just give it to me straight /p/ is taking candid photos of strangers degenerate behavior or is it "artistic expression".it always feels like a grey area that you can never determine which is which. At least I can say one thing for sure that if you are in public then you should not have any entitlement to this kind of privacy unless it's used for certain commercial purposes or something.
>>4454921what is putting your photo up in a gallery if not a commercial purpose? I think it's probably degen behavior
>>4454923I can never understand how you can find "street photographers" that publish books of candid photos of strangers is this what they mean when they say that art is abstract
>>4454921taking candid photos of people and things in public from publicly accessible areas is street photographytaking photos of private property from public property is legal as well but dubious regardless, since you may not be breaking photography laws but laws of surveillance, stalking and intimidation. stalking particular people, using zoom lenses to invade areas where people expect privacy like bathrooms, backyards, balconies and bedrooms or going onto people’s property without their permission are degenerate behaviours and against the law. it might not be the law you’d have to worry about anyway. you’d probably get your head stomped in if you did shit like this. people might expect privacy while sitting, walking or eating in public but, well, they’re in public. you don’t need their permission to photograph them but don’t harass or stalk people either. you’ll be breaking other laws and you *will* be found in the wrong. for example, someone saw you getting a photo of them and they say “stop taking my photo.” walk away. anything more is harassment. regardless, street photography is a very old and established genre. you are partaking in a style of art that is very popular and common, especially in big cities.
>>4454935legality and law aside, when thinking purely morals and being a decent human being, even in public I would be careful with zoom lenses as you are using technology to see things that you are cannot see naturally. I guess I am an art fag but I believe that using wide angle lens up to 50 mm is perfectly fine because you are taking photos of things that appear infront of you naturally that you have already seen in your eyes. The only moral grey area here is that the person or people you are taking photos of do not want that moment to be captures in a photo for others to see, even if they are in public.I like taking pictures that have value and meaning. When you take pictures of people on the street and you capture a cultural nuance or an emotional moment that "tells a story", this carries huge value and meaning.I can't think of any other kind of photography with this kind of moral ambiguity and grey area.pic related I guess it's nuance but you can notice what is happening in this girl's phone when at the moment when the photo was taken you probably would not have noticed this detail.
>>4454921>grown adult man taking photos of underaged girls>muh artistic street photography expression!literally peak pedo gooner degen behavior
>>4454937>The only moral grey area here is that the person or people you are taking photos of do not want that moment to be captures in a photo for others to see, even if they are in public.Anywhere with electricity within 50m of the person is constantly recording them. I'll concede you're right about the angles and focal length point, since CCTV is usually some abnormally wide angle, but people getting aggressive and bitchy because they can suddenly see a camera being used is pure retardation. I'd be more concerned about the upcomming gubbermints storing long-term footage of my every movement to use against me one day, than I am some leicafag having me in a photo in his decaying hard drive.
>>4454939yes well some cases are more obvious than others. if the photographer's intent is degenerate then it is degen behaviourbut if you take a photo of a malnourished little girl in Gaza then it would be a different case because it has meaning.
>>4454921generally speaking, it can be either, both, or neither. although usually in the question of art, we distinguish the act of creating from the final product, and rather than the shot taking itself, the resulting image is usually what we'd call the artistic expression. these i agree with >>4454948 >>4454937. personally intent is most important for judging this stuff overall, but decorum also is a factor. for example even with noble intentions, i would consider an especially aggressive approach to be degenerate . but yeah ultimately i would say that the degeneracy or artistry of any given photography are two independent axes. and you could measure both intent and approach along these. OP pic i would consider neither particularly artistic nor degenerate. pretty neutral
people who do "street photography" (taking creepshots in public) only do it because they live in a city and there is nothing else to photograph
>>4454948>it has meaningyes and it’s significant as a document of a current event. journalism and street photography are not overlapping circles but there’s a lot of similarities.
I said this before in another thread but be careful where you are and who you take photos of. I ended up getting in a physical altercation taking a pic of dudes smoking on the train. Nothing of consequence happened, but it took some of the passion outta me.>tfw I just wanna be Bruce Gilden mixed with Stanley Greene.
>>4454976Passionately pepper spray them next time.
>>4454976I always take my street photography shots at hip angle with a wide focal length. People in the street barely notice and probably just think I am adjusting my camera.
>>4454955i would say that 70% of the shots I take when out on the streets could be considered very normal and not artistic. but it's the 30% that keeps me going, you never know when you will capture a great photo which I guess is part of why this kind of photography is appealing.I tend to not overthink the composition because you naturally do not have much time to frame things how you want in most cases. Sometimes you can wait for a person to walk at a certain spot I guess.>>4454968I actually only do street photography when I am traveling. I don't live in a place where I can do this regularly.
>>4454921It is cheap in the sense that humans are programmed to look at faces for expressions so it ensures that the photos are looked at slightly longer than other types of photos. It doesn't require talent to get a reaction.
>>4454939SHE IS 17 YEARS 364 DAYS AND 23 HOURS OLD YOU SICK FUCK
>>4454999and the result fucking sucks
>>4454921I tried street and I mostly don't like it. For me there is nothing really compelling about seeing a bunch of poorly dressed fat people. That being said these photos will prove valuable after a long time. We will be able to see what it was really like
>>4455206Yes officer, check this guy's hard drive
>>4455206yeah you should go to jail if you touch her
>>4455213>>4455215Kek, fucking americans are so funny. They're the biggest degenerates and the purists at the same time.
>>4455235a line needs to be drawn somewhere
>>4455235That's... exactly what happens in a theocracy, and what is expected to happen.
>>4454921If you care one way or another you will never take good candid photos of strangers
>>4454955>OP pic i would consider neither particularly artistic nor degenerate. pretty neutralIt's voyeuristic so it's degenerate, it's street so it's not artistic at all.Artistic and degenerate would be Uncle Terry, k3k.
>>4455370Fitting image for a dogfuckernever forgethttps://archive.palanq.win/p/thread/4442111/#4452396
>>4455370Dude keep your zoo shit out of the board. I hope the admins ban your ass soon
>>4455370Stoooop you're going to offend the /p/uritans again! It hurts their eyes to see such sinful imagery. please be considerate.
>>4454921Most "street photographers" think the concept is based on taking strangers' group photos in a public space.That's why you see that type of whit everywhere labeled as street photography or even worse, "street art".
>>4454999You're not looking at the camera, that's why it's shit. You fell for the youtube trap.
>>4454921>muh camera does all the work of imagemaking for me.>muh subjects are humans and do all the work of making the image interesting for me.>I push da button and look, it’s instant art.It’s as low effort as it gets. Low quality, high quantity. Of course you lazy fucks like doing it and try to make excuses for it.
>>4455375>>4455385>Uncle Terry kills the /p/retenders againk3k! b4s3d!>>4455411The funniest part is that it's one of his tamest pieces by far. Imagine the seething if I posted some kibosh.
>>4455440you fuck dogs bro its different with the context you providewithout you its just a hot chick who works on a farm
>>4455005>>4455208I never said I was good at it and by no means posted what i think is ideal for street photography. These shots are literally from my first session of trying this kind of photography. I am learning a lot and I can see how these shots could be better composed.>>4455292What do you mean? I don't really see why.>>4455370>>4455440mr triptard nigger stop derailing my thread with unrelated obscene shit that is not even relevant to the intent of the thread and kys thanks
>>4455525Fuck off Commie Cuck Projectionist
>>4455525don't reply to trip fags
>>4455526Meant for >>4455496>>4455525I addressed the point you brought up in the OP
>>4455535fuck you dogfucker
