From: Marco Milazzo (mmilazz1@elp.rr.com)
Date: 09/17/02-08:51:49 AM Z
(comment below)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: news article concerning photographing in public spaces
(snip)
> As for stopping someone and getting a model release -- right !
> Especially when you're shooting, say, 6 rolls of a fast-moving crowd in an
> afternoon. There's also the fact that the model release is worth diddle,
> especially if you haven't paid them. "Release" or not, they can change
> their mind. Not to mention that signing a paper for a stranger just like
> that on the street would be a sure sign of insanity, which might mean
> other risks down the line.
>
> My understanding however is that a big consideration, should your
> photograph be used somewhere where it will be seen, is if the picture
> shows the person in a bad light, you could have trouble if they want to
> make it. Still, has anyone heard of subjects of street photography making
> trouble? Mostly they seem rather tickled. The only trouble I heard of was
> when one of the couples who CLAIMED they posed for Doisneau's "Kiss" asked
> for more money. Those were paid models he trotted around town, but he said
> it wasn't them anyway, was two other people.
>
> The other was the black guy getting out of a taxi used for a NY Times Mag
> cover to represent "new black professional class." That was a grab shot
> used COMMERCIALLY, for money -- and the guy said he didn't want to be
> poster child for that concept.
>
> I mean which of us would want to wake up one Sunday and see our picture,
> even looking lean & handsome, as he did, on cover of magazine all
> unbenknownst to us.
>
> J.
As I heard this story, the man's argument was that the cover implied that he
had risen from some lesser state when in fact, he had always been
professional. The court agreed.
But I think the question we ought to ask ourselves about street/candid
photography is whether we're abusing people who are just going about their
business and don't expect to end up in someone's photo project. It's a
little like cheap sex: we don't want to get to know them -- we just want to
use them and run.
And not surprisingly, the pictures are usually as superficial as our
two-second relationship with the subject. Whereas, I think most successful
pictures of people are collaborations -- partnerships, even --between the
photographer and subject. If I remember correctly, Dorthea Lange spent a
couple of weeks with migrant farm families before even showing them a
camera. By that time, they trusted her, and she was able to get pictures
with depth.
But that brings me back to my original point: photography is a "people"
business as well as a technical and creative endeavor. Getting a subject to
relax and pose well (or relax and not pose), arranging a group shot, or
getting to shoot in a situation where cameras aren't normally allowed is
about working with people -- understanding what they want as well as what
you want.
Marco
(I have opinions on the war too, but I'm saving them.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/02-03:47:09 PM Z CST