>>4512177
No expectation of privacy in public, the first amendment, and almost every building you walk by has street facing surveillance cameras that no one seems to care about.

>>4512177
Oh yeah, and if people want privacy in public they need to create it themselves by wearing a face mask or whatever.

>>4512177
Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's socially acceptable. People already feel disturbed and powerless due to the surveillance of state and corporate actors, so you as some dude also sneaking pics (to then post on social media or otherwise make "content" of, I'd have to imagine) is just repeating bad behavior but putting your name on it. Why not start a conversation with people and take their pictures as knowing portraits or at least with their knowledge and consent? That'd be a real rejection of the status quo in both street photography and our surveillance hellscape

>>4512177
There is no rebuke. Street photography is lame 99% of the time and most people don't want their pictures taken. You are violating a social norm, deal with it or pussy out and stop. Also, nobody wants to hear about photography as a hobby unless you're traveling to do it. It's a very boring thing to tell people about. Have you been screened for ASD?

>>4512177
Street photo has really no rebuke other than it's legal (outside Germany), if you don't want to disturb the peace then too bad as it is rude and lame, street photo is all about being shameless and a creep, it is random paparazzo antics.
It's not as bad as >>4512184 this cocksucker implies but you have to see it as an outcast activity... unless you wear some sort of credential to imply you are a photojournalist.

>>4512186
>butthurt because I pointed out that talking about a very boring hobby is autistic behavior
Truth hurts dude. I don't talk to people about photography unless they saw my pictures and brought it up.

>>4512186
Using a camera is not disturbing the peace in the legal sense. Screaming at someone for exercising their freedoms on the other hand...

say 'sorry you feel that way' and move on.
it doesn't affect people tangibly, assuming you're not actually out there doxxing people or taking lewds.>>4512191
normies just get mad because they don't understand it. the problem is their (mistaken) perception

>>4512177
Sometimes the right answer is to just ignore and move on, the more you attempt to explain or justify your actions, the more room you just give them to engage or attack
If you feel like what you're doing is creepy, you probably shouldn't be doing it
If you know you're genuinely just trying to take interesting photos, don't worry about it, who cares what some normies think

>>4512188
>Truth hurts dude
Truth is some people want to hear about photography as a hobby outside travelling, that is the case of my area and some other anons', it isn't a boring thing to tell people about if you are a good storyteller.
You eat dick for breakfast, the rest of your post is correct because they are well-known facts.
>I don't talk to people about photography unless they saw my pictures
I disagree, you are replying in this thread without your pictures being posted

>>4512191
>Using a camera is not disturbing the peace in the legal sense
It's not, i agree, but it is in the moral sense if you get caught without their knowledge.
A rebuking from your part implies convincing them of the morality of the situation, in which case you are in for a tough debate they will likely not indulge before asking you to delete the images.
Like we say, taking pictures of people in public without their knowledge is a shameless activity, it is voyeuristic, it is creepy if done with a hard-on (or a semi) and it is an invasion of privacy if you register their non-commuting activities or work spaces even if public.
Also consider what anons say about ignoring normalfags, some pedestrians do strike back when mad, not unlike a road rage incident.

>>4512202
Using a camera to photograph/record is no different than using your eyes to look at something/someone. Freedom is offensive. If it wasn't it wouldn't be freedom. Put a face mask on if you don't want to be photographed. Not my problem!

>>4512202
>blah blah blah people want to hear about MY photography
shut up narcissist

>>4512177
The most you can do is get set up in a spot and take a photo when they are walking into the frame. Then you can blame them for ruining your shot.
I prefer to take my street pictures so the person isn't identifiable anyways, such as motion blur, high contrast, etc.

>>4512209
>>I prefer to take my street pictures so the person isn't identifiable anyways, such as motion blur, high contrast, etc
Did you try photographing the back off the head?

>>4512177
If I were you and some normie had just rebuked me for doing street photography, the first thing I would do is stand my ground. I am not going anywhere just because some bloke or sheila is having a go at me for doing something they find offensive. Next, I'm gonna listen to what they have to say. They might think I'm being a creep. If so, I'll say something to counter that, mainly, "no, I'm not; you have the wrong idea." Truth is, the idea of a street photographer for the general public is *not* an artist but a voyeur or creep. You will have to brave some very infuriated people to create a counter-impression, one of a curious person observing and recording the world the way they see it. There's no need to start a legal battle with these people but you should inform yourself about your own rights as a street photographer. They vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction so make sure you are reading what's relevant to where you live or plan to take photos. In general, though, the law protects people who take candid photographs, with some very obvious exemptions, although not as obvious as you may think. For example, a New York photographer used a telephoto lens to take a photo of his neighbours in a nearby apartment building. When he published the photo, they found out and sued him for invading their privacy. The judge didn't find him guilty of that, though, because they had the windows open. *YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO FREEDOM FROM VIEW.* If someone does not want to be observed, they need to do something about that: wear a mask, put up a fence, close the blinds, etc. Still, if you abuse that freedom to photograph your neighbours showering, going to the toilet, changing or having sex, the law won't protect you: you'll be punished for voyeurism. Be discerning about where, when and at whom you point your camera, yet remember you have a right, in general, to be using it in public.

>>4512181
>People already feel disturbed and powerless due to the surveillance of state and corporate actors, so you as some dude also sneaking pics
No they don't. Normies don't think about this. I doubt you think about it when you go outside, even if you have the good sense to complain about it here.
It's a mixture of them feeling uncomfortable and self-conscious, not that they're being watched, and usually because they don't understand the law. If you go online you will see people who know jackshit loudly claiming that it's "illegal" to photograph children without their parent's permission and other bs.

>>4512177
I've rarely dabbled with street photography, and I feel pretty uncomfortable violating the cultural norm, even when I'm standing at a distance. I think it's generally okay to photograph strangers if you're being subtle about it, but legality is a shitty defense for making people uncomfortable. Sure, photographing people in public isn't illegal, but there are plenty of other cunt things you can do to a person which are also perfectly legal. Like begging a stranger for money, playing music loudly on public transportation, openly staring at a woman's tits, swearing a lot around children, calling someone a nigger, etc.

I've seen some street pros in action, and despite their amazing taste and sense of aesthetics, I can't help but feel like their audacity is often very offputting. Even looking up to their skills, I don't ever want to be the sort of person who just brazenly walks up and takes photos of people right in their face without any preamble, especially when they clearly don't want to be photographed. I think there's definitely a hard limit somewhere, at least if you don't want to be a creepy asshole. It's perfectly reasonable for people not to want to be photographed by some stranger whose motives they can't know. So really, even though you may have purely innocuous motives, I think "it's legal" is just weaseling out of explaining yourself.

If the normies rebuking you are friends who you're sharing the photos with, I'd just genuinely explain your motives, and why you feel compelled to take a person's photo. If the rebukes are coming from the people you're photographing themselves, then I would probably just show them the photo with enthusiasm, tell them why you think it's great, offer to send it to them, apologize for making them uncomfortable, ask/offer to take more FOR them, or maybe even be prepared to delete it as a kind gesture if you're willing to part with it. In a situation like that, I think being defensive is precisely the wrong move.

>>4512268
Or, I guess, if you don't give a shit about how people feel affronted and you're fine with being perceived as a voyeur, then I guess you could also just ignore all this and tell them to fuck off. Definitely isn't going to make the situation better if they're confrontational too, though.

>>4512177
Carry a few postcard-sized prints with a contact on it (or separate business card) and offer to send them the photo.
This has the downside that you have to be a good enough photographer to have a few such print-worthy photos.

File: jpaigejewstreetphotog.jpg (247 KB, 1200x800)

247 KB JPG

>>4512206
>Using a camera to photograph/record is no different than using your eyes to look
Wrong, because your eyes are for you only, a photo is implying a forever record that can be looked by everyone. The rest of your words is communist drivel, let's just own it and be shameless, it is legal.

>>4512208
Enough about you ya nophoto sodomite

>>4512268
You touch upon the real problem, the risk vs. the result and the morals over this dilemma, a friend of mine loves doing street but morphed his style to a very safe form (wide-angle panorama) because he hated seeing seasoned photogs being social pests and weirdos all over the place, it is obvious but he needed to see it to realize your end product might be good but everyone in said street will frown upon you if not downright mark you for a beating if you return, especially in a small town where hectic pedestrian movement is not a thing.
Japs and city slickers in the US might get away with it but it's a slightly different story elsewhere, and even then some of those places' experts forfeited the social norms to do it often.
Once again a sneaky solution is being obvious about it and having a photojournalist ID/attire over you so people see your shenanigans as "normal"

>>4512286
>your eyes are for you only
Retarded. The pictures I take are for me only because I dont share them, but the things I see with my eyes I write precisely descriptive essays about and post online. Oh yeah, I have a photographic memory so I produce photorealistic drawings of strangers that I post online.
If you go out in public without creating your own privacy you have given me implicit consent to photograph you, and I will. Please try and attack me because I will pepper spray you and post the video online.
>communist drivel
You say nophoto, but you're a noargument. Kek

>>4512289
>Oh yeah, I have a photographic memory so I produce photorealistic drawings of strangers that I post online
You could be an even more formidable drawing artist yet you handicap yourself putting time to such a passive hobby like photography
>Please try and attack me because I will pepper spray you
Where do you keep your mace and how do you deploy it if you are wielding a camera? an irate ex-con will slap you before you take it out from your cargo shorts

>>4512290
I use a camera and a bodycam to produce references to make sure my drawings remain up to a level I would call photorealistic. Sometimes I even add fabricated details to my drawings. Sometimes I write down people's private information that I glean off them when they're using it in public. I just have a little file I keep, but I don't use it for fraud or distribute it so it is fine.
>mace
Im not an ultra lanklet like you and can carry a camera in one hand LOL. Oddly enough everyone that doesn't want to be filmed/photographed walks right in fromt of my recording camera to ask me to stop recording them. If you have street sense the mace is extremely quick.

>>4512177
It can depend on how you're dressed and what you look like. If you look sort of like you're a journalist or professional, people will figure you're just taking some stock image for a news article or that you're working for your city for a tourism thing maybe. I typically go in business casual and some people will actually try to be in the photo and subtly try to pose in it as a result.