In defence of taking pictures of people surreptitiously.

[Sparrow]

Don't want to argue here, for multiple reasons including that I genuinely think poor Ms Spencer was far more sinned against than sinning. She most certainly was a victim of the 'cult of celebrity', which is something that Ps me off in many ways, but her circumstances were unique and not really illustrative of general points.

...Mike

... you seem to be involving many other issues in what I had purposefully stated as a simple question ... I wasn't thinking about the advantages of a republic, royal privilege, cult celibately or anything other than where I started ... do you think the surreptitious photographer has any responsibility as to how he represents his subjects or is he free to publish anything? ... the law, and presumably the society the law reflects, thinks they do, but is vague as to the point it becomes offensive

 

[Pherdinand]

What I personally shake my head at, is the lack of any content and point with those photos. If there were an important story or point in them (say a real "decisive moment" or historically interesting content), then the fact that we see two legs or some underware in transparency would be virtually irrelevant, and probably almost unnoticed. Whereas in lack of any content or point, as well as aesthetical qualities, the unawarely exposed boob or underware BECOMES the point with the image, and that IMO reveals bad taste and bad judgement. Not because I'm a moralist, but because I like interesting photos.

i'd agree with that, or at least with the part about boring, pointless images.
HOWEVER
don't forget, the unawarely exposed body part only becomes the point if(when) there is a market for it.
So i'd say the bad taste/judgement lies as much with the general public (interested in semitransparent skirts or hanging-out boobs too much) as with the photographer or editor. Or maybe even more.

And finally... Why should I care?
We all **** the same way and wipe our bottom -well, more or less- the same way.
The most intimate things we do and we have in life, are actually very, very common to all of us, weh have them all and we do them the same way.
Of course i won't be running around mooning the neighbors, but if a bad-taste photographer does catch me with my pants down and i happen to be brad pitt (which i am not), do i give a diddly squat about where it gets published?
I don't
Why would anyone?

 

[Sparrow]

i disagree on both points.
1.There's no way she could have missed that that "dress" is semitransparent.
2. So what's the big deal, there's nothing really embarrassingly visible through it.

In the early years she was dreadful shy, she hid from media attention and seldom spoke ... she was a teenage nanny at the time not the celebrity she became so I don't think that's correct

 

[mfunnell]

... you seem to be involving many other issues in what I had purposefully stated as a simple question ... I wasn't thinking about the advantages of a republic, royal privilege, cult celibately or anything other than where I started ... do you think the surreptitious photographer has any responsibility as to how he represents his subjects or is he free to publish anything? ... the law, and presumably the society the law reflects, thinks they do, but is vague as to the point it becomes offensive

At this point I don't even know what you think 'surreptitious photography' is. Given your chosen example, "that dress" in an event I'd more-or-less paid no attention to and had to think back to recall (and if my recollection is faulty then please correct me). As I vaguely remember it was a declared invited media event, and your problem seems to be not the photography (after all, the photographers were invited) but the unexpected aspect of the photographs (the flimsy dress thing) and the decision to publish rather than the decision to photograph. Because if my recollection isn't playing me false we're talking about photographer dudes with big cameras, big lenses, big flashes and large, prominently displayed and security-checked press passes. [EDIT]Oh, and it just occurred to me - in this modern digital age - photographers who may not even have known the dress was photographically flimsy as they certainly couldn't check their shots on the spot and quite possibly didn't see them until they appeared after publication[/EDIT]

I don't see the 'surreptitious photography' in that.

I was being discursive and off-topic in my earlier discussion. Sorry. But I thought you were too.

...Mike

 

[photomoof]

I would prefer that anyone wishing to publish photos of me, contact my publicist for official images.

But of course one must accept the reality of the press, and fans.

 

[jsrockit]

I would prefer that anyone wishing to publish photos of me, contact my publicist for official images.

But of course one must accept the reality of the press, and fans.

Ok, ok...I will stop camping outside your door. 😉

 

[JoeV]

Doesn't it depend on what country the photography occurs within, the local laws and customs? We shouldn't assume all RFF readers are from North America.

~Joe

 

[zauhar]

As MabelSound points out, cell phones are ubiquitous and make a great cover for surreptitious photography - I saw a tourist yesterday collecting shots of hipsters (some pretty good images too) and no one was the wiser ; except me, as I standing at the right angle to see what she was doing.

A couple years ago I saw a private contractor high on a pole at the park near my home. I wondered what he was up to and checked his company - a video surveillance outfit! Some strange little boxes were installed high up, and I assume for all that time everyone in the park has been continuously photographed.

And people worry about 'creeps' photographing them when they are not looking.

My daughter just moved to Bushwick's hood (he the instigator of many pages of commentary!) She might not like being the subject of one of his 'creepy' photos, but believe me, her being his photographic subject is among the least of my worries.

Randy

 

[photomoof]

Doesn't it depend on what country the photography occurs within, the local laws and customs? We shouldn't assume all RFF readers are from North America.

~Joe

True -- but honestly I am not really interested unless "they" decide to do a "Charlie Hedbo" on me.

This thread and the one the OP deleted last night, just remind me there are always those who want to control my creative thoughts and actions, often in the guise of protecting "someone." Art has always been seen as dangerous.

I will take any photo I want.

Just as an aside -- the homeless families in NYC are not on the street, but in terrible hotels and shelters around the city. Those men and women you see on the street are another more complicated group, many severely mentally ill. I have been been quite friendly with some, many I know from seeing them regularly, measuring their "power" is difficult. Many have families, and spend some time with them, and some time on the street. I don't take many photos of them, mostly I just talk to them, attempt to buy them shoes and food, and often just give them some money. As for the poor in other countries, it's up to you if you want to photograph them, I seldom do.

 

[f16sunshine]

This whole thing is a damn slippery slope.

First photographers should not photograph.
Next women and men should not behave in a manner that could be deemed salacious.
Next we all are wearing Burkas and stoning offenders in the streets.

Freedom has to include freeing ones mind.
As they say... if you don't move you'll never feel your chains.
The conservative knee jerk upon viewing some images is movement. Not overreacting to the feeling of old chains takes an open and free mind.

I live by: no harm = no foul.

Simple

 

[photomoof]

Knowing and respecting those you interact with is important.

I knew one "homeless" man for almost 20 years. He had family, but they would tire of him. But truck drivers in my working neighborhood would allow him to sleep in their trucks, and business owners would give him little jobs, which often involved a place to rest for a few hours. He was a nice man, people liked him. But all homeless are not agreeable.

The "homeless" actually have homes, but they are not defining them our way. A kindness is a home -- I would agree with Ranchu, they are people who have given over their power to strangers, so those who interact with them should be aware of that fact.

For the most part true amateurs are just annoying them -- but journalists have made an impact. But do what you want, but don't hurt them if you can avoid it.

My daughter just moved to Bushwick's hood (he the instigator of many pages of commentary!) She might not like being the subject of one of his 'creepy' photos, but believe me, her being his photographic subject is among the least of my worries.

Randy

Bushwick is certainly less threatening than downtown Philadelphia (spent a week there this winter, staying across from Independence Hall).

Phily really has that grimy '70s panhandler thing down pat. City really feels really run down, but the Barnes collection is great!

 

[mfunnell]

The "homeless" [...][snip, which does change the sense of the original][...] are [often] people who have given over their power to strangers, so those who interact with them should be aware of that fact.

I looked back through some of my stuff, and I've taken very few photos of homeless people and put even fewer anywhere where someone might see them. But I do recall this guy:

...who asked to pose for a bunch of us, while we were doing a photography course, but refused to take a single red cent from any of us, and refused the offer of food etc. He may not have had much, but he had what he wanted and it was most certainly not our place to change that. I still recall him with fondness (he was an interesting guy to chat with), and hope my photo does him at least some justice.

...Mike

 

[uhoh7]

I would prefer that anyone wishing to publish photos of me, contact my publicist for official images.

But of course one must accept the reality of the press, and fans.

If anyone tries to photograph me I return fire 🙂

 

[photomoof]

If anyone tries to photograph me I return fire 🙂

That is always the prerogative of the subject.

 

[dotur]

The idea of democracy is to shoot whomever you wish.

 

[zauhar]

...


Bushwick is certainly less threatening than downtown Philadelphia (spent a week there this winter, staying across from Independence Hall).

Phily really has that grimy '70s panhandler thing down pat. City really feels really run down, but the Barnes collection is great!

Seriously? While you weren't in the most upscale corner of the city, there is not much grime or grit in that spot, unless you hit it on a really bad day!

Not that I find Bushwick threatening, seems like a fun and interesting place. That said, I would still worry about my kid even if she was staying in the Hamptons...

Randy

 

[photomoof]

Seriously? While you weren't in the most upscale corner of the city, there is not much grime or grit in that spot, unless you hit it on a really bad day!

Not that I find Bushwick threatening, seems like a fun and interesting place. That said, I would still worry about my kid even if she was staying in the Hamptons...

Randy

Chestnut and Ranstead were full of panhandlers -- not really threatening, but there were a lot of them. I probably noticed them because I was walking a lot. Not as bad as say Venice Italy, but disconcerting.

The city had a tired feeling about it. I think it was partly due to how run down the national monuments like independence hall were, very sad affairs. The museums on the other hand were lovely.

I had just been to Washington DC in the fall and the difference in the upkeep of national landmarks was striking.

EDIT: of course you realize I have simply stopped looking at the crack dealers near my subway stop. 🙂

 

[Jamie Pillers]

This whole thing is a damn slippery slope.

First photographers should not photograph.
Next women and men should not behave in a manner that could be deemed salacious.
Next we all are wearing Burkas and stoning offenders in the streets.

Freedom has to include freeing ones mind.
As they say... if you don't move you'll never feel your chains.
The conservative knee jerk upon viewing some images is movement. Not overreacting to the feeling of old chains takes an open and free mind.

I live by: no harm = no foul.

Simple

I like you words a lot, Andy. Thanks for the excellent thoughts. 🙂

 

[zauhar]

Chestnut and Ranstead were full of panhandlers -- not really threatening, but there were a lot of them. I probably noticed them because I was walking a lot. Not as bad as say Venice Italy, but disconcerting.

The city had a tired feeling about it. I think it was partly due to how run down the national monuments like independence hall were, very sad affairs. The museums on the other hand were lovely.

I had just been to Washington DC in the fall and the difference in the upkeep of national landmarks was striking.

EDIT: of course you realize I have simply stopped looking at the crack dealers near my subway stop. 🙂

You know, I pay as much attention to Independence Hall as you do to the Statue of Liberty - it could fall down and I wouldn't know. ;-)

Despite being a local, I have yet to go to the new Barnes, that is one of the few new buildings in the city that made a positive impression on me. Glad you enjoyed seeing it, I will go soon.

Regarding philly being tired - it has also been characterized as 'miserable' and 'constipated'.

Randy

 

[photomoof]

Despite being a local, I have yet to go to the new Barnes, that is one of the few new buildings in the city that made a positive impression on me. Glad you enjoyed seeing it, I will go soon.

The new Barnes is one of the most beautiful museums in the US. The rooms are just packed with famous works of art.

And the food is even good!