Should have moved on - not said anything

Good conversation. For a while I worked and commuted to Austin Texas for work. I would regularly take the first flight out on Saturday mornings. As such, I spent many a friday nights down photographing on 6th street. And I got a lot of shots of people at their worst. I have never posted any of those photos. I have every legal right to... but I choose not to. If my thing were shock or mocking photography, I have loads of content. But I didn't photography what I did to get likes by strangers. Its just my thing. And the vast majority of photographers I believe would do likewise. Anyway... just wanted to check. I am sure I over reacted. But I would hate to have a picture of my wife caught during an unflattering moment posted on a global social media site... I know how much it would hurt her.

I wouldn’t care too much what a bunch of hosers on that hellsite (F*cebook) think.

People who mock are usually the most petty and insecure bunch.

Croasdail wrote in post #19251089
I spent many a friday nights down photographing on 6th street. And I got a lot of shots of people at their worst. I have never posted any of those photos. I have every legal right to... but I choose not to. If my thing were shock or mocking photography, I have loads of content. But I didn't photography what I did to get likes by strangers. Its just my thing. And the vast majority of photographers I believe would do likewise.

These keep my sanity in check when I started continuing street photography. I'm sure there are enough people who did not want to be seen at their worst, and we certainly have a human decision to let that one moment slide, no matter how rare it could have been.

At the same time, street photography is also related to "capturing what the photographer sees", thus publishing shots of people at their worst can end up roughly implying that the photographer is keen on looking at the bads of others, although it still heavily depends on how the image is interpreted. That's what captions are for, right?

ToyotaGlock wrote in post #19251716
I wouldn’t care too much what a bunch of hosers on that hellsite (F*cebook) think.

I can agree. That blue website has so many people trying the hardest to look at the worst of anything, so something mildly offensive might cause an outrage there.

Part of the reason I don't do street photography is that the most Interesting images traffic in human oddity,, misery or quirks. I've nothing against it theory, but I have little stomach for making those images.

I think it mostly comes down to the intent of the photographer as they make the image, and I think it's accurate to say that a lot of street photography is taken by relatively inexperienced photographers who are still getting their feet wet - they haven't yet developed a firm ethos to guide their shutter finger. It was the same for me when I started out.

When you look at the work of someone like Salgado, he photographs people often in desperate situations but his philosophy is to show the strength and dignity of the person within that situation. His photographs are all celebratory, and it's a conscious choice. It doesn't make it true, but that's how he chooses to present his subjects.

Less experienced photographers are often still stuck on the observational, they see someone doing something and think that it's noteworthy to record it; "I'm not mocking them, I'm just recording the scene and it's up to the viewer to judge". No, it's up to the photographer to make that call before the shutter is even pressed. We tell the viewer what to think and what to feel, that's our job as photographers. Every photograph we make is a reflection of ourselves. And I think it's absolutely fine to take a photograph that doesn't show someone at their best, we're all struck by different things and a lot of the time we just want to record the moment and how we feel at that time. What we ultimately do with that photograph is what defines us.

Was it Avedon that said something like every photograph we take is a self portrait? And all photographs are accurate, none of them are truth?

We get maybe 1/250sec to reveal something about someone or to make a statement about someone in a particular situation. It's the easiest thing in the world to take that fraction of a second and turn it into a narrative, true or false, which can define that person (sometimes permanently). My take is we need to give people the benefit of the doubt, but we do that with framing and pressing the shutter only at the time when the expression on their face, or their gesture, supports the story that we want the photograph to tell.

Any time someone says: "I just recorded the scene in front of me, that's how it was" - it's just a reflection of their inexperience. I've never met an experienced photographer who was unaware of the impact they have on their own photographs.

We you choose to present is your view on what you see... you choose how you portray the subject... two different photographers could show the same events in entirely different perspectives. The photographer has a dang lot of control how the event is captured. I once shot a black panthers rally. Some from knee level, some from above, etc... and they all had a very different fell. I didn't orchestrate the event, but I did make choices how I presented what I saw.

Croasdail wrote in post #19457072
We you choose to present is your view on what you see... you choose how you portray the subject... two different photographers could show the same events in entirely different perspectives. The photographer has a dang lot of control how the event is captured. I once shot a black panthers rally. Some from knee level, some from above, etc... and they all had a very different fell. I didn't orchestrate the event, but I did make choices how I presented what I saw.

What is your recollection of how the Black Panthers were perceived by the public in the day in which you photographed them?

We find it interesting how the group is glorified today for the things they did back then for the 'benefit of their community' (my phrasing).

It was a rather odd situation in general. They came to town to protest Duke University and the accused LaCrosse team. Some supported them at the time, what was being accused was horrific. Ultimately the accusations were found to be false. They were there to support the accuser, and no one really doubted their motive at the time. If I can find the originals, I'll post some of them. But while it was a tense situation, everyone was polite. Not friendly, but not confrontational either. Of course everyone melted into the woodwork when the real story was revealed.