Ibarionex wrote: "When you take a picture of someone, you are taking something from them. There are no two ways about it."

This is nuts!

Suppose: I have the gift to remember a scene in its precise entirety, and paint that scene onto canvas with a minimum detail of 200 lines per millimeter.

I walk around downtown, and observe from a several angles a homeless man sitting before a fountain in an isolated park. His features are classic French, his bearing noble despite his status. He is relaxed, at peace.

I go home, and paint 36 portraits of this man from various angles, depths of field, etc.

Did I take something or create something?

Now, imagine this: I photograph the man, one roll of film, 36 exposures, various angles and depth of field.

Did I take something or create something?

The film is developed by a one-hour lab. Or the film is developed by a professional lab. Or I develop the film at home.

Did I take something or create something?

I pick up the prints from the lab. Or I make my own prints.

Did I take something or create something?

I paint a picture. I release the shutter on a camera. I carve in stone.

Did I take something or create something?

I say it was CREATION!! An image was created. Whether by brush stroke, by hammer and chisel, or by light upon chemicals, I brought something new into the world. Nothing is gone, something new has come.

The Pharohs would have thanked us for photographing them. For the ancient Egyptians, true death is the loss of people remembering you. That photograph preserves memory, and so it preserves people. It preserves places. And in this day of disposable people, it preserves us.

-- Brian C. Miller (a-bcmill@exchange.microsoft.com), June 19, 1998

Answers

Definatly Creation!

I couldn't agree more with Mr. Miller. Photography is a form of art and expression. When you photograph a person or an object, you are creating a scene in your own vision and form. I believe the terms "shoot a picture" or "take a picture" can be almost vulger when taken literally. Of course most of us, including myself, don't normally think of them or use them as harmful. People should not fear the camera rather look at it as a tool for creation. An artists paint brush you could say.

Andrew Kaiser

-- Andrew Kaiser (akaiser@rushorder.com), June 20, 1998.

I really don't know much about Ibarionex. But I do know that when you photograph the Maya, you steal their souls. Who are you to play God?

-- Jeff Spirer (jeffs@hyperreal.org), June 20, 1998.

When you create an image of someone in this fashion, you are making the image with your vision, not thiers. In that respect your are taking from them thier vision of thier life, and reality, and making it your own. Your viewers will neve see the individual in any way but how you portray them. Is it your intention to use thier input in the creation of the image? If not, you have taken them out of context, placed them in your reality, and taken from them thier identity, and made it what you perceived it to be.

Yes you are creative. You have made an image, that hopefully, is new and unique and origional. Your creativity is dependant on taking them from thier place in time, on a sheet of film, and replacing it on a piece of paper, far removed from where they were.

The creative aspect is very important, you need to portray them with respect and dignity, but you do take from the person, whether you wish to admit it or not.

-- Marv Thompson (mthompson@clinton.net), June 20, 1998.

My vote is with Marv. When I take/create a photograph, there is some kind of continuum between "taking" and "creating", which is tied in with the "objective/subjective" discussion, and with the degree to which I merely record the subject, or work in my own vision.

If I create an abstract study of light, using a human body as my source, that is one matter. If I grab a shot of people in the street, that is another.

Here's a thought: if I make a picture of a person, I might ask what that person would think of the final picture. Did they collude in it, or would they object, perhaps violently?

As an extreme example, if I use a telephoto from a long distance to photograph a pretty woman sunbathing naked in a place she thought was private, this would clearly be immoral, possibly illegal, and we might agree I was "taking". With her cooperation and approval, we could have a much more creative activity.

Street photography generally falls somewhere between these extremes.

-- Alan Gibson (gibson.al@mail.dec.com), June 22, 1998.

OK, which of you actually photograph street scenes? Do you always get a release signed before you begin photographing? What do you do about crowds? If, in the scene you want to photograph, there are fifty people facing the camera, and all of their faces will be resolved beyond recognizable detail in the film, do you make the photograph? Do you dart about beforehand, asking permission and getting releases signed?

Bryan Peterson, author of "People in Focus : How to Photograph Anyone, Anywhere", does a mix. He does make the photograph.

David Hurn, in "On Being a Photographer", mentioned a magazine whose editors no longer photographed because they had all completely convinced themselves of the "taking" argument. Can a person say that they practice photography if they make no photographs?

The verb here is "photographing", the action of making a photograph. If you really were taking a picture, you would be guilty of theft, and should be prosecuted under existing laws. And you would have to give the picture back! :)

Common photography, by its basic nature, relies on reflected light. Now, going back to the original post: If I can paint as detailed as a photograph, am I "taking" when I paint a picture? No. If I can paint well enough so that a person can easily recognize themselves in the painting, did I "take" anything? No. I painted a picture.

-- Brian C. Miller (a-bcmill@exchange.microsoft.com), June 23, 1998.

Yes, if you can paint with the memory and detail of a photograph, you are "taking". Possibly even more so, as you have a greater liberty to manipulate the image, and put the (real) person in totally diffrent situations.

Does that mean I don't take street photos? No. I take street scenes, often with people as the main point of interest. Do I get model releases? No, but I don't publish (much). If I did submit them for publication, the editor might well demand release forms.

There have been moves recently to attempt to put faces on the same "intellectual property" footing as, say, company secrets, where you can "take" but can't "give it back". I think this is rather extreme, and a shame, and I don't support such measures, but they do have a point.

-- Alan Gibson (gibson.al@mail.dec.com), June 24, 1998.

Alan, your comment about how some consider faces "intellectual property" just points to the fact that we live in a legalese-obsessed world. Garry Winogrand must have photographed millions of faces, and published pictures that clearly showed thousands of them, none with model releases.

Was he sued by any of his subjects? Yes, once.

In the first printing of "Women are Beautiful" there's a photo of two women--twins--walking side by side in Central Park. The women recognized themselves the photo in one of GW's exhibits and sued him.

The settlement was that in all subsequent printings of that book (there was one more, in paperback) the offending image was deleted and the page was left blank.

I'd be interested in knowing if there have been any other lawsuits against street photographers by unwilling subjects.

Cheers, Mason

-- Mason Resnick (bwworld@mindspring.com), June 24, 1998.

Response to Street Photography -- Remembering the Moment (of the lawsuit)

Oh, man, I can just imagine the court scene:

Plaintiff: "My face was used out of context!"

Defense: "And could you please tell the court the last time your face was in context?"

-- Brian C. Miller (a-bcmill@exchange.microsoft.com), June 24, 1998.

"Yes, if you can paint with the memory and detail of a photograph, you are "taking". Possibly even more so, as you have a greater liberty to manipulate the image, and put the (real) person in totally diffrent situations."

So if you can only paint so that the subject is merely recognizable, that isn't "taking"?

But who needs to paint? Who needs to photograph? All we ever needed was an advanced paint program. Look here for some unfettered creativity.

Or maybe all we need are multiple enlargers and a bunch of negatives. Just like this dude. None of these images are found in "reality".

Taking? Uh-uh. I'm-a just gonna keep on goin' clickety-clickety.

If somebody is going to complain that their FACE is recognizable, substitute something else.....be creative. Or print for a lack of facial features.

-- Brian C. Miller (a-bcmill@exchange.microsoft.com), June 24, 1998.

street photography

A very interesting and timely discussion. I photograph in the street on a regular basis and am constantly confronted with the moral dilemna of whether to photograph people or not. I have given alot of thought to it and once I have stripped away all the flowery, artistic ideals it basically comes down to normal human selfishness. I would photograph any scene because I am getting personal pleasure from it. I think most photographers are motivated by the same feeling. I'm sure some are truly driven by the need to 'make a statement' but even doing that is fulfilling a need or desire that they have. So in this extremely cynical context I feel that it would be difficult to justify your actions if your subject objected to being photographed. Even so I still find my lens drifting from the inanimate objects I mainly photograph to those twins walking through the park.

-- Andy Laycock (agl@intergate.bc.ca), June 28, 1998.

whether or not you believe it is ethical to photograph someone without their permission, it is entirely legal to do so in most states, as long as the person is not in a position where he or she has a "reasonable expectation of privacy," i.e. a bathroom, a home... i love garry winogrand, and i'm sure he only settled to avoid the trouble of going to court, but i personally would tell anyone complaining about a candid shot of mine to sod off. if you don't want your photo taken, stay inside.

-- jeremy beckman (5beckmans@lasercom.net), July 09, 1998.

Don't forget Jeremy, if you tell the wrong person to sod off and stay at home, it will hurt as much to get that camera out of your butt as it did to put it in there. To say nothing about what the experience might do to the lens coating, and electronics.

-- Marv Thompson (mthompson@clinton.net), July 10, 1998.

Most of my photography is street photography. Like most dedicated street photographers I have had to confront the variety of ethical questions that arise when you photgraph people without their explicit permission. (Notice I didnt say 'shoot' or 'take'. Why burden the discussion with loaded terms)

I have come to realize that you have to deal with each photographic opportunity on the streets on its own merits. Would photographing this person in this situation be exploiitive, unduly intrusive, voyeuristic? I find myself frequently passing up photographic opportunities because something within me says: "no. not this one". And if I'm honest with myself, I have to admit I probably cross the line from time to time -- which then gives rise to the question: should I make a print or not?

However, when all is said and done, I have come to realize that making candid images of people without their permission enables us to make visual statements about humanity which would simply be impossible in posed situations. To me, this is what street photograhy is all about and I have come to conclude that, if we use these images in a non-exploititive mannner, their moral value outweighs any potential harm that may come from photographing without the subjects' permission. Perhaps this is sheer rationalization on my part; but is is how I have come to deal with an admitttedly difficult set of ethical questions.

-- Bill Osterman (boster33@aol.com), July 13, 1998.

yes, well that's very comical about my camera and my butt mr. thompson. i was writing from experience though. i HAVE had someone (one person so far) object to my taking a photo of him and i DID tell him to sod off. that isn't to say that i wasn't worried about being pounded, i simply want to stand by what i posted earlier. as an artist, i believe i have a right to photograph people without their permission. if i'm harrassed for it, that's ok. i'd really rather not be and i usually get the shot without the person even knowing i was there, but if there's a confrontation, i'll have to deal with that. art doesn't always come cheap and it doesn't have to be popular or pretty. i don't care if you want to be photographed or not, if you think what i'm doing is wrong, or unethical. i don't think it is and that's all that matters. "the artist is a disease of society" gustave flaubert.

-- jeremy beckman (5beckmans@lasercom.net), July 15, 1998.

Have you ever thought about photographing bar room brawls?

Jeremy, street photography is a social act, and therefore it's very appropriate to act in a socially acceptable manner. Enjoy making contact with your subjects. Smile at them. Be disarming. Enjoy the process. When you go in with an aloof, confrontational approach, you give yourself--and the rest of us--a bad name.

> art doesn't always come cheap and it doesn't have to >be popular or pretty. i don't care if you want to be photographed or >not, if you think what i'm doing is wrong, or unethical.

Sorry, but I think you should care--passionately. Our mutual hero, Garry Winogrand, did. He often engaged his subjects in conversation as he photographet them; even if it was just a moment's contact, he felt it was important to crack a joke, laugh it off, not take himself seriously. Whatever it took to put the people in front of the lens at ease.

Garry loved what he did, and it was infectous. And BTW, he made it clear that to him, the whole business about what whether what he did was art was irrelevant.

>"the artist is a disease of society" gustave flaubert.

Sounds like you're carrying around a lot of baggage. Save the "I'm making Art, dammit" attitude for when you're studying your contact sheets.

-- Mason Resnick (bwworld@mindspring.com), July 15, 1998.

I am usually cautious when challenging personal opinions, and had to take a few days to cool down after reading Jeremy Beckman's second posting. At first, I wondered if he was was just being provocative.

He says "as an artist, i believe i have a right to photograph people without their permission." I have difficulty understanding this attitude, let alone agreeing with it. Where does this "right" come from? Are artists granted exemption from the social rules that guide the rest of us?

"art doesn't always come cheap and it doesn't have to be popular or pretty." True, but that doesn't justify offending people in the process of taking a photograph. It is the artist who is supposed to suffer, not the subjects.

I often informally photograph people. In jazz clubs, shopping centres of whatever. I sometimes find there is someone who doesn't want to be photographed: they duck out of the way, or turn their back to me, and this can be distinguished from people's desire not to "spoil" the photograph I am trying to take. Why do they object? Possibly religious, perhaps they are skiving from work and are worried that the picture might be published. In any case, they believe they might suffer if I take the photograph, so I don't.

It's like brandishing a toy gun at people: they believe they would suffer, so I don't do it.

Is taking someone's photograph without their permission ever justified? I believe so. If I witnessed a mugging, or other criminal act, and happened to have a camera ready, I wouldn't hesitate to photograph it, and give the photo to the authorities to aid in the prosecution. I wouldn't allow that photo to be published without the victim's permission, but I wouldn't ask the mugger's permission. Perhaps this is a "greater social good" argument. I don't think it can be applied to artistic motives.

-- Alan Gibson (gibson.al@mail.dec.com), July 21, 1998.

In the first line of that last paragraph, I didn't mean "without their permission", I meant "against their will".

-- Alan Gibson (gibson.al@mail.dec.com), July 27, 1998.

interesting... no, i wasn't purposely trying to stir things up, i was simply reacting honestly to the previous posts on this subject. yes, mason, i'm aware that garry winogrand didn't care whether or not what he did was considered "art," but i feel that what i do IS art; albeit my own subjective view of what "art" is. i admire his work, as i do many other street photographers, but each one has his or her own philosophy and i have my own as well. you also mention passion and winogrand's love for his work. as a street photographer, i know i will most likely never make much, if any money from my work, so all i have is the love of the images and my passion about making them. i DON'T consider myself to be aloof when photographing,and i'm certainly not confrontational, but i don't speak to my subjects either. i see no reason to. i'm strictly interested in images, not in stories or making friends. ideally, as i've stated previously, those people i've photographed don't even know they have been. my quoting of flaubert, "the artist is a disease of society," was simply a way of stating what i always thought was the general drift of street photography. an outsider looking in, seeing the world with fresh eyes, believing in your vision, your "art" ...etc. why else would talented people walk the streets taking photos of all manner of things and people if they didn't believe they had something different to show other people? and finally, what attitude DO you suggest i take when photographing mason? if "i'm making art damn it!" isn't appropriate, what is? should i treat what i'm doing any less seriously than that? if the objective, or at least the general idea, when going out to try my hand at street photography isn't to make "art" (whatever your definition of that is), why bother? why would i bother if i wasn't attempting something a bit more meaningful than a snapshot? "art," personal vision, love, passion, ...whatever, there must be some driving force, some strong feeling to justify spending as much creative energy, time and money as street photographers do. i thought passion was the idea behind street photography. art on your own terms, scavanged from daily life, showing others a frame at a time what you think the world looks like.

-- jeremy beckman (5beckmans@lasercom.net), August 01, 1998.

to quickly and briefly (i hope) answer mr gibson. you wonder where i get the right to take photos of people without their permission? i have the right to do so according to federal law. and beyond that, yes, i do believe to some extent that artists are above social rules, because quite a few may be commenting on said rules, or the society in general. you quoted me as saying that "art" doesn't have to be popular or pretty, but then went on to say that that doesn't justify offending people in the process of taking a photo. i see "art" as having a purpose beyond entertainment. social boundries, conventional wisdom, political realities all can be challenged through "art." "art" is bound to offend people, whether in the making of it or the final exhibition. perhaps that's what it should do. if not outright offend you, then at least on some level challenge your own way of thinking/hearing/seeing. is that not one of the facets of "art" that attracts people to make it and to look at it? seeing something through someone else's eyes, hearing sounds you may never have heard, mulling over concepts that are foreign to you? i think that the greater social good argument you mentioned, mr. gibson, IS part of the artistic equation. the question is, whose definition of greater social good, and whose society?

-- jeremy beckman (5beckmans@lasercom.net), August 01, 1998.

The only "street" photography I do is if one gets in the way of a picture that I am taking. My position being stated.....

As an avid photographer I have very little use for the street photographer or the product that they produce. I find little of value in a 1/30 second slice of someones life, taken out of context by a disinterested second party.

The tone of this thread has done nothing what so ever to help change my opinion. The posts as a general rule have only reinforced my opinion that the street photographer and his product are of little social and absolutely no historical value, and you can call it art if you want. Street photographers, by the tone of his thread, appear to me to be the "loose cannons" of the photography set.

The act of going clickety click and capturing what ever comes with no regard to the actual circumstances and lives of your subjects is representative of nothing, except possibly your distorted view of the situation.

Trust is a valuable element in what a photographer portrays, can we trust what we see in the average street photograph? I am reminded of the image that Diane Arbus made of a contorted little boy and a toy hand grenade. If this was truly represntative of the boy, then the only responce to the image should have been to seek treatment for the malady that cause him to stay contorted in that manner. Either that or he had escaped from the geek show at a carnival and should be returned to his family there. But, I trust that the image was of a little boy mugging for the nice lady taking his picture, and I can read no more into it than that. I'm sorry if the social commentary is lost on me, but I as I said, I think it takes longer than 1/30 of a second to make a lasting social commentary.

Just because you hang a camera around your neck, and the law says you can take what ever picture you want, you haven't earned the right to infringe on others privacy. If you refuse to interact with your subjects, that is your right, but if they refuse to be used as your subjects, that is thier right, and make no mistake about it, thier rights are as important as yours.

Obviously, this is just one persons opinion, and I don't expect to hear a lot of agreement from my fellow photographers, but I felt that it needed to be said.

-- Marv Thompson (mthompson@clinton.net), August 02, 1998.

Response to Street Photography - Remembering the Moment

from Marv Thompson (mthompson@clinton.net) "The only "street" photography I do is if one gets in the way of a picture that I am taking. My position being stated..... As an avid photographer I have very little use for the street photographer or the product that they produce. I find little of value in a 1/30 second slice of someones life, taken out of context by a disinterested second party."

It's the same thing you're doing, I suspect. You're taking a moment and putting it on hold, it's just that you choose the security of being able to arrange, think, ponder, plan, fiddle with lighting, pay someone to sit in front of you while you think of something for them to do (or they come up with something). How interested are you in the subject you shoot? Is that bowl of fruit or model vital to you? Strike a chord? I think it's lame to say that those who take pictures on the street -- who rely on speed, vision and guts to get a picture -- are disinterested.

He babbles on: "The tone of this thread has done nothing what so ever to help change my opinion. The posts as a general rule have only reinforced my opinion that the street photographer and his product are of little social and absolutely no historical value, and you can call it art if you want. Street photographers, by the tone of his thread, appear to me to be the "loose cannons" of the photography set."

So, if the street is in a war zone and someone's snapping pictures it has no social or historical value? If it's a moment where a child walks alone at night in the shadows it's got no social value? If rather than create some artificial setting with nice bounce lights or a 1 second shutter speed on a tripod you take the moment and tell a story you're a loose cannon?

Your whole premise is from such a lofty, elite position I'd be worried about nosebleed. Or so anal retentive that when you stand up somebody has to pry the chair off your backside. The guy screaming about what he is doing is "art" is trying to convince himself. Let the pictures speak for themselves -- 25 years from now (or 25 minutes) it won't matter if you used an expensive studio light or the reflection of a streetlamp. The power of the picture to communicate will endure -- Cartier-Bresson proves it every time you look at his work.

-- Brian Robertson (mrbgrumpy@yahoo.com), August 04, 1998.

if 1/30th of a second isn't the proper shutter speed for "lasting social commentary" (whatever your subjective definition of THAT is), then what IS the proper exposure time?

perhaps this is a thread for the technical section? :)

-- jeremy beckman (5beckmans@lasercom.net), August 02, 1998.

Federal law might give photographers rights in the USA, but we in the UK have different laws. I understand the law is even tighter in France, not that it stopped a certain Princess being chased to her death.

I've said it before: I distrust the A*t word, and think it should be removed from the language. It is already too overloaded, and now it is used as a "justification" for breaking a social rule: taking people's photos without their permission.

I do aprove of Jeremy's sentiments about personal vision, passion, foreign concepts, and so on. And I have no problems with it being beyond entertainment, challenging, even offensive, but only at the exhibition stage. But I am not happy with an "artist" offending the subjects in the making of it.

To anyone who doubts the value of street photography, I would recommend any book by Henri Cartier-Bresson. As I see it, this street photography, "seizing the whole essence, in the confines of one single photograph, of some situation that was in the process of unrolling itself before my eyes" is different to social commentary, as practised by such photographers as Jean Mohr and Bill Brandt (or even, at times, H.C-B).

The current feature in B&W World (http://www.photogs.com/bwworld/norespect.html) carries some insight into street photography, although it doesn't touch on the ethics of "against the subject's will".

-- Alan Gibson (gibson.al@mail.dec.com), August 03, 1998.