Street Photography Series Explores the Urge to Take Photos of Strangers

[AndrewFlannigan]

thats why the term that people know as Street Photography isn't what is meant. What people who do street photography are actually aiming for is "Social Reportage" - telling a story (or letting the viewer create the story, from an image of people interacting in a public environment (one of the most well known of these is Cartier-Bresson.
l
A street scene without people is effectively urban landscape photography.

Agreed.

The only additional point I'd make is that firing a flash gun in someone's face, without permission, may be more correctly described as "Antisocial Reportage". I think this may be why some "street photographers" don't like the idea of "candid photography", as practiced by Cartier-Bresson and so many other photographers. If you wish to illustrate how people interact socially, the last thing you want to do is intrude on them...

 

[Merlin5]

CAgreed.

The only additional point I'd make is that firing a flash gun in someone's face, without permission, may be more correctly described as "Antisocial Reportage". I think this may be why some "street photographers" don't like the idea of "candid photography", as practiced by Cartier-Bresson and so many other photographers. If you wish to illustrate how people interact socially, the last thing you want to do is intrude on them...

Cartier-Bresson didn't use flash. I think you must mean Bruce Gilden who was notorious for in the face flash. Cartier-Bresson got close to subjects without intruding and if he did intrude he would have no doubt given a big smile and a compliment. Some intrusion is part of the territory of street photography if you want to get to good photos.

Your photo above demonstrates another example of being too safe by not getting close enough, then cropping in to make it look closer. It doesn't make an uncompelling photo anymore interesting though.

 

[Pound Coin]

Cartier-Bresson accused of using flash in the face? Now I have heard it all.

A street photography session might produce one or two keepers, And loads of mediocre or poor ones. The best thing to do with them is learn from them, not show them around.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Cartier-Bresson didn't use flash.

I never said he did, as you'd have realised if you had read the post properly.

Some intrusion is part of the territory of street photography if you want to get to good photos.

You may think that - I don't.

Your photo above demonstrates another example of being too safe by not getting close enough, then cropping in to make it look closer.

It's more or less the full frame, so once again you show yourself to be talking through an orifice far from your mouth.

It doesn't make an uncompelling photo anymore interesting though.

Your opinion is your opinion. I doubt you wish to hear my opinion on your pictures.

I shall leave you with a proper street photograph, being a photograph of a street, taken in a street. It's even got a man in it, and a dog...

 

[Adam-G]

I'm not a street photographer by the agreed definition but I find it hugely engaging when done well.

I love Alan Schaller's work and I'm enjoying his self deprecating presentation style on YouTube while simultaneously learning a lot and being inspired to give it a go myself one day.

The street photographers who select truly engaging subjects or work to a concept to convey story, placement and humanity stand out far more to me in this sphere but that's true of many sub genres.

 

[jamesev]

Some intrusion is part of the territory of street photography if you want to get to good photos.

I guess thats a style. Personally i'm with @AndrewFlannigan on this one, i prefer subjects just going about their business rather than noticing the camera as usually they then play to the camera rather than simply being "natural"

I love Alan Schaller's work and I'm enjoying his self deprecating presentation style on YouTube while simultaneously learning a lot and being inspired to give it a go myself one day.

Agreed. he does capture great street contrast

 

[benc98]

guess thats a style. Personally i'm with @AndrewFlannigan on this one, i prefer subjects just going about their business rather than noticing the camera as usually they then play to the camera rather than simply being "natural"

It's not mutually exclusive to be close and capture candid moments, in fact it's much easier to get those moments when you're much closer.. The choice of a telephoto lens if often down to the fear of the photographer and everything else is an excuse for that.

 

[jamesev]

It's not mutually exclusive to be close and capture candid moments, in fact it's much easier to get those moments when you're much closer.. The choice of a telephoto lens if often down to the fear of the photographer and everything else is an excuse for that.

not at all, sometimes the use of a telephoto can create subject>background separation if thats the image you're going for.

 

[gramps]

It’s such a shame that the ‘Street’ genre stirs up such contention, (not just here but across the Internet).
Opinions are polarised about what can and can’t be called ‘Street’. “Don’t do this”, “Don’t do that” - other genres just don’t seem to generate such angst.
We have a myriad of opinions on “Street” here but sadly this isn’t reflected in contributions to the “Street” Photos section of the forum.
Less argument, more photos!

 

[jamesev]

It’s such a shame that the ‘Street’ genre stirs up such contention, (not just here but across the Internet).
Opinions are polarised about what can and can’t be called ‘Street’. “Don’t do this”, “Don’t do that” - other genres just don’t seem to generate such angst.
We have a myriad of opinions on “Street” here but sadly this isn’t reflected in contributions to the “Street” Photos section of the forum.
Less argument, more photos !

for me its the balance between what you can do legally and what you can do sensibly.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

for me its the balance between what you can do legally and what you can do sensibly.

I think that the primary rule for any human interaction is to be polite.

Unfortunately, there are too many people who think others should be polite to them but they need not be polite to others.

 

[gramps]

I've only ever been accused of being impolite in my street photography once, it was by a police officer - the one on the right.


The Grumpy Policeman by Bristol Streets, on Flickr

He insisted that I should have asked his permission first ... his colleagues walked off while he was taking me to task.

 

[jamesev]

I've only ever been accused of being impolite in my street photography once, it was by a police officer - the one on the right.


The Grumpy Policeman by Bristol Streets, on Flickr

He insisted that I should have asked his permission first ... his colleagues walked off while he was taking me to task.

did you ask him under what was this requirement to ask him. Sounds like a bit of sabre rattling.

 

[Pound Coin]

I think that the primary rule for any human interaction is to be polite.

Unfortunately, there are too many people who think others should be polite to them but they need not be polite to others.

It would be polite to accept that there are other strongly held views, and just move on…

 

[gramps]

did you ask him under what was this requirement to ask him. Sounds like a bit of sabre rattling.

I just told him that I didn't need him to pose!.

 

[Merlin5]

Your opinion is your opinion. I doubt you wish to hear my opinion on your pictures.

No, I'd love to hear it. Give it your best shot. How about this one to start with?

Angel by Merlin 5, on Flickr

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

No, I'd love to hear it. Give it your best shot. How about this one to start with?

I'm not going to play that very foolish and above all, immature game.

 

[jamesev]

No, I'd love to hear it. Give it your best shot. How about this one to start with?

Angel by Merlin 5, on Flickr

Ok I will. Personally it does nothing as it doesn't really invoke any story or wonderment as to whats happening. its an urban portrait

 

[gramps]

wonderment as to whats happening

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Ok I will. Personally it does nothing as it doesn't really invoke any story or wonderment as to whats happening. its an urban portrait

You are much more polite than I would have been!

 

[lindsay]

It is just possible that the written words above may be misconstrued, so I would like to just drop into this thread the request that all critique and opinion be expressed constructively and politely please. @AndrewFlannigan your comments are sometimes taken too literally and can be considered unhelpful, even though I know by and large you are not being intentionally argumentative. So let's keep this thread positive and instructive please everyone.

 

[Merlin5]

Ok I will. Personally it does nothing as it doesn't really invoke any story or wonderment as to whats happening. its an urban portrait

No that's absolutely fine it does nothing for you. Most of my photos on my Flickr page aren't urban portraits, several that are juxtapositions and some that I think invoke a story. Just so you know, this picture is completely candid and I was stood about 1 and a half metres in front of her using just a 28mm lens. I didn't invade her personal space, I didn't bruise the scene and she didn't notice me until after I took the shot and she smiled at me. I also used flash.

You are much more polite than I would have been!

I gave you the opportunity to critique but you backed down. If you were photographing the same subject of my picture, you'd have no doubt used something like a 150 to 300mm lens from across the other side of the street or from the top of a bus because you're fearful of being close to your subjects. Hiding and sniping is worse than being close, open and honest.

I hope my photo at least shows you don't have get right up in someone's face and upset people to get a nice close up picture. On the other hand, I'm wondering how the mother and her daughter in your photo would feel if they found out later that you'd sniped a picture of them from inside the top of a bus. Perhaps they'd think it's a bit creepy.

 

[Judgeged]

There is a type of street called fishing where you find a brilliant structure or lighting scenario and you just wait for a person to walk in to the scene, most occasions this is done quite far away and also in most occasions the subject is clearly unidentifiable as they are a silhouette what’s are peoples views on that. Gareth Dank is very good at this technique and produces some fantastic shots despite the fact he says he hasn’t been doing street for very long

 

[jamesev]

Thank you, have started watching now.

I came across a good YouTube channel recently, 'Paulie B'. He interviews street photographers.

This is one of my favourites, so far..

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjuP527Xt2Q

I watched this and a few related videos about Wisecup. He just comes across as a bit flaky, and believes he’s better than he might actually be. Whilst he did sell his zine commercially even that had a bit of stigma attached to it in a number of ways.

 

[Bodian]

I've always been a little wary of street photography - and used to use a zoom (200 - APSC) But I have recently been using my 18-50 lens and find I feel comfortable enough at 35-50 or so - far enough away not to scare people, close enough to get decent shots, and far enough away not to feel too intrusive. And if somewhere busy, I find people aren't bothered if you keep your camera down and just use the tilt screen.

This lady didn't notice/mind, and you can see I was decently close.

 

[AlanDorset]

It is just possible that the written words above may be misconstrued, so I would like to just drop into this thread the request that all critique and opinion be expressed constructively and politely please. @AndrewFlannigan your comments are sometimes taken too literally and can be considered unhelpful, even though I know by and large you are not being intentionally argumentative. So let's keep this thread positive and instructive please everyone.

Thanks Lindsay. I dropped into this thread hoping to learn and be inspired, but sadly it turned into something less than positive for several people.

 

[bjtaylor]

Was shouted "Oi!" at today when I was wandering round the town centre taking photos (or at least I think I was). I just fired off a very quick shot towards a cafe, which was framing no-one in particular (there were people in the shot but there was no single person who was the subject, and I wasn't that close to the cafe and the people outside it - probably at least 5m away) when I heard a shout of "OI!". I didn't react at all, and just carried on walking off as if I hadn't heard (I had headphones in which helped with that). It was followed up by a second one, which I continued to ignore and walked off, but no more after that. I'm not 100% sure it was even directed at me but I suspect it was.

I'm not sure if I was in any way rude or violated some etiquette (especially as I'm relatively inexperienced) ... but my thinking is if I was, then surely it is the case that photography in a public place per se is rude - or at least it is in his opinion...?

I'd really like to be able to find a way to morally disregard his apparent opinion that I was rude to point my camera towards him, but I like to be a non-antagonistic person, I don't like rubbing anybody up the wrong way, so I struggle to do that. I obviously have annoyed somebody, even if it shouldn't do - and I don't really want to do that.


Part of me thinks it could well be a symptom of being in a small northern town that isn't particularly cosmopolitan - I can't help thinking nobody would have batted an eyelid in london.

The slightly positive thought I've come away with though is that it sort of led me to question - and thus also at least attempt to answer - why I enjoy doing this type of photography and what I do it for - is it worth it, etc. The answer really is the idea that I had in mind when I decided to take the camera out - which was simply that my town might not always look like it does today, and in the future it would be nice to have photos to look back on to see how things have changed. People aren't necessarily a part of that - I think my style is that place is the primary subject, people are always secondary, if at all. Still getting used to shooting with largely different intention from landscape and travel which is generally to have a picture that's pleasing to look at that you might put on the wall, or a memory of a time. I think I do need a solid reason to shoot to enjoy it.
I've thought of ways to modify shooting behaviour and I actually realise I feel more confident if I stand somewhere looking like I have the intention to shoot but not actually shooting for a bit, before actually taking a shot .... almost as if to convey the idea of ... I'm thinking of taking a picture, if you don't want to be in it, feel free to wander in a different direction.
But there was another instance where I almost did the opposite, I wanted to take a shot of a pub which had someone standing outside smoking, and I turned my back while getting the camera out, because he was obviously going to stay where he was, and I didn't want him clocking that I was going to take a picture which he would be in and either objecting, posing, or communicating in any way really - fortunately when I turned round to take the shot he was facing the other way and almost certainly didn't notice.
I do feel I'm modifying my shooting behaviour to take into account generally accepted opinions, and the spectrum of what a variety of other people's perceptions might be, which don't necessarily mirror my own. I also don't think candid is really my thing at all.

 

[gramps]

I also don't think candid is really my thing at all.

It isn’t for everyone but I think the more you try to conceal what you are doing, the worse it can look. TBH if someone called out “Oi” to me my inclination would be to have an amicable chat, unless the situation looked confrontational.

 

[bjtaylor]

It isn’t for everyone but I think the more you try to conceal what you are doing, the worse it can look. TBH if someone called out “Oi” to me my inclination would be to have an amicable chat, unless the situation looked confrontational.

Thanks - I sort of get what you’re saying. I’m always interested in tips from others so thanks.
I wasn’t really concealing what I was doing, but I was being quite quick rather than contemplative, and the camera although small ish is a film slr so it does make a clack noise so is not super discreet. It’s a very stereo typical looking camera. I think it was just a sudden moment of noticing you’ve been taken a photo of. I empathise with him a bit.

However I didn’t think at the time that shouting “Oi” was the type of introduction by anybody interested in an amicable chat. I think the situation is already confrontational as soon as he shouted “oi”, I think if he was amicable he would have walked up to me and said excuse me do you mind telling me what you were taking photos of. I suspect that wasn’t what he did mainly because if he’d been reasonable to me he would have got an entirely reasonable response back, which is not what he wanted - in other words, he knew he wasn’t actually entitled to not be taken a photo of, but just wanted to register his grievance nonetheless. Which he did.

I think if he’d caught up with me and stood in front of me demanding an interaction yes I obviously would’ve been amicable rather than being aggressive or side-stepping him or the like, but he obviously wasn’t bothered enough to catch up with me, so I didn’t bother turning back either.
I still very much doubt if I’d approached him there was anything I could have said to him that would have made him bid me good day - the whole ‘if you object to me taking your photo I’ll delete it here and now’ thing wouldn’t have worked for obvious reasons (I certainly wasn’t prepared to pull the roll out)

 

[gramps]

Thanks - I sort of get what you’re saying. I’m always interested in tips from others so thanks.
I wasn’t really concealing what I was doing, but I was being quite quick rather than contemplative, and the camera although small ish is a film slr so it does make a clack noise so is not super discreet. It’s a very stereo typical looking camera. I think it was just a sudden moment of noticing you’ve been taken a photo of. I empathise with him a bit.

However I didn’t think at the time that shouting “Oi” was the type of introduction by anybody interested in an amicable chat. I think the situation is already confrontational as soon as he shouted “oi”, I think if he was amicable he would have walked up to me and said excuse me do you mind telling me what you were taking photos of. I suspect that wasn’t what he did mainly because if he’d been reasonable to me he would have got an entirely reasonable response back, which is not what he wanted - in other words, he knew he wasn’t actually entitled to not be taken a photo of, but just wanted to register his grievance nonetheless. Which he did.

I think if he’d caught up with me and stood in front of me demanding an interaction yes I obviously would’ve been amicable rather than being aggressive or side-stepping him or the like, but he obviously wasn’t bothered enough to catch up with me, so I didn’t bother turning back either.
I still very much doubt if I’d approached him there was anything I could have said to him that would have made him bid me good day - the whole ‘if you object to me taking your photo I’ll delete it here and now’ thing wouldn’t have worked for obvious reasons (I certainly wasn’t prepared to pull the roll out)

Only you were there to judge the situation but merely someone shouting "Oi" isn't threatening in itself.
He doesn't need to be polite to you, some would argue that by not asking his permission to include him in your photo, you were in fact being impolite to him, ( I don't routinely ask permission unless I am taking a portrait etc ). It's possible he wanted to know why you were taking the photograph, where he could see it, if he could get a copy etc, etc, - you will never know. However by walking away and ignoring him you did nothing to make him more receptive to the next photographer he spotted and you possibly reinforced any negative feelings that he may have had toward what you were doing.

 

[benc98]

During lockdown I was in town making pictures and I was photographing some locked down pub, with a chain threaded through the handles on the front door and secured with a padlock. Very cliche, very lockdown photograph.
I started to hear an 'Oi' but I ignored it - I assume it's someone in the street who has noticed a friend in the distance, but the 'Oi' gets louder and a guy jumps out the passing car - oh the 'Oi' is for me. The guy was fuming / enraged with me. I'm thinking I'm in danger here and I'm going to have to fight someone (and get myself beaten up). While all this is happening, I'm trying to explain calmly what I'm up to - I'm walking around the town and documenting using my camera. Slowly, he starts calming down and apologises. He explains he's the business owner and this bar has been broken into a few times. He say's he's sorry again and we both go on about our day.
Side note: the photograph I took was boring and a bit rubbish

tbh if you have these interactions and you handle them well - then it gives you confidence with dealing with confrontation in the future. It's about being a people person, having the confidence to talk and being able to convey what your intention is - I think a lot of people who do street (candid) photography do it because they're introverted and don't like interaction with strangers in a public place.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

However by walking away and ignoring him you did nothing to make him more receptive to the next photographer he spotted and you possibly reinforced any negative feelings that he may have had toward what you were doing.

I think that most people are happily getting on with their lives and don't care, indeed aren't even aware, what others are doing.

At the same time, there are people who are tense and watchful, for whatever reason, and see unusual activity as a threat. There are also the "kleiner Anführer" types who are obsessively confrontational. Such people will always attempt to tell others what to do or what not to do.

That's why, although I want to record what I find interesting, I don't wish to "assault" someone by taking a picture from too close to them, unless they are intentionally performing in public.

 

[gramps]

At the same time, there are people who are tense and watchful, for whatever reason, and see unusual activity as a threat. There are also the "kleiner Anführer" types who are obsessively confrontational. Such people will always attempt to tell others what to do or what not to do.

It's a view but I firmly believe that it is a two-way street and the photographer, by actions before, during and after, can do much to control the situation.

 

[bjtaylor]

Only you were there to judge the situation but merely someone shouting "Oi" isn't threatening in itself.
He doesn't need to be polite to you, some would argue that by not asking his permission to include him in your photo, you were in fact being impolite to him, ( I don't routinely ask permission unless I am taking a portrait etc ). It's possible he wanted to know why you were taking the photograph, where he could see it, if he could get a copy etc, etc, - you will never know. However by walking away and ignoring him you did nothing to make him more receptive to the next photographer he spotted and you possibly reinforced any negative feelings that he may have had toward what you were doing.

He might have been interested in seeing it, getting a copy - but I very much doubt it. I'm 99.99% sure it was a pull-up that I'd contravened his subjective set of morals about what people are "allowed" to do.
I think my attitude is basically that winning him over is probably a lost cause - he's never going to be won over no matter what I say. Possibly defeatist, but I don't think it's my job to 'win him over' or make him more receptive to the next person....as a keen cyclist I'm very used to being on the receiving end of negative feeling towards what I'm doing and am possibly too resigned to the notion that trying to 'win people over' is too much like trying to push snow uphill.

I think that most people are happily getting on with their lives and don't care, indeed aren't even aware, what others are doing.

At the same time, there are people who are tense and watchful, for whatever reason, and see unusual activity as a threat. There are also the "kleiner Anführer" types who are obsessively confrontational. Such people will always attempt to tell others what to do or what not to do.

That's why, although I want to record what I find interesting, I don't wish to "assault" someone by taking a picture from too close to them, unless they are intentionally performing in public.

completely agree

 

[gramps]

He might have been interested in seeing it, getting a copy - but I very much doubt it. I'm 99.99% sure it was a pull-up that I'd contravened his subjective set of morals about what people are "allowed" to do.
I think my attitude is basically that winning him over is probably a lost cause - he's never going to be won over no matter what I say. Possibly defeatist, but I don't think it's my job to 'win him over' or make him more receptive to the next person....as a keen cyclist I'm very used to being on the receiving end of negative feeling towards what I'm doing and am possibly too resigned to the notion that trying to 'win people over' is too much like trying to push snow uphill.

Probably not the best genre of photography for you.

 

[bjtaylor]

Probably not the best genre of photography for you.

Agree - like I say I don't think "street photography" (or at least candid street photography) even is my preferred genre. I'll still hopefully enjoy taking photos of 'places' but will probably just be more careful to avoid including pictures of people in them in future. I think on this occasion I was simply a bit careless.

I do also think a silent digital camera will also be better for places like crowded markets as it's not just the lack of noise that it gets but the fact of not having to raise it up to use the viewfinder. I think the uncosmopolitan small-town aspect is also a factor. These two things combined made this more difficult than it perhaps needed to be.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

It's a view but I firmly believe that it is a two-way street and the photographer, by actions before, during and after, can do much to control the situation.

...and that is where we are unlikely to agree.

I did a great deal of local press, wedding and general advertising from the 1960s and up to the end of the 1980s, so I gained a lot of experience in handling others. However, my photography now is aimed at recording what I find interesting about my fellow humans, much like a wildlife photographer. The last thing I want to do, again like a wildlife photographer, is disturb my subjects. If they notice me, I have failed in my intention. I have written this before so my apologies for the repetition.

On a not unrelated note, I would object to a begar or a street vendor bothering me as I went about my business. I think many "street" photographers think they have a right to behave importunately towards others, which in my opinion is simply rude and brings all photographers, who wish to record us in our natural environment, into disrepute.

 

[gramps]

...and that is where we are unlikely to agree.

I did a great deal of local press, wedding and general advertising from the 1960s and up to the end of the 1980s, so I gained a lot of experience in handling others. However, my photography now is aimed at recording what I find interesting about my fellow humans, much like a wildlife photographer. The last thing I want to do, again like a wildlife photographer, is disturb my subjects. If they notice me, I have failed in my intention. I have written this before so my apologies for the repetition.

On a not unrelated note, I would object to a begar or a street vendor bothering me as I went about my business. I think many "street" photographers think they have a right to behave importunately towards others, which in my opinion is simply rude and brings all photographers, who wish to record us in our natural environment, into disrepute.

View attachment 446072

We all know that you prefer 500mm from a bus!

 

[bjtaylor]

...and that is where we are unlikely to agree.

I did a great deal of local press, wedding and general advertising from the 1960s and up to the end of the 1980s, so I gained a lot of experience in handling others. However, my photography now is aimed at recording what I find interesting about my fellow humans, much like a wildlife photographer. The last thing I want to do, again like a wildlife photographer, is disturb my subjects. If they notice me, I have failed in my intention. I have written this before so my apologies for the repetition.

I agree - I feel if I ask people for their permission to include them in a photo, they might pose, or look at the camera and smile, etc. and I don't want that

 

[benc98]

I agree - I feel if I ask people for their permission to include them in a photo, they might pose, or look at the camera and smile, etc. and I don't want that

If you've asked their permission then you could ask them to not smile, not look at the camera and pose as they were before you asked them.