Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-27-2013, 03:14 PM   #61
Pentaxian
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,538
QuoteOriginally posted by MD Optofonik Quote
I'm going offer some brief comments to some of the pics posted on this thread and see if anyone follows me. The approach I'm taking it as if the photographer didn't know anyone in the pics, even if that wasn't the case for these particular photographers and their subjects.

The first picture is clearly not a problem; its a picture of your typical crowded beach and the compressed perspective really helps.

The second picture is wholly unflattering; she would love the photographer for this.

The third one is a nice picture of a pretty girl on the beach; if I were associated with her and discovered the photographer taking it I would ask him/her to delete it, walk away, find a cop and ask him/her to keep an eye on the photographer. Just to be safe. Welcome to the 21st century in America; like it or not. The letter of the law is there to protect photographers from potential unjust prosecution in the courts just as the police are there to protect the general public from potential weirdos in the streets. Which brings me to...

The fourth picture. It was clearly taken by a photographer who knew the subject so my comment is a hypothetical. If this pic were to be taken by a stranger, however, a nearby cop should be notified before the creep gets away or the boyfriend finds out and, justifiably, puts the deviant who took the pic in the hospital. When taken by a stranger, this is the kind of pic that creates problems for the non-creepy photographers wanting to capture pix like the first example. Again, I realize this particular photo was taken by a photographer who knew the woman. Cropped to protect her identity?

BTW, how to I post pics in-line?
I took #4. Your two assessments of that picture are based on a 'presumed' context of the shooting of the picture and not the actual picture per se - that's not how art is generally interpreted these days. I published this shot here to show that you don't need a 300mm lens to get 'intimate' shots of people.. there's nothing perverse about it from my perspective either.

04-27-2013, 04:51 PM   #62
Pentaxian
MD Optofonik's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 900
QuoteOriginally posted by bossa Quote
I took #4. Your two assessments of that picture are based on a 'presumed' context of the shooting of the picture and not the actual picture per se - that's not how art is generally interpreted these days. I published this shot here to show that you don't need a 300mm lens to get 'intimate' shots of people.. there's nothing perverse about it from my perspective either.

Please read my entire post. Heck, I'll just repost it here just for you, it's easier than wading through the original.


"The approach I'm taking is as if the photographer didn't know anyone in the pics, "

"... so my comment is a hypothetical."


So, yes, by definition, hypothetical means presumed:

http://thesaurus.com/browse/hypothetic

What's your point other than working hard to take things personal? Take it easy. You clearly knew the woman so I made it a point, a very clear point, that the context I was using was hypothetical. You yourself used the photo to make a point.
04-27-2013, 04:57 PM   #63
Pentaxian
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,538
My point is that the image exists regardless of how you assume it was taken and any moral reaction you have should be to the actual image. I'm not really taking this personally.. that's another assumption you've made.
04-27-2013, 07:00 PM   #64
Pentaxian
MD Optofonik's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 900
QuoteOriginally posted by bossa Quote
My point is that the image exists regardless of how you assume it was taken and any moral reaction you have should be to the actual image. I'm not really taking this personally.. that's another assumption you've made.
What are you going on about?

Did you not read this:

QuoteOriginally posted by MD Optofonik Quote
Please keep i mind the context of my particular post. I am considering how the subject would feel about the photograph exclusive of how the how the photographer feels about it. I used it to illustrate that it's not just about ethics, it's about consideration of an unknowing subject's feelings.

Are you reacting to random bits of this thread or actually reading it in it's entirety?


Last edited by MD Optofonik; 04-27-2013 at 07:06 PM.
04-27-2013, 07:25 PM   #65
Pentaxian
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,538
This is what I was responding to:
QuoteOriginally posted by MD Optofonik Quote

The fourth picture. It was clearly taken by a photographer who knew the subject so my comment is a hypothetical. If this pic were to be taken by a stranger, however, a nearby cop should be notified before the creep gets away or the boyfriend finds out and, justifiably, puts the deviant who took the pic in the hospital. When taken by a stranger, this is the kind of pic that creates problems for the non-creepy photographers wanting to capture pix like the first example. Again, I realize this particular photo was taken by a photographer who knew the woman. Cropped to protect her identity?
I'm not interested in hypotheticals here as this was a conscious attempt to shoot the guy in the upper left and was meant to portray his 'attitude to women' The girl was meant to be giving 'the bird' but held up the wrong finger but it still works and has some additional ambiguity as a result. The tension between the figures, both anonymous, works for me.

I am an artist exploring with cameras for my paintings, using them to develop ideas but I appreciate the responsibility I have when using someones image for my own purposes. In this case anonymity protects the female (and the male) allowing her to act as a compositional visual device and an ethical one in the scene.

Last edited by bossa; 04-27-2013 at 10:13 PM.
04-27-2013, 08:59 PM   #66
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2012
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 696
Original Poster
Walking in town this morning, an explosion of purple-clad, deliriously happy girls running down the sidewalk. On their way to a dance competition at the nearby Del Mar fairgrounds, it turned out.

Remembering some of the comments on this thread, I waved them down and asked if I could take a picture -- then sent a copy to the mom-in-charge who was keeping them all corralled. Lucked out, everyone of them looked happy!

But here's the dilemma. The REAL photograph would have been of all the kids just running full-tilt. But I thought I should ask first...
Attached Images
 
04-28-2013, 12:47 AM   #67
Pentaxian
MD Optofonik's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 900
QuoteOriginally posted by jon404 Quote
Walking in town this morning, an explosion of purple-clad, deliriously happy girls running down the sidewalk. On their way to a dance competition at the nearby Del Mar fairgrounds, it turned out.

Remembering some of the comments on this thread, I waved them down and asked if I could take a picture -- then sent a copy to the mom-in-charge who was keeping them all corralled. Lucked out, everyone of them looked happy!

But here's the dilemma. The REAL photograph would have been of all the kids just running full-tilt. But I thought I should ask first...
You could have taken both pictures with no problem I would suspect, especially since you would have been asking for a posed one afterward. No reason you couldn't have deleted the candid one if the mom-in-charge didn't like it.
04-28-2013, 12:53 AM   #68
Pentaxian
MD Optofonik's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 900
QuoteOriginally posted by bossa Quote
This is what I was responding to:


I'm not interested in hypotheticals here as this was a conscious attempt to shoot the guy in the upper left and was meant to portray his 'attitude to women' The girl was meant to be giving 'the bird' but held up the wrong finger but it still works and has some additional ambiguity as a result. The tension between the figures, both anonymous, works for me.

I am an artist exploring with cameras for my paintings, using them to develop ideas but I appreciate the responsibility I have when using someones image for my own purposes. In this case anonymity protects the female (and the male) allowing her to act as a compositional visual device and an ethical one in the scene.

Like I said.

QuoteOriginally posted by MD Optofonik Quote
Please keep i mind the context of my particular post. I am considering how the subject would feel about the photograph exclusive of how the how the photographer feels about it. I used it to illustrate that it's not just about ethics, it's about consideration of an unknowing subject's feelings.

It's not about you.


Last edited by MD Optofonik; 04-28-2013 at 12:59 AM.
04-28-2013, 02:06 AM   #69
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,556
QuoteOriginally posted by jon404 Quote
Walking in town this morning, an explosion of purple-clad, deliriously happy girls running down the sidewalk. On their way to a dance competition at the nearby Del Mar fairgrounds, it turned out.

Remembering some of the comments on this thread, I waved them down and asked if I could take a picture -- then sent a copy to the mom-in-charge who was keeping them all corralled. Lucked out, everyone of them looked happy!

But here's the dilemma. The REAL photograph would have been of all the kids just running full-tilt. But I thought I should ask first...
Doing that is letting the moment go by, since the scenery does change when people know they are going to be on a picture. Streetcandids need their anonymus moment I think.
04-29-2013, 05:49 AM   #70
Banned




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Charleston & Pittsburgh
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,683
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
But it is against the law to publish them w/o a model release
In all 50+ states; it is not illegal to publish any photography of an adult subject that was taken in public. Unfortunately there are also a few exceptions. If any of the subjects might be (trying to state tactfully) sans certain items of clothing, then technically one could be held liable for nuisance type of laws, etc... But generally as long as any item occurs in public (and also the subject is an adult) it's all fair game.

This applies to still pics only. If its video then there's a whole new set of rules; especially pertaining to audio
04-29-2013, 06:25 AM   #71
Loyal Site Supporter
Tom S.'s Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: S.E. Michigan
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,238
For a good read, look here.
04-29-2013, 06:43 AM   #72
Pentaxian
MRRiley's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sterling, VA, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,276
More on the subject... especially to my point that private beaches are not necessarily "private."

Steven Tyler Act Stalls In Hawaii As Lawmakers Say Privacy Bill Has 'Zero Support'

A proposed law, the Steven Tyler Act," in has stalled in the Hawaiian legislature. The Act was prompted by Steven Tyler (Aerosmith frontman, American Idol judge and daddy to Liv Tyler) after some very unflattering photos were taken of him on his "private" beach by paparazzi shooting from off shore boats. Numerous other celebs provided testimony in support of the bill but it appears dead, at least for now.

Mike

Last edited by MRRiley; 04-29-2013 at 07:00 AM.
04-29-2013, 06:49 AM   #73
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,721
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
Doing that is letting the moment go by, since the scenery does change when people know they are going to be on a picture. Streetcandids need their anonymus moment I think.
I agree with Ron here, as much as I dislike the idea of the camera intruding on intimate moments... kids running down the street yelling and screaming is hardly an intimate moment. Capture life, respect privacy, and acknowledge that a private moments may happen in public, just because an act takes place in a public space doesn't mean you should photograph it. Next time take the shot you wanted, deal with any issue's afterwards. My objection to the original post was that one or more of the subjects may have objected to photograph if they'd seen it. And as a photographer, I choose to respect that. That other choose not to respect that and have bunch of rationals for why they don't , makes absolutely no difference to me at all. It's pretty much everyone for himself making these decisions, as long as no laws are broken.

The law if a pretty rough instrument. If you use the law to determine your moral standards, you'll be setting the bar pretty low.
04-29-2013, 08:25 AM   #74
Pentaxian
MD Optofonik's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 900
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I agree with Ron here, as much as I dislike the idea of the camera intruding on intimate moments... kids running down the street yelling and screaming is hardly an intimate moment. Capture life, respect privacy, and acknowledge that a private moments may happen in public, just because an act takes place in a public space doesn't mean you should photograph it. Next time take the shot you wanted, deal with any issue's afterwards. My objection to the original post was that one or more of the subjects may have objected to photograph if they'd seen it. And as a photographer, I choose to respect that. That other choose not to respect that and have bunch of rationals for why they don't , makes absolutely no difference to me at all. It's pretty much everyone for himself making these decisions, as long as no laws are broken.

The law if a pretty rough instrument. If you use the law to determine your moral standards, you'll be setting the bar pretty low.
Well stated.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
300mm, aperture, dof, f/11, f/8, front, iso, k-01, k01, lens, mirrorless, pentax k-01, shutter
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nature At the Beach Den Post Your Photos! 5 03-07-2013 11:17 AM
People At The Beach Den Post Your Photos! 6 07-08-2012 09:21 AM
Misc at the beach vimeto Post Your Photos! 5 02-18-2012 07:42 AM
Travel At the beach Rense Post Your Photos! 15 07-26-2011 11:25 PM
DA*300mm at Beach Audio Buddha Jones Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 05-05-2008 11:25 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:59 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top