Ethics in Street Photography
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 มิ.ย. 2024
- Ethics in street photography is something we need to discuss more as a community. While it’s ethical to take photos in public places that document our world, some methods clearly cross a line into the unethical.
In this video I present some thoughts about how we can be ethical street photographers. But ultimately there is no objective right and wrong when photographing in the world. We each have to set our own standards about what feels good and what doesn’t.
Bookmarks
0:00 - Intro
0:33 - Unethical Street Photography
01:33 - 3 Ethical Checkpoints
01:56 - 1st Checkpoint: How are you taking the photograph?
03:15 - 2nd Checkpoint: What’s the content of the photograph?
03:40 - Henri Cartier-Bresson & the Humanist Approach
04:18 - Shifting Standards on the Unhoused, Addicted, Mentally Ill
04:40 - Significance of Larry Clark’s Tulsa series
04:58 - Diane Arbus: Building rapport
05:11 - Mary Ellen Mark: What documentary photography is all about
06:24 - 3rd Checkpoint: How are you publishing the photos?
07:16 - Strangers on a train & the potential impact
07:44 - The impact of how publishing today differs from pre-internet age
08:25 - Vivian Maier: Publishing photos 50 years after they were created
08:54 - CONSENT
09:20 - Getting consent before or after creating a photo
09:58 - Developing your own ethics is a continuing process
I want to add a note about Michelle Groskopf. I’ve followed them for a long time on social media and they take wonderful photos. An extremely talented photographer!
There were several situations where they were confronted in that Wrong Side of the Lens video. But they also frequently speak to subjects and ask for consent first.
Groskopf’s photos of the woman who gave consent to be photographed (08:59) are beautiful and I think it illustrates an important point that photos where consent is given can be more impactful than the ones that are “taken” from the subjects.
Credits
Footage of Michelle Groskopf & Daniel Arnold from channel Wrong Side of the Lens by Josh Ethan Johnson
/ @wsotl
Footage of Trevor Wisecup from the series Walkie Talkie by Paulie B.
/ @paulieb
Footage of Garry Winogrand, Joel Meyerowitz, and Mark Cohen from the documentary Contemporary Photographie in the USA by Michael Engler (1982)
/ @englermichael
Footage of Bruce Gilden by WNYC (2008)
• WNYC Street Shots: Bru...
Footage of Daido Moriyama by TATE
• Artist Daido Moriyama ...
-----
Find me on social media here...
TikTok
/ zachdobsonphoto
Instagram
/
#photography #photographer #streetphotography #streetphotographer #documentaryphotography #art #artist
![[Watch Party] APL 2024 รอบ 8 ทีมสุดท้าย ไทยต้องแชมป์ !](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NctOkvaex-Y/mqdefault.jpg)
Great video, tackling some serious questions. You briefly brushed up against a question I think about every time I see a Vivian Maier photograph. She very clearly did not want to share her photographs with anyone. Yet here we are, her work enriching strangers after she died in poverty.
Thanks for the kind words. I don’t like those guys making money off of Maier’s photos either. I think they should be public domain.
I don’t know that I have the full story, but is there definitive documentation that she didn’t want anyone to see her photos? Could she have been nervous or rejected by people and given up?
Either way, I do think they have such value to history and art that I’m glad they’re out in the world.
I've read before somewhere that she did actually intend to have exhibits but they always fell through.
This is such a crucial analysis on the the oversaturated "street photography" industry prevalent on today's social media platforms. I've had personal interactions with individuals like Groskopf, who promptly blocked me when I offered constructive criticisms about their work. It appears that people like Groskopf are relatively indifferent to ethical considerations. Ethical boundaries seem increasingly blurred in this era. Furthermore, she consistently receives assignments from highly esteemed news media outlets, which provide her with limited incentive to pause and reflect on ethical concerns.
Thank you for your time to draft this video and point out what many people are thinking about.
Best,
Thanks for the kind words. I've also found that many photographers who say that subjects should just get over having their photo taken are also very quick to attack when facing criticism.
Is street photography an industry? What might be oversaturated is the bubble you're in thanks to Mr. Algorithm. If SP is an industry, it's a tiny one.
Found this video on tiktok. Just a heads up I’ll be watching this at least 10 times to take as many notes as I can. I am obsessed with the wild craze that is “street photography” these days. Your opening line is so hot omg.
Glad to hear this connected with you! I love that quote by Garry. He said a lot of wise things.
I find that asking people permission and getting info to send it to them is pretty effective. Especially if it’s something small like a point and shoot film. Makes subjects feel special and not like they aren’t in on a joke or losing privacy
Definitely!
Street photography =/= people's permission (that's urban photography)
@@post3670then I guess urban photography is better
You have no privacy to lose in public.
I've been seeing a lot of videos about the ethics of street pop up recently, most likely in response to recent flood of walkie talkies and other documentaries on the subject matter. This is by far the most coherent and thoughtful take I've heard so far on the ethics of it. I really appreciate you bringing up the point of the power of publishing and the demand of social media to post instantly. I think as street photographers we need to seriously consider being less influenced by the pull of social media and take our time with sharing work. Everybody wants to emulate the photographers of old until it comes to the step of sharing the work. It takes time and whole lot of thinking to put together and consider a body of work. I think we all need to slow down a bit.
Appreciate the kind words. It's hard for me watching those videos where I don't feel like the photographer is respectful of the subjects. Either with an aggressive approach or exploiting someone's physicality or hardships for a cheap shot.
Glad you’re talking about this! I completely agree!
Thanks! I almost didn’t publish this but I think there needs to be a voice of reason out there. The people FOR being aggressive photographers are plenty loud.
YES TO CONSENT & EMPATHY 🙏
This has always been an issue with street photography. It can be respectful and ethical but ( very often ) isn't. And spot on that legal isn't always ethical.
Yeah sometimes I see posts that come out strong against all street photography and that bothers me because there are good ways to practice it that don’t take advantage of people.
A fantastic breakdown of many of the ideas I try to follow. This should be required viewing for anyone considering trying street photography.
Appreciate the kind words! I hope people put some thought into their own personal ethics. ✌️📷
Really well done. I have many of the same thoughts and discuss some of the same points when talking to new street photographers.
Thanks. I feel like if you want to be taken seriously, then you need to take your craft seriously.
I do a bit of “semi street” type photography here in the small towns of the southwest USA but I would never take those in your face close up photos of people without their permission. You can shoot away pretty much with impunity at a car show, festival, etc., but run up to someone with a flash and getting yelled at might be the least of your worries.
I always hear about how “real” those photos are but that’s not the feeling I get.
Great video and discussion, good to see people talking about this
This is a really nuanced view on ethics in street photography. Very rare to see a balanced and thoughtful view on this topic because it doesn't get as much of a reaction as the extremes. One addition to your point on photographing the addicted/homeless: I think that it can be ethical to photograph without their consent if they are one element (but not the main subject) in a more complex layered photo. Lmk what you think
Yeah, there do seem to be a lot of extreme takes on street photography. I've seen "anything goes" and "no one should be allowed to take photos that show other people." As for your question about having marginalized people appear in a larger scene, I do think it can be done tastefully. I can think of a couple Garry Winogrand photos where you can see how they're literally pushed to the side or ignored. They feel like empathetic photos and not like the people are being used for dramatic effect.
One of the Walkie Talkie videos I really like that I feel is the opposite of the Trevor video is Ribsy - He deeply cares about documenting his community and asks his subjects for permission to photograph them. It doesn't hurt the quality of his work at all, in fact it makes it that much more memorable and strong artistically. I highly recommend that video as an example of ethical street photography.
Thanks for this! I’ll check out that video ✌️📷
Yes they both shoot in the streets, but the style is really different. They are not looking for the same outcome, even tho they both want to document life in specific areas.
Also, Ribsy said that he used to take picture without interacting with people and asking for consent but it wasn't his style, that's why is doing potraits now.
I personally prefer candid photos and I find them more evocative than potraits, even tho if you shoot potraits the percentage of photos with good lighting, framing... will be more.
great discussion here. Thank you.
Thanks! I think it's important we talk and think about these things.
This video is so spot on! I'm sick of seeing street photography vlogs where a person on the street questions the photographer, and they almost always end in an argument because the photographers get defensive and use the line 'I'm legally allowed to take photos'. When I was young and impressionable I looked up to these TH-camrs, and would also go out 'prowling' the streets looking for 'interesting' people to stick a camera in their face. Lots of people confronted me and with time I realise how questionable my actions were, but back then I was arrogant with the same mindset 'street photography is legal!!' I've never shared those images because they felt wrong. I feel like there's this street photography cult like group where people (mostly men) pride themselves in not caring and doing whatever it takes to get that shot, but you know what's even cooler? Caring and shooting with empathy just as you said. I've never heard of Mary Ellen White - but when you showed her work I cried. That is how street photography should be. Thank you
I'll always take the Brandon Stanton approach, talk to them and really listen to them. From my experiences, people have fun with it. Even in the harsh environments.
Most people love to tell their stories when they have an empathetic ear
Fantastic video I got to learn the names of renowned street photographers.
Well expressed. After years of street documentation, I've learned that legal permission doesn't equate to entitlement to capture an image. If someone requests deletion, I comply. My shift towards street portraits stems from finding joy in building connections. My photography centers on others and the world I seek to understand. The prevalent mercenary trend in street photography disappoints me. It's crucial to differentiate street photography from journalism; attempting to justify certain shots as exposing truth is debatable, as photojournalism relies on captions to contextualize what's witnessed.
Sorry Luis, but I have to impress INSTAGRAM MODELS and HOTTIES in BIKINIS by photographing HOMELESS ADDICTS PASSING OUT ON THE STREET!!!
GET OVER IT Luis!
I do not care what people think It's that simple
I have to say, I'm with the likes of Professor Hines on this topic. As an introvert, I don't want MY personal space entered, and thus I don't want to enter others' space. The idea of walking up to someone and taking a photo of them from a distance close enough that they could reach out and touch (or punch) me doesn't even START to pass my personal sniff test...and I can tell that these photographers know this is BS, because they take their photo and then they quickly turn away, kind of hide the camera, and take on this "What? Me?" stance as they get out of Dodge as quickly as possible. Some of them are lucky they don't get the camera punched right out of their hands. I *have* taken street candids, but always from a distance and I try to never capture people looking bad as they navigate their lives. It's really the least I can do. Finally, what's being "documented" when the photo is a closeup of someone with a big flash-lit (and therefore garish and not exactly flattering) expression of "WTF?!"
Anyway, thanks for posting this.
Yeah, I agree. There’s nothing documentary about photos of people reacting to the camera. Unless you’re documenting what people look like when they’re approached unexpectedly by a person with a camera.
I have been trying for a while to get into street photography and find it quite nerve wrenching sometimes. I was in Perth (sco) taking photos when I got a photo of a guy in a suit and he went absolutely mental, even ended up pinning my girlfriend against a wall whilst I called the police. Really shook me up and made me so nervous to continue trying it.
Oh wow! That’s awful! I haven’t heard about that type of thing happening. Definitely believe it could though. Even people getting mad I don’t think is extremely common, although I think it depends on where you photograph. NYC photogs talk about getting yelled at on occasion. I’ve never had that happen in the Midwest US, but people are usually polite to a fault around here 😅
If you ask permission it’s not street photography it’s documentary. Art should be about pushing boundaries. When I’m shooting people come into my space all the time. I’m not bothered. In fairness we do live in sensitive times but I’d be more concerned about the surveillance from my phone and CCTV than anyone taking a street shot of me.
I think it is important to highlight that you cannot equate street photography with documentary photography. Many street photographs definitely have documentary qualities, but this is not a must. For those who primarily have an artistic purpose, it becomes less of a problem to penetrate someone's personal space. There may even be artistic points to it.
I myself have a limit and rarely use flash.
I never take a photo in a strangers face. Very rarely it's of an individual subject, but if it is I either ask or if I can't ask I'll hold my camera up and hand gesture the question. Once out of many they've gestured no back. Thumbs up to them. No worries.
All we need is one lawsuit with someone being identified who doesn't want to be by AI and the landscape of street photography will change forever.What if the mother who was on the train fled a DV situation and the photo identified time and place. What if the person who's photo you took, is undocumented and is terrified of AI identifying them? That didn't happen to me, but I know it did happen to a friend in a park a while back and it was pretty hot there for a bit.
A lot of people in addition to simply not wanting a camera stuck in their face (why the heck would someone put flash that close and pop it off?) do not want it to be know time and place. Street photography should be fun, and relaxing, not a point of tense confrontation and jeopardizing people's lives.
I took a good photo the other day, and while one of the two subjects in the frame was a minor. I spoke to the mom first. Actually sent her a copy of the photo and asked EXPLICITLY if i could post it for social media.
Won't photo the homeless. I'm not gonna gain from the hopelessness they are going through.
I took another photo of a woman painting a cityscape and asked her if I could take the photo and sent it to her. She was super excited.
Respectfully asking goes a long way.
That lawsuit would go nowhere. You have no expectation of privacy in public.
Man I man do I love your artwork. ❤📸
Beautiful content, thanks Zach! You covered everything that I was silently questioning about street photography 😅
Edit:
And also, not funny 2:36
Hey thanks! And that clip you referenced struck me too. He was clearly politely saying he didn’t like what they were doing
Important video 👍
Street photography isn't really my thing, that said I'm sort of torn between asking permission or asking forgiveness. On the one hand I prefer candid shots over posed ones, on the other there are many situations in which it wouldn't matter and the person can return to what they were doing after you ask permission.
When I do venture into street photography, I tend to do it from a distance. I never use flash and I never just jump into someone's space. If a person notices me, I will generally lift up my camera and mouth the words "Do you mind?" or "May I?" and 99% of the time they just nod and continue on. In the case of that guitarist on the beach, since those close up shots are wanted, I would certainly ask first either by pointing to my camera and looking for a nod of approval or speaking to them in between songs and asking if they could just ignore me while I shoot. If they want I'm happy to get their info and send them a copy of the photo/s as it seems to be the least I could offer and many times people are very happy with this.
I also shoot digital, so in any case that someone may get upset by a photo I've taken I can just delete it with them present so they are comforted that it is gone, and just chalk it up as a missed photo.
Great video!
bruce gilden is a great example for unethical in street photography, i mean you can just ask them if you can take a photo of them, it as simple as that, btw great video though
going BRUCE FUCKING GILDEN to homeless people passed out, is the reason why I have to impress ONLYFANS & INSTAGRAM MODELS!!!!
I agree with every argument you made. Photography, largely, is about empathy. I don't even really like the aesthetics of confrontation, as famous as Bruce Gilden is. Anyway, subscribed!
I am a photographer in the UK, and I tell you that if someone pulled one of those stunts over here, their camera will have to be pulled out of their backside orifice. Respect is the operative word here, and in every genre of photography, be it ' street ', fashion, landscape, sports etc etc. We are not Paparazzis, we are photographers.
So explain how responding with violence is more acceptable?
You seem to have missed the point. The expression of finding one's camera up one's ass means that the idiot who pokes his camera in people's faces without their approval, is going to meet with serious reaction. Not that it physically gets rammed up one''s backside. @@Peter.Charles
good points !
Good point on publishing. I was photographing an event where city pulled out all police including gang unit. (Miami Beach "urban week" ). I wanted to take a photo of the backs of officers standing in line and they turned around shouting at me and I took that photo. Then I told them to not look into the camera and they won't be on the photo. I took the photo I wanted to have initially. When I got home I deleted the shot with their faces.
Everybody has a different opinion, perspective, point of view and scale of ethics. Laws are in place. Let artists express the way they communicate within the law.
Great video. These flash gun cowboys are really a bit niche, and after a while their images just become boring; as soon as I see anything with Bruce G or one of his wannaby's minions, I'm off to watch some grass grow or paint dry. There's no skill in shoving a camera up someone's nose, other than avoiding verbal or physical abuse. You make a really good point about getting to know the subject, a project is more likely to be longer lasting than nasal-hair-flash-pics.
You raise some interesting issues. My first thought is that photographers should not be rude to people.
I’ve been doing street photography for a few years now and I’ve recently seen another video similar to this and I’ve been thinking about this topic a lot. You lay it out in a really thoughtful way, I think you are right and I think we have a responsibility to be good stewards of the craft and be respectful to the people that make it possible. Thank you.
Thanks for the kind words. Have fun out there!
The topic of what is legal might be a little boring but worth mentioning? In other words Zach isn’t talking about what a photographer CAN do but what he or she he SHOULD do. 👍👏
…but as I understand it so long as you are not making a commercial or a work of fiction it’s essentially free speech. If it’s a public place and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, no permission is needed and a the subject of a release can confuse matters, no?
… it implies the subject’s permission was needed and details the essential difference between can and should become blurred?
This is a great video and the point I am raising shows the need for this conversation. There is a whole lot you CAN do! All the more reason to flush out these issues and self enforce standards. 👍
great video
Thanks ✌️📷
This is good insight, one of the thing that repelled me from street photography is exactly this, how ethical is taking photos of strangers without their participation.
And also, pretty much the most populars photographers in the streets that have been popularized by Paulie B, pretty much are assholes.
I don’t like a trophy-hunting approach that a lot of aggressive photographers have. I like an approach with humanity like Henri Cartier-Bresson, Garry Winogrand, Vivian Maier, Helen Levitt, Joel Meyerowitz
From my perspective, and what I do:
1) using right gear, dont use flash or only if its ok (party etc). Use small variable lens or point and shoot camera.
2) dont go near the face, never use front view. I take pictures from back and from side, this way they dont see me and I dont annoy them.
3) dont take pictures of people only, try to take pictures of environment WITH the people. This way, they wont feel uncomfortable.
4) Tale pictures in BW or make them BW with high contrast - this will erase the look of face and will end up in ethically ok pictures.
5) if you can, go ask the person if they want the pictures (if those pictures look good, show them those pictures and ask them if they want them send via email or something else, and always mention that you do it for free as it is streetphoto) thos way, they will feel comfortable and flattered by the fact you think they look good (and again, dont go to the face, focus not on only the person, focus on the situation)
Good
Hey
Real content here thks
Always wondered what it is some photographers are trying to accomplish by intruding on someone else's space. Seen some of these documentaries the images look naff..
I’m sorry, I very much disagree with you. What makes you the moral arbiter of street photography!!!! ????
Good ethics is important in all disciplines but all you are doing in this video is imposing your own ethics on people who do street photography. I personally don’t use a flash in my street photography but if I did it’s still my choice. If somebody comes up to me and smashes my camera on the ground then fine that happened. I have to except that could happen based on my choices.
Long live Bruce Gilden and freedom of art and true journalistic integrity!!!!
In addition, ethics and respect are very much personal measurements. While I agree with a ton in this video, the generic, almost aggressive finger-pointing is just not justified. Slow down.
Show me the universally accepted code of ethics for street photography.
Every time in one of these "ethics" videos people pull out Bruce Gilden. A man who has photographed in New York in that way for nearly 50 years and has never had any real problems for it. Lots of observers get upset about it, but his subjects do not. Then, the same observers get angry about his photographic style, while his subjects do not.
It's New York, if Gilden had actually annoyed someone - he'd have been shot or assaulted. And, he works for Magnum, if he was wandering around upsetting people, he would have been fired decades ago.
Is it ethical to deem other people unethical just because you think that other people are unhappy with them, when they are not?
I like Magnum but they employed known abuser David Alan Harvey for decades and profited from photos of child sex workers so they aren’t exactly the gold standard of ethics.
In Norway, which is where I live, it's simple you can't shoot up close without permission if you already took it you have to ask if you should delete it. But shooting street with ppl in it is legal, but not the creeping camera in the face and running away. But Norway copies European Union privacy laws, so this is one of those.
I usually wait until ppl are gone or turn away, or if not possible, blur, pixelated people out of pics. If in the street i usually post pics of the street, buildings or objects. So I try to avoibdpeopel, but not always possible, so editing can hide their faces or whole person. I'm very aware eof privacy issues.
If you are avoiding shooting people, why are you watching and commenting on a video about street photography?
Street photography is all about photographing people.
@@yeohiyes but like he said he does streetphotografy with ppl in it with buildings and stuff in it and not just a photo of a face that just happens to be in the streets
Re-watched twice, but man that voice is gratingly harsh. Love the content, the topic, but man could you try a SM7B or something you could get close to and speak quieter and smoother?
Basic respect for another human being is not too much for anyone to ask, jamming a camera in someone's face and strobing them isn't a skill it's invasive, I often wonder how these photographers would feel if you spent a day doing ti to them and their family. Not a fan of it feel the same way about paparazzo I have been a photographer for 40 plus years, and all I see is the demise of a profession I love by people who need to practice boundaries
I'm surprised that photographers like Mark Cohen and Bruce Gilden haven't had sombody clean
their clocks a long time ago.
it's wild seeing Gilden's work contextualized like this
Treat people as family and friends.
If i include a human subject in my image i tend to use just the shape/form to include in my story. No distinguishing features
Good topic. I'm uncomfortable shooting this guerilla style of photography. A strobe especially creates a fair amount of questions and anger. I also think all the scams (email, text, phone calls) has made us all more guarded and I think it's spilled over to photography. Folks wondering what is my image being used for??
I agree with some increased guardedness around photography. People know what happens with these photos. They could show up on social media or turned into a meme. I mean, the odds are low of winding up being mocked online, but more people understand how a random photo could become a problem for them.
Ethics always take priority over any material photograph, you shouldn't take a photo of anyone without their consent unless it's a crowd of people or they are not the subject of the photo (eg. They are in the background)
I feel that the more a photo is stolen, aggressive and unprepared, the poorest it is in quality. Of course there must be some strong exceptions, but I think that many of this photographers do it more for the thrill of this predatory approach, rather than for the image itself. As someone who hates being photographed, I don't know how I would react if photographed by surprise like this
At leased ill remember a gilden photo
‘It’s not the responsibility of the photographer to make the person they’re shooting to feel comfortable’. If you’re doing a paid shoot where the subject has given consent then you can say that however on the street you do have a responsibility to ensure you don’t make the public uncomfortable, you don’t have a right to breach the peace with your actions. It’s called harassment.
We dont care what people sayyyy
The original street shooters were making photos in a time when the camera was not common. In their day, not everyone had a camera in their daily lives. Today, street photography is not the same. Thanks to social paranoia, people have now become more aware of cameras and the potential misuse of the photo, privacy implications and security. Go out and take photos of children today like they were taken many years ago. There is a good chance Police will be notified and you little photo trip ends finishing at the police station.
Actually, no. The police won’t arrest you for anything. It’s legal to take photos in public. What might happen is you get assaulted by people
@@aquilifergroupBe sure the kids you shoot have clothes on.
If every photograph has to be ethically permission based then this will negatively effect journalism. Think of how many important moments in history were captured without permission. This is why public spaces are fair game in a free society. What’s next, are we going to stop people from just looking at other people? Your argument falls flat.
Street photography is not photojournalism. Photojournalism has its own standards of ethics, which are much more strict that what I'm discussing for street photography. News photographers DO ask for consent to publish "everyday" types of photographs. They are typically required to publish the name of the subject of a photograph in the caption. HOWEVER, photojournalists have to assess how "newsworthy" a situation is. If important news is happening, you do not need consent to publish. Covering a protest? You don't need permission from the people in the photos.
@@ZACHDOBSONPHOTO don’t fool yourself. These days there are thousands upon thousands of non-consensual photographs and videos submitted to media outlets by ordinary citizens, not journalists, who have witnessed something. So in fact street photography can indeed be journalistic.
The consent a journalist seeks is primarily for validation of the story, and to cover any possible liability. Yes, media editors and legal staff will assess what they brave to publish, and because of self-interests they look at the ethics and implications of such material, as it pertains to their business. But still there remains the freedom in our countries to capture images in public spaces, on equal footing, the citizen and the journalist. There is no license for either.
Well said Peter!
@@ZACHDOBSONPHOTO I actually kind of agree with you that street photography is different from photojournalism. Photojournalism is also different from documentary photography. That’s why a documentary film is not considered news and the news is considered news. That’s why Fox News and MSNBC are so controversial. Street photography is closer to documentary photography than journalism. A documentary can have ethics, opinions and ideologies that you disagree with. You are not the moral arbiter of opinions and definitely not the moral arbiter of people who choose to take their camera out for a street shoot.
@@Peter.Charles 👍👍👍
I disagree because fuck the rules. Everybody wants to put art in a little box and create all these hurdles to how you do this and how to do that. But if the point is to take pictures of unaware people in public asking them permission then having them pose defeats the objective. But i do agree with the being respectful part. If someone gets angry apologize. Don't take advantage of the subject. Which 99% of photographers do by not paying the subject when the photo makes them money.
well said.
Pretty sure Gilden has taken some hits.
I am see a lot of bad behaviour amount photographers. The behaviour of some photographers make my job more difficult. Saturday, I was in the photographers cage, covering an event. We had a group of photographers come in and started push other photographers aside and jumping in other photographers way to get a photograph that the photographer stood three h.ours to get that photo. I watched as it nearly came to blows. Having a camera does not give people permission to be an asshole.
But are you not being hypocritical by showing clips of photographers encounters with people upset at being photographed in the public?
No
@@ZACHDOBSONPHOTO now you are being dishonest. You used street photography confrontation clips from the very people you are suggesting have done something ethically wrong. This is the hypocrisy. I guess it’s really about the TH-cam views then?
@@ZACHDOBSONPHOTO yes
You’re a blight to photography, kid.@@trevorwisecup
@@Peter.Charleswhat a stupid comment.
Next you’re going to tell us it’s ethically wrong to play a video of someone’s crime in court?
I appreciate your outlook, but I have to disagree about the issue of consent. Consent can and often is non-verbal. People show their consent through their body language simply through the nature of pointing a camera at them. You communicate your intent, and they respond. If people cover their faces, or they frown, it’s clear what they want. However, others understand your intent and consent in other ways, such as by ignoring you and moving along (for candids), or by smiling, etc. Verbal consent plays an important role in street photography, but so does non-verbal; there’s a time and a place for both, and I think the great photographers are adept at knowing when and how to use and interpret both of them.
i agree, i think its throughly disrespectful
I find most modern street photography worthless.
Sounds to me like you've made your mind up that you dislike that type of photography. Not going to lie I really think that it's completely wrong to write it off this way. You're going to name people like Gilden or Wisecup you might as well explain their stories as well, not just the ones you think are right.
I love street photography. I do not like the flash bang close range approach. It’s not “documenting life” it’s documenting what people look like when you pull up on them unexpectedly. I know those photographers’ stories and they don’t justify that unethical approach. I think both Gilden & Wisecup are very talented and I actually like their photos when they don’t roll up on people with the flash.
You are completely correct icebergs! Well said!!!!!
I was a magazine photographer for 30 years but I gotta tell ya, some of these street photographers are downright creepy.
Personally, I have certain lines that I won't cross with photography, but that's for me. I do not feel a photograph will ruin someones day never mind their life (unless they are a politician or a celebrity, then sometimes it's possible). Shoot what you want, what you see, there is no privacy in a public place.... click. Long live Bruce Gilden.
Well said!
100% agree with this. That ponytail photographer didn’t even have good images, just annoyed people. Nothing about jamming a camera in a person’s face is good photography. Even in a documentary goal of an event where 2 sides are screaming at one another, jamming your camera into a single person’s face who’s yelling loses context of the fight. And the law states that people don’t have a reasonable right to privacy when they’re out in public but it doesn’t mean you are allowed to invade their space.
This is never going to go away. The first amendment protects it and the SCOUS has already ruled you do not have a right to privacy in public. If YOU do not want to take a photo fine. But none of this will lead to laws limiting photography in public.
Flash photography right in someone’s face could absolutely send someone into an epileptic seizure. Public space is public, sure, but invading someone’s personal space and firing a strobe in their face is absolutely not acceptable.
It works only in US, because of such a protection by the law. Where I am from if you cross someone's private space you will be punched so quickly you will reconsider your hobby.
I disagree you can photograph homeless. No sanitisation of reality. But that's OK we can disagree.
I like how you cut out all the tough conversations each of the videos that you referenced. Painted a story to make these individuals to look bad. To paint ourselves as a “moral” street photographer as you demonstrate that you won’t delete photos even when someone says no to the photo because it’s your story. Anyone that calls themselves a street or documentary photographer at the end of the day will exploit individuals for their own gain. You just have to accept that there is no morals or ethics in street photography because you will always exploit others to tell your story. Just like what you did to exploit other photographers to show that you are a “moral” street photographer. Do better. 😂
Lol. It ain’t that deep
but you don't know who has a stalker, abusive ex, etc that might come after them if a pic is put on social media (like the mother and kids on the train). Heck, you can't know you has epilepsy if you shove a flash in their face without asking. It's not that deep right up until you've endangered someone's life
🤓
What a load of bull…
🤓
Give me a break. You have no problem showing the confrontation videos of people who don't want to be photographed or recorded.
Well said I ran into situation just like one guy said get the fuck lot of here ( I don't need ) this so I don't do it in this day and age you take your life in your hands getting shot or cold coked
“Excuse me officer, do I have your permission to make a photograph of you with your knee on this man’s throat?”
It's quite a huge leap to go from my suggestion that street photographers ask consent from someone they photograph up close to saying a news photographer should ask consent from someone committing a crime. See my previous comment about how photojournalists assess newsworthiness and how that affects what they publish.
@@ZACHDOBSONPHOTO regardless of whether it’s documenting a crime, which anyone can do, or just capturing the mundane in public, in our society that is a right. You start taking away the rights of the regular person, this sets a precedent for the rights of journalists as well.
Wisecup deserved that lecture. He is one that is ruining it for other photographers as he tries to emulate Gilden in the wrong era.
A Walmart Bruce Gilden at best. I saw the picture he took of that guy and it’s not even good 🤷🏻♂️.
@@Frank_Atlas True, just another copycat try hard wannabe.
I saw this walk n talk with @trevorwisecup featured in video, and i thought he handled people who did not want to be photographed gracefully and with empathy. He was not rash and rude like Gilden at all. He took time to listen to people, and if they didn't want their pictures published he would tell them he would not do so. He had positive interactions with many, who were flattered to be photographed. The shots examples in this vid were mostly the results of that one walk and talk vid, and not necessarily his best shots ( i think). The fact that this style does invite confrontation is not necessarily a bad thing - if you're prepared to engage with the people you provoke with some humanity. Which he did.
I really love we can have these open dialogues love you
@@trevorwisecup Smart choice to say this instead of your first comment... Also who cares if some people don’t like your work? A lot of people clearly do, and they’re not wrong for liking it.
They say no to their photo being taken but you still choose to keep it.
This is not a good approach.
Eleven minutes of a man who knows nothing about street photography talking about street photography.
🤓