Research Question

Wonder if you could help me with a calibration question for one of my articles...if you photograph in public / on the street, and often include strangers in your pictures without specifically asking their permission, would you say things got more difficult for you after Princess Diana's death in 1997 and 9/11 in 2001? Did you get hassled more, by random people and/or anyone in some sort of official capacity? Or do you think that was more or less constant, before and after?

Thanks for any responses!

—Mike the Scrivener

Comments

[Mike plews]

Not so much after Diana but after 9/11 I hit a lot more official based grief.
Interesting, as Covid ramped up things got better.
Even had the experience (more than once) of being stopped by strangers in traffic asking "what do you know right now?". But I was in a marked news vehicle.
Locally Covid came not long after a major flash flood along the Missouri and Platte river systems and during that time I experienced a lot more acceptance as a news photographer.

[Adam Isler]

For me, subjectively, people seem slightly more sensitive and inquisitive-looking. OTOH, it’s somewhat offset by the awareness of all the phone and traffic cams that are pointed at everyone all day, every day, everywhere in the city anyway.

[Ernest Zarate]

Hmm. Of course this is strictly anecdotal and based on memory. I started doing street photography in the mid-1970s and pretty much stopped about 2005 (though now and then, it happens). Mostly in California.

I’d say the frequency of interactions with others in response to my activity has probably remained constant. Far from common, but not rare. However, the nature of the interactions has shifted. Whereas earlier interactions were more out of curiosity, later on they have seemed more suspicious or accusatory. Perhaps it has been simply a shift from asking nicely, but still suspicious, to using more frank, direct language.

My authority-based confrontations were more recent and by hired security personnel, not police officers. One told me he was going to call the cops on me. I told him to go ahead, I’d wait for the police. He gave up and walked away. I had one cop stop and talk with me one night when I was shooting, just out of curiosity (and I’m sure to make sure I wasn’t some wacko). We had a nice conversation. A couple of times, in the 70s, I had people make threatening statements and movements, but neither incident came to anything. (Thinking on it, my recollection of unpleasant encounters have mostly been in San Francisco, and I can’t recall any really unpleasant ones in the LA or San Diego areas.)

But it certainly has felt like people are a lot more wary than they used to be. More glaring looks, more moving away, turning faces away. That kind of stuff. But that’s when I’m working with my dSLR. With the iPhone it seems like no one is really bothered by, or even notices, that. Interesting, since iPhone photos can be loaded up on social media much easier and nearly instantaneously compared with my dSLR.

[Albert Smith]

Don't know about the correlation between the Princess Diana event in Paris, but for me the advent of all the social media sites devoted to posting street type shots has caused me the most grief.

First, I am not on any of them. I shoot for myself and virtually no one see my photography. However, I'm looked at with suspicion by people that see me out with a camera. I've seen people cross the street to avoid me. One man berated me in a rant thinking that I took his photo (I didn't) and while he was yelling, people with cell phones were recording his anger, which he ignored. I've been accused of surreptitiously shooting a young lady, when all I was doing was adjusting a menu item through the finder so I could read it via the dioptor correction. She refused to let me show her that her picture was not on the card and people looked at me with disdain.

Everyone is paranoid these days because they may be displayed to the world in a way that wasn't available in 1997 when Diana died.

[Marc]

No. I felt I got more suspicion with the growth of the internet and social media, where people became extremely conscious of what-was-mine-and-what-is-yours and anxious about themselves appearing online without consent. This extended to public places (eg. buildings) and their caretakers. (Location of photography: mostly Sydney, Australia)

[John Holland]

Oh, yes, I have definitely experienced a big increase in unpleasant encounters with people aggressively objecting to being included in a street photo.

Can't say much about Diana, I was taking a break from general photography at that time to help my wife raise our daughter, who was the only person objecting to my photographing her on principle.

After 9/11, the objections were more from 'official' people: security guards, cops, store owners, bus drivers. Not so much from pedestrians going about their business. That petered out everywhere but airports.

I have been taking photos in public spaces since the mid-1970s and I'd never experienced the kind of hostility, aggression and general nuttiness about photographers that I ran into starting in the 2010s when things started getting scary.

A combination of increased social media and the ubiquity of digital cameras seemed to drive some people a little crazy. I can't blame them really; who wants to be trapped in such a heartless surveillance society?

I have been chased by people who weren't even in the frame; they heard a camera go off, saw me, and demanded that I clear my memory card. Or said, angrily, "Did you just image me?" One such person refused to believe I didn't take their picture, and called the cops when I refused to submit to their demand that I erase my card on the spot. The cops arrived, and I showed one of them my pictures, proving the guy was not a subject. He thanked me, told me to be on my way, then walked up to my tormentor and said, "All gone." I found the whole episode a frightening violation, but what could I do? The guy was going to follow me home. (By the way, he took about a hundred photos of me with his phone while he was chasing and harassing me.)

One time I was in a public park taking sunset pictures with my film camera; someone who was walking their dog demanded that I show all the pictures on my 'card' to prove they weren't in the photo. He was really confused by the camera's lack of a rear LCD ;)

I've also been harassed by people (usually drunk) who wanted me to take their picture with my camera, then send them the jpegs! When I said sorry, no can do, they can get quite agitated; I have had to abandon my picture taking session.

My solution was to join a photo-walk group. There is safety in numbers. The more unstable folks seem to understand that you can't just demand to see the memory cards of twenty photographers walking down the street in a gang.

[John Krill]

For me to answer is yes and no.

Security guards were a pain but where they guarded buildings I wouldn't go near because, well, it was really boring architecture.

A few years back here in Palm Springs and Palm Desert there were security guards that claimed the sidewalk was property of the building owner and they prohibited all photography if you were on the sidewalk. So I just stepped off the sidewalk and took photos while in the street. They really got irritated with me. This happened in front of the Apple store in Palm Desert. Weird stuff.

I make an effort to look like a rank amateur. Besides tourist cloths I use a small camera with a small lens (Fujifilm X-E4 with 27mm f2.8 lens.) Even back in 90s I never had a problem except in the Latino areas of downtown L.A. Then I probably look like an immigration officer in sheep's clothing.

One of my favorites places to take candid photos is at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. There I'm completely ignored.

Probably the one location where I did have problems was in Honolulu. Don't know why. There everyone was a tourist, including me. But that was in the 70s.

[Gordon Lewis]

The few times I've been hassled while doing street photography have been by security guards. They've been a pain in the ass pre-Diana and post 9/11. With random people on the street the worst that might happen is that someone will notice me and turn away. This is based on roughly 50 years of experience. But what's normal for me may not be normal for someone else.

[Omer]

Neither event made a difference in how I was perceived as a street/candid photographer.

But I believe the widely known ease with which a digital image can be changed and shared has introduced some paranoia surrounding candid/street photography. Also, though thankfully much less prevalent is the fatuous notion that has now become instilled in academia; that street photography is by nature not only an affront but a personal attack on subjects in public, and that only by asking permission can street photography be respectfully practiced.

Thankfully the Supreme Court has upheld the freedom of speech right in street photography.

[Kyle Batson]

I didn’t start doing street photography until well after both those events, so I don’t have a frame of reference.

[Jernej]

No influence whatsoever

[Richard Petersen]

Ha! Are you trolling us Mike? It was after 9/11 I immediately felt a change. Since then, all those things you mentioned happen frequently.
Police harassment, business owner harassment and always feeling like I’m doing something wrong. In spite of it all, I’m still out on the street, albeit with a Ricoh GR3, the smallest, most discreet camera Ive found for street. Still get clocked regularly though.

[Will von Dauster]

While working as the lead staff photographer at a festival in Estes Park, Colorado, shortly after Princess Diana’s tragic accident, one of the chemically enhanced patrons called out “paparazzi” when I walked past him. I turned on him and replied, “I have only two things to say to that: one, I wear my seatbelt, and two, I don’t drive drunk.”

He said, “Good response dude.”

Will

[GKFroehlich]

Mike,
My own experience suggests that following 9/11 shooting ANYTHING out on the streets got more difficult to do without some "official" of some sort showing up and hassling me. Usually it's some overzealous rent-a-cop or security guard who was taught that people with cameras are probably terrorists. But I've also been questioned by the police a few times, and even detained by the FBI once. I will add that in the last few years, with the ubiquity of cellphones, I think I've been hassled much less.
-gkf-

[Kenneth Wajda]

I haven’t had any issues photographing in public. Before or after. http://coloradofaces.com is my street work. I’ve maybe had 4-5 people ever say anything to which I complimented them and they were fine with it. It’s more of an unfounded fear than a problem, I find. Then again, I never sneak around. I act like I'm working, which I am.

[Tom Burke]

Hmm. This is from a UK perspective, of course. For us, the security issues began significantly earlier, during the 70s and 80s, as a result of the iRA bombing campaign. Taking pictures in certain locations, especially in London - basically, anywhere near government buildings - was quite likely to result in being interviewed by police officers, possibly armed officers. In a country that had prided itself on having a (normally) unarmed police force, this was a shock.

I don't think the death of the Princess of Wales made any difference - why would it? She was killed in a traffic accident, in a different country. I can't comment generally about circumstances in the US following 9/11, but I do remember that on a visit to NYC in 2002 I had to explain very carefully to a security guard checking my camera bag before boarding the ferry to Ellis Island that my Leica M2 did not have an on/off switch.

Back to the UK. I would say, based in my limited experience of street/people photography, that the big issue here has been tied up with paedophilia, real or imputed. There have been so many horrible cases/scandals, both real (Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris) and mistaken (Operation Yewtree), and so many incidents of members of the public objecting to photographers' presence, that I think a significant degree of self-censorship has now been adopted by photographers - you think lots of times before you take a picture with children in the frame.

[David Jenkins]

Hello from Australia,

97 not so much of a problem
2001 some change but mostly officialdom claiming that I couldn't take pictures as terrorists take pictures of buildings. I used to point out that they also ate, slept and go to the toilet, but never cracked a smile.

Since covid and people's change of attitude toward photography with 'real' cameras as opposed to phones, its ok to turn up at an event and snap away for TikTok, but pull out a DSLR and you are branded as some sort of pervert.
eg its tuffer now that anytime previously.

[Chris Y.]

There was increased hostility…. I think it came more from general post-90s media saturation, or maybe an increased concern about privacy, than any specific event. In the new “celebrity culture” it seemed that everyone but you was beautiful. People suddenly did not like having cameras pointed at them and weren’t shy about saying so. Didn’t they call it “the war on photography”?
Gender also has a lot to do with it. When I saw how good Vivian Mayers work was, the first thing I thought was of course- only a woman could get that close that consistently. Mary Ellen Mark admitted it- “I can knock on any door in the world, and they’ll let me in”. When I was trying street photography I looked like a successful, privileged white male.. & there wasn’t any changing that. I often wondered how Robert Frank did it- perhaps people with cameras were so rare that his subjects thought he was a hallucination. Me, I gave it up….

[Jason elsome]

I did not notice a change until 2016. Since that disastrous administration the level of personal confrontation anywhere I have photographed in the USA has been heightened to the point of feeling unsafe thanks to the flood of guns here. I have taken to going out mostly in the early mornngs when no oneis about.

[Joe Sankey]

I did so little during covid that it's hard to say. I do think overall in the last few years I have felt less comfortable, and on at least one occasion was confronted by a security officer who told me I could not shoot in a public place. I have checked it out, and I'm convinced he was wrong in the circumstance; it was in a public place where everyone takes photos. He cited concerns about governmental property, but I could find nothing anywhere to back him up, no local laws or anything a government website. I think his badge was new. Then, it could be me, and my read is that it is mostly due to cultural/political distrust than 2011 or covid. Folks feel less open. FWIW

[Ed Berger]

Yes, but I dont attribute it to the two events you mention. I think rather that people have gotten more conscious and shy of the pervasive invasion of privacy that we are subjected to. When being photographed they seem to prefer engagement to "ambush" though permission is often refused, generally nicely in the first instance sometimes harshly in the second. Of course engagement rather destroys the candid moment, but then we all seem to be more visually aware if not educated - its the times we live in.

[Mike Ferron]

After 911 the general public was suspicious of photographers and their intentions especially around important infrastructure like bridges and public buildings. I guess we were looking for the best position for planting demolition devices or something. This was of course fueled by the news media reports claiming Arabic looking people were photographing intended targets. Kind of crazy really. Paranoid might state it better.

The only time I have ever been harassed was by a daytime club bouncer watching over young woman employed by said club playing with hoopla hoops on a public sidewalk to attract business. He saw my camera and quickly became offensive shouting hey no photographs. I just walked away not needing stress over a not very important moment overall.

[Dennis Ng]

Taken a few photos in Bath lately using my relative bad hassey 90x with nikon 14-24 f2.8 lens. Seems people do not care as long as you are not looking like you are really photographing them. Guess if you do leica or nikon it is a bit different. Waist level helped I guessed.

[Joe Holmes]

I saw no change at all during those periods.

[hans muus]

Hi Mike, good question - it definitely has become more difficult to include strangers in one’s pictures in, say, the past thirty years. But I don’t see a direct relation with the death of princess Diana and neither with 9/11. Just the digitization of photography in combination with the availability of the equally digital social media is enough to make having one’s picture taken on the street feel much more threatening than in the good old darkroom-private silver print days.

[Harold McNamara]

Say wha?

[MikeR]

Post 9/11, taking pictures of buildings attracted unwanted attention. Reasonable fears, I believe.

[Harry B Houchins]

Definitely hassled more. By a few random strangers and people living in the street. It became so frequent that I have stopped. At the age of 77 it is not worth the effort and I've moved on.

[Profligatographer]

I never ask permission.
At the same time, I work with small, unobtrusive cameras (no zooms, no large or long lenses),black tape on camera, only take single picture and then move on.
Only interference I get is from guards and other officials in locations where photography is not allowed.

[Benjamin Marks]

Mike, I think there is an "identity" issue lurking in your question. Personally, I haven't experienced any significant change over the time periods you mentioned. But then again, there are a lot of boxes I don't tick here in the US, if you know what I mean.

[Chris Kleihege]

Hi Mike,
I've thought about just this issue and I never attributed Princess Di as being a factor. I've always put the burden on the advent of digital. As we all know, while shooting we counted film frames much more carefully than we do digital images. Someone might take 1 or 2 photos and move on whereas now she/he/they just might fire away. I think someone taking a film photo said“ there is something special here, and I am willing to develop or pay to develop the film”. With digital, there is no real added cost per frame to the photographer. A subject may feel commoditized. And there is nothing special about being a commodity.
A thought regarding 9/11, in my observation, we have many more security guards now and they often act with an authority that they really don’t have. I’m interested in architecture and public space and their presence, often with a false bravado and misunderstanding as to whether they are a legal authority or private citizen, can be irritating. Really irritating.
Thanks for bringing up the topic. I look forward to reading what others add.
Chris

[Ed Hawco]

Mike this is outside of the scope of your request, so feel free to ignore. However, I think any discussion of the changing attitudes towards “public” photography cannot skip over huge role that social media plays in the zeitgeist. To put it briefly, the death of Diana and 9/11 were catalysts, but it’s the “memeification” of public discourse and private thinking that provides the momentum.

“Memethink,” as I call it, is the phenomenon by which people come to their beliefs not by observing directly and using critical thinking, but by collectively jumping on the bandwagon of memes and trends in social media. As one sees a particular idea or reference gain momentum on Twitter, Facebook, etc., it becomes much easier and more efficient to just jump on that bandwagon than it is to think about it for one’s self.

This is not a new phenomenon. What is new, however, is the speed at which this takes place, the ease at which it becomes ingrained, and the momentum that carries it. We see this with the COVID-19 pandemic and the responses to it. “Omicron is milder” gets memed into “Omicron is mild.” The lifting of pandemic restrictions gets memed into “the pandemic is over.” Some businesses’ joy over the lifting of restrictions gets memed into “lifting of restrictions is universally joyful.” All this despite copious evidence to the contrary. Don’t even get me started on recent elections.

I feel the response to public photography follows the same path. There was outrage towards paparazzi after Diana’s death, and suspicion towards public photographers (primarily brown people) after 9/11, but the whole thing about “consent” in public photography follows, I think, the broader paranoias around online tracking, combined with the very useful and needed spotlight on consent in the wake of the “me too” movement. Memethink causes those ideas and sentiments to leak into surrounding territories where perhaps they don’t really apply, such as public photography.

I’m just scratching the surface on this, but I think that “memethink” is the predominant cultural mindset of our times. It has spread way beyond its birthplace (social media) and can be seen as the main way of thinking and reporting in most popular-but-second-rate news channels, magazines, newspapers, web sites, etc. Where once our silly biases and bandwagon-jumping ideas were limited to our immediate circle of friends and family, where they could easily be ignored, they now infest and overwhelm the “hive mind” almost instantly.

[Andreas]

Princess Di is not the only cause for panic.
I was once a person the police wanted to see (via the local newspaper): I took a picture of children playing at our church door. They told their parents and they panicked... Fortunately a friend told me about the article and I was able to defuse the situation.
The "right to one's own picture" has become a major p.i.t.a. For taking group fotos at school or kindergarden you need a written agreement from all parents.
To my understanding, this has more to do with the advent of a-social media and people posting anything without thought than with Lady Di or 9/11.
The situation here in Germany may be different than in the states.

[Stan B.]

9/11 was the biggie, not so much from individuals on the street (that's been a gradual rise for the reasons above and beyond), but from security concerns all around.

I was in the financial district in NYC after 9/11 (can't remember exactly when) and was focusing on a street corner from across the street and the building's vestibule was in view. I then noticed what appeared to be the building manager talking to a security guard, and sure enough, they looked in my direction. I tried to tell myself it wasn't what I thought it was, but the security guard then emerged from the building, crossed the street and yup, proceeded to tell me that I couldn't take photos of the building.

Felt kinda sorry for the guy, he was very young and just doing as told. I respectfully tried to tell him that if I was actually in the building/on their property, I would have to comply with his request or get cheerfully removed- but that he (they) had no 'jurisdiction' whatsoever on a public street concerning a building that did not involve "national security." He wasn't hearing it, I wasn't having it, and whatever piqued my initial interest on said corner was now long gone.

Things have generally just been less congenial on the street as in every other aspect of society in. The whole celebrity/paparazzi thing (not just Princess Diana) has also worn down public tolerance of 'anonymous' photographers. You now have certain celebrities actively pushing the idea that they are the owners of photographs with their likeness.

Personally, I usually try for candid shots on the street, resorting to asking permission when there just isn't any other way. Your approach, demeanor, respect, etc play a large role, but sometimes a person's mind is already determined- sometimes in unusual ways... The last time I actually bothered taking my portfolio to a gallery for consideration in NYC was, in fact, shortly after 9/11. I walked in, and the gallery owner took one look at me and quickly retreated to the back of her gallery (the look of fear in her eyes was palpable), never to reemerge! I then realized that while I remained Hispanic in most people's eyes, I could also easily translate into an Arab terrorist.

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

In Québec, there has been a sea change with the 1998 Supreme Court Case Aubry v. Éditions Vice-Versa, a.k.a "l'affaire Duclos" based on the name of the photographer.

Basically, a street photographer (Gilbert Duclos) took a picture of a girl, he published it without her consent, she sued the publisher, and the legal story is complicated.

Practically speaking, it (re)affirmed the importance of what is called "right to one's image", i.e. you can't use my recognizable image for commercial purposes (this includes art) without my consent.

Although it's a federal judgement, the territorial scope of the judgement appears to be limited to Québec, because of the admixture of civil and common law typical to our province. But it has not been tested as such.

The result is that street photography took quite a dive after that, and even news photographers are careful not to show too many faces unless the situation is clearly newsworthy.

Gilbert's point of view can be seen in his documentary:
https://gilbert-duclos.squarespace.com/la-rue-02

Most of the available documentation on the subject is in French, but it had international echoes because this placed Québec in a unique situation.

[Andrew Kochanowski]

I didn't shoot back in Diana days,and started shooting street more or less seriously in 2002. I can tell you that there were a few officious security-types in '02 and for a year or two who would tell me I couldn't shoot a public building area. But as far as people go, there was no difference in how I was perceived, or hassled (not very much at all) until the last few years, once cell phones became ubiquitous. Then, I started getting more and more "did you take a picture of me?" questions backed by a little aggression. By the time Covid arrived, public paranoia was the highest I'd seen it in my 20 years of doing this. Of course Covid put the end to traditional street photography...

Some ethnic groups are much more likely to get aggressive than others.

[Stan B.]

Interesting to see how fellow photographers have been affected, and how they interpret responsibility. It was particularly interesting to hear how social media was so frequently called out, since I've never participated. It seems more a conglomeration of all the above rather than any one, specific cause that has led to the increased hostility towards photographers- including when leaders actively call out for their followers to "punch out" those they don't agree with, not to mention the numerous conspiracy theories that have even led people to shoot up pizza parlors in the belief that they are saving innocent children. It all adds up to a toxic brew that manifests in increased fear, decreased tolerance and far reaching acts of irrationality in unexpected situations.

[JG]

I have been hassled for photographing urban and suburban street and alley scenes since I transitioned from landscape photography beginning in 2002-3.

The hassling increased when I began photographing late at night in 2008 and has increased further over the past two years due to the now ubiquitous presence of doorbell cameras.

Before doorbell cameras became widespread, I was only hassled whenever people actually saw me. Now, however, they're alerted to my presence whenever their doorbell camera is triggered and sends them a text message, something that usually occurs when they're sleeping, hence their foul moods when they confront me.

This became such a problem that I actually gave up photography for a couple of months because I really don't enjoy being hassled by irate homeowners, contrary to what many people believe!

Fortunately, the situation has improved noticeably of late, thanks to (I assume) homeowners likewise growing tired of an excessive number of false alarms and refining the area their camera covers to minimize them.

Personally, I blame Costco for this state of affairs, because I first noticed it shortly after they had a big sale and sold several pallets of Ring doorbell cameras into my neighborhood ... grrr.

[Thomas Rink]

My observations from Germany: Quite a few house owners dissent against having their houses or properties photographed, even if the picture is taken from public ground (which is perfectly legal here). In all cases I've been confronted while making pictures, the concerns issued were about not wanting to have pictures of the property published on Social Media. Mostly I can settle this by explaining what I'm doing. I also carry business cards with my website URL on them so people can have a look at my work. In very rare cases I am asked to delete the pictures, which I thereupon do.

To sum up: The ptoblem is neither the death of Princess Diana nor 9/11, but the prevalence of picture sharing on Social Media. Instagram and Facebook have an extremely bad reputation among many Germans. Another problem is that photography as popular pastime is on its way out around here, so a guy with camera on tripod stands out like a sore thumb.

Best, Thomas

[Ken Rowin]

The only time that I was harassed by a security guard was in front of the then new Federal Courthouse in Boston some time after 9/11. It’s a beautiful building which I had seen photos of in several newspapers and magazines. Walking by it, I was warned not to take any pictures and was then followed to make certain that I did not. I looked back about a block away and I saw the guard still staring at me. It was very creepy and I can say that for the first time, I felt that my freedom of action was being threatened.

[Artistwithlight]

Before the war on terror, american photographers were welcomed almost everywhere in the world with incredible graciousness. After we invaded Iraq, we were the pariah of any tourist hotspot and it was free reign to rip off americans as a matter of principle for what they did.

[David Smith]

The only time I've been hassled while shooting was 40-years ago, so pre-Diana (a persona, and event I am profoundly uninterested in), by a chav at the foot of Munjoy Hill in Portland, Maine, screaming at me about taking pictures of her kids playing in traffic (I wasn't).

[Nigel Voak]

I agree with many others that those two events did not have much of an effect. Living in Europe, I would say "privacy laws" have had a much bigger impact on peoples reaction to being photographed in public. In the UK,high visibility child sex scandals have made street photography with children in the frame a no go area. Finally the rise of social media has alerted the masses to the power of photography.

I started my photographic adventure with what is now called "street" in the early Eighties. I wandered around London snapping away and never had any problems. When I moved to Italy I carried on through the Nineties without any hassle.The rare instances when I have done "street" in the last few years have been trouble free too.

But I have become less self confident doing "street" as I have got older and grayer. The things I have read about photographers being confused with "dirty old men" if a child is present in the frame, and the other tales of being hassled have pushed me to persue other photographic interests such as architecture.

My Architectural photography has exposed another old chestnut that we photographers must face. People are convinced that anybody using serious gear is making huge sums of money photographing what is in front of the camera.

I was photographing an old building with a splendid sundial mural. A guy appeared and asked me if I was going to sell the pictures I was taking. I am told the Italian state considers anybody using a tripod as a "professionale" photographer in their monuments which got me unceremoniously got me thrown out of one place, even though it was deserted.

I would say officialdom has got worse since 9/11, but I think doing street is just a case of us getting older and more self conscious.

[John Krumm]

My dog passed a while back, and one thing I really miss is the protection I felt while walking with her and photographing. I was a dog walker who took photographs, not a creepy guy with a camera. Might have to get another, despite all the drawbacks, and the inevitable leash tugging right as you press the shutter.

[Rube]

No hassles here in Northern Spain, where I shoot street everyday. Did not get hassled in Japan where I shot steadily for 15 years previously. Of course I uses Ricohs and other discrete gear.

[Pierre Saget]

This question is probably not meant for me, but I am eager to read what people have to say. I was 5 years old when Princess Diana died and 9 years old on 9/11. I watched the towers fall on the TV in my fourth grade classroom. I first picked up a camera at 15 and only began exploring street photography in 2013 or 2014. I bristle at our post-9/11 security culture and have nothing but contempt for security theater in general. I know that things were different before but only from reading about it or seeing people move inexplicably fast through airports in the movies. I’m nearing 30 and am nonetheless too young to have *truly experienced* the changes as a loss.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

I can't divide it across the Princess Di line or even the WTC attack. But doing coverage of political demonstrations in St. Paul, and going around shooting the Words Over Windows after the riots subsequent to George Floyd's murder, amounting to many dozens of hours on the street with big cameras, I had 3 conversations with people who expressed any questions about what I was doing, and they were all pleasant ones.

[Ramón Acosta]

I was living in the US when 9-11 happened, I never had trouble being a tourist anywhere before that. But after, security guards asking why I am taking a picture of the interesting (to me) steel and glass building. In regards to people, they were less comfortable around a camera. But they don’t mind a cellphone. And so I changed from a real camera to a smartphone. I live in Russia now and I still do some street photography.
I would love to get your opinion (everyones) on my pics.
https://instagram.com/p/CazuYY-NQ1N/
In Mexico and Russia it is easier to be a street photographer. People there still think of photography as an art.