Etiquette of photographing and posting images of people?

[TonyW]

I am interested in photographing people not so much as portrait subjects but just going about their business not taking notice of the camera. Some people seem happy about it but others seem to be rather shy about it. I have never found anyone seriously upset.

Having taken pictures of people, I wonder about the question of whether or where they should be shown. Even on this site, which is very polite and sympathetic, I hesitate.

What is the general opinion on this question?

[Manfred M]

It's called street photography and as long as you take pictures of people in public places of people going about their business, no one here on CiC is likely to object; assuming nothing "offensive" is going on.

I've posted some of these types of images I've taken and other members really do a lot in this photographic genre. Like you, I will not take someone's image against their wishes. That being said, I have run into people (tourists) who did not like me taking these types of images in exotic locations, but frankly, they are entitled to have their opinion on this, just as I am entitled to think there is nothing wrong with it.

[dubaiphil]

That being said, I have run into people (tourists) who did not like me taking these types of images in exotic locations

Have you been hanging around on public beaches again with your telephoto zoom, Manfred?!?!?!?!?

As long as you are in a public place and people are going about their business, this should not pose any problems. But I might add that you should be culturally aware as well. Also aware of the area that you're shooting in to make sure that there aren't any sensitive locations in the vicinity. Otherwise you should be good to go.

Personally I would avoid too long a lens. You're trying to capture candid moments, interactions, juxtapositions etc so to be able to blend in as much as possible and not look as if you're trying to take images at every opportunity should be advantageous. Either that or my occasional solution it to look as much like a tourist as possible and 'hold the pose' after you've taken the shot you want to make it look to passers by who were in the image you wanted that you were after something behind them or waiting for something else to happen.

[Colin Southern]

As long as you are in a public place and people are going about their business, this should not pose any problems. But I might add that you should be culturally aware as well. Also aware of the area that you're shooting in to make sure that there aren't any sensitive locations in the vicinity. Otherwise you should be good to go.

I agree.

I also like to point out that although photographing people in public places is legal in most countries, angry beef-cake 6-pack-abs young & fit males may not be aware of the law. And some like to sort those kinds of issues with their fists.

[William W]

There are a few matters to consider, even though you only asked about etiquette.

The law on making a photograph:

As a common rule of thumb the “public place” situation as mentioned above make you pretty good (apropos law) to photograph anyone in a public place. Most English heritage countries (UK USA Canada Australia NZ . . . and all of the EU and most other places around the world.

A SIGNIFICANT EXCEPTION is the recent law which was tabled by the Hungarian Government and was passed into their Law Statutes 15th March 2014: it is now an offence to make any photograph of people without the consent of event person in the Photograph.

There will be local rules (and sometimes laws) about street photography and these usually concern areas such as, but not limited to: crime scenes; sensitive areas such as (some) Government areas, (like Army Installations, maybe railway stations . . . etc) and these areas just might ONLY be in the BACKGROUND of your image of the people.

Some countries are more sensitive than others and some enforcement officers (often ‘security guards’) can be quite enthusiastic about shutting down a street photographer: it does pay to know exactly what the law is and also to be versed and experienced in people management, not only for engaging the enforcement officers, but also the bush lawyers and often people generally who like sticking their nose in to other people’s business, especially if the Subject is a Child and usually not necessarily their child.

*

The etiquette of making Street Photography:
I have no problem at all. If I feel that it is a bona fide shot and will do no harm - I will make the shot.

The etiquette of posting the image:
Without the identifier of a name or other device (for example an ID number / ID card etc) if I have made the choice to make the shot I have no hesitation in showing it.

Street photography is has number of elements and a number of meanings to various Photographers: I simply like to show a small element of the human condition in any one particular circumstance.

I agree with Phil Page in so far as I do not use a long lens for street work, favouring a 35mm lens on 135 Format or a 23mm lens on an APS-C Camera as my go to lenses as shown here using a Fuji x100s:


After the Concert, Subway – Vienna

*

The 35/1.4 on a 5D Series Camera:

Street Mines

*

Apart from my 35/1.4, the other lens I often use is the 24 to 105 F/4 L IS USM on a 5D Series

Little Girl in Venice

and


“Selfies”

WW

[TonyW]

Thanks for all the replies. In the situations I have been thinking of, it is not really the legal questions that concern me.

I went to a seminar recently and asked if I could take some photographs from up the back. I did so with a biggish white Canon lens, which was technically a good idea and I got a few photographs which I thought were quite good, but I think it might have made it a bit too obtrusive. No one complained but I got the feeling that people were a bit uncomfortable with it.

[Shadowman]

Thanks for all the replies. In the situations I have been thinking of, it is not really the legal questions that concern me.

I went to a seminar recently and asked if I could take some photographs from up the back. I did so with a biggish white Canon lens, which was technically a good idea and I got a few photographs which I thought were quite good, but I think it might have made it a bit too obtrusive. No one complained but I got the feeling that people were a bit uncomfortable with it.

Tony,

Not sure what you meant in the second paragraph, what was technically a good idea and what was "a bit too obtrusive"? Also, most seminars or venues will provide rules of conduct regarding behavior, including the taking or use of photographs; which also include stipulations towards those who might be photographed.

[William W]

. . . Not sure what you meant in the second paragraph, what was technically a good idea and what was "a bit too obtrusive"? . . . most seminars or venues will provide rules . . . including the taking or use of photographs.

+1. I don't understand either. If the presence of the photographer and the taking of the photographs were within the rules of the seminar and as advised by the seminar management, then there should be no intrusion nor should the participants be inconvenienced.

In any case, Tony W has clarified that we are certainly NOT discussing Street Photography: and we all assumed that we were.

*

We are discussing candid images captured in a private venue of persons attending a paid event.

On that matter and answering your original question on the basis of what has been disclosed, if I were you, I would post those images here, only:

a) for the purpose of learning and bettering your skills (i.e. feedback to you as the photographer)
b) for the illustrative purpose to enhance your commentary on a topic to show a photographic technique or skill or circumstance

*

In regard to a 'white lens' sticking out like the proverbial: that's one reason why I'll use an EF 135/2 (and maybe a tele-extender wrapped in black), rather than the 70 to 200/2.8 at closed, indoor events, such as plays and theatre etc.
The same rig could be used for seminars, if it was the white colour that was the distracting feature – and it usually is the colour, rather than the size that is first noticed.

WW

[Manfred M]

Have you been hanging around on public beaches again with your telephoto zoom, Manfred?!?!?!?!?

I wish!

I was shooting in a public market in a small town in Guatemala when some tourist took exception (and there were other people out shooting as well, as I was attending a photo workshop organized by a professional photographer who has been spending the winter there for most of the past decade and is quite well known there).

I was shooting with the D800 and the 70-200mm lens; "hiding in plain sight".

Part of what I wanted to try out was using larger, gear versus the typical small camera favoured by most street photographers. I was, to some extent, inspired by your shots taken in Dubai, with a D700. I've picked up a mFT GX7 and am looking at taking a more traditional approach to see how that works out.

[William W]

The 'hats' photo is simply fantastic.

WW

[chauncey]

Legal...probably yes, but IMHO, I find it being offensively intrusive and would not want some clown taking pictures of my brood and I walking down the street.

[William W]

Then –realistically what options do you have?

Don't ever walk down the street;
move to somewhere where the society and laws are different;
make it you goal to petition and change the laws in Michigan and/or the USA. . .

or alternatively . . . just remain mad at the situation.

WW

[Manfred M]

Legal...probably yes, but IMHO, I find it being offensively intrusive and would not want some clown taking pictures of my brood and I walking down the street.

We live in a strange world.

As a middle aged male, I would never consider taking pictures of children in an English speaking Western country because the paranoid people will automatically assume you must be up to no good. Elsewhere in the world, fortunately, this is not (yet?) the case.

Case in point, some of the well known street photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson's best images were of children. If he were out shooting today, he would probably end up on some sex-offender's registry.

Three out of ten images on this random website showing his work prominantly feauture children.

http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2...t-photography/

[Venser]

As a middle aged male, I would never consider taking pictures of children in an English speaking Western country because the paranoid people will automatically assume you must be up to no good. Elsewhere in the world, fortunately, this is not (yet?) the case.

Why? You're legally in the right. Stand up for those rights or don't be upset when they officially become eroded.

What's the worst that's going to happen? The police get called and you have a chat about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Mike Buckley]

In Istanbul, the children regularly rushed up to me asking to have their photos taken.

[dubaiphil]

Nice shots, Manfred. I've been mainly shooting with a gripped D700 and primes - so only slightly more incognito than a 70-200, apart from one time with a slightly smaller 70-300. I bought and used a X100S and was occasionally able to bag a shot which I wouldn't have been able to get with my usual set up, but the vast majority of times it was the convenience of carrying lighter gear due to the very high temperatures which was an advantage compared to a change in being noticed.

[Manfred M]

Why? You're legally in the right. Stand up for those rights or don't be upset when they officially become eroded.

What's the worst that's going to happen? The police get called and you have a chat about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Chris - technically you are right, but frankly it's simply not worth the hassle. I'd rather spend my hard-earned money on things I want to, rather than lawyer's bills.

[Manfred M]

Nice shots, Manfred. I've been mainly shooting with a gripped D700 and primes - so only slightly more incognito than a 70-200, apart from one time with a slightly smaller 70-300. I bought and used a X100S and was occasionally able to bag a shot which I wouldn't have been able to get with my usual set up, but the vast majority of times it was the convenience of carrying lighter gear due to the very high temperatures which was an advantage compared to a change in being noticed.

Thanks Phil - I also used the grip (makes shooting in portrait format so much easier). I had three lenses along on the trip; the wide angle was useless for this type of photography, but worked well for architecture. The 24-70mm was a pain to use as I had to be so close to the subject that I would end up tripping over the shoppers in the market and basically not impressing anyone. This is why I switched to the longer lens.

What seemed to work well was to stand at a street corner or in front of a shop across the street until the people got used to me being there. At that point, nobody seemed to notice what I was doing, in spite of the rather obvious gear I was carrying, and I was generally able to shoot away to my heart's content.

[Mike Buckley]

I would end up tripping over the shoppers in the market and basically not impressing anyone.

It's clear that there was no accomplished videographer noticing you.

[Venser]

Chris - technically you are right, but frankly it's simply not worth the hassle. I'd rather spend my hard-earned money on things I want to, rather than lawyer's bills.

We both live in Ontario. I've been approached many times in Toronto (where I live), Sault Ste. Marie (my hometown), and Ottawa (where my brother lives), and not once has it ever escalated to anything remotely involving a lawyer.

Just carry a couple of these in your camera bag. [Link to PDF file] I know all the pertinent laws, but when I pull one of these out and show it to the police, they've always backed away and told me to have a good day, much to the chagrin of the other party.