'Street photographer' taking photos of people discreetly in coffee shop

[OrcinusOrca]

I am quite frustrated about a situation earlier and I don't know if I just need a grip!

Sat in a well known coffee chain earlier. Noticed someone taking photos but very discreetly on a Nikon. I wasn't certain at first but kept watching and definitely taking photos. Photos included children sat with their DM a few tables away, and then of a woman's arse (she was wearing a dress, photographer was sat on a low down sofa and had camera on their lap).

I kept meeting eye contact and the photographer put their camera down** after the second or third time. They then were (I suspect) taking photos on a mobile phone a little while after. I didn't feel comfortable saying anything directly, but I left what was left in my drink and went to speak to someone behind the counter. They told me this person is a street photographer and there is nothing they can do. 'They're an idiot' but very friendly and I could go and ask them not to take photos of me and they should oblige. I told them about the woman in a dress and they just said they can't do anything about it.

I still didn't feel comfortable confronting the photographer for a couple of reasons, so I just left it. I think what bothered me the most was the fact that they were taking photos so discreetly, and that they stopped after we met eyes a couple of times. I feel like if they stood up and announced what they were doing and said 'let me know if you want to opt out', a lot of people would have.

AIBU to be bothered by this?

I hate shit like this. People taking photos of people without permission are an absolute scourge. I've had a go at folks for this before, it's an invasion of personal privacy. Just because people might be out in a public place, doesn't mean someone with a camera should be able to take a photo without permission.

Photos included children sat with their DM a few tables away, and then of a woman's arse (she was wearing a dress, photographer was sat on a low down sofa and had camera on their lap).

I was facing a wall and the photographer was facing into the coffee shop, so we would have been looking at each other if I was three seats further along. The camera was on the person's lap and they were staying in their seated position and moving the camera at different angles which is what I was labelling as discreet photo taking, and so I could see what the image was of on the screen of the camera.

How can you see the back of the camera when your sitting opposite and the camera was in his lap. It doesnt make sense, there is no way you could see the screen

About 40 years ago, my grandparents were on holiday, staying in the same hotel they had stayed in for about the last 20 years (a week in June, a week in September) and they were browsing tthrough the postcards on sale in the hotel foyer. They found one with a picture of them playing crazy golf. We were all thrilled.

If you are someone who has a good reason for not wanting photographs of you published, there comes a point where you either have to take the risk or never go out again. Because you could be in the background of some totally random person's happy snap of their partner/friend/kid gurning in front of some monument and you don't have the right to demand people cut you out/delete their holiday snap when they don't give a flying fuck about you.

I think the law around street photography might have changed since GDPR came in on 25 May this year. Nobody seems very sure of what it is exactly though.

I don't think it's creepy and it wouldn't bother me. You can't get natural photographs if you announce yourself.
I'm pretty sure they don't need permission to use a photo with you in commercially unless you're identifiable (your face, or any unique birthmarks or tattoos etc). If asked to leave I think they would have to as it's not a public place, so if you have a problem with it go to the coffee shop owner/manager. That's my understanding of things anyway.

Most coffee shops have CCTV so you're being recorded either way

Shockingly bad diagram for anyone else who thinks I'm chatting shit about how I could see the camera.

So if you really did that photo why didnt you tell the woman?

I’m completely on the fence regarding the photography but I must point out that a coffee shop is a public place. If I stretch my memory back it’s defined as “ any place the public has access to, by payment or otherwise”

I've got the Shots From The Hip book, it inspired me a lot when I was younger
Photography courses do send people out to take street photographs!
And many do it out of choice as it's always been done.
Doing it in a coffee shop, not so street or discreet (hey that rhymes!)
Ringing 101 is nuts, the woman is a pain but not doing anything wrong. Just being annoying.

I love looking at older street photography
I would hate for it to die out, I don't want to see selfies but proper photography
I hope it doesn't die out as it's a record of our times and history
Don't want to see this part in our history wiped out because of PC issues and the only record is pouting selfies by famous landmarks type thing, and nothing of the day to day
Depends how you go about it though..shoving a camera in a child's face for eg, never acceptable.
Discreet, long lens, faces in the crowd, fine

I don't know but the fact that you haven't said whether the photographer was male or female is interesting. My DH and my mum are both really into photography. My mum takes her camera into cafes, asks to take pictures of people 'because they look gorgeous', does lovely candid stuff. Quite often she goes back with prints for people if she knows where they'll be. DH says she gets shots he could never get because she can get away with asking as a 60 year old woman and he, as a random bloke, would be seen as creepy (he's not ). But my mum does tend to ask first, or let them know afterwards. Maybe that's the difference, I don't know.

I forgot to say, people are generally delighted when my mum takes their picture!

My daughter is a photography student and did a whole term on street photography. She loved the photos of Henri Cartier Bresson and Robert Doisneau, but hated this module. She's pretty sensitive and felt hugely uncomfortable taking pictures of unsuspecting people in the street, especially as many 'good' shots felt exploitative - eg. the harassed mother with the pushchair and trailing toddlers walking past the shop window with the massive, glossy idealised mum and baby poster. She felt terrible about how unflattering to the real woman that photo was.

Her tutor was male and had little sympathy with her discomfort. Historically the vast majority of street photographers have been male, and their success has arguably been a result of a sense of entitlement to the public sphere. In the present day, the work of Dougie Wallace is a good example of this. He gives not a shiny shite about the feelings of the people he photographs. www.dougiewallace.com/blackpool/m4im51qzlf06d9gyt69qbf0v7q1kmy She now has a different perspective on those Doisneau photographs of lone women in Paris cafes that she previously liked...

I'm a photographer too. I love street photography and candid moments. What I tend to do is snap the imposed image, ask permission, take a posed one and then let the people see it. If I'd snapped and was then declined, I'd delete the candid shot, no questions. I have business cards that I give to anyone I photograph and say that if they'd like a copy of the image to contact me.

As we don't know whether photographer was male or female, how can this be misandrist, InTheBoredroom?

inTheBoredroom - yes of course, if a woman refers to a man as creepy she is automatically referring to all men as creepy . Great sense of irony you’ve got though - ‘women who struggle to think clearly’....misogynistic perhaps?

thanks for that Absinthe..hadn't heard of Dougie Wallace..had a good look... love his work!