and please use their services
Is 'street photography' exploitative?
- Thread starter droj
- Start date
"Street Photography" is too broad a church. It depends on the image and the use it is being put to.
In principle, no, taking photographs of people in public does not necessarily objectify, abuse or exploit them. But it could.
I'm reminded of a photo posted in here a while back under the excuse of "street photography". It featured a woman bent over in a park, with the cleft of her backside showing above her jeans. The OP had written something along the lines of "couldn't let an opportunity like this pass me by" and had remarked upon her attractiveness. There were a handful of positive comments, but most rightly pointed out that it was artless and tasteless. If I recall correctly, it was removed by the OP in the end. That kind of thing is definitely exploitative.
I'm also uncomfortable with many of the pictures of drunks or homeless people you see posted without context under the guise of "street photography". For a lot of these, you get the impression that the photographer is just mindlessly fulfilling a trope they've seen put to effective use elsewhere; an attempt to create something "gritty". But if that's the sole motivation for the picture - to get a "gritty" image - then it would be exploitative and tasteless to my mind. Although, poverty, deprivation and social problems are legitimate, indeed important, subjects, there has to be a clear context or a wider theme than just "oooooh gritty!".
A lot of street photography is just tripe, though. All form (black and white) and no substance. Things almost anyone could see, any time, by literally walking five minutes from there front door. A guy sitting on a bench - whoopee-do. Some people carrying shopping bags - wowsers.
In principle, no, taking photographs of people in public does not necessarily objectify, abuse or exploit them. But it could.
I'm reminded of a photo posted in here a while back under the excuse of "street photography". It featured a woman bent over in a park, with the cleft of her backside showing above her jeans. The OP had written something along the lines of "couldn't let an opportunity like this pass me by" and had remarked upon her attractiveness. There were a handful of positive comments, but most rightly pointed out that it was artless and tasteless. If I recall correctly, it was removed by the OP in the end. That kind of thing is definitely exploitative.
I'm also uncomfortable with many of the pictures of drunks or homeless people you see posted without context under the guise of "street photography". For a lot of these, you get the impression that the photographer is just mindlessly fulfilling a trope they've seen put to effective use elsewhere; an attempt to create something "gritty". But if that's the sole motivation for the picture - to get a "gritty" image - then it would be exploitative and tasteless to my mind. Although, poverty, deprivation and social problems are legitimate, indeed important, subjects, there has to be a clear context or a wider theme than just "oooooh gritty!".
A lot of street photography is just tripe, though. All form (black and white) and no substance. Things almost anyone could see, any time, by literally walking five minutes from there front door. A guy sitting on a bench - whoopee-do. Some people carrying shopping bags - wowsers.
Last edited:
hashcake
Gone to pot!
- Messages
- 5,893
- Name
- Darran, Daz or ****
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think that is a trap that many fall into when they first attempt to do to street photography, I know I was guilty of that the first few times I tried it.
An expression on someones face or perhaps their different type of dress sense compared to the norm is more likely to capture my interest from a photographic point of view.
When I look at street photo I like to see something I can ponder on rather that the run run of the mill type of photos you mentioned.
hashcake
Gone to pot!
- Messages
- 5,893
- Name
- Darran, Daz or ****
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think the digital revolution has and will continue to change the world as we know it.
Look how the likes of twitter have seen how quickly a major news strory can break within a few minutes of it happening, the uncle and auntie who moved to Australia can now see the photo of a new baby within seconds of it being taken etc etc.
Everywhere we go people are taking selfies and digital photography has exploded since cameras have been built into phones, there is no way of getting away from it all.
However, town centres are not filled with people armed with DSLR's taking photos of strangers and those who are good at it can take a photo without the person realising so I don't think there is anything wrong with that unless the person is doing something they shouldn't be.
- Messages
- 17,349
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
How could it be termed as a form of abuse?
Well, it depends what the picture is of and what you do with it. Taking a humiliating photo of someone could very easily be considered abusive. The first example I gave above is something I would consider "abusive" street photography.
Although there are humiliating or embarrassing street photography pictures which I would argue are not abusive, because of the context in which they are presented. Joel Meyerowitz's image of the man who has collapsed outside of a subway station, for example.
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
If it is the type that is produced with the aim of making the photographer look good instead of actually saying anything worthwhile about the subject, then yes, it's exploitative. Taking a shot of a homeless person (as an example) and making it look cool, just do you as the photographer can get credit for the work, then yes.. how is that NOT exploitative? Did the homeless person benefit in any way whatsoever? If no... then you exploited him. Simple.
cowboy
Guy Fawkes
- Messages
- 3,143
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
Street photography is no more exploitive than other types of photography, it's more to do with what you do with the photo once taken.
The example quoted above isn't street it's just plain voyeurism.
Most of the down on their luck or homeless people I've photographed have no problem with me doing so ( I have asked) and I usually ask them if the want a cuppa or a cold drink.
The example quoted above isn't street it's just plain voyeurism.
Most of the down on their luck or homeless people I've photographed have no problem with me doing so ( I have asked) and I usually ask them if the want a cuppa or a cold drink.
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
I agree, but it's what most think of as street photography these days, and the example I gave above is exploitative.
All this snooping with long lenses and taking pics of old men on benches is bull****. Look at Winogrand's work if you want a lesson in street photography. short lenses, involved, telling stories... embedded work that puts the viewer in the heart of the action to give them a sense of what it's like to be there. It shows everything... the weirdness, wonderfulness and terrible-ness of being human.
Instead of exploiting that homeless person.. put your camera away.. go buy him something to eat, and sit with him as an equal. Never mind you may get dirt on your designer jeans... live with him a bit... get his story... THEN pick up a camera. You can always get rid of head lice/dirt, cheweing gum on your ass..
That's a bit too much reality for most though. They just want that gritty black & white photo that makes him look weathered and hard done by..... yeah.... that would look great printed n Ilford Gallerie and hung in a white cube space.
Sod that.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 23,499
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
To answer the OP, inherently it is not exploitative, objectifying or abusive, however the images may then be used to do those things.
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
I'd say its not just the use of the images, but the intent behind their creation. "Use" implies that only how they're used can be exploitative.
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Care to explain WHY that is the case?
- Messages
- 41,838
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
Common sense.
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Not so common that I understand it... so why not just explain yourself? We get it... you disagree.. but it would be helpful if you said why, surely.
It's not irrelevant to the question. The use of long lenses in street photography is not exploitative per se, but WHY a long lens has been chosen may well be. To keep with the example of poverty: if you're chosing a long lens so you can get a sneaky photograph of someone down on their luck just to get a "gritty" image in the bank, then that is very likely to be exploitative.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 41,838
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
Much street photography could be termed "sneaky" if you are inclined to take that view and the same photo would be viewed as "sneaky" whether captured with a 400mm or a 24mm ... equally if someone came up to me and stuck a 35mm straight in my face I would consider it more objectionable than someone using a 200mm from a respectful distance.
Doesn't make either "exploitative".
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes, but if you objected to someone shooting you with a 35mm lens, you can do something about it. If you're 50ft away you'll not even know they've taken it... you wouldn't be able to object.. you'd have no say in the matter.
Still waiting. If you're gonna say my opinion is nonsense.... please have the courtesy to explain why it's nonsense.
Still waiting. If you're gonna say my opinion is nonsense.... please have the courtesy to explain why it's nonsense.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 41,838
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
Can you? What ... legally?
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
No.. by saying "Excuse me... please don't take photographs of me". So the only way you;d NOT take photos of me, even if I objected was if it was actually illegal? Then you're exploiting me.
So you're saying that because LEGALLY you're allowed to do it, it absolves you of all moral choice?
Interesting stand-point. Care to elaborate?
Last edited:
The intention and context makes it exploitative. If you're choosing a 200mm to get an exploitative picture without getting "caught" then it's more sneaky than just being open and honest about what you're doing. So, taking a gritty picture of a homeless guy with a 24mm for the kudos of producing a "gritty" image is crass but at least it is being upfront about what you are doing and opening yourself to fair challenge - if you're using a 200mm to hide from the subject, as well as exploiting them, then that adds another layer of crassness.
Basically, to add to what Pookeyhead said above, using the 24mm at least opens you up to fair challenge from the subject - who may not want to be used for getting some opportunist photographer kudos for producing shallow but gritty images. If you want a photo of someone who is on the bad end of their luck, why not talk to them about it and publish the image with some informed context?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
So gramps tries to take a picture of me up close with a 35, and I say "Excuse me... please don't do that", and he ignores me, and carried on. I then reach for his camera to lower it from my gaze... gramps calls foul and calls the police because I have no right to touch his gear.
Interesting moral dilemma isn't it?
Best avoid all that unpleasantness.. just stick a 200 on and hide behind a bin.
LOL
Interesting moral dilemma isn't it?
Best avoid all that unpleasantness.. just stick a 200 on and hide behind a bin.
LOL
Last edited:
- Messages
- 21,341
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The guardian has a very good article
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2010/may/22/exposed-voyuerism-exhibition-blake-morrison
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2010/may/22/exposed-voyuerism-exhibition-blake-morrison
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
That's my point. Voyerism is morally ambiguous. However... anyone who uses it to make work with a point to it all coudl well argue the case morally... and indeed many have (Philip-Lorca di Corsia), but all this sneakily taking pics of old men, homeless people etc... it bothers me morally. It doesn't seek to do anything, and the photographers can't ever actually justify why they're compromising other people's privacy.. why it's WORTH invading someone else's privacy for.
- Messages
- 41,838
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
Did I say that, or are you again presuming to know everyone's thoughts and intentions?
Okay I concede that perhaps, if a photo hasn't already been taken I can request that someone not take my photo but other than that there is nothing I can legally do in the public street to stop them taking it or keeping any they may have already taken.
Would I take someone's photo if they asked me not to ... no, but that's nothing to do with the original question.
All that is of course supposition of the context and intention and has nothing to do with the original question, "Is Street Photography" exploitative ... it isn't. Oh and for the record, if and when I do any form of 'street' it is with a 24-120.
- Messages
- 41,838
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
Why do you assume everyone has a fixation about homeless old men?
I suppose for the same reason you assume all togs with long lenses wear designer jeans?
Oh and being on the street should never be thought of as a place for "privacy".
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
It is.... because I can only request you do not if I am aware that you are doing it. WHich is why I was puzzled by your statement that said lens length has nothing to do with it. It does... very much.
To which I answered "If it is the type that is produced with the aim of making the photographer look good instead of actually saying anything worthwhile about the subject, then yes, it's exploitative. Taking a shot of a homeless person (as an example) and making it look cool, just do you as the photographer can get credit for the work, then yes.. how is that NOT exploitative? Did the homeless person benefit in any way whatsoever? If no... then you exploited him. Simple."
I think that's just a logical, hard to refute statement. The question then becomes when does the value of the image outstrip the person's right to privacy in order to take it. Basically... what's the image for? To make you look good as a photographer? If so.. then yes, of COURSE you've exploited that person. How can you refute that?
In a public street.. no one has the RIGHT tor privacy... but you are exploiting this fact to create your images.
Defend yourself.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 826
- Name
- Sean
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I had a run in with a security guy today.
I was wandering through Spitafields market, and was firing pictures off at waist high randomly, trying to catch being in a crowd.
I got stopped and the usual stuff started about private property, prosecution, etc.
He was polite, doing his job so I just went along with it.
He said that none of the people had consented to being photographed. I said that this could be argued, as the company you work for hasn't
asked all these people if they want to be on CCTV.
Then he said I was taking pictures with children around, and thats not very nice.
I told him to be careful with what he he was suggesting.
It all ended amicably, I had been out all morning and was frozen, wanted to get home.
But the children thing still really p***es me off.
I suppose it wasn't terrorism this time.
Sorry, I just realised this has little to do with the question.
Please delete if necessary
I was wandering through Spitafields market, and was firing pictures off at waist high randomly, trying to catch being in a crowd.
I got stopped and the usual stuff started about private property, prosecution, etc.
He was polite, doing his job so I just went along with it.
He said that none of the people had consented to being photographed. I said that this could be argued, as the company you work for hasn't
asked all these people if they want to be on CCTV.
Then he said I was taking pictures with children around, and thats not very nice.
I told him to be careful with what he he was suggesting.
It all ended amicably, I had been out all morning and was frozen, wanted to get home.
But the children thing still really p***es me off.
I suppose it wasn't terrorism this time.
Sorry, I just realised this has little to do with the question.
Please delete if necessary
Last edited:
As I said in my first post, of course street photography is not NECESSARILY exploitative. But it can be.
And what is supposition about context? If someone throws up a stylised, B&W, high contreast, 200mm, image of a homeless guy here without any sort of context here am I not justified in wondering why the hell they think anyone would want to see it other than for stylistic reasons? I can see homeless people within fifteen minutes walk of my front door; they're real people, not objects to earn you points for hard-edged photography. But provide some (graphic or written) context that tells me something thoughtful and unique about that particular person, or (more difficult) provides a novel perspective on poverty then it becomes about the subject and not about the photographer.
- Messages
- 41,838
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
No more exploiting them than the recorded CCTV camera they have just walked past (or sat opposite) or the last person who looked at them or made a comment about them. If you want privacy then stay in a private place, otherwise accept that you will be affected in some way or another by the activities (far beyond photography) that impact on us every single day that we move outside of our home environment.
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Exactly... provide a reason why you feel you have a moral right to shoot people without their consent and publish the work in the public domain?
If I couldn't.. I wouldn't. If I could.. I would. Simple as that really.
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
That's not posted on Flickr.
- Messages
- 41,838
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
What you wonder about an image is entirely up to you, some people have very fixed views on "Street Photography", many people take "Street Candids" it is not for any one person to decide that one person's images are worthless just because they can see the subject within 15 mins of their doorstep. To some people such images may well be thought-provoking and even provide the motivation to take action to help such individuals ... you or I cannot know which is the case for all people.
I guess those homeless people who don't want to be used as Flickr fodder should just go somewhere private then....
Oh....
Wait....
- Messages
- 41,838
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
But has often been posted on youtube etc and has formed the mainstay of some dedicated TV programmes.
Nevertheless it throws the whole 'privacy on the street' argument completely out of the window.
- Messages
- 21,341
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Jacob Riis, how the other half lives, to publicise hardship and affect social change
Lewis hine and child labour in mines
- Messages
- 41,838
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
But that's a totally different moral dilema ... always assuming that others are so fixated on photographing homeless people as you and Pooky.
I don't have fixed views on street photography. There is some excellent, incredible, powerful photography in the street genre. The question was "is street photography exploitative?" my answer was, basically, "it depends".
I've also been explicit about the fact that you take potentially humiliating photographs of the vulnerable which are not exploitative, and gave the example of Meyerowitz's famous photo of a man who has collapsed outside a subway station. This is a photo of someone in a moment of vulnerability, potentially humiliating for them, but the clear graphic context justifies it, in my opinion.
- Messages
- 10,866
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I seem to remember most members rounding on me when I complained about that shot, I can't say I remember many supporting me, but then again, my memory is not what it was.