Brad_ Posted November 16, 2003 Share Posted November 16, 2003 What Mike Dixon said - it's only an issue on photonet forums - and usually put forward with a connection to post 9/11, Ashcroft, Bush, etc., and, that we are losing treasured essential liberties in the process. The sky is falling, the sky is falling... www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bart feliciano Posted November 16, 2003 Share Posted November 16, 2003 http://www.tentacle.franken.de/papers/hiddencams.pdf Ironically, we are under increasing surveillance by Private and Governmental entities at the same time as photogs are under increasing scrutiny... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lee_shively Posted November 16, 2003 Share Posted November 16, 2003 I believe Mike and Brad have both got this figured out. They're more interested in taking pictures than handwringing over someone else's perceived paranoia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted November 16, 2003 Share Posted November 16, 2003 You're taking a picture of strangers and they notice you? Many years ago I learned to just smile at them, say "I'm not really here! Just go back to doing what you were doing. Pretend I'm not here." It works! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruno_menilli Posted November 16, 2003 Author Share Posted November 16, 2003 Peter A I think you've hit the point exactly, the Leica M style of photography could be described as covert,grabbed,snatched or whatever epithet you choose to use, and that makes it different ,from the very overt type that you say people largely ignore, and which you are now finding quite liberating. That is what I am also finding, because taking grab shots, so that the subject(s) are unaware of them being taken, sometimes makes me feel that I am stealing something, which reminds me of the stories of,so-called, ancient and primative societies who hated being photographed because they thought you were stealing their souls. Regards Bruno Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshroot Posted November 16, 2003 Share Posted November 16, 2003 Peter is on the right path, <P> I learned long ago that what separates guys like William Allard, Sam Abell and Steve McCurrey from the rest of us isn't so much technical knowledge or even good composition (though they surely have that as well). It's the fact that they have the ability to make their subjects feel comfortable while they are shooting photos. They are able to somehow let their subjects know that they have no "evil" motives. And even more than that, show that they actually care about and value the people that they are photographing. <P> Allard touches on this in these quotes from "William Albert Allard: The Photographic Essay" (1989, Little Brown, Co) <p><I>"There's all kinds of communication you can have with your subject, whether you speak the language or not. It's one thing to expect your subject to be receptive, but <b>you</b> have to be receptive to <b>them</b>. If you sense something negative, then you back off."</i><P> and<P> <i>"And if they feel that you don't care about them, it's going to show in your pictures. A press credential doesn't mean a thing- it comes down to the way they perceive you. You can't just swoop in, make your hit, and leave. But you can't be spooked off either, you have to project a feeling of innocence: 'I don't mean you any harm' "</i> <P> Our inability to make that connection is what leads to <b>SO</b> many boring photos being posted here of people's butts and the backs of their heads. Heck, I just posted one today in the "Summilux photos" thread. I think it's a decent picture in many ways. But it could have been 100% better if I had been able to capture the same elements, but been able to show the child�s face and his expression of wonder. <P> This gets off topic from the original post, and it's an interesting enough discussion that it might be worthy of it's own thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles barcellona www.bl Posted November 16, 2003 Share Posted November 16, 2003 With deference to the most honorable Mike and Brad, I tend to at least partially disagree. I HAVE been asked not to photograph in public. Fishing from the Sunshine causway in Tampa/St. Pete. Tide was raging... fishing terrible, so I decided to walk around taking pics. Its a no-no. I was told by Florida State Police (Trooper) that photography is forbidden. Yes, I knew the bridge once fell. Yes, I know security is tight. All the BS you'd expect from a police officer who is just following orders. He let me continue fishing. I checked later, VERY carefully, and couldn't see any signs to the effect that photography was prohibited. Keep in mind folks, I was on the jogging trails, along the shore. All sorts of folks are parked there, picnics, fishing, jogging, wading. Its NOT like I was sneaking in and around the bridge pylons. I WAS kicked out of a public event for photographing. Palm Beach County fair, two years ago. I photographed carnies, kids, animals, the Pig Races (of course). Some carny didn't like it, and called the PBSO (Sheriff). They told me to quit or leave. I left. I was threatened - for displaying photographs - taken at DragonCon two years ago. Pics I had on the web were taking in public, not in the convention area. The way I figure it is... hey if you dress like a weirdo, and get drunk and parade in public you DESERVE to have your picture taken. It got a little nasty, and frankly it was a fight not worth fighting, so I took down the whole website. Basically some gal from Orlando (who I dont know and who I never remember meeting other than when I saw her and took the picture) didn't like her picture being used on my non-commercial webpage. It was just a "I went to the convention and look at the pictures I took" page, nothing special really. She mouthed off to my ISP, who threatened to pull my plug. I had to remind them that pictures taken in public are fair game to publication. They were only semi sypathetic said they'd look into it more. In the meantime I just took it all down in disgust. So... I've been there, done that. People do get pissed for no LEGAL reason. Cops have no clue. The system is run by the man, can't change it, without a bigger fight than I'm willing to enter. BTW, if somebody has Lexis/Nexis... CNN (cnn.com) ran a story about a year or so ago, about a guy who was taking pictures of the country landscape, and was arrested, briefly, because a farmer turned him in - photographing livestock from the road edge. Hoof-in-mouth was the big scare at that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
george_b1 Posted November 16, 2003 Share Posted November 16, 2003 Since 1945, I've photographed people in the UK, France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, Iceland, Greenland, Canada, Guam, Hong Kong, Burma, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, Viet Nam, New Zealand ,and our own Southwest Indians (Apache, Hopi, Navajo, Zuni and Papago). The only resistance I got were from our own Southwest Indians, who perceived that taking their pictures would steal their souls. I haven't been to countries with Hindu as the principal religion, so, I can't vouch for those. There's a clear difference between "grab shots" of persons who resent it on the basis of political correctness and those who believe that there is a religious belief that it is immoral. Take note, please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshroot Posted November 16, 2003 Share Posted November 16, 2003 I decided to start a new thread discussing Peter A's response. <P> <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006XJR">Link.</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lee_shively Posted November 16, 2003 Share Posted November 16, 2003 Just a comment on the post concerning Native Americans in the Southwestern USA. My wife and I were in Santa Fe, New Mexico, last month and made the rounds on the plaza. Under the portal of the Palace of the Governors, the local Native Americans sell their crafts and artwork. The place was thick with tourists and I was holding the leash on our dog as my wife looked over their offerings. She wanted to get a picture of me and the dog with the Indian vendors in the background but, as soon as she lifted the little Rebel 2000 with the 28-105 lens, a couple of them objected. Feeling duly chastised, my wife put away the camera and never tried to make any other pictures. Oddly enough, just a few moments before, she had been holding the dog and I had been walking around snapping away with my M6. I made no attempt to covertly snap pictures and I did not attempt to avoid photos of the same Native Americans who would subsequently object to my wife's efforts. My wife is small. I am a little over 6 feet tall and weigh, uh, a bit more than 200 pounds--quite a bit. What I'm saying is that I am not easy to miss in a crowd. But a bottom-of-the-line SLR with a longer than average lens in the hands of a small, discreet person was more noticed than a Leica rangefinder in the hands of a big, bearded guy with long hair. I was not trying to be sneaky but if anyone saw me photographing them, they didn't object. As this whole thread is about other people's perception of an over-blown "problem", people's perception of the person making the photograph is often more important than the actual process of taking the picture. It's dumb to make pictures when someone tells you not to do so. It's dumb to make pictures in some place you know you are not allowed to do so. And sometimes the laws are dumb concerning where you can and can't take pictures but it's dumber to break the law and pay the consequences than to just find another subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew n.bra hrefhttp Posted November 16, 2003 Share Posted November 16, 2003 Bruno - I deal with legal and ethical aspects of candid, no-permission people photography in Australia at the following URL:<P> <A HREF="http://4020.net/unposed/critics.shtml#privacy"> 4020.net/unposed/critics.shtml#privacy</A><P> Basically, despite the mounting chorus from nay-sayers, it is neither illegal or unethical, at least not in Aust.<P> Things are quite different in Quebec or France though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted November 16, 2003 Share Posted November 16, 2003 As far as I know Hindus have no prohibitions about taking photographs. For several years another photographer and I have photographed the Diwali (Hindu New Year)festival at a Hindu temple near Ft.Lauderdale, FL. We were doing this on assignment for the temple. Everybody was very friendly and cooperative, and we got to eat some fantastic food! A bit strange to have a Jewish photographer and a Muslim photographer together photographing a Hindu festival, but hey, isn't that what this great country is supposed to be about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymond_tai Posted November 16, 2003 Share Posted November 16, 2003 >>A bit strange to have a Jewish photographer and a Muslim photographer together photographing a Hindu festival, but hey, isn't that what this great country is supposed to be about? Why are Americans so obsessed with religious distinctions? Because of my east Asian upbringing I couldn't tell a Jew, Hindu, Muslim from a Moonie. Over here we just don't like Communists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted November 16, 2003 Share Posted November 16, 2003 <<How long before Leica M type photography banned?>> The camera manufacturers are doing their best to ban it right now, by attempting to make film extinct and force us to use Gameboy-inspired contraptions instead of cameras. Unfortunately Leica is too busy making commemorative editions and silly non-Macro lenses and crying about not having the R&D to make a digital M work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
furcafe Posted November 16, 2003 Share Posted November 16, 2003 Ha! Sorry Wentong, it is a cliche & not PC, but Jerry's absolutely right--many people here in the U.S. (& also in the UK, France, & Italy in my experience) often assume that any E. Asian-looking person w/a camera is a Japanese tourist. As a Chinese-American, it used to bug the hell out of me, but now I simply use the stereotype to my advantage. There have been more than a few occasions where someone has started to object to me taking pictures, but then given up & ignored me when I just smiled & pretended not to understand English. ----------- "It's cliche and probably not pc, but to illustrate the point, does anyone pay attention to a group of Japanesse tourist snapping away?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
__jon__ Posted November 16, 2003 Share Posted November 16, 2003 >Charles Barcellona , nov 16, 2003; 03:12 p.m. >.....50 years ago photography was seen as an artistic and 'healthy' >pursuit.... >Yes, and high schools had rifle teams because marksmanship was >considered a good thing too. Times have changed, to wit >I'LL GIVE UP MY CAMERAS ONLY WHEN THEY PRY THEM FROM MY COLD DEAD >FINGERS! Then you better have a talk with your buddy Ashcroft--the UnPatriot act is coming to your town. Glad I didn't vote for that buffoon's boss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_abbott2 Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 How does the Patriot Act affect photography? I live in Manhattan. Not once have I been told not to photograph the city. Not once. You'd think that this would be THE most paranoid place for terrorism in the U.S. Yet, the cops pay no attention to me taking pictures. "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" God, I've never been so embarrassed while watching politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshroot Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 Stephen, if you haven't sen them already, take a look at threads like these: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0042Pe http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004Qz5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameron_sawyer Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 Wentong wrote: �I am a Chinese by race and have to deal with �good mind for math� kind of bull everyday and am just really sick of it.� I don't understand, Wentong. That's a compliment! It's true that statistically Asians are better at math than Europeans (and at a number of other things, too, including European classical music). So what? Raymond wrote: �Why are Americans so obsessed with religious distinctions? Because of my east Asian upbringing I couldn't tell a Jew, Hindu, Muslim from a Moonie. Over here we just don't like Communists.� Well, mankind is inclined group prejudice and hatred. In Asia, it might be the prejudice of the Han against other Chinese ethnic groups, or the Japanese against the Koreans, or whatever. We Europeans have these three religions which we inherited from the Middle East, and we like to hate each other over these religions. Ironically, these three religions are closely related to each other and share many features and common origins. Stupid? Yes! Maybe even more stupid than pure ethnic prejudice like in Asia. But it's part of an overall problem of mankind. As to disliking Communists, I think we can all agree about that! Cheers, Cameron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan___2 Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 "As to disliking Communists, I think we can all agree about that!" So, the day before the fall of Communism in the Soviet Union, you disliked all of its residents. The day after, you liked them all? Who did you find to dislike in their place? Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruno_menilli Posted November 17, 2003 Author Share Posted November 17, 2003 Alan To be fair, I think that the vast majority of the residents of the USSR had no choice, but to go along with what was forced upon them, and now that they do have a choice most have chosen democracy. Regards Bruno Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_mackay2 Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 >>As to disliking ....insert your own choice..., I think we can all agree about that<< "I wouldn't want to belong to a club that would have me for a member"; Groucho Marx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles_u._farley Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 <p>Most of the current hysteria is over mobile phone cameras. In Australia, for example, a man was charged with <a href="http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7242430%255E1702,00.html">indecent treatment of a child</a> for photographing a girl in a public playground. </p> <p>Several countries such as Saudi Arabia have banned on cellphone cameras as a result. A new South Korean law requires manufacturers to ensure cellphone cameras (and possibly all digital cameras) <a href="http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,61197,00.html">beep when a photograph is taken</a>.</p> <p>As for traditional photography, you don't have to look too hard to find instances of photographers <a href="http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=1887">detained by police</a> for taking photographs in public. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_kennedy2 Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 To Harry Geron, I am old enough to remember "Laugh In" and the term is Bippy, not Biffy. On the other hand I enjoyed your Freudian slip regarding "Pubic" Property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameron_sawyer Posted November 18, 2003 Share Posted November 18, 2003 "'As to disliking Communists, I think we can all agree about that!' So, the day before the fall of Communism in the Soviet Union, you disliked all of its residents. The day after, you liked them all? Who did you find to dislike in their place? Alan" You're right!!! I take my words back. I should have said Communism, not Communists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now