Thoughts

[Shadowman]

They are totally so living in their bubble. Busy going to do stuff. I like it.

Hi Steve,

Thanks for commenting.

[Shanghai Steve]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for commenting.

My pleasure.
So, as you are the only person who might know this, did these people seem to be in a bad mood before you took their photograph? If they did, what was it about the scene which prompted you to take this shot?

[Shadowman]

My pleasure.
So, as you are the only person who might know this, did these people seem to be in a bad mood before you took their photograph? If they did, what was it about the scene which prompted you to take this shot?

That reply was for the other Steve.

I'd have to spend a bit more time with the subject before I could determine their demeanor.. SP doesn't have to be about my intentions, it does involve how the audience will perceive the image and only you seem to think they were "pissed off" about something; weariness could just as easily be the cause. For whatever reason this particular image has touched something in you, do you know why?

[Shanghai Steve]

You wonder why I might ask whether you have personally annoyed people in order to get a photograph?
You have no idea how people might be feeling from actually looking at them and you don't care whether you did?
You have never heard of the idea that Street Photographers have a responsibility not to annoy people?

[Donald]

I find aspects of this very amusing and also very annoying.

There are wild assumptions being made as to the mood of the people that were photographed and the reason for that. This is a moment (a fraction of a second in time). To read into that fraction of a second what has been read into it, is, I suggest, no more than guesswork.

And - neither I, nor anyone else on here, has any idea of the day that these people have had before this image was captured. If I've been out in town for a few hours walking the streets and trailing around shops, please be assured that I won't be smiling either.

So, I suggest that the guesswork stops on on here and comments are confined to the merits of the image as a work in its own right.

You have never heard of the idea that Street Photographers have a responsibility not to annoy people?

Not sure that some of the great street photographers of the past have ever heard of this obligation!!

[Shanghai Steve]

Not sure that some of the great street photographers of the past have ever heard of this obligation!!

Oh how very drole and worldly of you Donald. You can ban me if you like, but SP gets a bad name precisely because of these issues. A post from the senior moderator on a respected forum which glosses over this fact is well under par. If it's a case of "who cares about our subjects but our feelings are sacrocant" there is something deeply wrong with things.
I assume this is my last post. Good luck to....most of of you in your photographic endeavours.

[ccphoto]

I was a tad taken aback when I first read Shanghai Steve's comment that the photographer somehow interfered with the ladies and thus changed their mood. I wondered then and wonder now on such a shot on the fly so to speak, how this could take place having shot more than a few street shots myself. Had he of been standing dead center in the middle of the walk, therefore preventing them from continuing their walk in a normal manner, then that could be construed as John meddling for an image but given not one of the three seems remotely bothered by another's presence, I am not sure how Steve concluded such an interaction must have taken place.

As to a steadfast rule of no interference, I'm not sure one exists, written or unwritten. I would agree that to stage a street event solely for the benefit of making a capture would be over the top, but aiming a camera in the direction of others in a relatively discrete manner, i.e., "shooting off the hip," would be a stretch. Bruce Gilden takes "in your face" to great extremes and quite successfully and I am sure on occasion manages to annoy some subjects. Given his style it is doubtful he would not just go onto the next person but doesn't asking infer bothering?

You may not like someone else's opinions, Steve, but you should respect them enough to engage in a meaningful dialogue where everyone has a chance to make a comment without being lectured. Show me a conversation where what you say exists among the leading SP's in the world and then there is a place for the conversation to go. Just one more opinion.

[purplehaze]

I have said elsewhere on this forum and I will say it again: some people's resting face is not a smiling face and to invest a person's resting face with assumptions about their underlying mood is annoying and disrespectful. As a person whose resting face is constantly being misinterpreted, I have to say it is really disappointing to read the adjectives being slung about regarding these women, whose images have been published in a public forum. Take their picture if you must, but please do not presume to know what is behind their eyes. To do so is to caricature them and rob them of their dignity as human beings.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Shadowman]

I have said elsewhere on this forum and I will say it again: some people's resting face is not a smiling face and to invest a person's resting face with assumptions about their underlying mood is annoying and disrespectful. As a person whose resting face is constantly being misinterpreted, I have to say it is really disappointing to read the adjectives being slung about regarding these women, whose images have been published in a public forum. Take their picture if you must, but please do not presume to know what is behind their eyes. To do so is to caricature them and rob them of their dignity as human beings.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Janis,

Attempting to interpret a person's facial expression or body language in no way robs anyone of their dignity, it is a personal observation even if it is wrong. If I see someone smiling do I rob them of their dignity by stating they are happy, if my interpretation is wrong have I slighted them in some way? This is an image of people going about their day, if observations are made, if feelings are conveyed then they are expressions on the visual elements presented. I haven't embellished anything, only made a few comments on the image.

[purplehaze]

My objection is not to your making an interpretation, John, so much as it is the way you expressed it. I have already stated why I feel your assumption, which you are not alone in making, is flawed. Beyond that, this woman, who did not ask to be photographed, now has her image published on the Internet in association with a pejorative or pejoratives, which image is discoverable by a keyword search of said pejorative or pejoratives. She has in essence been "defined" negatively in a public space. To my mind, this just adds insult to the potential injury that may already exist for this woman, who, again, did not ask to have her picture taken and may care very much about her own image control. I do not want to overstate what I see as your offence, John (which although stinging to me personally, is relatively benign as these things go) so much as speak to a principle. To the extent that the street photographer is using people for his or her own purposes, it seems to me that they owe their subjects the respect of portraying without presuming to define. Freedom to publish photographs without the consent of the photographed is not a given and could be lost. I personally feel it needs to be handled delicately.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk