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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 14, 2009, 6:00 PM   #81
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
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.
No. The important issues are done being discussed. Now, they're just being composted.
__________________
  • 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 14, 2009, 6:03 PM   #82
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
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.
Ok, and, AND, what harm is being done by showing this lovely childs image on the internet? Heck, I've showed this picture to half a dozen people I know. Moreover a 1000 people might very well see this kid on each and every day. Those people can interact, what actions can be taken by seeing this image?

In other words, just who is possibly being harmed?

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 14, 2009, 6:31 PM   #83
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,646
Default

You just dont get it and never will.
Bynx is offline  
Old Oct 14, 2009, 6:35 PM   #84
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 324
Default

Ethical, legal and common decency are not the same thing. And they change over time.

I have taken pictures of elementary school events over the years.

(not paid, just taken pictures... goofy things.... such as the 3-legged sack race that my company sponsored at the school's fun day).

20 years ago you could do just about anything with a camera at a school.

These days taking pictures of kids at schools these days is a sensitive issue. IF (big IF), IF the child can be identified in the photo it is an absolute no-no due to privacy and security reasons. Yet a photo of 62 third graders racing across an open field is not exactly a readily identifyable photo of a single child. Even so the school often requires parental permission for the kids to partake in the event(s) and authorize their photos to be taken during the events. Of course there is always one parent who goes all nutzo over the idea of strangers taking photos and denies permission.

IF one mommy/daddy go nuts over another parent (or stranger) with a camera taking photos of a 3-legged sack race because they fear their child could be identified with the local public school, how do you think those parental units are going to react when they see a "stranger" taking photos on the street?
StevieDgpt is offline  
Old Oct 14, 2009, 6:36 PM   #85
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
You just dont get it and never will.
Bynx,

What do you know? You and I agree on something
JohnG is offline  
Old Oct 14, 2009, 6:55 PM   #86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
Bynx,

What do you know? You and I agree on something
Bynx clearly disagrees with you that this thread is just about this one incident. Indeed, so much for your statement that no one was bringing up the law. If they're not bringing up the law, what are they doing?

Quite a few disagree with you about this. And indeed, in the last few posts they have stated catagorically, that I'm out in the boondocks on this question. How they can say that when the Law stands 100 percent behind my position is another thing...

Let me show you another contradiction. People on this forum post images of their children. Facebook has 11 million members. My Space has over 40 million members. And there are others...

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives...t_sns_numb.php

No doubt not all of them are posting pictures of their children.

So, in order for the members on this board to justify their positions they have to demonstrate harm.

We are back to suspicious behavior. Well, suspicious behavior has nothing to do with photography. As I've said, you have created reasonable scenarios where a shot from a car could be suspicious, although THIS picture under discussion certainly appears to be not one of them.

I believe I can demonstrate through studies that the paranoia about pedophiles, expressed in this thread as a defacto fear of images has done more to worsen the situation that eliminate the situation.

Certainly I can cite studies that show the fleeing of Social Workers from the field of child care due to the crazy charges that are often levied (Witness the McMartin case, which triggered this hysteria. A case in which every one of the accused was either aqquited or freed for false conviction. Indeed, the crimes they were accused of were physically impossible.)

I have followed studies which show that adults are much less likely to help a child in need because of a fear of being labeled a pedophile.

With the exception of [I]some of your posts[I] I have yet to hear anyone quantify or show how the taking of perfectly legal images has hurt anyone. (It's illegal btw, to use a telephoto in certain conditions to take pictures of anyone).

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 14, 2009, 9:44 PM   #87
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Chato,

When you want people to be rational about an emotional issue, you are going to be frustrated until you realize that it's rational for them to be emotional about it.
__________________
  • 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 14, 2009, 10:23 PM   #88
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
Chato,

When you want people to be rational about an emotional issue, you are going to be frustrated until you realize that it's rational for them to be emotional about it.
this
Hards80 is offline  
Old Oct 15, 2009, 2:54 AM   #89
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 2,193
Default

ok i post pictures on facebook all the time but as a user i have the option to go public or just let my friends / family to view them so the option is the right of the profile owner.
simple is offline  
Old Oct 15, 2009, 3:52 AM   #90
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

As you all probably know I am 100% with Chato on this.

Basic principles. We live in an open society. In an open society individuals are allowed to do things that other people find unpleasant or even disgusting as long as no-one is harmed.

We all probably have a long list of these things.

What he laments, and so do I, is that photography is turning from one of those things that used to be perfectly fine to do in public into something that is no longer fine to do in public, and that there are NO RATIONAL REASONS for this change.

Helen Levitt tragically passed from our world recently, and although I had seen some of her work I didn't have a book, so I recently ordered one from Amazon. What a supreme proponent of NY street photography, such beautiful pictures, every one speaking to the heart of the human condition. Kindness, joy, anger, co-operation, indifference, etc. And many of those pictures are of children. She probably could not have taken many of those pictures today without being reported to the police. And that irrational reporting, the media-induced fear of paedophiles (for the facts are clear - our children are no more in danger now than they were in the past) has made taking pictures of children (and now apparently even of adults) socially unacceptable. Being reported to the police for doing nothing wrong is a form of bullying and intimidation and the OP is much less likely to do it again.

I find that intimidation morally deplorable, a far worse moral outrage than taking someone's picture and showing it to people without their permission. The only moral argument for which boils down to: people have a right to privacy even in public places. And this right to privacy outweighs other peoples right to freedom of speech. When the absurdity of this position is pointed out the response is to threaten violence.

Do I understand a parent's concern for the well being of their child? Of course I do. But I do not condone the intimidation and harassment of people pursuing legal and harmless activities when that bullying has NO RATIONAL basis. It's disgraceful and immoral and is a blight on the hard-won freedoms of an open society. But as I have said before support for the principles of a free society is no longer much in fashion. Just don't whine when they finally get round to knocking on YOUR door for doing something that is legal but no longer regarded as socially acceptable.



Apparently I have harmed this child in some way. All I was trying to do was evoke a smile in the viewer; to capture a moment of a exuberant young lad, full to the brim of energy, bounding up and down the stairs, being reigned in by loving parents out of the frame but clearly present even so. In the background the younger sister looks on in adoration. Hopefully whilst composing the shot in an interesting way, leading the eye, making it dynamic, the zig-zag of the staircase, the solidity of the horizontal lines putting one in mind of the parent calling the child back. The child caught in mid-air leaping into his future, but sure of a solid foundation to put his foot on. And what a cheeky grin. My small attempt at capturing a decisive moment. The problem of course is that it takes thousands of attempts, making small incremental gains to hone one's skills to the point where one can reach the heights of the beauty captured by Helen Levitt. What possible chance is there for future street photographers to climb that mountain when they are harassed and bullied at every turn? Soon enough perhaps we shall be thrown into wells to see whether we float or not, and as everyone knows, photographers who float have evil intentions and should be burned.

No doubt the vigilantes will be coming for me soon enough, and I shall get my dunking for disrespecting this stranger. As I burn upon the pyre I shall try to explain the difference between disrespect and a reverence for the human condition, but given how these threads go I hold out little hope of a reprieve.

Or just maybe if those people who think that this intimidation and bullying is morally repugnant stand up and say something then perhaps the erosion of our freedoms will be slowed a bit. Perhaps a brave few will continue until we all must cease.

Indeed Chato and I can perhaps take some heart from the truly brave, like those Iranian street photographers who persist and make their art and document the brutality of their regime under grave threat of violence.

Helen Levitt RIP.
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog

Last edited by peripatetic; Oct 15, 2009 at 4:16 AM.
peripatetic 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 3:14 AM.