To each his/her own method of photography.
I find it, to paraphrase Alfred Eisenstaedt , better to click with people than to click the shutter.
Fahim,
I am trying to commend you and your photography is more respectful and civilized.
No one can ever criticise your photography. In a way, when I “hunt” in the street with a long lens and frame two men debating across the street in Los Angeles, I am breaking no laws. As they reason, comes a point where on man arches his back and shakes his head, while the other gesticulates, to make his point and there is the peak moment and my
perfect shot.
But what of it?
I didn’t ask permission! sure, didn’t rob them. I won’t, hopefully humiliate them of make them angry, but, still, we must ask ourselves, is it morally “right”?
What I am saying about your work is that one only had to enjoy a fabulous picture celebrating life. OTOH, when no signal of consent has been obtained, it’s a different kind of picture.
Also, in your case, if you would reproduce the meeting, you would again be successful as it is based on your own nature of interacting with strangers and making them feel comfortable and spreading joy.
OTOH, watching and waiting, scanning the crowd for an interesting frame, gives shots that depend, not my social skills to
engage other humans, but rather my
hunting skills to capture prey, who have, by definition, no choice in the encounter, as it is “over” before they have a clue they are a target!
Yes, a genius Frenchman may get a person leaping over a puddle, after 3,000 failed shots. But you took maybe 20 shots with 10 different people you met, to get this.
So “each his own” doesn’t admit such stark differences.
I value more you recording humanity than a brillian one in 3,000 shot plucked from an unknowing crowd, however technically perfect, although I will admire both.