Why you SHOULDN'T do STREET PHOTOGRAPHY

I want to clear one point up. When I say: “So this leaves me wondering: Can you accurately represent a culture you are not part of? How much insight can you really offer? I don’t have a clear answer to this.” I mean this literally. This is a genuine question that I don't have a clear answer to, not a didactic statement of morality.

During my student days, I used to go out a lot and one time I was waiting for a tram, and there was a homeless man sitting. I had few beers that night and had 2 cans of beer in my backpack. I offered one beer to the guy, he was very happy I guess that anyone would talk to him, let alone give him a drink. Ususally people avoid him. I asked him about his story, and I was shocked. He had a P.H.D. in physics and used to be a professor on my university. (I later checked his claims and it's true). At first I wasn't buying it and asked him a feq questions I know from theoretical physics, and sure enough he knew it all in details. So I asked him, but what happened? Well his wife died from some condition and year after that he lost both of his kids in a car accident. He decided to give up on life. I cried all the way to my apartment and still get emotional when I remember.

It's so rare to find photography videos that are actually about photography. Glad I discovered your chanel.

As primarily a street and documentary photographer I was intrigued by the title you ascribed this video. I expected to disagree with just about everything.  Instead, I found a well-presented argument, one that I totally agree with. Street photography is one of the most endlessly fascinating genres of photography. It's important as a social record and for its indexicality of the urban environment. I too have struggled with the ethics of certain street shots and came to the conclusion that the acid test is asking myself whether or not the image would be exploitative of the subject. If the answer is "yes" or "potentially yes" then just move on. There is always something interesting around the corner.

Came to become a better photographer - left as a better person.. Love your philosophy, keep up the good work!

This is what I love about your videos. Not just about gear or locations, you focus on being a good human being as well. Thank you for that.

Very old joke. Q What did you give the starving old lady in the park? A Oh f8 at 125th

“Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s ethical” is a great line, and I appreciate you confronting this so bluntly. I’ve seen street photography videos like “How to secretly photograph people and what’s legal in your country in case anyone challenges you” and it always rubs me the wrong way.

I completely agree with this, in many of my photography classes students have chosen to take pictures of homeless people multiple times. But most of the time it was only to get emotional pictures, it bothered me.

That's why I have stopped street photography (although it's one of my favorite genre). I used to 6-7 years ago but DSLR wasn't so mainstream in India and people would assume I'm from the press and kinda freeze whatever they are doing. And sometimes the exact opposite would happen and they start posing; which entirely defeated the purpose of catching people doing what are they are doing in their natural habitat. (Pardon me for sounding like a Nat Geo narrator.) I try to shoot more of compositions (like Fan Ho), where people are more of a compositional element in the space rather than them being the main subject but India's is heavily crowded.

I discovered street photography around one year ago. I used to be so afraid of people and not confortable being alone in the streets. But, this genre of photography (and photography in general) was very therapeutic for me. I am hypersensible and empathetic. I always look through my camera with a kind and loving eyes. I try not to juge and sometimes, I wonder about those people lives, who they are, what is their jobs. I also do it when I am not shooting ahah. But I really get the point of your video and now I want to be even more careful of how I work when I am walking down the street shooting. Thanks for this video man!

“We are limited by the lens of our own experience.”

"Can you accurately represent a culture that you are not part of?" Street photography aside for a second... Music photographers aren't rock stars, macro photographers are not insects, Henri Cartier-Bresson was not an orphan (his parents were wealthy and supported him financially) and the same goes for Fan Ho, who, as a child had servants and yet took photos of kids in slums - and so on. The point is, imagine how many cultures would remain unphotographed and how many moments lost if those images could only be taken by their peers. Documentary photography has, in the most part always been about capturing cultures the photographer was not part of. Your reasoning would imply that "middle class" photographers should stick to taking snaps of picnics on the lawn with a bottle of champers? - that ideology starts to sound like reverse snobbery. I think we both agree that photography should transcend class structures/cultural backgrounds/life experiences and focus on capturing and documenting a moment so the viewer can - in their own way - connect to that place in time whoever they are. If you ask, "Can you accurately represent a culture that you are not part of?" should you not also ask, "Can you truly relate to a photo if you have not had that experience?" i.e should we stop looking at photos that depict things we haven't personally been through as we couldn't possibly understand? I think that's exactly the point of photography in this case (and generally what people find so fascinating about it) - it's an insight into another world. If we can look at the images, are we not hypocrites for deciding who can take them? "How much insight can you really offer?" A good eye will capture emotion and understand how best to present the scene regardless of the photographer's background. I totally agree with you on the law vs personal ethics and thinking for yourself (which applies to every law), but I don't believe you should allow ethics to hinder your photography when out on the street. I'm not talking "Car-crash TV" but the best street photos (in my opinion) are those taken within a split second. If we pause to think about morality/ethics before taking each shot the moment has already passed. Maybe after the fact you may chose not to publish, but as long as you are not harassing people for the hell of it photography should be honest and without constraint as with any creative form.

"It's legal therefore, I am exempt from all responsibility for my actions." That goes for so many different things other than photography, such as driving a car. We know what happens when people get behind the wheel. Other people's decisions become a nuisance and often the situation escalates towards undesirable circumstances.

Why not call the video “when not to do street photography”

There is another angle you could take when it comes to street photography, I've seen people argue for and against it in more art-related contexts. The idea about street photography that I've found myself adopting more and more (especially after taking some more formal art studies in college), I've come to find that street photography seldom is about people or the street itself, rather the photographer; you aren't just looking at some person standing on the street corner, you're looking at something the photographer saw in a scene that they wanted to show, much like in other artistic mediums. When you start looking at street photography in that light then, you start to look at street photos differently. It's less about what YOU see, as opposed to what the photographer saw and is trying to show you. It could be some moment they felt like capturing, or a small story to be told. This is all of course up to the interpretation by the viewer, but still a different view I thought was worth bringing up

Glad you introduced me to fan ho.... He inspired me a lot 🙌🏻

watches video Is this what non regurgitated content looks like ? Good job, mate.

I had a weird situation with photography. Someone took a picture of one of my plays and it has appeared in several books. They were not given permission to take the picture and, in fact, we specifically ask people not to do that. There are actors in costume in the picture and neither myself nor they were asked permission or are being paid. Weirdly this has happened three times to my knowledge and one is used in a main schools textbook for the entire UK. Surely people can't do this? If someone takes a picture at a play without permission surely they don't own the entire rights to that and the actor's image in the picture, to use in a commercial book?

Fabulous, simply fabulous social commentary (and not just for photographers)! Once again, well done Jamie!