[BigMackCam]

Folks, I think we've got as close to politics and government as I'm comfortable with. Let's return to the original topic, please.

Many thanks

[stevebrot]

My rules:

• Avoid doing photography on private land without permission
• Never point a camera at a child without explicit permission from the parent, even when related
• Never intentionally photograph a person in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Examples?
  • Shooting into windows from the street if the subject is a person within
  • Candid photos at the gym or pool
  • People adjusting clothing out of general sight
  • People sunbathing nude or making love out in the countryside
  • Anything even close to up-skirt/down-blouse or plumber's crack

When doing street photography:

• All of the above list
• Never the obviously mentally ill or angry or otherwise emotionally out of control
• Never the addicted or drunk when unconscious and unable to respond
• If the subject is a homeless person, engage them in the process and compensate them if it seems appropriate
• Never grab and dash
• Avoid anything remotely resembling a street protest. A trip to the hospital may result if caught in the cross-fire between rival political factions. They throw things.
• Avoid the big lens and sophisticated gear. My fav is an early-1960s FED-2 rangefinder camera. It looks like an antique...I look like an antique...I am smiling while I work.

In regards to taste and respect for my audience:

• No Speedos...ever
• No Thongs...ever
• Nothing intended to embarrass or demean the subject, no matter how funny it may seem
• Never in Walmart or its parking lot

I made the above list after taking the shot below. I hope it never got back to his PO or whoever it might be that he was not wanting to see him at his place of business. OTOH...I have continued to have it posted to Flickr, probably because he was selling in the extremely busy and open Public Market on Pike Place in Seattle.



My bad...


Steve

(...one would not think of a K10D with kit lens managing the quick AF for this shot...)

[MarkJerling]

My rules:.....
Never in Walmart or its parking lot

That seems to be the one for the most interesting pictures, based upon what I see online.

[BigMackCam]

plumber's crack

And with two simple words, you've brought much-needed levity to the thread. Excellent work, Steve

[monochrome]

Rules good, but not necessary. Just ask myself a simple question.

Is this kind?

* A whole lot of modern antagonism would stop if every asked that question.

[BigMackCam]

Rules good, but not necessary. Just ask myself a simple question.

Is this kind?

* A whole lot of modern antagonism would stop if every asked that question.

Absolutely.

I'll add just a little more, though, which is purely my opinion... and that is:

"Regardless of my rights, am I opening myself up to possible friction that I don't want?"

I'll stand up for my rights (and those of others) with gusto when the situation dictates, but I don't want or need the hassle of doing so unless something important will come from it... And taking photos as a hobbyist doesn't qualify for me. If I was a professional press photographer, I'd think differently, of course...

[monochrome]

Absolutely.

I'll add just a little more, though, which is purely my opinion... and that is:

"Regardless of my rights, am I opening myself up to possible friction that I don't want?"

I'll stand up for my rights (and those of others) with gusto when the situation dictates, but I don't want or need the hassle of doing so unless something important will come from it... And taking photos as a hobbyist doesn't qualify for me. If I was a professional press photographer, I'd think differently, of course...

I actually think it very important to firmly defend individual liberty and self determination and politely decline to back down. Otherwise people learn all they have to do is be loud and obnoxious to cow socialized people. Next step is actual violent intimidation.

But I’m possibly getting political, which in this forum the polite thing is to graciously retire.

[BigMackCam]

I actually think it very important to firmly defend individual liberty and self determination and politely decline to back down. Otherwise people learn all they have to do is be loud and obnoxious to cow socialized people. Next step is actual violent intimidation.

Me too, Paul. And I have no problem with exercising and defending my rights. I am, however, all for an easy life (these days, at least). I choose the path of least potential resistance except in circumstances that really matter to me. And if I'm out for an afternoon's hobby photography, personally I don't want to have anything other than a fine old time

[fs999]

I'd certainly recommend having one for this specific purpose, Dave. Maybe an inexpensive, used, smaller m43 body and a single wide angle or zoom lens - or, as I mentioned, a Q7 or Q-S1... or even a nice compact. You won't get the same image quality as with an APS-C or full frame DSLR, but depending on lighting conditions, post-processing and final reproduction size, that probably won't matter.

Or an Auto 110

[biz-engineer]

Long lenses have the advantage that you are too far from the subject to ask for a permission

What's annoying when being photographed as a person isn't to be photographed and stored somewhere in a SD card or hard drive, it's about not having control if the photo will be published, where is will be published and what message will be conveyed.

[alfa75ts]

The trick, apparently, is to wear high-viz. They you can go anywhere. I think photographing things in high-viz may be the answer!

Did that in a local park, amazing how quickly those leashes go on the dogs.

[steamloco76]

I have been a life long railroad enthusiast and my photography of trains began over forty years ago. After 9/11/2001 a major paranoia regarding railroads, bridges, public buildings and electricity generation plants ensued. Anybody taking pictures of those subject with a “big camera” seemed to subject to harassment and questioning. I was bothered by security guards and the Norfolk Southern Railroad Police on several occasions. In every one of those occasions I was on public road right of way when taking my photos. Only the uniformed security guard of a local generation plant continued to harass after speaking with me. He insisted it was a felony to photograph any part of the plant (I was waiting for a Norfolk Southern train to pass by on the tracks in front of the plant). I left.

Not long after my incident with the security at the coal fired electric generation plant two out of state railroad photographers were arrested by the local township police for “photography in a prohibited area” while taking pictures from the same state roadway shoulder where I’d been harassed. They took their case to court and the charges were dismissed.
Soon after, the plant owners put up dozens of NO PARKING, NO STOPPING and NO PEDESTRIANS signs along both sides of the road. To this day, over fifteen years after the incidents mentioned, plant security still harasses anybody stopping to take photos. Makes no sense- coal powered electricity generation is not exactly a hot topic for industrial espionage. Plus a terrorist would be looking to find unsecured areas, like the side of the plant along the River with vegetation hiding their approach.

[Roaming]

If the plant owners put up those signs on the road reserve i would have thought they have committed an offence right there

[Dartmoor Dave]

What's annoying when being photographed as a person isn't to be photographed and stored somewhere in a SD card or hard drive, it's about not having control if the photo will be published, where is will be published and what message will be conveyed.

Absolutely. Last weekend I was in Plymouth to photograph the air display on Armed Forces Day, and while I was waiting for the flying to begin I took a shot that I really like as a photo but have decided not to post online. Kids were being lifted up onto a military vehicle by soldiers (with full parental permission) and being shown how the heavy machine gun worked, and I took a photo because I thought it was an interesting paradox: the delight on the faces of little kids in playing with a machine designed to kill.

At the time I just took the photo because I thought it was interesting and I didn't think any more about it, and it was only when I got home that I decided never to post it online. After all, it's somebody else's kid and the parents probably weren't aware that I'd taken the photo, even though I did it completely openly and with a policeman standing right next to me who had no objection.

For me, that's the sort of case where I think the right of the people in the photo not to have it shared online without their permission outweighs my right to photograph whoever I want to in public. I think it would only be if I'd photographed something genuinely newsworthy that the public's right to know would outweigh the individual's right to privacy.

Curiously though, I've quite happily posted a photo of the air display itself online that shows lots of kids watching in the crowd. I'm not really sure why I think it's okay to photograph people who happen to be part of a crowd but not people as individuals, but that seems to be the ethical compromise that I've ended up with somehow.