Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 15, 2009, 7:43 AM   #91
Senior Member
 
hgernhardtjr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 516
Default

WELL SAID, Peripatetic, well said! We are losing many freedoms, right under our unsuspecting noses — and it gradually creeps in on little kitten feet with wisps of paranoia and the use of intimidation.
hgernhardtjr is offline  
Old Oct 15, 2009, 8:44 AM   #92
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,585
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hgernhardtjr View Post
WELL SAID, Peripatetic, well said! We are losing many freedoms, right under our unsuspecting noses and it gradually creeps in on little kitten feet with wisps of paranoia and the use of intimidation.
If we lose any freedoms its a reaction to an action. The action of those few bad mannered jerks with a camera.
Bynx is offline  
Old Oct 15, 2009, 9:13 AM   #93
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Insightful as always.

Perhaps it has become bad manners to take photographs in public. It didn't used to be that way.

For now at least though we have the law on our side, and the higher courts understand pretty much what would have to be sacrificed in order to grant these new rights to privacy in public.

Some of us worry though that the weight of special legislation and dispensations granted to law enforcement is such that we are approaching anarcho-tyranny; a state of affairs where everyone is breaking the law on an almost daily basis, that one can be arrested and a charge later found to fit. We live at the sufferance of our masters and the mob.

Street photographers however may simply have to live with the fact that the public mood now seems to be that it is becoming bad manners to take pictures of people in public. This is not by any means a universal reaction, but the balance seems to be swinging in that direction; it seems to be a far more common view than it used to be.

I do not accept that for those of us who disagree that it is bad manners that we have to simply accede to the mob, I for one will argue vehemently that it is not bad manners, any more than it is for my wife to go in public without a veil, no matter how offensive some may find it. One can only hope that the police we may run into understand the law; however it is clearly the case that many police or quasi-police will simply go with their feeling (as with members of the general public) that it is rude and people therefore should not do it. As photographers we therefore have to decide whether the fight is worth the candle.
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog

Last edited by peripatetic; Oct 15, 2009 at 9:16 AM.
peripatetic is offline  
Old Oct 15, 2009, 9:22 AM   #94
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
If we lose any freedoms its a reaction to an action. The action of those few bad mannered jerks with a camera.
This is the fourth time you've made this statmenet, as if it has some sort of meaning. Photographers and photography have nothing to do with this hysteria. The kiddie porn industry doesn't give a damn about innocent shots of kids.

(Pardon the quotes)

"We're going to lose our rights to free speech as long as those jerks keep sprouting racism" (oppose the WOT, the Iraq War, whatever, fill in the blanks)

"We're going to lose our freedom from search and seizure as long as criminals keep hiding bombs in their homes"

"We're going to lose our right to trial because these lawyers keep springing criminals"

You don't want ANY photographers to shoot people as their subjects without a release, permission, whatever. An activity that has been going on without any objections until this pedophile scare and the WOT -

Without referencing your post, I'm told that this is an emotional issue, and let's not expect logic. When does one expect logic? Is logic somehow something we put on and off like a jacket? On a larger scale the irrational is gaining ground, and no doubt in all of these things, who needs logic? Who needs common sense?

So much for this image - Child is doomed because her picture is on the net. Wonderful moment be damned. The joy of childhood be damned.

See that photographer? He's gonna steal your soul, harm you, violate your image. How? Why? Who cares?



Pedophila is a disease. Most of those who have it, control themselves. Why are people demanding that those who are Not sick, act as if they were; as if pedophilia is somehow contagious, and the sight of the little girl above will cause me to lust after babies. As if society consists of a majority of pedophiles waiting to be converted.

As if the human eye and mind, would be normal and healthy, Except for the sight of a dead photograph, as opposed to what is seen with the eye?

Privacy cannot be invaded by an image of anyone who is out in the public. The acts of a person in public trump any image, violate nothing and no one. And those who abuse your rights of privacy, are criminals, whether they do it with or without a camera. When they break into your house, go through your things, violate what you purposely do not show in public. You bet, a photograph in those situations is a violation of your rights - but the photograph is an addendum to the violation.

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 15, 2009, 10:46 AM   #95
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
If we lose any freedoms its a reaction to an action. The action of those few bad mannered jerks with a camera.

Disagree....its beyond that. It isn't the jerks with the camera that cause the problem, its the real paedophiles, the lax justice system, and the paranoid society (which really stems for the lack of justice) that cause the problem.

Society in general is moving away from democracy. We won't admit it but we do want controls on other people ...but not on each of us personally.
littlejohn is offline  
Old Oct 15, 2009, 10:52 AM   #96
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
So much for this image - Child is doomed because her picture is on the net. Wonderful moment be damned. The joy of childhood be damned.

See that photographer? He's gonna steal your soul, harm you, violate your image. How? Why? Who cares?

Dave

Errrr Dave.....you forgot the dog!...The 'animal rights' folks like PETA...will tell you, you've harmed that dog...look at him he is soooo camera shy now. How could you do this to such an innocent creature???

Now animal abusers will be viewing this picture and will take delight in torturing the neighbours dog...all because of you photo....
littlejohn is offline  
Old Oct 15, 2009, 11:18 AM   #97
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

It really must be interesting living in the pure black and white worlds people in this thread live in. Where everything is 100% good or 100% bad. As I've stated, I'm generally in favor of street photography. But I think the way it is conducted goes a long way towards whether the general PARENT is accepting of it or not. Here's my analogy:

You're a man looking to "pick up" women at a bar.

Scenario 1: Woman is single, not with a boyfriend and doesn't tell you to get lost - this is perfectly legal behavior in the civilized world. This is considered socially acceptable in most places.

Scenario 2: The woman is with her boyfriend. This is also completely legal behavior. But it's generally not socially acceptable. You can expect at least one if not both of the other parties would have an objection to your behavior.

So, while the activity "picking up a woman" is completely legal - just like street photography, the WAY you do so and the specifics of the situation dictate how those affected might react. I.E. context drives whether the behavior is considered acceptable. It really isn't so different with photographing children. It isn't 100% good or 100% bad - how parents and the rest of society view the behavior will be dermined in large part by the context of the given situation.

No need for outlawing the practice of picking up women. But, applying common sense for how others might perceive you goes a long way towards avoiding issues.

JUST LIKE THE INCIDENT THAT STARTED THIS POST. Unlike some of the photos Chato posted of him approaching people with his dog, the OP was "caught" taking a photo of a child in a car stopped at a light. The parent driving was caught by surprise and felt the behavior was suspicious. That was bad judgement by the OP. Didn't do anything illegal - but exercised bad judgement and ignored how a parent/society might perceive his actions. He suffered a small amount of stress as a result of his actions. Just like the person hitting on a woman with another guy might suffer a small amount of stress if threatened. Is it because they violated law? No, it's because they violated social norms.
But it really must be nice living in your perfect black-and-white worlds where it's 100% yes or 100% no.
JohnG is offline  
Old Oct 15, 2009, 12:45 PM   #98
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 629
Default

JohnG that was funny

But I don't think folks here live in a black or white world. We are after all adults. While some may not accept the direction that society is heading and is prepared to push the envelope and thank god for those folks who are brave enough to do so. That's democracy.

JohnG you have moderator after your name. You are considered to be an 'expert' on this site regarding cameras specifically sports. Your opinion is considered here more then others.

What puzzles me somewhat is your reluctance to accept a differing view point. You tend to be quite critical of Chato and his position to the extent that its become rather personal. That's unfortunate. While this site is supposed to be helpful in dealing with photography as a whole, it shouldn't be a forum to articulate personal beliefs or morals.

In other words, one can be critical of the technical aspects of the photos, but shouldn't be critical of the subject. In fact, I would expect that a moderator would insure that a thread didn't head off into the direction this one has.
littlejohn is offline  
Old Oct 15, 2009, 1:01 PM   #99
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Littlejohn,
Actually if you look at the original threads - I was quite in favor of street photography - and still am. What I am critical of - is people on BOTH sides of the argument - who seem to push the "street photography is good in every case" or "street photography is bad in any case". It's interesting to me that you feel I'm critical of Dave when the scenario I described is actually quite neutral. A person on the Bynx side of the argument could read that and say I'm being critical of them. I'm critical of the small-minded nature of multiple posters in this thread that suggest there is no grey area to this specific example or even the concept in general.

In the first couple of threads, Bynx was making the argument that if a person was clearly the subject and recognizable that publishing an image of that person was wrong - period. I disagreed because I felt that was narrow-minded - I felt there were times when it was good. In this thread we have Dave arguing that taking a photo of a child should never be considered as inappropriate. Craig and you have agreed and disregard any notion that the circumstances of the action should not matter. A parent should accept the taking and publication of a photo of their child as long as it doesn't break the law. I think that's just as close minded as Bynx was in the other threads. That it isn't just a matter of what's legal or not, that you're dealing with human beings in a social world. And in a social world, that society develops concepts of what is 'normal and acceptable behavior'. A society doesn't outlaw all socially unacceptale behavior. But if you violate those norms you can expect back-lash. What I fight against in this thread is the idealist talk here - that people's beliefs and social norms are irrelevant. Basically saying I should be able to hit on any woman I want - it's legal after all. You found that statement humorous - but this is the same exact thing. It really is.
JohnG is offline  
Old Oct 15, 2009, 1:05 PM   #100
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

And, for the record - I'll state again. In the specific instance of this thread - I believe everything is as it should be. I don't think the OP should have been arrested. I don't think he should be prevented from taking photos of people. But I do suggest the parent behaved properly. I do suggest people have a rigt to question a photographer and learn their motives. That's it. We have a right to take photos and people, especially parents have a right to question motives for doing so. That's how a free society should work. In a perfect world there would be no need to question motive. But we don't have a perfect world. My preference would be the style of interactive - take the photos and then talk to the people. Especially when it involves children. But, as I say - exercise your right to take photos, but do so with common sense - don't try to hide what you're doing and don't violate social norms by taking photos of children looking out car our household windows.
JohnG is offline  
 
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:44 AM.