Start of the death of street photography in the UK?

woof woof said:
Smartphones may have made photography much more mainstream and ubiquitous than ever and on the whole that's a good thing but I just can't take to taking pictures by jabbing at a screen held at half arms length in front of my face. Millions can, so I do realise that I'm in a minority.
Click to expand...
Neither can I, but I must say I rather enjoy live view on my Nikons, when I'm on a tripod, but I can't come to terms with this approach handheld.
 
myotis said:
I think it would be a great loss to lose this.
Click to expand...

But why would we loose it just because Twatter is having a flap?

I'm not a street photographer but I love looking at street images. Photographers like Elliott Erwitt, Saul Leiter and Henri Cartier-Bresson didn't need social media to take street photographs or get their images seen and neither do we.

If twatter wants to ban these images then let them. They have a habit of banning and censoring anything else that doesn't fit the narrative so why should photography be any different. It's not going end street photography. You just won't get to see the images amongst all the other mind numbing crap on their platform.

You know there is a really great platform for getting images seen. It's called Flickr. It's just a pity that many photographer ditched them in favour of big tech, likes and followers
 
Last edited:
Considering it is almost impossible to fly a drone in the UK if you follow all the byelaws the noose is really tightening from multiple fronts. We are just meant to work in warehouse and watch TV and not an inch more
 
Street photography is social commentary. It gives an insight into our past, our culture, change over time etc.
Personally, I enjoy street photography so I am likely to be biased, however, I do feel that it is a valuable record of our times as well as allowing all other elements of photography...light, composition etc.
It also adds a different perspective on trying to see and compose an image in a [sometimes] spontaneous way.
I love old street photography such as that produced by Henri Cartier-Bresson and new contemporary street photography such as that produced by Sean Tucker.
As with anything, horses for courses. Social media causing the death of street photography though....I don't think so. Law allows it in the UK in public places. It may just influence how it is presented, who presents it and where it is presented.
 
Last edited:
ecoleman said:
But why would we loose it just because Twatter is having a flap?
Click to expand...
I was responding to the thread title, which reflected a much wider concern, often discussed, about the future of street photography, and to other posters who were suggesting street photography had little value, or interest.

As it is, Twitter seem to have a very restricted set of circumstance when they will pull an image, which "on the face of it" are difficult to argue against. Which is why I said I supported what they were trying to do. I obviously, should have been more explicit about saying if this was all that was going to happen, I didn't see it as a direct threat

I can't really comment on social media as it's not somewhere I look to for photographs, and I don't really know much about it. There are certainly some very mixed views about it's value to photographers.

Personally, I still prefer books of photographs, to anything online, but I do have a sub to the online street photography magazine "The Inspired Eye"

https://www.theinspiredeye.net/

I also subscribe to the online magazine "OnLandscape" which helps me decide which books to buy

Landscape Photography Magazine | On Landscape

On Landscape is a subscription based bi-weekly magazine dedicated to landscape photography from romantic to contemporary
www.onlandscape.co.uk www.onlandscape.co.uk

And I follow some websites which is how I knew about the link I posted in my original comment.
 
From discussion with another Twitter user should street photographers stop using Twitter to show their work or carry on? I'm in favour of carrying on.
 
Ed Sutton said:
From discussion with another Twitter user should street photographers stop using Twitter to show their work or carry on? I'm in favour of carrying on.
Click to expand...
Don't we need to wait and see what Twitter actually does.

It seems too early to start boycotting anything until they tighten up on their explanation on how the policy will work, and they have had time to consider and respond to the questions and criticisms.
 
myotis said:
Don't we need to wait and see what Twitter actually does.

It seems too early to start boycotting anything until they tighten up on their explanation on how the policy will work, and they have had time to consider and respond to the questions and criticisms.
Click to expand...
It seemed a hasty response to me. But that's the way social media goes I guess.
 
Ed Sutton said:
From discussion with another Twitter user should street photographers stop using Twitter to show their work or carry on? I'm in favour of carrying on.
Click to expand...
I think quite a few photographers have migrated from Instagram to Twitter recently, and that makes it even more interesting to see what happens next. I suspect not a lot will change until images start getting deleted and people start kicking up a fuss about it
 
I don’t think it’s the start of the death of street photography. On the face of it, looks like good protection for people who need it. Other countries have much stricter privacy rules for photos already (I saw Germany mentioned) and street photography is still possible while respecting those rules.
 
No idea why street 'togs would use Twitter anyway.
 
Paul-H said:
I must admit I have never understood the need to take and publish photographs of strangers. Perhaps if everything we went out in the streets with our cameras Jo public started taking photos of us all the time we would think differently.

Just like with the scum of the photographic world the Paparazzi thinking they have the right to photograph selebraties regardless of what they are doing in public or private.

We live in much less tolerant times, creating around photographing strangers is only going to attract bad things.
Click to expand...

Street photography unfortunately is sometimes used by voyeurs as a good excuse for taking inappropriate photographs.

Like in the Sony thread for example there is a guy on here who used street photography as an excuse to grab voyeuristic photographs of a girls bum, while she was being photographed by someone else.

There is a lot of strange people out there.
 
Last edited:
Pound Coin said:
No idea why street 'togs would use Twitter anyway.
Click to expand...
Steering the discussion back to twitter, this is why it's interesting... it's geared toward instantaneous communication (rather than curated), so might see a lot of disputes along journalistic lines, rather than photography per se
 
And relating back to other social media, don't worry. As long as Facebook/Instagram/Whatsapp can make money from posts and data, they won't ban a thing.
 
f/2.8 said:
Street photography unfortunately is sometimes used by voyeurs as a good excuse for taking inappropriate photographs.

Like in the Sony thread for example there is a guy on here who used street photography as an excuse to grab voyeuristic photographs of a girls bum, while she was being photographed by someone else.

There is a lot of strange people out there.
Click to expand...

Personally I think you should delete this post as you caused enough agro with this allegation at the time whist ignoring more mitigating factors such as the subject being a model on a photo shoot and engaging positively with the poster in the Sony thread who was not alone in taking photos at that time.

I don't doubt that people do take voyeuristic pictures and that's possibly easier with a mobile phone than a dedicated camera as it's more obvious what you're doing when taking pictures with a camera.
 
woof woof said:
Personally I think you should delete this post as you caused enough agro with this allegation at the time whist ignoring more mitigating factors such as the subject being a model on a photo shoot and engaging positively with the poster in the Sony thread who was not alone in taking photos at that time.

I don't doubt that people do take voyeuristic pictures and that's possibly easier with a mobile phone than a dedicated camera as it's more obvious what you're doing when taking pictures with a camera.
Click to expand...

I disagree completely!

I have little doubt if someone other then me raised this at the time your feelings would be different.

It is disappointing that you would decide to side with the user when they specifically said that they took the photo of the girl in the way that they did because she had a "nice arse".

If it had of been your wife, mother or girlfriend as the subject have no doubt you would feel very differently.
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
I disagree completely!

I have little doubt if someone other then me raised this at the time your feelings would be different.

It is disappointing that you would decide to side with the user when they specifically said that they took the photo of the girl in the way that they did because she had a "nice arse".

If it had of been your wife, mother or girlfriend as the subject have no doubt you would feel very differently.
Click to expand...

I generally and genuinely have no problem with you, I just think you're wrong to throw accusations like this about and wrong to persist to do so on the forum.

Anyway. You've had your say and I've had mine on this matter, but from me this isn't personal towards you it's just that I disagree with you making and repeating accusations like this on the forum, that's one thing we should be able to agree on (it not being personal.)
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't want my wife girlfriend mother granny mistress modelling - it's for perverts to oggle over.
 
Pound Coin said:
I wouldn't want my wife girlfriend mother granny mistress modelling - it's for perverts to oggle over.
Click to expand...

Surely it's up to them.

A former GF of mine used to do the odd photoshoot for publication and utterly gorgeous she was/is, she's strong willed and knows her own mind too and I never thought it was my role to comment on her decision to do so too much. I do think it's possible to look at a human and admire and appreciate beauty and form without oggling in any overly sexual way.
 
;)
 
woof woof said:
Surely it's up to them.

A former GF of mine used to do the odd photoshoot for publication and utterly gorgeous she was/is, she's strong willed and knows her own mind too and I never thought it was my role to comment on her decision to do so too much. I do think it's possible to look at a human and admire and appreciate beauty and form without oggling in any overly sexual way.
Click to expand...
I totally agree @woof woof ....body scaping photography is aesthetically appealing and interesting in terms of form and light/contrast without being graphic or perverse.
I think the same integrity applies to street photography as to portrait photography or fashion photography. By that I mean that my intention if taking a photograph in the street would not be with the intention to ogle in the same way that if I was in a studio, I wouldn't be taking shots 'between' poses in a disrespectful manner.
I think the intention and integrity of the photographer is key and there will always be people who lack integrity sadly. I would also add that some very famous images such as a certain tennis player and tennis ball were created fully in the knowledge that people would 'oggle'. The point of the post if I understand it correctly though is not about whether street photography lends itself to people taking inappropriate images any more than any other style of photography @f/2.8 but rather it is about whether changes in social media platform community guidelines will impact on that style of photography.
 
It seems to me that it is about cyber stalking, bullying and associated activities.

Plus Social Media - it's a cesspit. They need to do a whole lot more cleaning up, and this is either a bit of a start on cleaning up, or a squirrel.
 
Pound Coin said:
It seems to me that it is about cyber stalking, bullying and associated activities.

Plus Social Media - it's a cesspit. They need to do a whole lot more cleaning up, and this is either a bit of a start on cleaning up, or a squirrel.
Click to expand...

Maybe because people feel they are anonymous and can throw any insult they can think of and generally be vile with zero consequences. There are people who unfortunately just enjoy upsetting others.
 
woof woof said:
Maybe because people feel they are anonymous and can throw any insult they can think of and generally be vile with zero consequences. There are people who unfortunately just enjoy upsetting others.
Click to expand...
The consequences aren't there because there is precious little moderation.

The contrast with a place like this is marked.
 
CavGez said:
Steering the discussion back to twitter, this is why it's interesting... it's geared toward instantaneous communication (rather than curated), so might see a lot of disputes along journalistic lines, rather than photography per se
Click to expand...
I'm thinking more political lines than journalistic, but I suppose in twitland they are the same thing.

The discussion here seems largely about the unintended consequences for the ordinary twit shooter, not sure they'll be too fussed about that.
 
One of the best street photographers I admire is Fan Ho and though there are faces of people in his photos there are a lot of semi silhouette. Which would diminish the individual appearance and blurs them to amenity !
Therefore if this was a current time hopefully a very, very low complaint ratio !

I suppose this is the times we live in that any photo of an individual can be seen by them, their family, friends, colleagues etc relatively quickly. Especially if the image is used in any news feeds or commercial promotions.
 
Cue the easily offended, or the downright militant, to proffer complaints about whatever 'people' pictures they like, to simply get at someone, or more than one, as a means of causing disruption.
Personally I think those who use Twitter are amply described by the first four letters..... I realise that will offend many on here. Well, it serves you jolly well right! :p
 
Pound Coin said:
I wouldn't want my wife girlfriend mother granny mistress modelling - it's for perverts to oggle over.
Click to expand...

That is a strong statement to make.

Not all models are stripping naked for playboy etc.

The vast majority of models who actually do paid work, do mostly ad campaigns on commercial shoots. For example I let my daughter do a commercial shoot for a local bank a few years ago. She was photographed along with a fake family for a campaign they were running, she did a small t,v advert for the same campaign as well.

In regards to the situation mentioned above though this wasn't a pervy photographer who had booked a model for some sleazy photographs for his own satisfaction or for a glamour magazine. In this situation the "street photographer" said that he had come across another photographer/videographer working with a model in London and grabbed a few sneaky photos. One of the photos was far from appropriate and was definitely not "street photography" and the poster on here admitted that he took the photo because in his words "she had a nice arse".

Some on the Sony thread felt that because she was a "model" she was fair game and I disagreed. Way back, I spent a few years pretty much only shooting models for fashion and commercial projects and worked with hundreds of models, none of them liked being photographed by members of the public when they were working. Especially when the sole purpose was for voyeurism as it was in this case.

The "street photographer" on the Sony thread on here claimed that the model enjoyed him photographing her or words to that effect, that may have been the case, but I didn't personally believe his claims. She would also not have been aware of the close up photos of her bum he took as she had her back to him or that he was posting those photographs on talk photography and discussing how much he liked her arse.
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
Some on the Sony thread felt that because she was a "model" she was fair game and I disagreed. Way back, I spent a few years pretty much only shooting models for fashion and commercial projects and worked with hundreds of models, none of them liked being photographed by members of the public when they were working. Especially when the sole purpose was for voyeurism as it was in this case.

The "street photographer" on the Sony thread on here claimed that the model enjoyed him photographing her or words to that effect, that may have been the case, but I didn't personally believe his claims. She would also not have been aware of the close up photos of her bum he took as she had her back to him or that he was posting those photographs on talk photography and discussing how much he liked her arse.
Click to expand...

etc.

Old bees in bonnets should remain on the Sony thread, imo.
 
Having given in to temptation I had a look at this 'arse' shot and was surprised to find it isn't the frame filling picture of an arse I was expecting. It's a picture of a photiographer photographing a woman in a pose which emphasises her rear end.

I read it as a comment on the creepy nature of photographers who ask women to stick their bums out for a pic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top