Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Photography General Interest

Photography General Interest Neat Photo stuff NOT particularly about Rangefinders.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 07-16-2009   #81
crawdiddy
qu'est-ce que c'est?
 
crawdiddy's Avatar
 
crawdiddy is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: left of center
Posts: 1,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by sepiareverb View Post
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?
__________________
--Dan
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-16-2009   #82
kermaier
Registered User
 
kermaier's Avatar
 
kermaier is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northern New Jersey
Posts: 1,626
Quote:
Originally Posted by sepiareverb View Post
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.

Quote:
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
__________________
M9-P, Fuji X100
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-16-2009   #83
sepiareverb
genius and moron
 
sepiareverb's Avatar
 
sepiareverb is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St Johnsbury VT
Posts: 7,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by crawdiddy View Post
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.
__________________
-Bob
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-16-2009   #84
yanidel
Registered User
 
yanidel's Avatar
 
yanidel is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 43
Posts: 1,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by kully View Post
I think you have an errant 'not' in that sentence Yanick ;-)
indeed ... oups ... hope she does not read this forum
__________________
80 weeks around the world : http://www.yanidel.net
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-16-2009   #85
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
 
Gabriel M.A.'s Avatar
 
Gabriel M.A. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Paris, Frons
Posts: 9,996
I think that Barney is creepy.

Let's all write Congress to have him arrested.
__________________
Big wig wisdom: "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" --Harry Warner, of Warner Bros., 1927

Fellow RFF member: I respect your bandwidth by not posting images larger than 800px on the longest side, and by removing image in a quote.
Together we can combat bandwidth waste (and image scrolling).



My Flickr | (one of) My Portfolio
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-16-2009   #86
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabriel M.A. View Post
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
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-16-2009   #87
antiquark
Derek Ross
 
antiquark's Avatar
 
antiquark is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by sepiareverb View Post
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.
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-16-2009   #88
FallisPhoto
Registered User
 
FallisPhoto's Avatar
 
FallisPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-16-2009   #89
FallisPhoto
Registered User
 
FallisPhoto's Avatar
 
FallisPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by panda81 View Post
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...

Quote:
Originally Posted by panda81 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by panda81 View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-16-2009   #90
panda81
Registered User
 
panda81 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by FallisPhoto View Post
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.
__________________
Jerry
Flickr
Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-16-2009   #91
sepiareverb
genius and moron
 
sepiareverb's Avatar
 
sepiareverb is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St Johnsbury VT
Posts: 7,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by antiquark View Post
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.
__________________
-Bob
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-16-2009   #92
back alley
IMAGES
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: true north strong & free
Posts: 39,978
the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.
__________________
heart soul & a camera

xe2...xe1...16...23...56...55-200

original canon F1...T90...24/2.8...100/2.8...200/2.8...300/5.6
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-16-2009   #93
kermaier
Registered User
 
kermaier's Avatar
 
kermaier is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northern New Jersey
Posts: 1,626
Quote:
Originally Posted by crawdiddy View Post
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
__________________
M9-P, Fuji X100
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-16-2009   #94
JohnTF
Registered User
 
JohnTF's Avatar
 
JohnTF is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Home is Cleveland, Summers often Europe, Winters often Mexico.
Posts: 2,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
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.
__________________
To capture some of this -- I suppose that's lyricism.

Josef Sudek
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-16-2009   #95
Bob Michaels
nobody special
 
Bob Michaels's Avatar
 
Bob Michaels is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Apopka FL (USA)
Age: 73
Posts: 3,352
Since it has all be said already, I searched the entire thread for the one comment that best summed up my view

Quote:
Originally Posted by sepiareverb View Post
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by sepiareverb View Post
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.
__________________
http://www.bobmichaels.org
internet forums appear to have an abundance of anonymous midgets prancing on stilts
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-16-2009   #96
historicist
Registered User
 
historicist is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: lost
Posts: 566
Quote:
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-16-2009   #97
retnull
Registered User
 
retnull is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 464
ANTI: ethics -- do unto others etc
PRO: Miroslav Tichy
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-16-2009   #98
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 7,293
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-16-2009   #99
peterm1
Registered User
 
peterm1's Avatar
 
peterm1 is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,884
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.

Last edited by peterm1 : 07-16-2009 at 21:25.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-16-2009   #100
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
 
Al Patterson is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Columbus GA USA
Age: 60
Posts: 2,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by crawdiddy View Post
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.
__________________
Al Patterson

Canon QL17 GIII
Leica CL 40mm Summicron-C 50mm Hexanon
Yashica Electro 35 GSN
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-16-2009   #101
Bob Michaels
nobody special
 
Bob Michaels's Avatar
 
Bob Michaels is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Apopka FL (USA)
Age: 73
Posts: 3,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Patterson View Post
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.
__________________
http://www.bobmichaels.org
internet forums appear to have an abundance of anonymous midgets prancing on stilts
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-16-2009   #102
Melvin
Flim Forever!
 
Melvin's Avatar
 
Melvin is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 440
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?"
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-16-2009   #103
Bob Michaels
nobody special
 
Bob Michaels's Avatar
 
Bob Michaels is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Apopka FL (USA)
Age: 73
Posts: 3,352
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://www.bobmichaels.org
internet forums appear to have an abundance of anonymous midgets prancing on stilts
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-16-2009   #104
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
 
Al Patterson is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Columbus GA USA
Age: 60
Posts: 2,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Michaels View Post
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.
__________________
Al Patterson

Canon QL17 GIII
Leica CL 40mm Summicron-C 50mm Hexanon
Yashica Electro 35 GSN
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-16-2009   #105
Bob Michaels
nobody special
 
Bob Michaels's Avatar
 
Bob Michaels is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Apopka FL (USA)
Age: 73
Posts: 3,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Patterson View Post
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.
__________________
http://www.bobmichaels.org
internet forums appear to have an abundance of anonymous midgets prancing on stilts
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-16-2009   #106
sepiareverb
genius and moron
 
sepiareverb's Avatar
 
sepiareverb is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St Johnsbury VT
Posts: 7,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Patterson View Post
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.
__________________
-Bob
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-16-2009   #107
sepiareverb
genius and moron
 
sepiareverb's Avatar
 
sepiareverb is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St Johnsbury VT
Posts: 7,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Michaels View Post
Did this woman have "reasonable expectation of privacy?
Once she got back to her hotel room yes, on the sidewalk? No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Michaels View Post
I am a dirty old man because of the way I framed the photo?
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?
__________________
-Bob
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-16-2009   #108
Papercut
Registered User
 
Papercut's Avatar
 
Papercut is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Westchester county, NY (and Chongqing whenever I can get there)
Posts: 899
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! Many lessons learned from that experience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
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.
__________________
-- Kevin

=========
Only connect.
=========

flickr photostream

Last edited by Papercut : 07-16-2009 at 20:56.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-16-2009   #109
kermaier
Registered User
 
kermaier's Avatar
 
kermaier is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northern New Jersey
Posts: 1,626
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
__________________
M9-P, Fuji X100
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-16-2009   #110
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
 
Al Patterson is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Columbus GA USA
Age: 60
Posts: 2,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Michaels View Post
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.
__________________
Al Patterson

Canon QL17 GIII
Leica CL 40mm Summicron-C 50mm Hexanon
Yashica Electro 35 GSN
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-16-2009   #111
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
 
mfunnell's Avatar
 
mfunnell is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by FallisPhoto View Post
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
__________________
There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness." Dave Barry

My flickr photostream has day-to-day stuff and I've given up most everywhere else through lack of time or perhaps interest.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-17-2009   #112
Bob Michaels
nobody special
 
Bob Michaels's Avatar
 
Bob Michaels is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Apopka FL (USA)
Age: 73
Posts: 3,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Patterson View Post
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.
__________________
http://www.bobmichaels.org
internet forums appear to have an abundance of anonymous midgets prancing on stilts
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-17-2009   #113
Todd.Hanz
Registered User
 
Todd.Hanz's Avatar
 
Todd.Hanz is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Texas
Age: 51
Posts: 4,191
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
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-17-2009   #114
oldoc
oldoc
 
oldoc's Avatar
 
oldoc is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Middle Tennessee and Points South
Posts: 390
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.
__________________
Michael

Leica M9 and assorted stuff.



My Images:
www.pbase.com/meephoto
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-17-2009   #115
kermaier
Registered User
 
kermaier's Avatar
 
kermaier is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northern New Jersey
Posts: 1,626
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldoc View Post
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
__________________
M9-P, Fuji X100
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-17-2009   #116
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
 
mfunnell's Avatar
 
mfunnell is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,458
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
__________________
There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness." Dave Barry

My flickr photostream has day-to-day stuff and I've given up most everywhere else through lack of time or perhaps interest.

Last edited by mfunnell : 07-17-2009 at 08:52. Reason: misslepping
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-17-2009   #117
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
 
mfunnell's Avatar
 
mfunnell is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by memphis View Post
I'm off to wash my eyes with borax to get those images out of my mind
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 (I've not pictured Bob, but the "borax" thing is giving me ideas.) Now I'll have to for a while to achieve clarity.

...Mike
__________________
There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness." Dave Barry

My flickr photostream has day-to-day stuff and I've given up most everywhere else through lack of time or perhaps interest.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-17-2009   #118
djonesii
Registered User
 
djonesii is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 386
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%200...ids/index.html

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

Dave
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-17-2009   #119
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
 
mfunnell's Avatar
 
mfunnell is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by djonesii View Post
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%200...ids/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 .

...Mike

(Dave, this isn't any reflection on you or your photos. Rather it is about what some people choose to see as "creepy".)
__________________
There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness." Dave Barry

My flickr photostream has day-to-day stuff and I've given up most everywhere else through lack of time or perhaps interest.

Last edited by mfunnell : 07-17-2009 at 09:30. Reason: unbracket
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-17-2009   #120
oldoc
oldoc
 
oldoc's Avatar
 
oldoc is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Middle Tennessee and Points South
Posts: 390
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?
__________________
Michael

Leica M9 and assorted stuff.



My Images:
www.pbase.com/meephoto
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:19.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.