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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 12, 2009, 11:12 AM   #31
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,585
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post

Mind you the very same people who say it's impolite or uncivil have no problem taking a picture which includes you in the image, but since you weren't the subject - it doesn't count...

Dave
Oh, finally, you are getting it. Let the light shine down.
Bynx is offline  
Old Oct 12, 2009, 11:52 AM   #32
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
Oh, finally, you are getting it. Let the light shine down.
And your point is? If I'm taking a picture of my dog which includes this person it's ok, but if the shot IS of this person it's impolite, uncivil?




As you point out the world IS getting more paranoid. Is the solution to acknowledge that this is really NOT paranoia? All strangers are potential pychopaths. Cameras are the means of commiting vile crimes upon the person? It's OK to call the Cops because someone photographed your daughter? Could it just possibly be that the solution is to embrace your neighbors, as opposed to being cold and "private?"

I sit on my stoop and say good morning to everyone who goes bye. I kid you not. After a while, people start saying good morning in return. After a while they stop and chat. Instead of being strangers, they become neighbors. Instead of fearing me, they ask me for help. How really, really terrible of people to embrace humanity, and not to fear us.

The House By The Side Of The Road
by Sam Walter Foss

Let me live in my house
by the side of the road
It's here the race of men go by,

They are good, they are bad,
they are weak, they are strong
Wise, foolish - so am I
Then why should I sit in the
scorners seat,
Or hurl the critics ban?
Let me live in my house by
the side of the road
And be a friend to man.

Dave

Last edited by Chato; Oct 12, 2009 at 11:55 AM.
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 12, 2009, 11:54 AM   #33
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
You are avoiding my question. You can't give an answer - The very definition of the word I used.

"Taking a picture of someone without permission is uncivil, and impolite."

Ok, why?
I don't know. I don't decide what's civil. Civilization does.

Why is it impolite to pick your nose unless you're alone in a car?

Why is it impolite to fart in public? Even if your farts don't stink?

Why is it impolite to use the wrong fork?

I'm uncomfortable when people stare at me. The longer they stare, the more uncomfortable I get. Are they thinking how ridiculous I look with my uncombed hair? If they take my picture, they can stare at my image all they want, perhaps even share it with their friends so they can all have a good laugh at my uncombed hair. Next, my photo shows up on the front page of http://www.uncombedhair.com.

Now I'm a little more than just uncomfortable.

Because their behavior wasn't civil.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.

Last edited by TCav; Oct 12, 2009 at 11:58 AM.
TCav is offline  
Old Oct 12, 2009, 11:56 AM   #34
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
If I'm taking a picture of my dog which includes this person it's ok, but if the shot IS of this person it's impolite, uncivil?
Don't ask me; ask that person. The reason you don't understand is that you haven't yet.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline  
Old Oct 12, 2009, 12:05 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
I don't know. I don't decide what's civil. Civilization does.

Why is it impolite to pick your nose unless you're alone in a car?

Why is it impolite to fart in public? Even if your farts don't stink?

Why is it impolite to use the wrong fork?

I'm uncomfortable when people stare at me. The longer they stare, the more uncomfortable I get. Are they thinking how ridiculous I look with my uncombed hair? If they take my picture, they can stare at my image all they want, perhaps even share it with their friends so they can all have a good laugh at my uncombed hair. Next, my photo shows up on the front page of http://www.uncombedhair.com. Now I'm a little more than just uncomfortable.
Some people have disfigurements that are atrocious. I try not to stare. Equally, I try not to avoid looking at them as well - Life is not fair.

I remember seeing a book of photography in which the photographer concentrated on those making fun of the disfigurments, and not the people who had them. Powerful book. What could be more uncivil then the person who made this book?

I don't Need a photograph to make fun of anyone or to praise them. A photograph in and of itself is nothing. I can do far more with the image captured by my brain. I can sketch an image of you, far more cruel than anything I can capture on film.

And when all is said and done, you still haven't even begun to challenge your beliefs - And why is it that these beliefs were not in place forty years ago when I was doing my first serious photography? If society has become paranoid, is it because of photography? That's a joke by the way.

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 12, 2009, 12:10 PM   #36
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

May I suggest that the concept of street photography in general hs been debated to death in at least two other threads. Nothing new has been presented here as far as the general discussion on the subject goes. At least this started with addressing a very specific set of circumstances. So it was somewhat different than the other threads. Now, we're right back to the other threads - street photography without permission being, in genarel, 'bad' or 'good'. If there's nothing more to add about this specific example I'd like to suggest we all move on as we're not covering any new ground. Just a suggestion.
JohnG is offline  
Old Oct 12, 2009, 12:14 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
Don't ask me; ask that person. The reason you don't understand is that you haven't yet.
Like almost all my work, this was shot openly. I chatted with this woman about Chato. And no, I didn't "ask" her permission. But I showed her the shot...

The shot was aimed at both of them.

When one talks about moral issues, there can indeed be some fine lines to cross. This really isn't one of them, because fine lines or not, a decent ethicist can give a firm and reasonable answer. An answer that makes sense, that can be applied. Yet, you seem to have difficulties here.

In previous posts on this thread I've given some answers. Celebrities may not have the same protections as the average citizen from paparazzi - But you do, as do I. Objectively interferring with someone life is an violation of ethical norms.

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 12, 2009, 2:19 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
Like almost all my work, this was shot openly. I chatted with this woman about Chato. And no, I didn't "ask" her permission. But I showed her the shot...
So, obviously you don't subscribe to the practice you seem to be defending. Have I got that right?
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline  
Old Oct 12, 2009, 2:31 PM   #39
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
So, obviously you don't subscribe to the practice you seem to be defending. Have I got that right?
You don't understand what I'm saying here. It's no big thing!

I didn't stop to talk to her because I shot her picture, I stopped to talk to her because I own an "Attractive nuisance" to whom she fell victim to...

She thought the dog was lost. Did I violate her by taking her picture? Invade her privacy? Impede her in her activities? Shoot a flash into her eyes? Am I a stalker who Needs this shot to continue stalking her?

I shoot when I see something that may be of interest - usually it's not. The dog didn't see me, and had one expression, she thought the dog was lost, and had another. Can't someone enjoy people?

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 12, 2009, 2:54 PM   #40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Let me see if I can sum up what I'm saying.

"It's not courteous or polite to take someone's picture without permission."

If it's not curtious or polite, why is it BOTH curtious and polite to do so if they don't happen to be the subject? There is something very inconsistent going on here. Selvin just posted an image of someone's dog, examining someone else's lens. No one seems to mind. Clearly recognizable people, out in public, and what?

Ok, ok, so it seems to me that you guys are doing nothing more or less than defending superstition. You can't tell me why my images, or more importantly, the process I use in taking them is in any way shape manner or form are harmful. If they ARE Harmful, than photography itself is harmful. You cannot have it both ways here. Any shot of a recognizable person is harmful, Period! Or it's NOT harmful period.

Now, from an ethical and moral point of view there are many who use a process of taking pictures, that all of us would agree are harmful. But they are not harmful because a camera was involved, they are objectively the act of a thoughtless person, interfering with someone else's life.

Dave
Chato 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 12:20 AM.