Gumby
Veteran
and only a rangefinder camera can be used to successfully photograph a vampire. A SLR would be totally ineffective in that application.
Ethical to photograph women in swim suits in public?
- Thread starter vonfilm
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 164
- Views 18K
and only a rangefinder camera can be used to successfully photograph a vampire. A SLR would be totally ineffective in that application.
Hsg
who dares wins
A good photographer photographs with his heart, not his hormones.
fireblade
Vincenzo.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
Pardon me for not choosing a word stronger than "reprehensible." Those murders were abhorrent. An abomination. Heinous. What have you. Not sure you're reacting to my actual (intended) point. I'm not discussing Hebdo. Only the vague concept. Relax.
I'm in a "bubble" because i'm not French? Seriously? One 'off the cuff,' hastily chosen word wasn't a strong enough condemnation of an atrocity, and i 'disgust' you?
+
Educate me, please. No, i'm not a reader of Charlie Hebdo. What does secularism have to do with a publisher's (not a state's) choice to disregard a primary tenet of a religion? This isn't about what was 'legal' to publish. Your use of the word "demand" is misplaced. All i'm suggesting is that Hebdo's rationalization for publishing those images is either BS or overestimated. And, yeah, i believe there's more than a dash of arrogance involved. Doesn't mean i don't feel for their losses or believe that the resulting action wasn't as criminal as criminal can be.
I don't believe i suggested ANY of these things were EQUAL to the issue raised by the OP. If something "reminds" me of something else, that doesn't mean it's the very same thing....
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Dan, Thanks, that's probably more than I deserve.
From looking at some of the comments here referencing telephoto lenses, hiding in bushes, upskirt photos, etc; that wasn't exactly what I had in mind when I made my original comment. I was thinking 35 or 50mm lens or a Rolleiflex and the kind of photos you see on Shorpy of Jones Beach or Coney Island or, yes, even the not-so-mythical Girl from Ipanema. So, it came from an attitude more wistful than warped, or so it seemed to me. Yes, Brazil is different.
Given the two examples you gave from your experience, I can see how you might have taken my comment in a way it was not intended.
At any rate, thanks. As someone else noted above, Internet apologies are rare. Discretion being the better part of valor, I'm going to leave this thread alone now.
hausen
Well-known
Maybe questions involving the words homeless, woman at the beach, bikinis, ethics etc should be banned from future questions on RFF?
peterm1
Veteran
Why would you be wearing a swimsuit when you are taking photographs?"
"One morning before breakfast, I shot an elephant in my pajamas. What he was doing in my pajamas I will never know." Groucho Marx/Captain Spalding. Animal Crackers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPSAu8xfmhk
Seriously in this day and age when leftist leaning governments would nearly take you out and have you shot - or castrated or both for merely looking sideways at a woman you are asking for trouble in 75% of cases where you might take photos of women in swimsuits. We have had people carted off to jail for this in Australia and they were not doing it in a salacious manner. Just taking pictures on the beach. Is it ethical however, well that is another matter entirely. Generally I would say yes provided it was not done sexually. Proving it in a court of law in a another matter however.
"One morning before breakfast, I shot an elephant in my pajamas. What he was doing in my pajamas I will never know." Groucho Marx/Captain Spalding. Animal Crackers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPSAu8xfmhk
Seriously in this day and age when leftist leaning governments would nearly take you out and have you shot - or castrated or both for merely looking sideways at a woman you are asking for trouble in 75% of cases where you might take photos of women in swimsuits. We have had people carted off to jail for this in Australia and they were not doing it in a salacious manner. Just taking pictures on the beach. Is it ethical however, well that is another matter entirely. Generally I would say yes provided it was not done sexually. Proving it in a court of law in a another matter however.
DNG
Film Friendly
Just saw your Flickr feed....
Ummm, seems like you do take photos of those unknown to you....
Maybe you mean something else in "Unknown to me"
BTW, a lot of nice street displayed......🙂
maggieo
More Deadly
Kahaluu Beach Park, Kona, Hawaii, February 16, 2014 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr
Watching The Sea Turtles, Kahaluu Beach Park, Kona, Hawaii, February 16, 2014 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr
Watching The Sea Turtles, Kahaluu Beach Park, Kona, Hawaii, February 16, 2014 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr
__jc
Well-known
Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Highlight 1: No.
Highlight 2: Yes, except that it wasn't just one ill-chosen word or phrase: it was the whole tenor of what you posted, including your apparent belief that we all have to obey "one simple rule" propagated by one religion. And your bubble is nothing to do with your not being French: I'm not French either. It's because you've never read Charlie Hebdo and know nothing at all about the magazine. Yes, it's often juvenile and scatological, but grown-ups can handle that. Partly it's genuinely funny (at least half a dozen good cartoons per issue); partly it has excellent political insights; and partly it punctures pomposity and exposes stupidity.
Highlight 3: Everything. If I can publish an "offensive" cartoon of (say) one of the Bush clan, or Sarkozy, or anyone else, then in a secular state I can publish an "offensive" cartoon of anything. And indeed I should. Secularism means that religion can't claim any special privileges, especially when it comes to attacks on pomposity and stupidity. The Catholic church is the butt (sometimes literally) of quite vicious cartoons, far more inflammatory than any drawing of the Prophet (peace be upon him), but in a secular state, they have to put up with it. Putting up with it is good for them: it makes them realize that they can't do whatever they like, whenever they like.
You don't seem to be understand what such cartoons are for. They are to make people see things from a different angle; maybe, even to think. Some people are terrified of anything that suggests there is any other way of looking at things than their own, and therefore want everyone to adopt their own little narrow-minded world picture.
Ain't gonna happen. Tough.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
And "street" and... Well, anything except camera phone pics of kittens and coffee cups. In fact, why don't we just ban everything, and die quietly of starvation and stupidity?
A lovely quote I read yesterday from an immigrant to Britain: "Life just happens. It doesn't ask your nationality first."
Cheers,
R.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I can't believe this place at times ... that this thread has elicited over seventy responses mildly concerns me.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Keith,
Here's another, from the back page of this week's Charlie Hebdo (I translate)
INTERNET RUMOUR OF THE WEEK
Facebook bans the posting of images of executions of hostages. Unless the hostages pose with their kittens or hamsters.
Cheers,
R.
Sparrow
Veteran
... and it's not just you .. it calls into question the work of Bailey, Newton, Demarchelier, Sieff, Bunny Yeager ..
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Sparrow
Veteran
... oh hang on, no Bunny Yeager wouldn't count would she?
Michael Markey
Veteran
I agree ... down right creepy if you ask me.
Gumby
Veteran
What part of it do you find creepy? I'm really curious. Do you not find any part of the initial question a topic that might elicit reasonable discussion and differences of opinion? Or is it the influx of postings related to political opinion and generic silliness?
