Approaching people out there. How to?

[stuny]

Well, one more example. I was walking across the plaza at Lincoln Center in new York when I saw this group of 14-year-old girls posing for their photo. I stepped up next to one of the mothers and began lining up a shot. The one mother (you can guess which one in the photo was her daughter) started hassling me, and asked who I was. I said I was just a local citizen and I thought the group’s pose was adorable, lined up the shot, took it, and continued on my way. Total time? 15 seconds.

[delander]

Your photos Stuart are of people happy to be photographed. Bill's comment was that he will photograph you whether you like it or not j- ust for his own ends.

If somebody says to me that they do not wish to be photographed I respect that. That is only common humanity.

Whatever the law is, Bill's view that his 'right' to take a photograph takes precedence over and individual's request not be photographed is just plain wrong.

Jeff

[stunsworth]

Originally Posted by delander

If somebody says to me that they do not wish to be photographed I respect that. That is only common humanity.

Whatever the law is, Bill's view that his 'right' to take a photograph takes precedence over and individual's request not be photographed is just plain wrong.

What Bill wrote...

" If I sense somebody really does not want to be photographed, I will seldom try."

The problem is that if you want to take an unposed photograph of someone you can't ask them if they are happy to have their photograph taken. Do that and you get a posed photograph. If I'm taking a photograph of someone and they see what I'm doing and object then I don't take the photograph. Simple as that. Like Bill I can only think of two incidents over the last 10 years or so where someone really objected - and in one of those cases I wasn't taking the photograph they imagined.

[stnami]

Steve evidently you don't take photos in dubious areas................

[rob_x2004]

Stuart...do what anyone else would do.

....people%208[1].jpg

[stunsworth]

Imants, no I don't. Not brave enough.

[azzo]

...

Maurizio,

Be there but don't 'actually' be there !

Azzo

...

[Marquinius]

I'm still getting used to taking photo's of people. I'll go with Bill that mostly I'll just take the shot, withing normal bounds of courtesy. In Asia I mostly smile and start shooting and sometimes hold up the camera with an open expression on my face. No worries there.

In Europe I'm a bit more careful, as sometimes people just get angry. I'll be in the USA, visiting Oshkosh july 2008 and see what happens there. It can be fun to NOT shoot planes, but to shoot the photographers.

Marco

[bill]

Originally Posted by delander

Well I dont mind my photograph being taken, but I object strongly to that self-centered attitude and if somebody said something like that to me I would want to know the purpose of the photograph. You are saying that if you dont wish to be photgraphed dont go out. How insensitive can you get.

There is a bit of give and take needed here.

Jeff

Originally Posted by delander

Your photos Stuart are of people happy to be photographed. Bill's comment was that he will photograph you whether you like it or not j- ust for his own ends.

If somebody says to me that they do not wish to be photographed I respect that. That is only common humanity.

Whatever the law is, Bill's view that his 'right' to take a photograph takes precedence over and individual's request not be photographed is just plain wrong.

Jeff

Hm.

Jeff, you are blurring my words.

If you read my post IN FULL you will understand more clearly, I think.

Let me quote myself as follows:

I seldom ask. I like the "found" aspect to the scenes I shoot. People are seldom the subject, but often the point of interest. A person posing, to me, is the subject of an "environmental portrait" and that isn't what I like to do.

When I do ask, I tend to the smile/nod/lift of the camera approach. If someone bounds up to me and asks to take my photo it would unsettle me, so I treat people with gentle courtesy because that is the way I would like to be treated (this isn't about photography, btw - someone rattling a collecting tin in my face or making a smart comment to get me to stop is likely to get extremely short shrift. Someone who stands patiently is more likely to get my money)
.
If I sense somebody really does not want to be photographed, I will seldom try.

Where in there did you get the impression that I would "mug" you to get my photo? Where did you get the impression that, if you plainly expressed the wish that I should not take your photo, I would do so in blatant disregard of your wishes?

I expressly stated at the outset that I seldom ask. I detest the "experimental effect" - my presence as the photographer influencing the scene that is in front of me. Quite often, if I have been noticed, I abandon the shot I was framing, because it is no longer the shot I wanted.

Now you, Jeff, are confusing my legal right to take the photo with your non-existent right to privacy IN A PUBLIC PLACE.

Yes. We agree on one point - if you do not want to be photographed, do not go out. I live in the UK - the most monitored society in the world. In one short day my movements will have been filmed, largely without my knowledge and entirely without my (completely irrelevant) "permission" dozens of times. Big fat hairy deal. If I want privacy, I go home and I pull the curtains.

This thread is about techniques for photographing strangers. I have explained my technique, and expressed my opinion, and a matter of fact. You may disagree with me, and I defend to the end your right to do so, but I would appreciate if you would do so in future with a little more courtesy, and having read and understood my post in full.

Regards,

Bill

[Marquinius]

Originally Posted by rob_x2004

Stuart...do what anyone else would do.

....Attachment 70573

Rob, that's a fast one ... me smiling now too!

[earleygallery]

I still don't understand, and no one has been able to answer, IF I went to the Eiffel Tower, or Notre Dame, and wanted to take a photo of it, would I first have to walk around and ask EVERYONE who was in shot for their permission?

By the time I'd done that, and got back to where I wanted to take the photo from there would be some new people in shot. Do I go around asking again?

If one person in the crowd of perhaps a couple of thousand objects, do they have the right to stop me from taking the shot (even if they will be unrecognisable or facing the other way?).

Can someone offer a genuine answer?

[earleygallery]

Originally Posted by rob_x2004

Stuart...do what anyone else would do.

....Attachment 70573

you mean explain to the mother how her shot would look much better if she took a moment and gathered up the bags/jackets lying messily on the floor first?

[stunsworth]

Originally Posted by earleygallery

I still don't understand, and no one has been able to answer, IF I went to the Eiffel Tower, or Notre Dame, and wanted to take a photo of it, would I first have to walk around and ask EVERYONE who was in shot for their permission?

Hi James, first of all you shouldn't be taking a photograph of the Eiffel tower as the company that owns it has copyright of the image <grin>. Secondly, yes strictly speaking you should ask everyone who's in the image for permission to take their photograph. In practise it doesn't matter. In 10 years or so of photographing in France the reaction has broadly been similar to the UK, some people don't want their photograph taking and I don't take them.

[earleygallery]

Steve,

I really doubt that the copyright extends to excluding people from taking a photo of the structure! What if one is taking another view of Paris and the tower is visible, is that also not allowed or do you write to the owners of the tower and ask them to arrange for it to be covered up in advance! I expect it is more to prevent unofficial tacky souvenirs (as opposed to official tacky souvenirs).

As I expected, a stupid meaningless law. Yes in principle.......but in practice no. I haven't yet seen any camera touting tourists being rounded up by the riot police for taking their snapshots.

[pcsmythe]

There is a difference between photography for editorial purposes and for commercial purposes. There is no problem with taking street photographs as long as it is not used for commercial purposes (although it is always a good idea to get a release if you can).

There was a recent case where a man (Hasidic Jew who had a very unique appearance) sued a photographer who had taken a street photograph in Central Park and who subsequently auctioned off the photograph. Unfortunately, the case was dismissed on procedural grounds so the court did not get to the merits of the issue of when fine art photography crosses the line of commercial photography.

Peter Smythe

[stunsworth]

Originally Posted by pcsmythe

There is a difference between photography for editorial purposes and for commercial purposes. There is no problem with taking street photographs as long as it is not used for commercial purposes

That may be the case in the US, but it isn't necessarily the same elsewhere.

[delander]

Bill Palmer wrote:

I can - and will - take your picture if doing so gives me the shot I want.

Those were the last words of your post Bill. You place your desire for your 'shot' above the wishes of the subject not to be photographed.

I am not talking about law, surveillance or rights but common courtesy.

Jeff

[Leica DeOcean]

Originally Posted by earleygallery

I still don't understand, and no one has been able to answer, IF I went to the Eiffel Tower, or Notre Dame, and wanted to take a photo of it, would I first have to walk around and ask EVERYONE who was in shot for their permission?

By the time I'd done that, and got back to where I wanted to take the photo from there would be some new people in shot. Do I go around asking again?

If one person in the crowd of perhaps a couple of thousand objects, do they have the right to stop me from taking the shot (even if they will be unrecognisable or facing the other way?).

Can someone offer a genuine answer?

The one difference with your stated example, James, is that you would be taking an "obvious" picture of the Eiffel Tower or Notre Dame as the main (and inanimate) subject with "people" as only a secondary and incidental ingredient to your photographic canvass. This would MOST LIKELY be either "understood" by most people OR people would not even notice you since [in your stated example] it would also be "obvious" (by the camera position and your attitude) that they are NOT the subject of your attention.

But aside from my "obvious" attempt at trying to address the grounds for your premise .........................

I very much enjoy your humorous use of "reductio ad absurdum". And I would likewise take the picture of the Eiffel or Notre Dame regardless.

Seriously ..... These days it is getting difficult to take "un-posed" or spontaneous pictures of 'HUMAN SITUATIONS OR MOMENTS" (not Towers & Churches) because of the ever developing paranoia and distrust that seems to be gripping the globe as a result increasing "threats to survival of humans, by humans". It's not the camera that is suspect but maybe the being behind it.

I was taking pictures of toddlers and children swinging on the "baby swings", trying to capture the delight on their cherubic faces. The parents were there within a few feet of them and most had no trouble allowing me to shoot after I made the courteous "raising of the camera and tentative look of seeking permission" . A few came over and asked "For what newspaper or magazine" I was photographing. I simply answered that I was taking photos as a hobby and for my own self and a delightful exchange and conversation with them ensued. NO ONE confronted me or asked me to stop. The solution seemed to be all in the courtesy that was shown and the perception engendered in those parents.

BUT ......... truth be told .......... that day in the public kiddy park or at the merry-go-round .......... there happened to be NO psychologically diagnosable or sensitive individuals around. Nor were there individuals with "ultra sensitivity" or emotional issues concerning personal privacy and boundaries. NOR did I run into someone with JUSTICE or FEAR as the main Filter through which they consistently viewed the world around them.

I have to be prepared for even that experience occuring by chance, because our world is changing .............. but until that experience occurs by chance ........

HAPPY SHOOTING.