Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > People Photos

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 24, 2009, 9:39 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
Since R.M. Multiservices is located at that address I was pretty sure it was in Corona. So now, how about some pics of your wife and kids or boyfriend(s). Just walking around doing nothing in particular. And I really would like to see some daily shots of NY gang members doing nothing in particular.
On this board, I've already posted pictures of myself, my brother, my brothers wife, and far more personal, my dog. I have shot some gang members, but the shots really don't work...

I just looked through this batch of images and can't find a sign saying RM Multiservices - But none of these image are closer then ten miles to Corona, hopefully the abusive husband of your nightmares, is getting a good workout.

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 24, 2009, 9:21 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,585
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
I just looked through this batch of images and can't find a sign saying RM Multiservices - But none of these image are closer then ten miles to Corona, hopefully the abusive husband of your nightmares, is getting a good workout.

Dave
Do you see it now?
Attached Images
 
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2009, 10:44 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Ah yes, thanks. But no, this shot was done in Manhattan. And since I stopped and talked to this woman, I assume the abusive husband (seen walking down the block, with their child) will finally know where to find his runaway wife.

A nice couple - Whose lives I ruined. My bad.

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2009, 11:38 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,585
Default

Pretty cavalier attitude at other people's expense. Keep with the jokes. It shows me what you are.
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2009, 11:49 AM   #15
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Of course, in terms of hypothetical situations like abusive husbands or child molesters, there are eqally possibly GOOD scenarios:

1. Wow, that's my long lost sister. I haven't heard from her since the family rift 10 years ago. I'm going to track her down and re-establish a positive relationship.

2. Wow, that's my ex-wife that owes me $65,000 in back child support. I'm calling the police

3. Wow, that's the woman that stold $50,000 from me in a phony ponsy scheme. I'm calling the police

4. Hey, I saw that woman on America's Most Wanted. She kidnapped a child. I'm calling the police.

So, it's equally probable that Chato's photos could save a life or help bring justice to someone wronged. Everyone should take up street photography - look how much good it could do.

Now, just as it's silly to argue theoretical, but never documented, benefits to encourage street photography, in my mind it's eqally invalid to throw out hypothetical negatives with no evidence, facts or data to suggest such events are remotely probable as an argument against street photography.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2009, 12:32 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,585
Default

When someone walks up to you, snaps your picture then tells you it will be posted on the internet within the hour, how would that make you feel? Youre walking along with your child. Same thing happens. Thats ok? Well thats fine for you. But what about someone who does object. Why dont we, as individuals have any say in how our image is being displayed?
Originally I threw out some reasons why the pics shouldnt be posted and you have shown just as many good reasons why they should. But putting theoretical reasons aside what about the rights of the individual? Being asked and given some say. Why do we, as individuals have to give up our rights over the rights of some guy with a camera and a link to the internet?

Last edited by Bynx; Sep 25, 2009 at 12:37 PM.
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2009, 12:36 PM   #17
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
Why dont we, as individuals have any say in how our image is being displayed? Why do we, as individuals have to give up our rights over the rights of some guy with a camera and a link to the internet?
Actually, the "right" only belongs to the photographer. The person on the street has no "right". That's freedom of speech. So you're talking about giving up a "right" that doesn't exist. You can't give up something you never had to begin with.

Also - to answer your specific question (see, I like to answer questions you ask instead of ignoring them when they are inconvenient to my position): what I would find offensive is the behavior of being in my face. The fact the photo would be posted wouldn't bother me - the fact that someone got right up in my face would. But that would be true if that person didn't have a camera.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2009, 12:49 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,585
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
Actually, the "right" only belongs to the photographer. The person on the street has no "right". That's freedom of speech. So you're talking about giving up a "right" that doesn't exist. You can't give up something you never had to begin with.
While those guys with their powdered wigs were sitting around discussing the state of the country they did a great job, but couldnt anticipate everything. Cameras, internet, computers, cell phones.
This has been a frustrating but eye opening topic. Ive learned a few things, the main thing being the above quote. While it might be true, it sure doesnt seem right to me.
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2009, 1:03 PM   #19
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
While those guys with their powdered wigs were sitting around discussing the state of the country they did a great job, but couldnt anticipate everything. Cameras, internet, computers, cell phones.
That's why the guys with the powdered wigs came up with the idea of the Supreme Court. So that the constitution they designed could be a living document - changed when need was great, but interpreted as years and decades go by. It's not perfect, but I don't know of a better option out there.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2009, 1:29 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
When someone walks up to you, snaps your picture then tells you it will be posted on the internet within the hour, how would that make you feel? Youre walking along with your child. Same thing happens. Thats ok? Well thats fine for you. But what about someone who does object. Why dont we, as individuals have any say in how our image is being displayed?
Originally I threw out some reasons why the pics shouldnt be posted and you have shown just as many good reasons why they should. But putting theoretical reasons aside what about the rights of the individual? Being asked and given some say. Why do we, as individuals have to give up our rights over the rights of some guy with a camera and a link to the internet?
As I've said before, I have a hard time with this attitude.

What rights? You have a Right to Privacy, and there is NO privacy when you are in public. This is settled law!

What you are saying, is that your personal definition of what is moral should be My personal definition of what is moral. Not only that, you want to impose this on the entire world. You want, and have asked, that this be illegal. Yet, how can it be illegal, without banning all photography of the human form? You've made and continue to make arbitrary distinctions between someone deliberalty singeled out, and someone who is just as clear as another person, but is not part of the title.

For example, you liked my shot of architecture. What if the title has been:
"Man waits for his limousine"

Since you believe your morality trumps the Constitution, trumps my rights, I ask in all sincerety for you to post such a law.

Shouldn't take you long, nor do I demand that it be perfect. I want you to put down in plain electrons, just how you would deal with this question. If you cannot answer this question - Then your position simply amounts to unarticulated rage.


Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


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 9:56 PM.