Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,898   Posts: 1,584,375   Online: 731
      
Page 9 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3456789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 152
  1. #81
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,340
    Images
    12
    Thanks. Some more info on the legislation here: Mandatory Reporting.

    I don't know what state Lowly is in though, and I don't see photo-lab operators in any of those lists except for Northern Territory (note that the lists are professionals who will be serious hot water for failing to report; anyone at all can make a report if they perceive an issue). It's possible that the lab operator had had training from some other context, or that they were just a damn busybody and called the wrong peoples.

    Anyway, none of that excuses police destruction of private and personal property (with significant emotional meaning, not to mention emotional impact on the new victim!) without a crime being previously committed.

  2. #82

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    45
    I just got the film back from the shopfront - much happier now my pictures are mine again.

    I don't have any issue with the police - the constables didn't know much about the laws and were sent to just do the paperwork. From what they said, because "a member of the public" had complained, and because it involved child nudity, it automatically got classified at the lowest level and had to be destroyed. The picture destroyed can be debated by others, but my main issue is with the lab. Remember, this picture was not in a display in a public space, it was not digital where I had a chance to review it, it was not developed film that had been seen. It was only because of a complaint from a member of the public that there was an incident. 3 rolls of family snaps in that batch - 108 pictures (minus some that had some sort of light leak problem). This is where it solely comes down to the judgement of the lab.

    People can say it's not the fault of the lab, and those people can continue to support them if they want to. But when the innocent act of recording your family growing up is interfered with, when every time you press the shutter you have in the back of your head "is some person in a photolab going to call the police on a whim?" - well that is not a thought I want in my head when taking pictures of spontaneous moments. I'll never ever have any film processor develop my film again.
    Last edited by Lowly; 06-18-2013 at 12:47 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: spelling

  3. #83
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,340
    Images
    12
    Completely agree with how you feel about the lab, and I wouldn't hold back on letting them know that. The "had to be destroyed" line is bullshit though, that's just made-up on the spot. Random members of the public cannot cause your property to be destroyed.

    If you need any help with getting your own process going, we will of course help. Are you in South Australia by any chance?

  4. #84
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,756
    Quote Originally Posted by Lowly View Post
    I just got the film back from the shopfront - much happier now my pictures are mine again.

    I don't have any issue with the police - they constables didn't know much about the laws and were sent to just do the paperwork. From what they said, because "a member of the public" had complained, and because it involved child nudity, it automatically got classified at the lowest level and had to be destroyed.

    That's crazy. If a museum has a valuable original Wynn Bullock print of his nude daughter in a forest, are they going to confiscate it and destroy it if someone objects? And what is this "member of the public" business? Since when do random people get to pass judgment on your stuff and the police will enforce it? Don't you have even a minimum of due process there? I find it hard to believe that you don't have a right to have a magistrate review this case before anything is destroyed. If the cops can summarily destroy your property based on a complaint from a member of the public, then you have no property rights. Sounds like bureaucratic BS from some cops that are making it up as they go along.

    Your wife was right to want to fight it, on principle alone. Stop being so meek and gullible. Stop siding with the cops. They were jerks to you and violated your property rights.
    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.

  5. #85

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    45
    Polyglot - pm'd.

    I'll leave the fight for the films destruction to other people (there have already been cases involving artists and photographs of children in Australia which were won by the artists). It was just a happy snap - I can easily take another picture of my child's bottom

  6. #86
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,756
    And what will you do when they call the cops on that one?
    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.

  7. #87

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    45
    Because a lab operator will never see it, there will never be any cops involved.

  8. #88
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,675
    Images
    344
    I am not sure if this has been mentioned in this thread, but why would anyone that way inclined use film in preference to digital, where no lab is required.

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  9. #89

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Midlands, UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    If a museum has a valuable original Wynn Bullock print of his nude daughter in a forest, are they going to confiscate it and destroy it if someone objects?
    I've wondered if labs are actually passing artistic judgment on our pictures. Maybe if the OPs image had more of an aesthetic edge, the lab would have acted differently!?

    I only send colour to the lab, but I've often wondered - if they are indeed probing everyone's negs for content - whether the most efficient means to do this is for them to make scans, and indeed keep them as potential 'evidence'. I send my film in for development only, but still wonder if they have a folder on some computer with my name on it. We need a snooper to shed some light on this - 'PentaPRISM'?
    Last edited by batwister; 06-18-2013 at 03:02 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    'Cows are very fond of being photographed, and, unlike architecture, don't move.' - Oscar Wilde

  10. #90
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,988
    Images
    226
    I understand your upset nature, I know when I was younger my mother remarking on the new laws about submitting film of kids in bathtubs (as mothers often do) and how she was glad she hadn't had any issues and that the law changed when I was older and she wasn't taking those any more (I was probably 11-12 then). So since then (I'm 30 now) I've been aware of the concerns in America at least. Many labs here have a policy that any nudes are printed, but the negatives are destroyed as a policy of the company, which I think is fairly f-ed up, I can see destroying the print and returning the negative with a warning. But not destroying the negs so you're lucky, all your film could have been destroyed if you were in America lol.

    So since I do a lot of nude work, I process it all at home as a policy, I process my B&W anyway but the color nudes always get done at home.

    I'm surprised you didn't think of that but again Australia may be different but I know for one I wouldn't have taken the chance that some idiot would report or destroy my work.

    Sorry and good luck for the future, glad you stayed out of jail.


    ~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

Page 9 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3456789101112131415 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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