I Am A Voyeur And Proud Of It...i Like To Watch...

Do people ever get truly angry at you for taking their picture?

I love airports...one of the few places you can stare at a wide variety of people without getting in trouble!

Teal,
99.9 percent of the time NO.
Most folks do not know I am taking their photographs. I am from the old school and make myself somewhat invisible (tricks of the trade).

Teal,
Has anyone ever been angry with you in your daily life down thru the decades? lol...You just deal with it.

Marlene,
Yep, l love airports as well. Sigh...It's not a public domain place for photographers anymore. In the old days, I would go up to the observation tower and snap away. Also, many decades ago, I took a few of my models to O'Hara airport for a model shoot. I can't imagine doing that now. I would have a protection dog's nose up my butt.

You can kill two birds with one stone (sorry about that) if you go to a big zoo like Lincoln Park Zoo in Chicago. Lots of animals, lots of people...

But about getting in trouble....I don't worry about that as long as I am taking pictures in the "public domain." And in a big city like Chicago, we have lots of "public domain."

Very interesting observation (lol)... I wonder if voyeurism is linked to the highly visual person, or is that just obvious. I didn't know that my compulsion to photograph is because I am a voyeur (a la Walker Evans). But you may be right. One of the reasons I don't hate airports is because of the people-watching opportunities. However, after living in the crowded Bay Area for a number of years, I'm kind of sick of people and glad to be away from it.

What I like to observe is what people are wearing. Maybe I'm a "clothes voyeur." I'm off to take a look at your gallery now!

PS....
I prefer living in a cabin in the woods so that I can fish/hunt and have my dogs about me. Alas, for reasons...I am stuck in Chicago. As luck would have it (bad or good I can't decide) I am interested in the down and out street people in the Chicago area (we have thousands of such). I suppose it's because of my early years (poor/around mental people) that I feel such an affinity with these unfortunates.

I lived as a down and out person for a month in Portland, Oregon many decades ago, and I have had my own version of mental illness in which to flounder for the past 50 years. So I can relate to my subject matter. Many of my pals died from drugs and other nasty stuff. I've seen folks stabbed, beaten, mauled. I've had people die at my side.

For some reason, I am still attracted to the human comedy/tragedy....hence my interest in street photography....

on a professional level, especially since you have a camera, call yourself a people watcher or something like that.

---Mike Savad

I don't see how you could be any kind of an artist if you weren't a voyeur. There are just better words to choose to describe yourself.

When I was a child, my grandmother, who was a homebody, would drive us to downtown Memphis, park at the curb and we would watch the people walking by, commenting on many of them. (And usually not in a nice way, I'm afraid.)

The best place to take pictures of people in public is in art museums and galleries. Your lighting is already built in for you.

Bing Dictionary voy·eur [ voy yúr ]
1. somebody who watches for sexual pleasure: somebody who gains pleasure from watching, especially secretly, other people's bodies or the sexual acts in which they participate
2. persistent observer of misery or scandal: a fascinated observer of distressing, sordid, or scandalous events

I do hope all you voyeurs are the 2nd definition

Voyeurs probably create or capture the best art! I'll have to try it out but airports, malls and parks sound boring as heck.

I was brought up with the word voyeur being a dirty old man wearing a raincoat slipping into the sex shop to grab his brown paper package from behind the counter.

I cannot see the word now and think innocent thoughts and I a sure there are others brought up like I was

I prefer to think of you as a people watcher or similar :)

Malls and parks might be boring - malls might also be a trouble spot - like the airport. and parks - as with 'children' in them - beware you might just meet that adult that wants to know WHY you are taking pictures of their adorable kid (a descriptive term for child)

OK, I can go with people watcher with a camera...

I don't think the word voyeur will negate my sales(zero), however, lol...

In fact, that word might attract some folks just out of curiosity...

Yes, maybe there is a better term. Observer comes to mind. I don't even take books or magazines with me when traveling, because I'm always watching.

People watcher or observer... much better.

What do you mean when you say public domain places? I know what public domain means -- but public domain places? I thought any time a person was in a photo you had to get their consent to use the photo -- wrong? I would love to understand this better, because I never photograph people because of being taught I need consents even if there is a hint of a person's head in the back of the main subject! Then I see all these excellent street photos and street portraits/candids and wonder how you deal with all the consents.

Oh, as for "Teal,
Has anyone ever been angry with you in your daily life down thru the decades? lol...You just deal with it." I was thinking more like the modern type of extreme anger, akin to road rage, where someone might actually try to attack you or swipe your camera or that type of thing -- not the kind where you can just deal with it and walk away.

That is a very interesting question, Teal. A new thread on this issue would be fascinating to read.

i don't know why he calls the outside the public domain. he means out in the open. you are allowed to shoot people and sell them as art, we've had over a dozen of these discussions already, and many kind of don't like more street photo threads. anyway, you can sell them as art, but not commercially. however you can't demoralize that person or put them in a bad light ( like coming out of a brothel, maybe fighting someone etc), because it could cause them grief, and they can sue you with damages. if they are a part of the background, that would be safe. safer still is to obscure their face some how, and still make it look natural.

if people look angry - i don't go near them. a gun is a lot faster than any other device. and if they look like they could get me, they would sooner stab me and take my camera.

you don't need the consent of a person, unless you sell it as stock, its better to have consent all the way around. you may need permission if your in a private area, you can't peep in windows (which is what voyeur means on the internet). they have to be out in the open.


---Mike Savad

Has there ever been a documented case where a street photographer has been shot or stabbed?

People watching is fine entertainment. Only natural that humans would be interested in the behaviors of fellow humans. These days most people are too busy looking at their flat screens or too busy looking like they are busy by looking at their flat screens to do any observing.

Teal..
Yes you are wrong...If you want the facts about photographing people in public (in the United States) then you may find loads of info on the internet....type in...the legal rights of street photographers.....and you will be directed to all sorts of info on this charming topic.

Then after reading all such info, decide for yourself if you want to take pics of people in public places.

Teal,
You may be a tad timid to be a street photographer, but hey what do I know. You may be a superhero in disguise.

Teal then asks me... "I was thinking more like the modern type of extreme anger, akin to road rage, where someone might actually try to attack you or swipe your camera or that type of thing -- not the kind where you can just deal with it and walk away."

This is fun for me to reply. Um, while in the US Army for 4 years, I was trained to defeat the enemy using extreme force (rifle, hand grenade, bayonet, knife and other instruments of extreme prejudice). I was a quick study.

Now fast forward, oh let's say 35 years. After my retirement at an early age, I acquired a German Shepherd protection dog from Germany. She and I worked as vigilante for some 6 years. We helped fight crime in the woods (with the OK of the forest police). We were attacked some 6 times by irate men trying to inflict major harm on our bodies. Have you ever seen a German Shepherd protection dog go after someone? We won all such encounters.

I am showing you my basic personality type with the above examples....and yes I have been threatened with death while photographing people (hispanic gangbangers), kicked out of various "private" places, told to go away, etc...

But here I am at 72 years of age...still a street photographer. (OK, so I am now training a PitBull to be my protection dog but that's another story)....

Teal....Good news for you....
Did you know that women have been great (and now famous) street photographers without having an "aggressive" personality like mine.
If you want to see how gentle women go about being a street photographer study the likes of Helen Levitt and Vivian Maier...Two gentle souls, two ladies, who were great street photographers....

Lisa, I'm not sure if you mean the question about street photographers being attacked or the one about getting consent, but it seems both questions can stay here in this thread, since people are answering. Thanks!

Mike, thanks very much for the answers. Yeah, guns are fast -- and often permanent.

Robert, thanks for the answers. I seem timid to you? Is that because of the question I asked about violence or is it something else you see?

I don't really have a big desire to be a street photographer, but sometimes I see something I want to photograph and hold back (or just keep the photo for myself to see) because I was apparently taught incorrectly (yes, it was in a photography class) that I couldn't use those photos without consent, even if they are in the background. So I have been wondering about your photos for a while. In most cases, street photography for me would entail candids, so I would probably need the consents in that case, or at least it would be nicer to get them.

My other question about violence was born of my deep curiosity, not my fear. And particularly the question came from one photo you made of the dog riding in the car and his owner looking rather bemused. Bemused is the right word i think but I sensed some anger or hostility brewing in her face, too. And then I wondered if anyone had ever gone road rage on you.



On the other hand, I like to photograph nature and sometimes that is a little scary to me these days. Many years ago, I was younger and healthier, the world seemed a little safer and most important my companion for outings in the woods was a Doberman. She was NOT attack trained, but she was my best friend. I felt pretty safe to go anywhere with her. Nowadays, I don't have that kind of companion and sometimes do wonder if it's prudent for a woman to be out in the woods alone taking pictures.

Of course, there was the time having a Doberman actually put me in danger. I wasn't taking pictures, just walking on the beach with her, and a guy approached me. He talked a couple of minutes, asking about my dog. Then he told me he was a Hell's Angels biker and his two friends had challenged him to talk to me because of the Doberman (that was in the days when people thought of Dobermans even worse than the way they now think of pit bulls). He liked me because I was nice and answered his questions instead of being rude (so he said), and so we worked out a deal: he saw me safely to my car and told me not to walk the dog there anymore. He got to look like a big tough guy and I got to remain unharmed by the other guys trying to be tougher. I could see his friends looking a bit shocked to see him walking with me and the bad dog, but thankfully they stayed away. I wasn't timid -- I was scared! When I was in the USAF women were not taught combat or even allowed to learn to shoot the M16.

I see you are quite a character with quite a colorful history. I'm sure if I saw you on the street I would be wanting to photograph you, esp if your dog was with you! You should write a book about your adventures.

As a retired dog trainer, unless your pit bull is mixed with something more aggressive, you might want to go with a different breed for attack training. They really do not have the natural guarding instinct in most cases, but then most of them are mixed now, so it might be a moot point. They were bred to be 100% docile to people, just not to other dogs. As a retired pit bull rescuer, I beg you to let your pit bull become an example of everything good in the breed. They suffer unspeakable abuse because of their undeserved reputation.

Well I guess I'm a bit long-winded.

are there really that many documented cases of being stabbed or murdered in the streets? doesn't really matter what you do, i'm sure there are cases. i doubt they are all posted though.

in today's day, people are more violent. its a simple fact. all these school shootings, everyone seems to have a gun, and everyone is looking over their shoulders, some are a bit hyper wondering why you took a shot of them.

when i shoot i don't take the homeless people, there is a limited appeal for the homeless on ones wall. my images will be of people walking, going to the market, sitting on a bench, in a city type area. i only use the people as filler.

---Mike Savad

I'm not going to attempt to get into any controversy or varying opinions here on street photography, but Edward's statement had me thinking: "These days most people are too busy looking at their flat screens or too busy looking like they are busy by looking at their flat screens to do any observing." I wonder if we are turning into a nation of introverts via use of these devices. I took a family photo of my relatives visiting last Christmas, sitting around my living room, and they were ALL gazing into their devices. Nobody was interacting. I though it was hilarious, so I put it on FaceBook, but no one even picked up on the irony. Next time, I'll just schedule a Skype session instead of having people over, lol.

Sorry to digress, Robert. But I do feel we should be both observing and interacting more. What's this world coming to? (As our grandparents would say!)

I take pics of the homeless, the mentally ill, the criminal types because at one time I was homeless, mentally ill and in jail. The old adage is write about what you know best, photograph what you know best, etc. I am quite at home with the underbelly of society. Also, I grew up reading Charles Dickens, Dostoevsky, Nelson Algren, James T. Farrell, and others who wrote about the outcasts of society.

I don't roam either the west side or south side of chicago (poor blacks, unemployed, and gangbangers) because I would stick out like a sore thumb and I might get myself killed. No thanks.

I frequent an area that has poor white, blacks, native americans, and middle class all lumped together. This works quite well for me.

Ms. Strand...
The folks I usually photograph don't have the money for cellphones, etc. So they still talk to each other face to face.