Don't be a creep!

[tunalegs]

Back from my break from the forum and this thread almost makes me want to turn away for another one...

Did everybody miss the title of the thread? OP does not have a problem with street photographers. He has a problem with creeps.

Just because one can legally do something - doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it all the time. Legally in my city I could go around taking photos in public wearing nothing but a diaper - but that doesn't mean it's not creepy, or that it's a good idea that others need to defend and practice. And if somebody thinks it's creepy that an adult wearing diapers is photographing them - that doesn't make them some hater of freedom either.

Given this forum's prevailing attitude though, I'm sure diaper street photographing will become the next hot thing... :angel:

 

[Rogier]

Back from my break from the forum and this thread almost makes me want to turn away for another one...

Did everybody miss the title of the thread? OP does not have a problem with street photographers. He has a problem with creeps.

Just because one can legally do something - doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it all the time. Legally in my city I could go around taking photos in public wearing nothing but a diaper - but that doesn't mean it's not creepy, or that it's a good idea that others need to defend and practice. And if somebody thinks it's creepy that an adult wearing diapers is photographing them - that doesn't make them some hater of freedom either.

Given this forum's prevailing attitude though, I'm sure diaper street photographing will become the next hot thing... :angel:

Thanks for understanding what I was trying to tell here :angel:

 

[Rogier]

Agreed. Alexander Pope summed it up rather nicely, nigh on 300 years ago: "The proper study of Mankind is Man." (from An Essay on Man, 1730).

Thats fine with me, I really enjoy doing that. But don't keep going if the person photographed doesn't want to be. And certainly don't make a funny face if you get called on your rudeness. If so the creepy photographer should also be prepared to deal with the consequences of their actions. Being your legal right or not there is still common sense and decency...

 

[whited3]

Back from my break from the forum and this thread almost makes me want to turn away for another one...

Did everybody miss the title of the thread? OP does not have a problem with street photographers. He has a problem with creeps.

Just because one can legally do something - doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it all the time. Legally in my city I could go around taking photos in public wearing nothing but a diaper - but that doesn't mean it's not creepy, or that it's a good idea that others need to defend and practice. And if somebody thinks it's creepy that an adult wearing diapers is photographing them - that doesn't make them some hater of freedom either.

Given this forum's prevailing attitude though, I'm sure diaper street photographing will become the next hot thing... :angel:

Creepy - sure. I give him that. I think many here take offense to the suggestion of physical retaliation. Rather, I did. Plus we are all a bunch of camera hooligans.

 

[Rogier]

I wouldn't call Rogier creepy. Grumpy, perhaps; but not creepy.

I am NOT a creep who sneaks and takes pictures of other people. If at all they show in the distance or have given concert.

The creep was the guy ruining it for others.
One day some ass like him wil cause a lawsuit banning street photography and ruining it for all of us who do have decency.

I don't care that my picture was taken. I DO CARE ABOUT HIS RUDENESS AND CONSEQUENCES FOR ALL OF US.

 

[noisycheese]

For those who object to being photographed on the street, their worldview basically boils down to "If you do not photograph within the constraints which I choose to place upon you, then you are a creep" or an a-hole (or whatever silly name I decide on).

That's not how freedom works.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

If so the creepy photographer should also be prepared to deal with the consequences of their actions.

I think the question that raises is "who defines creepy"? Also, I imagine that a number of people were struck by the chest beating threats against photographers that, apparently, were randomly defined as creepy.

I find it best to bear in mind that my perceptions are not reality, nor are the perceptions of anyone else.

 

[ruby.monkey]

I am NOT a creep who sneaks and takes pictures of other people. If at all they show in the distance or have given concert.

The creep was the guy ruining it for others.
One day some ass like him wil cause a lawsuit banning street photography and ruining it for all of us who do have decency.

I don't care that my picture was taken. I DO CARE ABOUT HIS RUDENESS AND CONSEQUENCES FOR ALL OF US.

You missed the joke there.

 

[JonWNC]

Almost every time I go into San Francisco I see guys with a black Leica M. Standing in a corner quickly snapping pictures and putting their camera back under their coats. As if they were a spy or on some sort of special mission.

How do you know they aren't?

 

[Lucadomi]

I know people don't like it, and that is why I'm always cautious. But why don't you like it when people make a picture of your kids? You could consider it a compliment as your kids are picture worthy

Yea, you are right, it is not always a problem.
I guess parents can be a little paranoid.
However, unfortunately, there are some freaks around and I can be a little overprotective sometimes.

 

[Sparrow]

Then there's always Greece (among other places), where the hitch-hiking "thumb up" gesture apparently means the same thing.

But then, the less people know about other cultures, the more inclined they are to attribute universality to their own parish.

Cheers,

R.

... yes I remember that, and the head nodding thing being the other way round, thirty years of mass english tourists have reeducated them now ... the habit of putting money down on the counter rather than passing it hand to hand is fading now

 

[FA Limited]

in the original post, rogier says he didn't want his photo taken. and now he is saying that he doesn't mind his picture taken and that it was the rudeness. was it the rudeness because he did it from across the street? the rudeness because he used a white canon tele? how do you know he was taking a photo of you?

just feel like we're missing something here ... i have a canon big white is it creepy if i use it in a public place?

 

[kdemas]

Sure it was not a Black Nikon RF Sorry Stephen just kidding - feel free delete. Was it a group on a Leica Academy course ? Remember the Gunter Osterloch's Leica M techniques book; that advocated the under jacket shooting approach.

I was waiting for the ban Donald.

 

[Stuart John]

I think one important thing to remember is that not everyone wants to be part of someone else's social media circus. If photographers are not careful things will eventually change for the worst. If a person makes it clear that they don't want to be photographed then don't continue it's not that difficult.
My wife has a few friends that don't want photos of them uploaded to Facebook so she respects their wishes and doesn't upload them.
I believe that we should all have the right to say no I don't want you to photograph me or my children today. It's not about taking away someones freedom they should have the freedom to photograph who they want as long as that person does not object.

 

[Roger Hicks]

For those who object to being photographed on the street, their worldview basically boils down to "If you do not photograph within the constraints which I choose to place upon you, then you are a creep" or an a-hole (or whatever silly name I decide on).

That's not how freedom works.

True, but the hard of thinking have some difficulty in understanding what "freedom" means.

Incidentally, please drop the yellow, etc. Those of use who prefer paper white have a hell of a job reading it: we have to highlight your entire message.

Cheers,

R.

 

[fireblade]

Interesting that street photography and its associated vagaries seems to create a lot of threads with a fair amount of chest beating when it goes wrong on either side of the lens!

haha...sorry Keith, when i first read your statement i thought you had written "associated vaginas"

 

[__--]

...On a more serious note, here's a series I made in Union Square, San Francisco. Almost all done with a 200mm lens on an APS-C DSLR (old manual focus Pentax lens, small and discrete all in all). I didn't hide the camera under my jacket. This isn't the place to discuss editing, but I do eliminate disrespectful shots, faces of children, the basic 'camera makes you look stupid' shots, etc...

Dan, this now is a "rule," to eliminate the face of children? Why?

—Mitch/Chiang Mai
Tristes Tropiques [Direct download link for PDF file of book project

 

[Keith]

The main enemy of decency seems to be the DSLR and white lens combo ... glad we at least got that sorted!

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

The main enemy of decency seems to be the DSLR and white lens combo ... glad we at least got that sorted!

Excellent! While people are looking around for that, they'll never notice me taking pictures of them, with my Samyang 500mm.

 

[hepcat]

Almost every time I go into San Francisco I see guys with a black Leica M. Standing in a corner quickly snapping pictures and putting their camera back under their coats. As if they were a spy or on some sort of special mission.
I don't know in wat fantasy world they are caught up in but I think its very creepy and do understand if some gets upset when they discover that their have been photographed without their consent.

Today I was standing on curb waiting for our light to turn green to cross the street. Across from us a guy with a Canon slr with white tele lens on his knee taking pictures of Me, my wife and out dog. I clearly signaled to him that I did not wanted to have our pictures taken by holding out my hand in front of my face. He clearly reacted to my . But get GOING AND TOOK MORE SHOTS. Then I increased by disapproval by using the international sign language using one of my fingers... He still kept going on. I yelled at him calling him a creep.

Lucky for him I had my wife with me. Otherwise that white tele would have ended up in his....

I'll say this as gently as I can... you can be as outraged as you want, but he has the First Amendment right to photograph you in public whether you like it or not.

There is someone, somewhere who doesn't like something... but that doesn't mean we should give up the right to do that thing.

Law is based on a "reasonable and prudent person" test, and we as a society seem to have lost our reason and prudence. There are really good reasons for the First Amendment rights we enjoy. You have every right to be angry if you want, but you do NOT have the right to interfere with another person on the street who is engaged in a lawful activity whether or not you like it. He has the right to be as obnoxious as you think he was.

Let it go... move on. I'm sure he got some great shots of you flipping him the bird. Maybe you even made his day!