7 ms·

I also used to be really (really really) into photography. Personally, I’ve stopped taking pictures because of the stigma around a camera. Everyone, me more th

I also used to be really (really really) into photography. Personally, I’ve stopped taking pictures because of the stigma around a camera. Everyone, me more than most, doesn’t want their picture taken, or to be in the background of other photos. When someone can take thousands of pictures an hour, and upload them all to some social media site to be permanently stored… idk it’s shifted from a way to capture a moment to feeling like you’re being survieled. A bit hyperbolic, but it’s the best way to describe what I’m feeling

MarcelOlsz 1y ago
Can't you just not care and power through? Someones always going to be miffed regardless. I keep a Rollei A110 on me at all times and a tiny Minox EC that takes me hours to refill. When I bring it out people love it. It's a throwback that people very much appreciate. I can see people getting miffed at a big digital camera though.
- mikepurvis 1y ago
  I have an entry level Sony Alpha that I picked up for a vacation earlier this year. With the portrait lens on there it definitely registers as “camera” far more than a phone. Between that factor and the hassle of having to manually go through and upload the photos afterward, I only take it on special occasions — trips, hikes, etc. It’s not worth all that hassle for trying to get day to day stuff.
  - MarcelOlsz 1y ago
    Why not live a little and get a film camera? It's more time for sure but are you not tired of optimizing everything in life?
    - asimovDev 1y ago
      I found our childhood film camera last year and I took it to a couple trips. price of scanners/getting your film scanned and needing to buy 10eur film rolls for like 20 photos turned me off. I still haven't scanned my first and only roll I shot last year.
      - MarcelOlsz 1y ago
        I bought a Gralab timer and hooked it up to an old shitty enlarger in my tiny dark wine cellar, along with a red bulb. A few chemicals and tools and you're golden. The only thing that screws me is having to cut up film and spool it but I can get more frames out of it that way since I use mini spy cameras. Yes the film being expensive isn't great but it also makes you choose your shots carefully. Get a cheap darkroom film changing tent and start there.
    - foldr 1y ago
      I enjoy film photography in some contexts (I do a bit of 4x5), but film photography basically sucks. I think possibly a lot of the people who find some kind of magic in it are those young enough not to have grown up in the era where shooting film was the only option. I don't mind 4x5 so much because just taking the photo is so much effort that the associated ordeal of developing and scanning isn't out of proportion. But for 35mm and medium format, there's a hugely disproportionate investment of time and money for a small number of photos.
      - etrautmann 1y ago
        That’s kind of the point though. The scarcity focuses you n taking more deliberate and intentional photos.
        foldr 1y ago
        It's what some people see as the point now. Back when film was the only option, the cost and time per frame were just negatives (if you'll excuse the pun). There was no romance in deciding whether or not to use one of your last three remaining frames; it was just annoying. I don't deny that for a whole range of reasons, some people might take better or more meaningful photos using old cameras. Limitations can feed into the artistic process. I just think it's a bit silly to romanticize the cost and inconvenience of film, or to think that photos taken using film are somehow inherently more interesting or valuable.
        BeFlatXIII 1y ago
        The parable of the pottery classes that were graded on their best work and total volume of work springs to mind. I never would've bothered with photography if I didn't have the ability to be shameless with burst mode and pick the winners later.
        peteforde 1y ago
        What you are describing isn't photography.
  - sneak 1y ago
    I have a top of the line Sony Alpha (7CR) with a large zoom lens (24-70GM or 70-200GM) and I carry it almost everywhere, every day. It is absolutely worth the hassle to get day to day stuff.
    - BeFlatXIII 1y ago
      As they say in the audio world, “there ain't no replacement for displacement.” I love gigazoom lenses. For focal lengths under 100mm, I can use my phone. My SLR is my personal spy satellite.
- Tepix 1y ago
  Why do you think anyone is entitled to upload photographs showing other people to the internet where they are completely out of control of what happens next?
  - MarcelOlsz 1y ago
    Man you would hate flickr. Also, never said anything about that. I don't have any social media, so the photos die with me and my friends. It's a nice break from modern technology to spend hours on an analog process. If you're in a public place you're probably getting photographed so I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
  - tasuki 1y ago
    Let me flip that on you: Why not? How do you decide what people are entitled to? Am I entitled to have an opinion on the internet? Where lies the line? Would it be ok to paint a picture showing other people and show it to a third person?
    - igouy 1y ago
      Non-commercial use is sometimes accepted when unlicensed commercial use is not.
  - oneeyedpigeon 1y ago
    Because that's what public space is? We've always held that principle, and I don't think 'reach' should affect that. If someone takes this to the extreme (i.e. follows you around in public, taking thousands of pictures and uploading them in real time) they can be charged with stalking, harassment, or a similar offence. To turn it on its head, if you cannot take photographs of people in public without their permission, then we basically lose the ability to take any photos of public space.
  - sneak 1y ago
    Because we in the global west generally have the right to photograph anything we can see in public, save for pathological places like Germany or France. You don’t own your image. If you go into public and I take a photograph of you, I hold the copyright on that image, not you. You don’t have any say in what I do with my (legally obtained) image taken in public, nor should you.
- barrell 1y ago
  Can’t I just not care that I’m making other people uncomfortable and power through? I think for obvious reasons that takes away a lot of the enjoyment, both of photography and socializing. YMMV, but every time I’ve brought out a camera in the last 5-10 years it has just made people uncomfortable, so I stopped taking it out, and eventually stopped bringing it.
  - etrautmann 1y ago
    Really? I do this often and have never had any issues.
  - MarcelOlsz 1y ago
    >YMMV, but every time I’ve brought out a camera in the last 5-10 years it has just made people uncomfortable, so I stopped taking it out, and eventually stopped bringing it. Has to be a digital.
  - Defenestresque 1y ago
    As someone who only occasionally takes photos of mature, or empty streets (I just find them more aesthetically pleasing, especially if they're empty at night, nothing to do with the topic of discussion), I have no dog in this fight whatsoever, May I ask where you are taking out your camera to experience these results? By "where," I mean both what part of the world/culture you are in and the specific location(s) (e.g. weddings, streets, public transit, work, at a friend's whom you know well, at an acquaintance's).. you get the point.
spaqin 1y ago
And yet, they're constantly captured by countless CCTV cameras all around, without minding their business. I know the pain and don't take as many portraits as I'd like to sometimes, even with people close to me; but on few occasions that I do sneak in a shot and show them the results later, they're surprised in two ways: "when did you take it?!" and "that doesn't look half bad!". Maybe because I don't overdo it. Keep up the fight!
frereubu 1y ago
I've managed to get around that by returning to my Nikon FM2. People react quite differently when it's clearly a film camera - even better if it's a medium format camera. That also gets around the nagging feeling that you're being guided in what you're taking by how it will appear online too. I don't have any social media accounts aside from HN and a BlueSky account that tweets the diary entries of an 18th century naturalist so I have no motivation to think about that side of things. It's a lovely feeling of my work being private because I can't be tempted in the moment to share a photo online. It feels much healthier.
- MarcelOlsz 1y ago
  The best is making albums with numbered tissue paper silhouettes and the peoples names written on the back with a blurb and the date. >It's a lovely feeling of my work being private because I can't be tempted in the moment to share a photo online. It feels much healthier. I find people like it a lot and even give me contact info to get the picture I took of them which is cool.
- barrell 1y ago
  Heh I’ve often daydreamed of one day setting up a darkroom and buying a couple medium format cameras, I wondered if that would be disarming enough (I love medium format and TLRs). Can’t do it while I’m renting, but maybe one day!
  - etrautmann 1y ago
    Go for it anyway! I have a small NYC apt and fit everything I need for darkroom development into a small crate. I can scan negatives with a small setup here, but do have to go to a community darkroom for enlarger printing.
  - dghlsakjg 1y ago
    Consider doing a hybrid workflow. The equipment for developing film is quite compact. I keep all of my film development chemicals and equipment stored in a small tupperware under the bathroom sink. You can also buy a lightproof bag, so you don't even need a light tight room to load the film. The second half of my process is to "scan" my film using a macro lens and my DSLR. It takes about 2 hours to go from exposed film to developed and scanned film. Only about 30 minutes of that time is active, most of it is waiting for the film to dry since I don't have a drying a cabinet.
sjw987 1y ago
That's odd, and to reassure you I would say that I personally would rather see somebody with a physical camera. That way I know I can avoid the area they're photographing if I don't want to be shot or just be aware I'm going to be in a photo otherwise. It also makes me (rightly or wrongly) think the photo will be uploaded somewhere a bit higher than an Instagram / Facebook feed (my wife used to put DSLR photos on Instagram and for an image feed website I used to be shocked at how poorly images were downscaled, maybe that's changed). I find something much more pervasive about any upright smartphone being a camera at any given time, whether the person is being obvious about it or not. A dedicated camera is actually more reassuring to me, as its use-cases are probably more innocent than a smartphone camera. Smartphone cameras have given poor photography to the masses. I reckon I'm probably in thousands of peoples photos that were taken on a whim with a phone. And I've witnessed situations where it appears people are trying to stealthily take photos of people with phones on public transport and the like.
- bambax 1y ago
  > That way I know I can avoid the area they're photographing Not with 360 cameras! Which are super fun btw.
- ben_ 1y ago
  > for an image feed website I used to be shocked at how poorly images were downscaled, maybe that's changed It has not, still garbage.
  - sjw987 1y ago
    I figured as much. Oh well, not like it's primary function is an image sharing site :)
  - bborud 1y ago
    Which can be a blessing in disguise. It makes it less attractive to steal images for commercial purposes.
- stavros 1y ago
  Instagram isn't for sharing photos, it's for sharing a curated, artificial view into your life. Photos are just the medium, it's not meant for art.
spython 1y ago
Absolutely. Running around with a large format camera (Graflex) with an Instax back (lomograflok) and making photos and immediately giving results back to people changed a lot. Strangers were basically lining up to ask about the camera and have their photo taken. That was a really fun experience, and I noticed how much I missed that excitement - before camera phones took over such moments were much more common. Now I build/3d print my own large and medium format cameras, and that also makes it much more interesting, but the fun of instant photography with an ancient looking camera is just incredible.
- BeFlatXIII 1y ago
  Like a extra-fancy Polaroid?
  - spython 1y ago
    Like a polaroid shot with an actually good lens. Also the whole performative part of making a photograph is of course much richer with an old, manual camera.
tasuki 1y ago
> Everyone, me more than most, doesn’t want their picture taken, or to be in the background of other photos. I used to be a little into photography. No one ever protested about me taking a picture of them. Just recently I was photographing an event and thought: I just come there, take photos of everyone, upload them to the internet, and all I get is thanks. I haven't asked anyone for permission. Yes I was invited by the event organizer, but I'm sure they didn't ask permission either.
- SoftTalker 1y ago
  Normally, somwhere in the long dense legalese they "agree" to when spectators buy tickets to the event, is a release for photography.
  - tasuki 1y ago
    This event had no tickets.
bborud 1y ago
The concept of «public» has changed. About 15-20 years ago I attended a lot of car events (races, shows) where I took lots of photos. Mostly of moving cars, but also a lot of closeups of race car drivers using a long lens. For about a year more than half the photos published in a very niche car publication were by me. The magazine had a few thousand subscribers. And to this day I still see some drivers use my shots of them as profile pictures etc. Nobody minded being photographed. In fact, they were really happy about it. Then social media happened. There’s a different «public» now. Any picture taken and published now has the potential to go viral. To get a global audience. And not least: to be put in unpleasant contexts. I can understand that people’s attitudes have changed. I haven’t actually given up taking photos in public. In part because I think it is important that people do. I still take pictures of strangers. Then again, I very rarely publish them online out of respect for their privacy. I understand how photos represent something else today. And that people view the act of taking a picture differently. But if we stop taking pictures, stop exercising our rights to take pictures, we will lose them. Through a process of erosion.
- lynx97 1y ago
  I find the combination of "pictures of strangers" and "our right to take pictures" rather concerning. I have a different perspective, as I am blind. But I was always uncomfortable with having a picture taken of me by basically a stranger. And that feeling didn't just come with social media. It always was there. I disagree that you have a "right" to take pictures of strangers. IMO, you shouldn't have that right. It is probably different depending on what juristiction you are in. But my personal opinion is, that this attitude is rather selfish. In my perfect world, taking pictures of strangers without their consent should be illegal.
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    > But my personal opinion is, that this attitude is rather selfish. Public photography is cultural preservation and anthropological ethnography. Asking folks to stop is selfish. You are free to have an opinion that differs, and your jurisdiction may even forbid public photography, but in those places I’m familiar with, street photography is as legitimate an art as music played for free on the sidewalk. I wouldn’t argue against public concerts if I were deaf, as it doesn’t concern me, because it isn’t for me, were I unhearing, and the gathering that such public displays engender benefits one and all, regardless of differences of senses or sensibilities amongst those who choose to freely associate. > In my perfect world, taking pictures of strangers without their consent should be illegal. Capturing an image of another without their consent is a bit more nuanced, and I would agree that one is entitled to decide how they are portrayed to a degree, but public spaces aren’t considered private by virtue of them being shared and nonexclusive. All the same, though we may disagree, you have given me some food for thought. I appreciate your unique perspective on this issue, and I thank you sincerely for sharing your point of view.
assimpleaspossi 1y ago
People feel like there's some man in a dark room somewhere looking at each and every image posted everywhere with evil intent.
- barrell 1y ago
  Not really. I think people rightfully feel that there are algorithms online trying to identify every person and every relation and store every bit of information about everyone. They feel that everything now is so permanent and public, that if you’re not at your best you’re at your worst, that that moment will be immortalized, and that you have no control after the picture is taken so it’s better to avoid it from the get go.
assimpleaspossi 1y ago
People feel like there's some man in a dark room somewhere looking at each and every image posted everywhere with evil intent. A friend of mine delivers for Amazon. They have to take pictures of every package delivered. Sometimes the customer is there when they arrive and he asks them to hold the package for him while he takes the photo of the package. Most of them turn away or hold the package far away so they aren't in the image. Some will pose with the package in some amusing way.
- tpxl 1y ago
  > People feel like there's some man in a dark room somewhere looking at each and every image posted everywhere with evil intent. Yeah when there's precedent for people doing exactly that the feeling is justified. How many times have we heard of [facebook employees/police/...] abusing their powers to stalk their [exes/wives/love interests/'enemies'/...]. With the amount of face detection and cataloguing being done today, it's never been easier on a technical level. The only protection we have is 'trust us we aren't doing it bro', which doesn't get you very far.
  - assimpleaspossi 1y ago
    In today's world, you can find one of anything. In the normal everyday world, no one is bothered.
    - I_dream_of_Geni 1y ago
      This is exactly the point: "one of anything". People use that "one thing" and make a giant case out of it, sometimes affecting millions of people. I have two (of hundreds of) examples: 1) the Tylenol poisonings in 1982 Chicago, had Johnson & Johnson recall 31 million bottles of Tylenol, and arguably affected billions of people (with all the tamperproof packaging that resulted worldwide). This was a good thing. But one crazy man poisoning a few bottles of Tylenol at one grocery store affected many people. 2) The next example is somewhat personal, but at Boeing back around 1987 or so, one tech in our engineering group was on the production floor, and a huge steel roller cart with a tool on it, weighing probably 1000 lbs, ran over his toes. From that single incident (even though 1000's of workers and 1000's of heavy carts were being used daily for dozens of years), came an edict that ALL employees on or near these facilities had to mandatorily wear huge plastic toe-caps over their shoes if they didn't have steel-toed shoes on. This meant that even secretaries in nearby offices would have to wear these clunky caps all day, over their shoes even though they never entered the production facilities. One person's action affecting 50,000 nearby employees. This is a bad thing. (because of the huge over-reaction). So, these maybe don't fit the perfect example we are discussing, but it shows how we can come to different conclusions based on different inputs: "you can find one of anything to use in an argument".
exasperaited 1y ago
The contemporary “ick” about street photography is the ick of non-consensual capture. Everyone feels it to some degree; I stopped doing street photography work and even most social photography (including paid work) because I felt it and I wasn’t ready to navigate those feelings. This “ick” is real and it’s good that you feel it, because you can build on it for a sense of ethics about photos and the use of the camera, about how its gaze affects subjects, about how to reduce that impact. A solution for you is to focus on photography with people posing for photos who want the photos, or people posing for photos who want money. Try art nude, even: it is fascinating, liberating, has a very strong historical and creative through line, and will teach you a lot. I have developed a much stronger sense of the ethics around my photography and a little more personal confidence, so I might yet give street photography a go again in future, if I think I have something specific to say.
- angelgonzales 1y ago
  About a decade ago some guy thought I was taking a picture of him and his girlfriend, they were very uninteresting subjects and I didn’t take any pictures of them but he followed me and sucker punched me. He was caught quickly and I pressed charges and since he had priors he didn’t make bail and was sentenced to 2 years in prison which I don’t think was enough because even a soft punch could kill someone. After that I began carrying non-lethal and lethal tools for self defense and stopped worrying about hurting people’s feelings when I take pictures. If people tell me off I tell them off because ultimately our conflict is based off of differing arbitrary opinions. I concluded that art is a human right and I should never feel guilty or bad about making it. Art is noble and it’s a high pleasure and part of being human. I have a short time in this life to create art so I should just do what I feel is pure and what I want. I’ve also concluded that if I did what everyone told me to do (or what they told me not to do) I’d be eating ten pounds of spinach a day, waking up a 5 AM, drinking a gallon of milk a day, buying timeshares and joining the Marines! Obviously I wouldn’t be doing what I want, my point is that artists need to listen to their inner voice and follow wherever that takes them.
sneak 1y ago
This is a you thing. Most people have no issue whatsoever with their faces appearing on social media. They “have nothing to hide”.
rdiddly 1y ago
The quantities are what changed. Taking a photo used to be relatively difficult and rare, so it was mainly reserved for relatively meaningful subjects. Which meant that having your picture taken was also relatively rare, and was something of a validation that you were interesting enough to merit being photographed. For that photograph to be published, even more so. Now cameras are plentiful and cheap, "publishing" opportunities are plentiful and cheap, and being photographed is commonplace and not appreciated as much. You can read all the meanings into my choice of the word cheap, by the way - as a price (increased supply made the price go down) or as a value (there's an abundance, so it becomes meaningless), or even as an implication about quality (low stakes means not as much attention or care for composing a shot).
- barrell 1y ago
  100%
starky 1y ago
Really? I don't go out and photograph near as much as I used to, but nobody has ever reacted with anything other than interest at what I'm doing. I was recently traveling to a couple cities I had last been to 5-10 years ago and was shocked at how packed places were with people getting their photos taken, I have photos that would be impossible to take again because there would be people in the way.

MarcelOlsz 1y ago

Can't you just not care and power through? Someones always going to be miffed regardless. I keep a Rollei A110 on me at all times and a tiny Minox EC that takes me hours to refill. When I bring it out people love it. It's a throwback that people very much appreciate. I can see people getting miffed at a big digital camera though.

mikepurvis 1y ago
I have an entry level Sony Alpha that I picked up for a vacation earlier this year. With the portrait lens on there it definitely registers as “camera” far more than a phone. Between that factor and the hassle of having to manually go through and upload the photos afterward, I only take it on special occasions — trips, hikes, etc. It’s not worth all that hassle for trying to get day to day stuff.
- MarcelOlsz 1y ago
  Why not live a little and get a film camera? It's more time for sure but are you not tired of optimizing everything in life?
  - asimovDev 1y ago
    I found our childhood film camera last year and I took it to a couple trips. price of scanners/getting your film scanned and needing to buy 10eur film rolls for like 20 photos turned me off. I still haven't scanned my first and only roll I shot last year.
    - MarcelOlsz 1y ago
      I bought a Gralab timer and hooked it up to an old shitty enlarger in my tiny dark wine cellar, along with a red bulb. A few chemicals and tools and you're golden. The only thing that screws me is having to cut up film and spool it but I can get more frames out of it that way since I use mini spy cameras. Yes the film being expensive isn't great but it also makes you choose your shots carefully. Get a cheap darkroom film changing tent and start there.
  - foldr 1y ago
    I enjoy film photography in some contexts (I do a bit of 4x5), but film photography basically sucks. I think possibly a lot of the people who find some kind of magic in it are those young enough not to have grown up in the era where shooting film was the only option. I don't mind 4x5 so much because just taking the photo is so much effort that the associated ordeal of developing and scanning isn't out of proportion. But for 35mm and medium format, there's a hugely disproportionate investment of time and money for a small number of photos.
    - etrautmann 1y ago
      That’s kind of the point though. The scarcity focuses you n taking more deliberate and intentional photos.
      - foldr 1y ago
        It's what some people see as the point now. Back when film was the only option, the cost and time per frame were just negatives (if you'll excuse the pun). There was no romance in deciding whether or not to use one of your last three remaining frames; it was just annoying. I don't deny that for a whole range of reasons, some people might take better or more meaningful photos using old cameras. Limitations can feed into the artistic process. I just think it's a bit silly to romanticize the cost and inconvenience of film, or to think that photos taken using film are somehow inherently more interesting or valuable.
      - BeFlatXIII 1y ago
        The parable of the pottery classes that were graded on their best work and total volume of work springs to mind. I never would've bothered with photography if I didn't have the ability to be shameless with burst mode and pick the winners later.
        peteforde 1y ago
        What you are describing isn't photography.
- sneak 1y ago
  I have a top of the line Sony Alpha (7CR) with a large zoom lens (24-70GM or 70-200GM) and I carry it almost everywhere, every day. It is absolutely worth the hassle to get day to day stuff.
  - BeFlatXIII 1y ago
    As they say in the audio world, “there ain't no replacement for displacement.” I love gigazoom lenses. For focal lengths under 100mm, I can use my phone. My SLR is my personal spy satellite.
Tepix 1y ago
Why do you think anyone is entitled to upload photographs showing other people to the internet where they are completely out of control of what happens next?
- MarcelOlsz 1y ago
  Man you would hate flickr. Also, never said anything about that. I don't have any social media, so the photos die with me and my friends. It's a nice break from modern technology to spend hours on an analog process. If you're in a public place you're probably getting photographed so I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
- tasuki 1y ago
  Let me flip that on you: Why not? How do you decide what people are entitled to? Am I entitled to have an opinion on the internet? Where lies the line? Would it be ok to paint a picture showing other people and show it to a third person?
  - igouy 1y ago
    Non-commercial use is sometimes accepted when unlicensed commercial use is not.
- oneeyedpigeon 1y ago
  Because that's what public space is? We've always held that principle, and I don't think 'reach' should affect that. If someone takes this to the extreme (i.e. follows you around in public, taking thousands of pictures and uploading them in real time) they can be charged with stalking, harassment, or a similar offence. To turn it on its head, if you cannot take photographs of people in public without their permission, then we basically lose the ability to take any photos of public space.
- sneak 1y ago
  Because we in the global west generally have the right to photograph anything we can see in public, save for pathological places like Germany or France. You don’t own your image. If you go into public and I take a photograph of you, I hold the copyright on that image, not you. You don’t have any say in what I do with my (legally obtained) image taken in public, nor should you.
barrell 1y ago
Can’t I just not care that I’m making other people uncomfortable and power through? I think for obvious reasons that takes away a lot of the enjoyment, both of photography and socializing. YMMV, but every time I’ve brought out a camera in the last 5-10 years it has just made people uncomfortable, so I stopped taking it out, and eventually stopped bringing it.
- etrautmann 1y ago
  Really? I do this often and have never had any issues.
- MarcelOlsz 1y ago
  >YMMV, but every time I’ve brought out a camera in the last 5-10 years it has just made people uncomfortable, so I stopped taking it out, and eventually stopped bringing it. Has to be a digital.
- Defenestresque 1y ago
  As someone who only occasionally takes photos of mature, or empty streets (I just find them more aesthetically pleasing, especially if they're empty at night, nothing to do with the topic of discussion), I have no dog in this fight whatsoever, May I ask where you are taking out your camera to experience these results? By "where," I mean both what part of the world/culture you are in and the specific location(s) (e.g. weddings, streets, public transit, work, at a friend's whom you know well, at an acquaintance's).. you get the point.

spaqin 1y ago

And yet, they're constantly captured by countless CCTV cameras all around, without minding their business. I know the pain and don't take as many portraits as I'd like to sometimes, even with people close to me; but on few occasions that I do sneak in a shot and show them the results later, they're surprised in two ways: "when did you take it?!" and "that doesn't look half bad!". Maybe because I don't overdo it. Keep up the fight!

frereubu 1y ago

I've managed to get around that by returning to my Nikon FM2. People react quite differently when it's clearly a film camera - even better if it's a medium format camera. That also gets around the nagging feeling that you're being guided in what you're taking by how it will appear online too. I don't have any social media accounts aside from HN and a BlueSky account that tweets the diary entries of an 18th century naturalist so I have no motivation to think about that side of things. It's a lovely feeling of my work being private because I can't be tempted in the moment to share a photo online. It feels much healthier.

MarcelOlsz 1y ago
The best is making albums with numbered tissue paper silhouettes and the peoples names written on the back with a blurb and the date. >It's a lovely feeling of my work being private because I can't be tempted in the moment to share a photo online. It feels much healthier. I find people like it a lot and even give me contact info to get the picture I took of them which is cool.
barrell 1y ago
Heh I’ve often daydreamed of one day setting up a darkroom and buying a couple medium format cameras, I wondered if that would be disarming enough (I love medium format and TLRs). Can’t do it while I’m renting, but maybe one day!
- etrautmann 1y ago
  Go for it anyway! I have a small NYC apt and fit everything I need for darkroom development into a small crate. I can scan negatives with a small setup here, but do have to go to a community darkroom for enlarger printing.
- dghlsakjg 1y ago
  Consider doing a hybrid workflow. The equipment for developing film is quite compact. I keep all of my film development chemicals and equipment stored in a small tupperware under the bathroom sink. You can also buy a lightproof bag, so you don't even need a light tight room to load the film. The second half of my process is to "scan" my film using a macro lens and my DSLR. It takes about 2 hours to go from exposed film to developed and scanned film. Only about 30 minutes of that time is active, most of it is waiting for the film to dry since I don't have a drying a cabinet.

sjw987 1y ago

That's odd, and to reassure you I would say that I personally would rather see somebody with a physical camera. That way I know I can avoid the area they're photographing if I don't want to be shot or just be aware I'm going to be in a photo otherwise. It also makes me (rightly or wrongly) think the photo will be uploaded somewhere a bit higher than an Instagram / Facebook feed (my wife used to put DSLR photos on Instagram and for an image feed website I used to be shocked at how poorly images were downscaled, maybe that's changed). I find something much more pervasive about any upright smartphone being a camera at any given time, whether the person is being obvious about it or not. A dedicated camera is actually more reassuring to me, as its use-cases are probably more innocent than a smartphone camera. Smartphone cameras have given poor photography to the masses. I reckon I'm probably in thousands of peoples photos that were taken on a whim with a phone. And I've witnessed situations where it appears people are trying to stealthily take photos of people with phones on public transport and the like.

bambax 1y ago
> That way I know I can avoid the area they're photographing Not with 360 cameras! Which are super fun btw.
ben_ 1y ago
> for an image feed website I used to be shocked at how poorly images were downscaled, maybe that's changed It has not, still garbage.
- sjw987 1y ago
  I figured as much. Oh well, not like it's primary function is an image sharing site :)
- bborud 1y ago
  Which can be a blessing in disguise. It makes it less attractive to steal images for commercial purposes.
stavros 1y ago
Instagram isn't for sharing photos, it's for sharing a curated, artificial view into your life. Photos are just the medium, it's not meant for art.

spython 1y ago

Absolutely. Running around with a large format camera (Graflex) with an Instax back (lomograflok) and making photos and immediately giving results back to people changed a lot. Strangers were basically lining up to ask about the camera and have their photo taken. That was a really fun experience, and I noticed how much I missed that excitement - before camera phones took over such moments were much more common. Now I build/3d print my own large and medium format cameras, and that also makes it much more interesting, but the fun of instant photography with an ancient looking camera is just incredible.

BeFlatXIII 1y ago
Like a extra-fancy Polaroid?
- spython 1y ago
  Like a polaroid shot with an actually good lens. Also the whole performative part of making a photograph is of course much richer with an old, manual camera.

tasuki 1y ago

> Everyone, me more than most, doesn’t want their picture taken, or to be in the background of other photos. I used to be a little into photography. No one ever protested about me taking a picture of them. Just recently I was photographing an event and thought: I just come there, take photos of everyone, upload them to the internet, and all I get is thanks. I haven't asked anyone for permission. Yes I was invited by the event organizer, but I'm sure they didn't ask permission either.

SoftTalker 1y ago
Normally, somwhere in the long dense legalese they "agree" to when spectators buy tickets to the event, is a release for photography.
- tasuki 1y ago
  This event had no tickets.

bborud 1y ago

The concept of «public» has changed. About 15-20 years ago I attended a lot of car events (races, shows) where I took lots of photos. Mostly of moving cars, but also a lot of closeups of race car drivers using a long lens. For about a year more than half the photos published in a very niche car publication were by me. The magazine had a few thousand subscribers. And to this day I still see some drivers use my shots of them as profile pictures etc. Nobody minded being photographed. In fact, they were really happy about it. Then social media happened. There’s a different «public» now. Any picture taken and published now has the potential to go viral. To get a global audience. And not least: to be put in unpleasant contexts. I can understand that people’s attitudes have changed. I haven’t actually given up taking photos in public. In part because I think it is important that people do. I still take pictures of strangers. Then again, I very rarely publish them online out of respect for their privacy. I understand how photos represent something else today. And that people view the act of taking a picture differently. But if we stop taking pictures, stop exercising our rights to take pictures, we will lose them. Through a process of erosion.

lynx97 1y ago
I find the combination of "pictures of strangers" and "our right to take pictures" rather concerning. I have a different perspective, as I am blind. But I was always uncomfortable with having a picture taken of me by basically a stranger. And that feeling didn't just come with social media. It always was there. I disagree that you have a "right" to take pictures of strangers. IMO, you shouldn't have that right. It is probably different depending on what juristiction you are in. But my personal opinion is, that this attitude is rather selfish. In my perfect world, taking pictures of strangers without their consent should be illegal.
- aspenmayer 1y ago
  > But my personal opinion is, that this attitude is rather selfish. Public photography is cultural preservation and anthropological ethnography. Asking folks to stop is selfish. You are free to have an opinion that differs, and your jurisdiction may even forbid public photography, but in those places I’m familiar with, street photography is as legitimate an art as music played for free on the sidewalk. I wouldn’t argue against public concerts if I were deaf, as it doesn’t concern me, because it isn’t for me, were I unhearing, and the gathering that such public displays engender benefits one and all, regardless of differences of senses or sensibilities amongst those who choose to freely associate. > In my perfect world, taking pictures of strangers without their consent should be illegal. Capturing an image of another without their consent is a bit more nuanced, and I would agree that one is entitled to decide how they are portrayed to a degree, but public spaces aren’t considered private by virtue of them being shared and nonexclusive. All the same, though we may disagree, you have given me some food for thought. I appreciate your unique perspective on this issue, and I thank you sincerely for sharing your point of view.

assimpleaspossi 1y ago

People feel like there's some man in a dark room somewhere looking at each and every image posted everywhere with evil intent.

barrell 1y ago
Not really. I think people rightfully feel that there are algorithms online trying to identify every person and every relation and store every bit of information about everyone. They feel that everything now is so permanent and public, that if you’re not at your best you’re at your worst, that that moment will be immortalized, and that you have no control after the picture is taken so it’s better to avoid it from the get go.

assimpleaspossi 1y ago

People feel like there's some man in a dark room somewhere looking at each and every image posted everywhere with evil intent. A friend of mine delivers for Amazon. They have to take pictures of every package delivered. Sometimes the customer is there when they arrive and he asks them to hold the package for him while he takes the photo of the package. Most of them turn away or hold the package far away so they aren't in the image. Some will pose with the package in some amusing way.

tpxl 1y ago
> People feel like there's some man in a dark room somewhere looking at each and every image posted everywhere with evil intent. Yeah when there's precedent for people doing exactly that the feeling is justified. How many times have we heard of [facebook employees/police/...] abusing their powers to stalk their [exes/wives/love interests/'enemies'/...]. With the amount of face detection and cataloguing being done today, it's never been easier on a technical level. The only protection we have is 'trust us we aren't doing it bro', which doesn't get you very far.
- assimpleaspossi 1y ago
  In today's world, you can find one of anything. In the normal everyday world, no one is bothered.
  - I_dream_of_Geni 1y ago
    This is exactly the point: "one of anything". People use that "one thing" and make a giant case out of it, sometimes affecting millions of people. I have two (of hundreds of) examples: 1) the Tylenol poisonings in 1982 Chicago, had Johnson & Johnson recall 31 million bottles of Tylenol, and arguably affected billions of people (with all the tamperproof packaging that resulted worldwide). This was a good thing. But one crazy man poisoning a few bottles of Tylenol at one grocery store affected many people. 2) The next example is somewhat personal, but at Boeing back around 1987 or so, one tech in our engineering group was on the production floor, and a huge steel roller cart with a tool on it, weighing probably 1000 lbs, ran over his toes. From that single incident (even though 1000's of workers and 1000's of heavy carts were being used daily for dozens of years), came an edict that ALL employees on or near these facilities had to mandatorily wear huge plastic toe-caps over their shoes if they didn't have steel-toed shoes on. This meant that even secretaries in nearby offices would have to wear these clunky caps all day, over their shoes even though they never entered the production facilities. One person's action affecting 50,000 nearby employees. This is a bad thing. (because of the huge over-reaction). So, these maybe don't fit the perfect example we are discussing, but it shows how we can come to different conclusions based on different inputs: "you can find one of anything to use in an argument".

exasperaited 1y ago

The contemporary “ick” about street photography is the ick of non-consensual capture. Everyone feels it to some degree; I stopped doing street photography work and even most social photography (including paid work) because I felt it and I wasn’t ready to navigate those feelings. This “ick” is real and it’s good that you feel it, because you can build on it for a sense of ethics about photos and the use of the camera, about how its gaze affects subjects, about how to reduce that impact. A solution for you is to focus on photography with people posing for photos who want the photos, or people posing for photos who want money. Try art nude, even: it is fascinating, liberating, has a very strong historical and creative through line, and will teach you a lot. I have developed a much stronger sense of the ethics around my photography and a little more personal confidence, so I might yet give street photography a go again in future, if I think I have something specific to say.

angelgonzales 1y ago
About a decade ago some guy thought I was taking a picture of him and his girlfriend, they were very uninteresting subjects and I didn’t take any pictures of them but he followed me and sucker punched me. He was caught quickly and I pressed charges and since he had priors he didn’t make bail and was sentenced to 2 years in prison which I don’t think was enough because even a soft punch could kill someone. After that I began carrying non-lethal and lethal tools for self defense and stopped worrying about hurting people’s feelings when I take pictures. If people tell me off I tell them off because ultimately our conflict is based off of differing arbitrary opinions. I concluded that art is a human right and I should never feel guilty or bad about making it. Art is noble and it’s a high pleasure and part of being human. I have a short time in this life to create art so I should just do what I feel is pure and what I want. I’ve also concluded that if I did what everyone told me to do (or what they told me not to do) I’d be eating ten pounds of spinach a day, waking up a 5 AM, drinking a gallon of milk a day, buying timeshares and joining the Marines! Obviously I wouldn’t be doing what I want, my point is that artists need to listen to their inner voice and follow wherever that takes them.

sneak 1y ago

This is a you thing. Most people have no issue whatsoever with their faces appearing on social media. They “have nothing to hide”.

rdiddly 1y ago

The quantities are what changed. Taking a photo used to be relatively difficult and rare, so it was mainly reserved for relatively meaningful subjects. Which meant that having your picture taken was also relatively rare, and was something of a validation that you were interesting enough to merit being photographed. For that photograph to be published, even more so. Now cameras are plentiful and cheap, "publishing" opportunities are plentiful and cheap, and being photographed is commonplace and not appreciated as much. You can read all the meanings into my choice of the word cheap, by the way - as a price (increased supply made the price go down) or as a value (there's an abundance, so it becomes meaningless), or even as an implication about quality (low stakes means not as much attention or care for composing a shot).

barrell 1y ago
100%

starky 1y ago

Really? I don't go out and photograph near as much as I used to, but nobody has ever reacted with anything other than interest at what I'm doing. I was recently traveling to a couple cities I had last been to 5-10 years ago and was shocked at how packed places were with people getting their photos taken, I have photos that would be impossible to take again because there would be people in the way.