Snapshots of Tokyo’s vivid street life

You'll want to look into any of the street documentary greats:

  * Garry Winogrand - NYC/LA/Texas, considered by many to be the best.
  * Lee Friedlander - From Aberdeen, WA, but really shot everywhere.
  * Anthony Hernandez - Modern, still working, has moved on to larger formats of environments.
  * Joel Meyerowitz - Modern, still working, has moved on to still lifes in Tuscany, but still teaches. Pioneered a lot of early color street work.
  * Robert Frank - Released The Americans the book that really started it all.
  * Henri Cartier-Bresson - Surrealist, dream-like work that's hard to imitate.
  * Walker Evans - Worked for the Farm Services Bureau and took lots of important documentary work early in America's history.
  * Elliott Erwitt - NYC with a touch of humor.
  * Helen Levitt - NYC bad neighborhoods and life.
  * Brassai - Parisian nightlife.
  * Richard Kalvar - Still working, great work of Italy in the 70s though.
  * Leitizia Battaglia - Italian mafia in Sicily.
  * Gianni Berengo Gardin - Considered the Italian Henri Cartier-Bresson.
  * Josef Koudelka - Czech, one of the greatest documentary workers to have ever lived. Still working today and making incredible work. His book Exiles is worth everyone owning.
  * William Eggleston - Basically responsible for color photography being accepted in fine art circles.

For some contemporaries still actively shooting street I'd check out:

  * Andre Wagner https://www.instagram.com/photodre/
  * Martin Parr https://www.instagram.com/martinparrstudio/
  * Daniel Arnold https://www.instagram.com/arnold_daniel/
  * Aaron Berger https://www.instagram.com/aaronbergerfoto/
  * Alex Webb https://www.instagram.com/webb_norriswebb/
  * Matt Stuart https://www.instagram.com/mattu1/

I have dozens and dozens more if you run through those and are still interested. Street documentary work is my absolute favorite genre of photography -- got hooked after my first darkroom class at 15 -- and try to consume as much work as I can.

And no Internet post would be proper without some self promotion: https://www.instagram.com/piffeyfoto/

Edit: Ooof, formatting troubles. Never do lists on HN. Will clean up as soon as I find a README.

Edit2: Can you really not do links in a formatted list?

Edit3: Probably easiest to link to here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_street_photographers) for further reference too. I realized I left so many greats and their contemporaries out just rattling off what was in my head. Nikos Economopolous, Mary Ellen Mark, Danny Lyon, Levi Levinstein and Vivian Meier -- hope they'll forgive me.

My definition of creepshot is a photo taken of someone without their knowledge. The photographer may have gone back to get consent from the people photographed after the fact, but I found no mention of it in the article. The only mention of the photographs being taken secretly is in the title, and that's where I'm drawing my conclusions from.

I have lived in Japan. While I was there, there was a law that cellphones had to make a loud shutter sound whenever a picture was taken. Hence, those of you claiming that the concept of creepshots is a western puritanical idea are dead wrong.

I believe that the photographer chose to photograph women and children because, if they were to become upset with her for taking them, there is less risk of physical harm or intimidation.

It's possible that she was just more interested in capturing the lives of women and children for whatever reason. But, to answer your question (finally), the reason I feel this way about this subject is because I am a woman and I hate people taking my picture without my knowledge. I have hated it my whole life. I have the experience of being both the powerless child and the unintimidating woman.

Imagining someone taking a photo of me without my knowledge or consent, and then publishing it and gaining fame or fortune from it is extremely upsetting.

I hope this has helped you understand my perspective.

Hi!

I implied that the author was the photographer when I asked why she chose to creepshot mostly women and children.

Additionally, the implication in my comment was that if she had done the same thing to a man, it would also be a creepshot.

My definition of creepshot is a photo taken of someone without their knowledge. You, charitably, call them candid photos.

From the Wikipedia article on candid photos:

"Thus, the candid character of a photo is unrelated to the subject's knowledge about or consent to the fact that photos are being taken, and unrelated to the subject's permission for further usage and distribution. The crucial factor is the actual absence of posing. However, if the subject is absolutely unaware of being photographed and does not even expect it, then such photography is secret photography, which is a special case of candid photography."

So while you are technically right to call them that, I think the fact that they are the specific subset of candid photography known as secret photography is relevant.

>Speak for yourself. There isn't a single image of me anywhere on the internet.

I speak of the general population. I don't understand why people who want to contest general statements with personal counter-examples.

Do they feel that a statement like "we publicly exhibit more and more of our bodies and lives every day on several platforms" means "ABSOLUTELY EVERY ONE OF US WITH NO EXCEPTIONS DOES THAT", and in all caps at that?

>Am I not entitled to keep it that way?

No. There are no special laws and protections about photography of people in public for example. Or against your friends posting a photo that happens to have you in it on the internet.

So at best you are entitled to not upload it yourself.