Discussion on Street Photography

[Kevin Stecyk]

Los Angeles Sidewalks

Originally Posted by charlie chipman

The way I am doing this is the camera is mounted to a tripod in my backseat with a flash pointing out the window and I click the shutter with a remote from the driver seat as I drive by (see below). Camera is set to f8 iso 200 and prefocused. As I drive around and the ambient light levels fade into night I lengthen the shutter speed so I can pick up more of the ambient. I try to keep the background about stop or two under exposed but when the sun goes down and the camera is still set to f8 iso 200 ambient goes black except for the lights which streak across the scene now as I drive by and the shutter is around 1/15s. I like this effect, though agree it is a departure from the daytime scenes. Next time I go out I will raise the iso instead of shortening the shutter and see how much detail I can get beyond the reach of my flash in the night scenes.

Even though I quoted Charlie Chipman, I started a new thread. This thread might be controversial, and I want to allow Charlie to enjoy his thread.

I enjoyed viewing Charlie’s pictures. Some of this picture really caught my attention, especially the picture with Jesus standing beside the two women and the picture on the corner with sign of CARNICERIA. Not sure why I enjoy these particular two photographs most, but I do.

Then I read how Charlie captured his photographs. Suddenly I lost some of my admiration.

Although not a street photographer—and most would argue not a photographer of any type—I understand that the street photographer cognoscenti frown upon on long lenses, because they believe street photography should be up close and personal. If you’re going to engage in street photography, use a 50 mm lens or something similar. Don’t use a 600 mm lens two blocks away.

It is with that viewpoint that I considered Charlie’s photographs. By creating his photographs in a drive-by manner, is he, in effect, escaping getting up close and personal? Is there something voyeuristic about it?

I recognize the right in the U.S. that, if you're in public, you have no right to privacy. Therefore, your image can be captured and displayed. I got that.

To me, however, street photography is different. Yes, you want to capture your subject without your subject being aware of your presence. But once the image of a subject is captured, then there might be a dialog between the subject and photographer. My own personal belief is that as a photographer you should be available for that dialog. You shouldn't hide behind a long lens where you can never be seen or contacted. If the subject is pissed, you have to deal with his or her attitude. Either explain your position and convince your subject of the photograph’s artistic merit; tell the subject your rights as a photographer; have empathy for the subject and delete the picture if requested; or simply move away, read, run fast.

Of course, even though you are up close and personal, the subject might never notice that you captured his or her image. Do you have an obligation to let the subject know? No, I don’t believe you do. Still, it might be a nice gesture if you did. And, again, you might have to deal with his or her response. The point, though, is that you might have to deal with his or her reaction.

Using a long lens or engaging in drive-by photography, you are completely removed. There is no opportunity for your subjects to voice their concern. I know if I were shot deliberately by a person engaged in street photography, I likely would be okay with it, because I understand the issues. However, there might be times when I would prefer that my image not be shown. On the other hand, if a photographer used his car to engage in a drive by shot where he flashed me as he drove by, I wouldn’t be happy. My first thought would be, what the hell was that? And then I would want to know, what’s the purpose.

What say you? When engaging in street photography, does anything go? As long as we are within our legal rights, should we push the envelope? Some believe that we should disregard the subject’s concerns about appearing in a street photograph. Do you share a similar belief? In essence, what should be our moral or ethical codes while engaging in street photography?

[Sandrine Bascouert]

I had exactly the same feeling... In a way it sounded to me like a bit of stalking. But I'm afraid of making snap judgments. I feel just sort of uneasy... I'm unable to do that as well as conventional street photography (with people on the pictures :) ) So I couldn't tell why exactly, and I don't make assumptions about any skills-better-than-others. To me the fact that the photographer is being hidden at some point, no matter what the subject is (I mean bloody corpses after a shooting or people happy, kissing) is spoiling the WOW factor. Still remain the images, I am very keen on the "carneceria" one as well.

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Sandrine,

Originally Posted by Sandrine Bascouert

"Business is well done in front of a good table, that's why the poor, I think, never succeed" Georges Darien

I really like that!

Best regards,

Doug

[fahim mohammed]

Hi Kevin,

Some people talk endlessly about this subject. The ethics and morality of it.

Others show what they have captured.

I can only speak of those that show the results of their endeavors.

I agree with you. Any photograph must be with the photographer in full view. That shows respect
and a concern for the sensitivity for the person/s being photographed.

The vast majority of my posts in fora reflect my views on this subject.

Not just talk, but photos and how they were captured for all to see.

[Jerome Marot]

Actually, I thought exactly the same as you did. When I learned how the pictures were made, I lost interest. I felt like a voyeur.

[Asher Kelman]

There are different types of street photography.

1. One, typified by Fahim's work, Affable Street Photography, allows the camera and a smile to make connections with different people and breakdown barriers we often assume are there. This work is almost always pleasing and satisfying as there is a sense of positive aspects of humanity.
   
   
2. Another broad category of Documentary Street Photography, requires clinical disconnection from the subject. While one might indeed have feelings of empathy, there is sufficient distance and or stealth that, in almost all cases, the photographer in no way alters the scene being photographed. That means there is no insertion of oneself or the presence of one's camera into their lives at that time. One is merely sampling the behaviors and attributes of that scene. So, although the photographer selects moments, everything recorded is free of the disturbance and modulation by the photographer's presence.

Now just as some folk couldn't stomach being policemen, surgeons or roof repairman, each of us has naturally a different propensity for the type of street photography they want to do.

I must admit, I enjoy Fahim's work but also greatly value the far more risky imaging working in marginal high crime rate areas where "what is" is documented. That's what Charlie Chipman does so well. If anyone thinks they can stroll in the same neighborhoods at night and get 3,000 like pictures without their heads split open or worse, go ahead, try it!

The very nature of the work requires not only stealth but an escape route! I never use flash in those circumstances as I feel it might be a shock to someone day dreaming, waiting for a bus! However, it's no crime! Charlie needs it and takes the risk and in balance, I think that's fine. I do shoot pictures from my car while moving through such areas. I've always planned to set up my camera on a tripod and trigger it remotely to sample the areas more effectively. With pleasant chats, one learns a lot and makes friends, however, we also need to see life as it is and not romanticized.

One cannot easily be a documentary photographer after introducing oneself. Of course, one can move into a neighborhood and be accepted. In all other cases, for documentary work, one must accept any stratagem that allows a picture to be taken, undetected, so the scene is never perturbed by the photographer or his/her camera.

Asher

[Sandrine Bascouert]

Originally Posted by Doug Kerr

Hi, Sandrine,


I really like that!

Best regards,

Doug

In fact the quote is not accurate in its translation (but the idea is here).
I'm a great fan of Georges Darien

[Ben Rubinstein]

That someone is doing a different style of photography using the same subjects does not stop it being photography or art. Having to use any traditional or 'that's what is done' methods to achieve art is by definition crippling it and we've seen enough of that over the centuries.

Screw the 'that's the way it's done', let art live even if you refuse to allow it certain labels due to preconceived or subjective views on how it 'should be done'.

Anything goes, the only thing that matters is that the end result reflects the intention of the artist.

[Kevin Stecyk]

Originally Posted by Asher Kelman

There are different types of street photography.

1. One, typified by Fahim's work, Affable Street Photography, allows the camera and a smile to make connections with different people and breakdown barriers we often assume are there. This work is almost always pleasing and satisfying as there is a sense of positive aspects of humanity.
   
   
2. Another broad category of Documentary Street Photography, requires clinical disconnection from the subject. While one might indeed have feelings of empathy, there is sufficient distance and or stealth that, in almost all cases, the photographer in no way alters the scene being photographed. That means there is no insertion of oneself or the presence of one's camera into their lives at that time. One is merely sampling the behaviors and attributes of that scene. So, although the photographer selects moments, everything recorded is free of the disturbance and modulation by the photographer's presence.

Okay.

Originally Posted by Asher Kelman

Now just as some folk couldn't stomach being policemen, surgeons or roof repairman, each of us has naturally a different propensity for the type of street photography they want to do.

More tautologies.

Originally Posted by Asher Kelman

I must admit, I enjoy Fahim's work but also greatly value the far more risky imaging working in marginal high crime rate areas where "what is" is documented. That's what Charlie Chipman does so well. If anyone thinks they can stroll in the same neighborhoods at night and get 3,000 like pictures without their heads split open or worse, go ahead, try it!

Therein lies the challenge, doesn't Asher? I and many others could never do some of the daring photography that war photographers regularly perform. Yet, these war photographers are out there, risking their lives. You didn't see them driving through the crowds in Egypt in their protected humvees, did you? They were out there risking it. Is LA more dangerous place than walking around as an American in Egypt during an uprising? What about Bahrain or Libya or Afghanistan or, well, you get the idea.

Originally Posted by Asher Kelman

The very nature of the work requires not only stealth but an escape route! I never use flash in those circumstances as I feel it might be a shock to someone day dreaming, waiting for a bus! However, it's no crime! Charlie needs it and takes the risk and in balance, I think that's fine. I do shoot pictures from my car while moving through such areas. I've always planned to set up my camera on a tripod and trigger it remotely to sample the areas more effectively. With pleasant chats, one learns a lot and makes friends, however, we also need to see life as it is and not romanticized.

Regarding crime, I am not a lawyer. Nor do I pretend to be one. I understand photography is permitted in most open societies. But I am not so sure about flashing someone from a relatively close distance. Imagine if the subject was epileptic and was hyper senstive to flash. Not so nice.

Originally Posted by Asher Kelman

One cannot easily be a documentary photographer after introducing oneself. Of course, one can move into a neighborhood and be accepted. In all other cases, for documentary work, one must accept any stratagem that allows a picture to be taken, undetected, so the scene is never perturbed by the photographer or his/her camera.

Many street photographers believe that the subject should be completely unaware of your presence. Yet, you are still close by. You are still close and personal. Your ability to conduct your photography under such circumstances is part of your art.

Again, almost all street photography is not done with a 600 mm lens from two blocks away.

[Kevin Stecyk]

Originally Posted by Ben Rubinstein

That someone is doing a different style of photography using the same subjects does not stop it being photography or art. Having to use any traditional or 'that's what is done' methods to achieve art is by definition crippling it and we've seen enough of that over the centuries.

Screw the 'that's the way it's done', let art live even if you refuse to allow it certain labels due to preconceived or subjective views on how it 'should be done'.

Anything goes, the only thing that matters is that the end result reflects the intention of the artist.

I love the reckless bravado. Screw the critics. We define our own path.

Okay, let's run with that idea for a while.

You see a great painting--it looks so realistic. It was created over one hundred years ago. They must have been true masters. Yet, some pencil neck discovered that the artist regularly relied upon projections. His realism was nothing more than a paint-by-numbers set. Same appreciation?

Or, let's move away from art for a moment. Let's talk about something fungible--money.

You have three three poor immigrants that arrive in the country. They set upon a challenge who can amass the most money in ten years.

Ten years go by. Immigrant A made Scarface look like a angel. "Don't get high on your own supply," was his favorite motto. Immigrant B recieved an inheritance from his family. And Immigrant C started a small company that grew into a large and successful company.

Given my descriptions, who in your view was the winner? Does it even matter who received/earned the most money? Even though money is completely fungible--that is, the bank shows a million dollars in an account regardless of how it was obtained--was the path to riches part of your decision process?

Even if Immigrant C had the least money of the three, he won the most in my view. What's the point? Some things are path dependent.

[Ben Rubinstein]

My point is it's only the snob who cares... :-)

End of the day, does the image do anything for/to you? If it needs a story to back it up then it wasn't strong enough in the first place. If it's strong enough but the story lets it down then that is the fault of the viewers subjective opinions which will almost certainly not be shared by others and other generations and as such is only relevant to the viewer who happens to hold that subjective opinion at that point in time.

I'd hate to be an artist who specifically channelled the impressions of my art based on current popular mindsets...

[Kevin Stecyk]

Originally Posted by Ben Rubinstein

My point is it's only the snob who cares... :-)

So all of us who disagree are snobs?

And don't you just love ad hominem attacks when the other person lacks a clear convincing argument? I know I do. When the other person resorts to name calling, you know it's game over.

Originally Posted by Ben Rubinstein

End of the day, does the image do anything for/to you? If it needs a story to back it up then it wasn't strong enough in the first place. If it's strong enough but the story lets it down then that is the fault of the viewers subjective opinions which will almost certainly not be shared by others and other generations and as such is only relevant to the viewer who happens to hold that subjective opinion at that point in time.

Oh, I can make lots of images that are moving Ben. I could torture animals or people or both and make photographs. Sure, they would be moving, just as those images of Abu Ghraib are moving. We can choose any number of world conflicts and look at the horrors depicted in the photographs.

So is that all it takes to be called an artist? Just use any means possible or desirable to create an arrresting image? I still prefer to be called a snob than an artist if that's the case.

Originally Posted by Ben Rubinstein

I'd hate to be an artist who specifically channelled the impressions of my art based on current popular mindsets...

Me, I'd hate to take advantage of--and possibly hurt--others to just advance my limited view of art. To each his or her own.

[Ken Tanaka]

Back to the germane issues here...

I find Kevin's reaction to his recognition of personal prejudice admirable. Grabbing your mind by the throat and asking it why it has reacted in such a manner is precisely how you avoid letting prejudices and fetishes turn your mind's eye into a schlerotic pin hole.

In Kevin's case he graciously started a new discussion and bared his reaction to the revelation that Charlie is drive-by-shooting on the streets of LA, and began exploring the preconceptions that he suspects as motives for his reactions. (Unfortunately for Kevin, this public venue has become more of a referendum and unproductive shoving match.)

Kevin, confronting your personal boundaries is precisely the path toward gradually overcoming them...or discovering that they're simply part of your DNA. Being as close to, and involved with, a major art museum as I am, I don't think a month passes where I don't have such discussions with myself over any number of types of arts.

Recognition and exploration of prejudices may not restore the value of work to your eye today...or tomorrow...or even next year. But, like statin medications, it can prevent such intellectual cholesterol from accumulating and clogging your mind. The heaviest baggage we take to our graves is regret.

[Kevin Stecyk]

Originally Posted by Ken Tanaka

Back to the germane issues here...

I find Kevin's reaction to his recognition of personal prejudice admirable. Grabbing your mind by the throat and asking it why it has reacted in such a manner is precisely how you avoid letting prejudices and fetishes turn your mind's eye into a schlerotic pin hole.

In Kevin's case he graciously started a new discussion and bared his reaction to the revelation that Charlie is drive-by-shooting on the streets of LA, and began exploring the preconceptions that he suspects as motives for his reactions. (Unfortunately for Kevin, this public venue has become more of a referendum and unproductive shoving match.)

Kevin, confronting your personal boundaries is precisely the path toward gradually overcoming them...or discovering that they're simply part of your DNA. Being as close to, and involved with, a major art museum as I am, I don't think a month passes where I don't have such discussions with myself over any number of types of arts.

I was hoping you would chime in Ken. I always enjoy your comments.

In your last paragraph, I partially--only partially--agree with you. I didn't just discover that certain act were part of my DNA. I always knew that.

And given that certain elements are part of my DNA, I have no desire to fight nature.

Originally Posted by Ken Tanaka

Recognition and exploration of prejudices may not restore the value of work to your eye today...or tomorrow...or even next year. But, like statin medications, it can prevent such intellectual cholesterol from accumulating and clogging your mind. The heaviest baggage we take to our graves is regret.

I like art as much as the next person. But I respect and admire people even more. We have no clue what the other person might be going through in their lives at the moment we snap a picture. We have no idea how that picture might affect another individual. In fact, in some countries or regions, you can be sued taking and publishing a picture of a person in a public setting.

For those that don't believe me, here's a homework assignment for you. Read about a woman in Quebec who was in public view and sued a photographer and magazine publisher who took and published her picture. Canada's Supreme Court ruled in her favor (pdf).

So we recognize that not everyone enjoys having his or her picture taken and published. And granted, in the U.S., it's legal. It's also legal to mount your 600 mm lens two blocks away and snap voyeuristic photographs of someone unaware. But does that make it right?

In today's society where everyone wants instant gratification, where everyone wants to take as much as he or she can get while he or she can, I find a little humanity goes a long way. Sometimes just a simple kind gesture can make someone's day. Similarly, a polite request to use a person's image can make all the difference.

In short, I am comfortable with my prejuidices with regard to blasting someone with a flash from a moving vehicle, and then scurrying off into the darkness.

Again, thank you for your comments--they are always enjoyable and sensible.

[Mark Hampton]

Originally Posted by Kevin Stecyk

Some things are path dependent.

Kevin,

I agree ... but its how you read the path that can can change how your interpretation of the path was formed...

what if the images you are railing against are railing against the same thing?

what if the way their made is particular to their reading and a critique of a society?

I dont ken if this was the makers intent but its how I read them and enjoyed them all the more...

just my thoughts...

[Jerome Marot]

Maybe the reason why we don't agree is simply because this is an international forum and the perception of whether this kind of photography is "right" or "wrong" depends a lot on one's particular culture. In which case we shall never agree.

[Kevin Stecyk]

Originally Posted by Jerome Marot

Actually, I thought exactly the same as you did. When I learned how the pictures were made, I lost interest. I felt like a voyeur.

Originally Posted by Jerome Marot

Maybe the reason why we don't agree is simply because this is an international forum and the perception of whether this kind of photography is "right" or "wrong" depends a lot on one's particular culture. In which case we shall never agree.

Jerome, thoughtful responses. However, I believe it is deeper than that. Respect for another individual transcends most cultures.

Of course, there are certain cultures that have the distasteful practice of descriminating against others or failure to recognize the equality of women or both. Aside from those hideous forms of society, most of us recognize the importance of individual. Most of us adhere to the golden rule--the one says do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. And some of us try to do even better by treating others as they'd like to be treated.

So as a test, we could walk around with a Quantum flash and blast a few unsuspecting people in face to judge their reactions. And maybe we could snap some pictures in the name of art. My hunch--and it's just a wild, wild, wild guess--most subjects would not be appreciative. And, if our subjects were bigger and in close proximity, I suspect we'd get a few fists in the face to aid our cultural understanding. Now, how would that be for making a point?

We hear President Obama talk constantly about universal values. I think respect for others is right up there with universal values. And we think that blasting unsuspecting people with a flash while taking their picture is respectful, well, what can I say?

I'd like see how many people would attempt the same courageous act if they weren't in a fast get-away car. And that says a lot, doesn't it?

This topic isn't complicated, honest.

[Ken Tanaka]

Kevin,

No debate from me. Just a few observations.

You have a remarkable assortment of objection ingredients in your judgement thesis; good/bad, right/wrong, humanism, fairness, undertones of cowardice, criminal justice, etc.

Two points. First, the scant information Charlie provided about the referenced series does not provide solid grounds for many, if any, such judgements. It seems to me that you're making some awfully big asumptions and preconceptions.

Second, and more generally, if you filter all photography through such such a fine sieve of judgements you probably should turn your interests to painting and drawing. Virtually all candid public photography would probably fail to pass such filters.

[Kevin Stecyk]

Originally Posted by Ken Tanaka

You have a remarkable assortment of objection ingredients in your judgement thesis; good/bad, right/wrong, humanism, fairness, undertones of cowardice, criminal justice, etc.

True, I did engage in a bit of hyperbole. Gets your attention, doesn't it?

Originally Posted by Ken Tanaka

Two points. First, the scant information Charlie provided about the referenced series does not provide solid grounds for many, if any, such judgements. It seems to me that you're making some awfully big asumptions and preconceptions.

Second, and more generally, if you filter all photography through such such a fine sieve of judgements you probably should turn your interests to painting and drawing. Virtually all candid public photography would probably fail to pass such filters.

Nonsense Ken. This is one of the times I completely disagree with you. Many fine street photographers conduct their craft with blasting unsuspecting people with flashes and then quickly escaping.

Many street photographers willingly discard their photograph if the subject objects.

Again, if others believe that flashing unsuspecting people while taking their photographs is a cool thing to do, try it out on others who are bigger, stronger and within arm's reach. Let me know how it goes after a several days or nights. Simple test. It distills everything about fairness, courage, humanism, right/wrong and whatever else we want to throw into the soup bowl.

[Sandrine Bascouert]

I just couldn't resist bringing that into the bowl...
Brings nothing good or bad to the debate...

http://www.photography-now.com/artis...p/B004199.html

[charlie chipman]

Kevin, you started off quite gracefully with a valid topic for debate but have since turned the conversation into more of a bashing, for that reason I am hesitant in responding to you.

You are bringing up tortured animals and humans, the incident at Abu Ghraib, discrimination, the lack of equality for women, all as an arguments to prove that my project is 'unfair, wrong, lacking courage, disrespectful, etc.....' before you have ever spoken to me about it.
Is this what you consider fair and respectful towards me?
Perhaps you loose respect for people when you disagree with them?

Do you really think that when Obama speaks of universal values he is refering to people talking pictures with a flash on the streets of Los Angeles?
You say this topic is not complicated so why are you bringing up all these completely unrelated and complicated topics?

Kevin I do not subscribe to the idea that there is a set of rules for any art form, it is the end result that matters. For you perhaps a 50mm lens and a smile is the way to go about photographing strangers in public. If it takes a 600mm lens from two blocks away to get the shot that someone is after then by all means use a 600mm lens. If a projector helps a painter create their masterpiece why should they not use it? Thankfully humanity does not have to live by one mans code of ethics.

I spend many many hours sitting in traffic in my car here in Los Angeles along with millions of other people. During this time I see all sorts of interesting scenes taking place on the sidewalks that are oblivious to my presence as I drive by. This is what I set out to capture and I know of only one way to do that, from my car as I drive by. If I was there standing in the street with my flash as opposed to driving by, it might very well be an entertaining project, but it would not be the same project.

[Kevin Stecyk]

Originally Posted by charlie chipman

Kevin, you started off quite gracefully with a valid topic for debate but have since turned the conversation into more of a bashing, for that reason I am hesitant in responding to you.

I was hesitant in bringing up my concerns, but in prior offline correspondence, Asher said I should make my post. I should have known better.

Originally Posted by charlie chipman

You are bringing up tortured animals and humans, the incident at Abu Ghraib, discrimination,

I make no apologies for those comments. Go back and read the context.

If you recall, I was responding to the question: "End of the day, does the image do anything for/to you?" Abu Ghraib do anything for you? It does for me--complete disgust. Which goes to prove that just because an image does something doesn't mean it is art. Or, put differently, the ends don't necessarily justify the means.

Originally Posted by charlie chipman

the lack of equality for women, all as an arguments to prove that my project is 'unfair, wrong, lacking courage, disrespectful, etc.....' before you have ever spoken to me about it.

It's odd that a photographer who takes pictures of others from a car wants a conversation with a critic. Perhaps some of your subjects want to have a conversation with you?

Artists should be accepting of criticism. That's part of the game. Some will like your work (and some do) and others won't.

And those that don't like your work feel that way for a variety of reasons, including how your work was created.

Originally Posted by charlie chipman

Is this what you consider fair and respectful towards me?
Perhaps you loose respect for people when you disagree with them?

I lose respect for those who treat others with a lack of respect and courtesy.

I am not a big supporter of those who take pictures of others without an opportunity for interaction. Even worse, I believe flashing people without an opportunity to listen to their concerns is improper. You obviously believe differently. And you might believe my treatment of you and your photography is improper as well.

Originally Posted by charlie chipman

Do you really think that when Obama speaks of universal values he is refering to people talking pictures with a flash on the streets of Los Angeles?
You say this topic is not complicated so why are you bringing up all these completely unrelated and complicated topics?

You're right, Obama is most certainly not talking about street flash photography in LA.

But again, let's put this comment in context. I was responding to a culture comment. So I referenced Obama's universal values. I believe, as do many believe, that some things transcend cultures. Don't you?

And one of the things that transcends culture is respect and courtesy for ~all~ people.

So that's why I bring up these related things. Others throw out red herrings such as strong images and different cultures. As we've seen, a strong image doesn't necessarily imply art, and different cultures don't override respect and courtesy for others.

Originally Posted by charlie chipman

Kevin I do not subscribe to the idea that there is a set of rules for any art form, it is the end result that matters. For you perhaps a 50mm lens and a smile is the way to go about photographing strangers in public. If it takes a 600mm lens from two blocks away to get the shot that someone is after then by all means use a 600mm lens. If a projector helps a painter create their masterpiece why should they not use it? Thankfully humanity does not have to live by one mans code of ethics.

Agreed with respect your comment that humanity does not have to live by one mans code of ethics. And disagree that 600 mm two blocks away is appropriate for street photography.

Originally Posted by charlie chipman

I spend many many hours sitting in traffic in my car here in Los Angeles along with millions of other people. During this time I see all sorts of interesting scenes taking place on the sidewalks that are oblivious to my presence as I drive by. This is what I set out to capture and I know of only one way to do that, from my car as I drive by. If I was there standing in the street with my flash as opposed to driving by, it might very well be an entertaining project, but it would not be the same project.

And that's where we differ. You believe that it is fair to flash and photograph unsuspecting people and to shoot people from two blocks away using a 600 mm lens, and I don't.

So here we are Charlie, taking different viewpoints on photography. Some will strenuously agree with your process, and some, like me, will disagree.

At least, you've had the opportunity to contact me and voice your concerns. You're free to tell me exactly what you think. You can do so as politely or as aggressively as you like. And, to your credit, you've been extremely polite.

Unfortunately, your subjects are denied that same opportunity to communicate with you. You might publish their image when they would very much appreciate that image(s) of them not be shown in a public setting.

All those who show their work or art in a public setting must know that some others will criticize their work. It comes with the territory. Just as I recognize some will resort to ad hominem attacks when they voice their opinions in reaction to my comments. We're big boys Charlie. I am sure we can handle it.

[Asher Kelman]

Kevin,

First, to defend the individual from abuse by society is necessary and admirable. Never stop! We do need your voice and concern as to whether or not Charlie's or my own actions, for example, in "drive by photography", are either invasive or wrong. So, your bringing to the open the questions and reservations you have is entirely positive and deserves addressing. After first seeing that no heinous crime is committed, I look at a cost/loss versus community benefit in such matters.

Holding a lantern to our cultures helps us know where to put resources. So it's valuable to look closely at life in a major metropolis such as L.A. To understand what life is about in Los Angeles in these times, one can go to print or to pictures or perhaps videos. Each might provide a little more information to flesh out some description of what we are and how we behave.

Charlie's work is one small, but IMHO, valid and valuable contribution to knowing about ourselves here in L.A. I am, myself, too timid to use flash from my car, at least until now. in fact I never have contemplated doing so. I do take similar shots and am greatly limited by light and speed. Looking at Charlie's pictures makes me realize he is adding a lot more for us to see more of our own cultures with little if any perturbation. There are costs, yes, but folk such as Charlie are, unfortunately or fortunately as you may see fit, few and far between. So after Charlie passes with his 1 microsecond single flash, it's likely that the persons photographed will never experience such an event ever again in their entire lives! Given that, I see very minimal interference with the folk, no devilish harm and in balance a job well done! Still, I am open to the possibility of some key flaw in my judgment. So I must therefore tolerate and look at any opposite point of view. You have extended from disturbing folk with the flash to repression of women's rights! So let's look at these two issues.

As far as reprehensible societies, you complain of, that don't allow certain freedoms to women, why are they bad? By what standards must they have the freedoms Western women cherish. Do we have the right to carve out standards in stone for all other cultures? Obviously, people in our society must be treated according to our norms, but is there any moral absolutes requiring such "norms" be fostered on other groups with other traditions? I'm not saying you are wrong, but rather wondering if there's some logic from which we can either know that flashing light from a passing car is immoral or unethical, (choose your term) or else to know that not according a woman the freedoms expected here in the West, is somehow wrong, immoral, backward or reprehensible.

In a way, Kevin, I am wary of shooting Charlie, the messenger. Looking at the content, I feel we have to give him a pass on the flash and quick escape!

Asher

[Kevin Stecyk]

Originally Posted by Asher Kelman

As far as reprehensible societies, you complain of, that don't allow certain freedoms to women, why are they bad? By what standards must they have the freedoms Western women cherish. Do we have the right to carve out standards in stone for all other cultures? Obviously, people in our society must be treated according to our norms, but is there any moral absolutes requiring such "norms" be fostered on other groups with other traditions?

Asher, you know I think the world of you. I am not sure, however, what to make of your comments above. Your thoughts as expressed by those words are so polar opposite to those thoughts of my own.

I love women. To think that they should be treated any less than an equal anywhere in the world is abhorent to me.

Our world has so many challenges, and yet to think that we would deny women the opportunty to help create and shape better societies is beyond comprehension.

I am going to stop here, and let others review this thread to arrive at their own conclusions--whatever they might be.

[Ken Tanaka]

I must admit to feeling a bit foolish as my read on Kevin's perspective and intentions were clearly mistaken. Further debate attempts on this subject of "street" photography would seem an utterly pointless time waste, as Kevin's point of view is clearly intractably embedded in a cloud of other beliefs.

Still, I do once again encourage others to recognize, face, and question their prejudices, as I suggested in post #13.

That's all I have to offer here. Too much time spent typing to no benefit today.

[Jerome Marot]

Originally Posted by Kevin Stecyk

Jerome, thoughtful responses. However, I believe it is deeper than that. Respect for another individual transcends most cultures.

Not quite. Every culture has its own ideas about what is "respectful" and what isn't.

Originally Posted by Kevin Stecyk

So as a test, we could walk around with a Quantum flash and blast a few unsuspecting people in face to judge their reactions. And maybe we could snap some pictures in the name of art. My hunch--and it's just a wild, wild, wild guess--most subjects would not be appreciative. And, if our subjects were bigger and in close proximity, I suspect we'd get a few fists in the face to aid our cultural understanding. Now, how would that be for making a point?

Actually, it would depend on the circumstances. We accept this behavior from the appointed photographer when at a wedding. People accept it on some parties (this is an example: http://www.nachtagenten.de/gallery/g...da.838980.html , the whole site is about amateur photographing the latest parties).

Originally Posted by Asher Kelman

There are costs, yes, but folk such as Charlie are, unfortunately or fortunately as you may see fit, few and far between. So after Charlie passes with his 1 microsecond single flash, it's likely that the persons photographed will never experience such an event ever again in their entire lives! Given that, I see very minimal interference with the folk, no devilish harm and in balance a job well done! Still, I am open to the possibility of some key flaw in my judgment.

The key flaw is that the disturbing act is not the taking of the picture, but the publication of it. Actually, the law recognizes that (in Europe and even in the US): you can take pictures of strangers on the street, the problems start when you want to publish them. The laws are only different on acceptable conditions for publication.

[charlie chipman]

Kevin, I apologize for not making it clear earlier that I have no problem with your disagreeing with my process, critiques, or that you voiced your concern. As you put it so eloquently "We're big boys".
I just think the arguments you are using are a stretch.

For what it's worth I am using 24mm-35mm, not 600mm.

[Asher Kelman]

Kevin,

The advantage of your bringing up this issue of propriety in street photography is that it does need to be addressed every now and then. It reminds folks of the stands we take when we do some kind of street photography, affably or separated from the subject. Whether we realize it immediately or not, each time we do take pictures, we are sampling the world of possibilities in recording what's around us. In some way, whether by stealth or charm, we do "capture", "take" or "get" pictures of our targets, making us hunters.

This picture taking can give us enjoyment, news, a memento of happy times or help to document things as they are without our intervention. How we use these images is another matter, privately or publishing them somehow for profit or not and subject to a myriad of different laws in our various communities.

Given such a plethora of motivations, kinds and end use of photography, it's unsurprising that we can get so much discord in our attitudes and opinions. For clarity we do need to narrow down to one purpose and place the picture in the specific context of its use.

Given one's admitted very strong opinions and "moral" values, justifiable and noble as they might be, it is only natural that you would feel really strongly about photographers who seem to trample on other folks rights. Still, it doesn't mean that you are, in some logically determined absolute sense, correct. It is more likely that your approaches to how you measure and value things is a way to fairness as we might derive from "do as to others as you'd have them do to you". Even then, the derivations of our specific behaviors in photography are still not definable in exact terms. Rather I can honestly say that I understand your position and it's kind intent.

If we applied strictly that "Golden Rule" to life, the lion and paying mantis, the frog and the snake would all be condemned just like the societies "repressive to women seem to be or the photographers with some long lens and stealth. After all, we are merely animals, apes with Nokias, Palm Pilots and iphones.

Almost all the "shoulds" we treasure as truths, believe me, are just local customs, necessities or imposed rules!

Still, it does not hurt, to do as you so, raise the question of what our accepted values really are. Addressing that is even useful perhaps. We can see how the basis of our opinions is as diverse and as varied in substance as our photography.

Asher

[Kevin Stecyk]

Originally Posted by Ken Tanaka

I must admit to feeling a bit foolish as my read on Kevin's perspective and intentions were clearly mistaken. Further debate attempts on this subject of "street" photography would seem an utterly pointless time waste, as Kevin's point of view is clearly intractably embedded in a cloud of other beliefs.

Still, I do once again encourage others to recognize, face, and question their prejudices, as I suggested in post #13.

That's all I have to offer here. Too much time spent typing to no benefit today.

I am not sure what your message here is Ken. It is clouded in so much intellectual psychobabble.

Who's point of view isn't clouded by their entire belief system Ken? Who among us can cleanly separate each question of morality to a single root? If it were so easy, there would be no need for ethics boards and such, because everything is so cut and dried. Yet, oddly we struggle with ethics, morals and values. How can that be?

But I agree with you, this is an utterly pointless time waste.

[Kevin Stecyk]

Originally Posted by charlie chipman

Kevin, I apologize for not making it clear earlier that I have no problem with your disagreeing with my process, critiques, or that you voiced your concern. As you put it so eloquently "We're big boys".

No need to apologize whatsoever. When you put something, anything into the public view, you open yourself up to critical remarks, fair and unfair. So I have no issue with your comments. In fact, you've been cordial in your remarks, which I appreciate.

Had I been more thoughtful, I would have contacted you offline and discussed my concerns. We likely would have agreed to disagree. And that's fine too.

We just see the world differently. We each have our ethics, values and morals.

Originally Posted by charlie chipman

For what it's worth I am using 24mm-35mm, not 600mm.

Regarding your lens size, I never indicated differently.

Originally Posted by charlie chipman

Kevin I do not subscribe to the idea that there is a set of rules for any art form, it is the end result that matters. For you perhaps a 50mm lens and a smile is the way to go about photographing strangers in public. If it takes a 600mm lens from two blocks away to get the shot that someone is after then by all means use a 600mm lens.

Still, I object to taking picture using a 600 mm lens two blocks away to photograph strangers. But that's just me.