Etiquette for Taking Pictures of people

boccers_2000

boccers_2000

Messages
379
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi Guys,

been taking pictures for a wee while (mainly landscapes/architecture). Now I find myself taking pictures of people just ambling about on their day to day business.

Just a quick question. I get a little nervous about taking a picture of someone. Dont want to upset anyone etc but would also feel a little strange asking as (a) id feel like an idiot and (b) they would know someone was taking a pic and the natural look would go.

Can those of you experienced in this tell me how you go about it?

As I say, donmt want to upset anyone etc.

Cheers
 
If you are in a public place (e.g. a street) then you are allowed to take photos of people, regardless of what they say. As such, you don't need to ask permission, although I understand your concerns about asking.

It is something you get used to, and there are techniques to avoid people getting concerned with you.

There are many threads on here about street photography.
 
I guess it just takes getting used to it (ie being the one taking the pictures).

Bottom line is, in a public space it isnt illegal so as long as you can get over your own nerves then you should be fine.
 
boccers_2000 said:
I guess it just takes getting used to it (ie being the one taking the pictures).

Bottom line is, in a public space it isnt illegal so as long as you can get over your own nerves then you should be fine.
Click to expand...

just that - remember if you act like you are doing something 'wrong' people will assume you are
 
I understand how you feel. What I'm doing just now to get into the habit is shooting from the hip or using my GF1 slung around my neck with my left hand over it and using my thumb to activate the shutter - more hits than misses at the moment though!

I'm also planning regular trips to Edinburgh as it's a tourist place people don't seem to take much notice of people with cameras there.
 
I suggest that the next time you go out you stop people and ask to photograph them. Don't take long about it, laugh and smile a lot and don't worry too much about the images to start with. Keep doing this until you get comfortable doing it. If you do it right you can make the subject's day so don't feel like they are doing you a big favour, you are doing them a favour as well.

Once it gets easy you are free to choose whether to approach people or to 'shoot from the hip' depending on the image you want.

There is a body of opinion that seems to think that few good images come from first approaching people. Just ask yourself how many great portrait photographs have been taken without speaking to the subject.
 
hoohaaa said:
I suggest that the next time you go out you stop people and ask to photograph them. Don't take long about it, laugh and smile a lot and don't worry too much about the images to start with. Keep doing this until you get comfortable doing it. If you do it right you can make the subject's day so don't feel like they are doing you a big favour, you are doing them a favour as well.

Once it gets easy you are free to choose whether to approach people or to 'shoot from the hip' depending on the image you want.

There is a body of opinion that seems to think that few good images come from first approaching people. Just ask yourself how many great portrait photographs have been taken without speaking to the subject.
Click to expand...

by approaching people, you by definition, remove any candid or natural part of the shot.

'Great portraits shots' can cover a multitude of scenarios, so your last sentence is pretty meaningless
 
I wouldn't approach and ask anyone in a million years. Spoils it all.
 
One way to get people is not to track them as they walk. Work out where they will be for a good shot, and then wait for them. Then if they clock you, you can hold the camera there after they have gone and act as if you were shooting something else and they got in the way.

View finders give things away, a camera with live view, or even better a flip out screen (like my bridge) means you can be looking down at the camera which maks people think you are not taking shots.

A long lens can help, but have seen plenty of shots with a 50mm and people being blatent about it.
 
lawrie29 said:
a camera with live view, or even better a flip out screen (like my bridge) means you can be looking down at the camera which maks people think you are not taking shots.
Click to expand...

I use that trick :D
 
I've always wondered about this as well, nice to know we have a fair bit of freedom.
 
boyfalldown said:
by approaching people, you by definition, remove any candid or natural part of the shot.
Click to expand...

I don't agree that it can't be natural because you've approached the subject first. It's just different. Sometimes it's appropriate and sometimes it isn't.

boyfalldown said:
'Great portraits shots' can cover a multitude of scenarios, so your last sentence is pretty meaningless
Click to expand...

I think most people would understand the general meaning of 'Great portrait shots'. But my point is that you are better equipped if you have the ability, nerve, confidence (call it what you will) to be able to choose whether to approach someone or not. I'm not knocking candid portraits but there are plenty that would have been much better if the photographer had spoken to the subject first (just as there are plenty that wouldn't be).
 
I never had the nerve to try street photography until I went on my first TP meet.
Watching other members doing it made me feel confident and I soon got over it watching starrider doing his thing.
 
Asking for permission ruins the shot imo. You just end up with a bunch of pictures of people posing for the camera.

I don't agree with trying to be stealthy, and pretend you aren't shooting them. You'll look nervous, like you're doing something wrong, and people will pick up on that and react negatively.

When I'm out on the street I just walk purposefully, constantly scanning for interesting subjects, you see one, stop, take the shot, start looking for the next one. Don't hang around for reactions, although a cheeky smile doesn't hurt if they start laughing (which is most of the time).

Bottom line is, get in the mindset....you're a street photographer, out capturing life on the street. You're not sneaking about taking pictures of people when they're not looking, so don't act like you are.
 
hoohaaa said:
I don't agree that it can't be natural because you've approached the subject first. It's just different. Sometimes it's appropriate and sometimes it isn't.
Click to expand...

You end up with a bunch of photos of people posing for the camera, which isn't to say they can't be good photos , but no matter how good at establishing a rapport you are walking up and asking to take a photograph in the street will result in a posed photograph.

hoohaaa said:
I think most people would understand the general meaning of 'Great portrait shots'. But my point is that you are better equipped if you have the ability, nerve, confidence (call it what you will) to be able to choose whether to approach someone or not. I'm not knocking candid portraits but there are plenty that would have been much better if the photographer had spoken to the subject first (just as there are plenty that wouldn't be).
Click to expand...

Thats not what you said in your original reply. Of course you are better equipped. Equally though, there are plenty of candid photographs that are much better because the subject is unaware they are being photographed.
 
The OP titled this thread 'Etiquette for Taking Pictures of people'. It didn't say whether it was candid, street, environmental portraiture, portraiture or any other type of photography. I'm not arguing for or against any particular genre of photography (anyone who does is on very dodgy ground) just in favour of gaining the ability to choose. An ability I know from first hand experience a lot of 'street photographers' don't have.


boyfalldown said:
You end up with a bunch of photos of people posing for the camera, which isn't to say they can't be good photos , but no matter how good at establishing a rapport you are walking up and asking to take a photograph in the street will result in a posed photograph.
Click to expand...

As you admit, they can be good photos. Why do you assume that these aren't some of the photos the OP might want?
 
I would say, from the OP, that "people just ambling about on their day to day business.", and their concern about losing the 'natural look', that they are not after posed shots.
 
hoohaaa said:
The OP titled this thread 'Etiquette for Taking Pictures of people'. It didn't say whether it was candid, street, environmental portraiture, portraiture or any other type of photography. I'm not arguing for or against any particular genre of photography (anyone who does is on very dodgy ground) just in favour of gaining the ability to choose. An ability I know from first hand experience a lot of 'street photographers' don't have.




As you admit, they can be good photos. Why do you assume that these aren't some of the photos the OP might want?
Click to expand...

as Chris says the OP stated

"Now I find myself taking pictures of people just ambling about on their day to day business."

which, to me, implies that they won't be posed photographs.

As an aside, everyone I know who enjoys street photography has a fantastic ability to build a rapport
 
I remember seeing ads in the back of photo mags about 20 years ago for a 90-degree mirror attachment to go on the end of your long lens so that you could take candid shots without pointing the camera at the subject. Stalking was so much easier in the old days. :shake:

Seriously, I've also seen pictures of Cartier-Bresson 'stalking' a subject, covering the camera with his hand so it couldn't be seen until he was ready to take the shot.

Personally I think it depends on how comfortable you feel in taking the shots. I once took a roll of candids in Kings Cross, Sydney using a 200mm lens because I wasn't happy about pointing a big camera and lens at some of the night people (and I'm sure some of them wouldn't have been over the moon with me taking their photo either given it was the red light district).
 
hoohaaa said:
I suggest that the next time you go out you stop people and ask to photograph them. Don't take long about it, laugh and smile a lot and don't worry too much about the images to start with. Keep doing this until you get comfortable doing it. If you do it right you can make the subject's day so don't feel like they are doing you a big favour, you are doing them a favour as well.

Once it gets easy you are free to choose whether to approach people or to 'shoot from the hip' depending on the image you want.

There is a body of opinion that seems to think that few good images come from first approaching people. Just ask yourself how many great portrait photographs have been taken without speaking to the subject.
Click to expand...

Exactly the way it should be done IMO.
Pretty soon the subject forgets you're shooting and goes back to what it was that caught your interest in the first place, assuming they're static - if it's just random people walking down the street, why bother taking a shot like that anyway? Stop them and pose them - engage them - make them feel they'e contributing to your art rather than being mugged for a happy-snap...

'Candids' as many people seem to understand the term seems to be standing off and shooting with a long lens - to me that's nothing more than surveillance photography and you'll get better images from CCTV grabs...
It's possible to be candid and not use a telephoto as Ian Berry and HCB have demonstrated (though I think if HCB tried that approach these days, it'd only be a matter of time before someone clobbered him).
Don McCullin also does a very neat 'informal environmental portrait' - let's call it what it is, shall we?
Still shoots on old Olympus OM film-cameras using 28mm and 135mm lenses - go see his exhibition - there's an accompanying film about his charity projects in Africa that shows him at work...
 
cobra_lite said:
Exactly the way it should be done IMO.
Pretty soon the subject forgets you're shooting and goes back to what it was that caught your interest in the first place, assuming they're static - if it's just random people walking down the street, why bother taking a shot like that anyway? Stop them and pose them - engage them - make them feel they'e contributing to your art rather than being mugged for a happy-snap...

'Candids' as many people seem to understand the term seems to be standing off and shooting with a long lens - to me that's nothing more than surveillance photography and you'll get better images from CCTV grabs...
It's possible to be candid and not use a telephoto as Ian Berry and HCB have demonstrated (though I think if HCB tried that approach these days, it'd only be a matter of time before someone clobbered him).
Don McCullin also does a very neat 'informal environmental portrait' - let's call it what it is, shall we?
Still shoots on old Olympus OM film-cameras using 28mm and 135mm lenses - go see his exhibition - there's an accompanying film about his charity projects in Africa that shows him at work...
Click to expand...

Most people who are good at this sort of photography use short focal length, 35 and 50mm seem to be highly thought of for this.

'Candid' shots with long lenses as you refer to them are just as you describe.

'Mugging for a happy snap' is an interesting term. It is perfectly possible with a shortish lens, to capture a good, interesting photograph, not a happy snap, without people being aware of you. There is a plave for both, but you won't capture people going about their day to day business by asking them
 
When I originally posted I didnt expect this to be such a hot topic but im glad it has generated debate.

I get the feel that street photography is a form of photography where the rules vary from togger to togger in relation to what your trying to capture and how comfortable you feel about doing it.

Unfortunately, I can only go upto 50mm so the long lens idea isnt a goer. I guess I should just grow a pair of ba**s and get out there, be confident about it and if asked by someone just tell them the truth, im taking photos!
 
boccers_2000 said:
When I originally posted I didnt expect this to be such a hot topic but im glad it has generated debate.

I get the feel that street photography is a form of photography where the rules vary from togger to togger in relation to what your trying to capture and how comfortable you feel about doing it.

Unfortunately, I can only go upto 50mm so the long lens idea isnt a goer. I guess I should just grow a pair of ba**s and get out there, be confident about it and if asked by someone just tell them the truth, im taking photos!
Click to expand...

50mm is ideal for this. Much longer and you end up with a load of tedious headshots with no context. I think being confident about it, doing what feels right for you and not being ashamed/embarrssed/shifty about it is the way forward
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
'Mugging for a happy snap' is an interesting term. It is perfectly possible with a shortish lens, to capture a good, interesting photograph, not a happy snap, without people being aware of you. There is a plave for both, but you won't capture people going about their day to day business by asking them
Click to expand...

This is a pretty routine image, but it serves to illustrate my point.
It was taken as part of an exercise I was working on a few years back and was shot after I'd asked permission then lingered for a while chatting and shooting as I went. I spent about ten minutes in all at this location.
Do they look bothered by the camera? No.
Do they appear to be aware of the camera? No. But they were, because I was talking and shooting continuously.

I just picked my moments carefully.

4585799851_b62a0d0623_z.jpg


Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 @ 19mm on a D2x.
 
boyfalldown said:
fair enough - I did say there was a place for both though
Click to expand...

I've always found that brassing it out is the best policy - if you act as though you're doing nothing wrong, people will assume you're doing nothing wrong.
Act furtively and people will assume you're up to no good.

On the same day that image was taken, two other people asked me not to photograph them as they were working second jobs 'under the radar', so to speak. We had a brief chat about the state of the economy and I moved along.
Unless someone's paying me to take an individual's image, there's no mileage in upsetting or annoying people just for the sake of your own gratification. Life's too short and bad karma bites back.
 
cobra_lite said:
I've always found that brassing it out is the best policy - if you act as though you're doing nothing wrong, people will assume you're doing nothing wrong.
Act furtively and people will assume you're up to no good.

On the same day that image was taken, two other people asked me not to photograph them as they were working second jobs 'under the radar', so to speak. We had a brief chat about the state of the economy and I moved along.
Unless someone's paying me to take an individual's image, there's no mileage in upsetting or annoying people just for the sake of your own gratification. Life's too short and bad karma bites back.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to agrue with any of that, but its is possible to do both. I don't think I've upset anyone yet
 
onikami said:
I wouldn't approach and ask anyone in a million years. Spoils it all.
Click to expand...

:plusone: just point and shoot, preferably when they are not looking, anything else will get a frown (or worse) or a pose, none of which you want.
 
Assuming someone gets in a paddy about it whilst you photo them out on the street and gets brave/aggressive towards you, what advice would you give to that? Show them the photos and talk about? Explain? What if they are demanding you delete them? Surely they have no rights?
 
clicktor said:
Assuming someone gets in a paddy about it whilst you photo them out on the street and gets brave/aggressive towards you, what advice would you give to that? Show them the photos and talk about? Explain? What if they are demanding you delete them? Surely they have no rights?
Click to expand...

no but if they really feel strongly about it - is it worth keeping?
 
clicktor said:
Assuming someone gets in a paddy about it whilst you photo them out on the street and gets brave/aggressive towards you, what advice would you give to that? Show them the photos and talk about? Explain? What if they are demanding you delete them? Surely they have no rights?
Click to expand...

Depends what form the approach takes, if it's friendly offer to show the image and possibly offer a copy. If it's aggressive tell them to take a hike, or take a hike yourself depending on their size :D
I would not delete the image unless I wanted to.
 
cobra_lite said:
This is a pretty routine image, but it serves to illustrate my point.
It was taken as part of an exercise I was working on a few years back and was shot after I'd asked permission then lingered for a while chatting and shooting as I went. I spent about ten minutes in all at this location.
Do they look bothered by the camera? No.
Do they appear to be aware of the camera? No. But they were, because I was talking and shooting continuously.

I just picked my moments carefully.

4585799851_b62a0d0623_z.jpg


Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 @ 19mm on a D2x.
Click to expand...

IMO, it looks like they are very much aware of the camera, looks posed to me. *Everyone* acts differently when a camera is on them. It's a different shot to what you would have got if you'd taken it without them noticing.

There's no right or wrong, just different shots....but for certain styles of photography, you can't have the subject aware of you. I like catching people just as their eyes flick to the lens, but before they react to it :)
 
I got that......but my point is that they would have been behaving differently because they are aware there's a camera on them.
 
Actually they both look pretty natural to me. I certainly couldn't be sure they were aware of the camera if cobra_lite hadn't said so.

But I really don't see why it's so important. Surely it's just about whether it's a good photo? Whether it achieves what the photographer set out to achieve?

I went into Waterstones book shop yesterday afternoon and, amongst other books, I picked up John Casson's 'Afghan Faces' and Rankin's 'Rankin Portraits'. The majority of images have some engagement with the subject and are much the better for it. That is not to say that they are any better than candid images but I certainly don't accept the implied suggestion that non candids are some how inferior.
 
You can take a bit of extra care so you don't drop any and look stupid, be more aware of which way you're facing (is he getting my good side?), not pull your 'concentrating on stacking eggs face', any number of things.

Not saying if you speak to someone before taking a shot, that it will be worse, just different. Ergo, the claim that you can ask for permission to take a shot, and get exactly the same photo as if you took it without the subject being aware of the camera, I believe is false.

Not worse, not better....just different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top