View Full Version : Camera Phobic Silliness
ClaremontPhoto
12-01-2007, 23:08
I like to do street type photos in local bars. People are generally well soused and go along with my hobby.
Recently one bar owner has told me not to take photos in his place.
So I comply. Mostly. But slip a few in under his radar.
Last night I was taking photos just for my 'Cigarette Machines' project, and he saw me, and told me to stop 'Because people don't like it'.
What people? I was photographing his cigarette machine. Not a person in sight.
Down the other end of the bar was a group of high school kids photographing each other. I mentioned this and he told me they were allowed because they were using mobile phones not proper cameras like mine.
I'm dazed and confused.
That's rediculous. :\
I would probably try to talk to him off hours about it. Sit down and explain to him that there's no difference and that you clearly ask people before you shoot their photo.
I got hassled once in a mall for having my camera (nikon FM) around my wrist. I asked if they treated everybody with a cell phone camera or a little digital camera the same way. They said it was different because my camera was a "pro" camera. Sometimes, you just have to sit back, relax, and accept that most people are idiots.
nwcanonman
12-01-2007, 23:16
Jon,
Who can say why people do what they do? :confused:
But it is the man's private property, so I would simply not patronize his place in the future (JMHO).
There must be more inviting and accepting establishments that offer photo ops :angel:
People are stupid sometimes.
People on the streets sometimes come to me and ask me what I'll do with the pictures. I say nothing but they reply that they think they will end on the internet. I then stop, keep silent for a few seconds and then I reply "So what if they end up on the internet?" And they reply: "you will sell them"?
I then laugh, ask them why in the world they'd generate a single penny and I watch them feel ridiculous.
Why is everyone on the streets scared to appear on the net? And why do they all think they're worth big money?
ClaremontPhoto
12-02-2007, 00:01
Yes, people in bars often ask me to take a photo.
They know, because they are friends and neighbors, that I'll show up the next day and give them a print each.
I never make it explicit, but it's implied, that I'll use the photos myself later.
Did Cartier Bresson, and Koudleka, and Brassai ever get this too I wonder.
Anyway I'm still 'stealing' photos in Europa 4 when he's not looking and continuing in Planicie, and Regional, and Bolo Branco, and SoBica, and Santhiago...
amateriat
12-02-2007, 00:23
Sometimes, you just have to sit back, relax, and accept that most people are idiots. Now there's a statement dying to be appropriated as a sig. :)
On the one hand, it is his property, so he can call the shots as he wishes. On the other, I think he's being a tad overprotective, and I can't imagine, assuming he's a half-way reasonable person, that talking it over with him (over a pint, ideally) mightn't unfuffle his feahters a bit. Offer to make him a print or two that he can hang somewhere in the place (this has worked for me a couple of times). Make it known to him, diplomatically, that you're part of the scene, and not a mere interloper.
I'm toying with the idea of doing a series of photos in two of my fave watering hole/performance spaces, one here in the Slope and one in lower Manhattan (I've already done some shots there of my favorite music duo (http://nymag.com/listings/kids/flutterbox/) in one of them, so I have something of an "in" already).
Oh...medium format! I've worked with it now and again, and while I do appreciate the things it does better than 35mm (detail and tonality), I've never been able to make the leap. By this, I'm not talking some all-or-nothng nonsense, but the big thing for me is that, when I'm heading out the door with photography on my mind, I'm not at all into thinking about choosing film formats. I'm not even into thinking RF vs. SLR, one reason why I mostly gave up the latter. It's really a matter of what fits the gestalt of my vision (pointless exercise: somebody do a search and find out how many times I've used the word "gestalt" on RFf, an whether I'm the only person here to do so :rolleyes:).
Of course, if a Makina 67 fell into my lap from out of the blue, I'd certainly put more than a few rolls though it.
- Barrett
ClaremontPhoto
12-02-2007, 00:25
Perhaps I'll take the Rolleicord (Art Deco edition) into his bar and he won't even think its a 'proper' camera.
Perhaps I'll take the Rolleicord (Art Deco edition) into his bar and he won't even think its a 'proper' camera.
Whether you agree with the bar owner or not it's his property and his livelihood and so you should simply respect his wishes. If there are plenty of other bars to shoot in what's the problem?
ClaremontPhoto
12-02-2007, 01:05
Whether you agree with the bar owner or not it's his property and his livelihood and so you should simply respect his wishes. If there are plenty of other bars to shoot in what's the problem?
No there's no problem. I just went in there for a coffee and cake and he's perfectly friendly. He even gave me the morning newspaper to read first before anybody else.
It's just that I find his camera phobia a bit odd.
So I respect his wishes when he's out front, and only photograph when he wanders off backstage to make a sandwich or whatever.
Jamie123
12-02-2007, 01:13
Next time he complains just hold the camera to your ear and tell him "Can you give me a second? I have to take this call." :)
ClaremontPhoto
12-02-2007, 01:18
When we do street don't we often either do it stealthy or 'ask' with our eyes and gesture.
If somebody clearly says No with their eyes and body language I put the camera down right away.
wgerrard
12-02-2007, 06:46
Get a shot of those "high school kids" and send it to the bar's liquor licensing agency.
accept that most people are idiots
People on the streets sometimes come to me and ask me what I'll do with the pictures. .... they think they will end on the internet. .... I reply "So what if they end up on the internet?" And they reply: "you will sell them"?
I then laugh, ask them why in the world they'd generate a single penny and I watch them feel ridiculous.
Wow, you guys really know how to make friends. If they wind up on the internet, shouldn't you have releases from these people since you are really 'publishing' them? People see many sites that manipulate things and embarrass people. They do not wish to be that person. Many people are private and do not appreciate having their privacy invaded or feeling harassed. There are also a great fears of terrorism, kidnapping, pedophilia, etc. in today's society.
Anyway I'm still 'stealing' photos' and only photograph when he wanders off
If the owner requests you to stop you should or you run the risk of being banned. If you think you have a feel when people say yes on no with their eyes, why do you have such a hard time when they say it with words?
Steve
ClaremontPhoto
12-02-2007, 07:11
If you think you have a feel when people say yes on no with their eyes, why do you have such a hard time when they say it with words?
They say Yes or No for themselves to be in the photo. Bar owner says No Photography of anybody. Big difference.
good question... does the bar owner say the same thing to the hot sorrority chick sitting there packing away seabreaze's with her other hot friends when they whip out their iphone or chocolate and start taking pictures?
fair is fair
ClaremontPhoto
12-02-2007, 07:23
good question... does the bar owner say the same thing to the hot sorrority chick sitting there packing away seabreaze's with her other hot friends when they whip out their iphone or chocolate and start taking pictures?
fair is fair
Hot girls do whatever they want in there. No limits.
Middle-aged men cannot take photos of other middle-aged men. A weird hobby in itself but not as weird as some goings on.
jan normandale
12-02-2007, 07:36
Jon, since you've shot there before and now are being asked to stop I think you should ask the owner if a patron has said something to him. Some people won't confront you but will ask others to do so. Especially in a commercial / retail business setting.
Just a thought. I'd also expect him to deny it even if someone has asked him to have you stop shooting in the bar.... long / short; I'd find a new bar, he's only going to get more perverse as time marches on.
perhaps it might be worth the time to mount some 8X10's for him and give them to him to place on the wall -- say, as a christmas gift, he'll loosen up, maybe
odd note, I've never been told not to photograph in a bar -- I've worked hard to cultivate those relationships --- although I was in a little pizza joint and there were some hippie types working there and they got all stoner paranoid about me being clean cut and taking pics in there...
ClaremontPhoto
12-02-2007, 07:43
He's a fat old guy aged beyond his years and enjoys greasy food and has disgusting personal habits.
Maybe he'll be gone soon and his charming wife and daughter will assume ownership.
They say Yes or No for themselves to be in the photo. Bar owner says No Photography of anybody. Big difference.
Okay, my viewpoint maybe skewed as I used to own my own bar, but a bar is private property - you are only there because the landlord allows you to come in and while you are there you must abide by his rules - he probably thinks that some guy taking photos will put off his customers and cost him money. That's a valid point of view that you should respect - whether you agree with it or not. You certainly shouldn't 'just take photos when he's not there'. You said there are lots of bars in your locality - so go to another bar and shoot there if they don't mind - pretty straight forward.
crawdiddy
12-02-2007, 07:53
My employer has a placard at the security desk at each entrance to the facility, stating that all cameras are forbidden, including cell phone cameras.
This might have been realistic 5 years ago. But these days, there are very few cell phones without cameras, and it's absurd that people should not bring their cell phones to work. Most people use them for business as well as personal use, don't they?
The stated reason for the ban is to prevent photography of sensitive documents. This in itself is ALSO absurd. What kind of resolution/lens do you need to actually copy documents? Certainly, it can be done. But it also attracts a lot of attention, and would require a lot of time, multiple exposures, good lighting, etc. And why wouldn't a spy simply email the softcopy documents anyway? Peoply do that all the time.
I suppose the real purpose of the ban is to be able to punish someone who breaches security or confidentiality using a camera. But it does so by creating a rule which will only be enforced selectively.
To take the absurdity to yet another level, the CEO held a "town hall" type meeting recently, and while he was speaking, one of the corporate PR guys gets up and photographs the speaker (with a Barnack-vintage Leica and collapsible Elmar). This was probably done at the request of the CEO, who turns out to have a photography "hobby." The CEO just published a book of portraits of homeless people. He states that he gave them a few bucks to take their photos, and that proceeds from the book go to homeless charities. My coworkers have speculated whether the photo subjects were former employees, laid off in the very frequent Reductions In Force. So anyway, the CEO is a do-gooder in his spare time, cutthroat anti-labor capitalist during business hours, and apparently he has a high tolerance for irony.
OK, sorry about the rant. I suppose I just wanted to agree with the sentiment that some people are just idiots.
now, most bar owners are not svelte- -- it's a tough business --- most of my musicians are big fat guys who enjoy greasy foods to excess --- You need to come down here and have a dyer's burger or a neil's burger...
http://www.roadfood.com/Reviews/Overview.aspx?RefID=1251
http://www.dyerscafe.com/
When Dyer's Burgers opened their Beale Street store, the owners hired a police escort for their prized vat of grease, which made the five-mile journey in an armored car. It was an astute move -- the publicity surrounding the event was huge, and folks from all over town soon lined up, eager to purchase a bag full of doubles with cheese.
As you may have already guessed, the flavor secret is the grease. But it's not just the fries that benefit from the a dunk in the vat o' fat. The burgers are deep-fried, too: meat, bun and all. A local institution, Dyer's has been serving 'em up since 1912.
Luckily we have some places where people expect to have their photo taken. If you enter one of those places with a camera, sometimes people stand in a row waiting to pose. And then they ask on what website they'll find it.
Dyer's Burgers - awesome! Thanks for sharing memphis! :D
now.... I'm all about greasy burgers and fries... everybody in seattle has Dick's, the midwest and west coast has white castle and us southerners have Krystal's
But dyer's is something special --- the grease that they use is the original grease from when the restaraunt opened- --- it's not made for healthy people ---- they will implode from the sudden infusion of grease and such... but someone who enjoys life a bit, will feel a deep inner satisfaction in their gut.... the restaraunts around here are great, but the best ones are hidden from the general public...
ClaremontPhoto
12-02-2007, 08:22
The bar I was talking about is called 'Rei das Bifanas' (King of Bifanas). A bifana is sort of like a burger, but it's a thin pork steak in a bread roll. Fried in pork fat, the steak, and then the roll is dipped in the fat too.
Very popular with people who are drunk. Especially at 05.00 when they tumble out of the nightclubs and need somewhere to sit until the bus and taxi services start working.
The invasion of privace takes place when the shutter is tripped...you may well violate Stalking laws simply by taking my picture.
Baloney. This is your own personal paranoia, and you're fluffing it up with legalese to make it sound legitimate.
charjohncarter
12-02-2007, 08:33
I wore my 1953 Leica into the nice grocery store in my home town. The manager wanted to know if I was taking pictures for their competition. I said 'with a 1953 camera.'
Uncle Bill
12-02-2007, 08:51
Call it the rise of 21st Century paranioa. Having worked in retail in the past, I know pictures get taken all the time for promotional purpose by head office, by suppliers documenting thier displays and employees during special events.
Considering the rise of CCTV cameras in urban areas and that your internet activity can be tracked, the concept of privacy in this day and age is a quaint one with the over arching mantra of security counts.
I for one don't fear my picture being taken because I don't act like a dumb ass.
Roger Hicks
12-02-2007, 08:53
Baloney. This is your own personal paranoia, and you're fluffing it up with legalese to make it sound legitimate.
Seconded.
Also, an immense amount depends on the interpretation of 'reasonable expectation' and you could also argue about 'privacy' (I have a law degree...)
R.
All this 'right to privacy' and 'corporate spying' blather is just nonsense. It's a simple matter of control, that's it. People who increasingly feel that they lack any degree of control over their own lives, particularly in the workplace, due to IT departments reading every email, employers testing urine, etc., lash out at a visible, and, most important, solitary figure: some guy with a camera. They can't do anything about corporations reading their email and making them pee in a cup, but, dammit, this f*cker ain't takin' my picture!
And "corporate spying?" Please! There is no public space at the mall, or at WalMart. They own everything lock, stock and barrel. They tell you to put away your camera simply because they can.
It's funny that some people don 't want to be anywhere in front of a camera, but others- or maybe the same ones- do everything they can to get into the view of a TV camera on location, or scanning the crowd at a sporting event.
Ed
ChadHahn
12-02-2007, 09:48
Sites such as this and many personal sites sell advertising. Either straight out as here or Google ads on personal sites and blogs. Ads then make the site commercial.
Steve
That's not what commercial use means. You can take a picture of somebody and put it up for display in a coffee shop and even sell it but that isn't commercial use. Even though it on display in a location that is a commercial venture and you are trying to make money from it.
Now if you were to take a picture of someone wearing an iPod and use it for an ad for Apple then that's commercial use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin m
Baloney. This is your own personal paranoia, and you're fluffing it up with legalese to make it sound legitimate.
Seconded.
Also, an immense amount depends on the interpretation of 'reasonable expectation' and you could also argue about 'privacy' (I have a law degree...)
The NY State anti stalking law of 1999 prohibits contact even if there is no physical threat just "elements of the crime of stalking if such behaviors cause material harm to a person’s mental or emotional health" is enough.
Reasonable expectation? I am not a public figure, I do not make my living being in the public eye therefore it is reasonable to expect to be left alone.
Steve
On the street I expect to be left alone and not be harassed by someone taking my picture. I do go out of my way to avoid cameras. I have a reasonable expectation of privacy while going about my daily business. The invasion of privace takes place when the shutter is tripped, publication is not necessary.
I like to travel and I like to take pictures, especialy in NY it was nearly impossible to take a picture of anything without people in front of it. Buildings too big and lens to narrow :-)
So what's the solution? Banning photography?
And another question, how much privacy do you expect in public places?
ClaremontPhoto
12-02-2007, 10:19
If you're on the street you can be photographed.
Britney, Madonna, and Princess Bea. They are all photographed but not stalked necessarily.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin m
Baloney. This is your own personal paranoia, and you're fluffing it up with legalese to make it sound legitimate.
The NY State anti stalking law of 1999 prohibits contact even if there is no physical threat just "elements of the crime of stalking if such behaviors cause material harm to a person’s mental or emotional health" is enough.
Reasonable expectation? I am not a public figure, I do not make my living being in the public eye therefore it is reasonable to expect to be left alone.
Steve
Taking a picture of a random stranger is not stalking. The "elements of the crime of stalking" is what you are leaving out. The crime of stalking in New York State may not require a physical threat against the victim. It does, however, require the actual stalking of the victim.
Legally, in the United States, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy from cameras when in public places, except in certain exceptional places, like bathrooms or locker rooms. Being a public figure has nothing to do with it.
Roger Hicks
12-02-2007, 11:19
Quote:
[SIZE=2]The NY State anti stalking law of 1999 prohibits contact even if there is no physical threat just "elements of the crime of stalking if such behaviors cause material harm to a person’s mental or emotional health" is enough
Dear Steve,
This still brings us back to the 'reasonable man' test. If the person who is complaining that his mental health has been harmed has staring eyes and wears a tinfoil helmet to ward off the Martian brain-control waves, the court might reasonably conclude that his mental health couldn't be materially harmed a lot more by having his picture taken.
If on the other hand he's a normal person -- such as I take you to be -- then it would be hard for him to prove 'material harm' merely from being photographed.
Is the trial in such cases normally by jury or in front of a judge sitting alone?
Cheers,
Roger
ClaremontPhoto
12-02-2007, 11:24
I was taking a photo in a bar. There was a man with a girl young enough to be his daughter. He asked me not to include them in the photo as he knew my photos often end up in the newspaper. And his wife would not like it.
Spider67
12-02-2007, 12:05
Hmm if the owner asks in a civil way why not comply to his wishes or why not giving him a print and have a converstion with him?
On the other hand....
About one year ago I saw a group of men some playing cards and some watching the game....it was a perfect composition on the ground glass of my Yash'mat 124....but I went to the group and asked politely. I had mixed reactions in no time: a categoric no then a friendly guy asking for my reasons and others chatting.
They were immigrants from former Yugolsavia.The friendy guy struck me as he told me that they feard I might "smuggle" the pics. I have a similar background and I recognized that he was possessed of the same fear of everything as my parents were in Austria the home of Angst, Viennese Walts and Depression. For a short moment it looked as if I could make the pic....but then I noticed the talk they were having among themselves thinking that I couldn't understand them.....
Bad moment as it ended my streak of magic when I was a warde with a "yes" everytime I asked.
I am pretty sure had I asked the same men somewhere in Serbia, in Montenegro or in Bosnia they would have allowed it.
So my contribution... and yes I've made more "grabshots" than I had before since that moment...
robert blu
12-02-2007, 13:56
In Italy the problem arose with the mob phones which made easy to put photo in internet and too many people (probably) have been found in a place different than the one where they were supposed to be, which could have been quite embarassing (in a bar with a girl instead of in office making extra work...). Now the law forbid to publish any photo without an explicit permission of people in it. And if you are taken it can be very expensive. But you are allowed to take pic tures in public places (if no m inor in it). Strange times, there are video cameras everywhere, in front of post offices, at petrol station, supermarket, bank...
If on the other hand he's a normal person -- such as I take you to be -- then it would be hard for him to prove 'material harm' merely from being photographed.
Some cultures (American Indian, Aborigines, and Mayan descendants) or religions (Amish, Mennonite, Hasidim and Orthodox Jews) do not allow photographs takes for various reasons. I guess the main one for culture is that the photograph can trap the soul or take a piece of it (same for mirrors). For Jews it is against the Second Commandment - graven images. Even if you do not agree with their beliefs, they do believe they can be 'harmed' by the taking of a photo. There are also immigrants who sometimes have good reasons not to have their picture taken - not being 'legal' or ingrained fear from former countries.
Now this applies to a minor percent of people, I would guess. If I go out of my way to not be photographed it would be reasonable to respect my wishes. And you probably will not know this unless you ask first.
Steve
sepiareverb
12-02-2007, 14:50
If one wishes not to be photographed than one should stay home. I live in the middle of nowhere here, I am caught on security cameras every day- every gas station, every supermarket has them. How does NY's stalking law apply to this? I'm much more bothered by having my every transaction at the local gas station recorded than I am about the rare chance I'd end up in a photograph made on the street.
The right to photograph in public places here in the US must be protected- otherwise we all will be reduced to photographing in our own homes ONLY. Think about that- if photography in a public place is no longer allowed where will we work?
. If I go out of my way to not be photographed it would be reasonable to respect my wishes. And you probably will not know this unless you ask first
Imagine I'm a tourist taking a photograph in your hometown, how do I know that it is you walking in front of the monument I try do get a picture from?
sepiareverb
12-02-2007, 15:46
Granted, a bar is not a public place, and when asked by the owner of a place not to make photographs when inside that place I don't. But when in a public place whatever one sees should be considered fair game. There are documented limits to this- military installation fences for example are off limits even if not publicly documented as such, as are apparently federal buildings if one is of middle eastern descent.
As to religious reasons for not being photographed- our security concious society here in the US surely doesn't allow that to stand in the way of recording every coming and going from the minimart.
Imagine I'm a tourist taking a photograph in your hometown, how do I know that it is you walking in front of the monument I try do get a picture from?
Figure it is me and ask first.
I for one don't fear my picture being taken because I don't act like a dumb ass.
That's a good start... and one I agree with!
But sometimes I worry about getting to the Pearly Gates only to find that my soul has been taken by some "street photographer" I don't even know.
Figure it is me and ask first.
Ah no, could be too many people to ask.
I think I leave my camera at home, less hassle, saves film too.
sepiareverb
12-02-2007, 18:13
...But sometimes I worry about getting to the Pearly Gates only to find that my soul has been taken by some "street photographer" I don't even know.
Figure it is me and ask first.
I'm curious how you handle security cameras, they surely don't ask first. ATM machines, every bank, every gas station, likely every subway platform nowadays.
Figure it is me and ask first.
No. I'll just take the pic, thanks.
wgerrard
12-02-2007, 20:16
Some cultures (American Indian, Aborigines, and Mayan descendants) or religions (Amish, Mennonite, Hasidim and Orthodox Jews) do not allow photographs...
Can't speak for the other groups, but I have/had distant Mennonite relatives and on the few occasions I saw them they did not seem averse to being photographed.
I think we have a legitimate right to take pictures of anyone or anything that's out in public. I also think that we also have a legitimate obligation to consider the request, or demand, of anyone not to be photographed.
But, if someone in public is photographed against their expressed wishes, I'm not certain they can make a case that their privacy was invaded based solely on that expressed wish. That is, I don't believe I have a legal obligation to heed your request to avoid photographing you if you are in a public place. If looking at someone in public is not an invasion of privacy, why would photographing them be considered so?
As for stalking or harassing, well, they are different. I can stalk you for days with or without a camera in my hand. Jumping in front of you on a sidewalk and taking your picture, however, can hardly be considered stalking. Is it harassment? I don't know. If I'm 5 feet away from you, is it harassment? How about 6 feet, or 4? How long do I need to stand there?
charjohncarter
12-02-2007, 21:16
Jon Claremont, seems like a reasonable request.
I take a lot of photos in the few bars / coffee shops I usually go. In the beginning, I asked for permission and was allowed to do so, especially when there was some life event or so. Usually I print some of the better photos and give these as a present to the owner or staff. If I now come to these places without any camera they ask me what happened ...
Taking somebody's photo without explicit permission is problematic in Japan. If I take photos of friends in bars or public places, usually no problem but taking a photo of a stranger could be considered as stalking, be it in a public place (street) or bar.
Yea, private property is private property; the OP needs to build rapport with the owner of the bar, or move on. Simple.
As for the issue of surveillance in public (and private) spaces, sometimes we take for granted that this is happening, as it's (usually) a passive activity that doesn't seem to directly affect us. If we let this bother us, as it seems to bother Steve, we will end up staying at home all the time with tinfoil over our heads. Actually, tinfoil doesn't help; you've got to use gold-plated copper foil, with an all-body faraday shield grounded to your water pipes.
I have found an interesting phenomenon in the observation that, as surveillance has become ubiquitous in our culture, and more often adopted by the state as a means of official control, there seems to be a desire to control all unofficial uses of surveillance. Thus, there are more and more corporate and government security cameras in use, while simultaneously the act of making images in public by private individuals is deemed an act of terrorism, or stalking. Pick you metaphor of the week.
Here's an experiment we should all participate in: we could all take a sketch pad to a large, publically accessed private property, like a Mall, and try impromptu sketching of people in their daily activities. Also be sure, while heading home afterwards, to stop by a local government or military facility and do the same, while standing on the public sidewalk outside said property. Then see if the same reaction is achieved as one would expect if using a 'pro-looking' camera. If someone then tries to take your sketch pad away, just tell them you have a photographic memory, and are going home to make more sketches.
Ultimate we have to come to the place of understanding that 'terrorism' is a state of mind, and nothing more. It is, at its extreme, paranoia. Unfortunately, we live in an age when this paranoia, this psychosis, is now official policy.
~Joe
foto_fool
12-03-2007, 09:11
I think the request was reasonable. There is a fundamental difference between a group of people in a bar shooting cell phone pics of each other, and a guy in a bar taking pictures of strangers.
That said, a bar is a semi-public place and patrons do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. However I for one have been thankful in bars on occasion for the owner's and my fellow patrons', ummm.... discretion. The bar is private property and it is the owner's right and responsibility to maintain a comfort zone for all patrons.
IMO the attitude expressed by sjw617 is just wrong. If I am in a public place working with my camera, John Q. has no more right to tell, or ask, me to stop than the jumped-up security guard who assaulted RFF member colyn in Ft. Worth several weeks ago.
If JQP asks nicely I would consider not photographing him, and being a reasonable guy I might - or not.
I saw a shot recently - maybe here - of a group of observent Hassidic men on a street corner. One had turned his back to the camera, one had stepped behind a pole and the third had removed his hat to put it between his face and the camera. It was a great shot IMO, and spoke volumes to the question of how to act if one does not want ones picture taken in public.
- John
Al Patterson
12-03-2007, 09:48
Yea, private property is private property; the OP needs to build rapport with the owner of the bar, or move on. Simple.
<snip>
Here's an experiment we should all participate in: we could all take a sketch pad to a large, publically accessed private property, like a Mall, and try impromptu sketching of people in their daily activities. Also be sure, while heading home afterwards, to stop by a local government or military facility and do the same, while standing on the public sidewalk outside said property. Then see if the same reaction is achieved as one would expect if using a 'pro-looking' camera. If someone then tries to take your sketch pad away, just tell them you have a photographic memory, and are going home to make more sketches.
Ultimate we have to come to the place of understanding that 'terrorism' is a state of mind, and nothing more. It is, at its extreme, paranoia. Unfortunately, we live in an age when this paranoia, this psychosis, is now official policy.
~Joe
I'd join you in your experiment as long as you have the number of a good lawyer and bail bondsman with you when we try it....
I do wonder what kind of terrorist draws stick figure people though. ;)
I'm thinking we go up to Santa Fe and sketch the state office buildings. I usually pass though Santa Fe on my way to Chama anyway, although I'd probably schedule this event for AFTER my trip to Chama.
Gabriel M.A.
12-03-2007, 10:23
What do they do with people who have photographic memory? Do they confiscate their memory? To be really sure, they should put a big black cloth on the buildings.
Also, I've been asked in some restaurants not to take photos. I've learned to ask the owner or servers first if there are a lot of people. It all depends on the situation. Otherwise, I just snap away if I'm comfortable enough.
What do they do with people who have photographic memory? Do they confiscate their memory?
Ummm, I don't remember.
What do they do with people who have photographic memory? Do they confiscate their memory?
Ummm, I don't remember. And what's worse, I now stutter.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.