Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,925   Posts: 1,585,030   Online: 1001
      
Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 99
  1. #61

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

    Yes, but there's freaking out and freaking out. I keep trying to frame a response to Aggie but it is difficult to find common ground with someone who equates farting, vomiting and photography.

    Cheers,

    Roger

  2. #62
    Markok765's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,270
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks
    Dear Firecracker,

    Yes, but there's freaking out and freaking out. I keep trying to frame a response to Aggie but it is difficult to find common ground with someone who equates farting, vomiting and photography.

    Cheers,

    Roger
    Ohh! Catfight!
    Marko Kovacevic
    Blog
    Youtube

  3. #63
    Helen B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Hell's Kitchen, New York, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,557
    Images
    27
    Roger,

    I was not trying to make definite distinctions between street, documentary and news, only to emphasise that you are referring to an enormous range of photography, with an enormous range of intents and approaches. What I consider appropriate for my conduct in one situation I may not consider appropriate in another. Is that a difficult principle to grasp?

    "...because I do not see how they can be disentangled."

    It's not that you need to disentangle them, or to define them in a universally applicable way. You can apply the ethics that you believe are appropriate for the situation. Alternatively you can hand the responsibility for your conduct over to the state by knowing your legal rights and exercising them.

    I'm sure that this will be misunderstood, but what the hell.

    Best,
    Helen

  4. #64

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Japan
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,957
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks
    Dear Firecracker,

    Yes, but there's freaking out and freaking out. I keep trying to frame a response to Aggie but it is difficult to find common ground with someone who equates farting, vomiting and photography.

    Cheers,

    Roger
    I guess I have to stretch what I wrote a bit. The problem I pointed out is that there's a handful of photographers like yourself and myself, concerned about the growing pressure on the habit of picture-taking that we are so accustomed to. Meanwhile, there are others out there like the public-bath owners and their security consultants, without regarding the consequences practicing what's considered to be the violation of privacy and illegal.

    I think some people are losing sanity, but I don't think there's an immediate solution to these problems yet. It's just as diverse as the New York court case (in the NYT article from one of the links Art posted) on the issue of photographing people in public where one can argue and win for the artistic expression or protecting one's privacy.

    This is part of the reason why I keep my photos that show the images of people from all over the place with and without consent as private as I can. I don't even post them here at APUG unless I really need to in some discussions on some threads. And I haven't figured out how I can promote my photos in any other ways. I just think it's just hard to come up with enough reasons to back up my own reasoning.

  5. #65
    Helen B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Hell's Kitchen, New York, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,557
    Images
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks
    Dear Firecracker,

    Yes, but there's freaking out and freaking out. I keep trying to frame a response to Aggie but it is difficult to find common ground with someone who equates farting, vomiting and photography.

    Cheers,

    Roger
    Well, that's the nature of art. It's all a fermenting heap of poorly-digested junk. No disrespect to vomit, and apologies to Art.

    I thought that Aggie was illustrating a point about the difference between rights and personal ethics. Not very difficult to grasp, unless you don't want to.

    Best,
    Helen

    PS This thread has such a wide subject matter that framing a response that has even a slim chance of being understood can be quite a challenge.

  6. #66

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

    You and I are, I think, saying the same thing. There is no universal standard of ethics. Where we differ (if at all) is my original point: anyone who wants to photograph others must themselves be open to being photographed. Anyone who wants to forbid others to photograph them wishes to impose a ban on certain kinds of street photography. To quote you back at yourself, is this a difficult principle to grasp?

    As for Aggie's 'rights', no, vomiting on someone isn't a right, it's a common assault, and to pick another of her points, a religious ritual (be it Hopi or anything else) is somewhat different from being on the street, walking, shopping, reading on a park bench. I'd also suggest that for most people, her parallels are, to be generous, exaggerated.

    It comes back to what you say about there being no universal standard. I reiterate: anyone in a public place must be fair game, though I cheerfully concede the rider that there are plenty of times when a decent photographer will refrain from taking a picture. Just not EVERY time, which seems to me to be what Aggie is saying.

    Cheers,

    Roger

  7. #67

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,355
    Oh yes, and another thing!

    I noticed just the photographers of Picture Post were mentioned. No, they didn't always go 'incognito'. in fact they very often didn't, especially with their street shots of children. In fact some shots were not as spontaneous as they appeared, because they were rehearsed and even 'set-up'. Grace Robertson took some well-known pictures of children, she would spend hours with them.

    There's a lot of myth-making about photographers of the past.

  8. #68
    Helen B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Hell's Kitchen, New York, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,557
    Images
    27
    "Where we differ (if at all) is my original point: anyone who wants to photograph others must themselves be open to being photographed. Anyone who wants to forbid others to photograph them wishes to impose a ban on certain kinds of street photography."

    Worded like that, I don't disagree at all.

    Best,
    Helen

  9. #69

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    861
    Wow . . . long thread. I like the idea of treating others as you would like to be treated. However, there is a cultural aspect to this, and when amongst a people with a culture very different from your own, I think the proper conduct is to apply the covenants of those people's culture.

    I have done what I guess could be called street photography for corporate clients. Namely either restaurant or architectural clients who wanted an idea of people in a space they operated or created. The approach I used was to make sure someone knew I was taking photographs; if a person shyed away or scowled, then I did not take a picture. I found many people were very open to being photographed, though the opposite was people who wanted to pose, since those images would not have been of use to my clients. Sometimes people would ask me what I was photographing, though often it seemed few people cared what I was doing. It helped to be in a space long enough for people to notice you, and then they would ignore you. Sometimes I handed out my business card to people, which seemed much appreciated and seemed to put some people more at ease.

    Okay, so maybe that was too specific. In eight years of photography and film work (documentary) in public, the only trouble I ever had was largely with security people, and not because I was photographing them. I had once instance at a restaurant when an older gentleman angrily stated you better not take my picture, or I'll . . . . , to which I quickly moved my camera out of harms way and replied I would never consider photographing you, which I stated while smiling. My thought was that it might be better to kill him with kindness, so I also wished him a nice day and replied about how nice a day it was, how nice the weather was . . . guy probably thought I was a complete nut . . . oh well.

    So I guess my approach is be obvious and overt, treat people with respect and kindness, consider their culture, and always be friendly, smile, and be polite. It usually works out fine, except with over-zealous security people.

    Ciao!

    Gordon

  10. #70
    Aggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    So. Utah
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,925
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks
    In the thread about 'what don't you photograph on the street', two people have expressed their opposition to having their picture taken, in quite strong terms.

    This intrigues me. When I'm in public, I'm fair game. Why shouldn't I be? What have I to be ashamed of?

    How do others feel about this? And how do they feel about people who feel they have some sort of right not to be photographed?

    How much poorer would photography be if everyone took this pusillanimous attitude? What would happen to our understanding of the past? Because, afer all, the present soon becomes the past...

    Cheers,

    Roger
    Getting back to the basics of this thread, you Roger seem to expand it into different areas to try and belittle people who for one reason or another do not wish to have their photograph taken. Why do you feel the need to call those who so wish it, to be ashamed? Why do you call them small minded? Why can't you accept that not everyone thinks like you?

    Granted there are security cameras everywhere. So be it. When a person is confronted with a choice as to having that photo taken or not, Why can't you accept that that person made a choice? Some countries it is not a right to photograph whatever you want or whom ever you want. My example of the Hopi Reservation is just that. Many and that means right here on apug have in the past claimed that the reservations should and are public lands. They are not. Photographers, and this means a person carrying a camera, have visited the Hopi rez especially during their ceremonial times. Those photographers were rude, and interrupted the ceremonies to the point that in a few instances the ceremony came to a halt until the offending photographer that positioned themselves right in the middle of it as they claimed it was there right, could be ejected from the rez. Laws were enacted to halt it by banning cameras. It is not that I'm saying ban a camera. I'm saying think before you use that camera. Some shots are not going to be offensive to anyone. There are a lot og good grab shots. Then there are those that for one reason or another would upset the subject. We see it a lot today with parents of children. To say again that a person should put a bag on their head to go outside is the most asinine thing I have heard in response to this thread. To demand that you have the right no matter what will give ammunition to those who do want to ban the use of cameras. Common courtesy, smiling, being open and asking permission when you think it might cause trouble goes a long way to keeping that right you so dearly want. Is it that hard to respect another human being? Do you have to demean them by name calling just because they don't want their picture taken? As to the remarks about farting, Ben Franklin had it right in the late 1700's, read his book called, "Fart Proudly" It actually takes your stance. As to vomiting, well that is not something that is controlable. If it were to happen, then you just happened to be covered by what is an act of God, or Mother nature, take your pick. That person if they were being photographeed, and chose that moment to hurl, I would laugh until I cried to see you covered with your right to photograph it. Yeah I do equate them. It is not an assualt, it is what they say,,,,shit happens. You take pictures in a street setting, and well anything can and sometimes does happen. You sound more like a papparazi type than a street photographer.
    Non Digital Diva



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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