Early Street Photography

The incident made the newspapers. There was a group of young women enjoying time at the beach when a large wave came rapidly towards shore, crashed over them, and threw one of them to the ground. This caused the strap of her bathing suit to come off her shoulder and, as she pulled the strap back up, she heard a click, looked up, and there he was. A smiling photographer had just captured her in a ‘compromising position’. What nerve! The woman stood up, grabbed the camera, and threw it into the ocean in a fit of rage.

In what year do you think this occurred? If you were about to say twenty something……you’re way off. Nineteen something? Not even close. Try 1881! How did it get this way? At what point did people start to feel that photographers were impinging on their privacy? When did photographers start to take these types of candid photos?

Though I personally am not a ‘street photographer’ (if that’s what you can call this type of photographing), I find it quite an interesting endeavor and at one point found myself wondering about the early ethics of this photographic genre. However, there was very little material to be found regarding the subject. For the most part, the only information I was able to find was from the renowned photographic historian, the late Bill Jay. And it was fascinating.

The 1850s-1870s was the era of the wet plate collodion photographic process. During the wet plate years, the profession of photography was generally quite highly regarded, tended to provide a very good income, and activities such as the one described above would have very likely caused a photographer to be ostracized from the profession.

Things started to change with the advent of dry plate photography in the late 1870s. The transition from the wet to dry plate process was so rapid that the only thing in photographic history that even comes close to matching it (and even then falls quite short) was the transition from analogue to digital. While wet plate photography was quite a complex process, photography in the dry plate era was something that even the ‘amateur’ could easily perform. Suddenly, without so much as an Instagram account, everyone was a photographer. But that’s also when ‘photographic etiquette’ (at least as compared to the wet plate era) seemed to deteriorate. It didn’t take very long for people’s regard of photographers to do the same.

Why? What happened? Well, for the first time in history people could be easily photographed surreptitiously. While the wet plate method would have required setting up a tent to function as a darkroom, coating the glass plate with collodion just prior to the exposure, a long exposure time, and the need to develop the plate immediately following exposure, this was not the case when using dry plates. There was no need for any of that, plus the cameras became much smaller and the exposure times far shorter.

In 1884, due to the type of beach ‘antics’ described above, the New York Times featured a story entitled “The Camera Epidemic” and called photography a ‘national scourge’. Another article in the paper called amateur photographers ‘lunatics’.

As is often the case, if things can get worse they often do. With the ease of taking photos secretly, it didn’t take long for blackmail by photography and the early equivalent of paparazzi photography to materialize. An 1885 publication said, in discussing photographers, that one might “Put a brick through his camera whenever you suspect he has taken you unawares. And if there is any doubt, give the benefit of it to the brick, not to the camera”. There was a general feeling within the public realm that it was not entirely inappropriate to physically attack a photographer in order to stop him from taking surreptitious photos, particularly if it involved a man taking a photo of a woman. There were community outcries for laws to be passed preventing such secretive photos from being taken.

It bears mentioning that many photography enthusiasts weren’t just ‘lying down’ and accepting restrictions. They were often encouraged to carry some type of defensive weapon in order to avoid or defend against bystander harassment. There were even suggestions made to form local paid groups to provide protection to amateur photographers out taking pictures.

It would also be erroneous to imply that men were the only ones making photos of those that would prefer to remain unphotographed. Though there was clearly a male predominance early on, the number of women ‘street photographers’ (including those who made ‘indiscreet’ photos) also increased with time. Of course, there were also street photographers who simply wanted to document their surroundings with no interest in making candid portraits.

In 1888, a catalyst made ‘the problem’ worse by leaps and bounds. This was the year that Kodak introduced its first camera using the slogan ‘You push the button – we do the rest’. As a result, more and more people took up photography as a pastime. ‘Lunatics’, as The New York Times had put it, seemed to be all over the place!

Established in 1841, Punch was a British satire magazine.

In an attempt to provide some type of guidelines, the British magazine ‘The Amateur Photographer’ (which still exists today) suggested six rules that well behaved photographers might follow:

1) Never photograph a man in such circumstances as you yourself would not like to be photographed in.
2) Certain classes should be tabooed:
Public personages travelling incognito.
People laboring under physical deformities.
People suffering from temporary accidents.
In general, people who implicitly or explicitly express a dislike to be photographed.
3) Never use an expedient to prevent a person knowing he was being photographed, when, if he did know, he would probably resent it.
4) Never let the fact that the victim ‘didn’t know’ excuse a violation of good taste.
5) Never use a camera as a medium for ‘a thundering good practical joke’.
6) Finally, remember that though you may escape without penalty, your misdoings will be held against the brotherhood in general (which is a good rule to remember today, as it relates to any type of photography).

As it turns out, the ethics (as opposed to law) of who, and in what circumstances, people should be able to photograph others in public without first asking permission is not an issue limited to the modern era. I have often looked at some of the magnificent urban street photography of the 1940s and 1950s and wondered if permission to make portraits was requested and, if not, what the subjects’ reactions were. These are ethical issues that continue to be discussed today.

Frames is a quarterly fine art photography magazine beautifully printed in the UK. In addition, subscribing allows you to download their monthly ‘Digital Companion’ issues, read frequent articles and book reviews on their website, and access their podcast. More information can be found here. If you decide to subscribe why not use my affiliate link.

Early Street Photography

Early Street Photography

Get new posts by email: