Shooting People without being a creep

blackhawk wrote in post #9568546
It's tedious to do, and when I do it it's because someone caught my eye... here's one from a stop light.

I've gotten some half decent shots while in the car...

what initially caught my eye was the color of his clothes, but I love this shot in sepia

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Todd Lambert wrote in post #9548940
I'd say try and pretend that you're a famous photo journalist... at least act like one.

It will help give you confidence that maybe you don't have.

That's the key... confidence. If you feel you're being a creep, then you are being a creep. Smile a lot, say hi to folks, make eye contact. Don't make your first approach to someone with the camera hiding your face!

If the person you're about to shoot looks homeless, you may want to offer them a few bucks, but be careful; some may take offense at this. Go from your gut feelings.

Above all, have fun!

Annie Social wrote in post #9573403
That's the key... confidence. If you feel you're being a creep, then you are being a creep. Smile a lot, say hi to folks, make eye contact. Don't make your first approach to someone with the camera hiding your face!

If the person you're about to shoot looks homeless, you may want to offer them a few bucks, but be careful; some may take offense at this. Go from your gut feelings.

Above all, have fun!

Yeap.
If you act like a creep, you are a creep.

Acting like a pro means you don't intentionally hide, do what you need to to frame the shot right.
You can't always get what you want... many more fish in the sea, no big deal. Enjoy it, and the peeps.

Acknowledge peeps when they make eye contact with you.
It doesn't need to be much, but don't be a cold fish.

Avoid throwing fuel on the fire if someone gets irate or isn't liking you... and don't shot 'em if you haven't already.
When people see others smiling, they relax, and the reverse is also true.

Here's how one professional handles street photography:
http://www.joelmeyerow​itz.com/photography/in​terview_06.html

Here's another:
http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=IRBARi09je8

You don't have to agree with their approaches, but that is the point. You choose. As I noted, I am fairly reserved and put limits on what I will photograph. But on the other hand, I'm not trying to ingratiate myself with a bunch of strangers; I'm just shooting what catches my eye. Speed and inconspicuousness go a long way in avoiding confrontation.

Bruce Gilden - that's my type of photos Amazing, i wonder how many times did he got into trouble
sjones - you are right, you choose and you made your point very clear


Cheers,
Paulius

sjones wrote in post #9576430
Here's how one professional handles street photography:
http://www.joelmeyerow​itz.com/photography/in​terview_06.html

Here's another:
http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=IRBARi09je8

You don't have to agree with their approaches, but that is the point. You choose. As I noted, I am fairly reserved and put limits on what I will photograph. But on the other hand, I'm not trying to ingratiate myself with a bunch of strangers; I'm just shooting what catches my eye. Speed and inconspicuousness go a long way in avoiding confrontation.

I've seen these and I'll say again, I am surprised the douche in the second video doesn't get a serious beat down from passer-by's. I'm sorry, getting into someone's grill with the flash and just snapping away and pretending it's some kind of street photo with merit is a joke.

I would say even the first guy is aggressive by my standards but I can see how his approach works. But even then, it's such a subjective thing. But again, Random shots in the city with people in the frame for the sake of it doesn't do anything for me, unless it's something compelling. 2 ladies trying to get a chair/seat into a cab just isn't compelling when you live in NYC.

Actually the first one looks more like a creep to me
And I don't think it is for the sake just to take the shot. They both capture city life. I prefer bruce work because he captures people like they are and sometimes, you just don't have to or mustn't search for something intriguing - but just look at the person in the picture. An expression is sometimes worth a thousand words. But YES it is very very very subjective (this word is probably the most common in this thread).
And i would LOVE to see two grannies fighting over a cab I miss my home...where old people were as lethal as a weapon of mass destruction

nicksan wrote in post #9576589
I'm sorry, getting into someone's grill with the flash and just snapping away and pretending it's some kind of street photo with merit is a joke.

This is a pretty serious dig you're taking at one of the more prolific street shooters of our time. I get that his style doesn't match your own, but claiming he is simply "snapping away and pretending it's some kind of street photo with merit" is the real joke.

I suppose next you'll say that Garry Winogrand and Louis Stettner were also hacks?

palaima wrote in post #9576672
I prefer bruce work because he captures people like they are and sometimes, you just don't have to or mustn't search for something intriguing - but just look at the person in the picture. An expression is sometimes worth a thousand words.

Sneaking up on an old lady and blasting the flash on her face to get an "expression" isn't capturing "people like they are". It's borderline vulgar. I'd have a word or two with him if he came up to me and did that to me. I'm surprised he hasn't gotten his ass kicked for doing something like that. Maybe he picks on people smaller than him or something.

CafeRacer808 wrote in post #9576702
This is a pretty serious dig you're taking at one of the more prolific street shooters of our time. I get that his style doesn't match your own, but claiming he is simply "snapping away and pretending it's some kind of street photo with merit" is the real joke.

I suppose next you'll say that Garry Winogrand and Louis Stettner were also hacks?

A prolific street shooter? That doesn't really change the fact that at least in this video he seems to use a "surprise attack" tactic, and personally I've got big issues with that and I'm just guessing many people would have problems with that, especially those who are being photographed in that way. What does that really portray? To me, most of his photos looked staged because they see the camera and react to it. I suppose that's a style. Just not my cup of tea.

Oh, and I didn't call him a hack. I called him a douche...

nicksan wrote in post #9576780
A prolific street shooter? That doesn't really change the fact that at least in his video he seems to use a "surprise attack" tactic, and personally I've got big issues with that and I'm just guessing many people would have problems with that, especially those who are being photographed in that way. What does that really portray? To me, most of his photos looked staged because they see the camera and react to it. I suppose that's a style. Just not my cup of tea.

Oh, and I didn't call him a hack. I called him a douche...

Bruce has been getting awards and endowments for his street work since the late 70s. Prolific? Absolutely. And I will say this, I'd spend much more money acquiring a print of his "in-your-face" style of photography that provokes a genuine reaction in someone than any of the "shots from behind" that are peppered in this forum.

PS - I stand corrected. You see Bruce as a douche and not a hack. Fair enough.

nicksan wrote in post #9576589
I've seen these and I'll say again, I am surprised the douche in the second video doesn't get a serious beat down from passer-by's. I'm sorry, getting into someone's grill with the flash and just snapping away and pretending it's some kind of street photo with merit is a joke.

I would say even the first guy is aggressive by my standards but I can see how his approach works. But even then, it's such a subjective thing. But again, Random shots in the city with people in the frame for the sake of it doesn't do anything for me, unless it's something compelling. 2 ladies trying to get a chair/seat into a cab just isn't compelling when you live in NYC.

Yep, the Gilden video generally draws the ire of many, and his style is certainly not my approach, but he works for Magnum, and I don't. Some of the photos are actually very good as far as drawing out the subject's character (and I'm not talking about the one's who understandably look like a bomb just went off). And just to clarify, his employment with Magnum does not demand your automatic respect, but I just wanted to show that "pros" have different approaches, should one want to act like one.

As for Meyerowitz, his catalogue is far more extensive then what was shown, of course, but actually, some of the shots even in the video were pretty damn good in terms of dynamic movement and composition….I know, it's all subjective. The point with Meyerowitz is that as close as he got, most of the people didn't notice, or at least they didn't care. And if they did mind, at least he is there to address their complaints, as opposed to someone hiding behind a car across the street with a 200mm.

Plus, if one wants to use a wide angle to add what some consider to be a more compelling perspective than that from a long lens, you have to get close.

Again, these are just different styles, and no one is obligated to like these styles or the resultant photos.

Mike wrote in post #9546579
I have found that listening to music through headphones can help - it kind of detaches you from your surroundings so you feel less self conscious.

Last week, I was actually watching a basketball game instead of shooting it. I noticed the local newspaper photographer fiddling with his iPod during timeouts.

CafeRacer808 wrote in post #9576807
Bruce has been getting awards and endowments for his street work since the late 70s. Prolific? Absolutely. And I will say this, I'd spend much more money acquiring a print of his "in-your-face" style of photography that provokes a genuine reaction in someone than any of the "shots from behind" that are peppered in this forum.

PS - I stand corrected. You see Bruce as a douche and not a hack. Fair enough.

I'm glad we are on the same page now.

nicksan wrote in post #9577020
I'm glad we are on the same page now.

LOL, me too. :P

elysium wrote in post #9568271
Exactly. Gotta be quick. Sometimes though Matt, glances are nice.

Street photography is pretty much a challenge in itself. There is a POTN member who shoots street and is great. He has caught me a few times but he only focuses on photographers. So maybe fine an area which is touristy and not take a mahoosive 70-200 along. Something simple will do.

One of my favourites so far here!
Thanks for adding, with useful advice too.

As to the whole "Bruce Gilden" debate, when I watched his videos I loved his use of a wide angle lens (35mm, I think) on a beach, kinda aiming lose, being chilled out, and getting someone in the shot who wasn't really bothered....
GREAT SHOT HERE
BUT....
The NYC in-the-face of odd-looking people with a flash....?
Not my cup of tea at all. And I feel we're being "tricked" into accepting pictures such as the one I linked to below, as "excellent" because they're in B&W and show an era we're not familiar with.
It's my opinion, so don't bother flaming me, but aggressive shots, with words like "Wha'dya mean, not on the street? Did he think he owns the street?!?!" shows little compassion for human nature.
NOT SO GREAT SHOT HERE