Street photography

[Anjinnete Ross]

I have no wish to continue this, because my point was not to delve so much on rights but on respect. But since you insist...

I think U need to take another look at the video again. From what I see...I see the cop walking over towards the videographer from out of the frame, and clearly the cops had intentions of speaking to him already, one approaching him from the right and one straight on.

I think U need to take another look at the video again.

The policeman walked into the frame and was about to leave theframe when the photographer locked on him. From the time the police came into the frame till he put his hand on the camera it was like 5 seconds? Initially it looked like he was not too perturbed till the camera was locked onto his face.

I cannot determine which end of the lens was used. But in the last couple of seconds, is it likely that he came from a distance to block the camera? How close were they?

ALso note that as the cop is approaching him, he is using the telezoom range and starts to zoom out when the cop was within view. So you can't say that he shoved the camera into the cop's face when clearly this isn't the case.

See above.

It is very clear that the camera followed the policeman. And I believe he was very close.

The cop mentioned, 'Can you tell me why you are filming.' Note that he did not say 'why you are filming ME'. Which would have made a lot of difference.

I listen to this segment several times. There was another phrase before the phrase you quoted. I cannot be sure if it meant "flim me" or filming".

In any case, does your statement really make any difference? Who was the photographer filming? Who was in the frame? Does it matter? Obviously the police knew that the photographer was filming him.

Is it wrong for the chap standing at the corner of the streets to be stopped just for filming people? How many of us have walked past tourists or people holding a video camera and standing there filming as we walked past, and do you feel very violated by this action at all??

Context! Context!

Is this case a case of a chap standing at the corner filming at people walking by? Maybe you need to look at the video again. He filmed the police when the police came into the frame. Then as the police was about to leave the frame, he went and focussed on him.

What has this scenario got to do with the scenario of a chap photographing people walking by?

Context!

In any situation, I believe it is in our human nature to defend ourselves, even though at times we may be spurred to say the most ludicrous things. Imagine someone comes up to you, be it a normal person or a police officer, and shoves your camera away or back into your face. I WOULD consider that as assault to me. The impact of the camera & the viewfinder will hurt my eye & may cause serious injury if shoved hard. Hell, if the camera breaks I will definitely hound the person to compensate for damages to my property. If we know our rights, then what's the point of keeping quiet, even though you may be face on with a law enforcement officer, who clearly doesn't know his stuff.

So you are implying that one is allowed to say the most ludicrous thing because one is perceived to be "under attack"?

Again context! Context!!

You mean the police put his hand on the camera without provocation? If you are so close to me and point the camera to my face, and I reach out my hand to block your lens, I am assaulting you? How about you assaulting my private space, even though I am in public? You are not taking a general scene of people walking by, but me! In my face! And not subtlely at that!

I know what is my rights. I know that I can take any pictures in public. I also know that if I take a picture in France (Well this video is in London) and post the picture on internet, I can be sued off my skirts!

What is rights without respect?

 

[milamber]

Today i decided to take a look at the roots of street photography. Here's a nice series of pictures from one of its venerable master, Henri Cartier-Bresson:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxbLFmWpSsE

 

[liquidityzero]

Believe in what you want to believe. I stand by my opinion that the videographer have done nothing absolutely wrong here. Assaulting the policeman's private space...the policeman did walk into his view as you mentioned, and in a period of 5 seconds, the policeman put his hand onto the lens of the camera. Who's assaulting whose private space in this case?? The videographer is just standing in his original position while the cop walked over to him. How the hell can u be assaulting someone's private space when you are standing at the same spot where you are?! If let's say u are standing & taking pictures on the streets, and someone pops up into your view, steps into your private space while doing so, and proceeds to push your camera away... won't u feel offended???

Anyways, what would you have done in that period of 5 seconds?? You see a cop coming into your field of vision, you either stop filming and put down or pan the camera elsewhere right??? WHich in this case my personal belief is that he was trying to do the latter, but either ways he is screwed cuz the cop had already locked onto him before walking over. It's so obvious that the cop was already gazing over & had something to say to the videographer in the first place. If you stop filming & put down your camera upon seeing the cop.. it could have been misinterpreted as suspicious behaviour anyways.

Rights without respect you say?? What do we do if we were put in that kind of situation? Bow our heads & walk away or accept whatever charges the cop wants to slap against you, without clarifying the matter? And allow them to abuse their authority? Rights without respect?? I know that I have the rights to defend & speak for myself, with respect to the laws that govern taking photos or videos in public places. If that's not respect then what is??

Oh yeah... u mentioned that you do not know if the cop was saying 'film me' or 'filming'. 'Why are you film me??'
I know the bloke's not British, but c'mon do you think that his command of English is THAT atrocious??

 

[archlover]

aiyo instead of talking about rights...
lets talk about other things...
how about some trent parke lighting anyone?

 

[mrchua]

yeah man. please leave the photography rights talk ELSEWHERE. this thread is about street photography. i believe the issue of legality, rights, ethics, are in other threads. besides, if we wanted any advice we'd look for a certified lawyer. not on the internet forums. :bsmilie:

 

[liquidityzero]

I agree. Sorry guys for getting a bit too carried away. I won't start a heated arguement here on this very useful thread. Let's all enjoy what the others have to offer & learning more about how the pros approach their subjects in street photography.

 

[zaren]

The cop mentioned, 'Can you tell me why you are filming.' Note that he did not say 'why you are filming ME'. Which would have made a lot of difference.

from what i've seen and heard in the video, this is the transcript of what the policeman said at the beginning of the video:

"can you stop filming? i take"

"can you give me the reason why you are filming?"

"you are filming me"

"i am asking"

"no, i am not assaulting, i am not assaulting you, i am not assaulting you"

"just tell me, no i am not hitting your camera"

"so, can you tell me why you are filming here?"

"in oxford street"

"give me a good reason"

having lived in london before, and experienced bomb threats from the IRA etc, i can understand why the london policemen are always on full alert for any suspicious activity. i feel that both parties had overreacted to the situation, and a bit of calmness and a simple explanation would have cleared the air.

 

[zaren]

I have no wish to continue this, because my point was not to delve so much on rights but on respect. But since you insist...



I think U need to take another look at the video again.

The policeman walked into the frame and was about to leave theframe when the photographer locked on him. From the time the police came into the frame till he put his hand on the camera it was like 5 seconds? Initially it looked like he was not too perturbed till the camera was locked onto his face.

I cannot determine which end of the lens was used. But in the last couple of seconds, is it likely that he came from a distance to block the camera? How close were they?



See above.

It is very clear that the camera followed the policeman. And I believe he was very close.



I listen to this segment several times. There was another phrase before the phrase you quoted. I cannot be sure if it meant "flim me" or filming".

In any case, does your statement really make any difference? Who was the photographer filming? Who was in the frame? Does it matter? Obviously the police knew that the photographer was filming him.




Context! Context!

Is this case a case of a chap standing at the corner filming at people walking by? Maybe you need to look at the video again. He filmed the police when the police came into the frame. Then as the police was about to leave the frame, he went and focussed on him.

What has this scenario got to do with the scenario of a chap photographing people walking by?

Context!



So you are implying that one is allowed to say the most ludicrous thing because one is perceived to be "under attack"?

Again context! Context!!

You mean the police put his hand on the camera without provocation? If you are so close to me and point the camera to my face, and I reach out my hand to block your lens, I am assaulting you? How about you assaulting my private space, even though I am in public? You are not taking a general scene of people walking by, but me! In my face! And not subtlely at that!

I know what is my rights. I know that I can take any pictures in public. I also know that if I take a picture in France (Well this video is in London) and post the picture on internet, I can be sued off my skirts!

What is rights without respect?

hmmm.....long time no hear. how have u been?

 

[zaren]

aiyo instead of talking about rights...
lets talk about other things...
how about some trent parke lighting anyone?

his shots are truly amazing..... lighting, colour, just perfect.

his b&w is equally good, if not better.

:thumbsup:

 

[milamber]

his shots are truly amazing..... lighting, colour, just perfect.

his b&w is equally good, if not better.

:thumbsup:

I agree! Saw those amazing pics. I wonder if it's external lighting setup or pp that gives his images that "pop" out of the page look?

 

[zaren]

I agree! Saw those amazing pics. I wonder if it's external lighting setup or pp that gives his images that "pop" out of the page look?

i believe it's a combination of a really good instinct and eye for lighting, as well as a touch of pp.

 

[archlover]

he shot on film, so i don't think he do a lot of pp...
and he never use external lighting...
for that photo the "other" lighting is come from reflection of a glass building... >_<


this is what he said about that photo :

"there was a picture Magnum used in their 60th anniversary book, which is one of my best... It was Sydney Town Hall and of a schoolgirl waiting with reflected light-that picture took me about two months. The light bounced off the building in the background for only 10 minutes a day. You just wait for something to happen and when it does, its this great adrenalin rush and the hairs stand up on the back of your neck."

 

[zaren]

he shot on film, so i don't think he do a lot of pp...
and he never use external lighting...
for that photo the "other" lighting is come from reflection of a glass building... >_<

wonder if he deliberately underexposes his shots to get those rich vivid colours and contrasts? hmmm....

as an example, i am using a shot by night86mare recently posted in the street and candids forum for illustration (hope he doesn't mind!). you can get more "pop" and richer colours by underexposing the shot, as well as decluttering the photo by consigning all the less important details into the shadows.

e.g. properly exposed

underexposed

 

[night86mare]

Ok, now that we're inspired to take up street photography, it's very important to know our rights as street photographers. Take a look at this vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKl2sEN4yNM

you can choose to engage authorities here, but fact is fact, the police here have been given certain powers - the last i remember was stopping and searching anyone they deemed to be engaging in terrorism-related activities.

unless you happen to be in london, it's all very sexy to put on a high hat and feel that the relevant photographer/videographer is being very brave. i think he's being very silly and engaging in unnecessary trouble. why couldn't the videographer answer the question? the police are only doing their job.

personally i think direct confrontations and glib attitudes do nothing to aid the issue. if anything it strengthens the "us versus them" feelings.. at the end of the day policemen are just human. they have a job to do. to me, the questioning in that video which i have seen a few times, that was reasonable. the lack of a response triggered off what followed, not the policeman's superego as perceived by some people. i myself have been stopped twice or thrice here. it was simple, they took down my details, asked me to show pictures, and i answered politely, they went off. end of story. no need to deliberately provoke people for the sake of spoiling others' day or humiliating someone over the internet. do that and you are no different from a stomper.

frankly speaking if the policeman wanted to kick up a big fuss and call it racism he probably could as well. there are ALWAYS two sides to a coin.

 

[night86mare]

as an example, i am using a shot by night86mare recently posted in the street and candids forum for illustration (hope he doesn't mind!). you can get more "pop" and richer colours by underexposing the shot, as well as decluttering the photo by consigning all the less important details into the shadows.

interesting take from what i had..

personally i think somewhere in between the two would be just right, i.e. not make it look as if it is a mistake, but still do what you mentioned above, albeit to a lesser extent.

 

[zaren]

interesting take from what i had..

personally i think somewhere in between the two would be just right, i.e. not make it look as if it is a mistake, but still do what you mentioned above, albeit to a lesser extent.

it won't look as if it is a mistake, but a deliberate artistic choice by the photographer
those great street photogs really knew how to use light and shadow for maximum effect!

 

[aquacocoa85]

You've captured some nice images in Russia. May i know ur settings when u shoot from the hip? Infinity focus F8? 1/60 ?

I shot mostly in f/8 - f/11. I did not focus it at infinity, instead, I focussed it at about 1.5m - 2m range. Depending on situation. Also, I made sure I had about 1/100 to 1/125 of light so that I could get decently sharp images.

It was summer then, so daylight was practically 18hrs in a day, so that made photographic on the streets pretty good. ;p

 

[milamber]

David Griffin talks about photojournalism:

http://tinyurl.com/5u3tjx

 

[milamber]

Here's an interview with one of my current favourite street photographers - Joe Wigfall. There's some really useful tips on street photography for beginners:

http://jrphoto.wordpress.com/spotlight-interview-photographer-joe-wigfall/

 

[Yapster]

Thanks for keeping the thread alive, bro!

This will be good reads for my upcoming 2 weeks work trip to China again!:bsmilie: