Ethical to photograph women in swim suits in public?
- Thread starter vonfilm
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 164
- Views 18K
OurManInTangier
An Undesirable
Not keen on this picture Mick. The guy in the water looks highly suspect to me and matters are made far worse by the fact I cannot see his feet😱
😉
kbg32
neo-romanticist
AlTheKiller
Established
Kind of an interesting question really.
I don't think I would feel comfortable photographing people at the beach/pool, however if I was to do so, I think I would ask before hand. A lot of the time when Im out in public and there is someone I would like to photograph, I raise the camera up and mouth "is it ok?" and I have yet to have anyone refuse. But that was always downtown rather than at the beach or pool.
If youre not being a creeper, it probably wont be a problem.
I don't think I would feel comfortable photographing people at the beach/pool, however if I was to do so, I think I would ask before hand. A lot of the time when Im out in public and there is someone I would like to photograph, I raise the camera up and mouth "is it ok?" and I have yet to have anyone refuse. But that was always downtown rather than at the beach or pool.
If youre not being a creeper, it probably wont be a problem.
uhoh7
Veteran
If you ask, they pose or refuse. So it's not really candid: to me. Though it might make a good portrait.
Unless you are lucky and they say sure and ignore you.
I personally don't think it's unethical, but I don't like to have people mad at me either, so any candid public shooting is always a challenge.
I go out to shoot the sights and let the candid moments come.
Unless you are lucky and they say sure and ignore you.
I personally don't think it's unethical, but I don't like to have people mad at me either, so any candid public shooting is always a challenge.
I go out to shoot the sights and let the candid moments come.
MickH
Well-known
:bang: Whadda mistake-a to make-a!
Dan Daniel
Well-known
Well, Larry, I think you are right all in all. I took your comment and gave it a the most negative spin I could. This wasn't fair to you, and I apologize.
A 'healthy' appreciation of the human body, including men enjoying barely-clothed women, is possible and desirable. From what I know of Brazil, they are probably much less chauvinistic in many areas of life such as business and politics while enjoying a 'healthy' heteronormative sexuality where appropriate.
When I said creepy scuz, I had two specific people from my life in mind. One was a friend's neighbor who had taken tele-photos of her sunbathing in her backyard and turrned her into one of his sexual obsessions. When he was caught for a rape and stalking someone else, this was discovered. And it was disturbing to her and her friends, for reasons I hope you can understand.
And once while photographing in a busy city area, someone thought I was someone else. When he realized that I wasn't, he did recommend that I look at a website. I did, and 'creepy scuz' is the word I would use. Upskirt shots, women at beaches, leaning over at tennis courts, etc. Telephoto lens, voyeurism creepiness at its clearest form.
Again, for me to pull Larry into the same category as these two instances was not proper.
daveleo
what?
hausen
Well-known
Classic!!!
Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
And in Germany, if I may add.
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
In the US if you are in a public area or facility, unless otherwise posted, photography is permitted. There is no expectation of privacy on the public streets, playgrounds, etc. You can definitely photograph on a public beach as witnessed by the many photographs of Coney Island and the beaches of California that are posted on the internet.
vonfilm
Established
Some believe, that if their picture is taken, their soul has been stolen. Is this part of the paranoia of the camera shy?
shiro_kuro
Charles Bowen
It's true .... about the soul being stolen ... it's just what one does with the captured Soul that is important .....
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
Ethics and legality are often not the same matters.
I agree that "motive" is a critical component of the answer/question.
I completely disagree that 'anything in public is fair game' from an ethical perspective. People who say such things seem not to be able to imagine a situation where a human being can be exploited. And, that's where i draw my personal lines — on 'exploitation.'
I don't find it 'okay' to take photographs of people 'in public' when the objective is to make them look stupid/ugly/worthless/etc. That's just not how i 'get off.' I had a client once. An otherwise sophisticated, worldly man. And, when he took a picture, he only seemed to enjoy it if he 'caught someone looking foolish.' I considered that to be quite puerile. To each his own, but in that matter he lost esteem in my eyes.
There's a 'landmark' case currently, concerning a self-professed 'art photographer' who captured very intrusive images with a telephoto lens, peering into apartment windows across from his own building. While the subjects did not take enough precautions to ensure they were not visible from spying eyes/lenses, i still feel that to be exploitation. Others will differ and point to 'the letter of the law.' My sense is that ethics should be on a higher plane that the law provides. Otherwise, aren't you just doing what you can 'get away with?' That's not ethical.
This also reminds me of the Charlie Hebdo thing.... While the retribution was reprehensible, i also find that the French publishers were arrogant and fully instigated the dispute. There's a matter of RESPECT. And, suggesting that it is in their "rights" to publish such imagery is sorta beside the point. Frankly, i feel that anyone who believes those 'cartoons' had some sort of value is a bit of an idiot.... So, there's that.... And, while i'm virtually 'anti-religion,' i am 187% 'pro-respect.' It's one simple rule: don't publish images of that dude. You couldn't comply with that? Respect. It's simple. Back to this question. If you're photographing someone in a swimsuit, without their knowledge, and the image doesn't illustrate a respectfulness of that person, i kinda feel it's wrong. But, this brings into question more questions. What is respect? Objectifying a woman can be considered either vulgar ogling, or worshipping of beauty. Depends on the shooter, the subject, the resulting image, the motivation, and the dissemination of the image. All of those points have to be addressed, in every situation. Isn't it overly simplistic to think there's just one answer for all situations?
I agree that "motive" is a critical component of the answer/question.
I completely disagree that 'anything in public is fair game' from an ethical perspective. People who say such things seem not to be able to imagine a situation where a human being can be exploited. And, that's where i draw my personal lines — on 'exploitation.'
I don't find it 'okay' to take photographs of people 'in public' when the objective is to make them look stupid/ugly/worthless/etc. That's just not how i 'get off.' I had a client once. An otherwise sophisticated, worldly man. And, when he took a picture, he only seemed to enjoy it if he 'caught someone looking foolish.' I considered that to be quite puerile. To each his own, but in that matter he lost esteem in my eyes.
There's a 'landmark' case currently, concerning a self-professed 'art photographer' who captured very intrusive images with a telephoto lens, peering into apartment windows across from his own building. While the subjects did not take enough precautions to ensure they were not visible from spying eyes/lenses, i still feel that to be exploitation. Others will differ and point to 'the letter of the law.' My sense is that ethics should be on a higher plane that the law provides. Otherwise, aren't you just doing what you can 'get away with?' That's not ethical.
This also reminds me of the Charlie Hebdo thing.... While the retribution was reprehensible, i also find that the French publishers were arrogant and fully instigated the dispute. There's a matter of RESPECT. And, suggesting that it is in their "rights" to publish such imagery is sorta beside the point. Frankly, i feel that anyone who believes those 'cartoons' had some sort of value is a bit of an idiot.... So, there's that.... And, while i'm virtually 'anti-religion,' i am 187% 'pro-respect.' It's one simple rule: don't publish images of that dude. You couldn't comply with that? Respect. It's simple. Back to this question. If you're photographing someone in a swimsuit, without their knowledge, and the image doesn't illustrate a respectfulness of that person, i kinda feel it's wrong. But, this brings into question more questions. What is respect? Objectifying a woman can be considered either vulgar ogling, or worshipping of beauty. Depends on the shooter, the subject, the resulting image, the motivation, and the dissemination of the image. All of those points have to be addressed, in every situation. Isn't it overly simplistic to think there's just one answer for all situations?
D
Daniel Teoli Jr.
Guest
Personally I'd say men would have more trouble shooting kids than women in swimsuits. As I wrote below...nowadays, if your a male photographer and take pictures of children your a pedophile.
https://danielteolijr.wordpress.com...ing-media-artists-books-by-daniel-d-teoli-jr/
https://danielteolijr.wordpress.com...ing-media-artists-books-by-daniel-d-teoli-jr/
fireblade
Vincenzo.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
While I fully agree with the second extract, I take it you're not a regular reader of Charlie Hebdo? And that you are unfamiliar with the fact that France is a secular state, so NO religion can demand special (or indeed any) "respect"?
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Roger Hicks
Veteran
The more I think about your reaction, the more disgusting it gets. It's merely "reprehensible" to machine-gun people because THEY don't believe in YOUR god? And his prophets? And because YOU, in your own tiny non-French bubble, don't understand what "laicité" means?
Cheers,
R.
shiro_kuro
Charles Bowen
fireblade ,
sorry for the confusion ... let me clarify .. only cameras that have a mirror are capable of capturing the soul ...a rangefinder would be ineffective ,you would need to use an SLR for an effective capturing device ....
sorry for the confusion ... let me clarify .. only cameras that have a mirror are capable of capturing the soul ...a rangefinder would be ineffective ,you would need to use an SLR for an effective capturing device ....
