Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

are you comfortable taking pictures outside?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 10:18:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

say, of anyone who you find interesting as you walk in the city, or
anywhere for that matter? i was busy taking pictures in downtown los
angeles today but was hesitant in taking pictures of pedestrians.
however, i find human elements to be infinitely more interesting than
the buildings!
what's your approach when taking pictures of strangers? ask permission
first? or just take them?
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 2:28:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

alien999 wrote:
> say, of anyone who you find interesting as you walk in the city, or
> anywhere for that matter? i was busy taking pictures in downtown los
> angeles today but was hesitant in taking pictures of pedestrians.
> however, i find human elements to be infinitely more interesting
> than
> the buildings!
> what's your approach when taking pictures of strangers? ask
> permission
> first? or just take them?

My experience (domestic locations; cultural differences may apply):

Most camera-sensitive people lose interest if you don't point a big
lens at them early in their awareness. After they see you do a couple
of mote-in-the-middle-distance shots, you are no longer significant
and can include them with impunity. On a couple of occasions I kind of
brazened it out when I had shot a couple of persons who I sensed were
about to make a fuss: I walked right at them, camera poised just short
of shot position, and at the last second said, "Pardon me, please!" as
I gave evidence of extreme interest in something well beyond them, and
stepped on past.

There are any number of techniques to disguise the object of your
focus. You can even buy a mirror appliance that attaches to the front
of a lens and photographs at right angles to the usual path. My
fun-lens is another: widest of wide angles catches subjects in the
periphery when the lens is ostensibly pointed well away from them.

I have a Minolta Dimage Xt that looks not very camera-like to the
unacquainted. The lens is wide enough that I can get some pretty good
exposures with the camera in non-usual positions.

Of course there is a certain amount of dishonesty and cowardice
involved in all that. You really need to use your judgement and
discretion, not always a reliable shield against irate privacy
advocates. It's a matter of how bad do you want the picture _vs_. how
much do you value your (personal and photographic) equipment.

--
Frank ess
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 3:26:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

There's nothing like a reflex camera at waist level, for candid crowds.
Related resources
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 12:47:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <170520051818597079%mtien@charter.net>,
alien999 <mtien@charter.net> wrote:

> say, of anyone who you find interesting as you walk in the city, or
> anywhere for that matter? i was busy taking pictures in downtown los
> angeles today but was hesitant in taking pictures of pedestrians.
> however, i find human elements to be infinitely more interesting than
> the buildings!
> what's your approach when taking pictures of strangers? ask permission
> first? or just take them?

If you are going to publish the photos, you could leave yourself wide
open for problems if you haven't got their permission. Given the
litigatious cesspit the US has wandered into, I'd say forget it.

For personal use, make sure your camera doesn't make any conspicuous
noises when a photo is taken and that the flash is off. Keep the camera
in position after you have taken the shot, as if you are waiting for
anyone in the shot to move away. You could even go so far as pretending
to adjust something. There's a lot to be said for tripods and remote
controllers.

--
.....NewsDroid
May 19, 2005 12:47:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <spamblok-2AF1D4.20473918052005@lust.ihug.co.nz>,
spamblok@ihug.co.nz says...
> In article <170520051818597079%mtien@charter.net>,
> alien999 <mtien@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > say, of anyone who you find interesting as you walk in the city, or
> > anywhere for that matter? i was busy taking pictures in downtown los
> > angeles today but was hesitant in taking pictures of pedestrians.
> > however, i find human elements to be infinitely more interesting than
> > the buildings!
> > what's your approach when taking pictures of strangers? ask permission
> > first? or just take them?
>
> If you are going to publish the photos, you could leave yourself wide
> open for problems if you haven't got their permission. Given the
> litigatious cesspit the US has wandered into, I'd say forget it.
>
> For personal use, make sure your camera doesn't make any conspicuous
> noises when a photo is taken and that the flash is off. Keep the camera
> in position after you have taken the shot, as if you are waiting for
> anyone in the shot to move away. You could even go so far as pretending
> to adjust something. There's a lot to be said for tripods and remote
> controllers.
>
>

Just go out and take the pictures. BE OBVIOUS, BE BLATANT!. Being sneaky, or
trying not to be obvious is the first, best way to get hassled by paranoids
and law officers.

If you are just out taking pictures, you have nothing to hide, and shouldn't
be trying to hide it. Trying NOT to be obvious is the first step into the
mistaken idea that you are doing something wrong to begin with. Just stay
away from schools and kiddy parks and you should be fine.

Ive been wandering around in public taking photos since 1959, and Ive only
been questioned once, by one person, (she wanted to know why I was taking
pictures). Presently I live in a town which has a hlf dozen areas with
signage that says NO PHOTOGRAPHY (Military base and defense manufacturer) and
still, no one hassles me.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 12:47:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 18 May 2005 06:16:56 -0400, in rec.photo.digital , Larry
<lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> in
<MPG.1cf4e02111c43e839899da@news.comcast.giganews.com> wrote:

>In article <spamblok-2AF1D4.20473918052005@lust.ihug.co.nz>,
>spamblok@ihug.co.nz says...
>> In article <170520051818597079%mtien@charter.net>,
>> alien999 <mtien@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>> > say, of anyone who you find interesting as you walk in the city, or
>> > anywhere for that matter? i was busy taking pictures in downtown los
>> > angeles today but was hesitant in taking pictures of pedestrians.
>> > however, i find human elements to be infinitely more interesting than
>> > the buildings!
>> > what's your approach when taking pictures of strangers? ask permission
>> > first? or just take them?
>>
>> If you are going to publish the photos, you could leave yourself wide
>> open for problems if you haven't got their permission. Given the
>> litigatious cesspit the US has wandered into, I'd say forget it.
>>
>> For personal use, make sure your camera doesn't make any conspicuous
>> noises when a photo is taken and that the flash is off. Keep the camera
>> in position after you have taken the shot, as if you are waiting for
>> anyone in the shot to move away. You could even go so far as pretending
>> to adjust something. There's a lot to be said for tripods and remote
>> controllers.
>>
>>
>
>Just go out and take the pictures. BE OBVIOUS, BE BLATANT!. Being sneaky, or
>trying not to be obvious is the first, best way to get hassled by paranoids
>and law officers.

Why "paranoids"? If you are sneaking around trying to take someone's
picture they sure have the right to object. Even if you are not being
sneaky they have the right to object. Why the assumption that it is ok
to take people's image, but not ok to object?

>If you are just out taking pictures, you have nothing to hide, and shouldn't
>be trying to hide it. Trying NOT to be obvious is the first step into the
>mistaken idea that you are doing something wrong to begin with. Just stay
>away from schools and kiddy parks and you should be fine.
>
>Ive been wandering around in public taking photos since 1959, and Ive only
>been questioned once, by one person, (she wanted to know why I was taking
>pictures). Presently I live in a town which has a hlf dozen areas with
>signage that says NO PHOTOGRAPHY (Military base and defense manufacturer) and
>still, no one hassles me.

Try taking a picture from the Brooklyn Bridge. Apparently no one
thought of doing that in the past since they now (try to) enforce the
laws against it.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 12:47:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:csam81dmke7unphj4mradtpd1lpkn6i86k@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 May 2005 06:16:56 -0400, in rec.photo.digital , Larry
> <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> in
> <MPG.1cf4e02111c43e839899da@news.comcast.giganews.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <spamblok-2AF1D4.20473918052005@lust.ihug.co.nz>,
> >spamblok@ihug.co.nz says...
> >> In article <170520051818597079%mtien@charter.net>,
> >> alien999 <mtien@charter.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > say, of anyone who you find interesting as you walk in the city, or
> >> > anywhere for that matter? i was busy taking pictures in downtown los
> >> > angeles today but was hesitant in taking pictures of pedestrians.
> >> > however, i find human elements to be infinitely more interesting than
> >> > the buildings!
> >> > what's your approach when taking pictures of strangers? ask
permission
> >> > first? or just take them?
> >>
> >> If you are going to publish the photos, you could leave yourself wide
> >> open for problems if you haven't got their permission. Given the
> >> litigatious cesspit the US has wandered into, I'd say forget it.
> >>
> >> For personal use, make sure your camera doesn't make any conspicuous
> >> noises when a photo is taken and that the flash is off. Keep the camera
> >> in position after you have taken the shot, as if you are waiting for
> >> anyone in the shot to move away. You could even go so far as pretending
> >> to adjust something. There's a lot to be said for tripods and remote
> >> controllers.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Just go out and take the pictures. BE OBVIOUS, BE BLATANT!. Being
sneaky, or
> >trying not to be obvious is the first, best way to get hassled by
paranoids
> >and law officers.
>
> Why "paranoids"? If you are sneaking around trying to take someone's
> picture they sure have the right to object. Even if you are not being
> sneaky they have the right to object. Why the assumption that it is ok
> to take people's image, but not ok to object?

I'm glad I'm not the only photographer who feels this way. Maybe it's
because I don't really like street photography or the other way around but
just because I'm a photographer doesn't mean I dont still value my privacy
and frankly, if I noticed some stranger trying to take photos of me, sneaky
or obvious, I'd be pretty pissed off too and I'd have a right to be.

I know that asking the person ahead of time if you can take their photo
might ruin the candidness or "realness" of it but to me, consideration for
other human beings feelings should come before a great photograph. To many
times I see people who are normally thoughtful and considerate but as soon
as they get out on the street with a camera in their hands they throw out
any kind of consideration for other peoples feelings simply because they can
and they feel a great photograph of an interesting person is far more
important than caring about if the person wants their photo taken or not.

I'm not accusing anyone here of this, I'm just saying I see it happen too
often.

--
www.robinbauer.com
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 12:47:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 18 May 2005 04:50:42 -0700, Matt Silberstein wrote
(in article <csam81dmke7unphj4mradtpd1lpkn6i86k@4ax.com>):

> On Wed, 18 May 2005 06:16:56 -0400, in rec.photo.digital , Larry
> <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> in
> <MPG.1cf4e02111c43e839899da@news.comcast.giganews.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <spamblok-2AF1D4.20473918052005@lust.ihug.co.nz>,
>> spamblok@ihug.co.nz says...
>>> In article <170520051818597079%mtien@charter.net>,
>>> alien999 <mtien@charter.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> say, of anyone who you find interesting as you walk in the city, or
>>>> anywhere for that matter? i was busy taking pictures in downtown los
>>>> angeles today but was hesitant in taking pictures of pedestrians.
>>>> however, i find human elements to be infinitely more interesting than
>>>> the buildings!
>>>> what's your approach when taking pictures of strangers? ask permission
>>>> first? or just take them?
>>>
>>> If you are going to publish the photos, you could leave yourself wide
>>> open for problems if you haven't got their permission. Given the
>>> litigatious cesspit the US has wandered into, I'd say forget it.
>>>
>>> For personal use, make sure your camera doesn't make any conspicuous
>>> noises when a photo is taken and that the flash is off. Keep the camera
>>> in position after you have taken the shot, as if you are waiting for
>>> anyone in the shot to move away. You could even go so far as pretending
>>> to adjust something. There's a lot to be said for tripods and remote
>>> controllers.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Just go out and take the pictures. BE OBVIOUS, BE BLATANT!. Being sneaky,
>> or
>> trying not to be obvious is the first, best way to get hassled by paranoids
>> and law officers.
>
> Why "paranoids"? If you are sneaking around trying to take someone's
> picture they sure have the right to object. Even if you are not being
> sneaky they have the right to object. Why the assumption that it is ok
> to take people's image, but not ok to object?
>

It appears you have misread the post you respond to, unless you consider
being "OBVIOUS" and "BLATANT" to mean "sneaking around".

Of course people have the right to object to their picture being taken in
public, but they DON'T have the right to prevent you from taking their
picture in public, so while they MAY object, their objections are pointless
from the standpoint of preventing their picture from being taken.

Because those photographed in public have no right to prevent their picture
from being taken (there is no right to privacy IN PUBLIC PLACES), any
"objection" to a photographer taking a picture of another in public by the
person being photographed is pointless.

Of course, the photo in question may not be used for commercial purposes
without the written consent of the subject(s) in the photo who are
recognizable.



>> If you are just out taking pictures, you have nothing to hide, and
>> shouldn't
>> be trying to hide it. Trying NOT to be obvious is the first step into the
>> mistaken idea that you are doing something wrong to begin with. Just stay
>> away from schools and kiddy parks and you should be fine.
>>
>> Ive been wandering around in public taking photos since 1959, and Ive only
>> been questioned once, by one person, (she wanted to know why I was taking
>> pictures). Presently I live in a town which has a hlf dozen areas with
>> signage that says NO PHOTOGRAPHY (Military base and defense manufacturer)
>> and
>> still, no one hassles me.
>
> Try taking a picture from the Brooklyn Bridge. Apparently no one
> thought of doing that in the past since they now (try to) enforce the
> laws against it.
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 12:47:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 18 May 2005 11:18:40 -0400, in rec.photo.digital , "with no
socks" <badspam@nono.com> in <BO6dnUo8RPpQwRbfRVn-rw@comcast.com>
wrote:

>"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>message news:csam81dmke7unphj4mradtpd1lpkn6i86k@4ax.com...

[snip]

>> Why "paranoids"? If you are sneaking around trying to take someone's
>> picture they sure have the right to object. Even if you are not being
>> sneaky they have the right to object. Why the assumption that it is ok
>> to take people's image, but not ok to object?
>
>I'm glad I'm not the only photographer who feels this way. Maybe it's
>because I don't really like street photography or the other way around

I agree. I don't if I dislike photographing people because it seems
like an invasion of their privacy or the other way around, but it is
not what attracts me to photography. I have taken 1 candid photograph
of a person that I really like. In that situation digital cameras were
new and he asked about the camera. I took the picture while he was
looking at the camera as a camera. I then showed him the picture and
asked if it was ok.

[snip]



--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 12:47:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> >> Just go out and take the pictures. BE OBVIOUS, BE BLATANT!. Being
sneaky,
> >> or
> >> trying not to be obvious is the first, best way to get hassled by
paranoids
> >> and law officers.
> >
> > Why "paranoids"? If you are sneaking around trying to take someone's
> > picture they sure have the right to object. Even if you are not being
> > sneaky they have the right to object. Why the assumption that it is ok
> > to take people's image, but not ok to object?
> >
>
> It appears you have misread the post you respond to, unless you consider
> being "OBVIOUS" and "BLATANT" to mean "sneaking around".

did you read what you quoted? he also said "Even if you are NOT being sneaky
they have the right to object."

> Of course people have the right to object to their picture being taken in
> public, but they DON'T have the right to prevent you from taking their
> picture in public, so while they MAY object, their objections are
pointless
> from the standpoint of preventing their picture from being taken.

Yes its still technically legal but if they make their feelings known that
they dont want their photo taken, a decent human being would respect that
and either not do so at all or stop taking photos if they already had taken
some.... I think that might be what Matt was trying to say. Hopefully
everyone here agrees.

> Because those photographed in public have no right to prevent their
picture
> from being taken (there is no right to privacy IN PUBLIC PLACES), any
> "objection" to a photographer taking a picture of another in public by the
> person being photographed is pointless.

It's not pointless if the photographer is a considerate enough person to
respect the wishes of other human beings, even if they have the legal right
to ignore them.

--
www.robinbauer.com
May 19, 2005 12:47:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <BO6dnUo8RPpQwRbfRVn-rw@comcast.com>, badspam@nono.com says...
> "Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
> message news:csam81dmke7unphj4mradtpd1lpkn6i86k@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 18 May 2005 06:16:56 -0400, in rec.photo.digital , Larry
> > <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> in
> > <MPG.1cf4e02111c43e839899da@news.comcast.giganews.com> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <spamblok-2AF1D4.20473918052005@lust.ihug.co.nz>,
> > >spamblok@ihug.co.nz says...
> > >> In article <170520051818597079%mtien@charter.net>,
> > >> alien999 <mtien@charter.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > say, of anyone who you find interesting as you walk in the city, or
> > >> > anywhere for that matter? i was busy taking pictures in downtown los
> > >> > angeles today but was hesitant in taking pictures of pedestrians.
> > >> > however, i find human elements to be infinitely more interesting than
> > >> > the buildings!
> > >> > what's your approach when taking pictures of strangers? ask
> permission
> > >> > first? or just take them?
> > >>
> > >> If you are going to publish the photos, you could leave yourself wide
> > >> open for problems if you haven't got their permission. Given the
> > >> litigatious cesspit the US has wandered into, I'd say forget it.
> > >>
> > >> For personal use, make sure your camera doesn't make any conspicuous
> > >> noises when a photo is taken and that the flash is off. Keep the camera
> > >> in position after you have taken the shot, as if you are waiting for
> > >> anyone in the shot to move away. You could even go so far as pretending
> > >> to adjust something. There's a lot to be said for tripods and remote
> > >> controllers.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >Just go out and take the pictures. BE OBVIOUS, BE BLATANT!. Being
> sneaky, or
> > >trying not to be obvious is the first, best way to get hassled by
> paranoids
> > >and law officers.
> >
> > Why "paranoids"? If you are sneaking around trying to take someone's
> > picture they sure have the right to object. Even if you are not being
> > sneaky they have the right to object. Why the assumption that it is ok
> > to take people's image, but not ok to object?
>
> I'm glad I'm not the only photographer who feels this way. Maybe it's
> because I don't really like street photography or the other way around but
> just because I'm a photographer doesn't mean I dont still value my privacy
> and frankly, if I noticed some stranger trying to take photos of me, sneaky
> or obvious, I'd be pretty pissed off too and I'd have a right to be.
>

If anyone doesn't want their picture taken, they are free to tell me so. I
never said no one ever said dont take my picture, I merely stated that no on
has given me any "trouble" over it.

There have been a few (very few) people over the years who have asked me not
to photograph them, and I, of course, complied. Im simply saying that you
needn't sneak about trying to conceal what you are doing.

Generally speaking, if Im outdoors taking photos, Im not taking "People"
shots Im taking "area" shots (buildings, streets, architechture ect.).

Taking "people" shots is reserved (for me) to areas where I can get the
peoples attention and let them know beforehand, that Im going to shoot.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 1:42:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <170520051818597079%mtien@charter.net>,
alien999 <mtien@charter.net> wrote:

> say, of anyone who you find interesting as you walk in the city, or
> anywhere for that matter? i was busy taking pictures in downtown los
> angeles today but was hesitant in taking pictures of pedestrians.
> however, i find human elements to be infinitely more interesting than
> the buildings!
> what's your approach when taking pictures of strangers? ask permission
> first? or just take them?

A public place is just that. In London you are being observed and
possibly filmed by scores of Police cameras.
Photographing into a building or through glass is a different
proposition - theoretically it's the same as a peeping tom.
Photographing children usually requires the permission of the parent or
guardian.
It really depends on your motive. If someone does object, either destroy
the picture or seek permission to keep it.
May 19, 2005 3:12:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

with no socks wrote:
>>>>Just go out and take the pictures. BE OBVIOUS, BE BLATANT!. Being
>
> sneaky,
>
>>>>or
>>>>trying not to be obvious is the first, best way to get hassled by
>
> paranoids
>
>>>>and law officers.
>>>
>>>Why "paranoids"? If you are sneaking around trying to take someone's
>>>picture they sure have the right to object. Even if you are not being
>>>sneaky they have the right to object. Why the assumption that it is ok
>>>to take people's image, but not ok to object?
>>>
>>
>>It appears you have misread the post you respond to, unless you consider
>>being "OBVIOUS" and "BLATANT" to mean "sneaking around".
>
>
> did you read what you quoted? he also said "Even if you are NOT being sneaky
> they have the right to object."
>
>
>>Of course people have the right to object to their picture being taken in
>>public, but they DON'T have the right to prevent you from taking their
>>picture in public, so while they MAY object, their objections are
>
> pointless
>
>>from the standpoint of preventing their picture from being taken.
>
>
> Yes its still technically legal but if they make their feelings known that
> they dont want their photo taken, a decent human being would respect that
> and either not do so at all or stop taking photos if they already had taken
> some.... I think that might be what Matt was trying to say. Hopefully
> everyone here agrees.

Gee whillikers, WNS, I really hate to bust your bubble, but I capture
images of things I need to capture images of. I need to because I'm
paid to. I work for a PI and if I think I need to shove a micro-lens up
your butt to get the shot I need, then bend over and spread 'em.
Fortunately, most of my targets didn't know about my lens until it was
too late to save their silly ass.

You're welcome to cry about this all you want but it doesn't change a
thing. This is America and unless Congress outlaws leaves on trees, if
I can legally see it, I own the image of it.

>
>
>>Because those photographed in public have no right to prevent their
>
> picture
>
>>from being taken (there is no right to privacy IN PUBLIC PLACES), any
>>"objection" to a photographer taking a picture of another in public by the
>>person being photographed is pointless.
>
>
> It's not pointless if the photographer is a considerate enough person to
> respect the wishes of other human beings, even if they have the legal right
> to ignore them.
>


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 7:43:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:csam81dmke7unphj4mradtpd1lpkn6i86k@4ax.com...

> Try taking a picture from the Brooklyn Bridge. Apparently no one
> thought of doing that in the past since they now (try to) enforce the
> laws against it.

What laws?
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 7:45:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"with no socks" <badspam@nono.com> wrote in message
news:BO6dnUo8RPpQwRbfRVn-rw@comcast.com...
> I'm glad I'm not the only photographer who feels this way. Maybe it's
> because I don't really like street photography or the other way around but
> just because I'm a photographer doesn't mean I dont still value my privacy
> and frankly, if I noticed some stranger trying to take photos of me,
> sneaky
> or obvious, I'd be pretty pissed off too and I'd have a right to be.

Unless the photographer is right in your face, you really don't have any
reason to be pissed. There is no privacy on the street.
May 19, 2005 1:39:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ryan Robbins wrote:
> "Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
> message news:csam81dmke7unphj4mradtpd1lpkn6i86k@4ax.com...
>
>
>>Try taking a picture from the Brooklyn Bridge. Apparently no one
>>thought of doing that in the past since they now (try to) enforce the
>>laws against it.
>
>
> What laws?


You're not the only one asking this question.


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 2:51:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ryan Robbins" <redbird007@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:wZTie.7604$_f7.864@trndny01...
> "with no socks" <badspam@nono.com> wrote in message
> news:BO6dnUo8RPpQwRbfRVn-rw@comcast.com...
> > I'm glad I'm not the only photographer who feels this way. Maybe it's
> > because I don't really like street photography or the other way around
but
> > just because I'm a photographer doesn't mean I dont still value my
privacy
> > and frankly, if I noticed some stranger trying to take photos of me,
> > sneaky
> > or obvious, I'd be pretty pissed off too and I'd have a right to be.
>
> Unless the photographer is right in your face, you really don't have any
> reason to be pissed. There is no privacy on the street.

Being seen on the streets versus having your photo taken to be viewed for
all of time are completely different. I've already admitted its perfectly
legal for a photographer to ignore any requests to not take photos of
someone but I really don't think you have the right to tell anyone when they
have the right to not want their photo taken or when they do. Any decent
human being will be able to respect that everyone is different and just
because you don't mind having you photo taken on their streets by strangers
for reason you don't know, doesn't mean everyone else is okay with having
theirs taken. Yes, you have the legal right to be a jerk and ignore any
requests to stop but.... well, personally I wouldn't be able to sleep at
night if I did that.

And frankly, all photography aside, just because someone even has the legal
right to stare at me on the streets in public doesn't mean I'm comfortable
with it and I'd still have the right to be pissed off and tell them so...
no, it doesn't mean they legally have to stop staring but still, its just
plain rude isn't it?

In fact, just the other day I was in the food store with my boyfriend and I
noticed 2 employees staring to me for some reason and my boyfriend was
saying something to me that I didnt hear so I said loudly enough for the
workers to hear "What? I'm sorry I didn't hear you because I was too
distracted by those two rude guys over there who felt the uncontrollable
need to stare at me for some unknown reason". They immediately looked away
thankfully but only because they were embarassed to be caught.

I have the right to not want to be stared at or have my photo taken.... does
that mean that if I complain that the person offending me has to stop?
No.... but any decent human being would. I have the right to think or feel
anyway I want and I have the right to express those feelings and thoughts as
well (even if it may not stop a rude person) so how dare you or anyone else
try to tell me I can't or shouldn't because according to you I have no
reason to?

--
www.robinbauer.com
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 7:42:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 19 May 2005 03:43:56 GMT, in rec.photo.digital , "Ryan
Robbins" <redbird007@verizon.net> in <0YTie.7600$_f7.3808@trndny01>
wrote:

>"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>message news:csam81dmke7unphj4mradtpd1lpkn6i86k@4ax.com...
>
>> Try taking a picture from the Brooklyn Bridge. Apparently no one
>> thought of doing that in the past since they now (try to) enforce the
>> laws against it.
>
>What laws?

It is against the law to photograph inside the Holland and Lincoln
Tunnels, the Brooklyn Bridge, and more.

http://www.pbase.com/automat42/phtos_you_cant_take_in_n...

>
I get too many hits to do a web search. I don't actually know if you
can legally take a picture of the sign telling you you can't take a
picture. My camera is fixed (let me repeat that, MY CAMERA IS FIXED!)
so I will try to get down to the bridge and see if I can get away with
it.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
May 19, 2005 10:58:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

with no socks wrote:
> "Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message

>>
>>While all true, how is anyone expected to know the difference?
>
>
> Well I should hope that someone who is taking photos for a PI is good enough
> at their job that the person under investigation wouldn't notice and
> therefore wouldn't have a reason to be upset.

Well, this certainly isn't the proper forum to discuss one technique
over another, but let's just say a long lens isn't always necessary nor
desired.

>
> And even if they were caught, one would think that if someone had a reason
> to hire a PI to investigate someone else, that this someone else would
> likely know damn well its a possibility they are under investigation...
> people don't just do stuff that warrents someone hiring a PI and not suspect
> there could be a PI on their case when they catch someone trying to sneakily
> take their photo... unless they're really thick anyways. I just know that if
> I knew I did something that might make someone hire a PI to investigate me
> and then I caught someone hiding behind a bush taking my photo, I would
> definitely suspect a PI.

No, you're right, most targets are thick.

>
>
>>Besides,
>>considering the current climate of image capture, one can barely step
>>outside their own door without being in front of someone's lens.
>
>
> I'm not denying this... all I'm saying is that if you're taking photos of
> someone on the street for the sake of nothing else but art and capturing an
> interesting person and that person objects to your actions, any decent human
> being would stop. But I see too many photographers who think "man what a
> bitch" when they get told off for taking someones photo on the street and
> I'm thinking "well what do you expect? a hug and a kiss? just because you
> have the legal right to take their photo doesn't mean they have to LIKE it"

Oh, okay, I get it... as far as you're concerned, anyone that doesn't
stop doing whatever they're doing that someone makes you feel
uncomfortable is indecent. Got it.

>
>
>> I
>>suppose the only prudent thing people should do is make sure one's butt
>>crack isn't showing and not smile too much.
>
>
> yes well butt cracks are shown far too often these days. perhaps belts
> should come standard with pants.

What? and spoil the view of their artwork?


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 4:24:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> >>Besides,
> >>considering the current climate of image capture, one can barely step
> >>outside their own door without being in front of someone's lens.
> >
> >
> > I'm not denying this... all I'm saying is that if you're taking photos
of
> > someone on the street for the sake of nothing else but art and capturing
an
> > interesting person and that person objects to your actions, any decent
human
> > being would stop. But I see too many photographers who think "man what a
> > bitch" when they get told off for taking someones photo on the street
and
> > I'm thinking "well what do you expect? a hug and a kiss? just because
you
> > have the legal right to take their photo doesn't mean they have to LIKE
it"
>
> Oh, okay, I get it... as far as you're concerned, anyone that doesn't
> stop doing whatever they're doing that someone makes you feel
> uncomfortable is indecent. Got it.

well what would you call a person who is completely inconsiderate of another
human beings feelings for the sake of "art"? I know there comes a point when
you can't make everyone happy, at some point you're always going to offend
someone sometime... but when you intentionally disregard the feelings of
others after they've expressed their feelings... what else do you call it
but indecent or rude?

It's like the time when I was a kid and I was with my dad and brother at the
mall. we were eating lunch and there was a 20-something european guy with
all his 20-something friends sitting at the table next to us... my brother
and I were pretty young (I must have only been about 5 or 6 but I remember
it so clearly because the rudeness and indecency of the situation had such
an impact on me) so when this guy was cursing his mouth off while conversing
with his friends for no reason at all - just because he could - my dad
politely leaned over and said "excuse me, could you please not use that
language, I have my kids with me".... the guy looked him right in the eye,
smirked, and said "why should I?". My dad was so shocked that he was
purposely being so inconsiderate of our feelings that he just stared back at
the guy and said "because I asked you to" in a totally astonished voice. the
guy then continued to brag about how he could speak 4 different languages -
how many could my dad speak? - and that made him more important than us so
he had a right to say whatever he wanted in front of my dad's kids. All the
while his friends were laughing. Did he have the legal right to use that
language in front of us whether we liked it or not? yes. but was his
complete disregard for our feelings totally insensitive, rude, and indecent?
Yeah... its just my opinion that he was being a rude inconsiderate jerk....
but come on, what else would you call it?

--
www.robinbauer.com
May 21, 2005 12:28:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

with no socks wrote:
>>>>Besides,
>>>>considering the current climate of image capture, one can barely step
>>>>outside their own door without being in front of someone's lens.
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm not denying this... all I'm saying is that if you're taking photos
>
> of
>
>>>someone on the street for the sake of nothing else but art and capturing
>
> an
>
>>>interesting person and that person objects to your actions, any decent
>
> human
>
>>>being would stop. But I see too many photographers who think "man what a
>>>bitch" when they get told off for taking someones photo on the street
>
> and
>
>>>I'm thinking "well what do you expect? a hug and a kiss? just because
>
> you
>
>>>have the legal right to take their photo doesn't mean they have to LIKE
>
> it"
>
>>Oh, okay, I get it... as far as you're concerned, anyone that doesn't
>>stop doing whatever they're doing that someone makes you feel
>>uncomfortable is indecent. Got it.
>
>
> well what would you call a person who is completely inconsiderate of another
> human beings feelings for the sake of "art"? I know there comes a point when
> you can't make everyone happy, at some point you're always going to offend
> someone sometime... but when you intentionally disregard the feelings of
> others after they've expressed their feelings... what else do you call it
> but indecent or rude?

Tutz, I disregard the feelings of a helluva lot of people each and every
day of my life, and will continue to do so with fervent abandon. Why?
Because it ain't my job to cow-tow to the petty whims of a bunch of cry
babies that haven't grown a pair. What the hell is art anyway? Can you
define it? Do you know it when you see it? Well, good, the rest of us
do to.

>
> It's like the time when I was a kid ...

Okay, I'm not going tit-for-tat with kid stories here - I've got a boat
load of my own that mean nothing to anyone but me, so I'm staying out of
that.

OTOH, using foul language within easy earshot of young tender ears is
another matter entirely, and I find no shame is asking for a more
tempered tempo from the robusto crowd. I'll dispense with what options
I would've used because someone else will jump in here and it's off to
the races again. Now, having said that, the experience you've intimated
here, within the context of this thread, is apples and oranges - taking
photos of strangers in public and using foul language around kids just
ain't in the same park and ought not be compared. IMO.

Now, if you're so thin-skinned or insecure that you can't simply ignore
something that does no harm, and can do nothing about, then I'll
recommend you go do something somewhere else where you can have your
feathers stroked just the way you want, away from anyone that might
glance at you twice in the same breath. Given the inevitability of
things, in about 50-60 years, you'll be begging for it.

Now, is there another cautious glimpse of reality I can offer you before
I trundle off? Uno cerveza por favor - uno para la senorita.


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 1:42:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> In the mean time, take to heart that old saw about sticks and stones.
> You are only harmed by words or attitudes if you allow yourself to
> react in a way that is harmful to yourself. In future brave new worlds
> it _may_ be easier to prove such harm, but today ... today isn't 1984,
> not just yet.

You may have a point but I can't help the fact that I simply find certain
types of behavior from people unacceptable.... people who are rude,
inconsiderate, thoughtless, arrogant, patronizing, disrespectful, immature,
bullying, etc... are my pet peeves and I don't like to sit around and say
"Okay, this behavior is acceptable by todays society just because it could
be technically legal". I'm not allowing anyone to harm me... in fact I feel
that if I allowed myself to ignore people who are disrespectful to other
human beings or myself then I would feel I'm allowing them to harm me or
others. What ever happened to common courtesy? Too many people have let it
go and I'll be damned if I'm gonna sit around and not stand up for myself
and others and say "I don't care what the law says, that kind of behavior
shouldn't be accepted by society".

For example, celebrity photographers are legally allowed to do what they
do.... hound people day and night to get photos... but many many people find
this type of behavior unacceptable.... so why shouldn't we feel the same way
about street photography if someone has asked the photographer to not take
photos of them?

Personally I feel its rude to take a photo of any stranger without asking
their permission first but I know I'd have a harder time arguing that one so
I let it go.... but once someone has seen you and expressed their wishes for
you to stop, its just flat out disrespectful, rude, and inconsiderate not to
respect their wishes and stop.... I just don't see how thats debatable.
Someone expresses their wishes and the photographer ignores them... how is
that a decent thing to do? I don't understand how some people think thats
okay.

--
www.robinbauer.com
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 1:42:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

with no socks wrote:
>> In the mean time, take to heart that old saw about sticks and
>> stones.
>> You are only harmed by words or attitudes if you allow yourself to
>> react in a way that is harmful to yourself. In future brave new
>> worlds it _may_ be easier to prove such harm, but today ... today
>> isn't 1984, not just yet.
>
> You may have a point

I know.

but I can't help the fact that I simply find
> certain types of behavior from people unacceptable.... people who
> are
> rude, inconsiderate, thoughtless, arrogant, patronizing,
> disrespectful, immature, bullying, etc... are my pet peeves

Mine are people who use clich├ęs and dismiss or omit entire processes
when "finding" things. What is your "find" technique? Is it like your
"listening" or "answering" routine? A little flawed, I reckon, on the
evidence.

and I
> don't like to sit around and say "Okay, this behavior is acceptable
> by todays society just because it could be technically legal". I'm
> not allowing anyone to harm me... in fact I feel that if I allowed
> myself to ignore people who are disrespectful to other human beings
> or myself then I would feel I'm allowing them to harm me or others.
> What ever happened to common courtesy?

You really are doomed to a life of pain, aren't you? Well, just like
recording street history for posterity, I guess someone has to do it.
Lends perspective, eh?

Too many people have let it go
> and I'll be damned if I'm gonna sit around and not stand up for
> myself and others and say "I don't care what the law says, that kind
> of behavior shouldn't be accepted by society".
>

Well, good for you. You're a real contributor to the community. I
appreciate it. Do you think you might find a venue that would have a
greater likelihood of effecting some change than RPD? If you put this
much energy into a technically oriented camera group, think how much
change you could leverage in, say, alt.rectitude.nostalgia.

> For example, celebrity photographers are legally allowed to do what
> they do.... hound people day and night to get photos...

Once again, you assume it's true because it fits your scheme: In many
localities such behavior is sanctionable.

but many many
> people find this type of behavior unacceptable.... so why shouldn't
> we feel the same way about street photography if someone has asked
> the photographer to not take photos of them?
>

Never said I disagree with this. Don't let your adrenaline obscure
your vision.

> Personally I feel its rude to take a photo of any stranger without
> asking their permission first but I know I'd have a harder time
> arguing that one so I let it go.... but once someone has seen you
> and
> expressed their wishes for you to stop, its just flat out
> disrespectful, rude, and inconsiderate not to respect their wishes
> and stop.... I just don't see how thats debatable. Someone expresses
> their wishes and the photographer ignores them... how is that a
> decent thing to do? I don't understand how some people think thats
> okay.

I want to know who it is that thinks it _is_ acceptable. I'll give
them a piece of your mind, for certain!

Part of my point is: you're wasting energy ranting in a group like
this, imposing deleterious conditions on your own self, and perhaps
taking the edge off an impulse to do something worthwhile about the
things that raise your ire.

Another part is: you may be right, righteous, and correct about the
decline of decency, but maybe not. Maybe the level is no different
now, may be no different in the future, may never have been different.
Maybe it's just a matter of where and when and how you stick your
instrument in the flow that determines your readings.

Plus which, you never justified your "no socks" position.

Have you read Harry Frankfurt's "ON BULLSHIT"? It might help you hone
your skills and your approach.

Resp'y,

--
Frank ess
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 1:56:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Now, if you're so thin-skinned or insecure that you can't simply ignore
> something that does no harm, and can do nothing about, then I'll
> recommend you go do something somewhere else where you can have your
> feathers stroked just the way you want, away from anyone that might
> glance at you twice in the same breath. Given the inevitability of
> things, in about 50-60 years, you'll be begging for it.

Sweetie you don't know me if you think I'm thin-skinned. The fact is, I
stand up for my right to be treated with respect. Thats not thin-skinned.
Thats strength. You think I don't know its a tough world? I know it better
than anyone. But that doesn't mean I should sit on my ass and accept it like
everyone else. I try to do something about it. You're the type of person who
just makes it worse.

If you're so selfish that you don't make at least the tiniest bit of effort
to be respectful to other human beings than clearly there's no point in me
continuing with this conversation. According to your posts, you are exactly
the type of person that I was speaking of and for that I hope someday you
get what should be coming to you. And you better pray you dont come across
me on the street and disrespect me, I'll rip you a new one. And then
another.

--
www.robinbauer.com
May 22, 2005 12:17:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

with no socks wrote:
>>Now, if you're so thin-skinned or insecure that you can't simply ignore
>>something that does no harm, and can do nothing about, then I'll
>>recommend you go do something somewhere else where you can have your
>>feathers stroked just the way you want, away from anyone that might
>>glance at you twice in the same breath. Given the inevitability of
>>things, in about 50-60 years, you'll be begging for it.
>
>
> Sweetie you don't know me if you think I'm thin-skinned. The fact is, I
> stand up for my right to be treated with respect. Thats not thin-skinned.
> Thats strength. You think I don't know its a tough world? I know it better
> than anyone. But that doesn't mean I should sit on my ass and accept it like
> everyone else. I try to do something about it. You're the type of person who
> just makes it worse.
>
> If you're so selfish that you don't make at least the tiniest bit of effort
> to be respectful to other human beings than clearly there's no point in me
> continuing with this conversation. According to your posts, you are exactly
> the type of person that I was speaking of and for that I hope someday you
> get what should be coming to you. And you better pray you dont come across
> me on the street and disrespect me, I'll rip you a new one. And then
> another.
>


Okay Cupcake, I hate to be the one to bust your bubble, but here's the
deal. . I've got two bullet scars in my front parts and I've put people
in the ground, I'm missing a piece of an ear and 2.5 fingers from a hand
while witnessing brutality across more than one killing field on a scale
you cannot possibly imagine just so people like you can follow their
personal pursuit of happiness hoping to find their fifteen minutes of
fame. Luck with that. So, you go right ahead, you rip me a new one if
you think it'll help - I can take whatever you dish out. I just hope
it's still English when that happens because my German is a bit rusty by
now. In the meantime, I recommmend you get that boytoy of yours to help
you grow a pair, because with your current operational parameters,
you're cruising for heartache every day you manage the guts to crawl out
from under sweaty sheets still in one piece.

Anybody got a violin and a hanky for my new friend?

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 6:00:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 21 May 2005 09:42:15 -0400, with no socks wrote:

> Personally I feel its rude to take a photo of any stranger without asking
> their permission first but I know I'd have a harder time arguing that one so
> I let it go.... but once someone has seen you and expressed their wishes for
> you to stop, its just flat out disrespectful, rude, and inconsiderate not to
> respect their wishes and stop.... I just don't see how thats debatable.
> Someone expresses their wishes and the photographer ignores them... how is
> that a decent thing to do? I don't understand how some people think thats
> okay.

It depends on how the person asks the photographer. If the
request is made politely and shows consideration, then I think most
photographers would comply. If the request is rudely made, showing
great hostility, with no attempt to determine if it would greatly
inconvenience the photographer, then the request doesn't deserve to
be honored.

Guess which of the two categories I think you'd most likely fall
in?
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 2:20:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 19 May 2005 15:42:44 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 19 May 2005 03:43:56 GMT, in rec.photo.digital , "Ryan
>Robbins" <redbird007@verizon.net> in <0YTie.7600$_f7.3808@trndny01>
>wrote:
>
>>"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>>message news:csam81dmke7unphj4mradtpd1lpkn6i86k@4ax.com...
>>
>>> Try taking a picture from the Brooklyn Bridge. Apparently no one
>>> thought of doing that in the past since they now (try to) enforce the
>>> laws against it.
>>
>>What laws?
>
>It is against the law to photograph inside the Holland and Lincoln
>Tunnels, the Brooklyn Bridge, and more.
>
>http://www.pbase.com/automat42/phtos_you_cant_take_in_n...


Typical, the current lunacy doesn't allow you to retake the
pictures already in your desk drawer. Sheesh.
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 1:21:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 21 May 2005 09:56:20 -0400, "with no socks" <badspam@nono.com>
wrote:

And you better pray you dont come across
>me on the street and disrespect me, I'll rip you a new one. And then
>another.

And Willie will rip you a couple more on a daily basis when I
sock your ass into the slammer for battery.
June 3, 2005 2:23:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Matt Silberstein wrote:

>
> Recently I was sitting with some friends at the entrance to the
> Natural History museum, waiting for some more friends. Several of us
> decided to take some group pictures, so there was the normal chaos as
> people walked in and out of the picture and took their own and such.
> As happens in public places others would walk through the shot and we
> waited until they left. Of course we "complained" about how
> "inconsiderate" these people were and how we had to wait for them to
> leave. Then an adorable 3 year old blond child got in the way. I
> turned to a fellow photographer and said "Of course, young girls are
> always appropriate in a photo." After a small pause for consideration
> I then said "I'm going to jail, aren't I?"


Just get your attorney to obtain the latest copy of The Minority Report.
The Pre-Crime Squad won't like it, but...


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 2:26:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Larry wrote:
> In article <spamblok-2AF1D4.20473918052005@lust.ihug.co.nz>,
> spamblok@ihug.co.nz says...
> > In article <170520051818597079%mtien@charter.net>,
> > alien999 <mtien@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> > > say, of anyone who you find interesting as you walk in the city, or
> > > anywhere for that matter? i was busy taking pictures in downtown los
> > > angeles today but was hesitant in taking pictures of pedestrians.
> > > however, i find human elements to be infinitely more interesting than
> > > the buildings!
> > > what's your approach when taking pictures of strangers? ask permission
> > > first? or just take them?
> >
> > If you are going to publish the photos, you could leave yourself wide
> > open for problems if you haven't got their permission. Given the
> > litigatious cesspit the US has wandered into, I'd say forget it.
> >
> > For personal use, make sure your camera doesn't make any conspicuous
> > noises when a photo is taken and that the flash is off. Keep the camera
> > in position after you have taken the shot, as if you are waiting for
> > anyone in the shot to move away. You could even go so far as pretending
> > to adjust something. There's a lot to be said for tripods and remote
> > controllers.
> >
> >
>
> Just go out and take the pictures. BE OBVIOUS, BE BLATANT!. Being sneaky, or
> trying not to be obvious is the first, best way to get hassled by paranoids
> and law officers.
>
> If you are just out taking pictures, you have nothing to hide, and shouldn't
> be trying to hide it. Trying NOT to be obvious is the first step into the
> mistaken idea that you are doing something wrong to begin with. Just stay
> away from schools and kiddy parks and you should be fine.
>
> Ive been wandering around in public taking photos since 1959, and Ive only
> been questioned once, by one person, (she wanted to know why I was taking
> pictures). Presently I live in a town which has a hlf dozen areas with
> signage that says NO PHOTOGRAPHY (Military base and defense manufacturer) and
> still, no one hassles me.
>
>
> --
> Larry Lynch
> Mystic, Ct.

That's likely 'cos your name is Larry Lynch and you probably look like
a Larry Lynch. Had it been Jamal Abdullah or whatever and you looked
like an Ali Muhammed it would've been a differet matter.
!