Just because you can, doesn't mean you should

[Michael Markey]

Yes. In fact, it's wrong to even look at other people's private property. That's why I now always apply black gaffer's tape over my eyes whenever I go out into the world of private property,
in order to mitigate the risk of developing an impression which
might be construed as theft. 🙄

I`m going to adopt a similar policy ...you can never be too careful 🙂

In fact I`m going to stay inside from now on in case somebody may offended by something I do ... or fail to do.

 

[Jamie123]

Would be nice to see some members think of this before posting yet another scarcely dressed woman grab shot to the Gallery. Or worse, the backs of scarcely dressed women. No artistic value whatsoever, just the modern day equivalent of collecting baseball cards it seems...

I don't look at pictures in the gallery section but it seems a bit problematic to make such allegations based on what you personally perceive to be of artistic value.

 

[redisburning]

Seems to be more and more of this in the US as the news makes everyone paranoid. Do pedaphiles openly photograph at playgrounds often?

I doubt it.

frankly in some places I doubt very many dads take pictures openly.

I think England, for example, is obsessed with pedophiles (and chavs) because they came to realize that in their tiny island country the only thing to fear was themselves.

I have always liked street photography and when I still lived in Boston I did a little bit of it, but looking back I can safely say that I never stuck my camera in someone's face but it's because that's not my style of shooting. If it was, I would have. You know, you do what you feel is acceptable and then you pay the price. Even if you did nothing wrong, you often still pay something.

 

[sojournerphoto]

I think England, for example, is obsessed with pedophiles (and chavs) because they came to realize that in their tiny island country the only thing to fear was themselves.

Well thank you young man😉

 

[johannielscom]

I don't look at pictures in the gallery section but it seems a bit problematic to make such allegations based on what you personally perceive to be of artistic value.

Well here's a thought: Maybe you should have a look in the Gallery, and see if we agree! 😉

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

In fact I`m going to stay inside from now on in case somebody may offended by something I do ... or fail to do.

I agree. However, I will take it one step further and chain myself to the wall, in case that dangerous desire to go outside should sneak over me... 😉

 

[Roger Hicks]

I agree. However, I will take it one step further and chain myself to the wall, in case that dangerous desire to go outside should sneak over me... 😉

Wouldn't suicide suit the Silent Majority better?

Except that, to borrow from Paul Sinha, they are neither silent nor a majority.

Cheers,

R.

 

[redisburning]

Well thank you young man😉

I mean I'm sorry that your country is so nice that you have relatively few outside threats to worry about.

Must be nice 🙁

 

[sojournerphoto]

I mean I'm sorry that your country is so nice that you have relatively few outside threats to worry about.

Must be nice 🙁

Yes, I did think that too. I didn't take any offence and you are right of course - if we had to deal with real and present danger on a daily basis then we would be far less concerned about many other problems.

We are very blessed in comparison to so many places around the world and it's funny how many people are still dissatisfied.

 

[Cameron]

This is a very general sort of topic. I think that because I can, I should. Obviously discretion comes into place in different situations. There will always be times where you shouldn't take a photo, and it'll be easy to sense. If I see a good photo, I'm going to take it. Different strokes for different folks, but I choose not to cower from the consequences of photography.

 

[Roger Hicks]

This is a very general sort of topic. I think that because I can, I should. Obviously discretion comes into place in different situations. There will always be times where you shouldn't take a photo, and it'll be easy to sense. If I see a good photo, I'm going to take it. Different strokes for different folks, but I choose not to cower from the consequences of photography.

Beautifully phrased!

Thanks,

R.

 

[ruby.monkey]

I had a White Knight(TM) stick a sandwich in my face this evening, for exercising my GRD4. Boring photos (alcohol is ever a lousy Muse) but - hey! free sandwich! 🙂

 

[sjones]

I impose my own set of limits regarding candids: no children, no one sleeping, no apparent homeless, and so on. I do not project these 'rules' on anyone else.

Basically, I take a Golden Rule approach, asking myself whether I would be offended if I was the one being photographed. And to note, in Tokyo, I caught at least two guys taking shots of me; didn't care one bit. (I realize that what I accept is not universally applicable and thus not foolproof, but overall, I try to be discreet and respectful).

But never mind my photography, many of my favorite photographers, or at least their work, would ceased to exists if prohibited from candid photography.

Moreover, I don't think a photographic history of humanity would benefit us much if, outside of photojournalism, the only shots of people experiencing everyday life (as opposed to newsworthy) were posed photos.

It's a personal interest, so casually switching to another subject of disinterest is not an option.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . Basically, I take a Golden Rule approach, asking myself whether I would be offended if I was the one being photographed. And to note, in Tokyo, I caught at least two guys taking shots of me; didn't care one bit. (I realize that what I accept is not universally applicable and thus not foolproof, but overall, I try to be discreet and respectful).. . .

YES! And try to smile when you're on the receiving end. Even if ruefully.

Personally, I don't recall ever being offended by being photographed.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Skulls Road]

Would be nice to see some members think of this before posting yet another scarcely dressed woman grab shot to the Gallery. Or worse, the backs of scarcely dressed women. No artistic value whatsoever, just the modern day equivalent of collecting baseball cards it seems...

There are pictures of scarcely dressed women in the gallery???

Be right back, off to browse the gallery....

 

[ferider]

For a street portrait, I always ask. Engaging the subject is a good thing; that's also true for scarcely dressed woman - in particular when I get a smile 🙂

 

[lukitas]

Isn't photography all about voyeurism? About taking home what you see?
Courtesy and discretion is all very nice, but if you are a photographer, what you do is making photographs. Sometimes courtesy and discretion are misplaced. Sometimes the whole point of the photograph is that it is discourteous, that it is indiscreet. Should HCB have just put away his camera when he saw the kid with the wine bottles? Should the soldiers who liberated the concentration camps have refrained from documenting what they saw? How about war photography? Was it wrong for Eugene Smith to shoot a mother in the bath with her deformed child? Is it unseemly to photograph fat people, or weird people? Should Diane Arbus be censored?

I don't have all that much experience at candid photography, but I think a smile, a nod and maybe a thank you should suffice, after you have taken the shot. And if you snap something funny, the people in the shot may be embarrassed, but that doesn't really count. A good joke about the pope and the president is a good joke, wether they are embarrassed or not.

What strikes me is that those who call for discretion and courtesy must have had a polite upbringing, whereas those who react badly to photographers usually have no manners to speak of (at least from what I can glean of discussions of this topic, and my meagre experience). If someone has bad manners, doesn't he deserve to be exposed in a photograph?

Restricting oneself from taking candids of children, sleepers or homeless people is just wrong. Homelessness is rising at such a fast rate, it is high time somebody did some serious documenting on this social phenomenon. I have a friend who is building a gigantic project called 'Sleepers on the train. Fascinating work. Sleepers may be funny, but they are always innocent. And what is so wrong about photographing children? Over-protective parents? Children are just great subjects : lively, unpredictable, and mostly a lot of fun.

What is wrong with us, that we should want to restrict ourselves in these silly ways. Next it'll be wrong to photograph clouds, for fear of offending the owner of a satellite that was overhead at that time.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Here is how politically correct candid should looks now.

 

[edge100]

What does "someplace prominent" mean? For commercial use, you should have some say and pay.

Commercial use is a totally different kettle of fish.

And by commercial use, I mean 'using the photograph to sell a product or service', rather than 'selling the photograph - as a piece of art - for money'.

My take:

I shoot what I want. I'm not an 'in-your-face' Gilden-esque (or Eric Kim-esque, depending on who you talk to) street photographer, though. If someone asks me if I took a photograph of them, I tell the truth. If they ask me to delete the photograph, I say "I shoot film, but I will destroy the negative once I have developed the film." I also carry cards with some sample photographs and my web site address, to demonstrate that I am a street photographer. This approach generally resolves any conflict. In the rare instance that it doesn't, I also wear excellent running shoes...

 

[Cameron]

Isn't photography all about voyeurism? About taking home what you see?
Courtesy and discretion is all very nice, but if you are a photographer, what you do is making photographs. Sometimes courtesy and discretion are misplaced. Sometimes the whole point of the photograph is that it is discourteous, that it is indiscreet. Should HCB have just put away his camera when he saw the kid with the wine bottles? Should the soldiers who liberated the concentration camps have refrained from documenting what they saw? How about war photography? Was it wrong for Eugene Smith to shoot a mother in the bath with her deformed child? Is it unseemly to photograph fat people, or weird people? Should Diane Arbus be censored?

I don't have all that much experience at candid photography, but I think a smile, a nod and maybe a thank you should suffice, after you have taken the shot. And if you snap something funny, the people in the shot may be embarrassed, but that doesn't really count. A good joke about the pope and the president is a good joke, wether they are embarrassed or not.

What strikes me is that those who call for discretion and courtesy must have had a polite upbringing, whereas those who react badly to photographers usually have no manners to speak of (at least from what I can glean of discussions of this topic, and my meagre experience). If someone has bad manners, doesn't he deserve to be exposed in a photograph?

Restricting oneself from taking candids of children, sleepers or homeless people is just wrong. Homelessness is rising at such a fast rate, it is high time somebody did some serious documenting on this social phenomenon. I have a friend who is building a gigantic project called 'Sleepers on the train. Fascinating work. Sleepers may be funny, but they are always innocent. And what is so wrong about photographing children? Over-protective parents? Children are just great subjects : lively, unpredictable, and mostly a lot of fun.

What is wrong with us, that we should want to restrict ourselves in these silly ways. Next it'll be wrong to photograph clouds, for fear of offending the owner of a satellite that was overhead at that time.

Completely agree, fantastic way to look at it.