Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

RonHendriks1966 · 04-26-2013, 12:32 AM

We have at the end off the year in our swimmingpool a day for dogs and their owners to get a splash in the water. So on a Sunny day this is mucho fun. I sometimes forget the dogs :P

K-01 and FA*85mm

jon404 · 04-26-2013, 01:19 AM

And, when you're not at the beach, but still looking for attention -- Pentax panty hose!

PLC3 · 04-26-2013, 01:38 AM

Just to add to what falconeye has said and foster some understanding among the non-German photographers: While it is not allowed to publish pictures of people you encounter in public spaces without their consent (with the exeptions falconeye already mentioned), it is very much allowed to take pictures of anything you see in public spaces, unless of course you harass your subject by doing wideangle close-ups right in their face or they express their unwillingess to be photographed. Thus, unlike the impression one gets from this posts, German photographers don't get sent to prison in droves and street photography in Germany is quite an enjoyable experience.

While I would also agree, that while at a public beach one should not really expect 'privacy', I would still argue that undressing at a beach where everyone around you is at different stages of semi-nudity,too, is a different thing from being undressed in a picture that is shown somewhere on the internet, where you have no control about who is seeing you and what is happening with your picture.

To get back to the technical aspects of the pictures: they demonstrate fairly well the limitations of long-range telephotography: blue haze, which in my opinion limits the appeal of your pictures quite a bit but could maybe be lessened with appropriate filters and a tendency to underexpose, although highlights are blown, which I also find with my copy of the 55-300.

falconeye · 04-26-2013, 03:22 AM

Originally posted by jon404

And we might be on the edge of even more. I have a little Olympus SZ-10... with a 504mm (135-equivalent) lens ... fits in my shirt pocket.

I know, I know.

I enjoy taking photos with my 808 smart phone camera, e.g., like the photo shown in another thread recently:

The photo as shown above has a FoV equivalent(35mm) to 200mm. So, it is close already to 300mm, although not when cropped to APS-C (equivalent(35mm) to 500mm).

But nevertheless, it clearly is a tele photo, taken with a phone, when most people (e.g. on a beach) would not not (yet) suspect you to do so.

Below, I attach a second sample, same FoV (equivalent(35mm) to 200mm, now actually on a beach too

The image quality isn't quite on par with a dSLR, but note that this actually is a 100% crop from 41MP taken off a mobile phone... Moreover, I didn't make sure the shutter speed was fast enough, as the phone, obviously, wouldn't select a very fast shutter speed for what it thinks is a 24mm wide angle shot...

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

bossa · 04-26-2013, 03:46 AM

300mm at the beach isn't always about half naked women:
K-5 & FA*300mm F4.5

Even 200mm can be 'intimate' without being 'wrong'

Then there's 31mm..

..and 16mm

You don't need a long lens to get up close and personal

normhead · 04-26-2013, 05:06 AM - **1 Like**

I'm not willing to pretend I know what other people go to the beach for. And I certainly wouldn't assume because there's a few people out there posing and strutting, that everyone goes there to do that. I assume that some go there because they want to swim in un-chlorinated water, or because they just enjoy the beach. Wanting to be photographed isn't in their mind set. And that's what seems to be ignored. Those who rest on legal arguments do so because the law allows them to in some jurisdictions. There is no thought for what person who's image is being taken wants. In that sense it's exploitive. Certainly some are their to strut there stuff, and would be flattered to know you're taking pics. But that isn't everyone. Some would be horrified.

As for the legal arguments... "because I can" is hardly an argument. It's the reduction of a moral argument to a strictly legal interpretation. Personally I'd prefer to see people explore the ethical rather than the legal.

bossa · 04-26-2013, 05:28 AM

I've never heard anyone say "I'm not willing to pretend I know what other people go to the beach for.". Only someone who lives a long way from a beach or in an igloo could think like that. Morality and art should never collide.

normhead · 04-26-2013, 05:51 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by bossa

I've never heard anyone say "I'm not willing to pretend I know what other people go to the beach for.". Only someone who lives a long way from a beach or in an igloo could think like that. Morality and art should never collide.

Hey , what have you got against people who live in igloos? We have opinions too. By the way bossa, those are great beach shots you took, I love them... but, they were shots of a "scene", a "social event" "a happening", and not so much an invasion of intimate space.

jon404 · 04-26-2013, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Morality and art should never collide...

Well, there IS the Sistine Chapel ceiling. But then, Michelangelo aside, Caravaggio was a murderer, stalking his victims through the streets by night, painting gloriously religious artwork by day. Art. Morality. Bikinis. And 300mm lenses for everyman... folded-gate optics in the smallest smartphones! "Just hold still there, Hon -- you're jiggling!"

**Ash** · 04-26-2013, 01:18 PM

It's common courtesy that should apply, and not a matter of photographing scenes openly visible to all at public places like the beach. A couple kissing intimately in a public place is no different. It is not indecent to photograph them if you are not disturbing 'their' peace or harassing them.

MD Optofonik · 04-27-2013, 11:51 AM

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 is 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?

RonHendriks1966 · 04-27-2013, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by MD Optofonik

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

I'm getting mixed messages from google translate, so my question to my image is:

Was this a good or bad one in your vision?

(english is only my third language)

MD Optofonik · 04-27-2013, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by RonHendriks1966

I'm getting mixed messages from google translate, so my question to my image is:

Was this a good or bad one in your vision?

(english is only my third language)

I doubt the subject would consider it a to be a "good picture" of her. 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.

I do not, however, consider it creepy. It is in fact the least questionable of the three full body shots. I am also discussing it within the context of the the current cultural milieu in the United States.

I think it's important to ask oneself, "Why am I taking this picture?" Once the picture is taken and one is choosing to keep it the question becomes, "Why am I keeping this picture?"

RonHendriks1966 · 04-27-2013, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by MD Optofonik

I think it's important to ask oneself, "Why am I taking this picture?" Once the picture is taken and one is choosing to keep it the question becomes, "Why am I keeping this picture?"

Okay thank you, Well that is Always a good one to think about. One off my methods to this is to wait a few days (when possible) before making a last selection. Since some images take you in a spur but loose their moment fast.

MD Optofonik · 04-27-2013, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by RonHendriks1966

Okay thank you, Well that is Always a good one to think about. One off my methods to this is to wait a few days (when possible) before making a last selection. Since some images take you in a spur but loose their moment fast.

Agreed, I think most carefully considered shots need a few days before trying to view objectively. Although, I've certainly had my share when, immediately after taking a picture, I wondered what the heck I thought I saw only a few seconds before and continued to wonder even a few days later.

04-26-2013, 03:46 AM	#50
bossa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Adelaide Posts: 4,546	300mm at the beach isn't always about half naked women: K-5 & FA300mm F4.5 Even 200mm can be 'intimate' without being 'wrong' Then there's 31mm.. ..and 16mm You don't need a long lens to get up close and personal Last edited by bossa; 04-26-2013 at 03:53 AM.*

04-26-2013, 11:43 AM	#54
jon404 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Photos: Gallery Posts: 696 Original Poster	Quote: Morality and art should never collide... Well, there IS the Sistine Chapel ceiling. But then, Michelangelo aside, Caravaggio was a murderer, stalking his victims through the streets by night, painting gloriously religious artwork by day. Art. Morality. Bikinis. And 300mm lenses for everyman... folded-gate optics in the smallest smartphones! "Just hold still there, Hon -- you're jiggling!" Last edited by jon404; 04-26-2013 at 02:06 PM.

04-27-2013, 11:51 AM	#56
MD Optofonik Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 962	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 is 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? Attached Images Last edited by MD Optofonik; 04-27-2013 at 04:52 PM.

04-27-2013, 01:31 PM	#58
MD Optofonik Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 962	Originally posted by RonHendriks1966 I'm getting mixed messages from google translate, so my question to my image is: Was this a good or bad one in your vision? (english is only my third language) I doubt the subject would consider it a to be a "good picture" of her. 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. I do not, however, consider it creepy. It is in fact the least questionable of the three full body shots. I am also discussing it within the context of the the current cultural milieu in the United States. I think it's important to ask oneself, "Why am I taking this picture?" Once the picture is taken and one is choosing to keep it the question becomes, "Why am I keeping this picture?" Last edited by MD Optofonik; 04-27-2013 at 01:47 PM.

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

04-26-2013, 12:32 AM	#46
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	We have at the end off the year in our swimmingpool a day for dogs and their owners to get a splash in the water. So on a Sunny day this is mucho fun. I sometimes forget the dogs :P K-01 and FA*85mm

04-26-2013, 01:19 AM	#47
jon404 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Photos: Gallery Posts: 696 Original Poster	And, when you're not at the beach, but still looking for attention -- Pentax panty hose!

04-26-2013, 01:38 AM	#48
PLC3 Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Berlin Posts: 54	Just to add to what falconeye has said and foster some understanding among the non-German photographers: While it is not allowed to publish pictures of people you encounter in public spaces without their consent (with the exeptions falconeye already mentioned), it is very much allowed to take pictures of anything you see in public spaces, unless of course you harass your subject by doing wideangle close-ups right in their face or they express their unwillingess to be photographed. Thus, unlike the impression one gets from this posts, German photographers don't get sent to prison in droves and street photography in Germany is quite an enjoyable experience. While I would also agree, that while at a public beach one should not really expect 'privacy', I would still argue that undressing at a beach where everyone around you is at different stages of semi-nudity,too, is a different thing from being undressed in a picture that is shown somewhere on the internet, where you have no control about who is seeing you and what is happening with your picture. To get back to the technical aspects of the pictures: they demonstrate fairly well the limitations of long-range telephotography: blue haze, which in my opinion limits the appeal of your pictures quite a bit but could maybe be lessened with appropriate filters and a tendency to underexpose, although highlights are blown, which I also find with my copy of the 55-300.

04-26-2013, 05:06 AM - 1 Like	#51
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	I'm not willing to pretend I know what other people go to the beach for. And I certainly wouldn't assume because there's a few people out there posing and strutting, that everyone goes there to do that. I assume that some go there because they want to swim in un-chlorinated water, or because they just enjoy the beach. Wanting to be photographed isn't in their mind set. And that's what seems to be ignored. Those who rest on legal arguments do so because the law allows them to in some jurisdictions. There is no thought for what person who's image is being taken wants. In that sense it's exploitive. Certainly some are their to strut there stuff, and would be flattered to know you're taking pics. But that isn't everyone. Some would be horrified. As for the legal arguments... "because I can" is hardly an argument. It's the reduction of a moral argument to a strictly legal interpretation. Personally I'd prefer to see people explore the ethical rather than the legal.

04-26-2013, 05:28 AM	#52
bossa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Adelaide Posts: 4,546	I've never heard anyone say "I'm not willing to pretend I know what other people go to the beach for.". Only someone who lives a long way from a beach or in an igloo could think like that. Morality and art should never collide.

04-26-2013, 05:51 AM - 1 Like	#53
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by bossa I've never heard anyone say "I'm not willing to pretend I know what other people go to the beach for.". Only someone who lives a long way from a beach or in an igloo could think like that. Morality and art should never collide. Hey , what have you got against people who live in igloos? We have opinions too. By the way bossa, those are great beach shots you took, I love them... but, they were shots of a "scene", a "social event" "a happening", and not so much an invasion of intimate space.

04-26-2013, 01:18 PM	#55
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	It's common courtesy that should apply, and not a matter of photographing scenes openly visible to all at public places like the beach. A couple kissing intimately in a public place is no different. It is not indecent to photograph them if you are not disturbing 'their' peace or harassing them.

04-27-2013, 12:36 PM	#57
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Originally posted by MD Optofonik The second picture is wholly unflattering; she would love you for this. I'm getting mixed messages from google translate, so my question to my image is: Was this a good or bad one in your vision? (english is only my third language)

04-27-2013, 02:03 PM	#59
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Originally posted by MD Optofonik I think it's important to ask oneself, "Why am I taking this picture?" Once the picture is taken and one is choosing to keep it the question becomes, "Why am I keeping this picture?" Okay thank you, Well that is Always a good one to think about. One off my methods to this is to wait a few days (when possible) before making a last selection. Since some images take you in a spur but loose their moment fast.

04-27-2013, 02:16 PM	#60
MD Optofonik Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 962	Originally posted by RonHendriks1966 Okay thank you, Well that is Always a good one to think about. One off my methods to this is to wait a few days (when possible) before making a last selection. Since some images take you in a spur but loose their moment fast. Agreed, I think most carefully considered shots need a few days before trying to view objectively. Although, I've certainly had my share when, immediately after taking a picture, I wondered what the heck I thought I saw only a few seconds before and continued to wonder even a few days later.