Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,574   Posts: 1,545,703   Online: 763
      
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 99
  1. #31

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    290
    [QUOTE=Markok765]
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexis Neel
    Quiet you american


    Canuckian

  2. #32
    Markok765's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,270
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    24
    [QUOTE=Alexis Neel]
    Quote Originally Posted by Markok765



    Canuckian
    Thats Croatian moved to canada to you
    Marko Kovacevic
    Blog
    Youtube

  3. #33
    David H. Bebbington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    East Kent, United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,364
    Images
    36
    For me, the whole area of street photography (candids of people) is history. In HCB's time, people in general had very little awareness of miniature cameras as serious picture-taking instruments and even less of the ramifications of intellectual property and the ways pictures can be exploited. Today, the pendulum has swung completely the other way, and people are grotesquely over-suspicious of being photographed (although not completely without reason, given the proliferation of official surveillance, pornography, idiots with their "up skirt" cameras, paparazzo work, etc.), Against this background, the facts of the matter (e.g. paparazzi have no interest whatsoever in non-celebrities, photography in public places, even of children, is legal, etc.) pale into insignificance.

    My attitude (as someone who was greatly inspired by HCB et alia as a young man) is simple: In moral terms, street photography is more likely than not to cause offense and confrontation, and in commercial and artistic terms, I do not wish to expend any effort amassing a body of work which includes recognizable images of members of the public and which therefore most if not all professional photography buyers will reject out of hand and refuse to use without a signed model release for every recognizable person in the picture in question.

    I made an attempt ten or so years ago to do some contemporary street photography within the legal parameters then applicable (now much worse) and learned a hard lesson - buyers at numerous picture agencies expressed admiration for the work but said for legal reasons they could not use it (even pictures without people but including signs were rejected for intellectual property reasons). If anyone is interested, this is the "Parallax Perspectives" series on my website.

    Ultimately, I do not want to offend anyone, and I do want to enjoy an easy life - accordingly, no more street photography for me!

    Regards,

    David

  4. #34
    copake_ham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC or Copake or Tucson
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4,092
    Images
    56
    Roger,

    I'm a bit fearful here in that I only read the first two pages before responding.

    I think some concern arises from where folks live and their resulting lifestyle.

    On weekdays I live in Manhattan, NYC and (weather permitting) walk to work each AM from 33rd St. to 50th St. My destination is in the midtown "hotel" district - chock-o-block with camera-toting tourists. As such, it would be beyond "odd" for anyone to object to having her/his pic taken - particularly in a "street" shot!

    Nonetheless, when I am outside of a NYC-type mileu I find myself much more inhibited as a shooter. Much of "quasi-public" America is "malled over" and photo-taking is thus a privilege (if granted) and not a right. Malls are private property.

    Similarly, most of America's populace now lives in suburban/exurban (and even more "sprawled out") places such that "street" no longer exists.

    Add to all of this the detioration of most real elements of privacy (e.g. your banking records and telephone calls are regualarly monitored) and it is not surprising that folks are "clinging" to the last outward vestiges of privacy by objecting to having their pictures taken in pulbic!*

    *Oh, and besides, there are way too many folks who think they are the next American Idol (what a fool's era we live in!) and so thing if you take their pic - you are just one of those nasty H-wood papparazis!

  5. #35

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    This is frightening. A forum full of PHOTOGRAPHERS wants to ban street photography -- and make no mistake, if you don't want your picture taken, you want to ban street photography.

    Fortunately there are still many countries where having your picture taken is regarded as it was in the UK and USA until some 10-20 years ago: essentially, as a bit of a lark. There have been several explanations of why things have changed, but it seems to me that the change should be deprecated, not praised.

    Cheers,

    Roger
    Last edited by Roger Hicks; 06-25-2006 at 04:48 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Not worth arguing

  6. #36
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,597
    Images
    122
    I agree entirely with Roger. I can see no difference between a person actually being seen in public and someone being seen in a photograph whilst in public.
    In fact you can get a better view of someone in real life than you can in a photograph so the people who object to being photographed in public should also object to being looked at whilst in public.


    Steve.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  7. #37
    David H. Bebbington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    East Kent, United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,364
    Images
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks
    This is frightening. A forum full of PHOTOGRAPHERS wants to ban street photography -- and make no mistake, if you don't want your picture taken, you want to ban street photography.
    Roger, I polished my glasses extra hard and checked all the posts on this thread - couldn't find one saying street photography should be banned, simply that some people were less than keen about being photographed (this includes me - I refuse to model for anyone for free!). And as to whether the change is regrettable or not, I think this is academic - the fact is, most people are suspicious of photographers and don't want to be photographed. For me at least, this is the deciding factor and the reason why, as I said, I have crossed street photography off my agenda.

    Regards,

    David

  8. #38

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Dear David,

    Anyone who does not want their picture taken in the street is voting, as clearly as possible, for people not being allowed to photograph them in the street. If this is not a vote to ban street photography, it is hard to see what is.

    As for whether the change is regrettable, well, public opinion changes over time, and there is no reason why it should not change back to a more reasonable attitude in due course -- which it will not with a passive acceptance that we can't change it.

    Cheers,

    Roger

  9. #39

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    One more thought: because someone holds a pusillanimous view, it does not make them pusillanimous in everything, so I apologize, Aggie, if you thought that's what I meant.

    Cheers

    Roger

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,355
    In fact, you're asking the wrong people here, Roger, as photographers are notoriously camera shy,

    My comments about HCB were based on things I've read and an excellent video taken some years shortly before his death (which I saw twice). Yes he often 'shot from the hip', but he didn't always, and even when he did there was often some sort of interaction going on - perhaps afterwards, which can be just as important as before. He expressed some regret, in fact, for the idea of 'stolen moments' (though perhaps that shouldn't be taken too deeply).

    In fact I'm not hugely moralistic about all this, but one thing I think is always important is respect for your subjects - that's something HCB definitely had in good measure. That means surely respecting their decision to opt-out if they so wish. I don't see the connection with banning street photography.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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