mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
There's no real way of making fun of this without having it seem personal, which I'm sure would be unjustified. But the temptation...
...Mike
dct
perpetual amateur
On a side topic (selfie-hate):
Nothing wrong with a few selfies of a holiday trip. But when someone shows me his/her holiday images of interesting places in the world (take the Blue Mosque in Istanbul as an example), I would expect some external and internal shots of architectural overview and interesting details.
But what did I get? 90 % grinning big nose selfies with some mosque crap in the background! I had a hard time withholding my sincere opinion of this trip documentation...
This is why I don't get all this selfie-thing and have developed some (slight) selife-hate.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
giganova
Well-known
Privacy, in my opinion, is an illusion. When people appear in public, they should expect that they are being filmed/photographed/seen/watched/overheard. If they worry about their "image" or "appearance", then they need to act accordingly.
Example: people who are being ridiculed on the web site http://www.peopleofwalmart.com deserve being made fun of because they have a choice how they appear in public.
To me, everyone is fair game -- except underprivileged people who had/have little opportunities in life. That's why I object making pictures of homeless or "poor" people, or exploiting the misery of others. I would never make a picture of a person crying because this would mean exploiting the person's state of dispair and misery. I cringe every time I see a picture of a homeless person or the proverbial "poor kid in Africa" because I find nothing more deplorable than the "beauty of misery", which doesn't exist.
Example: people who are being ridiculed on the web site http://www.peopleofwalmart.com deserve being made fun of because they have a choice how they appear in public.
To me, everyone is fair game -- except underprivileged people who had/have little opportunities in life. That's why I object making pictures of homeless or "poor" people, or exploiting the misery of others. I would never make a picture of a person crying because this would mean exploiting the person's state of dispair and misery. I cringe every time I see a picture of a homeless person or the proverbial "poor kid in Africa" because I find nothing more deplorable than the "beauty of misery", which doesn't exist.
moreorless
Member
The problem I would say is a culture of fear, just look at the difference between the decline in recorded crime in most western nations and the public perception that crime is actually increasing.
Fear sells and fear helps distract from the misdeeds of the rich and the powerful.
goamules
Well-known
what a cocky attitude. As the world get's more crowded, we need more manners not less. If someone doesn't want to explain why he's taking pictures of me or my children, I don't have a problem with taking his camera from him and making him eat it.
I'm waiting for the day someone fly's a hobby drone over my house or camp....with my 12 Guage.
Jack Conrad
Well-known
Fine, but then, you'd be the one in jail on assault and battery, not the photographer. And besides, how does beating someone up qualify as having "more manners"?
JChrome
Street Worker
JChrome
Street Worker
In regards to the OP, I think there is nothing wrong with surreptitious photography or photography without specific consent of the subject.
At one point, I wrote a paper on photography without consent according to Jonathan Stuart Mill's philosophy of ethics.
My conclusion was that people may find this type of photography distasteful (what Mill would call an 'offense') but it is not a harm (physical or mental abuse).
So for instance, I could walk up to someone in the street and yell obscenities at them. Because of freedom of speech, it's my right to be able to do so. According to Mill, yelling obscenities is not unethical as it is an offense. Whereas physically hurting someone is unethical as it is a harm.
So @goamules, your actions would be unethical (according to Mill).
At one point, I wrote a paper on photography without consent according to Jonathan Stuart Mill's philosophy of ethics.
My conclusion was that people may find this type of photography distasteful (what Mill would call an 'offense') but it is not a harm (physical or mental abuse).
So for instance, I could walk up to someone in the street and yell obscenities at them. Because of freedom of speech, it's my right to be able to do so. According to Mill, yelling obscenities is not unethical as it is an offense. Whereas physically hurting someone is unethical as it is a harm.
So @goamules, your actions would be unethical (according to Mill).
vitaly66
slightly tilted
The harm done is this:
To the extent a photographer is cocky, selfish and self-centered, disrespectful, and insistent on asserting his supposed "rights" over civil behavior and his subjects' expressed and reasonable desires to be let alone, that photographer further inflames opinions against photography and the next photographer that happens along.
To the extent a photographer is cocky, selfish and self-centered, disrespectful, and insistent on asserting his supposed "rights" over civil behavior and his subjects' expressed and reasonable desires to be let alone, that photographer further inflames opinions against photography and the next photographer that happens along.
JChrome
Street Worker
Keep in mind, Mill's 'harm' is very specific whereas your usage of it is general.
Although you may very well be correct. Street photographers don't always get a good rep. But the general public does seem to really enjoy their photographs.
For my own sake, I don't care if someone photos me in public. I usually just make a funny face.
Ranchu
Veteran
Chomsky is not a totalitarian, you just lower your own credibility by making **** up. It's not a matter of whether you see him as one or not, it's whether he actually is or not. Try to figure out the difference someday. Your creative and inspirational use of bold and/or colored text is very pleasing however, so thanks for that.
goamules
Well-known
It doesn't. It's called "schooling" bad behavior. It's what Mothers and Fathers, the extended family, the neighbors, the community used to do. When brash, arrogant people decided their individual arbitrary "rights" (desires) were more important than social norms, it's what happened.
It comes from a time when a man had to defend his actions in public. Not hide behind cops and law. The community policed bad behavior. Which of course, points out that laws came from the community and community values, from tribal times to today. So, if you are "bothering someone" by snapping pictures in their face, yelling at the top of your lungs in a museum, splashing water in a strangers face at the swimming pool, you will occasionally meet someone who takes matters into his own hands. And doesn't allow his rights to the pursuit of happiness to be trammeled by someones interpretation of "law".
Like this example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...menaced-entire-plane-broke-bathroom-door.html
hlockwood
Well-known
I still use 'one' and 'you' in real life but it sounds pompous if I use it on here, but I got the intent
I wish it were not considered pompous to use proper English.
HFL
pagpow
Well-known
Just finished reading this whole thread. Makes me wonder whether the conversation would have been different had the thread subject been,"In defense of candid photography."
And if the conversation had focused on known subjects, rather than strangers.
I always try to take candid photographs, as this seems to remove at least one layer of artificiality, and come closer to showing the world as it really is, which once, was the main advantage of photography.
I realize several posters have used the term "candid," but surprisingly few (for me) given the number of posts. Are we saying all candid photography is surreptitious? Has the cultural lens through which we view this changed so much from 20-40 years ago? Am I a dinosaur?
And if the conversation had focused on known subjects, rather than strangers.
I always try to take candid photographs, as this seems to remove at least one layer of artificiality, and come closer to showing the world as it really is, which once, was the main advantage of photography.
I realize several posters have used the term "candid," but surprisingly few (for me) given the number of posts. Are we saying all candid photography is surreptitious? Has the cultural lens through which we view this changed so much from 20-40 years ago? Am I a dinosaur?
JChrome
Street Worker
Nope. There's much too much axe-grinding potential out in the world. No amount of alteration of the subject line could have helped
.Maybe an interesting observation about our collective attitudes towards photography and surveillance in general. Goamules waxes reminiscent about an earlier time when people would 'school' each other if someone went out of line.
Were people so apt to 'school' others about taking candid photographs or were people just more nonchalant about it because their photo couldn't have gotten posted on some blog on the web?
pagpow
Well-known
Thanks, hadn't thought about the influence of changed use and distribution.
Here are a couple of examples that seem related to the topic. I offer them because they make the topic somewhat more concrete and personal.
1) When I first came to the US (1954), my father was involved in long-term project in Japan. He always traveled with a camera and reported that the Japanese were camera shy. Ironic, given their later dominance of the camera industry and the number of photos they take.
2) The topic of this thread is of personal interest to me as it has tested a long time friendship. One day, hanging out with two married friends who were not having a great day, we sat in silence on the grass in a park. As conversation was awkward and I didn't want to get crosswise with them, I started shooting photographs. Several of them were of the pattern made by the woman's lower legs, from the knee down, nothing remotely salacious, and hardly hidden. At some point, she demanded my camera, and unknownst to me, began deleting photos.
Questions:
1) is this example relevant to this discussion?
2) was I in the wrong to take the pictures?
3) was she in the wrong to delete them without asking?
4) am I in the wrong to be (still) angry about this?
srtiwari
Daktari
If one is willing to be seen in public, one should be willing to be photographed in a public place. After all, isn't the photograph merely a record of one's public activity ?
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
It seems there is a fair amount of axe grinding going on in this thread, too.Nope. There's much too much axe-grinding potential out in the world. No amount of alteration of the subject line could have helped
Maybe an interesting observation about our collective attitudes towards photography and surveillance in general. Goamules waxes reminiscent about an earlier time when people would 'school' each other if someone went out of line.
Were people so apt to 'school' others about taking candid photographs or were people just more nonchalant about it because their photo couldn't have gotten posted on some blog on the web?
Whatever.