willie_901
Veteran
Of course it is acceptable to publish any photograph that does not violate the law. This is an objective fact.
Each of us has different personal standards as to what should be published. I intentionally avoided the word ethics because ethics implies a code of conduct adhereed to voluntarily by a group of people. To me it doesn't make sense to think about millions of codes of ethics: one code for each photographer.
The photographers's personal standards have nothing to do with what camera they use.
In the US, the balance between privacy and first amendment rights is clearly defined. Except for Texas, state and local laws define an individual's right to privacy in a limited way. For instance in New York State the law says your right to privacy is limited to situations where a person could reasonably expect to be nude and unobserved. This legal precident gives great latitude to an individual's right to self expression.
I have read many arguments in threads like this one that just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right. This is correct because each photographer has a their own subjective view regarding when a photograph crosses the line from acceptable to unacceptable. I have a responsibility to make that decision for my work, but I am not responsible for the decision of others. We also have the right to strongly disagree and challenge where others draw that line.
You also discuss photographs that you feel are technically flawed. In my view this situation is purely subjective as well. People's work speaks for itself.
Each of us has different personal standards as to what should be published. I intentionally avoided the word ethics because ethics implies a code of conduct adhereed to voluntarily by a group of people. To me it doesn't make sense to think about millions of codes of ethics: one code for each photographer.
The photographers's personal standards have nothing to do with what camera they use.
In the US, the balance between privacy and first amendment rights is clearly defined. Except for Texas, state and local laws define an individual's right to privacy in a limited way. For instance in New York State the law says your right to privacy is limited to situations where a person could reasonably expect to be nude and unobserved. This legal precident gives great latitude to an individual's right to self expression.
I have read many arguments in threads like this one that just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right. This is correct because each photographer has a their own subjective view regarding when a photograph crosses the line from acceptable to unacceptable. I have a responsibility to make that decision for my work, but I am not responsible for the decision of others. We also have the right to strongly disagree and challenge where others draw that line.
You also discuss photographs that you feel are technically flawed. In my view this situation is purely subjective as well. People's work speaks for itself.
willie_901
Veteran
...
Shooting up a woman's skirt is perviness.
It's illegal too.
thegman
Veteran
I don't think so, but I do think that pornography/creepy shots/stalkery photos can become erotica/candid/stealthy, depending on your point of view. I doubt there is a relationship with the range finder, but there is a certainly a relationship with the nature of some people.
Street photography requires a certain social courage which it seems 99% of street photographers I see do not possess. That means you'll get a lot of photos of the backs of people's heads, and perhaps shaky hipshots. Not my cup of tea, but I have different ways of making rubbish photos.
Street photography requires a certain social courage which it seems 99% of street photographers I see do not possess. That means you'll get a lot of photos of the backs of people's heads, and perhaps shaky hipshots. Not my cup of tea, but I have different ways of making rubbish photos.
I think a lot of guys are pervs in general... some just look, some want a trophy for later use.
To me, it all depends on context. Are they only out taking the type of photos Phil describes or do they make all types of photos in the street? When does a candid photo of a woman on the street stop being pervy and become something different? Winogrand may have been a perv, but he was not upskirting (that I know of). His interest was photography in general and not making porn. Upskirters are making porn and don't care about composition and technique.
Phil, where are the images you have issue with housed? Here, or a different forum?
I'm uncomfortable with a few threads here for sure... where the photos seem to have nothing to do with photography and everything to do with gawking.
Phil, where are the images you have issue with housed? Here, or a different forum?
I'm uncomfortable with a few threads here for sure... where the photos seem to have nothing to do with photography and everything to do with gawking.
Highway 61
Revisited
(...) Winogrand (...)
Haha ! At last.
May I suggest that quoting him in such joke threads deserves an equivalent of the Godwin point ?
Let's call it "the Forest point" (so that some folks may think it's related to the WWF or something).
lam
Well-known
You bunch of pervs, shooting rangefinders. 
MarylandBill
Established
Dear Phil,
Also, why do "photographers owe it to their subjects"? What do they owe? Indeed, what does "engagement" mean?
R.
I agree, I am not sure a photographer owes it to their subjects to "engage" them. What he does owe his subjects (I feel), is to not degrade them, not exploit them unfairly and to treat them as human beings.
--
Bill
Sparrow
Veteran
I agree, I am not sure a photographer owes it to their subjects to "engage" them. What he does owe his subjects (I feel), is to not degrade them, not exploit them unfairly and to treat them as human beings.
--
Bill
I would contend that; that this should not necessarily apply to those tourists on cruse ships in the Mediterranean, who abdicate their humanity the moment they pull on those enormous shorts ...
hepcat
Former PH, USN
Maybe I'm being what some have called "too sensitive" or not taking into account how folks in other parts of the world can conduct themselves, but just because one has a rangefinder, does that give them license to shoot and publish what many perceive as bad images?
I'm talking about the butt shots, the high skirts, the near up-skirts, and otherwise all round objectification or women, in particular...
Often times, these aren't even focused or held still. The camera is shaky, the zone focus ... is off, the camera is tilted or any number of things that would force an image to be tossed...
..My comment isn't even a critique though, it's simply about the subversive objectification photos...
Phil Forrest
Phil, I edited your post in your quote to the things I think are really salient about your perspective. In your first line you talk about "bad" photos (which I always interpret to be images illustrating poor technical quality.) Then you go on to suggest that subject matter is "bad" prima facie, and THEN you talk about the technical quality often being poor.
I have some difficulty with your "bad" label. You apparently have issues with the subject matter? Or is your issue with photographers who make those kinds of images? Or is your issue with images that exhibit sloppy technique? What makes it "bad?"
If it's the subject matter that is your main concern, while you're entitled to your opinion, folks who make that kind of images are just as entitled to theirs. I'm not necessarily defending their choice of subject matter. I'm defending their ability to make that choice. Sleazy may be just that, and the "photographer" may be creepy, but truly that is a judgment call and is all in the eye of the beholder.
I'd suggest you just pass on looking where-ever you're finding the objectionable images. If you expect to have the ability to make whatever images you choose to make without being restrained by someone else's view, then it's incumbent upon you to let others do the same.
tarullifoto
Established
I don't agree at all that the types of photo Phil seems to be referring to are more associated with rangefinder cameras than others.
Looking through the 7 day gallery, I don't see any "upskirt" or otherwise objectionable images. I do, however, see several candid images of attractive women either walking in the street or talking on their cell phones.
In the case of these images, my own view is that a picture of a pretty girl isn't necessarily a pretty picture. I'd go further, and say that a person could legitimately ask what it was that moved the photographer to take that photograph, because clearly, the photographer was trying to reveal something about what s/he saw.
It seems to me that the more personal the attribute the photographer is trying to reveal, the closer the photographer comes to the point where the subject's dignity demands actually engaging the subject.
Looking through the 7 day gallery, I don't see any "upskirt" or otherwise objectionable images. I do, however, see several candid images of attractive women either walking in the street or talking on their cell phones.
In the case of these images, my own view is that a picture of a pretty girl isn't necessarily a pretty picture. I'd go further, and say that a person could legitimately ask what it was that moved the photographer to take that photograph, because clearly, the photographer was trying to reveal something about what s/he saw.
It seems to me that the more personal the attribute the photographer is trying to reveal, the closer the photographer comes to the point where the subject's dignity demands actually engaging the subject.
finguanzo
Well-known
I could be kind of pervy at times, and I own a rangefinder.. Never thought of mixing the two...... Hm.... interesting... 
furcafe
Veteran
(1) More "pervy" shots made w/RFs? Don't agree. Men + cameras in general = more "pervy" shots than women + cameras in general? Agreed.
(2) More technically "sloppy" shots made w/RFs? Agree somewhat. Due to their design, RFs are generally not the tool of choice for photographers who are super picky about composition, straight horizons, etc.
(2) More technically "sloppy" shots made w/RFs? Agree somewhat. Due to their design, RFs are generally not the tool of choice for photographers who are super picky about composition, straight horizons, etc.
Tumblr is full of pervy images of women made by the women themselves... 
Rangefinderfreak
Well-known
Maybe I'm being what some have called "too sensitive" or not taking into account how folks in other parts of the world can conduct themselves, but just because one has a rangefinder, does that give them license to shoot and publish what many perceive as bad images?
I'm talking about the butt shots, the high skirts, the near up-skirts, and otherwise all round objectification or women, in particular. It's one thing if the photo is good or has a point but there seem to be a lot of photos that simply demonstrate one's ability to shoot a subversive image of an attractive woman (usually) or her parts, and maybe not get caught doing it.
Often times, these aren't even focused or held still. The camera is shaky, the zone focus from one's lap or wherever the camera sits, is off, the camera is tilted or any number of things that would force an image to be tossed. They say that if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all, right? Sorry. I'm always looking for good critiques of my photos and a good critique will also have the stuff we don't want to hear. My comment isn't even a critique though, it's simply about the subversive objectification photos.
I'm not singling anyone out. I'm guilty of taking garbage images myself but I like to engage my subjects, not just shoot photos of their backsides, et. al. I can guarantee that if some of the photos out there were showed to the people in the subject, the photographer would be anything from yelled at to assaulted.
So, is it the quiet nature of the rangefinder that lends itself to the subversive imagery of a Guy With Camera, looking to collect more parts? On top of that, what about the camera shake, the blur, the out of focus, the bad composition? a lot of these photos tend to serve one purpose.
I don't mean to get people angry with this post, but I do mean to stir up the pot because photographers owe it to their subjects.
Phil Forrest
maybe you are missing the point that rangefinders are "street weapons"
people used to think William Klein was pure junk when he appeared on scene... now he is one of the heroes of street photography...
Highway 61
Revisited
Due to their design, RFs are generally not the tool of choice for photographers who are super picky about composition, straight horizons, etc.
Please quickly remove "composition" off that assessment or the HCB fans crowd will call you a perv...
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Bill,I agree, I am not sure a photographer owes it to their subjects to "engage" them. What he does owe his subjects (I feel), is to not degrade them, not exploit them unfairly and to treat them as human beings.
--
Bill
True, but this is quite separate from being a photographer. We all owe this to our fellow human beings, as fellow human beings, whether we are photographers or not.
Except, sometimes, perhaps, when we are giving arrogant, thoughtless, selfish, unpleasant people a modest taste (and only a modest taste) of their own medicine. Politicians, actors, certain kinds of preacher: that sort of person.
Cheers,
R.
icebear
Veteran
Does a rangefinder somehow give us license to make less than good photos?
...but just because one has a rangefinder, does that give them license to shoot and publish what many perceive as bad images?
Phil Forrest
Who grants a license, who needs a license and who defines good photos ??? I don't get the point.
And of course the content of picture does not really depend too much on the type of camera, at least my point of view (a RF point of view of course
zauhar
Veteran
I beg to differ. In the end, do the girls think they look hot in the photos? If so, more photos. Look at Merkley for example, or Cobrasnake, or even our venerated Winograd. Winograd was definitely a perv. Cunningham? Perv.
Cunningham, Bill?
What makes him a pervert? Because he takes pictures of women without asking? He is performing street ethnography, and with a valid purpose.
If he has collected 'perverted' pics, please point them out to me so I can study them.
Randy
Richard G
Veteran
This might be the wrong forum for Phil's post. You don't suspect a fault you don't yourself possess. That is, most rersponders being good photographers on a good photography forum won't credit Phil's point. Early on there was advice to look elsewhere for pictures with Leica body X or lens X and bad pictures. I have hardly ever done so but the pictures are banal mostly. I wouldn't look in RFF's gallery for those same boring pictures. I think this thread got side-tracked on the up skirt angle. There was a thread started here recently about girls on bikes. I didn't like the motive or direction of that thread. That one was not an RF issue at all in my view.
icebear
Veteran
Share:
-
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.