Fingers Poised? Look Before you Leap, I Mean Click

A few years ago when I was still reading newspapers, I saw a report about a columnist at a major metropolitan newspaper in Australia who was ‘let go’ because she sent some ‘controversial’ messages via Twitter while at a TV awards night. Now, I would not be surprised if you hadn’t heard of this: it’s hardly Earth shattering, and it isn’t really important on any number of levels if you ask me.

What I want to talk about here is a follow up opinion piece I read a few days later. In it the commentator, while claiming to put the responsibility squarely on the offending Twitterer, writes, ‘... the availability and immediacy of the technology intrude upon the normal choices and judgments which people make.’ He adds that services like Twitter, Facebook, emails and the rest, ‘bring into the public realm many things that would previously remain private.’

Of course, he’s right there isn’t he? You read all sorts of stuff out there in social media land and it ‘ain’t all pretty, as the saying goes. This guy goes on to say that we are at ‘an evolutionary disjunct between old notions of the public and private spheres and the means of communications now widely available.’

Therefore, it seems to follow that it’s not your fault if, when visiting social media land, you blurt out something that you might later regret or that is offensive or libelous or otherwise insensitive. Or is it? Well, of course it's your fault. You, like me and everyone else, are responsible for what we say and do whether it’s online or in person or on a postcard! 

There is a story about US president Franklin Roosevelt. As we all know Roosevelt had polio and used a wheelchair. However, for public speeches he stood with ‘discreet assistance’. Apparently, one day he actually fell over and lay sprawled and helpless in front of the assembled Washington press corps. Of the dozens of photographers there guess how many took a photo? Go on guess.

Okay, I’ll tell you. Not one. That’s right: no photographer thought it was relevant; they all—each and every one of those hungry ‘vultures’—judged that it was a personal matter and therefore not to be reported. You can bet that if a world leader fell in front of the cameras today it would be in your inbox, on YouTube and plastered all over the Internet before he or she was back on his or her feet.

Something similar happened to me a while back while I was working on the street. I saw a guy leaning against a tree. Instinctively I raised the camera to my eye; then, just as instinctively I lowered it again and went to the man and asked him if he was okay. He told me he was feeling really sick, so I offered to help him to a doctor. To cut a long story short, he had nothing serious and it all ended well.

My point is that, just like those Washington photographers, I had a choice: make the photo or not. Like them I decided this was not a photo “opportunity”, so put the camera down.

You know something? I have always thought that if there was one tool that shouted ‘availability and immediacy’ it’s the camera. This isn’t a new idea of course: it’s about the decisive moment and all that. Photography 101 you might say.

So how come it’s so different with the buttons on your mouse or your mobile? Especially as you usually have to type a message before you get to send it. If you ask me that’s a lot less immediate than the camera shutter. What I’m getting at here in my usual long-winded fashion is this: if those photographers could make the decision in the heat of the moment to not press the button, why do we need to make excuses for us ‘modern types’ with our keyboards and mobile phones and whatever?

Of course, the answer is we don’t. As I said, we are all responsible for what we say and do. I suppose a good motto to follow in our online or other communications—and in life generally— would be ‘Do No Harm’. Or at least, do as little harm as possible.

Now, I am not saying here that I’ve never said anything on Twitter, or on Facebook or any other place, that was hurtful or insensitive or judgemental or in other ways just not good to say. Mind you, I do try to stick to my little motto, Do No Harm (it’s not mine of course, I just adopted it).

And for those times when I have failed, I apologise very sincerely. I do not make excuses; I can choose to press send or click OK or whatever after I’ve typed a message (note my italics please), just as I can choose to press my camera’s shutter button.

Let’s not have any more of this ‘evolutionary disjunct’ stuff. Though, when you think about it, we actually are at a lot of those type of places right now, don’t you think? It’s just that I would rather not use this particular disjunct (I love this word) as an excuse to be sloppy when it comes to how I communicate with friends and strangers alike in cyberspace, or in terrestrial space, or even in my head! 

Camera Shy? It's a good question. Reflections on pressing the shutter or not

Camera Shy? (Nottingham England 2013)

A huge, ongoing point of discussion in my line of work (street and documentary photography) are the questions: do people object to being photographed? Are we invading their privacy/space? On and on. Good questions, of course, and all of us need to think about them. Not just once either: we need to continue to reflect on these and other questions as the world changes, as we change. Just part of the work of the artist really.

Now, in this photograph (made in Nottingham in England a few months ago) we see three young women in school uniforms. Two are hiding behind an umbrella, while the third, who has a smile on her face, peeks out from behind her hand. Sort of hiding, sort of not. 

In fact, the two hiding behind the umbrella were also laughing. So, as I moved to make the photograph, I made the judgement that they were weren’t really hiding. They were just fooling around. So I pressed the shutter. 

Of course, most people I photograph don’t actually see me, so how can I know whether they would object to being photographed? I do not have the simplistic approach of: “if they don’t object, they are agreeing”,  that would make it very easy to do pretty much anything. I don’t hold at all with that idea. Unethical and wrong.

No, it’s more subtle than that. It is more about intuition and being fully present right in the moment. if I am truly right there and then (as I like to say) I just know if a person would object or would approve of being photographed.

The great humanist photographer Abraham Menashe talks about waiting to “be invited” to make the photograph. It’s about being there as I say, right in the moment and suspending judgement, and waiting. I can’t count the number of times when I’ve put the camera to my eye, framed what looks like a great photograph of a person who hasn’t seen me, only to put the camera down again. I usually don’t know why; it’s just happens that way. I haven’t been invited. At some level, that person and I have connected. 

So, in this image, my Pick of the Week, it was an easy decision; the choice obvious. It isn’t always so. But, If I am fully present, suspend judgement and approach the work with compassion, love and empathy, then usually the answer makes itself known. Do I always get it right? Of course not. But, like everything else in life, it is one’s intention that is of key importance. And with practise comes more and more success and the joy of a shared moment between me and the people I photograph, whether they “know” I’m there or not.

Stealth Has No Place in Street Photography

"Have you got the latest stealth camera from.....? It's great for street photography."
How often have I read this or something similar  How often have I read the need for stealth when doing street photography. How often have there been arguments about the pros and cons of big cameras versus little (usually expensive and "trendy") ones. On and on it goes with the great hunters who think that shooting people and doing it in a clandestine manner like some spy with the latest "stealth camera" is what street photography is about. Why, did you know one of the most expensive camera names in the world (no names are here mentioned, and it would be a mistake by legal eagles to think they know what I'm talking about) is touted by some as being an ideal stealth camera for street photography? 

Before I really get started, why don't we look up a definition of stealth? Hang on, I'll be right back. Okay, a quick search and here is the first definition that came up (I've cut and pasted it directly):

stealth  

/stelTH/

Noun Cautious and surreptitious action or movement: "the silence and stealth of a hungry cat".

Adjective (chiefly of aircraft) Designed to make detection by radar or sonar difficult: "a stealth bomber".

Synonyms noun.   secrecy adjective.   secret - recondite - insidious - clandestine Blimey, it's heavier than I thought. You see, I had the idea to do a post on stealth because I dislike the word when it's used in the context of street photography. I knew it was the name of a bomber, but "surreptitious"? I can kind of live with "cautious" but, "insidious"? Wow. Actually, now I think about it, this all fits nicely with my thoughts on the subject of stealth. You see, one of the big argument for stealth in street photography is that "street photographers"  don't want to appear creepy or sneaky or in some other way disreputable. For me, street photography is about documenting real life as it occurs. As you've read and heard me say before,  I think there are no ordinary moments, all moments have the potential to be decisive. Anyway,today is not the day to  go over all that again. Cutting to the chase, I will just say stealth goes totally against all I stand for as a street photographer and as an artist. I believe in honesty in all things, and photographing people on the street is no exception. Now, while I don't often ask for permission from subjects, I never try to hide either myself, my camera or my intentions from the people I hope to be fortunate enough to photograph. But, I hear some of you say, if you're seen that makes it no longer a "true" street photograph. It changes the scene, it influences the subjects. On and on it goes. But, really, is this all actually true? Well, obviously sometimes a subject will see the camera and change their expression or do something to "pose" or whatever. What's wrong with that I would ask. It's not as if it happens very often. Well, not to me anyway. I haven't actually looked at the percentages, but I think the number of people who actually see me or my camera is pretty low. And what happens when they do see me and it somehow changes their manner or pose or whatever? Well very often it is just that change that makes the image what it is. A genuine human interaction takes place; a moment is shared and experienced together. And, in my not ever so humble opinion, that is a great thing indeed. And the times when it doesn't "make" the image? Well there's been no harm  done and it's still pretty much a positive experience all round. Oh, one more thing. Not only do I use a DSLR (with a battery grip for easier vertical work), but I also use either of two zoom lenses ranging from medium wide to telephoto. It can be a heavy beast and a pretty plain to see one as well. But I don't care! I love using it; the quality of the images it produces is amazing; and if I am going to record other human beings then I have a deep responsibility to record them in the best possible way I can. That's what I try to do. Everything I do as a photographer in the streets is done in plain sight. Note, I do not say that I "hide in plain sight"; I never hide. There is no reason to. I do not claim to be a great photographer; no, not at all. But, I have to say that what I do and at least some of the results I achieve seem to fly in the face of the conventional  or received wisdom or lore surrounding street photography: I do not hide, yet I am able to go unnoticed most of the time; I use a "big" camera, yet still go unnoticed much of the time; my camera is heavy, yet I am able to record moments quickly, even movements as they happen; I do not "zone focus", yet my AF lens seems to record all kinds of little nuances; I use a long lens, yet I am still (according to many viewers of my work) able to achieve a sense of intimacy with my subjects that street photography lore says can only be achieved with a short lens and by being very close to the subject. Need I go on?  Well, there is one more thing I want to say. I've seen and heard so-called street photographers and "teachers" of street photography say that it is a dangerous thing to be doing. By this I mean to say there is a fear that is promoted (and I mean promoted) that a street photographer runs the risk of being attacked physically by irate people not wanting to be photographed. I even heard one of these "teachers" ask one of his "students' on a video: "Have you been punched yet". This might be a slight misquote, but you get the point I think. Is this why so many people are "doing" street photography now? To prove bravery and/or bravado in the face of a perceived physical threat? If it is, then it's a very sad and scary development in the history of photography. In my entire life as a photographer (it's a lot of years!), and more to the point, in my four or five years of "serious" street photography work, I have never been punched. The nearest I have ever come to being even verbally attacked is a guy in a car yelling at me as he sped past using some colourful language about my camera which was at that point hung innocently over my shoulder. Even when people have objected to being photographed (another myth: "most people don't want to be photographed. Total and absolute rubbish. I accept that it is true in some cultures of course, but the exact opposite has been my experience) they have simply said no. Sometimes more strongly than other times, but never in a way that could be seen as "violent" or attacking. Look, in truth there is nothing special about me. There really isn't. I am not on a hunt; I don't shoot people; I don't steal souls; I don't capture subjects. I do not sneak around looking to catch people doing silly or quirky or "interesting" things.  I simply practise my art, my street work, with compassion, love, respect and in a thoughtful, calm and, I could say, prayerful  manner. I have no need to hide, as I have already said. I have no need of stealth. I do not do anything that could be construed as insidious. Perhaps there are a few questions those who wish to work as street photographers need to ask of themselves. Why is it that I need to hide? Do I need a "stealth" camera or mode of operating? If I do, why do I? And the big one: Do I really want to peruse an activity that could be seen as insidious? I for one do not want myself or my work to be seen in a negative light, when what I do is so enriching, so important (in my opinion) and seeks to present an honest view of people going about their normal lives in the world we all share together Peace to you all