A warning to all

[Hards80]

throwing aside all conversation of laws and morality. it comes down to this.

"if you were in your car with your young daughter, would you or would you not be pissed off if some guy in the car next to you was taking her picture?"

i know i'd be pretty damn pissed. it doesn't hurt to be safe these days, and i would have called the police too. if it turned out to be harmless, then all the better.

thats all i get from this thread.

[TCav]

A camera is a tool.

Tools make it easier for us to do what we want.

A tool isn't inherently good or evil. It just is.

If I use a tool to do something evil, the tool isn't an accomplice.

A shotgun is a tool. Having a shotgun is legal.

But if I drive into a liquor store parking lot and get out of my car carrying a shotgun, the customers and staff in the liquor store have a right to be concerned, and a call to the police would not be an unreasonable reaction.


If I take a photo of a young girl, the parents have a right to be concerned, and a call to the police would not be an unreasonable reaction.

Got it?

[Chato]

Originally Posted by TCav

A camera is a tool.

Tools make it easier for us to do what we want.

A tool isn't inherently good or evil. It just is.

If I use a tool to do something evil, the tool isn't an accomplice.

A shotgun is a tool. Having a shotgun is legal.

But if I drive into a liquor store parking lot and get out of my car carrying a shotgun, the customers and staff in the liquor store have a right to be concerned, and a call to the police would not be an unreasonable reaction.


If I take a photo of a young girl, the parents have a right to be concerned, and a call to the police would not be an unreasonable reaction.

Got it?

As a matter of fact I don't "get it." I see "young girls" every day of my life. No one dreams of punching me out because I see these people. Ahh, then, we wave the magic wand of the camera, and somehow, in some way, an image of a fully clothed (mind you we're not even talking about an athletic match or a swimming pool) person is in and of itself a threat. Or is it a threat? You never know. There appear to be incantations that can be applied to eliminate the threat.

All those sports shots of Junior High School and High School "babes" in the local paper? Hey, they don't count. Shots in which young girls, clearly recogniszable, but not the primary subject? They don't count either. Only the magic spell, the incantatation makes them count.

In this thread of course the question become ludicrous. A girl whose face is visible, the snap of a picture, and we run off to marshall the forces of law and order.

Let me give you another take. In our day kids routinely send nude pictures of themselves to each other. They call it "sexting." Daddys precious baby is out there making out at an age, that when I was a kid, this would be unimaginable.

But hey, what the hell, let's get this out of our system. The threat is photography. Of course, not all photography, only some kinds of photography.

Make me feel better, go over the Selvins thread in this latest photography challenge, and tell him that these kind of shots, are uncivil, uncurtious, just plain wrong. Of course, I'm wrong to point this out because his subject was a lens or a dog, or something...

NB. I have asked you to examine your pre-conceptions and at least try to rationalize them in view or your OWN views on the matter. Instead you compare camera to shotguns...

Dave

[JohnG]

All those sports shots of Junior High School and High School "babes" in the local paper? Hey, they don't count. Shots in which young girls, clearly recogniszable, but not the primary subject? They don't count either. Only the magic spell, the incantatation makes them count.

I'd like to address this concept if I may. I photograph a number of young women's sports. If you haven't seen a HS girls volleyball game you're in for a shock with what they wear. To that end, when I choose which photos to keep and publish I do so with an eye towards the type of photo. Same with gymnastics. "crotch shots" are left out because they are distasteful. As are shots that emphasize certain other parts of their anatomy. All of it is technically legal. But as a journalist I make a conscious decision that such shots are distasteful.

Now - back on subject. Dave, I'm having difficulty seeing why you can't put yourself in the shoes of the father. Not everyone is a photographer. Plenty of people don't even know the term 'street photography'. To an average parent, the notion of someone else taking a photo of their small child in the back seat of the car is extremely suspicious behavior. You happen to look to the side while stopped at a light and someone is taking photos of your child in the backseat. They don't say anything - they just go. I'm sorry Dave, but I doubt if you interviewed 100 parents that weren't avid artistic photographers you'd be hard pressed to find 10 that would think such behavior wasn't suspicious. To many people that aren't street photographers, that's akin to looking over and seeing someone watching their child thru binoculars. That's not illegal either. But it sure is suspicious.

[JohnG]

Oh and by the way - context makes a HUGE difference. Those same girls I take photos of when they're playing sports. NO way I'd take out my camera while driving and take a photo of them in the car next to me. If you can't see the difference between the two, trying to discuss this with you is pointless.

[Chato]

Originally Posted by JohnG

Oh and by the way - context makes a HUGE difference. Those same girls I take photos of when they're playing sports. NO way I'd take out my camera while driving and take a photo of them in the car next to me. If you can't see the difference between the two, trying to discuss this with you is pointless.

John, I am attacking No One. Really. I see nothing wrong with shooting young woman engaged in sports. And I see no reason to emphasize physical characteristics. And?

I just glanced over at the threads on the Sports forum. Wonderful shooting. But if I was to compare Those shots, with ANY possible shot I could take of a young person respectively dressed for the street - The Sports shots are far more "dangerous," except of course None of these images are dangerous. This is apparently a concept that people have a hard time with. Images are not dangerous. They are not an invasion of privacy. They are nothing at all. If they WERE dangerous, then Sports shots are dangerous, shots of other subjects which contain these people are dangerous, ANY photography becomes dangerous.

Someone tells me that some crazed pedophile will see these shots, memorise the plate number, and track this girl down. Can't I do the same WITHOUT a camera by hanging out at an event, and marking down the plate number of the car which the athlete gets into?

None of this was a worry back in the fifties when I was growing up. Am I saying there's nothing to worry about? Of course there is, but picture takers should be the least of a parents concerns. People get kidnapped, and the authorities BEG for the public to come forth with pictures...

You tell me that there's something strange about taking a picture of people in a car. Why? In this country with over three hundred million people, a story here and a story there, and everyone out there is suddenly a psychopath with a camera.

NB. Psychopaths need no cameras.

[JohnG]

Dave,
what you seem unable to comprehend is what THE PERSON IN THE CAR MIGHT THINK. To them, like most rational people there's an enormous difference between a photographer taking photos of a kid in a gymnasium who the parents know and a stranger stopped at a stop light taking photos of a little kid in the back seat. To the person driving that car, the behavior is suspicious. You seem to want to make this all about the intentions of the photographer. But you're ignoring the perceptions of other people. If you deal with people in any meaningful social or business relationship, you'll find that perceptions are hugely important. What people have been trying to get you to understand is the perception of the parent. But you either don't care about what that person perceives or simply cannot put yourself in their shoes and look at things from someone elses perspective.

[TCav]

Chato seems to be arguing the point that he doesn't care what other people think. Yet he contues to try to convince us that there's nothing wrong with a practice that he admits he doesn't participate in.

If he doesn't care what other people think, why does he care what we think?

[Bynx]

Originally Posted by JohnG

But you either don't care about what that person perceives or simply cannot put yourself in their shoes and look at things from someone elses perspective.

This was quite evident about 20,000 words ago. And what Ive been trying to say since all this started.

[MrEdinarea51]

But talking to you is like pissing upwind, Im just getting my feet wet. And this is going around and around and around and aro............

In latin : Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit.

Thank you Bynx, I only wanted to warn others of the error of my ways, not to start World War III.
As to the opinions of some I say. I admit that I did not use good judgment and that I would maybe feel the same way with regards to my own daughter.....but I doubt it....but that is another matter entirely. If I had any concern, I would record the plate number then ask the person if he would please pull over and question him in an inquizitory manner.." Excuse me I saw that you have a cool Camera and you took a photo of my daughter, could I see it and how much would you like for it?" If the guys a Waco he"ll probably deny anything of the sort and refuse to show you anything (because his memory card is full of kids). THEN you call the police, when you have more than a wild imagination of a pedophile behind every camera to go on.

I am not the only person committing an error here. I only hope that I am not on some watch list for something so vague and unfounded. Because, so far, it's not a crime to have an error of judgment.
Thank You Very ***** Much!!!!