The Myths of Streetshooting - explained and mostly busted

[The_Traveler]

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.

I would agree with all of what you are saying as long as you preface it to say that 'In my experience' and you recognize that this behavior applies perhaps only to you.
It is not true that what has worked for you in your circumstances with your personality is as true and constant for everyone as the force of gravity.

 

[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.

/QUOTE]

Actually I agree. If there is no stalking or harrassment involved, who cares?

 

[limr]

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.

It's not just an excuse. I don't think talking to someone after taking the picture is influencing anything, but engaging first and shooting second is influencing the shot. I prefer to get the shots when people are unaware. It feels more...truthful in a way. Like they're not trying to perform or put on their "I'm talking to a stranger" persona. This is just my feeling, truly, and it will be different for everyone who even vaguely likes to try their hand at street photography. And it's not that I disagree with the idea of engaging with someone before or after the shot, but that's just not me. I'm an introvert, I feel awkward talking to strangers and it's not enjoyable. I would not get anywhere near the kind of stories that you are able to get because I just can't. I don't know how to draw people out because I myself become withdrawn in this kind of interaction. So no, it's not an excuse; it's just that the engaging style of street photography isn't for every photographer's personality.

And then there's Miroslav Tichy: Miroslav Tichý - photographer - photo Not sure where he fits into this conversation, but I couldn't help but think of him as I was reading through the thread. Here's a NY Times article about him, too: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/arts/design/12photos.html?_r=0 By all rights, this guy should not be famous. And yet...the pictures are compelling. But I can't figure out why.

 

[sashbar]

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.

I would agree with all of what you are saying as long as you preface it to say that 'In my experience' and you recognize that this behavior applies perhaps only to you.
It is not true that what has worked for you in your circumstances with your personality is as true and constant for everyone as the force of gravity.

I agree with this. But being not an extrovert myself to say the least, I just thought if I can do it, probably just about everyone can do it. It does not mean they WANT to do it, of course.

 

[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.

It's not just an excuse. I don't think talking to someone after taking the picture is influencing anything, but engaging first and shooting second is influencing the shot. I prefer to get the shots when people are unaware. It feels more...truthful in a way.

Like they're not trying to perform or put on their "I'm talking to a stranger" persona. This is just my feeling, truly, and it will be different for everyone who even vaguely likes to try their hand at street photography. And it's not that I disagree with the idea of engaging with someone before or after the shot, but that's just not me. I'm an introvert, I feel awkward talking to strangers and it's not enjoyable. I would not get anywhere near the kind of stories that you are able to get because I just can't. I don't know how to draw people out because I myself become withdrawn in this kind of interaction. So no, it's not an excuse; it's just that the engaging style of street photography isn't for every photographer's personality.

And then there's Miroslav Tichy: Miroslav Tichý - photographer - photo Not sure where he fits into this conversation, but I couldn't help but think of him as I was reading through the thread. Here's a NY Times article about him, too: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/arts/design/12photos.html?_r=0 By all rights, this guy should not be famous. And yet...the pictures are compelling. But I can't figure out why.

Yes, if you read my posts carefully, this is exactly what I am saying.

 

[limr]

Yes, if you read my posts carefully, this is exactly what I am saying.

Sorry, I'm not being a smartass, but...which part? I mean, when you say "this" - what part of my post does this refer to?

 

[rexbobcat]

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.

Like I said, the law is super broad, and I think it has recently been challenged because of that fact.

I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying that's how it is, so the whole "who cares" argument can kind of be dependent on where you live.

Certain actions also increase your odds of being arrested for that such as....taking photos of young children in a bathroom, which was a case a few years ago that happened at the county fair.

 

[sashbar]

Yes, if you read my posts carefully, this is exactly what I am saying.

Sorry, I'm not being a smartass, but...which part? I mean, when you say "this" - what part of my post does this refer to?

I referred to this:

I don't think talking to someone after taking the picture is influencing anything, but engaging first and shooting second is influencing the shot. I prefer to get the shots when people are unaware. It feels more...truthful in a way. Like they're not trying to perform or put on their "I'm talking to a stranger" persona. This is just my feeling, truly, and it will be different for everyone who even vaguely likes to try their hand at street photography.

I will quote myself here if you do not mind, that's probably the best way to explain what I meant:

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.

Also:

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.

So nowhere I am talking about the need to engage a person before taking a shot. I am totally with you here. This is not the point at all. Probably the photos I posted have misled you. In my opinion these photos are a sub-genre of street photography, I would call it street portraits. But in two out of three of these portraits there was no involvement with the subject prior to the shot, it was the straight "in your face" close-up shot that initially provoked a negative reaction. My point is - how to get away with it after you have taken a shot that can annoy a person. And I am arguing that the best way is not to shy away from communicating or making believe that you were shooting the brick wall, but to get involved in the most positive, honest and polite way. And this is (in my experience, I bear in mind the Traveller's remark) is all about the mindset. If you think that it is about "sneaking", "hunting" etc. you are in the wrong state of mind to communicate effectively with the people and defend your action. You have to embrace it, feel positive, treat them like friends and be sure that what you are doing is the right thing. There is nothing wrong about it. And then you will be surprised how quickly (most) people change their initial attitude.​

​

 

[limr]

Okay, yes we are saying the same thing in many ways. I guess where I diverge is the situation where you say that my choices are to ignore a great shot to avoid the interaction, or to take the shot and interact. It's an easy choice for me. I'd rather miss the shot. In a way, I feel that if I'm already close enough to provoke a certain reaction (whether positive or negative), then I may have already lost my shot anyway. So I wouldn't regret not firing the shutter because somewhere in my mind, I might think, "Great shot, just not mine."

This is not to say I have never interacted with strangers and I can do it naturally enough to a point. After that point I just get cagey

 

[sashbar]

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.

And this is happening in the world where porn sites have 30% of internet traffic, and the largest porn site XVideo gets 4,5 BILLION page visits per month - several times more than CNN.

 

[rexbobcat]

I take street photos by going around and throwing water balloons at hot women in skimpy t-shirts. Then I photograph their reactions.

My coffee table photo book is coming out soon if anyone is interested. It would make a great talking point at family dinners. It's called "Wet n' Wild," and it'll be out in early October.

 

[The_Traveler]

I take street photos by going around and throwing water balloons at hot women in skimpy t-shirts. Then I photograph their reactions.

My coffee table photo book is coming out soon if anyone is interested. It would make a great talking point at family dinners. It's called "Wet n' Wild," and it'll be out in early October.

They allow computers in your cell?

 

[The_Traveler]

I have been thinking of a trying to start a streetshooter circle with its own website.
Every member of the circle would contribute a goodly of email addresses for their contacts.
Every member would have a separate page with links back to their home page.
Every member would have a 'show' on the site in rotation and this would be publicized to all the combined email contacts.

comments?

 

[rexbobcat]

I take street photos by going around and throwing water balloons at hot women in skimpy t-shirts. Then I photograph their reactions.

My coffee table photo book is coming out soon if anyone is interested. It would make a great talking point at family dinners. It's called "Wet n' Wild," and it'll be out in early October.

They allow computers in your cell?

If they didn't want me to throw a water balloon at them they should have been less hot. Geez, so many haters.

[video]http://tosh.comedycentral.com/video-clips/ppvj6r/unexpected-wet-t-shirt-contest[/video]

 

[amolitor]

Wow. I have no problem with T-shirts, wet or otherwise, or their contents, but that video compressed so much crappiness into so little time it kind of took my breath away.