HELP WANTED: Why do people hate having their photo taken

[charles_stobbs3]

I know many people who don't like to be photographed by strangers. My own feelings are that in a democracy people's right to know what is going on outweighs others desire for privacy. If you want privacy, go in a closet. And if you don't want me to hear your cellphone conversation, keep your damned radio waves out of my livingroom. So there.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>"Look this guy thinks he's HCB or something," when in fact it was HCB (who related this

story to a friend, and hence became known) who use a handkerchief to cover his camera

pretending he was sneezing to get the shot."</I><P>I've been doing a lot of research into

Cartier-Bresson overthe past few weeks for an article I'm writing. As far as I can tell, He

never did resorted to such trickery for three very simple reasons: 1.) he could not have

composed as accurately as he consistently did. & 2.) it would have slowed him down, he

had incredibly fast reflexes. 3.0 it would have called attention o himself, flipping around a

handkerchief. <P>

People hate having their picture taken when they are unawares for a varety of reasons;

primarily because they feel like their privacy (yes even in public) is being intruded on by a

stranger for no obvious reason; because they may feel like they don't look good. Becasue

most "street photographers" are so stupidly obvious about what they are doing and trying

to hide what they are doing at the same time, because most "street photographers" don't

take the time to get integrated into the everyday hubbub of their patch of turf that day:

they are tourists and stand out like tourists: you need to learn H C-B's trick of making

yourself "invisible".

[rodolfo_negrete]

no long ago I started a thread that went somthing like this:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009ALh

[rodolfo_negrete]

I also bolive that peopple has always been like these.Before it was something where they would dress up and look their best and now it is very informal and documentary style where sometimes peopple does not feel countroble wiht that and like to porportrait thmeselves in a diferent in a "better"way.(reality) I am not fit,90% of the time I at work but I want to be remember with a suit rather than an apron.

[randy_skopar]

A friend of mine went to Jamaica and was badgered on the street whenever his camera was in view. Bob Shell, who used to write for various publications before he got into mucho trouble, once wrote an article about the same kind of abuse in Jamaica.

 

I have no idea what makes this particular nation so hostile to photographers.

[Spearhead]

Having been to Jamaica, all I can say is that your friend must be unpleasant. There was absolutely no hostility to cameras when I was in Jamaica. There wasn't even a reason to bring it up in this thread.

 

But I note from other threads that you are well-noted for rascist insults, so I'll chalk it up to that. The rest of us will shoot wherever.

[stephen_martin2]

could it be that in our socity in the USA we have the abilty to communicate with each other at a moments notice no matter where you are, and that people may feel they cannot have time to themsleves anymore?

 

 

first it was the telegraph then the phone,pager,cell phone, email, and GPS phones. a person cant hide unless they refuse to use a cell phone. you give out your number and people think you should answer your phone 24hrs a day.

 

thats my take on it.

[olivier_reichenbach]

I think the Internet has changed many things. Now, everybody thinks you're going to

publish their face in some kind of porn "photo-montage".

 

BTW, isn't Randy Skopar way beyond the guidelines of racist slurs on this forum? Then,

why is he still tolerated? Unbelievable.

[randy_skopar]

Jeff and the others who call me racist: Is "Jamaican" now one of the races? Maybe so. Us Klansmen ain't educated.

[working camera]

People photography often comes down to a certain rapport between subject and

photographer and it's really no different when doing candid photography with

strangers in the street. It's about how you carry yourself. Street work is about

confidence and purpose if you appear uncertain hesitant or nervous then the subject

will pick up on that. Cebes, if you go out hunting then your prey will see through you.

If you have empathy for your fellow man then it usually shows through. Use your

powers of observation, and learn to move on.

 

 

The world has changed since the 1960s we are all more aware of the power

photographic imagery can have. People are tuned in to that and are understandably

suspicious of your motives.

 

C.

[randy_skopar]

<<BTW, isn't Randy Skopar way beyond the guidelines of racist slurs on this forum?>>

 

Quote the "racist slurs" I've made.

[bob soltis]

Dorothea Lange said: "So often it?s just sticking around and being there, remaining there,

not swooping out in a cloud of dust; sitting down on the ground with people?if you

behave in a generous manner, you?re very apt to receive it."

 

On a lighter note:

 

http://www.magnumphotos.com/cf/htm/CDocZ_MAG.aspx?

Stat=DocZoom_DocZoom&&E=2K7O3RNY2WJ&DT=ALB&Pass=&Total=461&Pic=331&o=U

Y5

 

;)

[EricM]

nobody needs to Randy

[olivier_reichenbach]

Randy:

 

"... If you like Jamaicans, just wait a little. They're all immigrating here, anyway. And here

they will be less dangerous because not so concentrated."

 

It's all in the manner. The innuendos. And no, Jamaicans are not a race. It just so happens

that the vast majority of them are black. Pure coicidence, of course.

 

I could also quote you from a recent thread". Here are some excerpts:

 

"A friend of mine is a cancer specialist. When he is going over charts at the hospital where

he works, he can't think straight because of the din from the radios of some of the

minorities in the shared office space. When he once asked that the noise be turned down,

he was brought up on charges of racism... Another time, there was a lady under his care

who was dying from cancer. She was in agony, so he ordered a morphine drip. The nurses

refused to give it. They said the drip had to be authorized by the pain-management

committee. The committee was off duty for the weekend, so this dying woman was

tortured by terminal cancer for two days and nights before she was given even a drop of

painkiller. And members of the pain committee were late for work on Monday, which

caused a further delay.

 

Now, listen carefully, please. When my friend filed a protest over the refusal of the nurses,

the administration rebuked him for creating racial tension! It seems the nurses who

refused the morpine drip were black.

 

When my friend felt that the public should know about this, he wrote a journal article

about it. Subsequently, he was was called in and told that his advancement in that hospital

was over, and that further insubordination would bring "personnel action."

 

This is all very quiet, nothing dramatic, no camps or stakes or dogs. But people are being

ruined...

 

What is alarming is that Americans have begun to nurture policies and messages that are

contradictory to our body of law and values. We claim to be past all discrimination--

indeed, we beat our chests about it--but we accept government-enforced policies that

send white men to the back of some very important lines. We also tolerate openly bigoted

messages about white Christian men in our political life, textbooks, and entertainments...

 

Let me pose this to you. Under present conditions, you do not know if the minority doctor

in your neighborhood is truly, even greatly qualified, or a quota clown. Because you don't

know, you decide to go to a white male. You know damn well if HE got into medical

school, he had great scores. And you know damn well there were no quotas mandating

how many white man HAD to be graduated. And so you go to this white-male doctor,

perhaps bypassing an excellent physician. Or perhaps saving your life from a charlatan.

You don't know which. Thus Affirmative Action hurts everyone, even its supporters and

beneficiaries...

 

And do you think we are not all hurt by the encouragement of bigotry against white

Christian men? Do you not know that the target of the bigotry may change in time? Are

you willing to risk hampering if not blocking the contributions of the very people--white

men--who have been responsible for 99.44% of the advances in medicine, government,

and technology?

 

"Robert Bork, in his "Slouching to Gomorrah," describes how the curriculum and exam

regimen at Harvard Medical School was watered down to make it possible for more

minorities to get their degrees. There have been similar cases discussed, yes with

documentation, also in a journal called "Academic Questions." Medical schools are cutting

standards to avoid government lawsuits...

 

You see, the medical schools face quotas not only in admissions but also in graduation.

They HAVE to graduate a certain number of minority students...

 

And don't forget what happened to the black student who was admitted to medical school

instead of Mr. Bakke, triggering a Supreme Court decision. This black man must have

developed a sense of entitlement about his medical privileges, because after he left

medical school he soon killed a patient. He signed up for a three-day course in liposuction

technique and only showed up for one of the days. Nonetheless, no one stopped him from

doing liposuctions and he began doing them for extra money. He made a series of

mistakes that killed a patient."

 

"<<I have no problem in being treated by an African American doctor. I don't assume he

has inferior qualifications, or is inferior in any way.>>

 

That is an emotional response, not one based on the facts. The facts: your black doctor

may be a world-beater, or he may be a charlatan. YOu just don't know! If medical schools

are forced to admit and graduate by quota, then you do not know which minorities won on

the merits and which won on the quotas.

 

This is the other edge of Affirmative Action. It cuts one way by using quotas instead of

merit, and it cuts another way by drawing a question mark all over the diploma of every

minority M.D.

 

Remember, when standards are lowered at Harvard so that more minorities can be

graduated, then EVERYONE at Harvard gets a weaker education. If there were such a thing

as a three-edged sword, this is the third edge."

 

Also:

 

"If you think about it, if we are going to punish or reward people based on their ancestors,

then white men should be simultaneously punished for the Jim Crows and rewarded for

the scientists. So Affirmative Action cancels itself out. Also, if we award Affirmative Action

favors based on whose ancestors were "oppressed," then everyone in the world qualifies...

Affirmative Action is passed out to hold political coalitions in line, not to create some kind

of "social justice." It has become a racial spoils system with injustice as its necessary

condition and lower standards as its guaranteed outcome...

 

Anyway, the question of inherited intelligence and such traits as the ability to delay

gratification have been addressed in a vast body of work. Surely you don't expect me to

summarize all that massive debate, unless, of course, you are baiting me...

 

Even ignoring the scientific work, don't you think it would be foolish to block the

descendants of the very people, so small in number, who have contributed such a

disproportionate amount to our longer lives and comfort? Don't you believe in playing

odds?

 

Is the man who invented air conditioning more likely to have children with scientific talent

than a man who has never done anything in the scientific area? Again, you cannot predict

with total accuracy, but the odds favor the children of the tinkerer. Could we block and

marginalize white men and still get Fermi, Beethoven, Tolstoy, Lister, and Salk? There's no

way to know. But would you run the risk of losing these people in order to have

employment assigned by quotas instead of merit? Is the value of what you might get worth

the value of what you might lose? Is a spoils system so valuable to you that you would be

willing to risk the loss of cures for disease and inventions that make life better for us? Are

you willing to block talent for the sake of block-votes? Well, some politicians are...

 

In a long view of the world, it was only a few minutes ago when white people sailed around

the world and made contact with dark people. There was a level playing field before that

for a long time--while the races were isolated. Of course, farther back still, there was only

once race. But I'm talking about the time after the dispersal of people into different parts

of the world and the emergence of the differences that we can describe as racial. It seems

likely that these differences were responses to different living conditions. The black skin of

the tropical man seems, when compared to the pale skin of the northerner, pretty clearly

an adaptation to environment. Such adaptations would take a tremendous amount of time

to emerge; and it is that long time, while the races were differentiating and separate,

about which I speak...

 

After hundreds of thousands of years of this level playing field, Europeans established

contact with other parts of the world. They found cannibalism, and human sacrifice. They

found peoples with numbering systems no higher than two. They found peoples who had

not invented the wheel. They found peoples who, although living next to placid bodies of

water with fish in them, had not invented the boat. They found people who, although

faced with regular famines, would develop no systems to preserve food nor go afield to

find more food. And they found large numbers of peoples who had not developed iron,

despite having fire and iron ore...

 

Colonialism developed after this...

 

We all know colonialism had a dark side, but it had a positive side and the dark side could

be recovered from. The U.S. was a colony, but we took what was good from colonialism

and did pretty well afterwards...

 

I have no idea why the white peoples of the earth have been so inventive and resourceful.

Writers have speculated that this emerged because of four-season climates and the

necessities imposed by that. Others have written of dietary differences, and the

adaptations necessary for successful hunting...

 

So, concluding: The white people of North America and Europe have done good things and

awful things, but they have left us with systems, treatments, and technologies that make

better lives possible for all races. The average poor person of today has food, medicine,

and shelter superior to that of tribal kings in pre-Colonial times...

 

If we have in our country millions of white men descended from such a resourceful race, it

is foolish to arrange policies that send these people to the back of the line in growing

numbers of areas. We need their contributions...

 

We need for young white men with high SAT scores to get into the colleges that can

accommodate and challenge them. (It has been proven that SAT scores accurately predict

college performance--and that is all they propose to do.) We do not need to block them

out to hold seats for people whose scores are lower. There are lots of schools for those

who do no qualify for the most brilliant schools...

 

People have said that SAT scores are high among the "rich and privileged," and that high

SAT scores among whites are the result of "wealth and privilege," and of course racism and

taking advantage of helpless minorities. As if there were no middle-class minorities. But

what is the truth? Low-income whites do better on the SAT than high-income blacks. And

low-income Asians do even better than the whites! Wealth and privilege?

 

We also have studies showing study patterns of high school students. The Asians study

most, the whites second, and the blacks study least. And that's how the races stack up on

the SAT. Wealth and privilege?

 

And you have an occasional black student, from a poor family, who scores very high on

the SAT. Wealth and privilege?...

 

And while we are talking about the black middle class, let's mention another group that

gets little attention in politics and the media: poor whites. The white guy from a

desperately poor home is not described as facing great odds whereas the black kid from a

middle-class home is. Bill Cosby's kids are eligible for Affirmative Action. John White's

kids, mired in poverty, are not. As a matter of fact, a poor white boy has to go to the back

of the college-admissions line along with his better-off mates. From that position, he can

watch middle-class black kids with weak SATs and histories of not studying as they are

escorted to the front. The white kid is "privileged" to watch this happening.

 

Again I hear the cry, "But that's only justice! Black people used to be sent to the back of

the line!" No, it isn't justice. The white kid at the back of the line was born long after Jim

Crow. He has never been in a position to hire, fire, rent to, or refuse to rent to anyone. He

is simply the victim of a political arrangement to hold together voting blocks.

 

And in true 1984 fashion, this injustice is called "Social Justice," and the turning away of

white talent is called "Affirmative Action." And the suppression of dissident viewpoints is

called "inclusion." And the improvement of neighborhoods--if it is accomplished by white

residents--is criticized as "gentrification...

 

Affirmative Action was created in the courts, and it is fostered there. People have not been

allowed to vote on it...

 

<<white people are oppressed, vilified, and discriminated against?>>

I've been talking about white men, not about white people in general. White women are

eligible for Affirmative Action. They were made so for political reasons, not because their

position in society is anything like that of minorities. As I said earlier, Affirmative Action is

a political strategy, not an attempt to create justice. If Affirmative Action were not given to

women, the single white women who vote for the Democrats would vote Republican. The

coalition of the present Democratic Party is minorities and single white women. And they

are held in the party by the bribe of Affirmative Action... Someone mentioned Arab

inventions. Those were long ago, but, yes, we should appreciate them. As for some

number of musical instruments developed in Africa, I never heard that before. I'll look into

it; I'm curious. The musicality of black people is beyond question, of course. And similarly

beyond question is the musicality of white people. Bach wasn't bad. And of course, the

blues and jazz were developed by black people on a foundation of European music,

especially church music. It always amuses me to hear people accuse Elvis of "stealing" the

""music of black people." If he is guilty of that, then the music he stole was stolen goods

to begin with!..."

 

Etc... etc...

 

I rest my case.

[randy_skopar]

Olivier, I had made a final post to answer some of the questions by Philip T.; but it was cut, along with the entire thread. I'm glad you quoted at length. It comes down to this: To praise the achievements of women and minorities is PC. To praise the achievements of white men is racist. You could only call me racist if you subscribe to those premises.

 

If a group is being slandered on racial grounds and is being hampered by penalties based on accidents of birth, it is certainly appropriate for a member of that group to complain. You praise Martin King for doing it; you condemn me for doing it.

 

I have no more to say on the topic. I've yet to see someone refute my arguments, as opposed to calling me names.

[EricM]

You won't get a rebuttal here. You've pegged yourself. It's not the place so go somewhere else. We've all been through it with your kind before. Besides that, Tony already has too much to do.

[randy_skopar]

The people who write me privately to agree with what I say will be disappointed; but, okay, sayonara. P.S. Perhaps the moderator was being fair-minded.

[__jon__]

>Randy Skopar , sep 14, 2004; 07:23 p.m.

 

>Jeff and the others who call me racist: Is "Jamaican" now one of the races? Maybe so. Us

Klansmen ain't educated.

 

Hey look! It's James Kennedy in disguise... or should I say, not so in disguise?

 

I thought all you guys were jailed after Nuremberg.

[al_kaplan1]

Wow, did this thread ever get off on a strange tangent! Better that we stick to discussing cameras and photography rather than sociology, culture, race and ethnicity. The color of the eye squinting through the finder is of no more consequence than the color of the finger pressing the release button.

 

As for that diatribe against medical professionals of other darker races, after having been married to doctor (white Protestant Anglo-Saxon, an ancestor came over on the second voyage of the Mayflower)I can let out a little secret. They all do an exam, perhaps run some tests, examine an X-ray or two, or a higher tech scan, then make an "educated guess". If the latest medication hyped by the last drug company rep who took him or her to lunch fails to do any good then it's "Jeepers, that usually works! Let's try this instead and see what happens. Call me in a week." That's why they say "practicing medicine". Maybe some day they'll get it right.

[randy_skopar]

Second thoughts. That "we've seen your kind before" stuff was too cowboy-movie for me. I think I'll stick around unless or until they ban me from the group. I agree with Al that the thread veered way out into space; but, admit it, political comments are as common as grass in this forum. Usually these are gratuitous shots at the President or the Republican Party. And, being leftist, they aren't challenged. You guys need me to keep you intellectually honest and to get you thinking through lines of argument instead of swapping formulas and striking PC poses.

 

Oh, and to get back to the topic of the deleted thread. It was about Susan Sontag's article on Abu Ghraib. I read the article. Some good analysis, with political nonsense dragged in by the heels. She's no more subtle about it than you guys.

 

I know what you mean, Al, but if I'm taken to the emergency room in dire straits, I want the doctor making decisions to be the product of a rigid admissions, testing, and licensing process. Most doctoring, as you point out, is cookbook medicine. But sometimes a doctor needs to be brilliant and very quick. I want the best medical care, not the most PC. As one wag put it, Would you fly on an airline that advertises "We put diversity first"?

[randy_skopar]

<<Besides that, Tony already has too much to do.>>

 

Oh, please. Sucking up...

[msitaraman]

This is complete speculation on my part, but I daresay the culture of individualism and the rise of the "me generation" mentality has something to do with it. People value their individual (visual) identity as being more precious, and in an increasingly anonymous and alienating street culture, are more protective of their privacy.

 

I daresay the subconscious thought is "don't you dare take pictures of me, you pervert/wacko/loser, I'm too special..."

 

Contrast this with the well known picture by Erich Salomon (see below), where various European worthies are roaring with laughter as they realize they are being photographed...Perhaps people were more jolly and relaxed in public spaces then, and more apt to genially connect with strangers around them, photographers included.<div></div>

[msitaraman]

I should have added, the Erich Salomon picture is from the 1920s in Europe. © Goethe Institut, Warszawa

[mike dixon]

<i>political comments are as common as grass in this forum. Usually these are gratuitous shots at the President or the Republican Party. And, being leftist, they aren't challenged. You guys need me to keep you intellectually honest and to get you thinking through lines of argument instead of swapping formulas and striking PC poses.</i><P>

Yeah, that pinko liberal Tony Rowlett who moderates the place is the worst leftist subversive around . . . ; )<P>

Dude, do you even read this forum?

[mike dixon]

Regarding the original question, I don't know what the hell you're talking about. In my experience, most people don't mind having their photo taken, quite a few enjoy it, and only a very, very-small minority object to it. Maybe you're doing it wrong.