What's Good for the Goose
Post-Script: Is it just me, or does it seem like whatever becomes the latest and greatest technique for expanding state/corporate power simultaneously gets eroded as an individual right? Not only with public photography and the simultaneous rise of perpetual surveillance, but think how flying model aircraft has, in recent years, become synonymous with pseudo-terrorist "drones" in the hands of private citizens; meanwhile state-sponsored warfare can be conducted remotely using the same technology. Or think about a "free press," which more and more has become the right only of some corporate elite media; try getting into a "media event" without an official "press pass."
Maybe it's always been this way; but the dichotomy nowadays is striking, to those of us paying some attention.
And, in case you were wondering, I'm a very cautious and timid street photographer, hence why many of my images are devoid of the public persona; and why I had printed a self-published photo book called "Implied Presence," street photography minus the people. I probably wouldn't be the guy photographing private spaces from the public right-of-way, either.
Photos via Lumix G5. Typecast via Olivetti Lettera 22.
Bonus Image: One of the few I've made with the overt human presence. It was easy for me, being as how the subject was asleep.
posted by Joe V at 6:23 PM
2 Comments:
In all the years as a photographer and the few news assignments I did, photographing anyone in public is and was public. They were in public.
Poking my lens into someone's house or car was a liability of invasion of privacy let alone being creepy or perverted. Ok, we can all see each other in a car and there are those who fight over taking photos of famous people in a car. When I did and do photography that might be use commercially in any way, if the person can be identified (by a clear or even partial view of their face) I asked for them to sign a general release. I had a pad of these in my camera bag all the time. Children were never a problem either until the past 20 or so years. Generally taking a photo of children at play in a park was acceptable; now one not only needs a parental release, many places require it, and the release needs to list specifics of use do to all the pervs out on the streets.
As far as street photography goes if one enjoys it do it. It is a great hobby and a good way to preserve history. It has been done since the invention of the camera and with each improvement making a camera easier to use, street photography has gained in popularity. I enjoy seeing what other people photograph and what the subjects are doing.
There will always be exceptions to anything -- like how to avoid face shots of any one at a large event. The other is from having a commercial interest hijack the photo to use for an advertisement or billboard.
Perhaps one day some one will be able to pick me out of the crowd in one of their photos.
Happy photographing.
You raise some excellent questions.
Another issue is the mode of publication, if any. When a photo is published online, it is very accessible — and these days, any face in the photo can be analyzed by computer and potentially identified.
I note that in both the photos you've published here, the subjects' faces aren't visible, so this isn't an issue.
Post a Comment
<< Home