opinion?

It is a discussion to get people to explore their own opinions on a tricky subject.
The Socratic method.
Why are you implying something more?

I've stated my opinions; could you point out where I have said that anyone else's is incorrect.

 

[Derrel]

What is this "Socratic method "you speak of? Is it from a blog or Instagram page?

 

[The_Traveler]

What is this "Socratic method "you speak of? Is it from a blog or Instagram page?

Yes, it is - and more socratic method - Google Search

Even movies - The Paper Chase (1973) - IMDb