Is this acceptable photography?

[xxloverxx]

Originally Posted by erozier2

show them the image on my camera and offer to send it to them. If they seem to have a problem, I offer to delete it.

Yes but he's shooting film (and not polaroid either)

[Ed Shapiro]

My goodness- so much talk about violence, weaponry and marshal arts. Where are y'all comming from. I'll tell you where I came from. As I alluded to in my last post on this thread, I was born and raised in a very tough neighborhood. After high school and a few years of college, I ended up in the army and did a couple of tours in Viet Nam. I have seen and lived through enough violence in my life and appreciate peace and have come to detest violence as a means of settling any kind of problem unless one is violently attacked and has to protect them self or their family.

All this talk about guns and ammunition is ridiculous, hyperbolic and infantile. Get real folks; pointing a deadly weapon, let alone discharging it at a person who took you picture is still considered a felonious offense in most civilized jurist dictions as is beating someone up using marshal arts skills or just plain administering a heavy duty arse kicking can earn you a few years in the jug. I can just see some idiot explaining to the judge that he killed someone with an assault weapon because he startled you when he took your picture. Is that "excessive force" or what? In some states murder is still punishable by a shot in the arm with a poison IV. Besides, injuring someone and causing bodily harm, after the cops and the courts get through with you, will bring on some nasty civil lawsuits. Don't some of you read the papers or watch TV! Well- at least OJ is back in the slammer.

If someone is actually harassed by an overzealous or rude photographer, grab your cell phone and call the police- they are legally equipped to chase away, arrest or even bodily subdue a nut-bar with a camera. Hopefully, they won't need to kill anyone.

OK- so I'm a grandpa- believe me, very little has changed over the decades. Some people have no manners and provoke angry folks who fly off the handle and get themselves into deep pooh
Make love and not war people. I though I should say something before someone recommends the use of a flame-thrower or an artillery piece against a rude photographer. Sounds of morter fire bring on bad memories for me and I hate the oder of burning flesh.

Ed

[felix.reichardt]

Originally Posted by erozier2

Definitely. My qualms with this fellow is entirely his attitude and lack of social skills. I personally love to take photos of random people on the street, especially street performers, and people who are in costume, or dressed up.

The difference is, I don't ambush them. I either give them my business card and ask them up front, or after the photo (if it is a candid), give them my business card, show them the image on my camera and offer to send it to them. If they seem to have a problem, I offer to delete it.

I've never had someone be anything but flattered and excited.

Courtesy and manners get you a long way.

[Joves]

Originally Posted by Ed Shapiro

My goodness- so much talk about violence, weaponry and marshal arts. Where are y'all comming from. I'll tell you where I came from. As I alluded to in my last post on this thread, I was born and raised in a very tough neighborhood. After high school and a few years of college, I ended up in the army and did a couple of tours in Viet Nam. I have seen and lived through enough violence in my life and appreciate peace and have come to detest violence as a means of settling any kind of problem unless one is violently attacked and has to protect them self or their family.
Ed

I was born and raised in Detroit. But live in Flagstaff, Az now. Here we mostly pretty much respect others space so, his behavior would most likely get him hit. And then to add insult to injury, he would probably get arrested for starting the fight.
Now in Detroit he would also get stomped if he was lucky but, would most likely get shot. It is just how it is there.

[RJohnston]

Originally Posted by HighMark Adventures

Well I will probably not make any friends on this topic but I disagree with the general census here. Could I be as in your face as he is, not likely. But I do like his style for capturing people naturally in the streets and not the fake oh hey he is taking my picture lets smile/pose bs.

He is a lot less intrusive on personnal space then hmm bums wanting change, aggressive street vendors, or that relious guy trying to enforce his beleifs upon you. If when walking the streets and I only had to deal with him for that split second in my"perssonal space" for the day I will take it. Another comment made about his flash and possible epileptic attack, seriously man cmon. Also I really don`t see the comparison to what he is doing as compared to the papparazzi.

A STROBE can cause an epileptic seizure, seriously..... Even Psychologists and Psychiatrists have to be careful in therapy with an epileptic, so techniques used do not cause a seizure. If someone falls and hits their head, because they were startled or fearful he can be charged with assault or manslaughter. Even some of his methods are intrusive enough, if a person thought quick, they could have him arrested for assault. People need to check with local law enforcement or go to photography schools and learn what is or is not legal. No one has to touch you for it to be considered an assault. If they pull out pepper spray or defend themselves, they would be justified if you are committing assault.

Jumping into someones face or space can cause a reaction.
Does that make the reaction "normal emotion" or a candid photo of that person?
No, you may get many "expressions" it is NOT a normal expression, but one that was forced out of them and just as ...fake... as an expression if they knew you were taking it.

Does the fact that Paparazzi do this with celebrities, justify similar behavior.
NO. Celebrities by the very fact that they are public figures, makes it legal to take certain pictures of them. BUT, even the courts have made rulings that can get them arrested if they intrude on their space or come withing a certain distance and/or take pictures of their children without permission.

Laws exist to protect our privacy, anyone who is not a public figure could sue him for pictures published on YouTube and win. One day he may just wind up in court "attempting" to justify his behavior. Even if we photograph a model who willingly poses, we need to get a Model Release before publishing any photo of them. He will undoubtedly LOSE, because they are NOT celebrities and entitled to privacy under the law....

For many decades Photographers had taken "Candid" Photos of people on the streets. They had no problem getting some fantastic images. What he is doing takes no "skill" and the images are no more "natural" then those who take obviously posed expressions.

As for "bums on the street" what they do is also illegal in many cities. Just because they do it, does not justify other violating the law. Just as driving drunk, does not mean everyone should drive drunk.

He could simply sit by the sidewalk, and get better shots than he is getting. They are not even well exposed, many are far from good focus. Not anything Id bother to look at for more than one second if they appeared her in Photocamel. Just because he has a different "style" does no by any stretch of the imagination, make what he does "good photography."

Ive seen much better quality and much more interesting work done by Boy Scouts working for a merit badge and Future Farmers of America, in Boys and Girls Clubs etc.

[Brooks]

His photography is a boring as his behaviour is boorish.

[RJohnston]

Originally Posted by Brooks

His photography is a boring as his behaviour is boorish.

Exactly, went back and watched the film again, saw many shots he could have got, that would have been much better and much more candid. He is so intent on "doing it his way" that he misses even more interesting materiel.

[Doug Lester]

Is it legal? Probably. Is it acceptable? No, not by my own standards. I'm afraid my reaction to having someone suddenly jump into my face and fire off a bright flash would mean my fist automatically connected with his nose.

[GixxerKitten]

I can only imagine how he would be received here in very conservative Virginia.

[felix.reichardt]

Originally Posted by RJohnston

Exactly, went back and watched the film again, saw many shots he could have got, that would have been much better and much more candid. He is so intent on "doing it his way" that he misses even more interesting materiel.

I think you need to check his portfolio. Some pretty good stuff in there.

[Ed Shapiro]

I think the consensus here is that there nothing wrong with candid "street photography" per se but in the case of this photographer, the end does not justify his means. Like in all human relationships, honey will get better results than vinegar. I believe that most people don't mind participating in "art" but don't like to have anything done to them in the name of art of journalism. I have said in other of my posts that buying a shiny new DSLR does not come with a license to cross all boundaries- police and fire lines, restrictions on theatrical performances, getting in the way of professional wedding photographers when they are doing their work and getting into people's "space" in a harsh manner.

Also the disproportionate "press" given to the Paparazzi seem to legitimize invasive behavior on the part of photographers. As many of us know their shenanigans go far beyond rushing celebrities in public- the have invaded people's privacy like a bunch of "peeping toms" and are actually the photographic arm of the "yellow" press and all this gossip TV shows that get on my nerves. Sadly enough, they reflect poorly on legitimate photojournalists who oftentimes risk their lives and limbs to visually interpret the "real" news such as the horrors or war and the degradation of human rights and conditions in some regions of the world.

I don't think any of us want to restrict photographers to a fault or "muzzle" the lenses of the photojournalist or art photographers but I think we are all looking for balance, fairness and kindness in contrast to boorish behavior.

To a degree, I have defended the "street photographer" in question because so many of the opinions seem violent and/or "anti-photographer" in general. Not all photographers are boors and troublemakers but the small percentage of those who are, make it difficult for all of us.

Some years ago, I was covering a wedding and when I went into the clergy's study to ask permission to photograph the service, before I could finish my sentence, he leered at me and said "oh! the photographer, the bane of the clergy"! I was just about to give him a righteous what for when I realized that only God knows what he had experienced with obnoxious and invasive wedding shooters in the past. This is when the bad rep that some photographers have established finally hits home to bite innocent photographers right in butt when they least expect that kind of treatment. We all end up paying for the stupidity of others. Too bad!

Ed

[erozier2]

Originally Posted by Ed Shapiro

We all end up paying for the stupidity of others. Too bad!

Sadly this isn't restricted to Photography either.

Good summary Ed!

[Doug Lester]

Originally Posted by Ed Shapiro

I

Well said.

[KatMitchell]

No.. It is rude!!!! He treats people like cattle as a means to "his" ends...

Sure it makes him successful, but then a lot of people out there could be more successful in their chosen field by stepping on others. That does not make it right...

Kat

[aam1234]

Originally Posted by KatMitchell

No.. It is rude!!!! He treats people like cattle as a means to "his" ends...

Sure it makes him successful, but then a lot of people out there could be more successful in their chosen field by stepping on others. That does not make it right...

The best answer so far.

Well said, Kat.

[RJohnston]

Originally Posted by Ed Shapiro

Some years ago, I was covering a wedding and when I went into the clergy's study to ask permission to photograph the service, before I could finish my sentence, he leered at me and said "oh! the photographer, the bane of the clergy"! I was just about to give him a righteous what for when I realized that only God knows what he had experienced with obnoxious and invasive wedding shooters in the past. This is when the bad rep that some photographers have established finally hits home to bite innocent photographers right in butt when they least expect that kind of treatment. We all end up paying for the stupidity of others. Too bad!

Ed

Have always had two goals at Weddings.
1. To get better and more Wedding pictures then the bride wants.

2. To blend so well with the guests, people, "Did you have a photographer?

When that is accomplished, then it was a good Wedding.

[jeff martin]

"A STROBE can cause an epileptic seizure, seriously."

I was taught in school (no, not med school) that the type of "strobe" that causes seizures is the repeating kind. Something about the frequency of the cycle. Not a single flash.

[20DNewbie]

Lol, I would have loved to have seen the first lady beat the snot out of him with her umbrella. It would have made the video much more interesting.

[riha]

Originally Posted by gsk

Is it really legal? Since his style is to go up into your face and take a photo, I bet you could cause him some trouble and say he took your photo without a model release contract signed.

Is it acceptable? I don't think it is because of his unethical style. I don't think it's true street photography because his into your face style makes the person react and therefore doesn't capture the true character of the person being photographed.

I think it is legas as it is in public place.

[riha]

Originally Posted by jeff martin

"A STROBE can cause an epileptic seizure, seriously."

I was taught in school (no, not med school) that the type of "strobe" that causes seizures is the repeating kind. Something about the frequency of the cycle. Not a single flash.

Exactly.

It is the repeating pattern that is unhealthy, no a single flash.