mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
I went looking through my photos (at lest those I have on-line) and found very few that just said "pretty lady". Most seemed to be in some sort of context. I did find a surprising number that were mothers (OK, pretty mothers) interacting with children:
I don't know what (if anything) that means, but I shouldn't think it's in any way purient.
I quite agree.
...Mike
monkeypainter
Established
C'mon...!
What's wrong about candid photos pf young (pretty) women?
HBC did it, Doisneau did it... I do it!!!!
What's wrong about candid photos pf young (pretty) women?
HBC did it, Doisneau did it... I do it!!!!
Last edited:
foggie
the foggiest
I agree with Maelswarm statements for the most part.
Anything in public is fair game. Personally, I take pictures of interesting people or things. If a girl is doing something interesting, then I will take her picture. Though I admit that I sometimes feel uneasy if the said girl is attractive because I don't want my girlfriend to get jealous when she looks over my photos.
Here are some of my favorites:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/foggie/3480724564/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/foggie/3310576848/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/foggie/3098518875/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/foggie/3117455170/
Anything in public is fair game. Personally, I take pictures of interesting people or things. If a girl is doing something interesting, then I will take her picture. Though I admit that I sometimes feel uneasy if the said girl is attractive because I don't want my girlfriend to get jealous when she looks over my photos.
Here are some of my favorites:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/foggie/3480724564/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/foggie/3310576848/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/foggie/3098518875/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/foggie/3117455170/
micromontenegro
Well-known
I find it very creepy that people find pics of young girls creepy. We have a saying in Spanish: "El ladrón juzga por su condición".
PatrickT
New Rangefinder User
Very interesting thread. I don't really see a problem with it.
Also, did I miss it, or was a link to this guy's photos placed in this thread somewhere?
Also, did I miss it, or was a link to this guy's photos placed in this thread somewhere?
FallisPhoto
Veteran
I'd say you are not only way on the conservative side, but don't have a very firm grasp on reality. You apparently don't mind doing somehing right out in public, with people looking at you directly, but you object to people looking at photos of it. Why? Have you deluded yourself into believing that you have psionic powers that enable you to control what sorts of people are allowed to look at you in real life? Well, you don't. Is someone fantasizing over your wife's/daughter's photo somehow more objectionable than someone fantasizing over her in real life?
JohnL
Very confused
Haven't seen the pics so I don't know if they have any real merit or not, but being a bad photographer is neither illegal or immoral. The fact he concentrates on nubile young ladies may be suspicious, but seems pretty harmless based on the description of the photos by the OP. If you are going to take candid photos of *anyone*, you need either to have the charm to make them not mind or else just not get caught. I would regard the latter as Plan A, and attempt the former if Plan B turns out to be necessary. When the subject is not going to go away (eg tending a stand at a market or fair), I sometimes ask permission, take a shot or two, say "thanks", then move on. Coming back later you can often get the candid you really want.
FallisPhoto
Veteran
Let me give you some thoughts from a different perspective ...
In this day and age, when we're very uptight about stalkers, perverts, and the like, yes, it seems creepy. However, 40 years ago it was far more acceptable.
Sorry if I ramble on and on about this, but I still feel more or less the same as I did back then.
I know I've mentioned this here. My brother had what he called his "beach lens", which was a huge el-cheapo Spiratone 400mm telephoto. He and his bud would take the train out to Rockaway and they would hang out on the beach, smoke, drink (uh?) soda(yeah, right!), and take casual shots of the young ladies. "Boys will be boys" was my mom's attitude.
I remember that Spiratone had a kind of right-angle mirror adapter which they sold for just such things.
Nobody at all thought these guys were in any way stalkers or pervs! They weren't.
I saw through this as they very badly wanted to approach some of the girls, get to know them, and develop a relationship, but they were just too shy about it. I tried explaining this to him, but ...
My interpretation is still more or less the same. My guess is that the photographers in question here would LOVE to have a relationship with some of the young ladies they are shooting, but for some reason are reluctant to pursue such a thing.
That's my not so humble opinion, anyway ...
In my case, you'd be 100% wrong. I wouldn't touch the young women I shoot with a 10-foot pole. Why? Because I'm 54. When you reach my age, try talking to an 18-or-19-year-old.
italy74
Well-known
Hi guys
I usually don't do that. I mean, if I go somewhere for a certain reason, I follow that.
Of course, if a beautiful girl / woman comes to my way, JUST BECAUSE IT'S BEAUTIFUL ( = nice to the eyes ) why don't take a picture of her? To be honest, when I can I approach them and ask them a picture. Usually this happens at formals or ceremonies where beautiful girls are sometimes shy of themselves, like this one (with her parents approval of course) I'm not a pervert nor I want to be pointed as it if now and then I took a picture I like. I don't spend my time looking at young ladies on my pc but it would be a pity losing the image of a such beautiful girl at THAT time. Sometimes photography goes beyond women and models. We just realize something is beautiful and can't be lost.
Of course if the one is just too far I have to choose in a second. Sometimes I take it, sometimes I take it not.
I usually don't do that. I mean, if I go somewhere for a certain reason, I follow that.
Of course, if a beautiful girl / woman comes to my way, JUST BECAUSE IT'S BEAUTIFUL ( = nice to the eyes ) why don't take a picture of her? To be honest, when I can I approach them and ask them a picture. Usually this happens at formals or ceremonies where beautiful girls are sometimes shy of themselves, like this one (with her parents approval of course) I'm not a pervert nor I want to be pointed as it if now and then I took a picture I like. I don't spend my time looking at young ladies on my pc but it would be a pity losing the image of a such beautiful girl at THAT time. Sometimes photography goes beyond women and models. We just realize something is beautiful and can't be lost.
Of course if the one is just too far I have to choose in a second. Sometimes I take it, sometimes I take it not.
Last edited:
sepiareverb
genius and moron
If people don't want to be photographed in a bathing suit in a public place they have two options, don't wear the bathing suit or stay out of the public place. Very simple. Anything in a public place is fair game in the US, you put yourself out there you can be photographed.
Well the legality is part of it- this is perfectly legal, so the morality and ethics have been deemed ok no? Would this be any less creepy if he was photographing old women? Old men? Little boys? Little girls? Cats? Why is this particular subject so objectionable? Might we question your own reasons for taking offense that someone might photograph your wife?
Winogrand was famous for snapshotty pictures of women- perhaps this guy loves Winogrand. Perhaps he loves women. I can't find anything wrong here.
Why? Again, if you can't bear the idea of her being photographed make her stay inside.
What is "unsavory" about this??? Photographing the life on the street around you is NORMAL.
Darkhorse
pointed and shot
I guess it depends on the context and intent. I know a guy another non-photography related message board. An older guy, I don't know what he looks like but know he's in ill health, married, and very right wing. Not that that matters in the slightest.
Anyway, on a few occasions he's posted pictures of women on beaches taken with his long zoom lens. All artlessly done, taken at unflattering angles, usually paired with some innuendo about the unwitting subject's T&A, and occasional commentary of women who he thinks shouldn't be wearing certain swimming garments. He's quick on the "Hey it's a public beach" defense if someone questions the morality of these posts.
I think it's completely classless but what can you do? Nothing, really.
Anyway, on a few occasions he's posted pictures of women on beaches taken with his long zoom lens. All artlessly done, taken at unflattering angles, usually paired with some innuendo about the unwitting subject's T&A, and occasional commentary of women who he thinks shouldn't be wearing certain swimming garments. He's quick on the "Hey it's a public beach" defense if someone questions the morality of these posts.
I think it's completely classless but what can you do? Nothing, really.
italy74
Well-known
The problem is here. Here's something that can be debatable.
Just think of those things legalized in some states which are illegal in others (prostitution, abortion, just to make a couple of easy examples)
Laws not always follow ethic and moral for the simple reason that not all men and women have the same one. Some states have even a death penalty legalized. Is it ethic or legal? My OPINION is no. But it's different than yours, and this is enough to look for a border between laws and ethics thus comprehensible a such debate. Although I often smile when people come asking for privacy (they neither know what they are saying), nor I want to support such paranoiac background (just ask to UK photographers how do they live in England right now) I do understand the need for a (serious) debate, laws or not.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
The only issue here that I can see is the decision whether or not to spend any time looking at his images.
I'm not interested. Sounds like not enough nakedness (none) to qualify as good old fashioned porn and not enough creativity to qualify as art.
Boring is the worst insult for something posted to attract attention and I think boring is most likely what we are dealing with here.
If you're bored, move on. If you're engaged, oggle all you like. If you don't like the show, switch the channel or turn off the TV.
I'm not interested. Sounds like not enough nakedness (none) to qualify as good old fashioned porn and not enough creativity to qualify as art.
Boring is the worst insult for something posted to attract attention and I think boring is most likely what we are dealing with here.
If you're bored, move on. If you're engaged, oggle all you like. If you don't like the show, switch the channel or turn off the TV.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
"Creepy" is the current buzzword for anything people can't understand or don't approve of or don't want to think about too hard.
Cheers,
Roger
panda81
Member
There's quite a difference between not having a firm grasp of reality vs. hoping the world could function in a different way. If someone wishes there weren't so many wars and resulting horrible deaths in the world, does it mean that they can't grasp reality? No, it just means they wish people could solve their differences peacefully. You can call me way too conservative though, I'll take that without an argument.
In your last question, both are equally objectionable. But it doesn't mean that I want to help enable them either. Along the lines of what you're implying, then would it be okay for pedophiles to have naked pictures of young children because the pedophiles will fantasize about them regardless of having photos or not anyway? Of course not, I'm sure you don't think so.
I have absolutely no objection to any of the photos posted in this thread so far. All of them are artistic, tasteful, emotive, and don't look like Uncle Bob's snapshot with a shiny new SLR like the ones I mentioned by the photographer in the OP. Maybe I'm just accusing him of being a photographer.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, I'm five years older than you, and although I can't say I make a habit of trying to chat up young women, it's equally true that I don't make a habit of worrying about the age or sex of people I talk to; I'll talk to pretty much anyone, if there's something to say.
Likewise, I take far fewer photographs of teenage girls than I did when I was closer to their age, but I put that down to having less in common with them and therefore being in fewer places where I have much to say to them, or much occasion to take their pictures.
And one of my closest friends is exactly 40 years younger than I. No doubt there are things she discusses with her 19 year old boyfriend that she does not discuss with me (I hope so for his sake!) but equally she and I always seem to have plenty to talk about.
Cheers,
R.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Granted it depends where one lives to some extent- but street photography is legal in the majority places that I know. Germany has some exceptions, but I know of more than one photographer making these very kinds of images in Germany- so how illegal is it in reality on the street.
You mentioned abortion, a sure fire way to get this thread LOCKED
watch yourself 
oldoc
oldoc
LAws protect many who may not, to others, be worthy of protection. The whole victim's rights movement in the US is based on this fact...not a supposition. IMO, there is a wide range of propriety, and the OP raises a valid point as to good "taste". The photographer in question is hiding behimd his "rights". Like with other victims, those who are photographed can't say "no" to these people. Just ask any celebrity.
I enjoy street photography on line, although I don't like the process, myself.
I think we have to draw the line to stop short of objectifying the subject. I detest the "up-skirt" work of some of these creepy stalkers of celebrities. Is there an inalienable right to shoot a photo of Brittney Spears' crotch? I don't thiink so.
Admittedly, these photos I haven't seen. The ones on this thread fall well shorts of objectification, and are very nicely done.
As far as I am concerned, the more towards an objectifying photo we get, if it is going to be shot, and especially if it is to be posted, the subject should have the right to refuse.
Otherwise, right or wrong, you are taking a chance. Whether the law protects you or not, does it REALLY help the photographer to have legal protection if his camera is broken and his jaws are wired shut?
I enjoy street photography on line, although I don't like the process, myself.
I think we have to draw the line to stop short of objectifying the subject. I detest the "up-skirt" work of some of these creepy stalkers of celebrities. Is there an inalienable right to shoot a photo of Brittney Spears' crotch? I don't thiink so.
Admittedly, these photos I haven't seen. The ones on this thread fall well shorts of objectification, and are very nicely done.
As far as I am concerned, the more towards an objectifying photo we get, if it is going to be shot, and especially if it is to be posted, the subject should have the right to refuse.
Otherwise, right or wrong, you are taking a chance. Whether the law protects you or not, does it REALLY help the photographer to have legal protection if his camera is broken and his jaws are wired shut?
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Impossible. One man's object is another woman's art. We have to take the "bad" with the "good" or lose the ability to photograph freely. He obviously enjoys what he shoots, who are we to tell him it isn't ok because we dislike his style but share his subject matter?
-And please, can we have a link??
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Yes, it does help, because it reminds violent bigots that theirs is not the only world-picture.
More importantly, what is the real risk of a smashed camera and wired-up jaws? This sort of thing tends to make the newspapers -- and it doesn't get reported very often, which leads you to suspect that it doesn't happen very often.
Assaulting photographers and smashing their cameras is as much of a sick fantasy as taking upskirt photographs. It just appeals to a different kind of sick bigot.
EDIT: A question for everyone. Have you ever been assaulted (more technically, battered*) as a result of taking a picture or had your camera smashed? Do you personally know anyone to whom this has happened?
(As far as I recall, though I forget the case, under English law "the least touching of another in anger is a battery" but let's restrict ourselves to a proper punch, kick or other blow.)
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited: