Candid photos of young women

[panda81]

I'm posting this question because I would like to hear everyone's opinions on the matter. Being RFF, I imagine candid photography is one of the genres most of you are very passionate about. I won't put in any specifics because my purpose isn't trying to reveal anything about this particular photographer, but rather asking if my photographic and artistic vision is too short-sighted.

Basically, on another forum, I found a photographer who particularly likes to take photos (or at least show on the internet) of young women. These aren't model shots, portraits, or anything like that, but just random young women he bumps into wherever he may go. Some of these places include on the street, some indoor social activity, but also at the beach. The photos aren't of all types of young women either...I'll describe them as young women who probably take care of their bodies. The street photos aren't invasive or anything (nothing like pointing down a blouse), but the beach photos obviously have young women in swimsuits, bikinis, etc. His photo website is pretty much (90-95%) comprised of these types of photos.

My gut reaction is that this is pretty darn creepy. I wouldn't appreciate my wife being photographed in that manner. If I see some guy trying to sneak shot of my wife from the back when she's wearing her swimsuit at the beach, I'd go up to him and have a word or two. I imagine a lot of people with daughters in college would not want their kids being photographed and put up on the internet like that either.

Now, I'm not asking about the legality of the situation, but rather the morality and ethics of it. Seeing as how a certain demographic of young women is his target, I feel uncomfortable with this type of guy walking around.

The point of my post is, what do you guys think of this? Is my reaction normal or too conservative? Am I possibly missing some purpose where this is part of a bigger project that makes it artistic? By the way, the photos look pretty much like snapshots to me. I can't see any artistic touch to these the candids.

I'm very interested in everyone's responses - thanks in advance for the discussion.

[back alley]

i'd say you are on the conservative side.

the guy may be creepy and if photography and/or art were his aim, he likely needs to change his style somewhat.

i hate to judge this sort of thing because i like street shooting and would hate for someone to try to censure me.

[maelswarm]

Hey Jerry, I read the thread back on the other forum too. I can see where the people attacking him are coming from -- there is an "uncomfortable" nature to the photographs. It may seem snapshot-ish, but I find a lot of stuff called contemporary art is like that, e.g. Martin Parr, Terry Richardson.

There are people who travel and take photos of poor, destitute children, or naked tribal women, or beggars and handicapped people. Where would you draw the line? It's a slippery slope once you start making judgement calls about what is appropriate and inappropriate.

I've taken photos of young girls before, and also stolen very private moments that have happened in public areas. I admit it made me feel uneasy to do it, but I've liked the moments that I've captured. One time I asked the girl to take her photo, and she asked me to ask her mom! It was okay in the end, and I love the awkwardness that I captured in her. I think as long as your intentions aren't bad, you can have a clear conscience about taking the photo. If you start worrying about what every subject would think, then it'll disable you from taking a photo of a stranger without their consent.

Here are some of my candids of young women:
She told me to ask her mom
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3273/2654176421_83c08869ef.jpg?v=0

She gave me a dirty look after I took the photos:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2218/1944707782_51070ca014_b.jpg

Completely random and candid moment
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2215/2269529257_3bc78f81b0_b.jpg

Another random moment that I captured while walking behind the group, with the camera held to my face and I was focusing as I was walking
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3097/2306460089_fd6a536027_b.jpg

[david.elliott]

edit - decided to stay out of this thread altogether.

[antiquark]

He sounds like a wierdo to me. Maybe he's unaware that people might be offended by his technique.

I'm sure he'll reconsider his hobby when an irate husband threatens to smash his camera.

[panda81]

Thanks for the replies so far, everyone. Something Joe said triggered another reason perhaps why I felt uneasy about it.

The photographer received mixed responses, and of course, he defended himself from the negative comments. However, what I started noticing was that he never defended himself by revealing any artistic intentions through these photos. His response was mostly along the lines of , "I'm within my legal right to do so." Maelswarm , please correct me if I'm wrong - I always could have accidentally missed something. (By the way, nice to see you here, T :) )

What some of you guys have said is true and does make sense to me, which is why this is a bit of a struggle for me, and I'm asking these questions on this forum.

[Pappy]

lock 'im up an' 'trow away de key

[david.elliott]

edit - decided to stay out of this thread altogether.

[mfunnell]

I'm sure he'll reconsider his hobby when an irate husband threatens to smash his camera.Because violence, theft and property destruction is a rational response to someone taking a photo of a person in a public place :confused:

...Mike

[drewbarb]

Ok. Being a straight male, I admit I like looking at women- especially "young women who probably take care of their bodies". However; yes, it's creepy, sad, and generally pretty lame when men snap surreptitious and altogether artless pictures of women merely because they find them attractive. But is this a surprise? This sort of pathetic behavior is unbearably common, and just not worth complaining about. These guys don't deserve even the negative attention we're giving them here. Please don't encourage them.

[maelswarm]

I'm surprised to see you here too! When'd you get a RF?

I think he was overly sensitive and he just used a blanket defensive statement. What's legal and what's ethical are different things, and perhaps he didn't have the sensitivity towards his subjects. However, an internet forum isn't the best place to have a witch hunt, and some of the replies were just not constructive. I felt some people overreacted as well, and there must've been a better way to address it.

[panda81]

Maelswarm, another thought..

I can clearly see and appreciate the art behind the examples you posted and all the other ones in your Flickr stream. There is a certain thoughtfulness I can see in your photos. Sure, the girls are attractive, but the purpose is not the girls themselves, but capturing what the moment they are experiencing at that moment in their lives. Perhaps it is the contemporary art, but I couldn't see that in any of other person's photos, and thus why I feel what I feel.

I think the main purpose of this post is to at least say I can appreciate good photography :)

[Pappy]

well let's see a link to this guy's site so that we can give him a fair trial before hanging him

[panda81]

I'm surprised to see you here too! When'd you get a RF?

I think he was overly sensitive and he just used a blanket defensive statement. What's legal and what's ethical are different things, and perhaps he didn't have the sensitivity towards his subjects. However, an internet forum isn't the best place to have a witch hunt, and some of the replies were just not constructive. I felt some people overreacted as well, and there must've been a better way to address it.

Received my first RF last week! Although I was lusting after one for several months. By the way, I was the person (if you didn't know) who added you as a contact on Flickr within the last week or so...figure it was easier to keep up with your stuff that way :)

Yes, I do agree with you on the many overreactions people had. It would have been very easy for people to voice their opinions with much more civility.

[antiquark]

Because violence, theft and property destruction is a rational response to someone taking a photo of a person in a public place :confused:

...Mike

Personally, if he took a picture of my wife/daughter/grandmother, I would probably just give him a funny look.

I'm just saying that there are people out there who would take great exception to someone photographing their wife.

I watched an online speech by Steve McCurry where he talked about taking a surreptitious picture of a man's wife, and the husband threatened him with a gun afterwards.

So it's not just a hypothetical scenario, it could really happen.

[rpj]

Since Panda81 links to both Fliker and his blog are invalid, I suggest that this be recognized as a troll and treated accordingly. If you want to start violent actions against photographers taking photos in public, I suggest you have an attorney on retainer. The law in most countries is very clear on this. You may not like it, but it is not up to you to initiate vigilante action based on your own legal system.

I also am surprised that Australians would support this crap. Australian law on this is very clear.

[mfunnell]

I also am surprised that Australians would support this crap. Australian law on this is very clear.As the only self-identified Aussie here, and as one who questioned the rationality of violent etc. reactions, I've now become even more confused.

Why bother writing if people won't bother reading?

...Mike

[ChrisN]

...

I also am surprised that Australians would support this crap. Australian law on this is very clear.

Are referring to Mike's post? You need to be aware that Australians are very fond of exaggeration and sarcasm. Immediately recognisable to another Australian, but often missed by folks from other parts of the world. :) Gets us into trouble some times!

[bennyng]

Since Panda81 links to both Fliker and his blog are invalid, I suggest that this be recognized as a troll and treated accordingly.

They are valid but coded wrongly by the forum.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/panda81

http://panda81.wordpress.com/

Cheers,

[panda81]

Since Panda81 links to both Fliker and his blog are invalid, I suggest that this be recognized as a troll and treated accordingly. If you want to start violent actions against photographers taking photos in public, I suggest you have an attorney on retainer. The law in most countries is very clear on this. You may not like it, but it is not up to you to initiate vigilante action based on your own legal system.

I also am surprised that Australians would support this crap. Australian law on this is very clear.

If I wanted to start violent actions against photographers, I wouldn't be so foolish to ask a group of passionate street photographers about their opinions and to help enlighten me. In addition, I would have freely given out the photo gallery links in my first post instead of keeping it a secret.

I'm certainly guilty of not being able to code links to my sites properly, but it also wasn't terribly difficult to infer the links I was trying to get to, as BennyNg had done.

Moderators, if you think this thread is causing too much agitation, then I apologize and understand any course of action you want to do with the thread.

[mfunnell]

Having thought a little on my own "vaguely creeped out" reaction to the original post on this thread:
My gut reaction is that this is pretty darn creepy. I wouldn't appreciate my wife being photographed in that manner. If I see some guy trying to sneak shot of my wife from the back when she's wearing her swimsuit at the beach, I'd go up to him and have a word or two. I imagine a lot of people with daughters in college would not want their kids being photographed and put up on the internet like that either.
...I'm trying to think how to phrase this so it doesn't come over as accusatory in itself, but...

Would you think similarly about:

"...some guy [or girl] trying to sneak shot of my brother from the back when he's wearing his swimsuit at the beach..."

"I imagine a lot of people with sons in college would not want their kids being photographed and put up on the internet like that either."

While I acknowledge, to an extent, differences in reaction when males and females are involved in similar circumstances, I also detect a certain, um, proprietary interest being asserted over images of women. "My" wife. "My" daughters. That gives off a certain creepiness of its own or, at least, hints at a somewhat antedeluvian attidude towards women.

Just a thought.

...Mike

[mackigator]

Hmm, probably creepy but i see some that pull off good work in this "beautiful people" category.

Without looking at the images involved - If this guy is using normal focal lengths, has shots of faces and eye contact, then more power to him.

I think that images of random women on the street shot from behind say more about the photographer than the photographed.

[Pappy]

how can we discuss this without seeing the pics? let's have a link to the site, please

[panda81]

Snip

My perspective was just coming from a straight male, as is also the original photographer I was referring to. I didn't really bother about writing out all the different permutations which could occur, but in the end, I really meant to just refer to the right combination of the person taking the picture, their sexual orientation, and their subjects, and what their intentions look like when picture after picture has a certain theme to it.

I am more on the traditional, conservative, and protective side than some others, so I admit that's where I'm coming from too. But, at the same time, I am trying to keep an open mind and hear what others have to say. I'm trying not to point out "why I'm right" to other people who disagree with me, although I do want to explain my feelings.

[payasam]

I photograph no young women who haven't called me "Uncle": and for a fellow my age, "young" goes up to around 45.

[Tuolumne]

I'm confused. Exactly what is objectionable about taking candids of attractive women on the street? Aren't those some of the most popular photos in the gallery?

/T

[yanidel]

Aren't those some of the most popular photos in the gallery?

/T
ah ah ah, you got a good point. The puritarian hypocrisy ...
Though I would be really concerned if this guy only took pictures of old women or dog ****s ...
More seriously, shooting only young women probably means is main center of interest is not photography. But for one that has the balls to publish these pictures openly on his website and face criticism, how many take them secretly and keep them on their computers ? I see many freaks with mega zooms out there ... these are more concerning IMO.

Ok, here is one ... http://blog.yanidel.com/2009/06/13/60mm-hexanon-12-stealing-beauty/ :)

The second after she saw me and I said "beautiful hat" and she had a huge smile on her face.

[aizan]

what kind of perv likes taking photos of young, beautiful women? oh, right, every straight male on the planet. and lesbians. :)

[SolaresLarrave]

I wish I could photograph more beautiful young women. They make life worth living! :)

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=71531&d=1247725656

[SolaresLarrave]

And, BTW, my wife is very much worth photographing. :)

[javimm]

I don't see it as "questionable". I find this kind of pictures boring.

I usually photograph with a group of people. One of them has all Canon line of L lenses. I mean, ALL of them. He usually uses a 70-200 f2.8 or a huge 300 or whatever long prime or zoom he brings for the day. 90% of the pictures he takes are portraits of young woman shot from long distance. This pictures aren't sexual explicit or anything. They're just portraits of women walking in the street. He has thousands of pictures, all the same, just faces of unknown girls walking. I find it extremely boring. I mean, who'd like to see an exhibition of 500 pictures of woman faces?.

So the question for me is not the morality, it's the purpose. I try to photograph people interacting, actually doing something that tells a story. If it's a girl who's doing something interesting I'll photograph her, but just having a collection of girls faces doesn't say anything to me.

Anyway, if this is the style someone likes, I don't see anything wrong with it.

EDITED to fix some typos. Sorry

[historicist]

One of my self portraits on flickr got favorited by someone whose photostream was entirely pictures of big muscular gay dudes (not sure where I fit into that) and funfairs (go figure).

A female friend had a completely everyday picture of her wearing a scarf favorited by a person whose favorites were literally thousands of pictures of girls wearing some sort of neckwear.

The world is full of people who are doing slightly unsavoury things like this, but I would suggest there's more important things to worry about than this.

[Parker51]

@ Maelswarm
By the way , your 3 last pictures are wonderful color pictures
Cheers
Claude

[peterm1]

My favourite form of photography at the moment - check out the first page of my Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/80702381@N00/

And here is one to get you going ----------------

[dmr]

Let me give you some thoughts from a different perspective ...

In this day and age, when we're very uptight about stalkers, perverts, and the like, yes, it seems creepy. However, 40 years ago it was far more acceptable.

Sorry if I ramble on and on about this, but I still feel more or less the same as I did back then.

I know I've mentioned this here. My brother had what he called his "beach lens", which was a huge el-cheapo Spiratone 400mm telephoto. He and his bud would take the train out to Rockaway and they would hang out on the beach, smoke, drink (uh?) soda :) (yeah, right!), and take casual shots of the young ladies. "Boys will be boys" was my mom's attitude.

I remember that Spiratone had a kind of right-angle mirror adapter which they sold for just such things.

Nobody at all thought these guys were in any way stalkers or pervs! They weren't.

I saw through this as they very badly wanted to approach some of the girls, get to know them, and develop a relationship, but they were just too shy about it. I tried explaining this to him, but ...

My interpretation is still more or less the same. My guess is that the photographers in question here would LOVE to have a relationship with some of the young ladies they are shooting, but for some reason are reluctant to pursue such a thing.

That's my not so humble opinion, anyway ...

[mfunnell]

He usually uses a 70-200 f2.8 or a huge 300 or whatever long prime or zoom he brings for the day. 90% of the pictures he takes are portraits of young woman shot from long distance. This pictures aren't sexual explicit or anything. They're just portraits of women walking in the street. He has thousands of pictures, all the same, just faces of unknown girls walking. I find it extremely boring. I mean, who'd like to see an exhibition of 500 pictures of woman faces?I don't know: people's faces are interesting. And I can certainly appreciate a pretty face:

http://th03.deviantart.net/fs11/150/i/2006/193/e/7/Ferrari_Red_by_Calzinger.jpg (http://calzinger.deviantart.com/art/Ferrari-Red-36190766)
[click for photo by calzinger at dA (http://www.deviantart.com)]

Still, I expect that many people would find "character" as interesting as "pretty":

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2579/3685798773_c934af4275_m.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/39238823@N08/3685798773/)
[click for photo by Heide Smith (http://www.flickr.com/photos/39238823@N08/) at flickr (http://www.flickr.com)]

...Mike

[Larky]

Let me give you some thoughts from a different perspective ...

In this day and age, when we're very uptight about stalkers, perverts, and the like, yes, it seems creepy. However, 40 years ago it was far more acceptable.

Sorry if I ramble on and on about this, but I still feel more or less the same as I did back then.

I know I've mentioned this here. My brother had what he called his "beach lens", which was a huge el-cheapo Spiratone 400mm telephoto. He and his bud would take the train out to Rockaway and they would hang out on the beach, smoke, drink (uh?) soda :) (yeah, right!), and take casual shots of the young ladies. "Boys will be boys" was my mom's attitude.

I remember that Spiratone had a kind of right-angle mirror adapter which they sold for just such things.

Nobody at all thought these guys were in any way stalkers or pervs! They weren't.

I saw through this as they very badly wanted to approach some of the girls, get to know them, and develop a relationship, but they were just too shy about it. I tried explaining this to him, but ...

My interpretation is still more or less the same. My guess is that the photographers in question here would LOVE to have a relationship with some of the young ladies they are shooting, but for some reason are reluctant to pursue such a thing.

That's my not so humble opinion, anyway ...

That makes it all seem more creepy to me. :) People walking around craving something they are scared of, so they decide to shoot pictures secretly so they can do what with them later? You've filled my mind with really nasty images I'm struggling to remove. :)

[Chris101]

That makes it all seem more creepy to me. :) People walking around craving something they are scared of, so they decide to shoot pictures secretly so they can do what with them later? You've filled my mind with really nasty images I'm struggling to remove. :)Life itself is creepy and dark Andrew. Go with it.

[yanidel]

Let me give you some thoughts from a different perspective ...

In this day and age, when we're very uptight about stalkers, perverts, and the like, yes, it seems creepy. However, 40 years ago it was far more acceptable.

I don't think it is less acceptable nowadays, young people take trillions of pictures.
But if I understood correctly, your brother had basically the same age as the girls photographed. He could have indeed gotten in a relationship with any of them I guess. Now, let say it was a family 60 years old buddy that had taken these pictures, would have this seen as normal too ? Or just shyness to start a relationship. Probably not.

Seriously, I take pictures of women (all ages) in the street but only when I feel there is a reason for it (colors, environment, situation, personality ...). One day on Les Champs-Elysées and you can come back with 100 pictures of beautiful young women, but that would be boring. Now what I don't like is the mega-zoom idiots that stand back 30 feet and do act like perverts. It is these very ones that make everybody become suspicious. Better be frank about it, use your 50mm lens, try to get the candid without worrying too much about being spotted. And if you are, smile, say something nice. There is much more chance to get a smile, funny comment or even discussion than be chased after being told "pervert pervert" Never happened to me at least.

Were I not single, I am sure this would be a wonderful first "approach" technique. :D

[dmr]

so they can do what with them later?

Well, uh {blush} I do know what you mean, and I really wasn't thinking of that when I wrote that, but the principle is still the same.

Whether they take photos of young ladies and/or {insert euphemism here}, it's still the same, they are substituting one or the other for a more meaningful relationship.

[mfunnell]

I try to photograph people interacting, actually doing something that tells a story. If it's a girl who's doing something interesting I'll photograph herI went looking through my photos (at lest those I have on-line) and found very few that just said "pretty lady". Most seemed to be in some sort of context. I did find a surprising number that were mothers (OK, pretty mothers) interacting with children:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2419/2096347429_c7f62f31bb_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mfunnell/2096347429/)

I don't know what (if anything) that means, but I shouldn't think it's in any way purient.

...but just having a collection of girls faces doesn't say anything to me. Anyway, if this is the style someone likes, I don't see anything wrong with it.I quite agree.

...Mike

[monkeypainter]

C'mon...!

What's wrong about candid photos pf young (pretty) women?

HBC did it, Doisneau did it... I do it!!!!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3006/2332120910_4627793d80.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/monkeypainter/2332120910/in/set-72157605340068785/)

[foggie]

I agree with Maelswarm statements for the most part.

Anything in public is fair game. Personally, I take pictures of interesting people or things. If a girl is doing something interesting, then I will take her picture. Though I admit that I sometimes feel uneasy if the said girl is attractive because I don't want my girlfriend to get jealous when she looks over my photos.

Here are some of my favorites:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3380/3480724564_0ed86e9a9b.jpg?v=0
http://www.flickr.com/photos/foggie/3480724564/


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3614/3310576848_27cfafab99.jpg?v=0
http://www.flickr.com/photos/foggie/3310576848/


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3085/3098518875_d679446485.jpg?v=0
http://www.flickr.com/photos/foggie/3098518875/


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3258/3117455170_0a92b75695.jpg?v=0
http://www.flickr.com/photos/foggie/3117455170/

[micromontenegro]

I find it very creepy that people find pics of young girls creepy. We have a saying in Spanish: "El ladrón juzga por su condición".

[PatrickT]

Very interesting thread. I don't really see a problem with it.

Also, did I miss it, or was a link to this guy's photos placed in this thread somewhere?

[FallisPhoto]

I'm posting this question because I would like to hear everyone's opinions on the matter. Being RFF, I imagine candid photography is one of the genres most of you are very passionate about. I won't put in any specifics because my purpose isn't trying to reveal anything about this particular photographer, but rather asking if my photographic and artistic vision is too short-sighted.

Basically, on another forum, I found a photographer who particularly likes to take photos (or at least show on the internet) of young women. These aren't model shots, portraits, or anything like that, but just random young women he bumps into wherever he may go. Some of these places include on the street, some indoor social activity, but also at the beach. The photos aren't of all types of young women either...I'll describe them as young women who probably take care of their bodies. The street photos aren't invasive or anything (nothing like pointing down a blouse), but the beach photos obviously have young women in swimsuits, bikinis, etc. His photo website is pretty much (90-95%) comprised of these types of photos.

My gut reaction is that this is pretty darn creepy. I wouldn't appreciate my wife being photographed in that manner. If I see some guy trying to sneak shot of my wife from the back when she's wearing her swimsuit at the beach, I'd go up to him and have a word or two. I imagine a lot of people with daughters in college would not want their kids being photographed and put up on the internet like that either.

Now, I'm not asking about the legality of the situation, but rather the morality and ethics of it. Seeing as how a certain demographic of young women is his target, I feel uncomfortable with this type of guy walking around.

The point of my post is, what do you guys think of this? Is my reaction normal or too conservative? Am I possibly missing some purpose where this is part of a bigger project that makes it artistic? By the way, the photos look pretty much like snapshots to me. I can't see any artistic touch to these the candids.

I'm very interested in everyone's responses - thanks in advance for the discussion.

I'd say you are not only way on the conservative side, but don't have a very firm grasp on reality. You apparently don't mind doing somehing right out in public, with people looking at you directly, but you object to people looking at photos of it. Why? Have you deluded yourself into believing that you have psionic powers that enable you to control what sorts of people are allowed to look at you in real life? Well, you don't. Is someone fantasizing over your wife's/daughter's photo somehow more objectionable than someone fantasizing over her in real life?

[JohnL]

Haven't seen the pics so I don't know if they have any real merit or not, but being a bad photographer is neither illegal or immoral. The fact he concentrates on nubile young ladies may be suspicious, but seems pretty harmless based on the description of the photos by the OP. If you are going to take candid photos of *anyone*, you need either to have the charm to make them not mind or else just not get caught. I would regard the latter as Plan A, and attempt the former if Plan B turns out to be necessary. When the subject is not going to go away (eg tending a stand at a market or fair), I sometimes ask permission, take a shot or two, say "thanks", then move on. Coming back later you can often get the candid you really want.

[FallisPhoto]

Let me give you some thoughts from a different perspective ...

In this day and age, when we're very uptight about stalkers, perverts, and the like, yes, it seems creepy. However, 40 years ago it was far more acceptable.

Sorry if I ramble on and on about this, but I still feel more or less the same as I did back then.

I know I've mentioned this here. My brother had what he called his "beach lens", which was a huge el-cheapo Spiratone 400mm telephoto. He and his bud would take the train out to Rockaway and they would hang out on the beach, smoke, drink (uh?) soda :) (yeah, right!), and take casual shots of the young ladies. "Boys will be boys" was my mom's attitude.

I remember that Spiratone had a kind of right-angle mirror adapter which they sold for just such things.

Nobody at all thought these guys were in any way stalkers or pervs! They weren't.

I saw through this as they very badly wanted to approach some of the girls, get to know them, and develop a relationship, but they were just too shy about it. I tried explaining this to him, but ...

My interpretation is still more or less the same. My guess is that the photographers in question here would LOVE to have a relationship with some of the young ladies they are shooting, but for some reason are reluctant to pursue such a thing.

That's my not so humble opinion, anyway ...

In my case, you'd be 100% wrong. I wouldn't touch the young women I shoot with a 10-foot pole. Why? Because I'm 54. When you reach my age, try talking to an 18-or-19-year-old.

[italy74]

Hi guys

I usually don't do that. I mean, if I go somewhere for a certain reason, I follow that.
Of course, if a beautiful girl / woman comes to my way, JUST BECAUSE IT'S BEAUTIFUL ( = nice to the eyes ) why don't take a picture of her? To be honest, when I can I approach them and ask them a picture. Usually this happens at formals or ceremonies where beautiful girls are sometimes shy of themselves, like this one (with her parents approval of course) I'm not a pervert nor I want to be pointed as it if now and then I took a picture I like. I don't spend my time looking at young ladies on my pc but it would be a pity losing the image of a such beautiful girl at THAT time. Sometimes photography goes beyond women and models. We just realize something is beautiful and can't be lost.

http://italy74.smugmug.com/photos/546438701_cpvgJ-XL.jpg

Of course if the one is just too far I have to choose in a second. Sometimes I take it, sometimes I take it not.

[sepiareverb]

My gut reaction is that this is pretty darn creepy. I wouldn't appreciate my wife being photographed in that manner. If I see some guy trying to sneak shot of my wife from the back when she's wearing her swimsuit at the beach, I'd go up to him and have a word or two. I imagine a lot of people with daughters in college would not want their kids being photographed and put up on the internet like that either.

If people don't want to be photographed in a bathing suit in a public place they have two options, don't wear the bathing suit or stay out of the public place. Very simple. Anything in a public place is fair game in the US, you put yourself out there you can be photographed.

Now, I'm not asking about the legality of the situation, but rather the morality and ethics of it. Seeing as how a certain demographic of young women is his target, I feel uncomfortable with this type of guy walking around.

Well the legality is part of it- this is perfectly legal, so the morality and ethics have been deemed ok no? Would this be any less creepy if he was photographing old women? Old men? Little boys? Little girls? Cats? Why is this particular subject so objectionable? Might we question your own reasons for taking offense that someone might photograph your wife?

The point of my post is, what do you guys think of this? Is my reaction normal or too conservative? Am I possibly missing some purpose where this is part of a bigger project that makes it artistic? By the way, the photos look pretty much like snapshots to me. I can't see any artistic touch to these the candids.

Winogrand was famous for snapshotty pictures of women- perhaps this guy loves Winogrand. Perhaps he loves women. I can't find anything wrong here.

...I'm just saying that there are people out there who would take great exception to someone photographing their wife...

Why? Again, if you can't bear the idea of her being photographed make her stay inside.

...The world is full of people who are doing slightly unsavoury things like this, but I would suggest there's more important things to worry about than this.

What is "unsavory" about this??? Photographing the life on the street around you is NORMAL.

[Darkhorse]

I guess it depends on the context and intent. I know a guy another non-photography related message board. An older guy, I don't know what he looks like but know he's in ill health, married, and very right wing. Not that that matters in the slightest.

Anyway, on a few occasions he's posted pictures of women on beaches taken with his long zoom lens. All artlessly done, taken at unflattering angles, usually paired with some innuendo about the unwitting subject's T&A, and occasional commentary of women who he thinks shouldn't be wearing certain swimming garments. He's quick on the "Hey it's a public beach" defense if someone questions the morality of these posts.

I think it's completely classless but what can you do? Nothing, really.

[italy74]

Well the legality is part of it- this is perfectly legal, so the morality and ethics have been deemed ok no?

The problem is here. Here's something that can be debatable.

Just think of those things legalized in some states which are illegal in others (prostitution, abortion, just to make a couple of easy examples)
Laws not always follow ethic and moral for the simple reason that not all men and women have the same one. Some states have even a death penalty legalized. Is it ethic or legal? My OPINION is no. But it's different than yours, and this is enough to look for a border between laws and ethics thus comprehensible a such debate. Although I often smile when people come asking for privacy (they neither know what they are saying), nor I want to support such paranoiac background (just ask to UK photographers how do they live in England right now) I do understand the need for a (serious) debate, laws or not.

[dazedgonebye]

The only issue here that I can see is the decision whether or not to spend any time looking at his images.
I'm not interested. Sounds like not enough nakedness (none) to qualify as good old fashioned porn and not enough creativity to qualify as art.
Boring is the worst insult for something posted to attract attention and I think boring is most likely what we are dealing with here.

If you're bored, move on. If you're engaged, oggle all you like. If you don't like the show, switch the channel or turn off the TV.

[Roger Hicks]

I find it very creepy that people find pics of young girls creepy. We have a saying in Spanish: "El ladrón juzga por su condición".

"Creepy" is the current buzzword for anything people can't understand or don't approve of or don't want to think about too hard.

Cheers,

Roger

[panda81]

I'd say you are not only way on the conservative side, but don't have a very firm grasp on reality. You apparently don't mind doing somehing right out in public, with people looking at you directly, but you object to people looking at photos of it. Why? Have you deluded yourself into believing that you have psionic powers that enable you to control what sorts of people are allowed to look at you in real life? Well, you don't. Is someone fantasizing over your wife's/daughter's photo somehow more objectionable than someone fantasizing over her in real life?

There's quite a difference between not having a firm grasp of reality vs. hoping the world could function in a different way. If someone wishes there weren't so many wars and resulting horrible deaths in the world, does it mean that they can't grasp reality? No, it just means they wish people could solve their differences peacefully. You can call me way too conservative though, I'll take that without an argument.

In your last question, both are equally objectionable. But it doesn't mean that I want to help enable them either. Along the lines of what you're implying, then would it be okay for pedophiles to have naked pictures of young children because the pedophiles will fantasize about them regardless of having photos or not anyway? Of course not, I'm sure you don't think so.

I have absolutely no objection to any of the photos posted in this thread so far. All of them are artistic, tasteful, emotive, and don't look like Uncle Bob's snapshot with a shiny new SLR like the ones I mentioned by the photographer in the OP. Maybe I'm just accusing him of being a photographer.

[Roger Hicks]

In my case, you'd be 100% wrong. I wouldn't touch the young women I shoot with a 10-foot pole. Why? Because I'm 54. When you reach my age, try talking to an 18-or-19-year-old.

Well, I'm five years older than you, and although I can't say I make a habit of trying to chat up young women, it's equally true that I don't make a habit of worrying about the age or sex of people I talk to; I'll talk to pretty much anyone, if there's something to say.

Likewise, I take far fewer photographs of teenage girls than I did when I was closer to their age, but I put that down to having less in common with them and therefore being in fewer places where I have much to say to them, or much occasion to take their pictures.

And one of my closest friends is exactly 40 years younger than I. No doubt there are things she discusses with her 19 year old boyfriend that she does not discuss with me (I hope so for his sake!) but equally she and I always seem to have plenty to talk about.

Cheers,

R.

[sepiareverb]

The problem is here. Here's something that can be debatable.

Just think of those things legalized in some states which are illegal in others (prostitution, abortion, just to make a couple of easy examples)
Laws not always follow ethic and moral for the simple reason that not all men and women have the same one. Some states have even a death penalty legalized. Is it ethic or legal? My OPINION is no. But it's different than yours, and this is enough to look for a border between laws and ethics thus comprehensible a such debate. Although I often smile when people come asking for privacy (they neither know what they are saying), nor I want to support such paranoiac background (just ask to UK photographers how do they live in England right now) I do understand the need for a (serious) debate, laws or not.

Granted it depends where one lives to some extent- but street photography is legal in the majority places that I know. Germany has some exceptions, but I know of more than one photographer making these very kinds of images in Germany- so how illegal is it in reality on the street.

You mentioned abortion, a sure fire way to get this thread LOCKED :rolleyes: watch yourself :D

[oldoc]

LAws protect many who may not, to others, be worthy of protection. The whole victim's rights movement in the US is based on this fact...not a supposition. IMO, there is a wide range of propriety, and the OP raises a valid point as to good "taste". The photographer in question is hiding behimd his "rights". Like with other victims, those who are photographed can't say "no" to these people. Just ask any celebrity.
I enjoy street photography on line, although I don't like the process, myself.
I think we have to draw the line to stop short of objectifying the subject. I detest the "up-skirt" work of some of these creepy stalkers of celebrities. Is there an inalienable right to shoot a photo of Brittney Spears' crotch? I don't thiink so.
Admittedly, these photos I haven't seen. The ones on this thread fall well shorts of objectification, and are very nicely done.
As far as I am concerned, the more towards an objectifying photo we get, if it is going to be shot, and especially if it is to be posted, the subject should have the right to refuse.
Otherwise, right or wrong, you are taking a chance. Whether the law protects you or not, does it REALLY help the photographer to have legal protection if his camera is broken and his jaws are wired shut?

[sepiareverb]

I think we have to draw the line to stop short of objectifying the subject.

Impossible. One man's object is another woman's art. We have to take the "bad" with the "good" or lose the ability to photograph freely. He obviously enjoys what he shoots, who are we to tell him it isn't ok because we dislike his style but share his subject matter?

-And please, can we have a link??:confused:

[Roger Hicks]

LAws protect many who may not, to others, be worthy of protection. . . , does it REALLY help the photographer to have legal protection if his camera is broken and his jaws are wired shut?

Yes, it does help, because it reminds violent bigots that theirs is not the only world-picture.

More importantly, what is the real risk of a smashed camera and wired-up jaws? This sort of thing tends to make the newspapers -- and it doesn't get reported very often, which leads you to suspect that it doesn't happen very often.

Assaulting photographers and smashing their cameras is as much of a sick fantasy as taking upskirt photographs. It just appeals to a different kind of sick bigot.

EDIT: A question for everyone. Have you ever been assaulted (more technically, battered*) as a result of taking a picture or had your camera smashed? Do you personally know anyone to whom this has happened?

(As far as I recall, though I forget the case, under English law "the least touching of another in anger is a battery" but let's restrict ourselves to a proper punch, kick or other blow.)

Cheers,

Roger

[antiquark]

Anyway, on a few occasions he's posted pictures of women on beaches taken with his long zoom lens. All artlessly done, taken at unflattering angles, usually paired with some innuendo about the unwitting subject's T&A, and occasional commentary of women who he thinks shouldn't be wearing certain swimming garments. He's quick on the "Hey it's a public beach" defense if someone questions the morality of these posts.

After thinking about it, I don't think the right word is morality. How about empathy, is that a more accurate word? It seems more descriptive to this scenario.

Should photographers have empathy for their subjects? I think they should. Empathy and legality are two completely different things. You can embrace the law, but if you discard empathy, don't expect people to blow kisses in your direction.

[ddimaria]

The photographer seems to be taking pictures of his friends. Am I missing something? This seems pretty mundane.

[Roger Hicks]

After thinking about it, I don't think the right word is morality. How about empathy, is that a more accurate word? It seems more descriptive to this scenario.

Should photographers have empathy for their subjects? I think they should. Empathy and legality are two completely different things. You can embrace the law, but if you discard empathy, don't expect people to blow kisses in your direction.

Dear Derek,

A superb analysis!

And of course morality is different again from law and empathy.

Cheers,

R.

[panda81]

The photographer seems to be taking pictures of his friends. Am I missing something? This seems pretty mundane.

A few are of his friends, but there are quite a number of his photos who are completely strangers. In fact, he has shared stories about how he was demanded by his targets not to put up the photos, which he responded by walking away and ignoring them...and proceeded to put them on the web later at home.

Edit: How do you know who I am referring to, anyhow? I didn't send you the link.

[oldoc]

Personally, whether done by a "sick bigot" or someone who is of an intelligence level so low as to not understand a photographer's intent (if, in fact, he knows it himself) railing against those violent people, and healing a major injury are quite different animals. But violence is best avoided, and pre-empting is preferable, in every case I can think of, to suffering from it, regardless of how wrong it is.

[panda81]

After thinking about it, I don't think the right word is morality. How about empathy, is that a more accurate word? It seems more descriptive to this scenario.

Should photographers have empathy for their subjects? I think they should. Empathy and legality are two completely different things. You can embrace the law, but if you discard empathy, don't expect people to blow kisses in your direction.

That is a much better word. Thanks Antiquark.

[yanidel]

Hi guys

I usually don't do that. I mean, if I go somewhere for a certain reason, I follow that.
Of course, if a beautiful girl / woman comes to my way, JUST BECAUSE IT'S BEAUTIFUL ( = nice to the eyes ) why don't take a picture of her? To be honest, when I can I approach them and ask them a picture. Usually this happens at formals or ceremonies where beautiful girls are sometimes shy of themselves, like this one (with her parents approval of course) I'm not a pervert nor I want to be pointed as it if now and then I took a picture I like. I don't spend my time looking at young ladies on my pc but it would be a pity losing the image of a such beautiful girl at THAT time. Sometimes photography goes beyond women and models. We just realize something is beautiful and can't be lost.

Of course if the one is just too far I have to choose in a second. Sometimes I take it, sometimes I take it not.
Your opinion does not count, you are Italian :D
The whole TV culture there is based on showing beautiful girls. How many Sundays have I spent as a teenager looking at "La Domenica In" .... sigh ... ;)

[italy74]

You were (un)lucky not to notice "Colpo grosso" then... ;)

[Roger Hicks]

But violence is best avoided, and pre-empting is preferable, in every case I can think of, to suffering from it, regardless of how wrong it is.
I could not agree more -- which is why, perhaps, I have never had my camera smashed or been physically assaulted as a result of taking a picture. I have on the other hand taken countless pictures of people in the street for some 43 years, and have only ever encountered seven (or so) objections in that time.

You can avoid violence by being scared of your own shadow -- I use 'you' in the general sense of 'one', of course, not of you personally -- or you can reflect on the real danger of being seriously assaulted.

As I added to my earlier post in an edit, has anyone on this thread ever been seriously assaulted, or had their camera smashed, as a result of taking a picture, or does anyone know personally anyone to whom this has happened; at least, outside a war zone or a riot?

Cheers,

Roger

[newsgrunt]

The photographer seems to be taking pictures of his friends. Am I missing something? This seems pretty mundane.

I've looked high and lo and over yonder but don't see a link to said photos, where did you find them ? I'd really like to see what this is all about before making an informed comment, if any.

thanks

[raid]

As long as the girls are old enough and not teenagers or children, then I don't see any problems with such photography. The laws of the land keep on being changed to deprive people of any rights to take street photos, so do it while you are allowed to do. In later years, who knows whether such photos will be legally allowed or not.

[foggie]

As I added to my earlier post in an edit, has anyone on this thread ever been seriously assaulted, or had their camera smashed, as a result of taking a picture, or does anyone know personally anyone to whom this has happened; at least, outside a war zone or a riot?

Cheers,

Roher

Seriously hurt? No. But I've a few times been on the receiving end of acts of battery. The worst of the bunch was when someone hit me with a kubaton. It drew blood and bruised my hand but more agonizingly, the photos were blurry.

Typically when someone engages me, I'm polite and cheery or polite and stern. It happens when someone spouts out false laws ('photographing in public is a felony', 'I can legally confiscate your camera', etc) that I can become flippant and sassy but that's rarity.

I find meeting anger with smiles and good manners diffuses most of my encounters.

PS teehee @ "Roher" typo

[sepiareverb]

...has anyone on this thread ever been seriously assaulted, or had their camera smashed, as a result of taking a picture, or does anyone know personally anyone to whom this has happened...

Not I. I've been clobbered pretty good while shooting at CBGB and Danceteria, but only because I was in the way of folks having a good time- looking through the camera instead of at where I was heading. I've had several discussions with people about photographing something of theirs, heated a few times. But nothing has ever come to blows. I worked for a guy for a while who was a bit of a paparazzi type, would dash out of the studio when he heard so and so was going to be on TV to hang out waiting. He was could be pretty obnoxious, and he never got smacked.

[oldoc]

A friend, photographing a guys CAR from behind, got a shoulder dislocation and his camera a free carwash in the Charles River, Boston...
Maybe the tag on his Ferrari was expired...

[kermaier]

If people don't want to be photographed in a bathing suit in a public place they have two options, don't wear the bathing suit or stay out of the public place. Very simple. Anything in a public place is fair game in the US, you put yourself out there you can be photographed.

I would submit that there's a profound difference, psychologically, between being seen and being photographed. People do many transient things as a part of their natural behavior that would make them extremely uncomfortable to see in a permanent record. As has been mentioned, this is a matter not so much of morality or legality, but of empathy. I think it's a bit glib to assert that people have only themselves to blame if they don't constrain their human natures to the purely rational.

Winogrand was famous for snapshotty pictures of women- perhaps this guy loves Winogrand. Perhaps he loves women. I can't find anything wrong here.

Finally! Someone who remembers Winogrand's book "Women Are Beautiful". :) This was moderately controversial at the time (I think he had trouble getting it published). I'm fairly certain that Winogrand did not set out to do a project on women, but his natural tendencies resulted, over time, in a body of work on the subject. He probably took the vast majority of the picture simply because he found the women beautiful -- whether in the banal, bikini-clad sense or in some deeper, more empathetic sense.

What is "unsavory" about this??? Photographing the life on the street around you is NORMAL.

Correct. Only the photographer's intent potentially could be unsavory, and that cannot be divined with any certainty from the photographs alone. That having been said, I think it's worth considering that, from the point of view of the subjects of the pictures, the idea of having those photos available on the internet for all humanity to view, with whatever intent, may be somewhat more disturbing than the thought that some individual has, for whatever reason, seen fit to take and keep a snapshot of them.

So, in short, I think the possible "creepiness" of this collection of images lies not in their mere existence, but mostly in what they may represent about the shallowness of the relationship between the photographer, his subjects and (not incidentally) the viewers. This is something that all street and documentary photographers should think about seriously.

As an example, I once took a course in documentary photography where one of the exercises had the instructor randomly pairing up the students and assigning each pair to come to class the following week and display nude photos of each other. The objective was to teach us something about the vulnerability a subject experiences in front of the camera; the sensitivity the photographer should exercise behind the camera; and how empathy between the two results in much stronger images, even when those images are uncensored. (Also, viewing and critiquing such photos in the presence of both the photographer and the subject offered an unusual and valuable perspective on documentary photography.)

::Ari

[oldoc]

Class best avoided by those of us that young ladies "call uncle", IMO...

Uncle

[sepiareverb]

I would submit that there's a profound difference, psychologically, between being seen and being photographed. People do many transient things as a part of their natural behavior that would make them extremely uncomfortable to see in a permanent record. As has been mentioned, this is a matter not so much of morality or legality, but of empathy. I think it's a bit glib to assert that people have only themselves to blame if they don't constrain their human natures to the purely rational.

Perhaps, yet labeling images of such behavior 'wrong' is not OK by my book. To take a look at anyone younger than 25's Facebook photo albums is to see how quickly this comfort level is changing- the main reason why I don't accept current students as FB friends.


Finally! Someone who remembers Winogrand's book "Women Are Beautiful". :)

Exact same subject matter, just better design. And what about Jock Sturgis?


I think it's worth considering that, from the point of view of the subjects of the pictures, the idea of having those photos available on the internet for all humanity to view, with whatever intent, may be somewhat more disturbing than the thought that some individual has, for whatever reason, seen fit to take and keep a snapshot of them.

Yet there is plenty of eye contact there, which means that there was some connection- so he isn't (do we know this is a he?- I guess so) just hanging out with a 400mm lens in the bushes and 'stealing' images of women adjusting their knickers.

the instructor randomly pairing up the students and assigning each pair to come to class the following week and display nude photos of each other.

I know I'd get fired for trying something like that! But that is an exceptional assignment.

[kully]

Were I not single, I am sure this would be a wonderful first "approach" technique. :D

I think you have an errant 'not' in that sentence Yanick ;-)

[sepiareverb]

Or "not" :D

[kermaier]

Class best avoided by those of us that young ladies "call uncle", IMO...

Uncle

Actually, the class had a wide age range, from early 20s to early 50s, and the pairings were random so some of them were same-sex. The resulting photos showed just as wide a range of styles, from totally convincing S&M scenarios to Ruth Bernhard-style figure studies, to edgy stuff that looked like hidden-camera candids. There was just one guy in his 30s who bailed out due to religious objections (he said).

::Ari

[crawdiddy]

If people don't want to be photographed in a bathing suit in a public place they have two options, don't wear the bathing suit or stay out of the public place. Very simple. Anything in a public place is fair game in the US, you put yourself out there you can be photographed.

What is "unsavory" about this??? Photographing the life on the street around you is NORMAL.


sepiareverb is 100% correct on this.

I'm amazed that some posters say it's OK to photograph (fill-in-the-blank), as long as you do it for the RIGHT reason (or as long as you don't do it for a CREEPY reason.)

Are you guys ready to authorize the Thought Police? And why are you so willing to do so, and so suspicious of the motivations of others? Is it because you're normal, but fear the motivations of others? Or are you not so sure about your own thoughts?

[kermaier]

Perhaps, yet labeling images of such behavior 'wrong' is not OK by my book. To take a look at anyone younger than 25's Facebook photo albums is to see how quickly this comfort level is changing- the main reason why I don't accept current students as FB friends.

I agree, I wouldn't label it wrong -- I'm just considering the topic a bit less absolutely, less guilty/not-guilty, room for a bit more nuance. And you're right -- how people approach this topic is very much dependent on age, culture and background.

Yet there is plenty of eye contact there, which means that there was some connection- so he isn't (do we know this is a he?- I guess so) just hanging out with a 400mm lens in the bushes and 'stealing' images of women adjusting their knickers.

Unfortunately, that's the danger of discussing photos I haven't seen -- which is why I've tried not to say anything about these photos in particular, but rather the issues the OP has raised in their context.

::Ari

[sepiareverb]

I'm amazed that some posters say it's OK to photograph (fill-in-the-blank), as long as you do it for the RIGHT reason (or as long as you don't do it for a CREEPY reason.)

Are you guys ready to authorize the Thought Police? And why are you so willing to do so, and so suspicious of the motivations of others? Is it because you're normal, but fear the motivations of others? Or are you not so sure about your own thoughts?

Right on. We can't give in to letting someone else decide our morality or empathy. Don't give up the fight.

[yanidel]

I think you have an errant 'not' in that sentence Yanick ;-)
indeed ... oups ... hope she does not read this forum ;)

[Gabriel M.A.]

I think that Barney is creepy.

Let's all write Congress to have him arrested.

[raid]

I think that Barney is creepy.

Let's all write Congress to have him arrested.

Das is ja wunderbar Kollege Gabriel.
Es ist rotzbremsenschoen dass du das sagst! umpf umpf umpf:D

[antiquark]

Right on. We can't give in to letting someone else decide our morality or empathy. Don't give up the fight.

But, by definition, your empathy is decided by the other person. If one of your photographic subjects tell you that you don't have empathy, then you don't have empathy! Empathy is an understanding how someone else feels.

[FallisPhoto]

Likewise, I take far fewer photographs of teenage girls than I did when I was closer to their age, but I put that down to having less in common with them and therefore being in fewer places where I have much to say to them, or much occasion to take their pictures.

I find that I have almost nothing at all in common with them. I take photos of them, because I am a professional and tht is what I get paid to do, but I can't have a serious discussion with them. I've tried, and usually I just get a blank stare. They don't know who Jimi Hendrix, Cream, and Iron Butterfly are and I've never heard of the groups they listen to; a lot of them have never seen a mechanical camera (let alone a rangefinder); last young girl I talked to thought Vietnam was somewhere near Cuba (and an 18-year-old said he knew what the war was like because he'd seen "Apocalypse Now"); I was driving a restored 68 Impala up until 2007 and several young women couldn't undertstand why I didn't get something newer, and on and on. I prefer to talk to people with whom I at least share a basic frame of reference.

[FallisPhoto]

There's quite a difference between not having a firm grasp of reality vs. hoping the world could function in a different way.

Hoping, yes, expecting no. If pigs had wings...

If someone wishes there weren't so many wars and resulting horrible deaths in the world, does it mean that they can't grasp reality? No, it just means they wish people could solve their differences peacefully. You can call me way too conservative though, I'll take that without an argument.

That's quite a statement from someone who just said he'd assault someone for photographing his wife on a beach.

n your last question, both are equally objectionable. But it doesn't mean that I want to help enable them either. Along the lines of what you're implying, then would it be okay for pedophiles to have naked pictures of young children because the pedophiles will fantasize about them regardless of having photos or not anyway? Of course not, I'm sure you don't think so.

Oh, I see. My mistake. I was assuming your wife and kids were not running around naked in public. I thought we were just talking about people relaxing on a beach wearing swimsuits. If they are running around without clothes, and people are photograhing them, then I can see how that would be upsetting.

[panda81]

That's quite a statement from someone who just said he'd assault someone for photographing his wife on a beach.


Please point out where I said anything about assault. As far as I remember, I only said I would "have a word or two," meaning tell him how my wife doesn't like it and ask him to delete the photo. Would I be unhappy about it? Sure. Attack the guy? I never said that, and would never do that.

[sepiareverb]

But, by definition, your empathy is decided by the other person. If one of your photographic subjects tell you that you don't have empathy, then you don't have empathy! Empathy is an understanding how someone else feels.

I always thought of empathy as projecting one's feelings onto others- deciding that someone needed pity for example... I stand corrected.

[back alley]

the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

[kermaier]

sepiareverb is 100% correct on this.

I'm amazed that some posters say it's OK to photograph (fill-in-the-blank), as long as you do it for the RIGHT reason (or as long as you don't do it for a CREEPY reason.)

Are you guys ready to authorize the Thought Police? And why are you so willing to do so, and so suspicious of the motivations of others? Is it because you're normal, but fear the motivations of others? Or are you not so sure about your own thoughts?

I think you're incorrect in assuming that people voicing a negative reaction to the work would disallow it if they could. I don't see anyone talking about policing thought or morality - just judging it. If a piece of art provokes a variety of reactions, who are you to decide which are valid? That sounds more like thought policing to me... ;)

I don't subscribe the notion that art inhabits some magically context-free plane of perfect moral relativism, where the viewer's response is irrelevant at best. Art is made by people for people. And people - their pretenses notwithstanding - judge. The nature of critical judgement (my own pompousness is killing me here, but I feel compelled) is to be informed by a person's values, societal context, etc. I would argue that the main, or even sole, purpose of producing art is to elicit a response from the audience. Sometimes, far from seeking simple approval, the artist expects to provoke discomfort or revulsion - by way of challenging the viewer's values, or maybe just for the hell of it. The judgement that a work is creepy or otherwise unworthy does not imply a rejection of the artist's right to produce such work.

::Ari

Op

[JohnTF]

I could not agree more -- which is why, perhaps, I have never had my camera smashed or been physically assaulted as a result of taking a picture. I have on the other hand taken countless pictures of people in the street for some 43 years, and have only ever encountered seven (or so) objections in that time.


As I added to my earlier post in an edit, has anyone on this thread ever been seriously assaulted, or had their camera smashed, as a result of taking a picture, or does anyone know personally anyone to whom this has happened; at least, outside a war zone or a riot?

Cheers,

Roger

Working as the photo editor for the university paper and yearbook, I was close several times, surviving police horse back charges with batons swinging during anti war demonstrations.

However, I was shooting a photo of the sign in the student union for the Maoists, several followed me back to the office and tried to take my camera accusing me of photographing their faces, they grabbed my arms, telling me they would show me what Communists do to people. I pulled away and loudly said they were assaulting me, put my hand in my coat pocket warning them to back away as I was armed, which gave the campus cops time to arrive and settle things down. They never were allowed on campus again. Socialist candidate for president said these kind of people gave the lefties a bad name.

That count?

One of my 16 yr old students took a shot of the canal from a bridge in Amsterdam, and a red head in underwear ran out and yelled at him from 100 m, "You no look, you buy". He almost dropped the camera in to the canal.

For the beach, just hire Brad Pitt, they never seem to think he is leering or being creepy. (Just kidding) I remember the "girl watchers'" lens ads a long time ago.

My physics colleagues tell me that once photons are reflected, they belong to any one's retina they strike.

Funny how people are not so worried about photos at the beach in Europe.

And Roger, I agree with you, you talk to whom you talk to, people generally figure out with whom they wish to speak and who is interesting. There are many things to talk about, if some woman is interested in some other kind of relationship, she will figure a way to make that known. Not every conversation is a calculated prelude to some bizarre intention. Being easy, if they blow in my ear, buy me a few drinks, I may consider that a sign. ;-)

People get freaked out all the time in the US, too much tabloid news and editorials, everyone can be made to seem odd.

Very much in the eye of the beholder.

[Bob Michaels]

Since it has all be said already, I searched the entire thread for the one comment that best summed up my view

One man's object is another woman's art. We have to take the "bad" with the "good" or lose the ability to photograph freely. He obviously enjoys what he shoots, who are we to tell him it isn't ok because we dislike his style but share his subject matter?

runner up for best summation of my view

If people don't want to be photographed in a bathing suit in a public place they have two options, don't wear the bathing suit or stay out of the public place. Very simple. Anything in a public place is fair game in the US, you put yourself out there you can be photographed.

And I speak as the father of two daughters in their late 30's / early 40's (who fit the "take care of themselves" description) and five grand daughters, ages 11 to 16.

[historicist]

Quote:
Originally Posted by historicist
...The world is full of people who are doing slightly unsavoury things like this, but I would suggest there's more important things to worry about than this.
What is "unsavory" about this??? Photographing the life on the street around you is NORMAL.

A lot of things are 'normal' but not necessarily pleasant to view - like your parents having sex ;)

Doesn't mean I get my knickers in a twist about it though, which was my point.

Vaguely related to the getting beaten up for displeasing other members of the public, some guy in Germany once wanted to fight me (in front of his small children) because I crossed a road when the light was green for cars. He was particularly upset that I had done so in front of his children and exposed them to bad influences ;)

Still on a vague tangent to the OP, there's a book called The Antiquities of Athens which was written by a couple of English guys who spent a few years surveying classical architecture in (you guessed it) Athens back in 1765 or something.

Apparently, when they were measuring one building up on a scaffold, they were made to erect a fence next to the scaffold and as high as it to make it impossible to look down on women walking down the street below.

And if, walking down the street, they happened to be on the same side of the road as a lady, they had to cross to the other side lest they be suspected of immorality.

[retnull]

ANTI: ethics -- do unto others etc
PRO: Miroslav Tichy (http://bit.ly/11hvGM)

[charjohncarter]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2109/2067541236_354261f43d.jpg?v=0

[peterm1]

Photography is an art. Making images of women - is this not what artists have done throught he ages? Making images of young women (and men) is time honoured in art. Assuming there is nothing illegal about it (which brings into question issues of judgement about age and the nature of the photo of course) and all parties consent is this not perfectly acceptable to most societies at most times? I grant you that consent may be problematic in the case of street photos of strangers but as long as there is not active opposition from the putative subject then I can see little wrong in photographing people including young women in public spaces. I have begun to get quite a few such images and while I try to get balance - some photos of men etc, it is clear that the photos must have interest. And its very clear from responses to my Flicker site that most people are most interested in photos of young attractive women. There is not necessarily overtly sexual in this. Its just about aethetics. (Well, so I tell my wife - ha ha!) Really though sex and aethetics are tied to each other in art so lets not just accept that and not get hung up.

But this is not to say that there are not times when people are not really gratifying their artistic impulses - they are satisfying other kinds of needs. In this case it is not OK. Say n' more.

[Al Patterson]

sepiareverb is 100% correct on this.

I'm amazed that some posters say it's OK to photograph (fill-in-the-blank), as long as you do it for the RIGHT reason (or as long as you don't do it for a CREEPY reason.)

Are you guys ready to authorize the Thought Police? And why are you so willing to do so, and so suspicious of the motivations of others? Is it because you're normal, but fear the motivations of others? Or are you not so sure about your own thoughts?

I wonder what some of you would think of the super zoom shots of topless women (and even nude BTW) that are posted on some of the "adult" areas on the internet.

[Bob Michaels]

I wonder what some of you would think of the super zoom shots of topless women (and even nude BTW) that are posted on some of the "adult" areas on the internet.

It is completely a function of the subject's "reasonable expectation of privacy". If they thought they were hidden inside their house or in a fenced back yard, it is flat out wrong. If the subject was at a clothing optional beach, the only problem is the photographer's lack of confidence to get closer.

[Melvin]

There's a Zen Koan that goes: Twenty monks and one nun, named Eshun, were studying at a temple. A monk, who was in love with Eshun, tried to arrange a secret meeting. She ignored his letter, but the next day she stood up in front of all the people at the temple and said: "if you love me, why don't you say it now?"

[Bob Michaels]

Did this woman have "reasonable expectation of privacy? I think not since this was Bike Week on Main Street at Daytona Beach. I did not ask permission but it was shot with a 35mm lens, so she probably heard the shutter fire several times. I am a dirty old man because of the way I framed the photo? Or was I just documenting some of the icons of Bike Week?

http://contaxg.com/files/2117/BikeWeek04-ass-shot-Neo16000600.jpg

[Al Patterson]

It is completely a function of the subject's "reasonable expectation of privacy". If they thought they were hidden inside their house or in a fenced back yard, it is flat out wrong. If the subject was at a clothing optional beach, the only problem is the photographer's lack of confidence to get closer.

I serious doubt that the average woman in Europe sunning herself on the nude beach expects some pervert to sneak crotch shoots from 100 yards away. Much less post them on the Internet.

[Bob Michaels]

I serious doubt that the average woman in Europe sunning herself on the nude beach expects some pervert to sneak crotch shoots from 100 yards away. Much less post them on the Internet.

Al, I gained some insight about photographing at nude beaches when researching a potential documentary project several years ago. We are fortunate in having a very nice clothing optional beach here in FL. It is part of the Canaveral National Seashore and about 2 1/2 miles from launch pad 39A where the shuttle went off yesterday. I am an infrequent visitor but spent time discussing a project focusing on the independent views of those who are regulars there.

The initial reaction to someone carrying a camera is strongly negative. Just too many voyeurs have preceded you to take a photo of the "naked people." But once an individual understood my motivation and the fact that I cared nothing about their lack of clothing, most had no real problems with me photographing. However each took a very lengthy confidence building session. Eventually I concluded that this long time frame to build individual confidence made the project impractical, considering my already existing problems with skin cancer from a lifetime in the FL sun.

So most people at nude beaches have no problems being photographed if (big IF) if they are convinced it is for valid reasons. And they are irate at someone who they believe is photographing for the wrong reasons.

[sepiareverb]

I serious doubt that the average woman in Europe sunning herself on the nude beach expects some pervert to sneak crotch shoots from 100 yards away. Much less post them on the Internet.

I don't think it crosses their minds. And not knowing the laws there I don't know if it is illegal. Here in the US there was something a while back about a nude beach and a long zoom lens (I can't find the thread here that mentioned it)- there are people that do take it too far. But this thread has gone more towards "you can't take a picture of my wife"- which is perfectly legal where I'm writing from, and where the photog in question is. Taste is subjective, you might not like my wife, should I take offense if you're shooting my buddies wife but not mine? Not liking somebody's photographs does not make all photographs of that subject verboten. Taken to an extreme then posting pictures of your own wife, daughter, son or husband could be seen as "creepy". And some idea that the masses will decide what is acceptable is unacceptable- look at most of American TV, or the contents of a grocery store- should only those things be acceptable as entertainment or food?

Photographing in the street freely is something we need to keep acceptable or else we're SOL when it comes to being able to make photographs in public. If you can't make pictures that have pedestrians in them for fear of being called a creep who ends up on some list of morality offenders when all you're out to do is get a shot of a bike or a shop window or some sexy guy on the corner we all lose.

[sepiareverb]

Did this woman have "reasonable expectation of privacy?

Once she got back to her hotel room yes, on the sidewalk? No.

I am a dirty old man because of the way I framed the photo?
http://contaxg.com/files/2117/BikeWeek04-ass-shot-Neo16000600.jpg

Not at all. You've provided a great illustration of the question this thread is pondering. This is on the sidewalk. Should this image never be seen? Is it that offensive that it should be banned? Is it at all offensive? Not to me. But I'm a product of the 60's and 70's. Perhaps this is a generational thing?

[Papercut]

Roger, I have -- not as badly as it could have gone, but I have been jabbed in the back of my neck several times with a small (6-8" metal truncheon) and mace fired at my face (fortunately for me it was expired or used and I ended up with "only" some chemical "burns" where several drops hit my arm). Don't want to clog up the thread with the whole story, but I made the mistake of firing on instinct at a scruffy looking character and then compounded my error by stupidly saying "yes" when he asked if I had taken his picture. Truth is not always the best policy! :D Many lessons learned from that experience.


As I added to my earlier post in an edit, has anyone on this thread ever been seriously assaulted, or had their camera smashed, as a result of taking a picture, or does anyone know personally anyone to whom this has happened; at least, outside a war zone or a riot?


EDIT: by and large I agree with sepia on the thread issue. Just because I/we/most find the pictures artless, doesn't give any justification for prohibition. On the other hand, however, people have a right to question photographers about their intentions and even to register their objections or feelings about being photographed, so long as they themselves do not resort to violence or illegal actions. As a photographer, I do not mind it when people I photograph interact with me about why I took their photo -- even if, or perhaps, especially when they are upset with it. It gives me a chance to show them what sort of photography I do (I almost always carry around a small blurb book of my photos for precisely this purpose) and to explain my understanding of the legal issues, as well as remind them that in many cities and places their image is being recorded frequently, sometimes constantly, already. Dialog is good.

[kermaier]

I'm struck by an apparent communication failure here: A number of people are saying the equivalent of "these photos are disturbing" and a number of others are hearing "this type of photography should be banned". Is that some form of strawman argument, or do those disapproving opinions really feel like a potential threat to artistic freedom?

::Ari

[Al Patterson]

Al, I gained some insight about photographing at nude beaches when researching a potential documentary project several years ago. We are fortunate in having a very nice clothing optional beach here in FL. It is part of the Canaveral National Seashore and about 2 1/2 miles from launch pad 39A where the shuttle went off yesterday. I am an infrequent visitor but spent time discussing a project focusing on the independent views of those who are regulars there.

The initial reaction to someone carrying a camera is strongly negative. Just too many voyeurs have preceded you to take a photo of the "naked people." But once an individual understood my motivation and the fact that I cared nothing about their lack of clothing, most had no real problems with me photographing. However each took a very lengthy confidence building session. Eventually I concluded that this long time frame to build individual confidence made the project impractical, considering my already existing problems with skin cancer from a lifetime in the FL sun.

So most people at nude beaches have no problems being photographed if (big IF) if they are convinced it is for valid reasons. And they are irate at someone who they believe is photographing for the wrong reasons.

So, you are OK with a pervert hiding over the dunes taking crotch shots with a superzoom and posting them on the internet?

Maybe I should post a link or two and see if you defend the chicken sh!t lowlife "photograhers" to whom I am referring.

[mfunnell]

I find that I have almost nothing at all in common with them. I take photos of them, because I am a professional and tht is what I get paid to do, but I can't have a serious discussion with them. I've tried, and usually I just get a blank stare. They don't know who Jimi Hendrix, Cream, and Iron Butterfly are and I've never heard of the groups they listen to; a lot of them have never seen a mechanical camera (let alone a rangefinder); last young girl I talked to thought Vietnam was somewhere near Cuba (and an 18-year-old said he knew what the war was like because he'd seen "Apocalypse Now"); I was driving a restored 68 Impala up until 2007 and several young women couldn't undertstand why I didn't get something newer, and on and on. I prefer to talk to people with whom I at least share a basic frame of reference.It's strange how accident of location and demographics gives me a completely different experience. I know a dozen or so young women in their late teens and very early twenties well enough to chat to semi-regularly. (They are daughters of friends, and staff at my local book shop / coffe shop. Strangely enough, I barely know any young men in this age range, though I know a number of young men who are younger or older.)

I've found this particular set of young women to be universally bright, well educated, and quite interested in the world around them - current events, politics etc. They're even well aware of the pop-culture references you mention: after all, those are the kinds of records, movies etc. their parents inflict on them. (I said they're aware of them; I didn't say they necessarily have any great liking for them.) They're even interested in my old mechanical cameras - or polite enough to feign interest and look at my photos.

Different places, different experiences I guess. But based on my experience of these young people "the youth of today" are in pretty good shape.

...Mike

[Bob Michaels]

So, you are OK with a pervert hiding over the dunes taking crotch shots with a superzoom and posting them on the internet?

Maybe I should post a link or two and see if you defend the chicken sh!t lowlife "photograhers" to whom I am referring.

Al, the point I was trying to make was that many visitors to nude beaches do not mind being photographed unless the photographer's intentions are sensational. Yes, many would object to the scenario you portrayed.

Myself, I refuse to set any limits on personal freedoms of expression, including photography. People setting any sort of limits on what others can do, based on their own personal views is a very dangerous thing. Are we to decide that a photo shot in public with a 600mm lens is inappropriate while one shot with a 35mm lens is OK? Is one place OK but not another? Who decides?

At times we have to support others rights even when we find their actions distasteful. Simply because we know that beginning to set limits based on personal value judgments opens the door to where we don't want to go.

[Todd.Hanz]

I spent the last few minutes looking for a link to the photogs offending photos, did I miss something? How can this discussion be so long winded without the evidence ;)

Todd

[oldoc]

Unfortunately, although most photographers exhibit concern for others, and, to a large extent, their work can be seen as an expression of this, the....individuals to which Al refers (and I agree completely with Al's characterization of them completely) are the reason for the number of postings here. I believe firmly that your rights, as we choose to call them, end where they intrude on mine. That determination is best made by me, when posting to the internet or publication. There is no implied right to convert someone who is OK going to the beach with several dozen people near enough to tell they are IN a swimsuit to the close-up fodder for the ogling eyes of millions.

[kermaier]

Unfortunately, although most photographers exhibit concern for others, and, to a large extent, their work can be seen as an expression of this, the....individuals to which Al refers (and I agree completely with Al's characterization of them completely) are the reason for the number of postings here. I believe firmly that your rights, as we choose to call them, end where they intrude on mine. That determination is best made by me, when posting to the internet or publication. There is no implied right to convert someone who is OK going to the beach with several dozen people near enough to tell they are IN a swimsuit to the close-up fodder for the ogling eyes of millions.

Is it just the prurient aspect that you think limits the photographer's rights, or is it a broader question of the rights of the subject to consent before mass publication of his/her likeness?

If the former, then I think that's a dangerous precedent. One person might be disturbed by the idea that unknown millions may be drooling over close-ups of her buttocks. Another would be more disturbed to think that millions of strangers might be laughing uproariously at photos of him picking his nose. Your personal reaction to the sexual objectification represented in bikini pictures of strangers shouldn't be be the basis for curtailing photographers' rights in the public sphere.

If the latter is your concern, then are you advocating some form of model-release law for all people photographed in public, whether the dissemination of the photo is for commercial gain or not? That also sounds, to me, like an unreasonably broad (and completely unenforceable) curtailment of photographers' rights.

In either case, I think it's absolutely incorrect to state that the determination of the limits of one person's rights is best made by the person potentially impacted by those rights. As an example, consider the beach: I have the right to enjoy the beach by cavorting in the sun wearing a thong bathing "suit"; this undeniably impinges on the right of, say, a deeply religious family to enjoy the beach without having their sensibilities ravaged by the sight. Who's rights end where, and who gets to decide?

::Ari

[mfunnell]

I'll admit to having been well puzzled by more than a few things in this thread. But what confuses me most is the view that people are entitled to some kind of right to "privacy" when they're out in public. It seems to me that the public/private distinction matters and that if it is broken down - even in a "well meaning" attempt to extend "privacy" into the public sphere - the most likely thing to suffer will be the right to privacy in places that should properly be private.

...Mike

[mfunnell]

I'm off to wash my eyes with borax to get those images out of my mind :eek:We started off having to imagine (through lack of an acutal link) pleasant images of lovely young women - and now you force us to imagine this :eek: (I've not pictured Bob, but the "borax" thing is giving me ideas.) Now I'll have to :bang::bang: for a while to achieve clarity.

...Mike

[djonesii]

I just did a quick count of one of my candid galleries ... +1 for each picture of a single female ( or group of females) -1 for men, couples, general street scene .. The count came out to -15 for the set. That said, there are some shots of single females in the mix. The set shows intent, taken out of context, there are enough shots that show I take pictures of pretty young French girls .....

http://www.jonesii.net/2008%2008%2001%20Daves%20Trip%20No%20Kids/index.html

To me, this thread shows that importance of situational ethics ....

Dave

[mfunnell]

The set shows intent, taken out of context, there are enough shots that show I take pictures of pretty young French girls .....

http://www.jonesii.net/2008%2008%2001%20Daves%20Trip%20No%20Kids/index.html
Dave,

I followed the link (nice set of photos, BTW). But you have photos of human brains in jars in that set. Yes, I assume they're in an appropriate museum context. But still: human brains in jars! And people think taking photos of attractive young ladies is creepy :confused:.

...Mike

(Dave, this isn't any reflection on you or your photos. Rather it is about what some people choose to see as "creepy".)

[oldoc]

Not determination of rights violation here: the rights here are, I think best described as a freedom from intrusion. If my intention is to display your image on the internet, is it not ethical to know whether or not it's OK with you, if you are in a swimsuit, thong, whatever? Do you have the right to obtain my image by any means, and post it in whatever way you wish, whether I like it or not? If those we are paying to pose have to release their image in such a manner have to release them, don't those whose image is obtained by other means have rights? Is that truely about our freedom of expression?

[Gumby]

There's a Zen Koan that goes: Twenty monks and one nun, named Eshun, were studying at a temple. A monk, who was in love with Eshun, tried to arrange a secret meeting. She ignored his letter, but the next day she stood up in front of all the people at the temple and said: "if you love me, why don't you say it now?"

I can't stand the suspense. Please tell the end of the story... did he?

[f16sunshine]

Bob
Regardless of the topic of discussion here. I really like this capture. The framing,perspective, and DOF you chose really work. Nice one!

This thread is all over the road. IMHO a public place is public, a private place is private. There are lines that might get crossed. Each to his own. I don't shoot much candids. Well, put it this way. I don't shoot much were it is not known that a camera and capture is involved. Why shoot with a long lens? I don't think you can actually find the "shot" unless you are close to the subject.

As to the morality of Candids. Not for me to decide but I will say this. Show you have a pair and take a chance at confrontation with your subject. Any conflict should come from the subject who feels you have violated their privacy. Not some Morality police who have no idea of the context of your final image.

[oldoc]

Morality police and freedom of expression is always cited by groups with no legitimate reason for what they do. This is more right/wrong relative to the internet. No one here wants censorship.
I refuse to take over threads, so my last post here, assuming appropriate responses to the question is this:
your 17 year old, girl next door niece travels with your family to the beach. While playing in the surf, with your children, a wave knocks all of them down. When girl next door comes out of the water, her one piece suit is somewhere around her waist. Now little Joey Nikon shoots this bare breasted girl before she restores herself. Does little Joey have the moral right to make the girl the next internet queen?

[micromontenegro]

Morality police and freedom of expression is always cited by groups with no legitimate reason for what they do. This is more right/wrong relative to the internet. No one here wants censorship.
I refuse to take over threads, so my last post here, assuming appropriate responses to the question is this:
your 17 year old, girl next door niece travels with your family to the beach. While playing in the surf, with your children, a wave knocks all of them down. When girl next door comes out of the water, her one piece suit is somewhere around her waist. Now little Joey Nikon shoots this bare breasted girl before she restores herself. Does little Joey have the moral right to make the girl the next internet queen?

Nope, Joey would deserve his comeuppance, because he would be taking advantage of an involuntary turn of events. It would be illegal too, BTW.

BUT, if he took the pic five seconds before... not my thing, but I would not throw the first (nor the last) stone.

[djonesii]

Dave,

I followed the link (nice set of photos, BTW). But you have photos of human brains in jars in that set. Yes, I assume they're in an appropriate museum context. But still: human brains in jars! And people think taking photos of attractive young ladies is creepy :confused:.

...Mike

(Dave, this isn't any reflection on you or your photos. Rather it is about what some people choose to see as "creepy".)


The museum of comparative anatomy in Paris IS a creepy place, two headed sheep and goats in jars, baby skeletons, human brains in jars, etc ..... but, it's a great place to capture interesting images. The orangutan sculpture in the entrance is just flat shocking. In the rhetorical sense does that mean I should not capture the images? To me, it is a question of intent .... the intent of the captures that I make is to document the way that I see a certain city, if I happen to capture of few beautiful young girls as part of my view of the city, so be it.

On the other hand, if I want to take nude photos of models, I do it in a studio. A nude beach is NOT the place to do it, the intent may be the same, but the context is VERY different. As to the moral imperative of a "private figure" loosing their top on the beach, I feel there is a moral imperative not to post that. On the other hand if it's a public figure, all's fair in love and war! The price of a public life. As I spend a lot of time in France, the appropriate response to breasts on a beach is "eh allor" or so what??

Dave

[crawdiddy]

As to the morality of Candids. Not for me to decide but I will say this. Show you have a pair and take a chance at confrontation with your subject. Any conflict should come from the subject who feels you have violated their privacy. Not some Morality police who have no idea of the context of your final image.

So you're saying it's not necessarily IMMORAL to photograph surreptitiously, but it does make you a WIMP?

And by confronting your subject, she/he will know the CONTEXT of your final image, and therefore be able to give consent or not?

If this is your ethical code for photographers, I think it is overly restrictive, and I see several logical problems with it, and the first one is: 1) how does the subject know what the final image will look like? Or much less the context in which it will be presented? Perhaps a bigger problem is to assume right to privacy in a public place.

[mackigator]

Here's the link to the photos at issue, posted with permission:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/29229060@N04/

I have no problem with the photos. Beauty is important stuff and hard to get in the frame. I'm willing to leave plenty of room, morally and otherwise, for photographers who want to capture it with a smiling woman in the frame. Without that room I don't know how art could exist as we know it.

There has been lots of good discussion here - I particularly agree with Bob Michaels about reasonable expectation of privacy. It takes some guts to take photos on the street at close range and I suspect the photographer has learned where the boundaries are one subject at a time.

[sirius]

It's all rather a non-issue.

If you don't like the photos, then don't look at them. Let this adult go about his own business and deal with his own karma. The only thing this guy is photographing is his own loneliness.

There are a lot of people I find offensive in this world, and just as many I can have compassion for and see that they are muddled and suffering in their own way. I certainly think what George Bush junior did to the world is a lot more offensive and worth my rage than this weirdo photographer.

[kermaier]

OK, now that I've actually seen the photos, I have to say that these are no big deal -- in my opinion, and from my frame of reference.

It's clear to me that the photographer likes to take pictures of pretty young women, both up close with eye contact and from afar/unawares. My reaction is that some of the up-close pictures are strong and almost all of the others are weak and boring. The fact that the photographer includes the telephoto shots hints to me that he's more interested in the girls as objects of desire than in the pictures as art or documentary photography (or maybe he's just a lousy editor).

I can understand how someone recognizing herself in one of these pictures posted on the internet might be annoyed. And I think the photographer shows poor judgement and little empathy by posting them. But I don't anyone's rights are being violated here.

Interestingly, the photographer has put notes in the captions of some of the pictures describing the objections some of his subjects had -- both at the time of the photograph and later when the pictures were seen linked from other web sites. This doesn't seem to have made him reconsider his approach. Oh well -- not everyone you meet (or don't see) on the street is a gentleman and a scholar....

::Ari

[Papercut]

Looked through his stream and while a lot of the shots are mundane to my eye, I don't find anything objectionable about the subject matter, the treatment he gives it, nor the stream as a whole. He has LOTS of shots that are obviously taken with consent (girls giving big smiles to the camera) and a large proportion of shots of other subject matter entirely (birds, close ups of tattoos, trees, sunsets, etc., etc.). Discussion of censorship and photographic ethics is hardly ever completely pointless, but I don't see anything in the link mackigator posted to get even mildly upset over.

[micromontenegro]

You guys were talking about those photos??? You would have to be a 18th century prig to care. We have better things to discuss.

x2!!!!!!!!!!!

[f16sunshine]

Yup +1 more. Yawn.....

[JohnTF]

You guys were talking about those photos??? You would have to be a 18th century prig to care. We have better things to discuss.


Well, in the 19th century did they not put pants on piano legs, err limbs?

I recall in about 10th grade my girl's father spotted me walking with another girl, and said she had a nicely turned ankle.

I, of course, had higher intentions, she had a fine mind and personality.

No one here from Germany? I heard the parks went clothing optional a while back. Tours are offered by US companies with frequent stops at peak vantage overlooks. ;-)

I also distantly recall when it was illegal to go topless in the S. of France, the girls wore bottle caps, today Coke would sew up the market with promotions.

In Ohio, the strippers in bars are required to wear pasties, transparent ones.

You generally let the people dress the way they feel comfortable at the beach. I asked my lady friend why she wanted to remove her top at the pool, and she asked me how I would feel if I had a tight wrap around my top. Real bitch to find in my size.

All can be made to be a bit silly.

[ruben]

Under the description of Panda about the specific person, I would agree most with dmr's original and unexpected coment, that the person seems to be an impotent for creating a meaningfull relationship.

Besides that, I would like to thank all the folks who undertook to illustrate the thread with their images, and furthermore to those who posted several. It may have been, according to each one, a good assumption that behaving otherwise, their entire life photographic work would pass by absolutely unseen.

A sort of parallel.

Cheers,
Ruben

[kermaier]

You guys were talking about those photos??? You would have to be a 18th century prig to care. We have better things to discuss.

Actually, we were talking about the questions raised by the OP after he looked at those photos, which discussion didn't really have much to do with the specific photos at all.

If the discussion was interesting when separated from its original impetus, it's funny (but nonetheless true) that it became quite boring once the actual pictures come into view. :)

Cheers to all and sundry,
::Ari

[newsgrunt]

Wow, I can't believe we're at 6 pages over these photos. Most are shot with what I would say is tacit permission and the others well, they're nothing salacious afaic. They don't seem to have been shot with a long lens at all (>200). He does like ink shots but that's cool.

Guess we can move on now ;)

[kermaier]

Wow, I can't believe we're at 6 pages over these photos. Most are shot with what I would say is tacit permission and the others well, they're nothing salacious afaic. They don't seem to have been shot with a long lens at all (>200). He does like ink shots but that's cool.

Guess we can move on now ;)

Amen, may it be His will.

[Todd.Hanz]

Here's the link to the photos at issue, posted with permission:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/29229060@N04/



for real?
those are the shots that caused such an uproar, uhmazing!

Todd

[FallisPhoto]

Please point out where I said anything about assault. As far as I remember, I only said I would "have a word or two," meaning tell him how my wife doesn't like it and ask him to delete the photo. Would I be unhappy about it? Sure. Attack the guy? I never said that, and would never do that.

I assumed you meant threaten when you said you'd have a word or two with him. Threaten = assault.

[MickH]

You guys were talking about those photos??? You would have to be a 18th century prig to care. We have better things to discuss.

Nope, mostly they have been talking about themselves.

[Gabriel M.A.]

Under the description of Panda about the specific person, I would agree most with dmr's original and unexpected coment, that the person seems to be an impotent for creating a meaningfull relationship.


DMR does not call anybody impotent.

[Gabriel M.A.]

for real?
those are the shots that caused such an uproar, uhmazing!

Todd

Yep.

This thread reminds me of that old lady in England who got arrested, because her photographing an empty playground caused suspicion that she was a pedophile.

I think there's not enough outrage over empty and misguided outrage.

[Bob Michaels]

You guys were talking about those photos??? You would have to be a 18th century prig to care. We have better things to discuss.

My comments related to the overall issue of anyone creating any limits on others based on their own personal values. Personal freedoms and liberties simply cannot be compromised by someone's, or even a majority's, judgment of what they perceive as right and wrong.

Haven't seen the photos, probably won't bother to look. My comments stand no matter what the photos are.

[GarrettB]

It needs to be said/recognized that all a camera does is create a visual representation of what we already see.

[peterm1]

Yep.

This thread reminds me of that old lady in England who got arrested, because her photographing an empty playground caused suspicion that she was a pedophile.

I think there's not enough outrage over empty and misguided outrage.

Are you kidding - this is a clear instance of wrongful arrest. Even outside the US, law enforcement must have some kind of probable cause. Still at another level I have been reading about the resurgence of the 'nanny state" in the UK. So perhaps I am not so shocked after all.

[back alley]

much ado about nothing...though i did really like the swimming pigs!

joe

[kshapero]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3176/2953699475_91bc258a2a.jpg?v=0

[Keith]

If I photographed a young female candidly in public and she told me to p*ss off I wouldn't have an issue ... it's her right to express her displeasure at my action if she so choses!

However ... if in the same situation some rock ape insecure in the role of her husband~partner~boyfriend told me to p*ss off I would be offended because he doesn't own her in my eyes and if she's comfortable with my actions, so should he be!

In a perfect world at least!

[35mmdelux]

This chic looks ticked off and is probably calling her boyfriend who is Arnold's bodyguard.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/29229060@N04/3705418162/

[ruben]

His translator is not correct?

מתרגם שלו אינו נכון

dmr is a woman, so you shouldn't refer to "his translator", and Gabriel may have done better if instead of verbally refering to what she said, to find me wrong, he had dedicated some moments to think about the contents of her post and enligthened himself.

As for the Hebrew tour de force, master, better leave it.

Greetings from Jerusalem,
Ruben

[dmr]

DMR does not call anybody impotent.

Uh, I think we may have some different meanings of "impotent" here. I would use terms such as "shy", "unsure", even "chicken", but I'm sure that nobody interpreted this as meaning, uh, E.D. or anything like that. I saw this as anxiety of rejection. We maybe have some language and interpretation issues here, but I think everyone knows what I mean.

Guys can be incredibly shy at times when it comes to approaching women. And, not to play devil's advocate here, I often times don't blame them, since women can sometimes reject in a very tact-less and seemingly uncaring manner. :(

Speaking very freely here, turning down an unwelcome advance is an incredibly difficult thing to do. It's awkward under the best of circumstances and it's seldom a win-win thing. :(

I know I'm rambling off topic here. I hope everyone understood what I meant, and I do thing that for the most part, everyone did.

[dmr]

dmr is a woman, so you shouldn't refer to "his translator",

I'm sure "his translator" referred to the translator that misinterpreted what I said. No offense taken here ...

[Gabriel M.A.]

"his translator" referred to Ruben's use of "impotent."

adjective
1 unable to take effective action; helpless or powerless : he was seized with an impotent anger.
2 (of a man) abnormally unable to achieve a sexual erection.
• (of a male animal) unable to copulate.

Yes, "his translator", as it's Ruben who (apparently) uses one. It would be unenlightened to assume that DMR used a translator to use her own native language.

For Ruben's benefit of clarification: the native language being "English", as the Direct Object in the second sentence is DMR, a woman, and not Ruben, who is the Direct Object in the first sentence.

But I'm sure he would like to enlighten me on how I am unenlightened in his enlightened enlightenment.

I hope his translator doesn't return a Division By Zero Error.

[Gabriel M.A.]

I'm sure "his translator" referred to the translator that misinterpreted what I said. No offense taken here ...

Good. :o Misinterpretations can be uncomfortable, at best :angel:


I was just enlightening Ruben on the fact that you did not call anybody "impotent", with the whole E.D. effect there given he used it out of context and without a quote as a qualifier.

In English (again, for Ruben's enlightenment), the blunt use of the adjective "impotent" to refer to one or more persons, in and of itself in a sentence, without qualifying and clarifying it, means, in this day and age (A.D. 2009), someone who cannot perform physically. NOT someone who is shy. Shyness does not impede physical performance. Social performance, perhaps.

Oh no, I'm becoming a Hooligan. :eek:


I really apologize for the pedantry, but Ruben always requires explanations from people. And I don't say that sarcastically; he's literally demanded consistently to "explain myself" after I post something.

[Gabriel M.A.]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3542/3633951923_1575e4eb8a.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gabrielma/3633951923/)
Candid photo of a young woman.

M8 + 50mm Summicron tabbed

[Gabriel M.A.]

The universal sign for "something stinks here, can we leave?" or she is getting ready to transport herself to Mars?

LOL -- I don't think it was either.

[Cabron]

If the subject is interesting enough - whatever it is - take the picture.

[elshaneo]

Well I have to admit that I also love to photograph women, and most of the times, I do ask for permission, some say no, and others are actually quite flattered that I would be interested to make a portrait of them.

The attached snapshot was shot this afternoon, the weird but funny thing is that the young ladies noticed my french accent when I talked to them since they are in fact French. I asked for their email so that I can send the photo, and they were so happy to give it to me ;-)

As far as I've noticed in my case, most of the times, it's always good to ask for permission...

[Gumby]

Gumby -- over when he posted, it is actually never over here, since no one has seen three stars in the sky since maybe 1900, if then.

Good point. I thought I saw three stars last night, but it ended up being the moon and two helicopters!

[aliceelizabeth]

it completely depends on what sort of photograph / angle he's aiming for!

speaking as a young woman myself I would object to anything below the knees or looking down from the top if you catch my drift but don't see why it is any worse than taking a photo of any other 'catergory' of individual otherwise and would think it very victorian to say otherwise.

in fact I was standing on the platform somewhere yesterday, I forget where, possibly baker street, and someone with their slr on the other side was photographing me. I pretended not to notice but if my train hadn't been approaching I'd have run over and asked him to email them to me out of curiousity.

it doesn't take much judgement to see whether something is appropriate or not.

[aizan]

I pretended not to notice but if my train hadn't been approaching I'd have run over and asked him to email them to me out of curiousity.

you sure about that? he might interpret it as flirting.

[aliceelizabeth]

you sure about that? he might interpret it as flirting.

I can run back again just as fast ;)

[Gabriel M.A.]

speaking as a young woman myself I would object to anything below the knees or looking down from the top


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3386/3564965611_dd36e4a01c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gabrielma/3564965611/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3569/3520383303_0b20f81bc9.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gabrielma/3520383303/)
Below the knees




http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2218/2261144809_83ce5ae45f.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gabrielma/2261144809/)
Looking down from the top

[Dunk]

Nothing wrong in photographing young ladies walking down the Kings Road wearing their designer clothes especially as many of them dress to be noticed. If they object I'd say, "No speak English!"

Cheers

dunk

[noimmunity]

[quote=nikonhswebmaster;1096386]I personally do not much enjoy photos of ambushed subjects, but clearly some people do.
[quote]

Amidst the hundreds of posts in this thread, it seems most people either consider the point of view of the male photographer or the point of view of the female being photographed. This is one of the few that acknowledges the importance of the third party viewer. Right on, Fred!

Photography, as usual, is a question about the kind of relationships we have and want to have with other people and other things.

[retnull]

Photography, as usual, is a question about the kind of relationships we have and want to have with other people and other things.

Extremely thought-provoking statement there. Hats off to you.

[Papercut]

The thread doesn't address the 3rd party viewer because there is no ethical problem with them: if they don't like images of strangers (or find these particular images uninspiring), they simply do not have to look at them (no one is forcing anyone to stare at these images). There is no ethical dilemma involved and hence nothing significant to discuss on this score.

The photographic merits, or lack thereof, of candid images of strangers (as a genre) is certainly a discussion-worthy subject, but far removed from the issue raised by the OP. Fred's dim view of 'street photography' is well known, and oft repeated, on this forum.

EDIT: by "dim view" I mean "negative assessment", not that Fred's opinion/taste is dimwitted or anything. I'm not passing judgement with that phrase: Fred has his reasons for his taste, and I'm sure they're quite well thought out.


Amidst the hundreds of posts in this thread, it seems most people either consider the point of view of the male photographer or the point of view of the female being photographed. This is one of the few that acknowledges the importance of the third party viewer. Right on, Fred!

[Papercut]

Like I said, I'm sure the reasons are well thought out! ;)

Total agreement on final thought about certain kinds of discussion working much better around a table. The internet, for all its communicative potential, still introduces an almost unavoidable bias toward the pithy ... and there are many, many, many things and ideas in life that require sustained thought / discussion / writing in order to express and grapple with. The internet almost inevitably truncates all of that by rewarding the short rhetorical retort.

EDIT: now that's about as far away from the OP as I can imagine! :D Ooops!

[mfunnell]

[...]Below the knees

[...]

Looking down from the top
speaking as a young woman myself I would object to anything below the knees or looking down from the top if you catch my drift [....][emphasis added]

it doesn't take much judgement to see whether something is appropriate or not.

Yours were appropriate.

...Mike

[Papercut]

I doubt Gabriel was really worried about his shots being appropriate or not... I think it's the word "anything" in Alice's statement that he was getting at by posting those images: objecting to 'anything' in those two categories seems to contradict the idea of judging appropriateness in the resulting image (and it's being easy to see). Like Gabriel, I almost posted an image that is below the knees to test the boundary between the two halves of Alice's post:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3342/3202411060_c0485096a3.jpg

[Bob Michaels]

The bottom line is it's often rude to take photos of people you don't know, and we all know the situations where it makes them uncomfortable (too close, too much talking, photographer is dirty, takes too many photos, etc).

It is almost always legal, and if you think the photo is important, your rights trump the subject of your photo. It is also their right to yell at you, as long as they do not put their hands on you. They can follow you down the street screaming pervert if they want, that is their right. Both can sue, and both will most likely lose.

I personally do not much enjoy photos of ambushed subjects, but clearly some people do.

Having people bother, or not bother you, is a fact of city life. Yes it is a bummer when someone with bad breath, who will not stop talking, sits next to you on the subway, but that's their subway seat.

It is legal in the US to take photos of anyone, and go home and hang those images on your walls, use them to get off, or throw darts at them. Even a serial killer can legally take your photo for future reference.

Fred: this was a good comment. I can not fault nor disagree with anything you said.

Personally, I have spent some time analyzing the ethical merits of my photography and am reasonably comfortable with the choices I have made.

However when someone begins to discuss restricting those choices we have, I feel I must speak up. That is so even if my work is comfortably inside the line they want to draw. It is simply the act of someone wanting to create a boundary no matter where it may be.

I must specifically point out to others that Fred never alluded to the need for such boundaries. In fact, he was specific that none existed. He merely expressed his distaste for some of the work that results. I share that thought as well. But we still must keep the freedom to do such.

[noimmunity]

The thread doesn't address the 3rd party viewer because there is no ethical problem with them: if they don't like images of strangers (or find these particular images uninspiring), they simply do not have to look at them (no one is forcing anyone to stare at these images). There is no ethical dilemma involved and hence nothing significant to discuss on this score.


It doesn't take much attention to notice--in fact, to be forced to notice--the invasion of images into public space and the domination of what used to be called civil society by advertising. If anybody in this era still believes that the relation between image and viewer can be reduced to a question of free choice, it is either because of massive denial or self-interest.

I don't see the point in engaging this as an ethical question, when there are lots of other angles we could take, including economy, politics, and society. But what's so interesting to me is the way in which some people always want to individualize and privatize problems that obviously concern things having to do with public, social space.

[Papercut]

Jon,

No one is trying to say that viewing all images is based on free choice. Only that in the context of these images (and this type of image) that the ethical questions raised by the OP don't really have much to do with the viewer and hence it's not surprising that it wasn't a part of the discussion.

All the issues you raise are valuable and worthwhile for a much broader discussion of the role of images in our societies, but they are beside the topic as raised by the OP because viewing "art" (as opposed to advertising or political advocacy) is a matter of free choice. One generally has to make a conscious effort of one sort of another (most often accompanied by a decision to spend money as well) in order to see art or experience entertainment. (Works of public art are a marginal case, but I don't know of anywhere that is being overrun by public artwork, as opposed to advertising or political imagery.) Your statement about the prevalence of images implies that they are all disseminated in the same way, blurring the distinction between candids of strangers on a website (or in an art book) and unavoidably visible advertisements on billboards, for example.

There's no denial or dangerous self-interest in compartmentalizing discussions for the sake of clarity! I would imagine that a separate thread about advertising images and their massive intrusion into nearly all public spaces would draw lots of attention and discussion on RFF (most likely with many of the same people talking in this thread contributing to it!).



It doesn't take much attention to notice--in fact, to be forced to notice--the invasion of images into public space and the domination of what used to be called civil society by advertising. If anybody in this era still believes that the relation between image and viewer can be reduced to a question of free choice, it is either because of massive denial or self-interest.

I don't see the point in engaging this as an ethical question, when there are lots of other angles we could take, including economy, politics, and society. But what's so interesting to me is the way in which some people always want to individualize and privatize problems that obviously concern things having to do with public, social space.

[Gabriel M.A.]

I doubt Gabriel was really worried about his shots being appropriate or not... I think it's the word "anything" in Alice's statement that he was getting at by posting those images: objecting to 'anything' in those two categories seems to contradict the idea of judging appropriateness in the resulting image (and it's being easy to see).


:: pointing to mine :: -- On the nosy.

[dfoo]

Humans like to collect things, images are a form of that most natural human activity. But still my basic feeling remains, you should have a good reason for invading someone else's privacy.

If the person is in a public place, they have no privacy, period. End of story. If I can see it, if you can see it, then what privacy do they have? How does taking a photo violate that privacy, whereas looking does not?

[dfoo]

Of course human beings in public have privacy. If you are sitting with a friend would you like if I walked up and began talking to you? Or if you were sitting in a park, would you mind if I came and sat down in the space between you and your girlfriend [wife, friend]? There is a great David Letterman routine where he walks down the street and violates privacy by asking strangers what they are doing, what is in their bags, etc, "Mr. Curious."

Sorry, but I don't think any of these examples are equivalent to the looking at, or taking a picture of people.

[NickTrop]

It's a matter of perspective. I have no problem with this if it's not a picture of my daughter or wife. You photograph whatever is in the environ. These photos are, however, absolutely voyeristic. I find posting these on the net the objectionable part but only marginally so. If a woman wanted to photograph me in a swim suit, I'd be flattered (not that that would happen...) I might not, however, like it as part of her Flickr page. If I caught someone doing this to my daughter we'd have words. I, however, might do this myself if I found someone particularly attractive and thought I could get away with it w/o incident. In fact, I have - though not often, a couple. Double standard? You betchya. Just the way it is.

[noimmunity]

Hey Kevin,
Photography doesn't make any sense if you exclude the viewer, even if it is the fantasy of the viewer as imagined by the introverted photog or the outraged subject.
What the whole medium does is: 1) open up viewership to viewers who were absent at the moment of the event (and this is outside of any one person's control, even with copyright); 2) extend the duration of a viewing moment; 3) turn the viewing relation into a strictly unilateral affair (the object cannot 'look back').
It occurs to me now as we get into this that a lot of the questionable side of photography occurs in relation to #3. Now add to that the fact that photography always involves a triangle: photographer, subject, and viewer. Triangles plus the ability to exclude is, socially-speaking, a potentially explosive combination.
I'd argue for an ethics of sensitivity to this configuration, and for that reason I'm not in favor of an exclusively juridical/legal solution.
What kinds of social relations do we (I, you, s/he) want?
Jon

[deepwhite]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3388/3607450520_3010d35e23_o.jpg

taken @ Tokyo airport

Leica I(c) from 1931 (probably)
Leitz Elmar 50/3.5 from 1938 (probably)
Fuji Neopan 1600

[aliceelizabeth]

for those who failed to understand what I was attempting to say with some subtlty with regard to 'below the knees' 'looking down from the top'

I quite literally, though it seems sad I have to state it, mean looking up your skirt or down your cleavage.

as I say, it doesn't take an awful lot of intuition.

[mfunnell]

for those who failed to understand what I was attempting to say with some subtlty with regard to 'below the knees' 'looking down from the top'

I quite literally, though it seems sad I have to state it, mean looking up your skirt or down your cleavage.

as I say, it doesn't take an awful lot of intuition.Having to explain the gag is a PITA. Worse than that, it's sad. You expected better of your audience - and they failed to deliver. I think you had and have a right to expect better of them; hell of us. (Which, in itself, is no fun to say.)

...Mike

[Papercut]

I, for one, am sorry if I gave offense to you, Alice or you, Mike. However, unlike both of you, I do not think that it's self-evident that the post meant only "upskirt" type of shots. That's a very invasive, and illegal, type of photography, which put it outside the boundaries of the discussion up to that point. I'm pretty sure that everyone participating in the discussion would object to upskirt photos, that genre was already excluded from consideration. In other words, the "if you get my drift" innuendo is only obvious or unambiguous if one ignores the context of the entire thread thus far and the literal meaning of the words "anything" and "below the knee".

Rather than do that, I took her statement at face value (i.e., she was objecting to photos within the boundaries of current discussion, legal forms of candids), which is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the post. :) No offense was intended, but it's not "sad" that an ambiguous (or "subtle") statement (one that changes the terms of the discussion without saying so explicitly) was misinterpreted. In fact, I'd say it's an inevitability...

Having to explain the gag is a PITA. Worse than that, it's sad. You expected better of your audience - and they failed to deliver. I think you had and have a right to expect better of them; hell of us. (Which, in itself, is no fun to say.)

...Mike

[Gumby]

Upskirt has been so cheapened.

Yup, know what you mean. There's a restaurant near my house that has a glass phonebooth that is located on an elevated landing above the bar. The last time I was there a gal used the phone but wasn't wearing any panties. It took all of the fun out of the upskirt experience... "if you get my drift". :rolleyes:

[climbing_vine]

It doesn't take much attention to notice--in fact, to be forced to notice--the invasion of images into public space and the domination of what used to be called civil society by advertising. If anybody in this era still believes that the relation between image and viewer can be reduced to a question of free choice, it is either because of massive denial or self-interest.

I don't see the point in engaging this as an ethical question, when there are lots of other angles we could take, including economy, politics, and society. But what's so interesting to me is the way in which some people always want to individualize and privatize problems that obviously concern things having to do with public, social space.

Very true, and the subject of an excellent essay by Wendell Berry. "Sex, Economy, Freedom, and Community".

And the notion that people have no privacy in public is self-evidently asinine. It's not the same AMOUNT of privacy that you have a right to in your home, but privacy is not binary. If you had no privacy in public, it would be legal for me to walk up to you on the train, open your briefcase, read your papers, and return them to you (and a more important test than legality is that our society would not think it rude).

The fact that we retain the right to be secure in our persons and papers outside of our own home makes it quite clear that there is "privacy" in public, the question up for reasonable debate is "how far does it extend?". Those who want the answer to be otherwise should consider it more carefully (speaking charitably).

It's also quite reasonable to debate what the difference is between fleeting and graven images. They are (again, self-evidently) not the same thing and to pretend otherwise is just silly. The fact that a woman has sex with you and allowed you to stare at her labia from mere inches away does not mean that she has allowed you to tape and broadcast it. So, again, a reasonable position is not: "If I can see it, it's fine to take a picture of it!" The reasonable debate is about where the line is.

[Gabriel M.A.]

for those who failed to understand what I was attempting to say with some subtlty with regard to 'below the knees' 'looking down from the top'

I quite literally, though it seems sad I have to state it, mean looking up your skirt or down your cleavage.

as I say, it doesn't take an awful lot of intuition.

Well, an absolute, like "anything", doesn't allow room for intuition, so it's good to have certain things clarified.

Besides, up the skirt is certainly not below the knees.

Cheers!

[Gabriel M.A.]

Upskirt has been so cheapened. I lived the Beavis and Butthead life when I was in grade school. Never successful -- but always hopeful.

I've heard of people doing it. I've never done that; I don't know what the point is, anyway. Even as a kid.

I'm weird, I guess :o

[FallisPhoto]

for those who failed to understand what I was attempting to say with some subtlty with regard to 'below the knees' 'looking down from the top'

I quite literally, though it seems sad I have to state it, mean looking up your skirt or down your cleavage.

as I say, it doesn't take an awful lot of intuition.

Actually, I think it is kind of nice that some people didn't know what the heck you were talking about. Apparently that kind of behavior just didn't occur to them, and that's a good thing.

[climbing_vine]

Search YouTube for David Letterman's famous "Mr. Curious" character, where he does just that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8Fkhm7JBu8

Yep. Not sure why it's apropos, but it's funny.

[StreetPhotographer]

Found on eMule and Ares file sharing services:

Virtual Voyeur, Stealth Pics of Young Girls

[Paul T.]

The best approach is always to find an attractive cop, and ask him or her to take their clothes off.

[climbing_vine]

He totally invades people's public privacy. Asking them what they have in their bags, where they are going, their names etc. All perfectly legal. :cool:

Well, yes. Because he only asked, and they went along. :) That's not really what the issue is here afaik.

[raid]

How about starting a thread: "Candid Photos of Young Men" ?
I wonder whether such a thread would thrive too?

[climbing_vine]

How about starting a thread: "Candid Photos of Young Men" ?
I wonder whether such a thread would thrive too?

Doubtful. Most of the women left this site long ago.

[Al Patterson]

How about starting a thread: "Candid Photos of Young Men" ?
I wonder whether such a thread would thrive too?

On some other site maybe.

[Chris101]

How about starting a thread: "Candid Photos of Young Men" ?
I wonder whether such a thread would thrive too?

Doubtful. Most of the women left this site long ago.

I don't think that was his point.

[Underline added to quote.]

[raid]

My question is innocent, so don't look too deep into it .
On the other hand,what if ... ?

[Gabriel M.A.]

Bottom line: men are evil. They should all be arrested for even thinking about anything.

[AgentX]

Very true, and the subject of an excellent essay by Wendell Berry. "Sex, Economy, Freedom, and Community".

And the notion that people have no privacy in public is self-evidently asinine. It's not the same AMOUNT of privacy that you have a right to in your home, but privacy is not binary. If you had no privacy in public, it would be legal for me to walk up to you on the train, open your briefcase, read your papers, and return them to you (and a more important test than legality is that our society would not think it rude).

The fact that we retain the right to be secure in our persons and papers outside of our own home makes it quite clear that there is "privacy" in public, the question up for reasonable debate is "how far does it extend?". Those who want the answer to be otherwise should consider it more carefully (speaking charitably).


The 4th Amendment "right to privacy" (see the Katz SCOTUS case) and all Constitutionally-protected rights are not applicable to private conduct; they are only pertinent to the relationship between the government and the people.

While it's not legal to walk up and take someone's stuff and look through it, it's because it's illegal to take someone's stuff, not because of a right to privacy.

And the expectation of privacy in public vis a vis the government is well-trodden ground. You still have a reasonable expectation of privacy in many places and circumstances, but it is not reasonable, for example, to expect privacy in where you go or what you do that's visible to the public (and thus that an image may be made of you while doing it). You do have a right to privacy under your clothes or in your closed luggage, for example. But that is totally inapplicable to photographers in general, unless they're working for the government and photographing on government business.

Laws, not Constitutional rights, are what govern the question at hand.

Edit to add: I can't believe this went three pages of posts before Winogrand was mentioned!!

[climbing_vine]

-- self-censored, because yet another rehash of people's uninformed opinions about the law and the history of our civil society is pointless.

[Gabriel M.A.]

You saw Minority Report? :eek:

I did. The iPod and CNN have a similar interface for that screen. This means that we're not too far away from seeing a positive ad campaign for Soylent Green cookies. :eek:

[Al Patterson]

I did. The iPod and CNN have a similar interface for that screen. This means that we're not too far away from seeing a positive ad campaign for Soylent Green cookies. :eek:

Mmmm. Soylent Green. Tasty...

[AgentX]

-- self-censored, because yet another rehash of people's uninformed opinions about the law and the history of our civil society is pointless.

"uninformed?"

Sorry, buddy, but the right "to be secure in persons and papers" you refer to (a quote from the 4A) does NOT have anything to do with you or me photographing anyone on the street.

It has to do with a citizen and the government, no matter what you may think.

There are/may be laws which are applicable to privacy, depending on where you are in the States. These laws may or may not be directed specifically towards photography.

For example, it's illegal to tap someone's phone because there's a federal law saying you can't, and the nature of a telephone network provides a nexus for federal jurisdiction.

[Chris101]

Self-censored because ... What the hell does that even mean?

[climbing_vine]

"uninformed?"

Sorry, buddy, but the right "to be secure in persons and papers" you refer to (a quote from the 4A) does NOT have anything to do with you or me photographing anyone on the street.

It has to do with a citizen and the government, no matter what you may think.

There are/may be laws which are applicable to privacy, depending on where you are in the States. These laws may or may not be directed specifically towards photography.

For example, it's illegal to tap someone's phone because there's a federal law saying you can't, and the nature of a telephone network provides a nexus for federal jurisdiction.

Yes, because the fourth amendment occurred in a vacuum. Buddy.

You might notice I referred to the concept, not the amendment itself. There's a reason for that. You don't know what you're talking about.

You might also notice that I very specifically said that photographing people in the street is legal in this country. I'm arguing for not against your point, and trying to introduce some necessary nuance, but apparently you can't read and are just interested in arguing.

[AgentX]

Not in a vacuum at all. In line with common law. Which was directed against the sovereign's potential for abuse of power by violating home and hearth, not at all concerned with what one private person does to another.

Either way, as long as the discussion is clear on that. I am constantly irritated when people talk about, for example, an employer infringing on their "right to free speech." Such a right doesn't exist in that context. Sorry if it got my back up.

[climbing_vine]

Not in a vacuum at all. In line with common law. Which was directed against the sovereign's potential for abuse of power by violating home and hearth, not at all concerned with what one private person does to another.

Either way, as long as the discussion is clear on that. I am constantly irritated when people talk about, for example, an employer infringing on their "right to free speech." Such a right doesn't exist in that context. Sorry if it got my back up.

That's exactly what I wrote before going back and deleting it. The central bit being that what one individual does to another is already covered by common law. "Assault" is, essentially, an immediate violation of privacy. The sort that leads you to think you are in imminent danger of physical harm, like, say, a person walking up to you on the street and beginning to go through your pockets. They're not hurting you, they haven't taken anything, but they're guilty of assault which is a catch-all for "invading my personal space and thus making me think I'm in danger." There's no assault if you go through a person's things while they're down the street getting coffee. Assault is essentially about your right to be secure in your person, and the fourth amendment was a way of making clear that: "and now soldiers and other agents of the government aren't immune to this restriction anymore--in fact, we're going to bind them with a higher authority than just the common law".

Sorry for assuming that discussing it would be pointless. That's disrespectful.

[maelswarm]

A young girl returning from Mexico with her new dog, a terrier/chihuahua mix (Terrhuahua? Chirrier?)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3492/3786029196_31c38aefda_b.jpg

[piazza63]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2493/3715713842_b37c780073.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3657/3555016937_2639063054.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3309/3555013467_4794a91f25.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3090/3202950740_830c0a10bf.jpg

[40oz]

like you, piazza63, I only take pictures of ugly, homely girls. It's not MY fault some sick people find them a turn-on :)

[Bill58]

Gay Pride parade:

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3157/3638639956_41442b45d2_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wrs111445/3638639956/)
Seoul Color Scan 2009-2 018 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wrs111445/3638639956/) by wrs111445 (http://www.flickr.com/people/wrs111445/), on Flickr

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3657/3638639942_9304c3ba88_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wrs111445/3638639942/)
Seoul Color Scan 2009-2 020 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wrs111445/3638639942/) by wrs111445 (http://www.flickr.com/people/wrs111445/), on Flickr

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3610/3637841009_85cdf66149_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wrs111445/3637841009/)
Seoul Color Scan 2009-2 006 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wrs111445/3637841009/) by wrs111445 (http://www.flickr.com/people/wrs111445/), on Flickr

[peterm1]

Taken recently in Hong Kong streets and parks

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8187/8149171871_48a1192718_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/life_in_shadows/8149171871/)
Life on a Hong Kong Street 10 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/life_in_shadows/8149171871/) by yoyomaoz (http://www.flickr.com/people/life_in_shadows/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8330/8126342466_a6c1a1d07a_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/life_in_shadows/8126342466/)
In a Kowloon park 6 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/life_in_shadows/8126342466/) by yoyomaoz (http://www.flickr.com/people/life_in_shadows/), on Flickr

[Pete B]

M2 50/2 summicron
Portra 160
Pete

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8333/8132797616_c53491b8a3_z.jpg

[jcrutcher]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8187/8143665602_65a2d6d93a_b.jpg ("http://[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/rootbeer2004/8143665602/)

[BlackXList]

I haven't got all the way through the thread yet, but I'll try and put down some thoughts.

As an adult male photographer who does quite a bit of photography, there are some shots that I simply won't take, because of how they could be perceived, not because of any intent behind them or anything inherently sinister, but because there can be a perception of photographers as creepy, and sadly I feel a pressure to distance myself from anything that could fall into that category.

A specific example, a couple of years ago I took a photo of a lone young girl (maybe 4) chasing pigeons, some of the pigeons were taking flight. It's nothing ground breaking or that hasn't been done before, it was just a "nice" photo.

However when it came to posting the picture up online I became over-concious of the issues around images of minors, after sleeping on it I decided not to "publish" the image, just to be completely safe.
Paranoid? possibly, overcautious? possibly, but I felt that it was a decision that I was "encouraged" to make to avoid any potential issues simply because of the age of the subject.

This is a ridiculous state of affairs, and clearly if everyone acted the way I had we would have missed many iconic photos from the likes of Diane Arbus etc, but I am aware of the "creepy guy with the camera" stereotype, and take steps to distance myself from it.

Equally there's a photographer in my home town who drives a taxi, and uses it as a way to try and recruit young female models, I've only met him the one time (a friend has had the "pleasure" more than once) but he wasted no time in showing his portfolio of scantily clad youngish women, and making comments that frankly creeped me out and made me feel uneasy (not an easy task).

So yes, there are some people for whom photography is a means to behave in ways that some might find uncomfortable (I know that in this specific case I did), and I know that the fact that there are people like that impacts the work that people doing photography for the photography rather than for other purposes.

But I don't know how to do anything about separating them, I don't know how (other than gut feeling) you decide that there's no "art" in someone's work, as it's such a subjective thing.

[Ronald_H]

Not exactly 'on the street'but in a public place. A museum to be exact, during a Martin Parr expo :D Nikon FM, CV 40mm f2 SLII.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8169/8024146833_a0a990c7c7_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lookupinwonder/8024146833/)
Girls at the Martin Parr exposition (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lookupinwonder/8024146833/) by Ronald_H (http://www.flickr.com/people/lookupinwonder/), on Flickr

And this one, Lowlands festival, Olymopus Mju-II

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8421/7861850858_c6bb33fea8_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lookupinwonder/7861850858/)
Lowlands 2012 - Slides (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lookupinwonder/7861850858/) by Ronald_H (http://www.flickr.com/people/lookupinwonder/), on Flickr

[jenquest]

http://jenquest.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/10-27-2012_137-1smallsmall.jpg

http://jenquest.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/20121207-163532.jpg (http://jenquest.wordpress.com)

[jcrutcher]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8248/8484010181_f82d8be63f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rootbeer2004/8484010181/)
L1001426.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rootbeer2004/8484010181/) by rootbeer2004 (http://www.flickr.com/people/rootbeer2004/), on Flickr