I think it's possible to shoot first, and then ask permission. I.e., after the image is snapped let the person, know, offer them a copy, be sure they are ok with it... That way you are both respectful and generous about the image, willing to give them a copy, while still being able to create excellent work in the first place. I'm greedy I guess, but I want both.
A fellow photographer coined the phrase ‘the anti-pose’ for the moment before a person is aware of you taking their photo. That rested, unconcerned expression can not be authentically produced when the subject is aware.
In answer to your question: "Does consent kill authenticity in Street Photography?" First I believe that "authenticity" needs to be defined. In both instances - with, or without permission, there should be an authenticity, however, two major things occur when permission is asked: first and foremost the 'authenticity of the moment' is gone - the spontaneity. Second is that once someone 'knows' that they are being photographed they tend to act differently....
Outstanding, thought-provoking piece. Particularly in light of recent confusion about the right to privacy in public places. I don't understand just how much controversy Evans's clandestine photographs caused back in the day, but I do get the impression this type of photography was not especially controversial, say, 20 years ago and it is today the topic of much consternation. I think there's a wide gulf between photographing someone in public and preying on someone in public.
Geoff Dyer has a fascinating section in The Ongoing Moment about photographers obsession with blind people. That is, with those who can't object to being photographed. It includes some of those Subway blind people.
The conclusion I came to is that you should treat (photograph) as you would want to be treated (photographed). There has to be respect and I think those pictures of mothers and children are respectful, even if they objected.
Deeply moving to see the accordionist documented as she ages and persists.
I think it's possible to shoot first, and then ask permission. I.e., after the image is snapped let the person, know, offer them a copy, be sure they are ok with it... That way you are both respectful and generous about the image, willing to give them a copy, while still being able to create excellent work in the first place. I'm greedy I guess, but I want both.
I believe the reason Paul didn't ask was that he wasn't aware he had a strong photo until he looked at his images later.
A fellow photographer coined the phrase ‘the anti-pose’ for the moment before a person is aware of you taking their photo. That rested, unconcerned expression can not be authentically produced when the subject is aware.
Provoking juxtaposition.
how freaking awesome is this!
An pleasant and thoughtful piece to start the day with. Thanks for sharing.
In answer to your question: "Does consent kill authenticity in Street Photography?" First I believe that "authenticity" needs to be defined. In both instances - with, or without permission, there should be an authenticity, however, two major things occur when permission is asked: first and foremost the 'authenticity of the moment' is gone - the spontaneity. Second is that once someone 'knows' that they are being photographed they tend to act differently....
Yeah, I wouldn't say it kills the "authenticity," per se, but more so the "spontaneity." I think that's the word you hit on the head!
Outstanding, thought-provoking piece. Particularly in light of recent confusion about the right to privacy in public places. I don't understand just how much controversy Evans's clandestine photographs caused back in the day, but I do get the impression this type of photography was not especially controversial, say, 20 years ago and it is today the topic of much consternation. I think there's a wide gulf between photographing someone in public and preying on someone in public.
One detail about Evans' photos - he sat on them for 20 years. Can you imagine a street photographer doing that today?
Geoff Dyer has a fascinating section in The Ongoing Moment about photographers obsession with blind people. That is, with those who can't object to being photographed. It includes some of those Subway blind people.
The conclusion I came to is that you should treat (photograph) as you would want to be treated (photographed). There has to be respect and I think those pictures of mothers and children are respectful, even if they objected.
https://neilscott.substack.com/p/the-ethics-of-street-photography
Thanks Neil - gotta read that Dyer piece, you're the second person to recommend it. Appreciate your comments...
Neil, thanks so much for the kind words. Looking forward to reading your piece!