• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

"The Photographer as Aggressor"

Shane Carter

New member
In a Street Photography course, we read and discussed the following article written by Bill Jay. The course was taught by well known photographer and professor Frank Lavelle.

To start, I quote from Bill Jay's website and hence, why I'm OK with posting the link:

"This web site provides an opportunity to "archive" many of them [his essays] while, hopefully, making them available to a wider, new audience. Here is a preliminary selection. Further articles will be added at frequent intervals.

Please feel free to download and print them for your personal use, although I expect commercial users to follow the laws of copyright."

Asher, if this is still not acceptable to link from site, you can delete this thread, but it seems to be OK with the author.

Bill Jay as you may know, has a col in "LensWorks," and other media, and his website is here: http://www.billjayonphotography.com/

The article "The Photographer as Aggressor" was a very interesting read and started quite a good discussion in class.

It is a little long but if you want to read it and post your thoughts on it, it might make for an interesting discussion.

Here is the link and article: http://www.billjayonphotography.com/PhotographerAsAggressor.pdf
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Shane,

This is a worthy subject for discussion, even it were copyrighted, LOL!

Sontag, BTW, is somewhat right. It can be assaultive. Photography, after all, is part of social intercourse. It can be "zipless", considerate, degrading or frankly immoral. It also can be something beautiful.

The camera is not a killing instrument like a gun. More often, its power is not linked to damaging anything. So the photographer is not necessarily an aggressor. Sontag went too far. What does the photographer hold?

It's just a mirror to hold against what we are and a lantern to find our way. However, even a lantern can burn down a home of a good person.

Asher
 

Cem_Usakligil

Well-known member
There goes my hobby down the drain. I'll never be able to take any pictures of people anymore, without being burdened by the unpleasant thought of being kind of an "agressor".

Well, I'll mainly stick to landscapes and architecture then.

Regards,

Cem
 

John_Nevill

New member
I'm not sure I share the statement "To photograph someone is sublimated murder",

However, nowadays kids wander around snapping their mobile phones and no one really pays any attention. Put a sizeable camera in the hands of someone and hackles arise.

I had a similar experience in London recently, pocket cameras and phones everywhere, happily snapping away at Joe public around the capital's sights, I get out the 5D and within 5 mins I'm getting verbal abuse!

It all about perception, large cameras in public places have always given the impression of invasion of personal space and privacy. Small cameras don't. So get a compact and be discrete!
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Cem and john,

As I said I think Sontag went to far; almost politically correct neo-nazi-Freudianism! The camera can be used aggressively but so can a block of ice or almost anything. Just as Freud while very smart and having insight, was wrong when extended to many explanations of disease, so is Sontagism!

Funny that i had less complaints about the Leica M8 with the red dot that with the 5D!

I have been thinking of having a very loose jacket that can cover my 5D until the last moment. On the street, I am a hunter for sure and pretty well shoot what I want. That's the nature of the activity. Children I ask permission generally by making eye contact with the parents.

Asher
 

John_Nevill

New member
Funny that i had less complaints about the Leica M8 with the red dot that with the 5D!

Asher

That's where small pieces of black electrical tape cut to size comes in handy.

My GRD II looks unobtrusive and unrecognisable , two pieces of black tape , one on the AF LED and the other to hide the logo. It looks like a $50 compact from walmart. :)
 

Shane Carter

New member
While we may not intend to use the camera as a tool for ill, it turns out that way when we photograph those that do not want to be. My own experience shows that many people are private and this is considered invading their space. So we have to be aware of that, respectful, and not do it just to serve our own desires...in other words, a camera does not mean that we have to right to invade someone's space just because we are not physically touching them.

And my sense is that the size of the camera does not change this. It only changes how aware people are of you doing it...not thier reaction to it once they know what is going on. A small rangefinder was/is the preferred tool of many street photographers because it draws less attention...not because poeple mind less. That would apply to call phones, little P&S, etc.

A little theory anyway. :)
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
While we may not intend to use the camera as a tool for ill, it turns out that way when we photograph those that do not want to be.

The world is full of different people. People may not like us to stare at them because they are handsome, weird looking or have a $6,000 Gucci purse. However, in a public place, any light coming from them can be recorded legally. They may not like that, for sure. However, they may not like some girl's short skirt or someone's long hair! That could be offensive to them too.

The only time I'd think it was wrong to photograph would be when the picture would humiliate someone who is just unfortunate.

My own experience shows that many people are private and this is considered invading their space.

I agree where there is a natural expectation of privacy, such as in your home, but not in public.

So we have to be aware of that, respectful, and not do it just to serve our own desires...
Why not serve "our own desires" as long as one does not actually obstruct or interfere with someone else's business? We should be free form unreasonable constraints without being actually rude to others.

in other words, a camera does not mean that we have to right to invade someone's space just because we are not physically touching them.
But we do have that right. Photographers can use a lens to reach over the road to image a person smoking at a bus stop. Nothing illegal about that. Photographers have fought hard for these rights. However not through a window unless it is truly incidental.

So are you saying that we should not use our rights? Is this a moral point of view or jusrt a sense of good manners or what?

Asher
 

Shane Carter

New member
Asher, your position seems to be we can photograph anyone, anytime, and whenever it strikes our fancy...is that right? So I might be on the subway with my 12 year daughter and a stranger with a camera points his camera in the face of my 12 year old and one would expect me to say what..."ok, no problem?"

Just because one has the right to do a thing does not mean it is civil behavior. Context is everything and thinking people must apply judgement.

In DC, I did some shooting on the Metro system. At one point, I took some shots of a few Metro Police and they were not happy about it. Was it my right to do so, sure...but to what end? Just to be obnoxious?

I talked to them later and there are good, sound reasons a police officer does not want to be photographed. So now I only do it if I have a reason, that reason is never just because I have the right to do it.

I do not think the right to photograph everyone and anyone means that rude behavior is acceptable. We live in a open society and without some form of treating each other well, we are not helping matter.

I photographed a series on homeless people. I was not wearing my press creds. At one point, one guy jumped up and nearly attacked me, it was all I could do to get away without a brawl. He was ticked I took his photo. Was it my right, sure. Was it a decent thing to do, he sure did not think so. Later I had to agree with him, he is not a stage monkey for me to treat with disrespect. Do I shoot homeless people now, yes...but I use a little common sense and if they see me and I get the impression that it is not acceptable by them, I don't do it...rights or no rights.

I think the problem is when real-life meets theory. Too many photographers are so wrapped up the "rights" arm-chair debate and that debate is just too black-and-white for those of us that do get out on the streets and shoot real people doing daily life.

I also have press credentials and shoot for newspapers now and then. That is a different ball of wax so I won't add that to mix.

In the end, it is about common sense. You say "We should be free form unreasonable constraints without being actually rude to others." and I agree with this statement 100%

I don't have any idea what your comment on morals is suspose to mean...I'm talking about our behavior, as photographers and representatives of the craft.

The arguments in the article are overblown on purpose. Bill Jay is not a wall flower by any means, but he is attempting to give a social context. No one that reads his cols in Lensworks would ever call him a moralist. He is bringing forward a good topic that I deal with often. Landscape shooters, my sports shooting, my theatre shooting...that really does not apply, controlled situations.

In the publc, I do think we need to have a least a moderate amount of respect for others on the receiving end of our lens. :)
 

John_Nevill

New member
Shane,

I support what you are saying and my comments relate more to the changing world we live in. I personally don't feel comfortable poking any form of camera in someone's face in an exploitive manner.

Furthermore having raised two boys to adults, I would also feel uncomfortable with other people photographing them. Hence I would never photograph a child without parental permission.

My need for a more discrete camera is partially there to a) protect me and b) to not draw too much attention to the fact.

If I wanted a stranger's portrait then good communication is the key. If the stranger objects then I accept his / her right not to be photographed. However, public places are indeed public and I agree with Asher that as photographers we most certainly want to keep the right to continue operating in these environments.

No doubt laws will change and such rights will be eroded, but until then I'll continue to operate discretely, cautiously and morally.
 

Shane Carter

New member
Shane,

I support what you are saying and my comments relate more to the changing world we live in. I personally don't feel comfortable poking any form of camera in someone's face in an exploitive manner.

Furthermore having raised two boys to adults, I would also feel uncomfortable with other people photographing them. Hence I would never photograph a child without parental permission.

My need for a more discrete camera is partially there to a) protect me and b) to not draw too much attention to the fact.

If I wanted a stranger's portrait then good communication is the key. If the stranger objects then I accept his / her right not to be photographed. However, public places are indeed public and I agree with Asher that as photographers we most certainly want to keep the right to continue operating in these environments.

No doubt laws will change and such rights will be eroded, but until then I'll continue to operate discretely, cautiously and morally.

John, I'm getting the impression that part the arguement that we (photographers) behaving in a civil fashion means that we are giving up rights. I'm 100% for our rights!!! All of us here do! :)

But I of the mind that we can act in a repectful way to others, keep our rights, and still get what we want.

In a perverse way, acting in a civil fashion will do more to protect our rights than any lobby effort on Capitol Hill. :)

As for begin descrete, I like the qualifiers you attached to that statement...that keeps it from being sneaky or creepy (for lack of more elegant terms).

And you are of the Henri Cartier-Bresson school of thought as this was his style, pretty good company. :)

But it is not everyone's or even most.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
But I of the mind that we can act in a repectful way to others, keep our rights, and still get what we want.
So Shane,

What is it that you would have us do or not do? Being "respectful" is not a ruler with standard measurements! We all, I hope have that intent. However what are the specific consequences of that intent we claim to own?

IOW, what is it that you see other photographers do that you feel is wrong? We all want to be decent citizens, after all, but unless we specifiy what photography we would like to exclude, it all sounds like Obama or George Bush, the last trime. They both talked about doing the right thing but really! Are you saying, for example, that reaching across the road to a man buying apples art a stand is morally wrong or bad etiquette. How can one get that shot if one asks? The picture is then made for the camera and has already lost something. If a child was involved and reconizable, I'd go over to the parents and show the picture and offer to send it. If they objected, I'd destroy it. I often throw away images people object to. I want image of people behaving naturally. So I don't generally ask permission. So there's an example from my way of working. Would you do differently? What examples can you offer?

Without such examples, then wanting to be a decent fellow alone, gives no instruction in behavior.

John agrees with you. But on what?

Asher
 

Shane Carter

New member
Asher, in a previous post, I gave two very specific real-life examples.

I'm not telling anyone what to do, that is not my call. I'm simply discussing why photographers get a bad rep so often and for some reason, seem mystified by it. That is the point of Jay's piece. Neither he nor I are telling people what to do...but rather recognizing the other side of the coin...and the reasons behind the reaction. People will behave as they will, photographers included.

Typical problem solving involves looking at both sides, not one or the other...but somehow photographers often do not do this, they only look at thier own side...which I think is dangerous and can produce skewed viewpoints.

If you missed my examples, they involve Metro Police and a homeless man.

As for shooting a man across the street selling apples, telephoto shots are 95% boring street photography so shooting people long distance with telephotos lenses does nothing for me and I don't do it. But on point, as far as I can tell from your example, the subject would not even know so it does not fit the profile of the topic, IMO. None of this is about surreptitious photography...but rather about traditional street photograhy.

Here is an idea, let's turn the real-life examples I gave before into questions...

Do you think that the homeless guy in the story I told before (real story, real photographer...me) was wrong to be upset with me? I don't think so.

How about shooting police officers in a non-news situation and they are not happy with it...would you keep shooting because it is your right to do so? Not me.

If you are with your 12 year old girl on the metro, and a photog gets down to your daughter's level and starts taking photos, is that OK with you? It is not with me.

John can speak for himself of course.

As for "moral" behavior, that term gives me the creeps. It suggests that there is some kind of higher-spirt power rules to apply here. You will not hear me saying that there is a moral angle to this, not my cup of tea.

As for what kind of photography to exclude, for me I usually (certainly not always) know when I'm intruding, gave a few examples. A few more...I don't shoot other people's children except in a controlled situation. I don't randomly shoot police unless they are OK with it. I don't stick my camera in someone's face and expect them to be happy about it. Sometimes they don't care, but don't be suprised or indignant if they don't like it and don't want to discuss "photographers rights." This is what I mean by "common sense."

Does it mean I never shoot homeless people anymore, of course not. Am I more aware of how they may be reacting than I was before the situation described in a previous post...yes!

Experience plays a role in judgment so not sure if that addresses your point or not...maybe.

I will tell you this, that in my class, many of the students, especially the young ones, did not give a lick about what other poeple think of being photographed in any situation. Very cocky and agressive and using the "photographers rights" argument to justify what most of us would consider less than civil behavior. That did bother me. I chalk some of it up to being young tho. Ironically, being agressive did not help the quality of the work they showed the class.

As you can see from these examples and many more I could tell, I'm often pushing the limits and sometimes getting push-back. Another example, three weekends ago, I was asked to stop shooting from the grounds of the Federal Reserve building. So I could have gotten huffy and had a confrontation with the three Capitol Police that said I should not be there, but to what end? I find my own limits based on the shooting situation, and in some ways, you could say I've invaded poeples space many times. I just try not to keep making the same mistakes.

Not related to street photography but related to pushing the limits and getting push back...how many people that you have a time elpase exposure shot from a tripod of good old Abe? :)

574900055_M2N9237.jpg


Not allowed. :) But I don't do any more now that I know the rules...told to me in very uncertain terms by a Capitol Police officer and later verified by me by reading the rules for shooting on the National Mall posted on their website.

So with the expection of learning from my many mistakes, I'm the wrong person to ask about where the boundries of behavior are. :)
 
Civility is different from lawfulness.

I do think we should behave civilly, but I do not think that act of taking a photograph needs to be regulated by law.

There are already laws governing model releases etc. These seem to be enough protection against agressing photographers, don't they?
 

Shane Carter

New member
Civility is different from lawfulness.

I do think we should behave civilly, but I do not think that act of taking a photograph needs to be regulated by law.

There are already laws governing model releases etc. These seem to be enough protection against agressing photographers, don't they?

Yes! You are right there. Civil behavior will help with that in an indirect way...and agreed, we don't want more laws. And as far as I know through following the capitol hill work of NPPA and PPA, none are hanging out there at the moment.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
If the person takes a picture of your daughter in a public place, you can ask the person to not do it or cover your child. Most photographers would not persist if you expressed your disagreement. As I said, especially with children, one should pay attention to parents, otherwise people get frightened about intent. I cannot see any differences in opinion here.

If however, I was recording abuse of children. I'd not seek permission especially if the was some risk.

So where do we differ? Really, I have not seen any example where we are talking about or sanctioning different standards of behavior.

As far as taking picture from this side of the street or crossing over, it just changes perspective. The same subject.

Asher
 

Shane Carter

New member
I don't know that we do differ in any large way. Personally, I tend to push the envelope a little, but not too hard.

Your example about children is exactly what I've been saying many times, the situation determines the limits. That is why when you asked about what are the rules, that question cannot be answered specifically as it is situation dependent.

For example, what I can shoot even varies with who I have with me. If I have my kids with me, or my dog, people look at me differently than alone. If it is a street fair, the "rules" are much more loose. If the place is crowded, that is different than when just a few people are out. Women tend to not like a man they don't know photographing them much more so than a man. A market is loose. A town that has many tourists is much more tolerant than one with few visitors. It even varies from one area of the country to the other...and going overseas changes everything.

The underlying theory is important, but nothing subsitutes actually getting out and shooting.

One thing about the article that is interesting is the tension between photographer and the pubic has changed somewhat over the years, but it is seems to be just variations on the problem...which in my experience still exists.

The talk about behavior only applies if one accepts that the tension exists and perhaps more important, that it is worth paying attention to. :)
 
Top