Hey, there! Log in / Register
The street photographers prowling Downtown Crossing don't like having their pictures taken
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Three mutually-exclusive kinds of photographers
Three mutually-exclusive kinds of photographers:
1. Street photographers.
2. Upskirt pervert photographers.
3. Photographers who are not assholes.
Also, I have a tagline WBZ should use: "sensationalist news for morons, by morons."
Not The Whole Story
Here's a link to a blog put up by one of the guys in the video (it's got pictures, too)
http://thephotorecession.webs.com/index.htm
Send intrusive photographers to crime scenes instead
Send the intrusive photographers to crime scenes so when they are questioned by police, they can evoke sympathy instead of wrath.
Misleading
This is ridiculous on two fronts, both of which ought to shame WBZ.
First, some of the greatest names in photography -- Walker Evans, Diane Arbus, Robert Doisneau, Henri Cartier Bresson, Robert Frank -- are known to us because they captured life on the street. Street photography has been an art form for more than a century.
Second, as a photographer, I always check out other photographers' gear and techniques. I see these guys in action almost every day during the spring and summer and from what I've observed they aren't "targeting women and children." Period. Unless they're radically changing their MOs when I walk through, this segment is a real misrepresentation of what they do.
So you think you can make
So you think you can make this go away by listing names of professional art photographers? And by the way - Diane Arbus is not known for her street photography.
WBZ did show one guy following a woman and bending over to take her picture. And you compare that to Walker Friggin' Evans?
If these guys were 'artists,' they'd be happy to get on to WBZ for the publicity. The guy saying 'Turn that thing off' is not an artist. The idea that you'd demand your right to take photographs on the city street - without asking permission - and then demand someone else turn off his camera is the height of photographer ass-hattery.
If you defend these guys, you're a sicko too.
Or
Someone that realized that WBZ was doing a hit piece and had a agenda. I'd tell them to fuck off too for sticking a camera in my face, and asking forceful questions of me like I'm some sort of perverted criminal.
Look, I’ll put it this way; if these photographers were taking shady pictures of people, they wouldn't need to run up to or around their "victims". They’d use a 400/500mm telephoto lens and do so from 1000 feet away, where you morons would have no idea what they were taking a picture of, and be none the wiser.
What you're seeing them do in the WBZ hit piece is using relatively standard lens and trying to frame pictures and compositions properly to make them interesting. Nothing more, nothing less.
There's something wrong with a person who defaults accusations of pervert / rapist / criminal the second he/she something they don't fully understand. Get help buddy!
Diane Arbus
Street photography wasn't her primary style, but I'd say that the first two photos on this page qualify.
If Diane Arbus didn't do her
If Diane Arbus didn't do her freak photos, would you know her name? She certainly didn't follow people from behind to take photos of them.Her classic style was a straight-on portrait.
Make This Go Away
Look up "Child With a Toy Hand Grenade in Central Park." It has a Wikipedia page, so it shouldn't be too hard. If you put street photography on one side and "professional art photograph[y]" (which has nothing to do with the topic at hand) on the other, where would you put it?
The guy bending over is several feet away from the nearest person. He's obviously framing a shot. He's obviously not shooting up anyone's skirt. What he is shooting is up to your imagination, and you imagine something deviant -- which says much more about you than him, because he is clearly not doing anything deviant. And yes, I'm comparing him to Walker Evans and dozens of other photographers who have created art with a camera on the streets of America, not to mention every other continent.
None of these guys is demanding the right to do anything, by the way. They have it already.
creepy old guy refused to stop photographing little kids
A few weeks back when I was at the mall at the Prudential, I witnessed a mother with 3 little kids yelling at a guy to stop taking photos of her children. He was laughing and kept snapping away despite her objections. It was actually pretty creepy. He was an older guy, looked to be in his 70's. He seemed like a regular looking grandpa type except the cackling laughter. Looked around for a security guard, but there were none in sight.
Now that's the line right there
Somebody asks you nicely not to do it, you (expletive) stop. I wouldn't shed a tear if somebody took that guy's camera and threw it down the corridor.
Creepy Old Man @ Prudential
Was the old man wearing a cap,tall and very thin? There's an old man like that in the Downtown Crossing area. Very rude and creepy. He likes to taunt people when say "no" to his picture taking. Really bad. He's one of the men in the news report.
As an Urban Lifestyle
As an Urban Lifestyle Photographer (street photographer) I see these guys all the time. Guess what, they creep me out and this is what I do! They have a weird pack mentality and definitely questionable scouting and shooting technique. I have tried myself to take pictures of them and they turn around or look the other way when they see me pointing my lens at them. But at the end of the day, unless they are caught actually doing something peverted like taking up skirt pictures they are well within their rights to take the pictures, so long as they arent selling them for commercial uses (stock photos) if it is editorial or fine art, they are in public space they can shoot what ever they want. There are people in every major city that do this, it is an art, but there is always that fine line, and yes sometimes people get creeped out.
Don't kid yourself
Any street photographer with any sense of what's going on in a scene figures out that people on the street DO NOT want their photos taken without their permission. Street photographers just do it anyway. The upskirt photographers are only a bit further down the spectrum of obnoxiousness.
And when you say "with their rights", remember that you're talking about *legal* rights. Just because something is not outlawed doesn't mean it's a nice thing to do.
Kim Phuc
You think she would have given permission for that photo of her running naked from Trang Bang with napalm burning her alive?
How about any of the people Walker Evans photographed surreptitiously on the NYC subway?
These were powerful, important photographs that, by your apparent standard, should not have been taken because it's not "a nice thing to do."
Permission is irrelevant. I agree that a photographer should be respectful, but your statement suggests that a) no one on the street wants his or her photo taken, which demonstrably is not true, and b) the very act of photography in public is itself obnoxious, which about a gazillion people would disagree with.
It bothers me a lot more that WBZ ran a deliberately misleading story on its newscast and the web. What they did is more predatory and vulgar than street photography.
The napalm was newsworthy war
The napalm was newsworthy war photography.
Street photography is more indulgent, without newsworthy as an excuse.
WBZ are buttwipes, and so are street photographers.
Here's one of the
Here's one of the photographers' response to the interview on WBZ, for another side of the story. Watching that video, I can see why people are creeped out by them. But that WBZ story just comes across as a sensationalist hit piece.
Well Well Well
So the photographers scrolled through their photos for WBZ's understanding, and WBZ opted not to show them.
What does that tell you?
what do you expect...the I in
what do you expect...the I in iteam stands for I only show one side of the story.
Some asshole
had a deadline and needed a story.
Maybe we should do some digging on Jim Armstrong. I'm sure we could find some dirt, and blow it up into something it's not.
He'd be fine with that, right?
@JimArmstrongWBZ
He's got a twitter
@JimArmstrongWBZ
They are ABSOLUTELY Perverts
I've been watching these guys for years. I've seen people catch them and go after them. The police should be ashamed for not busting them.
They exclusively photograph women without their knowledge. They hold the camera is such a way so they are hiding the fact that they are taking pics and they almost always go for legs, butts, breasts and other body parts.
They are not artists. They certainly post them somewhere for someone's perverted pleasure and they should be stopped. They do not care if it's a teen or a grown woman.
They've been doing it for years and yes it's creepy as hell.
What is wrong with you?
What is wrong with you?
It bordering on illegal..
I tend to agree, this is bordering on illegal. If this was a pedophile taking pictures of kids at a playground, the boston police would be so far up this guys a$$ it wouldn't be funny. But since they are not targeting pre-teens, the cops take blind eye.
I saw this report and was amazed. More because I'm in Downtown Crossing a ton, and I've never noticed them. Then again I'm a big guy so I wouldn't be photographed.
In the report, the user-provided video of them in the act of sticking a camera up some girls skirt is just wrong. Its one thing to be a photographer and take "people watching" shots, but to shine a camera where its no one's business, there's something fishy about it. At least don't get up close to the victim and shove a camera up their skirt or down their blouse.
IMHO, if they were real photographers, they'd be there with zoom lenses sitting from afar taking these photos. These guys are amatures and/or up to no good (i.e. some weird fetish website for guys who like hidden camera pictures (they exist!)).
Its obvious this is for some website. Either a sexual fetish one, or something worse. Whatever it is, I hope its found so the lawsuits can start.
As far as Jim Armstrong... first off, he used to work for Fox25 (if that matters), but I think he may have been told NOT to show the photos out of fear of a lawsuit. The photographer was pretty forward about having WBZ's camera turned off, so if he did show Jim Armstrong the pictures, it is likely they told him that "air these and face a lawsuit". Again, this is where litigation fears overpower free speech and free press (and thats just sad).
But the cat has been let out of the bag so lets hope people wise up to these antics (and someone else notices and does something about it)
you should really watch the
you should really watch the video again, maybe full screen. at no time did any of them walk up directly behind someone and point their camera up someone's skirt. If you look again yes someone bent over at the waist to compose a shot, but no there was no up skirt. Your thought of using a zoom lens is funny because most people tend to think that someone using a long lens is even more perverted because the person that is having their photo taken really has no idea.
Here's an idea
If you don't know a thing about semi-pro / pro photography, try not talking out of your ass. Mmmm K?
Pointing and shooting a snapshot from afar isn't how the best pictures of all time were taken. Framing a composition is photography 101, so is using the right lens for the right composition.
In fact, the sketch pervert trying to take candid pictures is exactly the kind to "be there with zoom lenses sitting from afar taking these photos" because they wouldn't draw anyone's attention.
And again I need to question those who look at stuff like this and immediately image some of the worst thing possible. Whats exactly running through your heads to come up with that crap at first thought?
I think you have it all wrong,, Cybah
Someone posted one of the photographer's version of the story. And looking at the video there was no "up skirt" going on.
Check this out and then see if it changes things for you:
http://thephotorecession.webs.com/index.htm
Here's an interesting video clip
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-447391279...
Bullshit news story
For a bullshit "news" organization. If the folks in charge at WBZ's news-like show knew the first thing about street photography or actual photojournalism for that matter, they wouldn't have had a story here. It looks like they're really scraping the bottom of the barrel this one. The mighty have fallen and Edward R Murrow continues to spin in his grave.
Defend street photography, but not these guys
I have seen numerous comments defending these photographers, because of the strong feelings about street photography and the laws pertaining to it. Street photography should be protected and it should be allowed. So many people in the Downtown Crossing area have a problem with these guys, because of how they go about their photography and their attitudes towards subjects. These guys are a pack and they are out there everyday. The WBZ story is misleading to imply they target little kids. They do target teenagers as well as adults. I and numerous others have seen these guys; we are not imagining things. I am a photographer and do street photography and candids,so I do have some knowledge about the art. These guys may take some legit shots while out there,but they take many that appear to be highly questionable. Yes, they are protected by our laws and it is public space, but does that mean people should be okay with them? Just as they have the right to photograph people in public,we have the right to protest and speak out. Too many witnesses to what these guys do. If these guys are legit, they should have something to show. With the thousands of photos they have taken over the years in the area,they have nothing to show or present other than a few photographs. Defend street photography, not these guys.
Street photography should be allowed
and so should the WBZ story, which I found interesting. It is creepy in my opinion, and I'm glad I got to see what these people look like, just in case they are using "street photography" as an excuse to be wierdos, which I think they are.
And how is it art to just have 5 guys taking pictures of people for 8 hours? Anyone can do that.
There is at least seven of
There is at least seven of them, actually. They are in a group usually, but they also spread out. I have friends whom have seen them in Faneuil Hall as well. I have female friends complain to me about these guys photographing their breasts and behinds. They use street photography as their validation. They are an insult to true street photographers.
Wrong
"If these guys are legit, they should have something to show. With the thousands of photos they have taken over the years in the area,they have nothing to show or present other than a few photographs."
Actually, at least two of them have had gallery shows.
Are any of them photography students?
We've got MassArt, the School of the MFA, Art Institute of Boston, New England School of Photography and others. Some of whose students are probably out taking random photos on the street.
I have seen college students
I have seen college students in and around the photographing various scenery and people, but these guys are not from the colleges. They have been around for years doing this. People bring up famous street photographers as if these guys are in the same league, but they seem to have nothing to show except for some foot shots on some blog. If they are legit, it would help their reputation greatly if they had something to show, especially with the thousands of photos they've all taken over the years. If they show their art, then people may regard them as artists such as they do for Bruce Gilden.
Thanks for proving your ignorance
Several of them have held galleries and showings. So, let's stop with the hypotheticals and straw men.
They might be a little eccentric, and way too into their work; but show me any artist and I'll show you something a little off with them.
Most artists are a little weird in my personal opinion. But that leads to some rather interesting work in most cases.
AH YOU TAKIN' THOSE PICTCHAS FA COLLEGE?
I hate being asked if I'm a student when I'm out shooting. As if only students of photography take photographs (and assumedly cease taking pictures upon completion of coursework).
I was once taking some pictures of downtown Lowell on a lunch break, when some huge dude came running after me, shouting, AH YOU TAKIN' THOSE PICTCHAS FA COLLEGE? AH YOU TAKIN' THOSE PICTCHAS FA COLLEGE?
I just said "yes," and he went away. Kind of like how you can get rid of the crackheads at Revere Beach--who HATE photographers--simply by stepping onto the sand.
I will never understand these things.