Digital era candid and public shooting

[thomasl.se]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Almost everybody has a some kind of camera today, many of them small, maybe in the mobile, ready to snap away ad lib. In some societies, even surveilance cameras are covering more cubic meters each year.

 

Does anyone here who was shooting candid style or just a lot out in the public - maybe with an M - in the pre digital photo era, feel there's been changes in attitude and response from people who've (actually) seen your lens pointed their way?

 

I probably considered a small camera in the pre digital era unobtrusive, generally. At this day and age, I feel differently about that. Small isn't necessarily cute.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[fonziewonzie]

interesting question. i find that smaller is still definitely better.

but, it also depends where you live.

 

in portugal, im pretty much free to take photos of whatever and whoever i want. people don't care much.

 

in london, i was always a bit more careful, but even shooting with a d70 or d2x, people were ok. they would definitely notice me, but they would smile and not worry much assuming i was a professional.

 

here in the us, i find most people are so paranoid with privacy issues, that it's much harder to do street photography. sigh.

 

hence my current interest in rangefinder cameras. i'm deciding between the m8 which i have pre-ordered or the mp. or both if i sell my current d2x and a few lenses.

[John Maio]

I think a lot depends on who you shoot and under what circumstances. This may seem obvious, but it can be quite subtle.

 

The other day, I photographed a woman being walked by three large dogs. I made no attempt to conceal what I was doing and her reaction was very positive, perhaps because I showed such interest in her pets. I could imagine a different reaction if she was alone.

 

Much has been written about photographing children in public. Unless their parents are OK with it, I don't even attempt it - even if they make great subjects.

 

If people are "doing things" they seem more comfortable about being photographed. For example, someone making a painting in the street, playing an instrument, engaging in some craft work, etc. In those situations, even if they notice your camera, they actually seem pleased to be photographed.

 

If people are in crowds and you isolate some of them just having fun or relaxing, its much less tense than if they are alone or in very small groups.

 

I sometimes enjoy photographing people who are, in turn, photographing others. I sometimes get great expressions, and they don't seem to mind me doing what they are doing - even if they are my subject.

 

I don't usually approach individuals and ask to photograph them. This isn't because I have a fear of rejection, but they invariably want to strike a pose and loose the natural charm I saw in their face to begin with.

 

Of course, any time a person is recognizable in your photo, you have to run through your legal check list. The annals are full of cases where photographers have been sued for publishing someone's photo for profit without securing the necessary release. Much too complex to go into here.

 

As to the camera - somehow I think something like an "M" is an ideal size for this kind of photography. Lugging around a full sized DSLR might mark you as a pro,. and might raise lots of questions. Using a cell phone camera might mark you as a pest. Very few people in the general public realize just what an "M" camera is and I think that frees you up more. That's not to say a D3 isn't worthy, but that quaint, manual focus "M" = why its not a "real" camera, is it?

[nemeng]

FWIW from an Australian perspective, see my "NSW Photographer Rights" article at:

 

4020 Φ NSW Photographer's Rights

 

Basically, the general public here have become very hostile towards photographers in general and candid-photographers in particular. Definitely wasn't the case 5 years ago.

[hammam]

In Montreal, and in Paris, people are totally paranoid as soon as they see a camera. They will either hide, or run away, or give you this dirty look which says "Come on, I dare you take my picture", or downright verbally assault you. I've had this guy one day come out of his store yelling at me because I was taking pictures of the building where his store happened to be. When I looked at him in the eye and calmly said I had all the rights in the world to shoot whatever I pleased, he did not insist, and went back in. I also had two beat cops stop me in the street, asking what it was I was photographing. When I asked them if taking pictures in the streets was illegal, they got the message and drove away. As for children, God forbid I even look at them with a camera hanging from my neck. I've been assaulted by so many self-righteous mothers you can't imagine, even when I was not even shooting anything.

 

Try and learn your country's laws. In many instancess, there will be a big difference between photographing someone, probably permitted, and actually publishing the picture, probably forbidden.

[mfunnell]

FWIW from an Australian perspective, see my "NSW Photographer Rights" article at:

 

4020 Φ NSW Photographer's Rights

 

Basically, the general public here have become very hostile towards photographers in general and candid-photographers in particular. Definitely wasn't the case 5 years ago.

Andrew, I've seen that article and have found it contains very useful knowledge. So, thanks for providing the resource.

 

I must say that I haven't found much of the hostility that you refer to. I think there are a couple of reasons for that. One is that a lot of my candid stuff is shot in central Sydney, where there's a fair tourist presence and so lots of people taking photos. Another, I think, is that I've become reasonably good at being "openly inconspicious" when using a camera, being sort of obvious, but not making big deal of anything.

 

I haven't been subject to more than a few complaints: one in a pub (from a bloke who looked as if he was trying to find something, anything, to get annoyed about) and on a number of occasions from skateboarders (mostly when I haven't even been photographing them). I don't know what it is, but skateboarders seem to have some sort of set against photography, at least here in Oz (my father has noticed the same thing). In one case, a bloke (a BIG bloke) walked quite a distance from a skateboard area to where I was quite obviously taking photos of a cricket match, just to complain about the photos I wasn't taking of skateboarders. Go figure.

 

...Mike

[hrosell]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

While atending a documentary workshop with Mary Ellen Mark in Oaxaca, Mexico, by June/2000, we (14 people) were on self-assignments as it was usual with Mary Ellen. One of the participating ladies, European and very well acquainted with Third World Countries and their idiosincracies and furthermore completely fluent iin Spanish happened to shoot children at school. At one time she was taking pictures of the kids leaving school and a couple of furious mothers attacked here banging their bags on this lady's head. Police immediately arrived and she was taken into jail where she had no way but to spend two nights until the efforts of the local associates of Mary Ellen managed to guarantee that this lady was by no means trying anything criminal or offensive. It seems that there had been some kidnappig of children going on in Mexico DF and some other cities which procedure involved taking prior pictures of the kids so as to give choices for the potential "buyers". So, it is mandatory to thoroughly check with the locals beforehand to know what might be inconvenient to shoot, to say the least.

In my Northwestern country, the "coyas" are usually reluctant to be portrayed although with no such heavy risks as in the story above. Most of the times you might be asked to give some small bucks and others you might be simply rejected, so the usual practice specially by foreigners is to shoot first then (sometimes) ask.

As a matter of facts and because I look rather European to the coyas, I never (never) take pictures of them without engaging in some sort of previous conversation spending all the necessary time to know more about them, with mixed results: sometimes they have sort of cultural reasons not to be photographed, like thinking that you may steal their souls or alike. It sounds rather primitive but I can assure that despite their regular poverness they are not. In general the Argentine Northwest population have the feeling that too many foreigners take their pictures, publish them in the front page of a magazine like Nat Geo getting some benefit of that without sharing anything with them. Such is life...

 

Cheers

[bill]

This is an interesting thread.

 

Here's my take.

 

1. I always try to ensure that I understand not just the laws but also the customs and practices of the place I am in. It is important not to generalise. The reactions of someone in the Yorkshire Dales will differ to someone in Trafalgar Square, for example.

 

2. The kit you use does, like it or not, influence both the likelihood of you being noticed, and the subsequent reactions. A big SLR says "professional", but also "intrusive". A rinky-dink digi-compact says "amateur". A cameraphone says "pervert". A Leica M? I'm in the camp that regards it as unobtrusive but also unthreatening. How you dress also makes a difference. I've been up in London twice recently. Both times I was using my LC-1. On one day I wore jeans and a black combat jacket, and nobody objected. The following trip I was wearing a suit and a number of people stared and reacted, I suppose because of the incongruity.

 

3. I don't "push it". If I think that taking a picture will be actively unwelcome I don't do it.

 

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[John Maio]

Bill,

 

One thing I've yet to attempt is documentary photography where you pitch a theme and negotiate in advance with the leaders of the group of people to photograph them. Many great documentary photographers have done that and produced classic work.

 

Within 100 miles of my home there are several distinct Native American tribes or pueblos. They allow tourists to photograph certain ceremonies, sometime for a permit fee, but strictly ban photography in certain other ceremonies.

 

Now I'm thinking that there are other less well deliniated groupings of people where there is a leadership structure and where one can feel somewhat protected when documenting one of their points of view.

 

Of course I realize this has been done many times, but I'm curious as to how one approaches it. Popping up at an anti-globalization rally wearing a suit probably isn't the way:rolleyes:

[suse]

Definitely. I get much more hassle when I use a digital dslr than I used to years ago with film.

 

Even when I used a 20D I still got stared at and people asking me "who are you with?". But the 5D has made matters worse. I even got harrassed angrily in the middle of a public market for taking a wide angle shot - by a guy who popped up from behind a distant stall "Oie, have you take a picture of me?".

 

But maybe it's just me and the places I shoot. I did once get asked who I worked for even when I was shooting a bl***y Canon G5.

 

Wierdly, if I take a medium format toy cam out, people look and stare, but don't seem as threatened. Probably because they have no idea where I'm pointing the camera...

[nemeng]

I forgot to mention the "Swimmers" sequence by Australian photographer Ingeborg Tyssen:

 

tysseneye Φ Swimmers

 

(Disclaimer: I'm the web-master for Tyssen's website.)

 

They were taken at the Ryde Aquatic Center in Sydney in 1981. She used to go swimming there and one day there was a school carnival. She always had a camera with her, so...

 

Can you imagine anyone, anywhere, taking children candid photos like this today? Heck, even a male photographer would have been in trouble back then!

 

The Museum of Sydney is currently running an exhibition of her work. I attended the opening night a few days ago and checked out the crowd. When people viewed the "Swimmers" series, you could see them growing uncomfortable...

[albertwang]

Use of the Panasonic FX01 has proven to be rather fruitful indeed. Worked very well for all types of candids during my NYC trip.

[stunsworth]

In Montreal, and in Paris, people are totally paranoid as soon as they see a camera.

 

Not my experience - in Paris at least, I can't speak for Canada. Yes sometimes people don't want their photograph to be taken, but for at least 99% of the time I've experienced no problem. This is in taking hundreds of rolls of film and a large number of digital shots.

[Guest stnami]

There is a dollar to be made and pubications openly encourage the public to submit images for free, saves money..... then again I can get my digital cam out and get you doing something stoooopid and shove you on you tube, with a sucko to you