Shooting People without being a creep

The cam is out either under my arm, or carrying it one handed by the barrel or grip.

^ what he said + i most of the time shoot Av and set the +1, -1 according to the overall lighting (my camera tends to over/under expose under different lighting conditions). All in all, i do everything before, so that when i see a picture, all i must do is to press the button.

ive never had this problem. I try to capture situations that are pleasant though and after ive taken the picture if they are looking at me i always give a toothy smile Works a treat.

This is an interesting thread. Nicksan, Blackhawk and Sjones are writing well about the street photography here. Nicksan also has good photos on flickr.

blackhawk wrote in post #9587271
The cam is out either under my arm, or carrying it one handed by the barrel or grip.

Once I have seen a man filming secretly at a book store. He was just standing four feet straight away from the entrance with his winter jacket open and covering his camcorder. No body seem noticed him. When I entered the store, I could see the glare of the lens.

I didnt care and went inside the store to have a cup of coffee.

jeyaganesh wrote in post #9588242
Once I have seen a man filming secretly at a book store. He was just standing four feet straight away from the entrance with his winter jacket open and covering his camcorder. No body seem noticed him. When I entered the store, I could see the glare of the lens.

I didnt care and went inside the store to have a cup of coffee.

I would have said something to him... lite his world on fire.

Ok, I've watched this thread develop and haven't commented. However, I think I'll chime in here now. First, street photography isn't for everyone. For instance, what would work in downtown NYC wouldn't work in small town USA, and vice versa. Personally, I have nothing wrong w/ candid street photography. Whether it is from the front, back, side, top or bottom. Who cares? Art is subjective. If you don't like it, then just move on.

There are differing opinions on the approach to the subjects, whether it be people or buildings. There are also varying viewpoints on the ideal kit for street photography. I think my 24-105 would draw less attention than my 70-200. What I find appealing isn't necessarily what someone else does. Personally, I think that being very visible and having people aware of what you're doing is a good thing. I'm not saying have a big sign that says, "Don't look at me. I'm taking candid shots," would work. Most times, when people see a camera, they assume the person using it is going to take pictures. Duh!

Also, if Bruce Gilden were to pull that crap in my face, he could get a kick in the twig and berries and then have his camera shoved where the sun doesn't shine. He is a complete douche. I could care less if he's made a billion dollars from his work, he is still a douche.

asysin2leads wrote in post #9589538
Also, if Bruce Gilden were to pull that crap in my face, he could get a kick in the twig and berries and then have his camera shoved where the sun doesn't shine. He is a complete douche. I could care less if he's made a billion dollars from his work, he is still a douche.

There's no need for kicking..."Art is subjective. If you don't like it, then just move on."

Sorry, I couldn't resist - lol! I'm not challenging you at all, I just found it amusing that these two sentiments could live in the same post. My comments on Bruce Gilden end right... now.

CafeRacer808 wrote in post #9589593
There's no need for kicking..."Art is subjective. If you don't like it, then just move on."

Sorry, I couldn't resist - lol! I'm not challenging you at all, I just found it amusing that these two sentiments could live in the same post. My comments on Bruce Gilden end right... now.

There is a difference between art being subjective and someone getting in my face. He was close to the subjects in the part of the video I watched. If someone violates my personal space like that, then it's on. He has no right to violate someones personal space in the name of art and think he can get away with it. That is my stance.

asysin2leads wrote in post #9589694
There is a difference between art being subjective and someone getting in my face. He was close to the subjects in the part of the video I watched. If someone violates my personal space like that, then it's on. He has no right to violate someones personal space in the name of art and think he can get away with it. That is my stance.

I think you're confusing your personal space tolerance issues with your rights. Technically, he has every right to do so, assuming you're in a public space. I totally get your stance and frankly, I would be peeved as well. But at the same time, I'm not one to argue with someone's creative process (assuming it doesn't break the law in any way), especially if the artist is getting the result they want. How one tackles a creative problem/challenge is just as subjective as the end result (ie - the art). Just my two cents.

PS - And please don't go around kicking anyone...you wouldn't want to end up in jail now, would you?

asysin2leads wrote in post #9589538
... First, street photography isn't for everyone. For instance, what would work in downtown NYC wouldn't work in small town USA, and vice versa...

True, if someone lives in the desert or some other remote location, then street photography might not be an option, at least not urban photography. However, in general, if it is not for everybody, it is not because of their geographical position but because it simply doesn't fit their style. I've seen lots of great 'street photography' from small towns. Remember, street photography is not simply people photography, and humans do not even have to be present. Yes, cities provide more prospects, but wherever there is a street, there is at least some opportunity.

Just saw this YouTube video about 'Mass gathering in defence of street photography - Trafalgar Square'.

asysin2leads wrote in post #9589694
There is a difference between art being subjective and someone getting in my face. He was close to the subjects in the part of the video I watched. If someone violates my personal space like that, then it's on. He has no right to violate someones personal space in the name of art and think he can get away with it. That is my stance.

Yes, we already established the fine line between being a douche and a hack. He's a douche, not a hack.

nicksan wrote in post #9591226
Yes, we already established the fine line between being a douche and a hack. He's a douche, not a hack.

Nice callback, nicksan! lol

sjones wrote in post #9589905
True, if someone lives in the desert or some other remote location, then street photography might not be an option, at least not urban photography. However, in general, if it is not for everybody, it is not because of their geographical position but because it simply doesn't fit their style. I've seen lots of great 'street photography' from small towns. Remember, street photography is not simply people photography, and humans do not even have to be present. Yes, cities provide more prospects, but wherever there is a street, there is at least some opportunity.

Completely agreed. COMPLETELY! There's this strange misunderstanding that people need to be in the frame for it to be a street photo worth a damn and that is simply not the case.