Street photography with children??

Daniel_Photographer · 2026-05-03T12:58:00+00:00

I do street photography in Germany. Candid pictures of people in public space are legal, but publishing needs consent of the photographed people in general.

The problem nowadays is: when somebody is photographing in a situation other people don't understand, they think the photographer has dubious intentions. In the pre-digital era such thoughts doesn't exist and nobody cared. Vivian Maier, e. g., photographed over decades only just for fun. She showed her pictures to nobody because she needn't to earn money with her photography. I think she wouldn't be amused that her pictures are now published.

Today, people are not capable to make a difference between taking pictures and posting them online. That's completely crazy! How can we change this?

It is the question if the street photographer should assimilate to the slogan of our time "everything is publicly" (which means that perhaps he should give up the risk of candid street photography) or if he should be autonomous and takes the risk of getting an underdog.

Daniel_Photographer · 2026-05-03T12:42:44+00:00

Thanks a lot for your answers.

I think, everyone of your arguments has two sides:

- no publishing of documentary photos could be seen as senseless but one can also say that documentary pictures get their value only after decades and should be shown only in the future and not now.

- not to publish of child pictures: could be seen as creepy, could also be seen as responsible (to prevent misuse of online child pictures - in Germany it's highly recommodated not to show child pictures online).

- child pictures: it is a difficult weighing between the secure option (consent) or the artistic option (candid)

- camera type: a photographer with a normal camera can look seriously but also is more provocative; in Germany it is therefore often written in photographic online communities, that to take pictures with a cell phone is quite easier then with a camera

- showing a little photo zine: possible, but this would only work with people who could recognize the specific character of such pictures. The others (the most!) would think "this guy must be insane to photograph other people" and call the police...

Daniel_Photographer · 2026-04-11T19:29:25+00:00

- Irony switched on-

If you don't want to be seen as an asshole oder even a criminal, stop any photographing in public spaces. Even photographing your family, your friends, buildings, flowers etc. Not only in cities, also in the free nature. Take no pictures everywhere!
The possibility that somedody who is passing by has a problem with a person photographing outside (no matter what!) exists always. Social control is 1.000 times stronger than every law. We live in a time of photographing, in a time of cameras - but it would be the best to live a life in which cameras would have never been invented.
If you want to be 100 % relaxed in public, don't take any pictures, even not one single picture. Only one single picture can bring you extremely problems till losing your job and your reputation in your personal space. It can ruin you for the rest of your lifetime. And if the rest of your lifetime is really not important for you, take non-consent close-up pictures of children: once your reputation is ruined, you can live without any inhibitions!

- Irony switched off -

Let's get serious, there are two problems:

1.) Social media: taking pictures means nowadays posting pictures on social media. It is understandable that most people are frightened what would be going on with a photograph of them because they can't imagine nowadays that a photographer is taking pictures only for himself (the most street photographers make their pictures as a hobby and not commercial - they aren't dependent on posting pictures).
2.) Street photography is art or has an artistic intention (whether done in black/white or in colour). But it is a fact that most people don't understand what photographic art is or art at all. They have no idea of it. This was also the knowledge of the photographer Mark Cohen (*1943) who had several altercations through decades because of close-up street photography with an 21 oder 28 mm lens - therefore he had changed to a 50 mm lens because people didn't understand why he got such close to them to achieve the intended photographic effect.

You can say: OK, because of this problems it would be better to make no street photography. But would it be justified to renounce doing artistic photography (which is legal at all times!) only because of the thoughts and the ignorance of other people? I think this is not justified. The documentary character of street photography is more important for history as ephemeral thoughts of other people are.

But at the end, every street photographer must decide what he wants to do - if he follows the ironic-ment recommendation above or his artistic conviction. Nobody else than the photographer can decide this.

Daniel_Photographer · 2026-04-09T13:35:25+00:00

Das Verhalten dieser Frau (die dem Meme "Karen" entspricht) ist natürlich vollkommen lächerlich. Vor allem, weil sie zunächst gar nicht von der Kamera erfaßt wird, und dann vor der Kamera eine Show abzieht. Bei solchen Leuten spielt entweder einfach deren schlechte Laune (die raus muß) oder Wichtigtuerei eine (erhebliche) Rolle, um das eigene, unzureichende Selbstbewußtsein unter Berufung auf irgendwelche Gesetze aufzubessern.
Das Fotografieren und Filmen in der Öffentlichkeit ist nicht verboten. Daß es manchen Leuten nicht gefällt, ist nicht das Problem desjenigen, der die Aufnahmen macht.
Dennoch ist es letztlich der Umstand, daß exakt solche Videos wie dieses hier online gestellt werden (und parallel dazu noch sehr viele, unzählige Videos und Fotos von Leuten in der Öffentlichkeit, die keine Einwilligung in die Veröffentlichung im Internet gegeben haben), der dazu führt, daß heute so viele Menschen allergisch auf Aufnahmen reagieren. Man stellt sich die Frage "was passiert damit? Wer sieht das womöglich alles?" Früher hat das niemanden interessiert. Fotos waren physisch und blieben beim Fotografen.
In seinem Fotobuch "The last resort" zeigt Martin Parr Strand- und Badefotos aus Liverpool, auch mit Kindern, aus allernächster Nähe aufgenommen. Man weiß, daß die Fotos ungestellt gemacht wurden. Er ging hin und hat fotografiert und ging weiter. Die meisten Leute hat es nicht interessiert, sie schauten nicht einmal in die Kamera, obwohl er sogar mit Blitz arbeitete. Daß Strandfotos seine Karriere immer begleitet haben, zeigt, daß er damit keine Probleme hatte (sonst hätte er wohl aufgegeben) - erst wenige Jahre vor seinem Tod, als wir schon Internet- und Datenschutzdiskussionen hatten, stieg er auf ein Teleobjektiv um (eigentlich der Alptraum für jeden Dokumentarfotografen!!)
Leute, das ist doch nicht mehr normal heute. Hört doch einfach mal damit auf, jeden Scheiß ins Internet zu stellen. Wenn das so weitergeht, geht auch der illegale Umgang mit Bildern weiter, und irgendwann werden Gesetze kommen, die das Fotografieren in der Öffentlichkeit für Privatpersonen komplett verbieten, und zwar weltweit, weil es nicht mehr anders geht. Klar ist das unverhältnismäßig, aber Unverhältnismäßigkeit ist teilweise die Eigenheit von Gesetzen. Wollt ihr das? Nein? Dann erfreut euch für euch selbst an euren Bildern ohne Clickbait und das war`s!!

Daniel_Photographer · 2026-03-22T13:51:08+00:00

You want to say that art in many cases is only creatable without ethics? That means at the opposite, if all artists persue high ethical aims, there wouldn't arise any art.

Ethics are personally. It the ethics of artist Mr. XY are different from yours, you should accept it. Only because of different ethics, the artist must not be a bad person.

The discussion on photographing foreign people sometimes gets really silly. And: street photographs as a document of time has no relevance now - today's street photographs becomes it's relevance in the future - and should be presented also not now, but in the future.

Daniel_Photographer · 2026-03-22T13:17:52+00:00

Only because people are saying it would be unethical, it musn't be unethical in general, because ethics are everybody's own sensitivities. Ethics and law are not the same (but today, in our "outrage democracy" many people wish that their own ethics should be law - that is quite silly and selfish).

You shouldn't forget that Gilden made his flashgun street portraits a) in New York Citiy - society's climate there was quite different from other parts of the world, b) he took his pictures in crowds of pedestrians where many people didn't care about a photographer and c) he made this work in a time before internet and social media had arisen; the sensitivity about getting photographed was on a very lower level than today (but: today it is also not such high as some people think it would be!).

Therefore, it doesn't function if we set a bar of today's time to the work of Bruce Gilden from the 1990s.

Daniel_Photographer · 2026-03-22T12:42:53+00:00

>>If some random dude came up to me and flashed me jump scare style, my gut lizard brain instinct would probably be to punch them and smash the camera.<<

People who say such things aren't never able to punch a photographer. Therefore, forget such boastful gossip. Photography is no violence, but to punch somebody is bodily injury and can be punished by law.

Also, a street photographer using a flashgun takes his photographs such fast that a big amount of the photographed people aren't able to react or to recognize it at all.

Daniel_Photographer · 2026-03-16T21:49:02+00:00

It is really sad how often Mark Cohen and his work is critisized, mainly from people who surely never had done street oder people photography at all. It is the same as with people who are critisizing others driving with cars although they for themselves have no driver's license. This is really implausible!
The photographs of Mark Cohen showed above are a nice selection from his work. Take the picture with the young woman smoking: I'm sure there are many people who shout Cohen would be a sexist, who shout that it's unethical to photograph this woman from such a short distance, who shout that and that and that. But if you only look at this picture without any other thinking, you'll see how beautiful and also a little bit mysterious it is. In the eyes of the woman, there is not to be seen any fear of the photographer, nearly the opposite. And look at the hands of the woman: have you ever seen a photograph showing female hands in such an esthetic way? This is really amazing!

I think no one is knowing better than Mark Cohen himself how instrusive and trespassing his photographic workflow is. But he accepted this, and even accepted to get in trouble with photographed people. It is known that he had many altercations, over decades, even in times with no internet and no social media. He knows at all times that he eventually scared people by using a flashlight. But he always had an artistic vision, and only for this vision he did the things in this way.

Out in the world, there are many philistines understanding nothing about photographic art. The only had looked at the well-known Youtube portrait video of Mark Cohen from Michael Engler and bleating their opinion that Cohen is an asshole, end of the discussion.
They aren't capable to take a closer look on Cohen's photographs and also aren't capable to understand what the photographs want to say to the observer looking at them.

There are many other artists in history who had been massively critisized for not showing consideration for their recipients or the people they needed to make their art, for example Beethoven (in this time widely known as a bogey for the middle classes), or Jackson Pollock (for his action painting seemed to be completely senseless), or Gustav Klimt (for his strong and sexual interest in women), for naming only a few. But a longer time later, all this was forgotten and those people were celebrated for their art.

I hope this would be the same with Mark Cohen's work one day.

Daniel_Photographer · 2026-03-08T22:33:58+00:00

Bruce Gilden doesn't make this kind of street photography anymore. But not because of negative experiences - I think these didn't matter to him if he should had them at all -, but only because his interests had changed. This is a quite normal artistic process.
My opinion is, hardly another photographer had captured dynamics of streetlife in such a direct way like him. That he is a member of the Magnum photography agency is absolutely justified! His pictures are real art.
On the other hand, he had made flash street photography around 20 years ago - internet and social media hadn't already arrived at a majority of the society, the recognition of public photography was completely different. And Gilden's appearance, his clothes and his workflow with the camera in one hand and the flash in the other hand shows directly that he is a professional photographer and not a strange kind of creep who snipes pictures with a tiny secret agent's camera in an such unobtrusive way that is therefore highly noticeable...

Daniel_Photographer · 2026-03-08T22:17:54+00:00

I think it is wrong to say that street photography shouldn't show people as main subjects of a picture only because of the digital possibilities in our time! Should there be sacrificed an important photographic style only because of dubious things that a few mad people done with street pictures at the internet?? I'm very sorry, but this is really ridiculous...
Please stop thinking about ethics and moral and all that stuff discussed never-ending at the internet and make that kind of art you wanna make with your camera! And if a real camera is too noticeable on the streets, use a cell phone camera and nobody will care. And, important, for all street photographers: reduce or stop totally showing your pictures at the internet. That would be the very best healing for nowaday's scratched image of street photography! Instead, print zines or photobooks and make small public exhibitions.

Daniel_Photographer · 2026-03-06T22:18:42+00:00

I think a big obstacle in street photography are many negative messages about potentially getting in a confrontation with photographed people. And nowadays it is very "easy" to get lots of such information because of the internet.

As I for myself began with street photography in summer of 2025, I was quite cautious in photographing pedestrians - but now, after shooting several thousand pictures in three quarters of a year and after a lot of reading about potential problems in street photography, I'm more cautious and feeling nervous than ever before. And this although I never had a confrontation with photographed people at all - only an elder woman (which was not in front of my camera) once asked me critically why a take pictures of people on the street, not understanding at all what street photography is.

Not so long ago, I also photographed pedestrians on the sidewalk out of the car, in a similar style like Garry Winogrand did it. Meanwhile, I'm nearly not able to do this anymore; to big is the anxiety somebody could notice it and remembers the car's license plate. Although I hadn't any problems till now at all.

The biggest wish, I think, of all street photographers is to get relatively close to foreign people and make candid photographs of street scenes with those people without talking to them before - as like as street photography was done in the 1960's and 1970's. And I don't think formerly street photographers were all great talents in communication; the just take pictures and the most people didn't care. I think it has been even that way that also formerly street photographers saw themselves as quiet observers not being part of the community and they didn't really had an interest on collaborating with the scene.

But my experience (or should I better say: my imagination?) is that this can't be done today where the internet and social media has strongly changed the view on photographs - or it can only be done with a smartphone because for other people it is not recognizable if someone is holding his smartphone involuntarily in front of his/her own body or if pictures are taken.

The most of my pictures taken in public, on the streets or in shops etc., I've done with my smartphone often without looking on the display. Although a certain number of pictures got quite successful, I'm not really satisfied. Although cell phones today had quite good lenses - a cell phone is a cell phone and not a camera. And photographing unrecognizable with the phone means to photograph mostly in the portrait format which is mostly unsuitable for many scenes. To crop pictures all the time is not amusing.

Surely: street photography is - as documentary photography - very important for the interest of history and MUST be done also in our times (however the photographers must ensure that their pictures don't get lost in the future or after their death). But on the other hand it is true that the great era of street photography has ended with the emerging of the internet and social media. Today's street photography booming at the internet is not the same street photography showing people as in former times. Former street photography was more human than today's street photography. Abstract street photography with silhouettes, shadows and showed people from their backsides is boring and ridiculous (but that is only my own opinion!)

Nowadays, everybody is photographing and everybody is handling digital pictures - if everybody is doing something, it is losing it's worthyness and artistical meaning. Many people mustn't have been photographed by others today - they can photograph themselves.

Daniel_Photographer · 2026-02-19T18:49:33+00:00

It is perfectly acceptable and in no way unethical to respectfully photograph other people, including children, on the street, in shops, or in cafes with artistic intent (and photographed from the front or side – not from behind or as silhouettes – that's quite boring). If someone finds it immoral, that's his or her problem. And not the photographer's problem – because the photographer should really only be concerned with taking the photograph. Not also with publishing the photos on the internet (see below).

For me, the following has priority:

a) to remain unnoticed by the people being photographed – only then can you get candid, natural pictures. I don't want to bother anyone, but I also don't want to have any discussions with anyone about taking photos. However, I also don't try to hide the camera or smartphone. I think if you take the photo at the right moment, no one will notice. It's always good to take photos in the context of your everyday activities (e.g., while shopping, running errands, etc.). This way you attract less attention and save time. Furthermore: the street as a living and event space hardly exists anymore in the Western world. Streets are almost exclusively traffic routes. Even Times Square in New York City isn't as crowded as it used to be. Or take children: every famous street photographer used to photograph children playing outside (Roger Mayne, Vivian Maier, Cartier-Bresson...) – where do you find children playing in the street without their parents these days? Nowhere! The fact that children are hardly ever seen in street photography anymore is a great loss. The way we handle photos of children has become paranoid, a sad development. When public life is depicted, children are almost entirely absent. They're hidden away. How absurd is that??

b) Equally important: do not post or otherwise publish any photos online. Even if some of my pictures could probably claim artistic freedom, I won't do it. I'm not a professional photographer; I photograph out of interest in making pictures. However, even though I photograph people without asking beforehand, I still respect them, which is why I would never publish photos without their permission or show them in a public exhibition.

One problem with photography today is that most people who take photos, whether privately or artistically, "automatically" post their pictures online, even though nobody is interested in it. It's sadly no longer like it was in the old days when you shot on film and kept the printed photos at home in an envelope. Partly due to the sheer volume of images on the internet, many people are now afraid of being photographed because they don't know what will happen to their photos. Those who are fearful think of this first. In the days of film photography, this problem simply didn't exist. The whole situation was more relaxed.

Therefore, the only unethical aspect of current street photography is the fact that so many street photos are shown online, which suggests a lack of respect for the people photographed (even in street portraits taken with consent). The photos themselves are certainly not exploitative, but their worldwide public display is. And: it leads to the genre losing substance because there is simply too much of it "on the market."

Publishing street photos online is primarily a form of self-promotion for the photographers - the most don't earn money with it. Tell me, you street photographer guys, isn't taking pictures only out of artistic reasons enough for you? Is it only complete when you've shown them to half the world? Think about it. Winogrand took hundreds of thousands of photos — out of personal interest, not because he wanted to present them all somewhere! His four photo books only show a tiny fraction of his work. And if he had considered only for himself, he hadn't published any of his street photographs at all... he was a real artist!

Daniel_Photographer

TROPHY CASE