Is Street Photography Wrong? (Asking The Public)

Does the public mind having their photo taken WITHOUT consent? Today I ask the London public what they think, as well as some street photographers👀
Timecodes
00:00 - Intro
00:40 - Asking The Public
03:33 - Asking Street Photographers
10:40 - Conclusion
A BIG thank you to:
Mike: @MikeChudley on KZbin & Instagram
Jason: @NiftyFiftyFilm on Instagram
Leave your comments below...Is Street Photography Wrong?
street photography, is street photography ethical, ethics of street photography, fuji x100vi, london photography, asking the public, mike chudley, street portraits, is street photography legal

[@mrdev9843]

flashing someone up close is just ill mannered and CRASS, so if you get your ass kicked it's on you

[@christophotos]

very fair point hahaha

[@MadeinSheffield]

I don't use a flash so all good

[@Elisha_the_bald_headed_prophet]

Just we're on the same page, are we talking about lighting?

[@samuelsummers5342]

There are close to 1 million cameras already in London constantly recording you without your consent and are actually working against you to predict what you will do and then sell that information to companies to advertise to you. That's a lot different to someone who just wants to keep it to oneself and create some sort of art. The people interviewed here have no idea they are being recorded and exploited all the time and are only worried about a camera if they can see someone behind it.

[@christophotos]

Very good point. Although, I think what might be different is with street photography YOU are the main focus, whereas with public recording everyone gets the same treatment. This isn't even mentioning street photography with flash. Not sure if this is actually correct, but just my view on how a member of the public might navigate this.

[@blqhamuha]

Let's not forget that all digital devices that emit some kind of wireless signals can determine the location of people.And of course that each phone manufacturer has the right to access the photos and the camera.

[@Anon54387]

@@christophotosLike most things, whether it is unethical or not really depends on the mindset/reason of the person doing it. If you see someone racing along a city street at 100 MPH you'd think what a %*$%, risking the lives of other motorists and pedestrians, but if you found out later that their passenger was having a seizure and they were heading for the hospital a block away you'd think of it in a whole different light. Now while street photography is not life and death issues, but intent still comes down to it in photography. While one shouldn't be doing something in public one would be embarrassed about anyway, but it's a bit different if one might catch a glance that most likely people will forget about soon after vs. a photo which might be splashed all over social media. And things can wind up out of context which I personally think is the concern of most people. A famous example here in the states was a woman who posted a picture of a guy out with a woman and she, trying to get social media attention, claimed that was her boyfriend who made an excuse about not being able to meet her for lunch. It turned out this guy was not her boyfriend, never had been her boyfriend, not even acquaintances, rather they were total strangers. It turns out he was walking along with a colleague from work that was a woman, and her attempt to portray him that way could've really damaged his reputation the way appearances can "become"" fact. Not only professionally but personally as this man was married. That was unconscionable behavior by this woman that could've ruined lives. Then there is people like Bruce Gilden. That man is a a total grade A arschloch. We are pretty much free to take photos in the USA anywhere in public. For instance, the laws to do with photography usually prohibit it only in places where one has a reasonable expectation of privacy like one's home, specifically a bedroom, or changing rooms in clothing stores or beaches or restrooms at the shopping center movie theaters, etc. But people like Gilden, while technically legal to do what he does, it is very rude and inconsiderate behavior to get right in someone's face and with a flash no less. One can tell a lot of those he photographs are startled to say the least. And do that to the wrong person one could actually be faced with a violent reaction.

[@Anon54387]

@@blqhamuhaThey might be able to access the photos on an iPhone, but a Canon camera I wouldn't see how. Given that the person who takes the photo owns the copyright, it could lead to trouble depending on how they use the access to those images.

[@Anon54387]

@@christophotosEven with the homeless, I don't think taking a photograph of a homeless person is exploitative in and of itself. It still, even in that circumstance, depends on what one does with the photograph. There is one guy that's a street photographer in London that, while he takes pictures of people, does so in a way that they are not identifiable. His work is great, really looks wonderful, but doesn't risk any of the pitfalls. Again, things can so easily be taken out of context and that really is, I suspect, why people are bothered. It can be taken out of context because of editing by the photographer or, even if just as it appears, by people's perceptions.

[@AlexandarHullRichter]

I feel like there's a difference between a photo completely focused on a single individual, like the person in the party hat, vs. a picture focused on an environment that has people in it, like the one with the billboard or the flowers after that. If you're focused on a single person and what they're experiencing, that's more of a portrait than it is environment photography. Pictures of the environment that need people in them aren't as portrait like, since those pictures are as much (or more) about the place and not just those specific people.

[@Poverello2001]

There are two sides to this coin. In the one side, people need to understand that there is no expectation of privacy when they are out in public and anyone can take a photo of them without asking their permission. On the other hand, street photographers should be respectful and try to be as un intrusive as possible when taking a photo in public.

[@stuzbots-shed]

I think you're missing the point. It's not the taking of the photo that's the problem as such. It's the distribution. Back in the film days and before the internet; if someone snapped you on the street, the resulting image would be a physical print on a piece of paper and would probably be seen by only a handful of people. Nowadays, anyone can snap you on the street and stick the resulting digital image on the internet ,making it immediately available worldwide for anyone to see, copy, re-use, redistribute. Add the potential for image manipulation into the mix and I can completely understand why people nowadays can be so wary of having strangers point a camera at them. For every aspiring Saul Leiter out there, there are probably as many or more wannabe Bruce Gildens, poised to make your startled gurning expression a global internet sensation.

[@Poverello2001]

@@stuzbots-shed I see your point about the impact of technology on street photography, but what is the solution? I did say that people need to be respectful, but I wouldn’t want to see laws prohibiting public photography.

[@stuzbots-shed]

@@Poverello2001 I don't know what the answer is. I wouldn't want to see street photography banned.. But, then again, relying on everyone who weilds a camera on the street to behave with respect is naive. I don't think there is an obvious answer really. But I just wanted to make the point about how, nowadays, anyone with a camera can instantly publish your image worldwide, without your consent. As so many commenters seemed to be overlooking this aspect, which was not really an issue in earlier times, pre-digital and pre-internet.

[@c0ldc0ne]

@@stuzbots-shed One thing to keep in mind though is that all that this worldwide audience will be able to see of you, is what you choose to show in a public setting. If it doesn't bother you that a street full of people sees you in a certain capacity, why should it bother you that a larger audience does?

[@PippetWhippet]

@@c0ldc0neWhen some idiot jumps out at you and flashes a camera in your face with a 15mm lens, they are not capturing you as you choose to present yourself in public.

[@Streetsnapper34]

Great watch. Cool to see the publics thoughts on street!

[@christophotos]

Thank you, glad you enjoyed! I've always seen a bunch of vids on the ethics of street but never from the view of the subjects ( the public)!

[@niftyfiftyfilm4457]

Really solid video and thanks for the conversation. It’s really important to have respect for the subjects you’re capturing ❤ Here in London everything’s so fast paced and a little compliment goes a long way and as a result you hopefully manage to capture a great moment and have also given someone a reason to smile too! Keep shooting and creating moments 🎉

[@christophotos]

Thanks for coming on nifty! Couldn't agree more, also thinks it would remove any worries a person might have about having their photo taken

[@RxTerps]

Great quality , video deserves way more recognition 😊

[@SivertAlmvik]

I made a hand out zine for when people stop me, and ask what I do. Then I could hand them an A5 sized photo zine with an explanation of what street photography is and why I love doing it, and a collection of 15-20 of my best work. I still have them because I have almost never been stopped on the street after taking a photo. People (at least around here in Oslo) do not care.

[@christophotos]

This is an amazing idea. Can I ask do you think people would be as chill if you were using flash ??

[@SivertAlmvik]

@@christophotos I haven't used a professional flash on the street, only a single use camera. I think people wouldn't care - at least during the summer time. During the dark time, people will notice it more and perhaps start to wonder what you took a photo of

[@robtjimenez]

No it's not wrong or unethical. People are in a public place, they are part of the environment you are photographing. Even homeless people, if your intent is to document a place in time then you have to capture it all, even the things that my be uncomfortable.

[@GPTMagana]

YES!

[@PippetWhippet]

And then exploit that homeless person for your own personal gain, right? You wouldn’t hire a model and ignore the terms of the release form you both signed, because that model can ruin your career with a single Twitter post, but it sure seems you would if you knew that model was helpless to stop you like the homeless people are.

[@teletdf]

The photographer seeks, sees and captures events and situations that can have artistic significance and merit. The subjects do not see that; they see their likeness being used without their permission. I know I would feel weird if I was being photographed - if I knew I was. It depends on which side of the shutter you’re on. At the same time, is it a good thing that someone with a cell phone camera captures an event or situation that might have legal significance (e.g. photographing an assault in progress)? What about a photojournalist on assignment? Do they wear a press pass while they wander the streets? I guess I think in general street photography is fraught but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be practiced.

[@markysng]

Photojournalism is a very very different industry than photography. And it is very much treated differently by the law. For example, in most EU countries, street photography is actually illegal. You can't take a photo of someone where they are recognisable without their explicit consent (though the law isn't enforced very strictly). The only exception to this is if the whatever they are photographing is deemed as newsworthy. As you pointed out, the significance of the event is very much crucial in determining if the event is newsworthy or not. So things like protests, crime, and things with a decent enough social significance. As someone studying photojournalism right now, we are very much taught to separate the ethics and the legal, because taking photos of events as they unfold is part of our professional demands. So while something may be legal, it may not necessarily be ethical. But however since it is legal, its part of our job to do so. We aren't taking photos for the fun of it and posting it like all those social media photographers. We are taking them because a story needs to be told to the general public. Its still a grey area to me and I am still grappling with these thoughts but yea hope this clarifies

[@MadeinSheffield]

Without street photography - which is as old as photography itself, we wouldn't have that historical record to compare to.

[@itsleonsimpson]

Great video Chris sorry I couldn’t make it on the day. One thing I thought of while watching was I wondered what peoples view would be like in other areas of London. As a guess I would assume people in central London may be used to seeing photographers around now more so over the last 3 or so years. But it’s good to see what the general public do think about it. Keep it up mate. Hopefully catch you soon.

[@christophotos]

Wise words Leon. It made me think, at one point I did ask people round the corner from the photographers gallery which could also skew the type of people we ask. Anyway, catch you soon for sure!

[@lucianoag999]

Taking the picture, probably one can not stop it. But it should be only for private use. With the right of the subject to opt out if the subject can be identified, like one said. No publication without consent and specially no commercial use without paying the subject part of the earnings.

[@john2000l]

Street Photography has always been the greatest type of picture taking there is. People who have problems with getting their photo on the street should sit in their home and hermit away. The street is the true picture of life, and how it moves along each day. I have had people take photos of me on the street, and I feel happy and honored by it. Street Photography is never wrong.

[@penelopetheflyawaygirl6175]

Super interesting video! I found it interesting that the members of public were all pretty chill and understanding (although maybe that’s just the type of people who’d stop to answer questions? Haha). I’d LOVE to see a similar interview done in other countries - I found in certain places people are MUCH less happy if they spot you (or even THINK you are) taking a photo. Morocco is the main one off the top of my head right now, one guy got SO angry at me even though I was only taking a video of the street in the medina - he was coincidentally in it as he was manning a stall. But it wasn’t ‘of’ him, but he started yelling at me anyway 😳

[@ismael9538]

Really cool to see it from different perspectives thanks!

[@ianforber]

I shoot street in London, although I often end up taking street portraits rather than candids. It’s ok and ethical but, for me, I wouldn’t take a picture of a homeless person or someone in a similarly disadvantaged position. I wouldn’t avoid taking a picture with kids in it, even if they are a significant element, but I’d check with myself before taking a picture OF a young child and would probably not unless there was a parent around I could ask if it was ok.

[@christophotos]

That's very fair. I think as a street photographer it's not always about the law or even ethics, sometimes it's about doing what you're doing comfortable with - and that's completely fine! Dos any part of you judge street photographers who do, say take candids of people without consent? And what about children? I've seen many street photographs involving children which I'd assume is without consent

[@ianforber]

@@christophotos No judgment here. Candids of people are fine, I’m just rubbish at it because I haven’t yet got the confidence to do it, hence me just going up to people and asking if I can take their portrait. I’ve no problem taking pictures with children in them. I took one last month of a dad having a sandwich with his daughter. I’m not saying I wouldn’t but I’d pause to think before taking a picture just of her. Someone needs to though or we will lose images like Bert Hardy’s excellent pic of the two boys playing in the Gorbals in the 1950s. It’s just harder to do these days as a middle aged man

[@nikvisual.s]

Totally present watching this vid, great work Chris 👌🏼

[@christophotos]

Thanks you legend! 🙌🏼

[@GPTMagana]

As a street photographer that resides in a small town and takes a ferry ride to Seattle at least a few times a month. There have been a few times that I did ask permission before making pictures of people I don't know. 5:25 I need to put aside with my thoughts of a "sexy woman", money, Instagram/Tiktok and other vices. Photographing homeless people needs to be done with respect. But I admit that I am not always considerate and respectful of their wishes. Photographing homeless people is exploitative and unethical if the intent is mixed with thoughts Instagram or OnlyFans Models. And I think I do make mistakes on that and trying to be kinder to others, and myself.

[@maurosampaio6238]

photograph in Brasilia (Brazil), mainly. Street photography can combine the photographer's moment and responsibility with his composition and objective (a book, an exhibition, social networks, etc.)

[@L3ON360Z]

Great stuff and educational!

[@christophotos]

Much appreciated Leon!

[@babettesfeast6347]

I try and not be observed but if I am, smile and give a thumbs up. Just be respectful and don’t harass anyone. It’s all fair game you are in public

[@walkingmanvideo9455]

This is my take. If I am taking a generic photo of a scene with people building etc, a bit like a tourist would then I think its ok. If I then purposely get in your zone, in your face with a camera then I don't think its ok. People like Bruce Guilden successfully pulled it off because the photography he was doing was new to the world. Nowadays, its different. If people tried to copy Bruce's approach in this cotton wool wrapped world then they may get shot, knifed or sued. Its a different world now and street shooters need to know this. Trying to copy the old greats may not work in this current age. Before yoou go out, ask yourself this.....would you like your wife, husband, son or daughter photographed in the way you intend to photograph a stranger and have their photo posted for the world to see?????? Are you comfortable for your loved one to be photographed by a stranger in this way? I dont call myself a 'street photographer', I am just a photographer that photographs interesting things in my daily commutes and travels.

[@niftyfiftyfilm4457]

Interested approach but I don’t agree with that entirely, as long as your being respectful and aware I think it’s fine, there’s a difference between filling a frame on a 28mm or 35mm lens which is still arguably close and personal rather than being in someone’s face and blinding them.

[@christophotos]

Very interesting take, thanks for your comment. Although, I would just say that taking those "generic" photos of a scene may not be inspiring to some. I know a lot of street photographers try to capture very specific "moments" which typically involve peoples faces. This not only makes the image harder to replicate but also builds a stronger connection with the viewer. I also disagree with what you say about "copying" the greats, if anything I think the public now are more used to cameras/getting filmed more than never, so I think their reaction to being photographed would possibly be better than previous decades (I would assume this does largely depends on the individual) Ultimately, I think it's fine for people to photograph other people, but as highlighted in this video, the photographers approach is very important.

[@GPTMagana]

Bruce Gilden do portraits of homeless and prostitutes these days. This is found in a "Farm Boys and Farm GIrls" and Skid Row works. He does appear to seek consent in project like this. I tried doing Gilden's approach with the homeless and they don't care nothing about me. It can be sometimes better to ask for consent be present with the world more where everyone had to 'keep up with the joneses'.

[@walkingmanvideo9455]

@@GPTMagana I agree. The Bruce Gilden example I was referring to was literally putting a camera right up to someones face and taking a shot with a flash. Back then it may have worked but today I would consider it a more precarious if not lethal depending on the subject, who they are and what power be it legal or nefarious. A young shooter called Trevor Wisecup learnt this on one of his videos where he snapped a man walking and the man was very upfront and agressive. Had this man been a crimelord or someone of a serious background, young Trevor may have ended up in hospital or worse. Just saying that original Gilden style photography is not as accepted today as years ago. Cheers.

[@user-dp4li7og1p]

It can be edgy. And people might get angry. But that might be a good thing. I only have so much sympathy for people who strive to be famous and then complain when people recognize them. I’m MUCH more concerned about facial recognition networks.

[@Fontsman-14]

11:22 Nothing wrong with street photography. Even photographing beggars, because it highlights the inequality in society and makes people think and be aware of what poverty does to people.

[@christophotos]

Haven't come across this view yet, wish I asked this q specifically in the video. But I would ask, could this not also be achieved by asking for consent? I would imagine some would not appreciate the photos - what do you think?

[@Fontsman-14]

@christophotos I have asked street people for consent on many occasions. Usually they are fine. I think today, with such a collapse in social services and the rapid rise in food banks, it's a shameful situation. Using photography to highlight this situation is totally legitimate.

[@mistergiovanni7183]

For me the limit is not to interrupt the other and the person is not identifiable if it is about one or two people and it is not a general shot in a place where there are many people. Candor is valued but that is a stolen photo, I repeat, they are stolen photos, period. And from this original sin come all the problems. You steal an image from someone you don't know and therefore there is always a problem because the ethics of the photographer cannot be above the ethics of the photographed. There is no point in discussing the photographer's intentions if he is stealing the photo, as I see many who do it either with a wide angle lens less than a meter from another person or with a telephoto lens. In my case, ultimately if I am going to take a photo of a stranger I prefer a posed photo or with consent and of course I will give them my email so I can send them the photo.

[@jasonpoon_]

great topic!

[@christophotos]

Thanks! what's your final opinion after watching the video?

[@jasonpoon_]

@@christophotos I appreciate the photographer's answers. I agree it's contextual to the situation. Personally, I don't like photography that exploits a person or situation (unhoused individuals for example). The combination of documentation and art is the beauty of street photography, and there isn't always a clear line in certain situations. I think intent of photographers is important but even that is up for interpretation.

[@michellskorna]

Challenge for you - if you ever come to any German city (small or large doesn't matter) try asking that again!

[@GPTMagana]

*Belgium has joined the chat*

[@phil_aesthetics]

Personally if someone takes a picture of me out in public I don't mind but if someone came in my bubble to take the picture I would feel violated. Like someone pointed out there are cameras everywhere but they are not in my bubble.

[@thethreeislands]

Why were you carrying around that book during the interviews? 1:30 🤔

[@CallumAFK]

I did capture two drunk punk rockers on the Camden bridge, as I edited the photos I noticed the sign he held said £2 per photo haha felt like a right di*k I took like 4 photos ahaha

[@Billkwando]

Wow, just 5 seconds in and....his mannerisms. It's like "Tell me you're a d-bag without telling me you're a d-bag". Reminds me of "I can't believe you've done this" guy. Edit: I enjoyed the video, and dudeman is fine. :)

[@tundrusphoto4312]

The issue that rarely is discussed, is using the person's image for commercial gain without permission. Commercial gain may be for payment, or just for promotional purposes even if the image isn't for sale. You are using a person's image without their permission.

[@maurosampaio6238]

And i liked this vídeo. 👏👏👏👏👏

[@rangersmith4652]

When you go out into a public place, you've given tacit permission for others to observe you just be being out there. People get a little weirded out if someone takes a picture of their children. The children usually quite like the idea.

[@PippetWhippet]

You haven’t given tacit permission to have your image _published_. I really think you’re missing the woods for the trees. You’re not going out and photographing strangers to keep in a dusty old family album. Having a private collection of photos of people you don’t know is verging on personality disorder territory. Everyone you photograph knows you are going to publish their picture and frankly, you don’t have legal, ethical or moral permission to do that.

[@rangersmith4652]

@@PippetWhippet What makes you think I have such a collection. I don't. The person who appears in "public" is already effectively having his her or image "published." Note that the two words have the same root and are tied to the same concept. If 100 people see me during a visit to a supermarket, I've made my image available to all of them. If 100,000 see me at a concert or an NFL game, I've made my image available to all of them. How many such availabilities does it take to make it not OK? If KZbinr X publishes my picture on his or her photography channel, a few thousand people might see it. But way more people than that have already seen my face. Why should I care?

[@rangersmith4652]

@@playingcasual2024 The reason people get weirded out is they've been conditioned to think anyone who would photograph a child must have nefarious interest in that child. That's not generally the case, but when it is shown to be true it gets a lot of attention, especially social media attention, and people go ballistic. The exception wrongly becomes the rule.

[@wigglerise]

At the end of the day there is no right to privacy with regards to photography in a public place. There is, however, the moral side of this in that you should stop and consider your actions with regards to children, homeless etc. Are the people incidental to the shot or core to it? Are you planning on doing anything with the image they may result in defamation, embarrassment etc to the individual. My view is that you should put yourself in the subjects position and consider if it's appropriate. We're all free to make our own decisions on this matter but would suggest that we be mindful to not cause an issue that results in our expressive freedoms being further curtailed by an ever oppressive government.

[@GPTMagana]

My decision to photograph homeless people is all in the hopes of impressing Pornstars, Onlyfans and Instagram Models. My issue is that I have always felt that I am less than a "perfect" looking woman or instagram model. I feel like that those women are superior and I am always seen as a bad person. At one point, I've always feel the need to race and compare myself with attractive women, because I don't see myself looking attractive and it's all about their money. Being an Instagram model for her is always about their money!

[@Vladshirokov]

Даже интересно стало

[@socialstoic2099]

I’m more interested in how the hell you raise your left brow so high into your forehead?

[@scotthullinger4684]

Nobody should expect to be able to do anything "private" in a public place.

[@alexshabotenko7228]

Those who want privacy should stay indoors. *Public* space... ring a bell? Public?

[@christophotos]

That's one way to prove your point 🤣

[@kineticlight913]

ethics , lol

[@TL-xw6fh]

If it is wrong, then no tourists should be allowed to take photographs in public. How stupid.

[@niftyfiftyfilm4457]

It’s more about how you go about taking the photo, what the photo is off, distance etc so many variables bc as a tourist if I’m 20cm from the persons nose or 20 metres it’s going to be a significantly difference image :) Be constructive !

[@TL-xw6fh]

@iftyfilm4457 So if I am in a coffee shop 20 cm away from another tourist, I cannot take a photo? I do that many times, as a tourist too, like sitting inside a tourist bus, underground, theatres, etc.

[@niftyfiftyfilm4457]

@@TL-xw6fh it’s more about the approach really are you taking photos of them 20cm away or are you taking photos of your coffee ? I’m not sure you understood the video, it’s regarding to street photography not personal stuff

[@TL-xw6fh]

@@niftyfiftyfilm4457 I perfectly well understood what you said. However, how can we establish a law that says a street photographer cannot take such photos but a tourist can? That will be ridiculous.

[@niftyfiftyfilm4457]

@@TL-xw6fh again the video was purely discussing street photography and the approach of ethics in regards to photographing random people going about their day, it’s nothing to do with tourists taking photos of their life and having someone possibly being in the background

[@wanneske1969]

I wouldn't photograph beggars, homeless people, addicts and street musicians. It's unethical.

[@christophotos]

Interesting. I saw someone comment recently that they think photographing homeless is fine as it shows the social conditions we are currently living in - what do you think of that?

[@TheCruisinCrew]

I think particularly street musicians are fair game, but I always smile and give them a buck to make it even more fair! ;)

[@wanneske1969]

Depends on if they allow it or not. Maybe they get their lives back on track in a few years, apply for a job and this street picture might follow them everywhere. @@christophotos

[@benjamindover4337]

The homeless are not in public by choice, so it is exploitative to photograph them. And you should pay street performers if you are using them as models for your hobby.

[@Anon54387]

I can kind of see homeless people, even though I think part of it depends on intent and use of the photo, since they are at their worst in a bad spot in life. But street musicians? Odd that you include that in the list of people in embarrassing situations in life.

[@gregmeagher889]

I think it is stupid, boring and I don't understand the obsession. It is lazy 'picture-taking' not photography, and yet someone is selling cameras like crazy to people who really aren't that good at it while swooning over past photographers who seemingly made 'art' out of mundane photos. Knock yourselves out if that's your thing.

[@user-gc8pc3ol6l]

You have a pretty closed mind then. There are great photographers in every genre of the field including this one who work hard on their craft and learning the techniques and the innate sense to be in the right place as well as developing their eyes. Your point smacks of snobbery.

[@wiandryadiwasistio2062]

photography _is_ picture-taking bruh what are you on about

[@socialstoic2099]

I’m more interested in how the hell you raise your left brow so high into your forehead?

[@socialstoic2099]

I’m more interested in how the hell you raise your left brow so high into your forehead?