Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 73,042   Posts: 1,610,645   Online: 1119
      
Page 26 of 38 FirstFirst ... 162021222324252627282930313236 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 372
  1. #251
    C.poulton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    London
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    23
    Slightly off topic but what happens when we are all wearing Google type glasses and constantly filming everything around us - no camera to raise to the face, no way of people knowing whether your taking their picture or not.....

    I think that this will change the whole game - how can you enforce something easily when it is ubiquitous?

    It's almost there now with mobile phone / smart phone / tablet cameras - very difficult to enforce. Is someone making a call, browsing, reading an ebook of filming? How to really tell?

    Unfortunately us 'old school' photographers give the game away by using these strange antiquated machines that require you to hold it up to your face, in plain view of everyone, just to record an image!

  2. #252

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    8,093
    Images
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    she and her kids were "attacked" too ...
    and now stone ( and the peanut gallery ) has attached her again by suggesting the only reason she didn't
    want to have her photograph taken was because she was "fat and ugly" ... ( like all fat / ugly women? )
    and if she was a "beautiful person" she would have relished the extra attention she was getting.

    if ming and stone did nothing wrong .. the lady did nothing wrong either ...
    she didn't want a stranger who had been staring/spying at her and her kids
    for 3-5 minutes photographing them.

    if a person with a camera is going to take grab shots
    ( and if the subject is upset all the better ) then the photographer
    gets what he paid for if/when the subject calls them names, verbally abuses them and/or calls the police.

    the whole fat+ugly thing reminds me of next day pathetic excuses after a frat party.
    Again putting words in my mouth, I spoke of an individual person. This was a group dynamic with children involved my opinion changes and she was being protective of her kids the "unattractive perception/fat" thing does not apply here...


    ~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

  3. #253

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,443
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    So I say again, can't we all just get along? Stay together for the film!
    One of these days I'm going to give you a truckload of grief over run-on sentences.

  4. #254
    darkosaric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hamburg, Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,139
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by C.poulton View Post
    It's almost there now with mobile phone / smart phone / tablet cameras - very difficult to enforce. Is someone making a call, browsing, reading an ebook of filming? How to really tell?
    I think you have countries where is it illegal to make photos without a sound (I had a minox GL, and it was so quiet that you can say it is practically silent). But what about recording movie - no warning sound there...? Maybe there will be a law saying that you can check someones phone if you think he made picture of you ? Or maybe all picture will be recored in cloud - not locally, and then it will be checked for pictures of kids or whatever...?

  5. #255
    winger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Page County, IA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,565
    Images
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    she and her kids were "attacked" too ...
    and now stone ( and the peanut gallery ) has attached her again by suggesting the only reason she didn't
    want to have her photograph taken was because she was "fat and ugly" ... ( like all fat / ugly women? )
    and if she was a "beautiful person" she would have relished the extra attention she was getting.

    if ming and stone did nothing wrong .. the lady did nothing wrong either ...
    she didn't want a stranger who had been staring/spying at her and her kids
    for 3-5 minutes photographing them.

    if a person with a camera is going to take grab shots
    ( and if the subject is upset all the better ) then the photographer
    gets what he paid for if/when the subject calls them names, verbally abuses them and/or calls the police.

    the whole fat+ugly thing reminds me of next day pathetic excuses after a frat party.
    Ming Rider has said he didn't even stand up and was sitting on a bench while photographing. That's hardly attacking when it's a public park. She called him a "perv" and yelled at him several times. He was trying to get a shot of the kids being kids while the older couple sat. He said nothing about it being "if the subject is upset, all the better" and he didn't get the shot he was hoping for. I'd even wonder if the lady thought he was taking the pictures to use as evidence of how her kids were misbehaving. No, there isn't a way to know what the subject is thinking. Should that seriously stop us from ever taking candid pictures?
    The fat and ugly thing was an off-shoot of the original topic, not the OP's excuses.
    Personally, I think a lot of people in this thread are taking the whole thing a little too much to heart (maybe the thread more than the original incident, too).
    If someone got in my son's face, literally, and took pictures of him from less than 5 feet away, yeah, I'd get a bit anxious. I'd probably take their picture and ask them to move away, please (if they didn't move quickly, my response might be a little, um, stronger; I did do karate for several years and hung out with LEOs for 15 years). But if he were doing his usual running/jumping/climbing and someone aimed a camera at him from 20 feet away, I'd just ask if they could send me copies.
    Yeah, different people have different reactions to situations and I think that's sorta the original point of the thread. I just don't see someone being photographed in public as being attacked. Getting screamed at and called perv, I do see as being attacked. My opinion.

  6. #256
    Worker 11811's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,628
    Quote Originally Posted by winger View Post
    If someone got in my son's face, literally, and took pictures of him from less than 5 feet away, yeah, I'd get a bit anxious. I'd probably take their picture and ask them to move away, please (if they didn't move quickly, my response might be a little, um, stronger; I did do karate for several years and hung out with LEOs for 15 years). But if he were doing his usual running/jumping/climbing and someone aimed a camera at him from 20 feet away, I'd just ask if they could send me copies.
    I think we have already established that it is reasonable for a person to wave off a photographer and say, "No pictures, please!" Most people here would respect that request, simply on grounds of personal respect.
    I think it is reasonable for a person to think that he or she can say that at any time. I don't think it's reasonable for a person to go off on a tirade without warning. If the photographer keeps shooting even after being asked, that's a different story.

    I think, in the case at hand, the woman was out of line. She could have simply hollered, "Hey! No pictures!"



    All of this talk about photographing kids gives me the impression that a hysteria is developing where ALL photos of children are suspect, regardless of who took them or why.

    Just recently, we had an incident where one of our own members, here on APUG, was questioned by the police for taking an innocent picture of his own kid!

    What's going to happen? Will it end up that anytime anybody ever takes a photo of a child, for any reason, he or she is going to be branded a pervert? Will we have photography police looking over our shoulders scrutinizing every photo we take to be sure we're not shooting kiddie porn?

    It's downright, freakin' weird!
    Last edited by Worker 11811; 07-11-2013 at 10:25 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    Randy S.

    In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni.

    -----

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

  7. #257

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    17,122
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by winger View Post
    He said nothing about it being "if the subject is upset, all the better" and he didn't get the shot he was hoping for.

    he has insinuated that he doesn't really care and if someone is not happy with his photographing them ... great.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ming Rider View Post
    Some of the best photo's have consisted of people displeased with the camera.



    maybe you don't mind people taking photographs of your kids being kids
    but clearly the lady whose kids he photographed did.

    she didn't know him, he wasn't a friend, he was some guy hanging out on a park bench/table
    for 5 mins staring at her kids, and she felt violated by it ...
    she had every right to act the way she did, just as he had every right to photograph her kids in the park.
    i know he didn't literally attack her, but he violated her which to ME is the same as an attack.

    sometimes people ( on both sides ) need to be responsible for their actions ...
    and it seems that neither the lady nor the photographer have considered this ...
    i am sure if the lady appeared here on apug we'd hear a different version of the story ..

  8. #258
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,815
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    she and her kids were "attacked" too ...
    Taking pictures while sitting there on a bench (and remember, he was there first) does not in any way constitute an attack.


    and now stone ( and the peanut gallery ) has attached her again by suggesting the only reason she didn't
    want to have her photograph taken was because she was "fat and ugly" ... ( like all fat / ugly women? )
    and if she was a "beautiful person" she would have relished the extra attention she was getting.
    That was not the same woman, same situation, or same photographer.


    if ming and stone did nothing wrong .. the lady did nothing wrong either ...
    she didn't want a stranger who had been staring/spying at her and her kids
    for 3-5 minutes photographing them.
    Stone was not involved in either situation; he just made a comment. There is nothing to indicate that ming had been staring/spying at them. If a kid is jumping over a bench right between two people (which lots of folks would call misbehaving), then watching that kid can hardly be called staring, and sitting on a bench in plain view while so doing can never be called spying.


    if a person with a camera is going to take grab shots
    ( and if the subject is upset all the better ) then the photographer
    gets what he paid for if/when the subject calls them names, verbally abuses them and/or calls the police.
    Yes, it comes with the territory. But it doesn't justify the name-calling and verbal abuse, or the general overreaction.
    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.

  9. #259
    Ming Rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    District of the Lakes.
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    112
    Where I said that 'some of the best photo's have been where the subject is displeased with the camera', I posted a link to a famous photo by William Klein. Sadly the link didn't work, so hopefully here it is.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ImageUploadedByTapatalk1373555857.123976.jpg 
Views:	28 
Size:	91.1 KB 
ID:	71383

    Could this picture be called exploitative, perverse or for sexual gratification? At the time, Klein was a relative unknown (irrelevant if you weren't into art or photography) and was younger than me.

    At the risk of getting bored sh*tless, the 'lady' only objected or showed any interest (as far as I'm aware) when she was leaving.

    I didn't stare, stalk, persue, hound or pester.

    The method of shooting I use exclusively and one that will be familiar to anyone who's studied the work and techniques of Bresson, Winogrand, Meyerowitz etc, will be familiar with the style of pre-setting the focus, aperture and shutter and often way before you're ready to take the shot. Then you let your arm hang downwards with the camera and there it stays . . . until you see a shot, raise the camera and for the tiniest of moments check the composition, then click. Camera goes back down.
    It takes 1.5 - 2 seconds (yes I've timed it).

    That is not stalking, pestering or harrassing.

    Winger,

    I had also considered the possibility she thought I was going to 'split' on her.
    Last edited by Ming Rider; 07-11-2013 at 11:38 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    "All I ask for is an M5 with a fast lens, a roll of HP5 and a street to shoot her by."

    StreetPhotographyBlog

  10. #260

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    17,122
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    3
    what a second ..
    stone wasn't there ?
    he's not the anchorman on the news?
    someone can't figuratively attack someone?
    people can't be respectful of others?
    people can't over react or be FOS ?

    get out of town .. !





 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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