>>3496294Yes, people often act differently when they're aware of being filmed etc., but my friends know I have a camera with me basically all the time and so they often don't really change their behavior. If my camera prevents them from doing bad things, then good on them actually, but then again some of my friends don't really care. It varies from person to person, and often I don't take a picture when I see them tense up a lot or alter their position for the camera. For instance, in the key photo my friend was not just altering his expression, but he was playing with it - after I had taken the photo. At the beginning it was just a natural smile and he found it funny how I was taking the photo. That's something I'm totally cool with because it's totally real and uncontrived - it was a good time. As for my friend tripping: I've been there, I know what it's like to trip. It's quite possible that even if I hadn't been there, he would have been doing this. He was enjoying the moment.
If people were uncomfortable with my camera, then that would change everything. You'd get super awkward photos and portraits. You weren't there, so how can you say how much they were acting for my camera in every shot?
I'm not going to take up more candid photography under the pretense that it's more truthful, because photography is quite rooted in subjectivity; secrecy would only change its flavor, and in my opinion secrecy a bad habit for photographers and people in general. It would make people uncomfortable to see me with my camera, because "why do you want to take my picture and why don't you want me to know?". Besides that, you have the challenge of hiding an SLR, and so your photo opportunities are limited. I'm not against candid photos (pic related, Chicago) - but I'm not interested in limiting myself to it. I'm more interested in what happens when my subject is a natural participant. Check out Mark Steinmetz.
