`The eye has it` ?

Messages
22
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
This young lady was `fixing her make-up`.. yep she spotted me, we both smiled.
She asked to see my capture... she laughed, said she loved them. I offered to send
her copies... via e-mail of course..

To any new .. `street-shooters`... always carry cheap home-print cards
offering free digital copies.. just stating `where and when` to your e-mail, I simply
write on reverse the image numbers to quote ..
Just might de-escalate a `situation` for the un-initiated street photographer.

To those who may find some of my images offensive, remember... no-one can expect privacy in public
areas and `feeling`s` can never trump my `lawful right to photograph what me eyes see in a public place`..
Please don`t say I get `too close`.. when using a 20mm lens you have to.!! a 50/80mm could never ever
achieve `my` type of photography... You cannot prosecute my eyes.!!!!! (Sorry for the mini rant)



Thanks for looking..

.
 

Attachments

  • eyes.jpg
    eyes.jpg
    147.5 KB · Views: 147
I offered you a defense in a previous post, but in this post I find your comment about 'feelings' not trumping your right to photograph someone in a public space interesting. You're right, in that lawfully you can do that, but from a personal ethics standpoint, are you OK with taking someones picture when the signal to you that they don't want you to take their photo? Personally, that's where I draw my line, in that situation I just move on
 
Can you insert rather than attach? I tend to ignore posts when I can't see the image straight away and I'm sure others do too

20mm in your face eh? Cos its legal

That's not my cuppa as I find it too intrusive. Just because you 'can' snap someone up close despite them being surprised, annoyed, etc. doesn't make it a clever thing to do for me and nor, as here, does it often result in a good photo

Dave
 
Personally, that's where I draw my line, in that situation I just move on

I agree. Even though I've been taking photographs for almost fifty years and I know a photographer's rights only too well; if you were to shove your camera in my face in such a way you most certainly would not enjoy the subsequent consequences.

I imagine it's only a matter of time until you end up with a 20mm lens suppository.
 
I'd have to agree with the others.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should. You give other photographers a bad name.
Not impressed.
 
I have to agree with others. IMHO invading a persons personal space with a camera and 20mm lens could be construed as a physical attack and in that case the individual would be well within their rights to physically repel you. Or as Sky so aptly put it a 20mm lens in somewhere its not designed to go.

More importantly, perhaps you should ask yourself why you would want to cause such upset !
 
Just following up on my previous point, I don't necessary have an issue with getting in close. It can be done in a way that doesn't cause upset, and we don't necessarily know the technique used by the OP. I'm assuming he's not going for a full on Bruce Guiden! Seeing as we're in 'Talk' and not 'Critique', I wont say too much on the images, but will say they don't seem either that close or interesting.

My issue is around the attitude that upsetting someone is just a byproduct of getting a photo. Not sure about what anyone else thinks, I dont think a photo is worth upsetting someone.
 
To those who may find some of my images offensive, remember... no-one can expect privacy in public
areas and `feeling`s` can never trump my `lawful right to photograph what me eyes see in a public place`..
Please don`t say I get `too close`.. when using a 20mm lens you have to.!! a 50/80mm could never ever
achieve `my` type of photography... You cannot prosecute my eyes.!!!!! (Sorry for the mini rant)
I ask Meyerowitz about the combative, confrontational style of street photography espoused by the likes of fellow New Yorker Bruce Gilden, and he grows visibly angry for the only time in our conversation. "He's a f*****g bully. I despise the work, I despise the attitude, he's an aggressive bully and all the pictures look alike because he only has one idea – 'I'm gonna embarrass you, I'm going to humiliate you.' I'm sorry, but no."
 
no-one can expect privacy in public
This is true...

...but...

Common Assault – s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
An assault is any act (and not mere omission to act) by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful violence.
There's no doubt in my mind that many people would be upset by the behaviour described by the original poster and it therefor seems reasonable that he might be open to prosecution.

In any case, I agree with the Meyerowitz quote about Gilden. That sort of behaviour is rude, obnoxious and nothing at all to do with any form of reportage or art.
 
Last edited:
when street photography is done right it is my favourite genre of photography by a fair stretch, but it is a pretty difficult thing to justify ethically imo. If someone ever had an issue with me taking their photo i would perhaps have a conversation with them but if they still were insistent i wouldnt hesitate to delete the image. I just dont think its worth ruining their day or my own for that matter.
 
Last edited:
It's not my style either to get right in someone's face. There's a UK youtube channel called David Wallace Shoots who's got a ton of street videos in London and New York. This guy doesn't care at all how he goes about shooting on the street, it's very much like Bruce Gilden. On his instagram account, he has exceptional photos, mostly staged street shots with smoke cannisters bikes and props, but oddly, nothing much of the shots from his videos, I think he's mostly getting in people's faces for his youtube channel. Talented guy but unfortunately of the mind 'it's legal so I will'.

This is a good example. There's a bit of swearing in it from the start, so thought I'd better warn you just in case.

 
Last edited:
It's not my style either to get right in someone's face. There's a UK youtube channel called David Wallace Shoots who's got a ton of street videos in London and New York. This guy doesn't care at all how he goes about shooting on the street, it's very much like Bruce Gilden. On his instagram account, he has exceptional photos, mostly staged street shots with smoke cannisters bikes and props, but oddly, nothing much of the shots from his videos, I think he's mostly getting in people's faces for his youtube channel. Talented guy but unfortunately of the mind 'it's legal so I will'.

This is a good example. There's a bit of swearing in it from the start, so thought I'd better warn you just in case.


That guy annoys me because if you listen to Bruce Gildens interviews, he says that he only shoots people who have a lot of character or seem a little broken because he feels pretty broken himself and he feels a kind of empathy/love for them. Now i don't necessarily agree with his approach either but at least it comes from a place of empathy/respect, David Wallace openly ridicules/insults his subjects so even though he regularly mentions Gilden his approach is in no way the same.
 
Back
Top