Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,296   Posts: 1,535,707   Online: 912
      
Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 1234567812 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 152
  1. #11

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    US
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    2,060
    I'm not from this planet. I'm from a planet called earth. I don't know what this one is.
    Seems to me when I was a little one, the first time I showed my fanny for the camera, it would have been white. I'm quite sure had there been a second time, it would be red.
    Last edited by Tom1956; 06-15-2013 at 03:27 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,295
    If only it were " a few sickos".

    Any experienced mental health or social work professional will know that child abuse is terrifyingly common, and has been for decades and decades, and that the most common situation in which it takes place is within families.

    However, the disgust which (quite rightly) prevails over abuse also leads to these truths not only remaining unacknowledged, but actively (note that I do not imply conspiratorially) suppressed.

  3. #13
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,246
    Images
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by pdeeh View Post
    If only it were " a few sickos".

    Any experienced mental health or social work professional will know that child abuse is terrifyingly common, and has been for decades and decades, and that the most common situation in which it takes place is within families.

    However, the disgust which (quite rightly) prevails over abuse also leads to these truths not only remaining unacknowledged, but actively (note that I do not imply conspiratorially) suppressed.
    It is a few statistically and even fewer who use photography. I may wewll be too many.

    What needs to be taken into account is the the context of an odd family image containing child nudity, which is not the same as intent to make obscene illegal images. The point being innocent people are tared by the deviants if they make images like the OP mentions.

    Ian

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    local
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,146
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Truzi View Post
    I'd be quite upset too.

    Similar things had happened in the United States a couple decades ago with revised child-porn laws. Many people had been in the same situation as you. It has relaxed a bit as people have become more rational due to the media coverage of such things, but it took a while before common sense (mostly) prevailed.

    It took a lot of media coverage from outraged consumers before anything happened.
    yup

    around 1996-1997. i used to serve her and her husband coffee.

    good luck with your situation !
    silver magnets, trickle tanks sold
    artwork often times sold for charity
    PM me for details

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Midlands, UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    919
    I think you should take this story to your paper or a photography magazine at the very least. I almost can't believe that they destroyed the picture and you complied to avoid trouble. This, as Ian mentions, comes down to nothing more than a fundamental lack of common sense and fear - which clearly is beginning to have a massive impact on every aspect of our lives. They destroyed your property, for no rational reason whatsoever. This needs to be fought aggressively, on principle. If we continue to remain complacent about this it will lead to more fear based laws and also, more paranoia about photography and photographers.
    'Cows are very fond of being photographed, and, unlike architecture, don't move.' - Oscar Wilde

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    45
    Thanks for the comments. I feel a bit in a funk at the moment because I work hard and pay my taxes, and the only thing that keeps life interesting is my family and photography, and this incident has hit both.

    The policeman kept repeating in amazement "I didn't know people were still taking film pictures, it's great that you're still doing it". In this day and age, I don't think anyone doing anything illegal would give their film to an external party for development, they'd be using digital. Which just goes to show how absurd the situation was. The police were actually quite apologetic, saying this incident only occurred because a "member of the public" complained.

    It would have been nice to have been contacted by the lab. Unfortunately because there are so few film processors here in Australia the shop I drop them off sends the film interstate to be processed, so I have had no face-to-face contact with the actual lab doing the processing - might have made a difference, who knows. All I know is that because of their judgement, the police had to come to my house, evaluate how I was raising my children (which took all of one second) and write a report that goes into the system, even if it says no laws were broken.

  7. #17
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,628
    Strange thing is, back in the supposedly puritanical 50's, no one thought much of it. I inherited from my mom slides of me running around naked at the beach at age two, and color prints of my bare butt at age three riding a tricycle naked (my mom made me do that, because it was "cute"). No flak from the processors.
    My main objection is that they demanded destruction of the slide after acknowledging that there was no ill intent in its creation. So what if there are some "naughty bits"? These days, adult's "naughty bits" can hardly be avoided when going to movies, because nudity is now OK, and porn is all over the internet, yet the innocent nudity of a small child in a private family photo is not acceptable. It's a picture of a little child, it's a private family photo by you, the child's parent, and it's your property.
    Last edited by lxdude; 06-15-2013 at 08:32 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: typo
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by batwister View Post
    I think you should take this story to your paper or a photography magazine at the very least. I almost can't believe that they destroyed the picture and you complied to avoid trouble. This, as Ian mentions, comes down to nothing more than a fundamental lack of common sense and fear - which clearly is beginning to have a massive impact on every aspect of our lives. They destroyed your property, for no rational reason whatsoever. This needs to be fought aggressively, on principle. If we continue to remain complacent about this it will lead to more fear based laws and also, more paranoia about photography and photographers.
    Yes I think if I had a more combative personality I probably should have (like my wife wanted to) but I just want to keep children out of this. I think once it's in the police's hands there was little they could do - my plea I guess was for the labs to show some common sense before calling in the authorities.

  9. #19
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,628
    I think you should have just let your wife take it on.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  10. #20
    photopriscilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Miami
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    20
    I have to say that this is quite alarming! I can only share that when our daughter needed her passport at age 1 we took a picture of her. It was a charming and natural shot. We live in Florida and it is very hot so she didn't have a shirt on in the photo. Since it was only of her head and shoulders we didn't think anything of it! Needless to say we had to submit a photobooth picture in the end, in which she looks miserable.

    It makes me wonder what photos we have of our kids that could be perceived in an unfavorable light!

    So sorry to hear your story!

    Best,

    Priscilla

    Quote Originally Posted by Lowly View Post
    I couldn't sleep so I've posted this just to get it off my chest.

    I take pictures of my family snaps on transparency film because I don't trust digital for archival purposes - I'm always crashing hard drives, getting viruses and then having to reformat computers. So it's one of my life's pleasures to drop film off and then a week later getting the jewels back. Film also works for me because I'm very protective of my family's privacy, and don't post any pictures of them online.

    So I get a call from the police wanting to discuss a confidential matter. I have no idea why - I've NEVER had to talk to the police. It turns out that a picture I've taken of my kid while running around mooning everyone, which I was going to use to embarrass them when they turned 21, had been of concern to a person at the lab so they had contacted the police about a case of child p*nography! This is a lab that has seen hundreds of pictures of my family over the years, and because of one frame with a bottom in it they call the police.

    So after having multiple visits from the police, who agreed that it looked like a child running around poking their bottom out at everyone as young children are wont to do, no charges would be laid but they would have to file a report on the incident. One of the funny questions was did I have a chance to preview the picture of the film so I had a chance to edit it before giving it to the lab! They couldn't give the picture back, because at a huge enlargement you might be able to see some naughty bits so it would have to be destroyed. My wife wanted to fight that decision thinking it was one of the funniest pictures I had taken, but I just wanted the matter to end and agreed to have the picture destroyed.

    So because someone in "the public" took offense to a picture I took, who so happens to be a photolab that sees the picture before I've even had a chance to look and vet them, I get a visit from the police and the incident is in the system with names of my family even though I'm not guilty of anything. I'm upset and quite frankly disgusted at the judgement of the lab. There's only a few labs left in Australia, and although I can process my own e6 in my Jobo machine, I thought I should support the film labs in Australia. No more!

    What a world we live in, where an innocent moment between family can be so easily intruded upon. I've thought about sending a letter to the lab, but I just want to wipe my hands of them and never ever have any further contact with them.

    Thanks for listening.

Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 1234567812 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin