Candid photos of young women

2953699475_91bc258a2a.jpg
 
If I photographed a young female candidly in public and she told me to p*ss off I wouldn't have an issue ... it's her right to express her displeasure at my action if she so choses!

However ... if in the same situation some rock ape insecure in the role of her husband~partner~boyfriend told me to p*ss off I would be offended because he doesn't own her in my eyes and if she's comfortable with my actions, so should he be!

In a perfect world at least!
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
DMR does not call anybody impotent.
Click to expand...

Uh, I think we may have some different meanings of "impotent" here. I would use terms such as "shy", "unsure", even "chicken", but I'm sure that nobody interpreted this as meaning, uh, E.D. or anything like that. I saw this as anxiety of rejection. We maybe have some language and interpretation issues here, but I think everyone knows what I mean.

Guys can be incredibly shy at times when it comes to approaching women. And, not to play devil's advocate here, I often times don't blame them, since women can sometimes reject in a very tact-less and seemingly uncaring manner. :(

Speaking very freely here, turning down an unwelcome advance is an incredibly difficult thing to do. It's awkward under the best of circumstances and it's seldom a win-win thing. :(

I know I'm rambling off topic here. I hope everyone understood what I meant, and I do thing that for the most part, everyone did.
 
dmr said:
I'm sure "his translator" referred to the translator that misinterpreted what I said. No offense taken here ...
Click to expand...

Good. :eek: Misinterpretations can be uncomfortable, at best :angel:


I was just enlightening Ruben on the fact that you did not call anybody "impotent", with the whole E.D. effect there given he used it out of context and without a quote as a qualifier.

In English (again, for Ruben's enlightenment), the blunt use of the adjective "impotent" to refer to one or more persons, in and of itself in a sentence, without qualifying and clarifying it, means, in this day and age (A.D. 2009), someone who cannot perform physically. NOT someone who is shy. Shyness does not impede physical performance. Social performance, perhaps.

Oh no, I'm becoming a Hooligan. :eek:


I really apologize for the pedantry, but Ruben always requires explanations from people. And I don't say that sarcastically; he's literally demanded consistently to "explain myself" after I post something.
 
Well I have to admit that I also love to photograph women, and most of the times, I do ask for permission, some say no, and others are actually quite flattered that I would be interested to make a portrait of them.

The attached snapshot was shot this afternoon, the weird but funny thing is that the young ladies noticed my french accent when I talked to them since they are in fact French. I asked for their email so that I can send the photo, and they were so happy to give it to me ;-)

As far as I've noticed in my case, most of the times, it's always good to ask for permission...
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1824r.jpg
    IMG_1824r.jpg
    61.6 KB · Views: 0
it completely depends on what sort of photograph / angle he's aiming for!

speaking as a young woman myself I would object to anything below the knees or looking down from the top if you catch my drift but don't see why it is any worse than taking a photo of any other 'catergory' of individual otherwise and would think it very victorian to say otherwise.

in fact I was standing on the platform somewhere yesterday, I forget where, possibly baker street, and someone with their slr on the other side was photographing me. I pretended not to notice but if my train hadn't been approaching I'd have run over and asked him to email them to me out of curiousity.

it doesn't take much judgement to see whether something is appropriate or not.
 
Nothing wrong in photographing young ladies walking down the Kings Road wearing their designer clothes especially as many of them dress to be noticed. If they object I'd say, "No speak English!"

Cheers

dunk
 
The thread doesn't address the 3rd party viewer because there is no ethical problem with them: if they don't like images of strangers (or find these particular images uninspiring), they simply do not have to look at them (no one is forcing anyone to stare at these images). There is no ethical dilemma involved and hence nothing significant to discuss on this score.

The photographic merits, or lack thereof, of candid images of strangers (as a genre) is certainly a discussion-worthy subject, but far removed from the issue raised by the OP. Fred's dim view of 'street photography' is well known, and oft repeated, on this forum.

EDIT: by "dim view" I mean "negative assessment", not that Fred's opinion/taste is dimwitted or anything. I'm not passing judgement with that phrase: Fred has his reasons for his taste, and I'm sure they're quite well thought out.


noimmunity said:
Amidst the hundreds of posts in this thread, it seems most people either consider the point of view of the male photographer or the point of view of the female being photographed. This is one of the few that acknowledges the importance of the third party viewer. Right on, Fred!
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Like I said, I'm sure the reasons are well thought out! ;)

Total agreement on final thought about certain kinds of discussion working much better around a table. The internet, for all its communicative potential, still introduces an almost unavoidable bias toward the pithy ... and there are many, many, many things and ideas in life that require sustained thought / discussion / writing in order to express and grapple with. The internet almost inevitably truncates all of that by rewarding the short rhetorical retort.

EDIT: now that's about as far away from the OP as I can imagine! :D Ooops!
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
[...]Below the knees

[...]

Looking down from the top
Click to expand...
aliceelizabeth said:
speaking as a young woman myself I would object to anything below the knees or looking down from the top if you catch my drift [....][emphasis added]

it doesn't take much judgement to see whether something is appropriate or not.
Click to expand...

Yours were appropriate.

...Mike
 
I doubt Gabriel was really worried about his shots being appropriate or not... I think it's the word "anything" in Alice's statement that he was getting at by posting those images: objecting to 'anything' in those two categories seems to contradict the idea of judging appropriateness in the resulting image (and it's being easy to see). Like Gabriel, I almost posted an image that is below the knees to test the boundary between the two halves of Alice's post:

3202411060_c0485096a3.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom