The Myths of Streetshooting - explained and mostly busted

[Derrel]

The point I was trying to make was that using negative generalizations - like 'sneaky' in describing street photography - is more than vaguely insulting to those who do it with good and honorable intentions.

We used to have a regular poster here on TPF....He lived in a big, western USA city...basically 9 out of 10 of his "street pictures" were of young females on the street, almost always with big, prominent bosoms, and skimpy skirts or shorts. When I mentioned that to him, that almost all of his shots seemed to be,well, basically "Hey, that young girl has some nice t*ts!" type of shots, he got pretty bent out of shape. Said that wasn't what his work was about. And yet...that what it was, over and over and over and over, for months on end...Stalking the streets for young females in short skirts, tight tank tops, or short-shorts, basically random girls and women, who happened to be walking around the city sidewalks when he came by with his camera.

So, yeah, those who shoot "street" with honorable intentions are one thing, but there also seems to be a good number of what are called "creepers" these days, out for downblouse, upskirt, and crack shots. And all claiming that their work is "street photography". I find that much worse than people who deliberately, and with the actual consent and knowledge, of WILLING female volunteers, set out to make "glamour" photos, or even soft-core porn images in a cooperative, collaborative endeavor.

 

[dsiglin]

creepers are going to creep.

 

[sashbar]

If we go along this way we willl soon call paedophiles with cameras "street photographers" and then someone will say "That is why I will never do street photography". Let us leave freaks alone.

As for "sneaking shots" - I would say that there are different kinds of street photography, but most street photographers have to have the nerve to communicate with people they have shot without their permission. And I find myself to be more and more engaged with people I sometimes shoot in the street. This woman selling laces in the street was absolutely furious when I shot her from close range, but I was polite and we talked, and i explained why I am doing it and what it is all about, and then we talked more, and I learned that she had graduated from my home town Uni, and actually she was quite intelligent and well travelled and spoke very fluently in three languages. And now she was selling laces to tourists. And when we parted 15 minutes later, we hugged each other and she kept saying "thank you, thank you" which surprised me a lot. And I left with a strong sympathy for this apparently very lonely woman with an intriguing past and a bleak future. These encounters are great and last in memory much longer than any "sneaking shot". And even if the shot itself is nothing special, I will be keeping it.




This guy was crossing the street right in front of me, and I simply could not help pressing the button. He sad: " What the f**k do you think you are doing? I am not a tree, I am a human being"
I sad "Yes, and you are an amazing human being". And that's how we started to talk. And he posed for several more shots and even agreed to move to a better background. In the end I showed him all the shots and we agreed that the first one was the best, because he was not posing. He even invited me to his restaurant across the street. I doubt though that my dinner would be free. But then again, it was a memorable encounter.



And this guy was so happy, he offered me money for the photo and gave me his address. I did not take the money and lost his address. I wanted to send him the picture. Shame on me. But I will definitely have a print and when I am in this town again - I will find him. I rememeber the street name, it is a small town.

 

[manaheim]

^^^ which is why I use a 70-200.

"Oh, no, sir, I was shooting that building right behind you. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Yup. Have a nice day!"

 

[The_Traveler]

The point I was trying to make was that using negative generalizations - like 'sneaky' in describing street photography - is more than vaguely insulting to those who do it with good and honorable intentions.

We used to have a regular poster here on TPF....He lived in a big, western USA city...basically 9 out of 10 of his "street pictures" were of young females on the street, almost always with big, prominent bosoms, and skimpy skirts or shorts. When I mentioned that to him, that almost all of his shots seemed to be,well, basically "Hey, that young girl has some nice t*ts!" type of shots, he got pretty bent out of shape. Said that wasn't what his work was about. And yet...that what it was, over and over and over and over, for months on end...Stalking the streets for young females in short skirts, tight tank tops, or short-shorts, basically random girls and women, who happened to be walking around the city sidewalks when he came by with his camera.

So, yeah, those who shoot "street" with honorable intentions are one thing, but there also seems to be a good number of what are called "creepers" these days, out for downblouse, upskirt, and crack shots. And all claiming that their work is "street photography". I find that much worse than people who deliberately, and with the actual consent and knowledge, of WILLING female volunteers, set out to make "glamour" photos, or even soft-core porn images in a cooperative, collaborative endeavor.

What I've read about pedophiles seems to indicate that a good percentage seem to believe genuinely that what they are wanting to do is consensual or is 'all right'; that is their own delusion. The photographer Derrel is talking about has been ejected from a couple of photo-hosting sites because of the traffic/content and he seems to believe it was undue prejudice. He has his own website now and, although he puts up other pictures, his are 95% attractive women - generally very, very well shot. I've gone through those discussions with the same photographer and he isn't able actually present more of a case for what he does than he likes to do it.

Human beings have an almost infinite capacity for self-delusion.

 

[sashbar]

^^^ which is why I use a 70-200.

"Oh, no, sir, I was shooting that building right behind you. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Yup. Have a nice day!"

Why not telling him that he is right, Christians must stand for Israel ( or whatever) and his powerfull message should be spread around the world. I would have DEFINITELY told him this bull if only to see his reaction - that's the first thing that crossed my mind. . And chances are - you will have a splendid photo opportunity here. And who knows, maybe this guy is more interesting than he appears. It happens all the time. More than that< if he agreed to pose I would talk to him about the Christian cause, and then i would say - even if I am a hardline atheist... Might be a great shot.

 

[manaheim]

There are some photographers who believe they should record the world around them without influencing it directly. I agree with this- even despite my aversion to talking to random people.

 

[sashbar]

There are some photographers who believe they should record the world around them without influencing it directly. I agree with this- even despite my aversion to talking to random people.

Yes I am aware of that, but do not understand this argument. I think it is just an excuse. The street photography is mostly unstaged, so the scene ( or the world, if the photographer thinks that he has the whole world in his frame) is not influenced before the shot, he captures it "as is". And I agree that shouting to people before the shot to provoke a reaction and doing similar things is inappropriate. This is influencing the scene. Planting objects or rearranging them to improve the composition or impact can also be considered as influencing the scene. Some purists are aginst it, some established great photographers do it every day. So one can argue here. But if a photographer thinks that by communicatiing to people after the shot was taken he is "influencing the world", then he probably thinks a little bit too much of himself. There is, of course a famous sci-fi book about a man who killed a butterfly and the following chain of events completely changed the world. But it is sci-fi, and even there he had to kill somebody So, no, I am not buying it.

PS: I re-read your post and realised I am a bit off the mark here. Yes, I hear what you are saying now. Still my point is valid when it comes to photographers who refuse to communicate in any way.

 

[amolitor]

Frankly, if you wanna take pictures of hot women on the street, what's the problem with that? Nobody seems to mind if you look at them and remember them with your mind.

Note that this is quite distinct from catcalling, making lewd remarks, overt ogling, and other behaviors that generate discomfort. Humans seem to have a very odd attitude about photography, which is basically a leftover of "you steal my soul when you make a graven image of me" superstition.

 

[The_Traveler]

There are some photographers who believe they should record the world around them without influencing it directly. I agree with this- even despite my aversion to talking to random people.

Yes I am aware of that, but do not understand this argument. I think it is just an excuse. The street photography is mostly unstaged, so the scene ( or the world, if the photographer thinks that he has the whole world in his frame) is not influenced before the shot, he captures it "as is". And I agree that shouting to people before the shot to provoke a reaction and doing similar things is inappropriate. This is influencing the scene. Planting objects or rearranging them to improve the composition or impact can also be considered as influencing the scene. Some purists are aginst it, some established great photographers do it every day. So one can argue here. But if a photographer thinks that by communicatiing to people after the shot was taken he is "influencing the world", then he probably thinks a little bit too much of himself. There is, of course a famous sci-fi book about a man who killed a butterfly and the following chain of events completely changed the world. But it is sci-fi, and even there he had to kill somebody So, no, I am not buying it.

No one has said that.
That's a straw man argument.
If it is your style to take a picture and then try to engage the person, no problem, go for it.
In general I don't see enough for me in this kind of photography, where the person is engaged and then shot, without anything else going for it. Limiting to this one note, shoot and engage, is like always processing the same way or only using the same lens; pictures become constrained by something external.

I try to take the pictures as they occur without any preconceptions, except that I try to change the happening as little as possible.

 

[rexbobcat]

Frankly, if you wanna take pictures of hot women on the street, what's the problem with that? Nobody seems to mind if you look at them and remember them with your mind.

It's potentially a legal problem in Texas, where you can be arrested if you are suspected of taking pictures of non-consenting individuals for sexual gratification.

And not saying no isn't saying yes, so that makes this law super broad concerning photographing people who don't give you explicit approval but obviously don't mind being photographed.

 

[The_Traveler]

Frankly, if you wanna take pictures of hot women on the street, what's the problem with that? Nobody seems to mind if you look at them and remember them with your mind.

I think that only taking pictures of women with big breasts is a bit distasteful and juvenile, objectifying women. Trying to excuse an interest in doing exactly that by saying it is 'art' seems to be dissembling.
I think you should own what you do, not try to obscure the issue with some other name, and deal with how others feel about it.
Substitute 'children' for 'females with big breasts' and then explain your reaction.
My feeling is that the photography of females with big boobs or children brings to view what I think is an uncomfortable character attribute.

 

[sashbar]

There are some photographers who believe they should record the world around them without influencing it directly. I agree with this- even despite my aversion to talking to random people.

Yes I am aware of that, but do not understand this argument. I think it is just an excuse. The street photography is mostly unstaged, so the scene ( or the world, if the photographer thinks that he has the whole world in his frame) is not influenced before the shot, he captures it "as is". And I agree that shouting to people before the shot to provoke a reaction and doing similar things is inappropriate. This is influencing the scene. Planting objects or rearranging them to improve the composition or impact can also be considered as influencing the scene. Some purists are aginst it, some established great photographers do it every day. So one can argue here. But if a photographer thinks that by communicatiing to people after the shot was taken he is "influencing the world", then he probably thinks a little bit too much of himself. There is, of course a famous sci-fi book about a man who killed a butterfly and the following chain of events completely changed the world. But it is sci-fi, and even there he had to kill somebody So, no, I am not buying it.

No one has said that.
That's a straw man argument.
If it is your style to take a picture and then try to engage the person, no problem, go for it.
In general I don't see enough for me in this kind of photography, where the person is engaged and then shot, without anything else going for it. Limiting to this one note, shoot and engage, is like always processing the same way or only using the same lens; pictures become constrained by something external.

I try to take the pictures as they occur without any preconceptions, except that I try to change the happening as little as possible.

I would not call it "my style". I do not have any style at all, I am not good enough for it. What I am saying is talking honestly to people if they react in a negative way is better and ultimately more rewarding than trying to pretend that you wanted to shoot a cat behind them etc. Shooting people is not an excuse to start a converrsation ( or if it is - it is probably the worst one possible) . But there are situations when the choice is simple - just to ignore a great shot, because the negative reaction will be most likely, to ask for a permission and take a picture ( which in most cases makes no sense at all, because the scene is gone) or to shoot and then explain if needed. The photographers who prefer "not to influence" will probably miss this shot because they do not want to communicate with their object. And the chances are - it would be ther best shot of the day. There were many situations when I chose Option 1 and just walked away, just to regret it later. And there were many situations when i went for it and it ended up just great, and everyone was happy. But of course there is always a line that one should never cross, and I think it comes with experience.

 

[sashbar]

Frankly, if you wanna take pictures of hot women on the street, what's the problem with that? Nobody seems to mind if you look at them and remember them with your mind.

It's potentially a legal problem in Texas, where you can be arrested if you are suspected of taking pictures of non-consenting individuals for sexual gratification.

And not saying no isn't saying yes, so that makes this law super broad concerning photographing people who don't give you explicit approval but obviously don't mind being photographed.

And that means you simply can not take photos of anyone of the opposite sex in Texas.. o, wait a minute, it means you can not take photos of anyone full stop.. Tough.

 

[amolitor]

Exactly the same superstition applies when kids are in play, and it's equally nonsensical but even more deeply ingrained in society.

Laws against photographing kids/women for "sexual gratification" come out of a social desire to prosecute people for thought crimes, combined with a superstition about "picture stealing souls". Since here in America we pretend to not actually criminalize thinking, we instead apply outlandish punishments to whatever actual act strikes as as most closely allied to the BadThink we're actually trying to punish.

I'm a parent and a member of this society. I feel it, but I recognize it as unsavory.

That doesn't mean a bunch of pictures of large breasted women is necessarily artistically worthwhile. If taking bad pictures is a crime, though, we got bigger problems.

This is probably about all I should say here, though, since this is at risk of diverging into territory we try to avoid on TPF, if it's not there already.