random strangers pictures

[john_valjean]

<p>Hello forum members, so today I had a dilemma, I was with the family at a park and was taking candid pictures of my kids running around, then I noticed a random stranger sitting in a really beautiful way, I looked through my lens and it was a really beautiful framed picture, but I did not click the button and never took the picture. I told my wife about it and basically stated that I did not feel comfortable taking the shot. So she asked me how would I feel if a stranger takes her picture. it made me think a little bit. Is it moral or ethical or appropriate (notice the categories count down) to take pictures (of course candid pictures) of strangers and share them or post them online? I like to hear some opinions, thanks for sharing.</p>

[lornesunley]

<p>That is usually referred to as "Street Photography" and is perfectly OK.</p>

[david_daniel]

<p>What would you do with the photo? If you ever thought you might sell that photo to an advertising agency, you'd need a release. You could take the photo, then approach the subject about signing a release, promising to email them a copy for themselves. </p>

[jtk]

<p>"perfectly ok" is not the value judgement that you and your wife both made. Why would you ask a group like this about your own values? <br>

Lots of things are "perfectly ok" to some and not perfectly ok to others. Gambling, smoking, heroin, assault, religion, polygamy, Newt Gingrich...</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>I have no moral or ethical objection to street photography. I've been doing it for years. I wouldn't take a picture that would be embarrassing, disrespectful, or insulting to the person, but that's my value system.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>With the excepotion of an image used for commercial purposes, mentioned by Damiel, I think that being in a public place is not accompanied by a right not to be photographed. We can usually sense when someone does not want to have their picture taken, but if in doubt and in certain slow moving situations it also makes sense to tell the person you are interested in photographing them and go from there.</p>

[kevin_omura]

<p>It sounds like your moral compass already kicked in so in your case you did the right thing. I think times have changed a lot, in the past I wouldn't have given a lot of thought about potential problems doing street photography but now everyone seems so uptight that I have to wonder or at least think twice which is really tough when you are a decisive moment photographer.</p>

<p>As others have said though use might be a big factor, if you never planned on publishing or displaying or selling the photo then I can't see a problem. But that's not to say the subject wouldn't have a problem.</p>

[dan_south]

You did the right things when you passed on the shot as the idea of taking it made you uncomfortable. And if you had

proceeded it would have made your wife uneasy. And think about the consequences to your family if an altercation

had arisen.

 

 

Yes, there are lots of situations where it's reasoably acceptable to photograph strangers, but it's important to exercise

discretion and to respect for your subjects. I don't like it when people take my photo without clearing it with me first, and

I try to give the same respect to others in most cases. But there are exceptions. If someone is doing something in a

public place, I'll photograph them. I don't want to interrupt the activity. But if someone is just sitting there, I would

probably ask permission in advance. The good news is that most people say yes, an no one's feelings get hurt either

way.

 

 

If you don't want strangers taking photos of your wife and kids, be a good example and ambassador for the photo

community and treat your subjects - and yourself - with respect.

[mariosforsos]

<p>Personally I would only get into the "querying" game if the image itself contained something - however small - which could be entirely private or controversial (for example, a fight or an expression of racial hatred or, in any way, something emotionally, politically and ethically compromising). In all other cases I'd simply snap away and, IF the image came out with commercial-use potential, I would simply approach the subject, politely explain the situation and ask for a model release.</p>

<p>Now, since you, yourself, find the whole concept dubious and possibly unethical, then you're effectively answering your own question and anything anyone else might say is, frankly, a bit mute.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>John V.: To shoot anonymously or not is best left to impulses. How you use the picture later is what counts. It is entirely situational. Getting the picture was not worth feeling bad even if you were in a public place doing what is your right to do there. Sometimes people see their encounter with a photographer as an invitation to chat a bit.</p>

[lauren_macintosh]

<p>To take or to not to take is a self dilemma one has to discuss with one's self, , Myself I rarely shoot people But when it becomes down right interest yes you could not stop me at all.<br>

A while ago I was at a mall there sat this young lady who looked so interesting , because she was just sitting in front of a large mirror waiting to be help, I like it so much , I asked her to take her photo and she said yes ,well to take photos under those type of condition does not always lend itself to good photo other than candid work, yes It was on impulse and that's that, I sent her the three photos that I felt were good:</p>