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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 14, 2009, 1:34 PM   #71
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post

However, yesterday I tried to take pictures of back seats of cars from a car. It ain't easy. In order for me to take such a picture would cause me to have to contort myself in an unreasonable manner; in a suspicious manner. With or without a camera. Try it without a camera and you'll see what I mean.

Dave
And yet that is precisely what the OP did. So I'm glad you have finally come to agree that the behavior was suspicious. So it was completely rational for the parent to be suspicious. Glad we can all finally agree

Every situation is different. That's the great thing about dealing with SPECIFIC instances and not vague generalities. In your mind the looking is suspicious enough. In my mind the presence of the camera is what makes it suspicious. People look in each other's cars all the time at stop lights - usually a glance. That's 'normal' behavior - you see it all the time. You do NOT see someone pull out a camera and take a photo. That's not normal behavior.
JohnG is offline  
Old Oct 14, 2009, 2:15 PM   #72
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
And yet that is precisely what the OP did. So I'm glad you have finally come to agree that the behavior was suspicious. So it was completely rational for the parent to be suspicious. Glad we can all finally agree

Every situation is different. That's the great thing about dealing with SPECIFIC instances and not vague generalities. In your mind the looking is suspicious enough. In my mind the presence of the camera is what makes it suspicious. People look in each other's cars all the time at stop lights - usually a glance. That's 'normal' behavior - you see it all the time. You do NOT see someone pull out a camera and take a photo. That's not normal behavior.
No, the OP took a shot of a kid, with the window lowered, indeed, she was partially sticking out of the window, and Also clearly visible from the street. In other words, as I took pictures of passing cars yesteday, 99 percent of the people, even those with the window down, were impossible to photograph, except for those people with their heads near or out the window - and as I point out, easily visible from the street. If you don't believe this, try it without a camera...

Now as I said, it may be, despite my above description, that such a picture would be difficult to take - In this case, I doubt it. So if the concerns of the father are justified, he should ALSO tell his daughter not to be visible by sitting with her head thrust up to or out of a window. Can you see where this kind of thinking leads?

There are so many ifs, ands and buts involved here. What if I was shooting cars, and bicyclists, would I not also capture her face, and with my cameras; any of the three I now use, I coulod crop it and post this on the net, and, and? So it's on the net?

Who's going to look twice?

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 14, 2009, 2:32 PM   #73
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Just a quick addendum for those who have stated that this thread should have died, or been buried. It's not aimed at those, who even though they disagree with me, realise that there are important issues being discussed.

As it stands today, my point of view is the Law. And I find it odd to argue that my position, which is the Law of the Land, (in the USA at least) should be ignored, and those who photograph people are defacto criminals. No need to talk about it, case closed...

Sorry, all these questions and related questions aren't going to disappear.

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 14, 2009, 2:45 PM   #74
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
Just a quick addendum for those who have stated that this thread should have died, or been buried. It's not aimed at those, who even though they disagree with me, realise that there are important issues being discussed.

As it stands today, my point of view is the Law. And I find it odd to argue that my position, which is the Law of the Land, (in the USA at least) should be ignored, and those who photograph people are defacto criminals. No need to talk about it, case closed...

Sorry, all these questions and related questions aren't going to disappear.

Dave
Dave - let's be clear. IN THIS THREAD no one is arguing for a law change. Much of the discussion involves whether or not the parent overreacted by calling the police to report suspicious behavior. MOst seem to agree the parent had a right to feel suspicious. Some believe he was right to call the police. But again, calling the police isn't against the law. And most agreed the police, once called, did the right thing - they made a call, determined there was no crime and the case was dropped. Thus the difference between suspicion of wrong-doing and actually committing a crime. Your argument seems to be that since no crime is being committed no one should be suspicious. What most of us are stating is that suspicion isn't the horrible thing you make it out to be. In this specific instance, it was healthy and justified. And no one's civil rights were trampled on.

And going further I would suggest that if you were to come into my city and start taking photos of children in the back seats of cars it's highly likely someone would call the police. A man might confront you and ask. But a woman or even some men might not feel comfortable doing that so they might call the police. And the police would likely ask you some questions and then, depending on your behavior, let you go. In that scenario neither the parents nor the police have acted irrationally. And your civil rights weren't violated. No criminal charges. Everything worked as it should. Parents were being good caretakers of their children. Police were serving the community by investigating and respecting your civil liberties by not arresting you or taking your gear. All perfectly rational. What is irrational is expecting the parents or police to behave differently.
JohnG is offline  
Old Oct 14, 2009, 2:58 PM   #75
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
Dave - let's be clear. IN THIS THREAD no one is arguing for a law change. Much of the discussion involves whether or not the parent overreacted by calling the police to report suspicious behavior. MOst seem to agree the parent had a right to feel suspicious. Some believe he was right to call the police. But again, calling the police isn't against the law. And most agreed the police, once called, did the right thing - they made a call, determined there was no crime and the case was dropped. Thus the difference between suspicion of wrong-doing and actually committing a crime. Your argument seems to be that since no crime is being committed no one should be suspicious. What most of us are stating is that suspicion isn't the horrible thing you make it out to be. In this specific instance, it was healthy and justified. And no one's civil rights were trampled on.

And going further I would suggest that if you were to come into my city and start taking photos of children in the back seats of cars it's highly likely someone would call the police. A man might confront you and ask. But a woman or even some men might not feel comfortable doing that so they might call the police. And the police would likely ask you some questions and then, depending on your behavior, let you go. In that scenario neither the parents nor the police have acted irrationally. And your civil rights weren't violated. No criminal charges. Everything worked as it should. Parents were being good caretakers of their children. Police were serving the community by investigating and respecting your civil liberties by not arresting you or taking your gear. All perfectly rational. What is irrational is expecting the parents or police to behave differently.
If you note, I've conceded that such a shot could be considered suspicious. But take a look at the picture again, the point I keep repeating, is that you may very well have a point - But in this case, what makes this shot suspicious? Because it was taken from a car? I just shot a cat in the back window of a car. Cute shot, to much distortion for me to keep it. There may or may not have been children in the car - Absolutely impossible to tell.

Of the forty or so pictures I took yesterday, none of them came out - Couldn't see a damn thing. But of the pictures I took from the street, the few with people having their heads flush with a down window, some of them came out.

Second, I've raised this as a larger question - You and I both know that the real question is taking pictures of children, and many of those posting think that the real question is taking pictures of children. You're not the only one discussing this with me. They, not you, are the ones my addendum was directed at.

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 14, 2009, 3:16 PM   #76
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,585
Default

I think if you ever found a parent of a toddler who didnt object to or at least think it highly suspicious I would hardly call them a responsible parent. I could never understand celebrities having to put up with paparazzi. They should be entitled to the same treatment as a doctor, a lawyer or the local pizza guy. But as a simple individual with no special reason to be photographed I would be suspicious of anyone taking my picture. Now on a major street like 48th and Broadway I would figure I was getting in the way of being in any cameras view. I couldnt care less whether I was in the picture or not. I had every right to be on the sidewalk as much as the photographer who was taking a picture of the same area. But in a quiet neighborhood if I saw the same guy pointing his camera at me with no noticeable monuments or reason to be there I would be suspicious and would probably ask him what he was doing? There is a difference.
Bynx is offline  
Old Oct 14, 2009, 3:31 PM   #77
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
I think if you ever found a parent of a toddler who didnt object to or at least think it highly suspicious I would hardly call them a responsible parent. I could never understand celebrities having to put up with paparazzi. They should be entitled to the same treatment as a doctor, a lawyer or the local pizza guy. But as a simple individual with no special reason to be photographed I would be suspicious of anyone taking my picture. Now on a major street like 48th and Broadway I would figure I was getting in the way of being in any cameras view. I couldnt care less whether I was in the picture or not. I had every right to be on the sidewalk as much as the photographer who was taking a picture of the same area. But in a quiet neighborhood if I saw the same guy pointing his camera at me with no noticeable monuments or reason to be there I would be suspicious and would probably ask him what he was doing? There is a difference.
I do not know the woman or the toddler in these pictures. Never met then before. Did not ask to take these pictures (Academic since Mom doesn't speak English). But she enjoyed this as much as I did. So, are you saying she's a lousy mother?

Didn't you hate it when Mommy pulled this stuff? - Steve's Digicams Forums

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 14, 2009, 4:20 PM   #78
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
Second, I've raised this as a larger question - You and I both know that the real question is taking pictures of children, and many of those posting think that the real question is taking pictures of children. You're not the only one discussing this with me. They, not you, are the ones my addendum was directed at.

Dave
OK - let me speak to this as a parent. Context is everything. We've already established if we're in a car it's suspicious.
Let's talk about other scenarios. At the park. If I see a person shooting from some type of concealment, I'm suspicious. If the person is using a telephoto from 40 yards away I'm suspicious. Why, as a reasonable person am I suspicious? Because all these appear as if they are trying to carry out their activity without my knowledge.If they're 1 foot away I'm suspicious. Why? That's a massive invasion of personal space. If they're driving buy and slow down to take a photo I'm suspicious. Again - goes to motivation. As opposed to someone walking around the park taking photos of multiple people and things. Now, as a good parent - if I notice that person doing so I begin to pay some attention to them IF they're alone and IF they're taking photos mostly of people. If they appear to be paying special attention to children then you bet I'm suspicious.

But if they're just taking photos and don't appear to be trying to hide and don't appear to be paying special attention to children and they take a photo of my son playing I might ask them what they were doing. Gotta be honest - it would be a spur of the moment judgement call based on how I felt about the person and how they were behaving and yes, how they looked. If I'm at the park by myself and someone is taking my photo - as long as they're not in my face or following me I could care less. In none of these cases is it criminal. But, as a person and a parent, the context of the specific situation would dictate how I would respond.

Now, as a parent and member of a community - if I saw some guy hanging around a playground taking photos of kids I very much might approach them and inquire what they were doing. If I saw a guy in the middle of downtown taking photos of people walking around, shopping, hanging out, I probably wouldn't give it a second thought as a person / parent. As a photographer I might stop to talk to them about their photography. So, context is everything to me. It's not a black and white world to me.
JohnG is offline  
Old Oct 14, 2009, 4:32 PM   #79
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,585
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
I do not know the woman or the toddler in these pictures. Never met then before. Did not ask to take these pictures (Academic since Mom doesn't speak English). But she enjoyed this as much as I did. So, are you saying she's a lousy mother?

Didn't you hate it when Mommy pulled this stuff? - Steve's Digicams Forums

Dave
In this case, not at all. Naieve maybe, but not lousy. She probably trusted you with a picture of her son. I dont know what she would think if she found out you posted it on the internet. Do you?
Im all in favor of street photography. Shoot everyone and everything. But running home to shove it on the internet is wrong. Keep the pics as your own personal record for a few years before posting them.

Last edited by Bynx; Oct 14, 2009 at 4:35 PM.
Bynx is offline  
Old Oct 14, 2009, 4:59 PM   #80
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
OK - let me speak to this as a parent. Context is everything. We've already established if we're in a car it's suspicious.
Let's talk about other scenarios. At the park. If I see a person shooting from some type of concealment, I'm suspicious. If the person is using a telephoto from 40 yards away I'm suspicious. Why, as a reasonable person am I suspicious? Because all these appear as if they are trying to carry out their activity without my knowledge.If they're 1 foot away I'm suspicious. Why? That's a massive invasion of personal space. If they're driving buy and slow down to take a photo I'm suspicious. Again - goes to motivation. As opposed to someone walking around the park taking photos of multiple people and things. Now, as a good parent - if I notice that person doing so I begin to pay some attention to them IF they're alone and IF they're taking photos mostly of people. If they appear to be paying special attention to children then you bet I'm suspicious.
Fine. What does this have to do with photography? Your scenario's have nothing to do with a camera.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
But if they're just taking photos and don't appear to be trying to hide and don't appear to be paying special attention to children and they take a photo of my son playing I might ask them what they were doing. Gotta be honest - it would be a spur of the moment judgement call based on how I felt about the person and how they were behaving and yes, how they looked. If I'm at the park by myself and someone is taking my photo - as long as they're not in my face or following me I could care less. In none of these cases is it criminal. But, as a person and a parent, the context of the specific situation would dictate how I would respond.

Now, as a parent and member of a community - if I saw some guy hanging around a playground taking photos of kids I very much might approach them and inquire what they were doing. If I saw a guy in the middle of downtown taking photos of people walking around, shopping, hanging out, I probably wouldn't give it a second thought as a person / parent. As a photographer I might stop to talk to them about their photography. So, context is everything to me. It's not a black and white world to me.
Yup, context is everything, although some one shooting properly dressed children at a playground is not a suspicious activity - You''ve given a scenario where it would be suspicious - i.e. what the hell do they need a telephoto lens for? Why are they hiding? And of that matter why are they equiped with binoculars, and why are they hiding, even without a camera?

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 8:00 PM.