>>3328257So you can say that
>>3326893 is a creep shot with your only explanation of why it's a creep shot being 'because it's obvious.' But I can't call it street photography even though I clearly explained my reasoning that the candid nature of this photo is reminiscent to the candid nature of most street photography? What if a fat greasy fuck told you he spent all day taking pictures of cute little girls and you suspect he might a pedophile and is going to masturbate to said picture laters. Would this photo be a creepshot or street photography? What if instead of a fat greasy fuck, that exact same photo was taken by a world renowned female street photographer. Does that exact same creepshot magically turn into a street photo then?
