How to process street photos after the subject protests?

What happens if the new AI'd picture is seen by someone who looks like the AI picture but was nowhere near the place at the time. A computer-generated picture is bound to look like someone, somewhere. The only way to be sure that you are not using someone's image, AI or not, is to blur the face altogether and that's just pointless.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
“I took that picture in May 2010 and this is the first time I’m showing it online. Even though he was openly hostile to me, publishing his image without his consent has always been out of the question for me.
Click to expand...
But not now, showing before/after! :thinking:
Really don’t see the point of the exercise, other than as an exercise.
 
I guess if you can't get genuine attention for your photography, use an in-vogue topic (AI) to give them a bit of publicity! I agree, it's disingenuous, and not great photography to boot.
 
I find a lot of 'street photography' to be pretty mediocre and repetitive anyway; so many photos of the same old subjects. People wanting to be Henri Cartier-Bresson, but lacking the talent. No reason why they shouldn't be giving it a go of course, but I find many people simply revisit tired old clichés rather than looking for their own unique views. The truth is thatit take ssome chutzpah to really go out and shoot good pictures out and about in a 'street' environment. It's all about the relationship between photographer and subject; there needs to be some sort of connection to make the pictures happen. So, empathy, judgment, joy, fear; human emotion. All too often, there's no connection, nothing shared. It's just 'oh look there's someone doing something some people might find mildly interesting/unusual on the street'. Booooring. Sometimes oyu have to really p*** people off to get the shot. Other times, you have to be sensitive and show empathy. Just being a voyeur isn't enough.
 
Show any "street" picture to one million people and ask for their response...
  • 999,990 will shrug and turn away.
  • 5 will say "does nothing for me"
  • 4 will say "good shot" and give it a like.
  • 1 will tell you at great length how it captures a moment and is great art.
(No attempt has been made to verify these statistics which, like all such claims, were made up on the spot)

:tumbleweed:
 
gramps said:
;)
Click to expand...
Fairs. But with 'street' photography, we've seen it all before, pretty much. And it's been done better. Y'know; you have someone like Roman Vishniac, that is proper historical documentary work, there is empathy for the subjects, it's not exploitative. Too often, we see 'oh here's a street vendor who didn't know I was taking their picture' type stuff. So what? There's a fine line between documenting times, and exploitative voyeurism.
 
Abdichoudxyz said:
Fairs. But with 'street' photography, we've seen it all before, pretty much. And it's been done better. Y'know; you have someone like Roman Vishniac, that is proper historical documentary work, there is empathy for the subjects, it's not exploitative. Too often, we see 'oh here's a street vendor who didn't know I was taking their picture' type stuff. So what? There's a fine line between documenting times, and exploitative voyeurism.
Click to expand...
But that applies to all photography ...

'Oh look, there's a bird on a stick/flying past/catching a fish'.
'Oh look' there's a motor car/motorbike/cycle speeding around a track at a weird unrealistic angle'.
'Oh look, there's a Bee/Butterfly/bug on a flower'.

Problem with 'Street' is that it attracts the 'Street Police' who believe that they have the right to dictate what other people photograph in the street.
It's basically the same for every genre, if you like it great, if you don't move on.
However, back on track, if you claim you REALLY only publish photos with consent then don't do it without consent.
 
gramps said:
But that applies to all photography ...
Click to expand...
No it doesn't really. I'm talking about issues such as respect and exploitation though. 'Consent' is a very tricky and contentious issue; if you seek it, chances are you'll inevitably lose any spontaneity, even if it is granted. Sometimes you need to exploit a situation in order to tell a story. But the moral question is; is it worth invading this person's privacy/not affording them respect, and by doing so, incur their displeasure, for the sake of a mediocre image that nobody else will be interested in? Just to illustrate your instagram or blog or whatever? There's a fine line, and it shifts according to the individual ethics of the photographer. There's issues of power and control in doing such; is it morally right to impose your own 'power' over a subject, such as kids/women/those who won't punch you in the mouth etc? I'm 100% for photographic freedom, but this can only come with responsibility. Remember; 'upskirting' was once perfectly 'legal', but disgusting and downright immoral in any decent person's eyes. Abusing the 'right' to record our world will only culminate in such freedoms being taken from us. Hence the need to think, and act responsibly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCV
All that AI and it's done a superman putting on glasses to hide the ID. I know it's done a bit more but I'm fairly sure anyone who knows that lady would still recognise her.
Decent body 2k
Good lens 1K
software and computer 1K
Developing AI millions
Result blured picture. Might as well stayed in and asked the AI for a street photo and a cuppa. ;)
 
gramps said:
Problem with 'Street' is that it attracts the 'Street Police' who believe that they have the right to dictate what other people photograph in the street.
Click to expand...
Got it in one! (y)

They are typical of people who, having got an idea into their heads, are unable to consider that other opinions are equally valid.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
They are typical of people who, having got an idea into their heads, are unable to consider that other opinions are equally valid.
Click to expand...
So, like quite a few people on this forum then?

No but seriously; who are these ‘street police’?
 
gramps said:
But that applies to all photography ...

'Oh look, there's a bird on a stick/flying past/catching a fish'.
'Oh look' there's a motor car/motorbike/cycle speeding around a track at a weird unrealistic angle'.
'Oh look, there's a Bee/Butterfly/bug on a flower'.

Problem with 'Street' is that it attracts the 'Street Police' who believe that they have the right to dictate what other people photograph in the street.
It's basically the same for every genre, if you like it great, if you don't move on.
However, back on track, if you claim you REALLY only publish photos with consent then don't do it without consent.
Click to expand...
It depends with which spirit and skill, street photography is done.

I recently had a conversation on another forum, where a guy posted a picture of a woman rough sleeping out on the street. The post came with a title making fun of this poor soul, and all the "great capture" replies, made the whole thing even more lacking in taste. I just wondered,for personal amusement, armed with a camera costing more than thousand $, the morality and ethics to go out and photograph a homeless person for pleasure and a few likes on a forum.

Like all other genres, there is street photography that is interesting, and a huge amount of dross.
 
Last edited:
NCV said:
a guy posted a picture of a woman rough sleeping out on the street. The post came with a title making fun of this poor soul
Click to expand...
So rather than the photo, it was the photographer
NCV said:
Like all other genres, there is street photography that is interesting, and a huge amount of dross.
Click to expand...
and like all other genres, 'beauty [or not] is in the eye of the beholder' ;)
 
NCV said:
The photographer, of corse who had the bad taste to take the picture, rather than pass by this pitiful scene.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that it is never right to take a photo of a homeless person?
 
gramps said:
Are you saying that it is never right to take a photo of a homeless person?
Click to expand...
Not unless you have some good valid reason to do so, otherwise it is just vile voyeurism, if you want to post some snaps on social media to amuse you friends ands get some likes.

Of course if you are a journalist or are trying to help these people in some concrete way then it is permissible of course. Posting to social media is not helping these people.
 
NCV said:
Not unless you have some good valid reason to do so, otherwise it is just vile voyeurism, if you want to post some snaps on social media to amuse you friends ands get some likes.

Of course if you are a journalist or are trying to help these people in some concrete way then it is permissible of course. Posting to social media is not helping these people.
Click to expand...
I can see why you do architecture ;)
You don’t have to be voyeuristic, or unfeeling toward homeless people by including them in a photo, neither does it mean that you don’t help them in any way.
Street photography is all about life and life includes homeless people and people with all sorts of issues common to mankind.
 
But it’s all about context, empathy and sensitivity. Respect. A good photographer respects their subject, irregardless of what it is. Shooting contentious images for ‘likes’ and social media kudos is just breaking rule number one.
 
I used to do a lot of "street", and I occasionally still do if I find some curious situation. But I like to stick to subjects and situations were the subjects dignity is intact and are not in an
unfortunate situation. I do not think the subjects of these pictures would be upset about how I depicted them and that I believe is a basic ethic those shooting street should follow

Portobello Road
DSC_4907 3.jpg

Brick Lane about 1985
DSC_4832.jpg

Reggio Emilia
P1180063.JPG

Football in Mexico
DSC_5569_DxO 1.jpg

And sometimes people cooperate to get a stronger shot.

IMG_1183.JPG
 
Last edited:
On the topic at hand.. if you're a photographer whos is photographing a protest and you publish those photos with faces swaps.. either with computer generated or real people then you're creating fake news...this is the direction of AI that worries me the most...

On the more recent conversation, I love street photography.. and it's my view that it's both of the best and worst in photography - due to it's accessibility, it's not like other genres imo
 
The rules of street photography, as gleaned from this and similar discussions online...
  1. You must never/always take your pictures from no more than 3 feet away from your subject.
  2. You must never/always photograph people without their permission.
  3. You must never/always photograph people who are less fortunate than you.
  4. You must never/always photograph people using a forty year old camera loaded with film.
  5. You must never/always use the widest angle lens available when taking pictures in the street.
  6. You must never/always produce colour images.
I'm sure others can add their own rules to the above...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top