surreptitious shooting

[nostatic]

As I get more into street shots, I find I'm butting up against my own shyness and hesitancy to "intrude" on other people. I feel self-conscious pointing a camera at someone even in public places. What I tried today was putting the DLux3 on manual focus and holding the camera at my side, snapping off shots as I saw them but never bringing the camera up to frame the shot. As you'd expect, a lot of garbage but also some good bits as well. I have found a limitation to the native 16x9 though - it is easier and more unobtrusive to hold the camera vertically, and that means I have a lot narrower area to play with to get a shot. For that reason (among others) I'm pondering a GRD2. I also shot only at 28mm today and found it great for this (as has been shown here and historically) so I'm thinking having a non-zoom camera might be a good fit for this and me finding odd macro shots in strange places.

A friend pokes fun at me though as says this type of shooting is voyeuristic. I somewhat agree, but I'm not sure how else to get the shot. So my question is do any of you shoot this way and how do you feel about it?

 

[jonoslack]

As I get more into street shots, I find I'm butting up against my own shyness and hesitancy to "intrude" on other people. I feel self-conscious pointing a camera at someone even in public places. What I tried today was putting the DLux3 on manual focus and holding the camera at my side, snapping off shots as I saw them but never bringing the camera up to frame the shot. As you'd expect, a lot of garbage but also some good bits as well. I have found a limitation to the native 16x9 though - it is easier and more unobtrusive to hold the camera vertically, and that means I have a lot narrower area to play with to get a shot. For that reason (among others) I'm pondering a GRD2. I also shot only at 28mm today and found it great for this (as has been shown here and historically) so I'm thinking having a non-zoom camera might be a good fit for this and me finding odd macro shots in strange places.

A friend pokes fun at me though as says this type of shooting is voyeuristic. I somewhat agree, but I'm not sure how else to get the shot. So my question is do any of you shoot this way and how do you feel about it?

I simply can't do it.
I remember many years ago I was cycling home in London (with camera on back), there was a drama with a guy threatening to jump off a roof, the fire brigade were there: I jumped off my bike, got the telephoto on the camera and focused on the guy's face.

I couldn't - he looked desperate and alone, and I just couldn't. I got back on my bike and cycled home feeling a little besmirched at even having pointed the camera at him. To this day I can't decide whether I was being compassionate or squeamish, and I don't know whether he jumped or not.

 

[TRSmith]

I have a half-formed idea that maybe the ability to shoot street is a bit like having blue eyes. Either you do (can) or you don't (can't). (*disclaimer.. just an analogy, please don't list all the brown-eyed-award-winning-street-shooters*).

I sometimes get the feeling that shooting "street" photos is something I should do. And I've tried lurking around on the street looking for the ironic and iconic. But I just don't seem to see it. It really isn't my thing.

However, I also believe that if it IS something you feel strongly about, then you'll find a way to do it. But my guess is that it has a lot more to do with being really engaged with what's going on than it does with being covert.

Just a 2-cent theory.

 

[jonoslack]

I have a half-formed idea that maybe the ability to shoot street is a bit like having blue eyes. Either you do (can) or you don't (can't). (*disclaimer.. just an analogy, please don't list all the brown-eyed-award-winning-street-shooters*).

I sometimes get the feeling that shooting "street" photos is something I should do. And I've tried lurking around on the street looking for the ironic and iconic. But I just don't seem to see it. It really isn't my thing.

However, I also believe that if it IS something you feel strongly about, then you'll find a way to do it. But my guess is that it has a lot more to do with being really engaged with what's going on than it does with being covert.

Just a 2-cent theory.

You could be right - I don't get to the streets that much (country bumkin me), but I certainly see things to take . . . .I just can't take 'em!

 

[asabet]

I simply can't do it.
I remember many years ago I was cycling home in London (with camera on back), there was a drama with a guy threatening to jump off a roof, the fire brigade were there: I jumped off my bike, got the telephoto on the camera and focused on the guy's face.

I couldn't - he looked desperate and alone, and I just couldn't. I got back on my bike and cycled home feeling a little besmirched at even having pointed the camera at him. To this day I can't decide whether I was being compassionate or squeamish, and I don't know whether he jumped or not.

Great story Jono. I don't think I could have taken that shot either. Though I can and do occasionally take images of strangers, I find myself unable to do it when the other person is really bad off. Here's a story you might relate to -> http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/01/one-that-got-aw.html

Regards,
Amin

 

[bartlebooth]

as far as the question of surreptitious shooting, my feeling is if you want to take the picture, then take the picture but don't try to hide the fact that you're taking it. That way you have a built-in check of whether or not this a picture *you* are comfortable with.

 

[thomasl.se]

Lack of more sincere reasons than voyeuristic, people pick up on. I think for starters one should always be able to find it in oneself to throw a simple but sincere nod their way, meet their eyes. If that doesn't sound like you at all, then what reasons do you come up with for taking public shots?

Just as a bit of training to break down some of the initial horrors of shooting in public, try dressing down/up like you would to blend in at a construction site; wear a traffic allert vest and bring a tripod. Plant it on the floor of an ordinary mall or somesuch place, settle in behind it and shoot away: a man/woman at work. I did this during half a day at a couple of locations and I can say that not one person seemed too concerned about it; like I was 'supposed to be there'.

I agree completely with bartle that you simply shouldn't hide, sneak about and that sort of nonsense. Compacts are not for stealth but for smiles.

Thomas

 

[nostatic]

just to be clear, I'm not talking about a situation like Jono describes. This is much more "business as usual" on the streets or in shops. And I do have a sincere reason that isn't voyeuristic...I'm always looking for shapes, angles, etc. The people are somewhat of an abstraction, but one difference between people and inanimate objects is motion and energy. And I like to try and capture slices of time.

I sometimes do make eye contact and acknowledge when people see me. But one challenge is that if you "ask first" you've interrupted the moment and it is gone. There will be another one though. I've read the articles on Sean's site and will re-read and use some of the tips I've gotten here. I always have my business cards with me so if someone asks I don't run away.

 

[Mitch Alland]

Nostatic, I think that you start with two premises: the first is that you have to be psychologically and emotionally on the same level as the people that you are photographing — the opposite of "slumming" — and you have to respect your subjects; if the photographer is going to look down on them or show how strange they are he should not be photographing them at all. The second premise is that when people are on the street they are in a public place, where they wear a public face, no matter how unguarded — after all we dress differently when we go out than we do at home — and are a fair subject for photography. Apart from these two premises, the rest depends on your body language and your personality. It's not really about "stealth".

—Mitch/Tsumeb, Namibia
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

 

[nostatic]

I certainly don't look down on my subjects - quite the opposite. Some people just stand out in a certain situation and light and the look works for me. For instance this shot from today:

There was something compelling about the analog/digital conundrum in the shot. To me it is far from strange and instead a comment on the day. It is a very different mindset from shooting dirty mops and other oddities that I'm drawn to. I'll take all the comments here to heart, and also follow my own internal compass. I have to try and not bias that too much though, as I often assume "the worst" (ie that someone will be really upset if I take their picture). For something like this I don't have to worry

 

[Lili]

Sneaky body language or actions will draw far more Attention (and usually of the Bad Kind) than simply being casual, like one *belongs* there.
Mitch's point about being on the same *level* as ones subject is well taken.

 

[Lisa]

Another suggestion I heard somewhere that noone here has mentioned yet is to use a much longer lens, so you can photograph people from a substantial distance away instead of being "in their face". If they notice you at all, they'll probably assume that they're only a small incidental part of the image.

Of course, that won't work for all desired compositions (or fixed-local-length cameras), but it helps for many.

Another wonderful suggestion that a fellow photographer I was chatting with used was to carry a small book of his best street photos, and he would show it to the people he wished to photograph if there were any "negative vibes", just to show them *why* he was photographing them and show that it's a good thing, and that would work wonders.

Lisa

 

[Lili]

Lisa,
I have a very good friend living in London who is wheelchair bound, uses a Fuji Finepix S5200 'superzoom' small sensor camera to great effect in street shots.
He uses the long lens a lot, tho not exclusively. The chair provides a very stable shooting platform.

 

[sizifo]

Personally, I find the best mood for taking photos is when I'm feeling a bit cocky, not afraid to lift the camera and take a photo. A bad side effect is that one often gets photos of people looking into the camera, with the "w.t.f. are you doing" look. Sometimes this makes for a good photo, but to take photos of people off guard it's necessary to be a bit stealthy, or alternatively be very fast. (I'm not considering the photography of difficult situations here, like the suicide mentioned earlier. THis is a whole different topic.)

I think it's undeniable that there is an element of voyeurism to street photography. I've always imagined that being introverted and voyeuristic is a plus for taking photos on the street. It may sound a bit contradictory, but I think that being introverted often goes together with being able to take in a situation better.

OK. Enough of wild generalizations. The third thing I wanted to say is that for me a slightly unsatisfactory side to street photography is the unavoidable randomness. IN the sense that it's necessary to be very fast, sometimes just throwing the camera at a subject, without consciously composing. And sometimes photos come out that work, that would never get taken with intent. I guess that this is a part of the art, but never the less this aspect seems a bit unsatisfactory sometimes.

 

[Maggie O]

I find it's a lot easier to take photos of strangers when someone is paying to do it. Otherwise, I'm uncomfortable. I'm a shy person, but if I have a cloak of purpose, I can overcome it.

So, if I'm a "newspaper photographer" I have no problem taking photos of strangers in all manner of circumstances- in that capacity I wouldn't have had even a moment's hesitation taking Jono's photo of the jumper (knowing full well that it is not my decision if it runs; it's my job to give the editor the material to make that choice). If I was just walking by with my camera, I don't think I would have even bothered to bring the camera to my eye. My personal work isn't about that.

 

[Christi Mac]

Nostatic, I think that you start with two premises: the first is that you have to be psychologically and emotionally on the same level as the people that you are photographing — the opposite of "slumming" — and you have to respect your subjects; if the photographer is going to look down on them or show how strange they are he should not be photographing them at all. The second premise is that when people are on the street they are in a public place, where they wear a public face, no matter how unguarded — after all we dress differently when we go out than we do at home — and are a fair subject for photography. Apart from these two premises, the rest depends on your body language and your personality. It's not really about "stealth".

This is something I struggle with myself both with the work I want to make currently and also the work of others that I have studied in the past. Martin Parr springs to mind. After years of looking at his work I have to say that I still can't decide whether there's a "sneer" in his gaze or not.

I personally think it's fair to hold everything up to scrutiny and possibly poke a finger of fun at it... but that in itself is different from looking "down" on people. Like I say - Parr is probably the one photographer that everyone can talk about and come close to knowing what premise they favour ala Mitch's post above.

Personally I'm leaning towards a kind of street photography which isn't so in the face of the subject - I like to step back and look at the crowd rather than the individual, possibly because like you, Nostatic, I have an inherent shyness when it comes to photographing strangers. I still get close but I go wide as well. Very frequently they won't even know they're in the image because they are well off-centre anyway, especially with the lovely wide setting on my GX100.

 

[Mitch Alland]

Another suggestion I heard somewhere that noone here has mentioned yet is to use a much longer lens, so you can photograph people from a substantial distance away instead of being "in their face". If they notice you at all, they'll probably assume that they're only a small incidental part of the image...

Lisa, I feel strongly, at least for myself, that this approach does not produce good street photography. For this type of photography you really have to be in the action, very close to the subject, which is impossible to achieve with a telephoto because either you don't see what is happening fast enough or cannot understand the visual significance. I cannot think of one street photographer that I admire — Cartier-Bresson, Winogrand, Friedlander, Moriyama — that uses telephoto lenses. To me it's a non-starter for this type of photography.

—Mitch/Tsumeb, Namibia
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

 

[nostatic]

I also think that longer lenses definitely put you in voyeurism mode because you're not really "in" the situation. While I might not want to affect the vibe, I feel like I should be part of it.

Interesting posts from everyone. I like the idea of carrying a small book of my work that I can show to people.

 

[ecliffordsmith]

Hi All,

This is an interesting thread.

I agree that the sneaking around approach will attract more attention than being natural and I would also have thought yield poorer results.

I, like others here have a certain degree of shyness but I apply the following rules myself.

Firstly I think there is a big difference between taking a photograph of somebody and taking a photograph which somebody happens to be in. If I think I am doing the first I will make no attempt to disguise the fact that I am taking photos and if they are static I will make a gesture towards them. If it is the second I will usually do nothing and respond to their reactions.

I think in general you should know why you are taking a photograph and if asked, you should be able to justify that to the other party.

 

[jonoslack]

Interesting posts from everyone. I like the idea of carrying a small book of my work that I can show to people.

I always do . . . it's called an iphone :grin: