Re: [Leica] Street photography / Deadman's law

["peter stamos" <pjstamos@hotmail.com>]

Thanks for your input about how you photograph. I find it difficult to 
generalize regarding such matters, since "vulerability," "transgression," 
"courtesy," etc. are so often conditional and subject to interpretation.  
While there isn't anything you can't photograph, whether you should is best 
left to the individual photographer and his or her conscience.


>From: Johnny Deadman <deadman@jukebox.demon.co.uk>
>Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>To: LUG <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
>Subject: Re: [Leica] Street photography / Deadman's law
>Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 09:22:15 +0100
>
> >> I recently began photographing an indigent, young asian woman dressed 
>in
> >> sheer pink and cyan whose poor attempts at dance I at first thought 
>were
> >> intended as a parody of typical street performers, when she began 
>gesturing
> >> rather dramatically that she did not wish to be photographed. I walked 
>a
> >> short distance, moving well to her side out of sight and took a few 
>more
> >> photographs of her. As I turned to leave, someone passed me and angrily 
>said
> >> "Hey, buddy! she said she didn't want her picture taken!"
>
>With respect, you were asking for trouble there. I'm not trying to be rude
>but I think photographing 'indigent' people without their permission on the
>street is (not always, but very often) unwise and, secondly, persisting in
>photographing someone who has indicated they do not wish to be 
>photographed,
>particularly when said person is clearly vulnerable in some way, compounds
>the mistake.
>
>The point about photographing openly on the street (without asking
>permission) is that it allows people to object to being photographed or to
>get the hell out of the way. It also demonstrates that you have no
>inhibitions about what you are doing and consider you have a 'right' to be
>there as a photographer (which fundamentally, you do).
>
>Ted is (as ever!) dead right about 'sneaky' photography. It is really
>dangerous. I simply would not use a concealed camera for that reason. (I
>used a concealed camera working in TV and it is VERY scary).
>
>Much safer to do what you do out in the open, though obviously being
>inconspicuous about it if you wish.
>
>Personally, I think Deadman's Law obtains here, namely:
>
>"The conspicuousness of any street photographer is inversely proportional 
>to
>the amount of effort s/he is putting into being inconspicuous"
>
>Yesterday, for example, I was down on the South Bank for a meeting and 
>ended
>up walking back past the brutalist Festival Hall. Under the concrete
>ramparts were a bunch of tough looking skaters doing tricks. I thought 
>about
>asking them if it was okay to take pix, but you're asking for trouble that
>way because (a) they weren't meant to be there and so (b) they would
>probably say no, and what do you do then? So I walked in amongst them and
>casually took a light reading. A couple of them skated up and asked what 
>the
>meter was, and I told them. They shrugged and skated off. Then I started
>taking pictures, walking in amongst them etc, and I guess I shot two or
>three rolls with complete freedom. They showed no sign whatever of being
>aware of my presence... no showing off or attitude. That's the thing about
>skaters... they want to be 'cool' and act accordingly. It was nice and
>really relaxed, and a classic example (to me) of how for some reason if you
>are open and casual people will simply buy you as part of the scenery. Not
>always, not everywhere, but more often than you expect, I think.
>
>--
>Johnny Deadman
>
>photos:      http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
>music:       http://www.jukebox.demon.co.uk
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com