The Good, The Bad, The Creepy

Minnesota State Fair

Thursday nights are the time to sit and tune into The Grid Live … +Scott Kelby and associates’ weekly live blog show about all things photography. Scott welcomed his wife +Kalebra Kelby and +Matt Kloskowski as they prepared to discuss Street Photography. Scott tells of an episode he had while in Paris filming “A Day with Jay Maisel in Paris” when a woman took offense to being photographed and created quite a stir in response.

The discussion then turned to photographing women on the street and what their perceptions of getting photographed were. In short, Kalebra and two other female guests spoke to how creepy it was! One of the women voiced a very strong instinct to protect her children from being photographed and would be extremely upset with a photographer that did so.

I don’t deny them their feelings and instincts. Their expressions are completely primal and uncontrollable. Like all humans they require security and an interloper such as some creepy photographer can present an endless array of discomforts to a creative and suspicious mind. In contradiction, however, they admitted that the more credibility the photographer had (even if it’s only on the surface: id badge, crew, handsome, available?) the more willing they were to allow the photograph and turn their concerns to how they felt about themselves at that moment: self-consciousness.

It’s an interesting contradiction of themes that send strange and conflicting messages to the sincere student of Street Photography.

I look at this issue two ways ... first and foremost, I'm a photographer in a public place and have the right to photograph anything there no matter how creepy somebody thinks the act of photographing people on the street may be. I would like to point out that I am not creepy nor do I harbor creepy intent. Whether you are particularly photogenic or not I allow you to think I'm creepy that's your right. But the bottom line is you, as a street subject, lost your right to privacy when you entered the public space.*

Secondly, the sincere and serious student of the craft needs to remember that no matter the activity you aspire to your success is based on the quality of your relationships. Including the fleeting relationships of street photography. Sadly, there are photographers who are creepy, whether they have a camera in their possession or not, they're creepy. We all know people like that. Every photographer should understand what creepy is and avoid it. I just ask photographers to do one thing and one thing only:

When you're exercising your public rights to execute your craft, please remember that you represent all of us. All other photographers. Take the work seriously. Take the relationships you create seriously and don't leave a cloud of creep behind.


* One "gotcha" you have to know about is a public space may be privately owned or operated. Example: an outdoor shopping complex. And security may exercise the right of their patron's privacy. That happened to me once ... I still think this may be a stretch.

Thanks Kodak ... thanks a lot.

Nikon D200, 70mm, 1/250 @ f/4.5, ISO 100, SB800 reflecting in closed down umbrella camera left 1/8 power, CLS

There's debate around the photog interwebs about "post-processing." Some call it "post." Others refer to it as "re-touching." The debate arises from the premise that the better photographer is the one that gets everything perfect "in camera" (I think that includes zit removal and model releases) and the more someone post-processes their images the lamer-their-photographic-ass. Many are quite fervent in their argument against post-processing. Those people spend too much time wading in trivia when they should be wacking ... well ... their problem is probably a lack of coordination.

Let me just thank Kodak for why we think this way. "You press the button we do the rest." That's what they said. And for years, they successfully suppressed the existence of post-processing to the point that it's been reduced to inexplicable magic ... something the common man would never know!

Now we have digital everything. Someone who says, "I don't post-process ... they come out of the camera that way" marks a really naive amateur or a really lazy professional. Or possibly a really lazy amateur or a really naive professional ... one or the other. Either way, somebody somewhere or something somewhere better be doing the processing ... or you're not "making" pictures.

Shooting Black & White film was liberating! Double exposure! Multi-Contrast paper!!! Rodinol!!! Chemical temperatures, RC Filters and a Gra-Lab timer!!! I could completely lose myself and put hours into the very making of a masterpiece (as my photographing forefathers did). Burning, dodging, pushing, pulling ... and Ansel saw that it was good.

So, now ... people are bitching that post-processing, having become computerized, is some kind of sin. Against whom? Kodak!?! I'll tell ya one thing ... post-processing certainly smells nicer and my water bill is a lot smaller.

To be fair to the argument ... I think their fervor comes from the irresponsible and deliberate manipulation of images that the journalism-consuming public relies on for the truth and that the computer makes it far too easy to be irresponsible. Well ... I'm not a journalist. I do expect them to be truthful and add some credibility to their stories with imagery. But, that's journalism, not photography.

My friends who make the digital switch sometimes ask how I get richer colors and sharp definition in my images. If they're serious about their photography I talk to them about Lightroom and Photoshop. If their photography is personal and they just want to capture memories, I tell them the story about Kodak and let them know about some settings they have in their camera that might help.

Truth be told, somebody has to post-process your images. Either you give a limited responsibility of post-processing to your camera, unlimited to somebody who knows how to post-process or take the responsibility on yourself. Most of us who are serious about the images we make take it on ourselves. We always have; even before Windows for Workgroups 3.11. And, if there was a camera that could do it all for us we wouldn't buy it because it's our responsibility. It is our art.

For those of you arguing otherwise, the bottom line is: only the results matter no matter how you get there ... have a nice day.

"If you're not taking full advantage of the medium, you're not making art." Abraham Lincoln.