My rule is, this is my camera and I can take public pictures.. If you threaten me,touch me, be ready to meet Jesus.. F##K your opinions and stick to facts like an adult..
I have certain rules I follow with my street photography, along with the legal limits of course. 1) no photographing homeless people. I don’t feel comfortable doing it because it seems too close to exploitation. 2) no photographing children without the parent's permission. Obviously could be seen as creepy despite good intentions. Everyone who does street photography must decide for themselves what lines they won't cross and then work within those line. My advice is to think compassionately when deciding those lines. For example, compare the styles of Garry Winogrand and Bruce Gilden.
Love this!!! You got a new subscriber from me!!! I personally don’t ask for permission, but I also don’t show identifiable faces very often.. When I get direct eye contacts, all I do is smile back and give them a thumbs up and it just always works, which shows them your good intentions
I would be interested in a video on the ethics of capturing others in an image without their permission - which is almost always the case in street photography. By "capturing others" they need not be identifiable, but could also only be parts of people (e.g. from the waist down, just a hand, only hair). Does one's right to photograph and later publish the appearance of others, regardless of whether they are identifiable, override others liberty and right to freedom? Is this ethical? After all, it's their body, why do I have the right to represent it as I please? This is what I struggle with.
You not understanding that you have no expectation to privacy in public isn’t everyone else’s dilemma to sort out. Most people have no qualms about being recorded by private companies security cameras, but the second someone wants to make art by documenting the things they openly see around them, & suddenly it’s exploitative & dangerous to rights that you never had to begin with? Sure thing buddy.
It strikes me that Gilden's approach is unnecessarily rude and aggressive - deliberately setting out to shock and offend, rather than capture a cool/interesting street portrait or scene. Of course, like any narcissist this is all about him (attempting to be notorious) rather than the people he ambushes with his camera. But then I guess there has to be at least one Gilden in the world in order to show the rest of us how NOT to do street photography.
I’ve never heard Gilden state that his purpose was to shock or offend. His photography is meant to illicit a response, not in the viewer, but in the subject. His photos aren’t about the people, they’re about the anxiety that comes with being in a crowded city & his photos convey that accurately. What makes his work lack credibility to me, is that he creates that anxiety himself. That’s like winning a wildlife photography contest, using an image that was shot at the zoo. I mean sure it’s accurate to what you saw, but it’s not natural
One of the best youtube video about this theme. Maybe I feel so because I do totaly agree with you ;-) Street life photography are like a Time Capsule. They will talk about us when we're dead.
Great video ! Indeed, in most countries you are allowed to photograph or film everything in public, but there is a difference when you want to post them online.
i only pickup photography recently and it's totally different from phone photography. you need to learn a lot. about the camera, the weather, the color etc. but, it's really fun. i really like street photography or when i go for holidays or just nearby parks etc. taking photos of things is one thing but, to take a photo of someone, i realized i need a good long-range lens like recently my 50-250mm. i felt like a spy, taking photo of this lady and waited till she looks my way. lol
The people who took a lot of those photos-such as from the jim crow era-probably didn't realize they were taking photos of history. I feel that's important to think about.
Great video, Marco, and I really agree with your points. I think you've found a good balance between respecting your subjects, and capturing daily life. I do agree with some others here in the comments that finding a good balance of photos is good though, including taking photos of people suffering sometimes as well, in as respectful of a way as possible. One of my inspirations for traveling and taking street photos is I feel that there's often too much of a bias one way or another in photography, only seeing poverty and villages in Africa, only protests and success in America, etc. I want to be a photographer helping to capture a complete picture of that particular place in time, with the good and the bad, because that is what our reality is. One moment we cry, the next we're joyously laughing. We're incredibly complex beings and I think street/documentary photography is perfectly positioned to capture this.
We're on dozens of cameras every day, everywhere we go, whether it's in a parking lot, store, at traffic signals, on people's dash cam, home security cameras, and more. To be infuriated because one more person takes your photo is ludicrous. If you don't like it, go home, pull down your shades and don't leave your house. Should we ban cops from having body cams because we don't want them taking video of us? We're living in a digital age now, where everyone has a camera and video recorder in their pocket. Better get used to it.
We’re allowed to pick and choose which cameras we are okay with and which we are not. I’m okay with being on a supermarket security camera. That’s not carte blanche permission for you to shove your lens up my nose.
Taken Photos in Public is perfectly fine. Flashing in someone Face. Is an attack! That one photographer that went up to that girl and Used Flash into her eyes should of gotten smacked! One, Flash hinders peoples sight for at least an hour. Also some people it hurts! Some might even get a sezuire from the Flash. And as good as Cameras are now. You do not need to use a light or flash.
Where'd you go? You not posting no more? I like your nuanced take on this polarizing subject. I just came out with my take on the ethics of street regarding telephoto lens voyeuristic work vs wide angle close up work like Gilden's. I jokingly titled it "photographers are creeps!" Sad I just found you now that it seems like you're done with TH-cam. Hope you're still snapping out there! Good luck and god speed!
To me it’s much creepier to use a long zoom lens because it says that you know what you’re doing isn’t right & therefore feel it necessary to hide it. I take pictures out in the open, in the plain view of everyone because I literally have nothing to hide as I’m not doing anything wrong or unethical. No one has the expectation of privacy in public & the invention of photography has never changed that fact one bit. I mean no harm to anyone & just want to make art that moves me. I don’t concern myself with other people’s opinions of my art unless I’m asking for constructive criticism to grow as an artist
I love street photography and have never had any issues, but I also never get in someone's face. I photograph the street and people's interaction with it, but not the individual. Street celebrations and events are expected to have photographers there because it's out of the normal street environment so it's easier to be accepted as a photographer. I also don't use my "big" camera I use for wildlife. I use a smaller unassuming one.
For me personally, I do like street photography genre. But I never take pictures of people's face, I mean their faces are unseen. Such as I take a picture from far away(without using tele/zoom), from behind, etc. And also, I don't take photos of car's numbers, I will blur it if they are visible.
Idk what you’re protecting anyone from, your car’s plates are visible to everyone in public, every time you’re out driving. The info on your auto registration is also public record & anyone who pays a fee can look it up legally. Most people also park in their driveway with their plates fully visible to everyone who drives past, so people already know that your tag, belongs to your address, the second you park in your driveway. 😂 You’re not saving anyone’s privacy by protecting details that are part of the public record. 😂
A very well thought out and presented viewpoint on the morals of street photography. Here in the UK we are the most observed people in Europe with CCTV cameras on on every corner of our city centres and other public spaces. In my defence I would argue as a street photographer that my one lens is no more intrusive than the thousands of cctv cameras recording the very same people that I'm photographing, the difference, if there is one is that I'm not 'Big Brother' and I do not have any hidden agendas 😎 So that makes me feel at ease and justifies my efforts to be a creative artist in my world as I see it. I have no wish to upset anyone and like you I will always delete the image if the person wants me to, (the jpeg that is but I always keep the raw file) that way we both get what we want 😁
Good video, and I agree with just about everything… except I believe it’s ok, maybe even important to document the homeless, drug addicts, mentally ill, etc. Too many “street photographers” demand that these people be erased from our history. I think the future needs to see how we let these people rot on the sidewalks. Maybe 0.5% or less of my photos are homeless people, but if a good shot is there I take it.
I disagree. People can disguise their intentions with excuses like "These people should be photographed so they're not forgotten" or "Documenting these people exposes an important issue" but really you're just capitalising on someone else's vulnerability and suffering for likes on Instagram.
@@joeltunnah I didn't mean you specifically, but rather generally. Homeless people often show a side of existence that people find interesting, they can look at what it feels like for a life to go completely awry without actually experiencing it themselves, which makes for a popular photo. Pictures of homeless people/addicts and bikini models aren't mutually exclusive, people can want both 😂
@@dalemurphy6396 so I assume you also think Dorothea Lange’s “Migrant Mother” was exploitive? Winogrand’s legless beggar? Kertesz, Cartier-Bresson, Levitt, and Meier all took photos of “bums”, drunks, handicapped and the poor. There was no Instagram then. I’m not saying you have to enjoy such photographs, but condemning anyone who photographs a homeless or drug addicted person as an exploitive attention whore is unfair and frankly uneducated. I recommend buying more photo books, especially those I mentioned above. Be well.✌🏻
@@joeltunnah I'm talking about modern day Joel, not fucking Dorothea Lange, but if that helps you get your argument across then fair enough. That being said, it's nice to see you have such educated opinions on the use of vulnerable people on social media to garner likes nowadays, despite not actually being on social media yourself. I actually didn't ask for your recommendations, nor do I care about them. P.s. I'd recommend not using terms like "bum" and "handicapped"; it appears a lot of your thinking is trapped in the past.
I'm a hobbyist photographer and get tons of nice close-up street photos without annoying anyone (well, except random drunks, and a 12 year old traveller kid who punched me in the back of my head because I photographed their 25 horse and carts that they parked in a city high street). Too many street photographers either 1) do really boring framed scenes full of leading lines, dark shadows, and excessive Clarity settings or 2) obnoxiously thrust their camera into faces. Regarding the latter, they keep capturing lonely/tired/sad 'resting faces' but I think it's all a bit false, as most of us have such faces and it doesn't mean we're actually lonely, tired or sad. And then they heap-on the B+W, deep contrast etc. I think it just plays into a boring stereotypical narrative about the lonely city. People love to claim that city life de-individualises us, ignoring how people aren't generally any more individual or less lonely in the countryside nor were prior to cities being built. I moved from the countryside to the city decades ago because I was bored rigid. There are so many stupid narratives around city life. People love to watch sci fi about city life ('They Live' etc) and say they're "more relevant now than ever" even though they're usually far more "of their time". Everyone's an armchair sociologist, except they're cr*p at it (at least I have a degree in sociology). When I see the above two kinds of street photography, I think it's in the same lazy space of 'this is that life is' even though they're twisting it quite hard. There are some great street photographers, though. They ones who actually witness things being done, socialising happening, surprising subjects, kind faces etc.
Interesting points of view, also practical for for most. It does seem to me that in the states that that street photography is far more dangerous than it was twenty years ago. When I was photographing on the street and someone would get mad or yell at me I would stop and move on. Today I feel the of street photography is very risky because of the massive amount of guns on people.that someone gets anger and instead of yelling they shoot. So I have stepped away from street photography
@@highrider9168 I like to show respect to others and their privacy. Photographing someone in public is legal, but doesn’t make it right to do. If they don't want their photo taken, I don't like to upset anyone. There is enough anger in this world and I feel as a photographer that we should be helping others and not trying to, "get the shot." Be creative, respectful and uplift others. This is how I roll and what works for me. Others have a different point of view about it and thats great, this is where I stand in my skills/art.
I like street photography, and I do that as well. Im just not a fan of Gilden and his works. I enjoy the moods in street photos, not the people. So even if an empty street without anyone, if the mood is strong, then I like it. Street photography is supposed to be about the streets anyway. Posed people on the street would be better categorised as human interest photography in my opinion.
great video, i wanted to ask if you always ask permission to post photos of people after you took them so they are still candid but ethical. I know it's the best way to do it, but it just seems like a lot of effort and quite honestly it would be very akward. whats your opinion?
There is a difference these days as too what the definition of street photography is. Traditionally street photography encompassed the city and the light and the shapes, using people as small parts of the whole. Today street photography has become this in your face, invading people's personal space, and just being rude. I prefer what is now called Urban Photography.
Dont expect privacy in the public! theres security cameras everywhere from outdoors to indoors! if you dont want cameras on you go tell the stores you visit to not take a picture of you and report back to me with the findings. street photography is fine in my book!
You can’t profit from a person’s image without a signed contract with them,otherwise it is legal but you have to be ethical or you may end up been punished in some way.
I rarely see anything resembling art in this genre and certainly not photos that are pleasing to look at. Aggressive photography doesn't capture true life; it captures people who are reacting to aggression.
Today people take pictures everywhere. Special in hot vacation spots I am sure, I am on hundreds of pictures. Street is an Art form and covered by most western constitutions. Taking street in less self centered societies is not a problem at all. Only western communities have the modern over morality, and feeling of self importance. But hey, we are all going to die, may we survive on a nice shot.
youre a week photogher then. If someone holds strong to some principals, ethics or an ideology and then ws shouted and frowned at does that mean they should change there beliefs?
Same back at you. If I believe it’s a violation of my right to privacy to shove a camera in my face, and you frown, shout or… as all you cowards do, run away, does that mean I should change my belief?
i would said it's easy to said "nothing wrong" for viewer rather than the victim, especially this people just taking picture right in front of peope face with flash, trust me this world ain't rainbow and sunshine, everyone got their own problem to handle, and out of nowhere these people take you face pic with flash and trust me all of this people said that "nothing wrong" will be piss too if that happen to them
Yep, let the government make you believe you can't take photos in public and they will rejoice, then they'll look for the next set of rights they can take from you.
Generally speaking, a photographer has the legal right to photograph any PERSON, PLACE, OR THING if it meets two criteria: the photos are taken in public spaces and you do not exploit the image for commercial purposes. My style is not aggressive, I use a flip screen to avoid eye contact and I will comply with a persons wish to not be photographed. Also, I use a 35-150mm zoom lens to get things that would be too intrusive, like accident victims. It's the reason I have photos of firemen working to revive an arsonist who died in the fire he started. Those photos were not published by the papers because times have changed. But a dramatic, 1960's photo of a woman and child free falling from a collapsed fire escape during a tenement blaze won a newsman the Pulitzer Prize.
그건 폭력이고 예술도 아닙니다. 기록을 남기는 것이라면 멀리서 찍으면 됩니다. 찍히는 사람의 얼굴이 정확히 보인다면 그 사람의 의견을 존중해야 합니다. 반대로 누군가가 스트릿 포토그래퍼에게 그렇게 카메라를 들이댄다고 생각해 보세요. 그리고 그 사진을 인터넷에 퍼트린다면요? 이 세상 누구도 그런 행위를 좋아할 사람은 없습니다.
Can't speek 4 every1 everywhere in the world. But in the USA,... It's not "a law",... Photography/filming in public, from public, of public, is 1 of many inallienable Constitutionally protected Rights/activities.
Great video Marco. It's so funny you put this video up cause I was just thinking the other day, I should take some shots around the streets and shops to record this moment in history due to Coronavirus lockdown. So I did. Just a combo of iPhone and DSLR shots. I think it's very important for photographers to capture these times because those images will be used in 50 or 100 years time for people to see what life was like in 2020 during the pandemic. Thanks for sharing mate, take care and stay safe.
Very good video covering both sides, however I believe if you don't take the photo it will never exist. Photographers like Bruce Gilden are successful because they took images that no one else dares to take and we get something incredible in return.
Yes! Yes! Yes! Very very true! This is why you MUST push yourself and learn who you are and why you are that way in the process... Why are we programmed to feel a photo is invasive? But looking isnt? Or why staring is rude?
It’s all about energy that the photographer emits. Ive done couple of times where the person even blowed me a kiss in the air, while shooting, I never ask about permission, due missing the moment. Received so much smiles and never had a problem with the people on streets. Just smile…be cheerful and you will have so much fun
Treating random strangers like animals in a zoo is unethical, doesn't mean you can't do it, cuz it's legal, but it's still unethical. The difference between ethical and unethical street photography is if you treat the subject like a person, or like an animal/inanimate object
I’m wondering what you think about news broadcasts, since they don’t ask permission to record and post people to their hometown in real time… is something unethical if its necessary and is it then immoral to not do what’s necessary?
no it was totally to much. dude could’ve blinded that girl and it was incredibly rude. im all for people street photography but that could’ve gone better. he couldve just asked her
I still don’t understand how people who have no right to privacy, love to argue it as if it was a major part of the Bill of Rights. 😂 You’re in public, it’s called public for a reason, it’s literally the opposite of privacy. It’s also weird that they have no problem with every corporation & retailer literally filming them inside of every “private business” & in many cases, saving that footage for periods of time. Somehow someone making art from the mundane is offensive & dangerous
Asking this question, is typical of our society restraining more and more every liberty. I travelled around the world and took pictures of people without asking and asking. Bruce Gilden is a good photographer and for me people criticizing Gilden are the ones who haven't the gut to do it. Very strangely in our cities, you are constantly monitored, filmed an no one says anything...
Thank you for sharing you´re two cents, I can only agree and share you´re ethics when shooting street images. I don´t agree in the way that Bruce Gilden does, even so I have the utmost respect for the man, his skills is beyond anything. :)
No human has ever been capable of acting naturally, directly after being told to, “act natural” if you can’t understand that concept, you will never understand street photography. But then again, you’re probably someone who is impressed by photos like, “Lunch atop a Skyscraper” or “Migrant Mother” two staged photos that are lying about what they’re depicting.
I don't know what I want to do with photography, I just like taking pictures. But one thing I'm doing is taking pictures of churches all around my city. Sometimes someone will approach me and ask me why I'm taking the pictures, normally older people because young people are at home on the internet. Sometimes they will even invite me to take pictures inside the church. I'm thinking about start doing street photography, but I'm too shy, I can't imagine I'm taking the picture of a model, for example. But I'm feeling strongly drawn to it, specially because I don't need a big camera with lots of blurred backgrounds to do it, they are quite expensive here in Brazil. Using my APS-C and my 50mm I already can do tons of street photography, or even maybe using my 18-55mm. I will start doing it in neighboring cities, since i live in a small town and any picture I do here can be of someone that knows me, and that would be awkward.
this is a super late reply but yes, I agree :) Love his videos and I saw his take on street photography. I felt like I had a few different points to add to the conversation
This is an interesting video. I am an amateur photographer and I find street photography to be very interesting. There is an international street photography group on Facebook. The photography can be very artistic and culturally revealing. As for me I have taken pictures of homeless people in the streets. I think the rudeness of street photography lies within the mind of the viewer. People do not like seeing another human being down and out. When people see a picture of homeless people. It forces them to face reality.
Does it? Are you sure? Because when I see a picture of a homeless person, I see very little of the reality of being homeless. I see a rich kid profiting off a homeless person who if they are lucky was given a dollar as they left. Did you give the subjects of your photos fair value of the photo? Say 60%? What about a dollar, did you give them a dollar? Didn’t think so.
It’s really hard cause you have the mind set of that person thinking like, oh they have story, so you snap the photo, it kinda gets annoying where you cant get the shot when you see a powerful story
If you will not threaten the city, state, and government about taking your pictures and having you on video, then why come to me about taking your pictures? Is it because you think you can bully me and shower me with your opinions? Who said I need to listen to you or even talk to you? I follow the rules and I do respect the culture. All that stuff about kids, women, and the homeless, that makes no logical sense because if that's the case, then EVERYONE has the same rights. By that dumb logic, you're saying that if I am an adult male who works and makes a good living,I have less rights than the homeless????HUH????
I was walking around in the city with my camera looking for inspirational shots. A person on a bike comes up to me and asks to take his photograph, i was surprised as i was carrying a small camera with a 16-50mm lens exactly because i don't like attracting attention. I never ever take intrusive surprise shots of people like in the beginning of this video.. It's just too weird, intimidating...I respect peoples boundaries at all times. I sometimes do get people in my shots while on the streets but its more accidental and people sort of sense it. I think if i chose to take a picture of someone specifically, i would probably ask them afterward if it they are ok with it. If not i will delete. No one has ever asked me to delete anything, nor shout at me. If you're at a square or other busy place and there are lots of people around look out for security and introduce yourself, that's what i do.
I do mostly street photography. Don't see anything that's not ethical (there was a rear window ethics as well). On the contrary, that's a real thing. A real thing as it is. Just like undisturbed quantum mechanics insight :D
Thought provoking video. I love the street candids from years past, as an historic document they are unparalleled. BUT... those guys shoving a camera and flash in your face are unnecessary, take a look at the best candids from the last few decades, most don't rely on that self indulgent assault!! Do that to me at 10 am on a cold morning and your camera is going to be thrown in your face.
The info on this video is flat out incorrect. In most countries in europe and asia, you are NOT allowed to just take photos of people in public. Mate, get your facts right.
ive seen some videos where they only capture backs of people and faces dont show, i think thats totally fine. but if you go right up to ppls faces then no
It's sometimes less obtrusive just to take the photo than to engage in conversation I've found and yet sometimes you have an amazing conversation. I try to develop an ethical meter based on the context, distance and environment. I try to stay out of the way, some circumstances require asking permission, most require not wasting time.
Street portraits is wrong! Street photography is right. 99% of the photographers actually don't know the difference. Yet they still call themselves professional. 🤦♂️
What do you think about street photography? What are your rules?
You capture the moment
I dare you to do street photography, but no humans are allowed in the frame!
Are you game, or too scared to see what street photography really is? 🤔
@@bamsemh1 it's different between taking a pic of surrounding and taking pic in front of someone face, especially flashing in front of their face
My rule is, this is my camera and I can take public pictures.. If you threaten me,touch me, be ready to meet Jesus.. F##K your opinions and stick to facts like an adult..
Take the photo, move on.
Aggressive photographers are no better than paparazzi. But like you explain, street photography is documenting life on the street. So important!
I have certain rules I follow with my street photography, along with the legal limits of course.
1) no photographing homeless people. I don’t feel comfortable doing it because it seems too close to exploitation.
2) no photographing children without the parent's permission. Obviously could be seen as creepy despite good intentions.
Everyone who does street photography must decide for themselves what lines they won't cross and then work within those line. My advice is to think compassionately when deciding those lines.
For example, compare the styles of Garry Winogrand and Bruce Gilden.
Love this!!! You got a new subscriber from me!!!
I personally don’t ask for permission, but I also don’t show identifiable faces very often..
When I get direct eye contacts, all I do is smile back and give them a thumbs up and it just always works, which shows them your good intentions
people find everything offensive these days
I would be interested in a video on the ethics of capturing others in an image without their permission - which is almost always the case in street photography. By "capturing others" they need not be identifiable, but could also only be parts of people (e.g. from the waist down, just a hand, only hair). Does one's right to photograph and later publish the appearance of others, regardless of whether they are identifiable, override others liberty and right to freedom? Is this ethical? After all, it's their body, why do I have the right to represent it as I please?
This is what I struggle with.
You not understanding that you have no expectation to privacy in public isn’t everyone else’s dilemma to sort out.
Most people have no qualms about being recorded by private companies security cameras, but the second someone wants to make art by documenting the things they openly see around them, & suddenly it’s exploitative & dangerous to rights that you never had to begin with? Sure thing buddy.
It strikes me that Gilden's approach is unnecessarily rude and aggressive - deliberately setting out to shock and offend, rather than capture a cool/interesting street portrait or scene. Of course, like any narcissist this is all about him (attempting to be notorious) rather than the people he ambushes with his camera. But then I guess there has to be at least one Gilden in the world in order to show the rest of us how NOT to do street photography.
I’ve never heard Gilden state that his purpose was to shock or offend. His photography is meant to illicit a response, not in the viewer, but in the subject. His photos aren’t about the people, they’re about the anxiety that comes with being in a crowded city & his photos convey that accurately.
What makes his work lack credibility to me, is that he creates that anxiety himself.
That’s like winning a wildlife photography contest, using an image that was shot at the zoo. I mean sure it’s accurate to what you saw, but it’s not natural
One of the best youtube video about this theme. Maybe I feel so because I do totaly agree with you ;-)
Street life photography are like a Time Capsule. They will talk about us when we're dead.
Marco, I am so impressed by your editing and creativity. This was so entertaining and interesting to watch! Can't wait for more
Great video ! Indeed, in most countries you are allowed to photograph or film everything in public, but there is a difference when you want to post them online.
Great video. Thank you. Why do you avoid photographing kids? I'm writing an article on the ethics of street and documentary photography atm.
i only pickup photography recently and it's totally different from phone photography. you need to learn a lot. about the camera, the weather, the color etc. but, it's really fun. i really like street photography or when i go for holidays or just nearby parks etc. taking photos of things is one thing but, to take a photo of someone, i realized i need a good long-range lens like recently my 50-250mm. i felt like a spy, taking photo of this lady and waited till she looks my way. lol
The people who took a lot of those photos-such as from the jim crow era-probably didn't realize they were taking photos of history. I feel that's important to think about.
Great video, Marco, and I really agree with your points. I think you've found a good balance between respecting your subjects, and capturing daily life. I do agree with some others here in the comments that finding a good balance of photos is good though, including taking photos of people suffering sometimes as well, in as respectful of a way as possible. One of my inspirations for traveling and taking street photos is I feel that there's often too much of a bias one way or another in photography, only seeing poverty and villages in Africa, only protests and success in America, etc. I want to be a photographer helping to capture a complete picture of that particular place in time, with the good and the bad, because that is what our reality is. One moment we cry, the next we're joyously laughing. We're incredibly complex beings and I think street/documentary photography is perfectly positioned to capture this.
We're on dozens of cameras every day, everywhere we go, whether it's in a parking lot, store, at traffic signals, on people's dash cam, home security cameras, and more. To be infuriated because one more person takes your photo is ludicrous. If you don't like it, go home, pull down your shades and don't leave your house. Should we ban cops from having body cams because we don't want them taking video of us? We're living in a digital age now, where everyone has a camera and video recorder in their pocket. Better get used to it.
We’re allowed to pick and choose which cameras we are okay with and which we are not. I’m okay with being on a supermarket security camera. That’s not carte blanche permission for you to shove your lens up my nose.
Taken Photos in Public is perfectly fine. Flashing in someone Face. Is an attack! That one photographer that went up to that girl and Used Flash into her eyes should of gotten smacked! One, Flash hinders peoples sight for at least an hour. Also some people it hurts! Some might even get a sezuire from the Flash. And as good as Cameras are now. You do not need to use a light or flash.
Where'd you go? You not posting no more? I like your nuanced take on this polarizing subject. I just came out with my take on the ethics of street regarding telephoto lens voyeuristic work vs wide angle close up work like Gilden's. I jokingly titled it "photographers are creeps!" Sad I just found you now that it seems like you're done with TH-cam. Hope you're still snapping out there! Good luck and god speed!
To me it’s much creepier to use a long zoom lens because it says that you know what you’re doing isn’t right & therefore feel it necessary to hide it.
I take pictures out in the open, in the plain view of everyone because I literally have nothing to hide as I’m not doing anything wrong or unethical.
No one has the expectation of privacy in public & the invention of photography has never changed that fact one bit.
I mean no harm to anyone & just want to make art that moves me. I don’t concern myself with other people’s opinions of my art unless I’m asking for constructive criticism to grow as an artist
I love street photography and have never had any issues, but I also never get in someone's face. I photograph the street and people's interaction with it, but not the individual. Street celebrations and events are expected to have photographers there because it's out of the normal street environment so it's easier to be accepted as a photographer. I also don't use my "big" camera I use for wildlife. I use a smaller unassuming one.
For me personally, I do like street photography genre. But I never take pictures of people's face, I mean their faces are unseen. Such as I take a picture from far away(without using tele/zoom), from behind, etc. And also, I don't take photos of car's numbers, I will blur it if they are visible.
Idk what you’re protecting anyone from, your car’s plates are visible to everyone in public, every time you’re out driving. The info on your auto registration is also public record & anyone who pays a fee can look it up legally. Most people also park in their driveway with their plates fully visible to everyone who drives past, so people already know that your tag, belongs to your address, the second you park in your driveway. 😂 You’re not saving anyone’s privacy by protecting details that are part of the public record. 😂
A very well thought out and presented viewpoint on the morals of street photography.
Here in the UK we are the most observed people in Europe with CCTV cameras on on every corner of our city centres and other public spaces. In my defence I would argue as a street photographer that my one lens is no more intrusive than the thousands of cctv cameras recording the very same people that I'm photographing, the difference, if there is one is that I'm not 'Big Brother' and I do not have any hidden agendas 😎 So that makes me feel at ease and justifies my efforts to be a creative artist in my world as I see it. I have no wish to upset anyone and like you I will always delete the image if the person wants me to, (the jpeg that is but I always keep the raw file) that way we both get what we want 😁
Good video, and I agree with just about everything… except I believe it’s ok, maybe even important to document the homeless, drug addicts, mentally ill, etc. Too many “street photographers” demand that these people be erased from our history. I think the future needs to see how we let these people rot on the sidewalks.
Maybe 0.5% or less of my photos are homeless people, but if a good shot is there I take it.
I disagree. People can disguise their intentions with excuses like "These people should be photographed so they're not forgotten" or "Documenting these people exposes an important issue" but really you're just capitalising on someone else's vulnerability and suffering for likes on Instagram.
@@dalemurphy6396 I’m not on Instagram.
I also doubt that photos of homeless people will get you much of a following. People want bikini model selfies.
@@joeltunnah I didn't mean you specifically, but rather generally. Homeless people often show a side of existence that people find interesting, they can look at what it feels like for a life to go completely awry without actually experiencing it themselves, which makes for a popular photo.
Pictures of homeless people/addicts and bikini models aren't mutually exclusive, people can want both 😂
@@dalemurphy6396 so I assume you also think Dorothea Lange’s “Migrant Mother” was exploitive? Winogrand’s legless beggar? Kertesz, Cartier-Bresson, Levitt, and Meier all took photos of “bums”, drunks, handicapped and the poor. There was no Instagram then.
I’m not saying you have to enjoy such photographs, but condemning anyone who photographs a homeless or drug addicted person as an exploitive attention whore is unfair and frankly uneducated. I recommend buying more photo books, especially those I mentioned above. Be well.✌🏻
@@joeltunnah I'm talking about modern day Joel, not fucking Dorothea Lange, but if that helps you get your argument across then fair enough. That being said, it's nice to see you have such educated opinions on the use of vulnerable people on social media to garner likes nowadays, despite not actually being on social media yourself. I actually didn't ask for your recommendations, nor do I care about them.
P.s. I'd recommend not using terms like "bum" and "handicapped"; it appears a lot of your thinking is trapped in the past.
I'm a hobbyist photographer and get tons of nice close-up street photos without annoying anyone (well, except random drunks, and a 12 year old traveller kid who punched me in the back of my head because I photographed their 25 horse and carts that they parked in a city high street).
Too many street photographers either 1) do really boring framed scenes full of leading lines, dark shadows, and excessive Clarity settings or 2) obnoxiously thrust their camera into faces.
Regarding the latter, they keep capturing lonely/tired/sad 'resting faces' but I think it's all a bit false, as most of us have such faces and it doesn't mean we're actually lonely, tired or sad.
And then they heap-on the B+W, deep contrast etc. I think it just plays into a boring stereotypical narrative about the lonely city. People love to claim that city life de-individualises us, ignoring how people aren't generally any more individual or less lonely in the countryside nor were prior to cities being built. I moved from the countryside to the city decades ago because I was bored rigid.
There are so many stupid narratives around city life. People love to watch sci fi about city life ('They Live' etc) and say they're "more relevant now than ever" even though they're usually far more "of their time". Everyone's an armchair sociologist, except they're cr*p at it (at least I have a degree in sociology). When I see the above two kinds of street photography, I think it's in the same lazy space of 'this is that life is' even though they're twisting it quite hard.
There are some great street photographers, though. They ones who actually witness things being done, socialising happening, surprising subjects, kind faces etc.
Interesting points of view, also practical for for most. It does seem to me that in the states that that street photography is far more dangerous than it was twenty years ago. When I was photographing on the street and someone would get mad or yell at me I would stop and move on. Today I feel the of street photography is very risky because of the massive amount of guns on people.that someone gets anger and instead of yelling they shoot. So I have stepped away from street photography
Great video. I try to always paint people in the best light and if they don’t want me taking their photo I deleted too. Right on man.
Lol i go with Streisand effect.
The more someone doesnt want me to photograph them or something...
The more i want to because im allowed to.
@@highrider9168 to each their own and whatever works best. Just something I don't like doing. 🍻
@@roninphotographer and why is that?
curiosity.
@@highrider9168 I like to show respect to others and their privacy. Photographing someone in public is legal, but doesn’t make it right to do. If they don't want their photo taken, I don't like to upset anyone. There is enough anger in this world and I feel as a photographer that we should be helping others and not trying to, "get the shot." Be creative, respectful and uplift others. This is how I roll and what works for me. Others have a different point of view about it and thats great, this is where I stand in my skills/art.
I like street photography, and I do that as well. Im just not a fan of Gilden and his works. I enjoy the moods in street photos, not the people. So even if an empty street without anyone, if the mood is strong, then I like it. Street photography is supposed to be about the streets anyway. Posed people on the street would be better categorised as human interest photography in my opinion.
great video, i wanted to ask if you always ask permission to post photos of people after you took them so they are still candid but ethical. I know it's the best way to do it, but it just seems like a lot of effort and quite honestly it would be very akward. whats your opinion?
There is a difference these days as too what the definition of street photography is. Traditionally street photography encompassed the city and the light and the shapes, using people as small parts of the whole. Today street photography has become this in your face, invading people's personal space, and just being rude. I prefer what is now called Urban Photography.
Clearly you do not know what street photography is traditionally
Dont expect privacy in the public! theres security cameras everywhere from outdoors to indoors! if you dont want cameras on you go tell the stores you visit to not take a picture of you and report back to me with the findings. street photography is fine in my book!
You can’t profit from a person’s image without a signed contract with them,otherwise it is legal but you have to be ethical or you may end up been punished in some way.
Great video. Great points. Well done!
thank you! :)
I rarely see anything resembling art in this genre and certainly not photos that are pleasing to look at. Aggressive photography doesn't capture true life; it captures people who are reacting to aggression.
Remember to clarify you don’t see anything that resembles YOUR idea of art. There is no objective definition of art. So you don’t enjoy it, so what?
Yes. I prefer street art photography. If anyone inside the frame its their fault. Im not taking photo of them but their sorrounding
yeah that's the kind of attitude that gives street photographers a bad rep. "its their fault for getting in the frame" what a load of crap.
Very good thoughts, thanks !
Great content.
Bruce Gilden didn't like the last part 😂
Today people take pictures everywhere. Special in hot vacation spots I am sure, I am on hundreds of pictures. Street is an Art form and covered by most western constitutions. Taking street in less self centered societies is not a problem at all. Only western communities have the modern over morality, and feeling of self importance. But hey, we are all going to die, may we survive on a nice shot.
youre a week photogher then. If someone holds strong to some principals, ethics or an ideology and then ws shouted and frowned at does that mean they should change there beliefs?
Same back at you. If I believe it’s a violation of my right to privacy to shove a camera in my face, and you frown, shout or… as all you cowards do, run away, does that mean I should change my belief?
I think its fine but i think you should be respectfull with it. Their are certaineticits you should follow
i would said it's easy to said "nothing wrong" for viewer rather than the victim, especially this people just taking picture right in front of peope face with flash, trust me this world ain't rainbow and sunshine, everyone got their own problem to handle, and out of nowhere these people take you face pic with flash and trust me all of this people said that "nothing wrong" will be piss too if that happen to them
If its legal, it is A Right.
Rights are like muscles.
Dont use em you lose em.
Yep, let the government make you believe you can't take photos in public and they will rejoice, then they'll look for the next set of rights they can take from you.
I have a right to privacy. I dare you to tell me that I don’t. Because I might have to use my muscles to enforce it.
Generally speaking, a photographer has the legal right to photograph any PERSON, PLACE, OR THING if it meets two criteria: the photos are taken in public spaces and you do not exploit the image for commercial purposes. My style is not aggressive, I use a flip screen to avoid eye contact and I will comply with a persons wish to not be photographed. Also, I use a 35-150mm zoom lens to get things that would be too intrusive, like accident victims. It's the reason I have photos of firemen working to revive an arsonist who died in the fire he started. Those photos were not published by the papers because times have changed. But a dramatic, 1960's photo of a woman and child free falling from a collapsed fire escape during a tenement blaze won a newsman the Pulitzer Prize.
그건 폭력이고 예술도 아닙니다. 기록을 남기는 것이라면 멀리서 찍으면 됩니다. 찍히는 사람의 얼굴이 정확히 보인다면 그 사람의 의견을 존중해야 합니다. 반대로 누군가가 스트릿 포토그래퍼에게 그렇게 카메라를 들이댄다고 생각해 보세요. 그리고 그 사진을 인터넷에 퍼트린다면요? 이 세상 누구도 그런 행위를 좋아할 사람은 없습니다.
i disagree 😂
@@wiandryadiwasistio2062 뭐래 ㅋㅋㅋㅋ
Can't speek 4 every1 everywhere in the world.
But in the USA,...
It's not "a law",...
Photography/filming in public, from public, of public, is 1 of many inallienable Constitutionally protected Rights/activities.
Great video Marco. It's so funny you put this video up cause I was just thinking the other day, I should take some shots around the streets and shops to record this moment in history due to Coronavirus lockdown. So I did. Just a combo of iPhone and DSLR shots. I think it's very important for photographers to capture these times because those images will be used in 50 or 100 years time for people to see what life was like in 2020 during the pandemic. Thanks for sharing mate, take care and stay safe.
I am not a fan of in your face street photography. I like to be more sutel.
Very good video covering both sides, however I believe if you don't take the photo it will never exist. Photographers like Bruce Gilden are successful because they took images that no one else dares to take and we get something incredible in return.
Yes! Yes! Yes! Very very true!
This is why you MUST push yourself and learn who you are and why you are that way in the process...
Why are we programmed to feel a photo is invasive? But looking isnt?
Or why staring is rude?
Risks/Benefits balance, the more you take risks, bigger is the reward.
It’s all about energy that the photographer emits. Ive done couple of times where the person even blowed me a kiss in the air, while shooting, I never ask about permission, due missing the moment. Received so much smiles and never had a problem with the people on streets. Just smile…be cheerful and you will have so much fun
This has been my experience as well. I use a 28mm lens, so the whole "fly on the wall" idea doesn't really work.
Treating random strangers like animals in a zoo is unethical, doesn't mean you can't do it, cuz it's legal, but it's still unethical. The difference between ethical and unethical street photography is if you treat the subject like a person, or like an animal/inanimate object
How do you know which of those things you are doing?
I’m wondering what you think about news broadcasts, since they don’t ask permission to record and post people to their hometown in real time… is something unethical if its necessary and is it then immoral to not do what’s necessary?
0:18 thats kinda too much
no it was totally to much. dude could’ve blinded that girl and it was incredibly rude. im all for people street photography but that could’ve gone better. he couldve just asked her
moral's vs law's .. as human we need to follow law's but with morals
I still don’t understand how people who have no right to privacy, love to argue it as if it was a major part of the Bill of Rights. 😂
You’re in public, it’s called public for a reason, it’s literally the opposite of privacy.
It’s also weird that they have no problem with every corporation & retailer literally filming them inside of every “private business” & in many cases, saving that footage for periods of time. Somehow someone making art from the mundane is offensive & dangerous
Asking this question, is typical of our society restraining more and more every liberty. I travelled around the world and took pictures of people without asking and asking. Bruce Gilden is a good photographer and for me people criticizing Gilden are the ones who haven't the gut to do it. Very strangely in our cities, you are constantly monitored, filmed an no one says anything...
Thank you for sharing you´re two cents, I can only agree and share you´re ethics when shooting street images. I don´t agree in the way that Bruce Gilden does, even so I have the utmost respect for the man, his skills is beyond anything. :)
difference is you should ask people and then take the pitchure if they are ok with it
No human has ever been capable of acting naturally, directly after being told to, “act natural” if you can’t understand that concept, you will never understand street photography.
But then again, you’re probably someone who is impressed by photos like, “Lunch atop a Skyscraper” or “Migrant Mother” two staged photos that are lying about what they’re depicting.
I don't know what I want to do with photography, I just like taking pictures. But one thing I'm doing is taking pictures of churches all around my city. Sometimes someone will approach me and ask me why I'm taking the pictures, normally older people because young people are at home on the internet. Sometimes they will even invite me to take pictures inside the church. I'm thinking about start doing street photography, but I'm too shy, I can't imagine I'm taking the picture of a model, for example. But I'm feeling strongly drawn to it, specially because I don't need a big camera with lots of blurred backgrounds to do it, they are quite expensive here in Brazil. Using my APS-C and my 50mm I already can do tons of street photography, or even maybe using my 18-55mm. I will start doing it in neighboring cities, since i live in a small town and any picture I do here can be of someone that knows me, and that would be awkward.
looks like a jamie windsor vid
this is a super late reply but yes, I agree :) Love his videos and I saw his take on street photography. I felt like I had a few different points to add to the conversation
This is an interesting video. I am an amateur photographer and I find street photography to be very interesting. There is an international street photography group on Facebook. The photography can be very artistic and culturally revealing. As for me I have taken pictures of homeless people in the streets. I think the rudeness of street photography lies within the mind of the viewer. People do not like seeing another human being down and out. When people see a picture of homeless people. It forces them to face reality.
That’s an interesting perspective!
Does it? Are you sure? Because when I see a picture of a homeless person, I see very little of the reality of being homeless. I see a rich kid profiting off a homeless person who if they are lucky was given a dollar as they left. Did you give the subjects of your photos fair value of the photo? Say 60%? What about a dollar, did you give them a dollar? Didn’t think so.
It’s really hard cause you have the mind set of that person thinking like, oh they have story, so you snap the photo, it kinda gets annoying where you cant get the shot when you see a powerful story
If you will not threaten the city, state, and government about taking your pictures and having you on video, then why come to me about taking your pictures? Is it because you think you can bully me and shower me with your opinions? Who said I need to listen to you or even talk to you? I follow the rules and I do respect the culture. All that stuff about kids, women, and the homeless, that makes no logical sense because if that's the case, then EVERYONE has the same rights. By that dumb logic, you're saying that if I am an adult male who works and makes a good living,I have less rights than the homeless????HUH????
I was walking around in the city with my camera looking for inspirational shots. A person on a bike comes up to me and asks to take his photograph, i was surprised as i was carrying a small camera with a 16-50mm lens exactly because i don't like attracting attention. I never ever take intrusive surprise shots of people like in the beginning of this video.. It's just too weird, intimidating...I respect peoples boundaries at all times. I sometimes do get people in my shots while on the streets but its more accidental and people sort of sense it. I think if i chose to take a picture of someone specifically, i would probably ask them afterward if it they are ok with it. If not i will delete. No one has ever asked me to delete anything, nor shout at me. If you're at a square or other busy place and there are lots of people around look out for security and introduce yourself, that's what i do.
I do mostly street photography. Don't see anything that's not ethical (there was a rear window ethics as well). On the contrary, that's a real thing. A real thing as it is. Just like undisturbed quantum mechanics insight :D
Thought provoking video. I love the street candids from years past, as an historic document they are unparalleled. BUT... those guys shoving a camera and flash in your face are unnecessary, take a look at the best candids from the last few decades, most don't rely on that self indulgent assault!! Do that to me at 10 am on a cold morning and your camera is going to be thrown in your face.
The info on this video is flat out incorrect. In most countries in europe and asia, you are NOT allowed to just take photos of people in public. Mate, get your facts right.
ive seen some videos where they only capture backs of people and faces dont show, i think thats totally fine. but if you go right up to ppls faces then no
Thanks, an intelligent commentary.
It's sometimes less obtrusive just to take the photo than to engage in conversation I've found and yet sometimes you have an amazing conversation. I try to develop an ethical meter based on the context, distance and environment. I try to stay out of the way, some circumstances require asking permission, most require not wasting time.
Document real life for next generations and the future beethoven next door are good points.
Safe to assume that the San Diego shot was 2021 and not 2001?
fantastic video...
Inspiring and brilliantly argued
Very well done and thought out.
A great video. You hit the nail on the head!
if its a photo that clearly shows someones face then you should 100% be asking permission..
Street portraits is wrong! Street photography is right.
99% of the photographers actually don't know the difference. Yet they still call themselves professional. 🤦♂️
LIke Bruce Gilden? He's considered a professional street photographer. Albeit a rude obnoxious one.