"I'm a Photographer, not a.................."

In the UK at the moment there is a groundswell of reaction against new legislation and the way that it is being enacted and policed; at times it's considered to be over-vigilant on photographers. There are a number of anecdotal examples of regular members of the public who are innocently photographing buildings only to be approached by the police, on the premise that they may be a "terrorist" or someone with dubious intentions. After all why would you be taking that particular picture......? Which brings me to the broader philosophical question of the reasons, justifications and motivations for taking pictures.


I am a totally amateur photographer, and I don't sell my pictures and a perusal of my portfolio on my Flickr page will give an indication of the range of situations that I prefer to capture. I have been approached on a number of occasions as to what I am doing and why I am doing it, and when I confirm that no money is involved, and bearing in mind I do have a good quality camera ( Canon 50D) and an expensive lens ( Canon L series), then I am met with a range of emotions from consternation, through to suspicion.


So why do we take photo's - there are some simple reasons -snapping pictures on holiday, of the kids, family, social events etc, so armed with a "point and press" then the motivations are clear - simply capturing the moment with no complication. At the other end of the spectrum, a professional photographer who is being paid to take photographs of whatever description is also very clear, and quite often will come with a "Press Pass". This card becomes most important when trying to get access to restricted areas - the card signifies and explains one's raison d'etre. There is no question. It gives credibility and legitimacy, the purpose is understood.


In my case I do not fit into either of these camps. My preferred subject for photography is political events - marches, demonstrations which in a number of cases have involved violence between the group involved and the Police. So if I'm prepared to put myself in this position, why am I doing it? What is the ultimate aim? Why am I treated with suspicion? In some cases if I had a straighforward camera then I would be considered to be part of the general "snapping" public. - a nuisance perhaps, but at least I would be perceived not to have an agenda.


My camera equipment has worked in my favour on many occasions where the authorities assume that I am part of the Press, and therefore access is allowed, and for a short while the implied legitimacy is bestowed upon me. This can become something of a disadvantage when in some of the more difficult situations, where the crowd become rather camera shy - so suddenly the Press Photographer becomes a "force for evil" , the piercing "eye of the world" with a forensic memory for images. A weapon so powerful that it is to be feared and represents a threat against the criminal's freedom. ...and now the subject of potential violence both to man and equipment. Now in the eye of the perpetrator, the photographer has indeed become the terrorist - terrorising the criminal's right to proceed without being "seen".


....so when all is reflected upon, at least the guy being paid to be the "photographic terrorist" is recognised, and understood - for me, I'm neither one thing, nor the other, its almost more suspicious and insidious, an implied higher, devious cause, a hidden agenda that people can't quite work out, that casts one into a curious twilight world.