Candid photos of young women

[oldoc]

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

Uncle

[sepiareverb]

Originally Posted by kermaier

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.

Originally Posted by kermaier

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

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

Originally Posted by kermaier

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.

Originally Posted by kermaier

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]

Originally Posted by yanidel

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

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

[sepiareverb]

Or "not"

[kermaier]

Originally Posted by oldoc

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]

Originally Posted by sepiareverb

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]

Originally Posted by sepiareverb

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]

Originally Posted by crawdiddy

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]

Originally Posted by kully

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]

Originally Posted by Gabriel M.A.

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

[antiquark]

Originally Posted by sepiareverb

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]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

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]

Originally Posted by panda81

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...

Originally Posted by panda81

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.

Originally Posted by panda81

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]

Originally Posted by FallisPhoto

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]

Originally Posted by antiquark

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]

Originally Posted by crawdiddy

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]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

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

Originally Posted by sepiareverb

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

Originally Posted by sepiareverb

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

[charjohncarter]

[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]

Originally Posted by crawdiddy

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.