Unreleased street photos

[meanderingemu]

12 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

Here in the US, traveling from coast to coast, the only time anyone took issue with me was in California when the guards of a contested property thought I was the Press. And I was photographing birds, not people. Nobody has ever challenged my photographing people or children.

 

 

 

 

i remember one day taking picture of architecture feature high on house and there was a group of kids playing on in city square, one of the kid, 4-5 y.o,  right away "No photo!", so some parents obviously have worries and teach their kids about it- was easily able to show no kids were in my images.  But except for explicit cases, with parents present and aware i do not take picture of kids in day to day scenes.  

[Betty LaRue]

7 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

i remember one day taking picture of architecture feature high on house and there was a group of kids playing on in city square, one of the kid, 4-5 y.o,  right away "No photo!", so some parents obviously have worries and teach their kids about it- was easily able to show no kids were in my images.  But except for explicit cases, with parents present and aware i do not take picture of kids in day to day scenes.  

Edited September 26, 2022 by Betty LaRue

[Betty LaRue]

Somehow I typed in your box and I can’t seem to fix it, so here:

 

When I took those images I took that day, I sat on a short brick wall with many parents & grandparents. Nobody even really seemed to notice me and my camera. I assume everyone thought I was connected to one of the children.  So no super-awareness going on, which was always what I found, no matter where I was shooting.

I believe one needs to look relaxed and natural, not furtive and guilty.

[Harry Harrison]

A month or so ago a photographer did a Twitter Poll headed "Street Photography.......?"

 

I should say that he is a landscape photographer and I'm thinking that most of his followers are also but there were 427 replies to these options as follows:

Love it - 41%

It's intrusive - 12.4%

It's OK - 35%

It's creepy - 11.6%

 

So about 25% really disapproved of it to a greater or lesser extent, and these are photographers! As I said I think it is significant that there were probably a lot of landscape/still life photographers responding as they can quite happily pursue those disciplines and never include a person, they strive not to normally I imagine. Personally I like to have people in my pictures because I want to record everyday life, not a sanitised version of it, and I would certainly push back against any suggestion that it might be 'creepy' to do so. I'll upload them to Alamy as well provided i'm not catching anyone at an awkward moment, and as I said above if I can I will certainly wait until they make a pleasing composition so they don't draw attention away from the subject, and that sometimes can mean a bit of a wait.

 

[meanderingemu]

2 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

Somehow I typed in your box and I can’t seem to fix it, so here:

 

When I took those images I took that day, I sat on a short brick wall with many parents & grandparents. Nobody even really seemed to notice me and my camera. I assume everyone thought I was connected to one of the children.  So no super-awareness going on, which was always what I found, no matter where I was shooting.

I believe one needs to look relaxed and natural, not furtive and guilty.

 

not sure how you are implying i looked threatening  taking this picture

 

[Harry Harrison]

Pretty good summary of the UK situation:

 

https://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/technique/expert_advice/street-photography-and-the-law-161446

 

Post 9/11 a situation developed here where of course the police and private security were very wary of anyone taking pictures in the street. This was understandable but, as is mentioned in the article, the 'Amateur Photographer' themselves campaigned to have the laws clarified as many photographers were finding that they were being, in effect, harassed when they were acting within the law. Other professional organisations were involved also but I think the fact that quite a few influential Members of Parliament were themselves keen amateur photographers helped a lot and prevented stiffer legislation coming in at that time.

[Martin L]

36 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Pretty good summary of the UK situation:

 

https://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/technique/expert_advice/street-photography-and-the-law-161446

 

Post 9/11 a situation developed here where of course the police and private security were very wary of anyone taking pictures in the street. This was understandable but, as is mentioned in the article, the 'Amateur Photographer' themselves campaigned to have the laws clarified as many photographers were finding that they were being, in effect, harassed when they were acting within the law. Other professional organisations were involved also but I think the fact that quite a few influential Members of Parliament were themselves keen amateur photographers helped a lot and prevented stiffer legislation coming in at that time.

Interesting read, thanks, Harry.

Never knew that parts of Bishopsgate and the Southbank were private property. I know the Lloyds building is a bit iffy.

Still a little bit unclear of how that would sit with stock pics of those areas.

Allowed if marked 'Editorial' ? (which is what I would normally do)

Edited September 26, 2022 by Martin L
added

[Betty LaRue]

4 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

 

not sure how you are implying i looked threatening  taking this picture

 

That remark was not directed at you, but in general. Please don’t look for insults when none are meant. I would think a few photographers who have been jumped on when they should not have been, just might be made to feel guilty when they aren’t. I 

remember many years ago I was shopping in a 5 & dime store. As I walked along, stopping to pick up an item, feel fabric, etc, a sales lady followed me around the store, furtively keeping an eye on me.

I was not a shoplifter, but made to feel like one. I left the store in disgust and in the future, I no longer shopped there. At the time, that store was the only one that carried a particular brand of newborn to toddler clothes, soft and cute, that I bought for my baby boy as he grew. They lost my business forevermore.

It’s always the case, it seems, when good people are made to feel guilty because of the acts of the few.

[Harry Harrison]

19 minutes ago, Martin L said:

Never knew that parts of Bishopsgate and the Southbank were private property.

Don't go up to London much these days but I knew about the Southbank, certainly down by City Hall, which does seem daft seeing as how it is such a very public place. Last time I walked down there from Tate Modern I passed about 3 different gangs of '3 card trick' shysters complete with lookouts. Security didn't seem to bother about them, though if I had 'lookouts' that big with me they probably wouldn't worry about me either.

[NYCat]

14 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

That remark was not directed at you, but in general. Please don’t look for insults when none are meant. I would think a few photographers who have been jumped on when they should not have been, just might be made to feel guilty when they aren’t. I 

remember many years ago I was shopping in a 5 & dime store. As I walked along, stopping to pick up an item, feel fabric, etc, a sales lady followed me around the store, furtively keeping an eye on me.

I was not a shoplifter, but made to feel like one. I left the store in disgust and in the future, I no longer shopped there. At the time, that store was the only one that carried a particular brand of newborn to toddler clothes, soft and cute, that I bought for my baby boy as he grew. They lost my business forevermore.

It’s always the case, it seems, when good people are made to feel guilty because of the acts of the few.

 

And the sales lady was probably just doing what her boss told her to do. Sometimes nobody wins.

 

Paulette

[Betty LaRue]

1 hour ago, NYCat said:

 

And the sales lady was probably just doing what her boss told her to do. Sometimes nobody wins.

 

Paulette

Yes, she probably was. And I didn’t know what their loss numbers were, which must’ve been significant enough for her to behave that way. I happened to be the only customer in the store, so….

What’s funny is I had a car coat that only had one large button for closure. Before the time I’m talking about above. I’d lost the button, and went into the same store to hunt for one. I found one in a bin with many assorted unpackaged buttons. Price was 5 cents. I held it in my hand while I shopped for other things because it would have fallen through the cart. I paid for the children’s clothes I’d chosen at the register, and it was only when I got in my car that I realized the button, which I’d held for so long that it had become a part of me, was still clutched in my hand. I felt mortified and went back and paid for it, red-faced.

[Charles Stirling]

I photograph a lot of people, some filling the frame others off in the background. I had one father upset that I was photographing his child and after a chat and showing his a wide angle shot with his child as a small dot he wasn't concerned. This was a UK family in Spain. Next day wanted to know if I would take some of the child.

Have had two photos (sets) with complaints after and removed from Alamy. Both were ones asked to be taken by the subjects, model released on one. Complained in hindsight. One mother and child the other an inaugural flight with cabin crew who wanted it for publicity.

[Harry Harrison]

On 26/09/2022 at 21:59, Martin L said:

Never knew that parts of Bishopsgate and the Southbank were private property

A handy list of London 'public space' in private ownership from Nick Turpin on Twitter:

 

Athletes Village, Stratford

Bishops Square, Spitalfields

Broadgate

Canary Wharf

Cardinal Place, Victoria

Central St Giles

City Hall

Excel Centre,

Royal Victoria Docks

Hay's Galleria

King's Cross Central
Nine Elms
Olympic Park, London
Paddington Waterside
Paternoster Square
Regent's Place
Rochester Square
Westfield Stratford City

 

Note that NT 'pushes back' when confronted as he considers these are still public areas. A grey area for sure. Also there are two related issues, whether you are allowed to photograph but also what you are then (prudently) able to do with those pictures.

Edited October 3, 2022 by Harry Harrison

[Harry Harrison]

Law & Ethics in Street Photography - Nick Dunmur from the Association of Photographers (AOP) in conversation with Sean Tucker.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1vCiZUHKVc