Saw the shot and...did nothing

Male photographers, especially middle-aged ones, regularly display incredibly aggressive behaviour around my blond-haired, blue-eyed, white-skinned daughter. They will often come and set up a tripod right in front of her while she is playing on the beach, without talking to her at all.

The photography itself doesn't bother me. What bothers me are the assumptions about social relations that go into that moment. There is a kind of assumption about immunity and the impossibility of communication. Gender, race, and language all figure into it in very complex ways that I won't bother to go into here. And since some of the photographers probably profit from the photos, we might as well recognize that money is involved, too.

To my mind, the quality of social relations--especially with strangers--always takes precedence over the idea of a photograph as something to take away or capture.

All of this gets very complicated, and interesting, when we remember that only 100 or more years ago, it was very common for imperial nations with colonial possessions to put on huge "universal exhibitions" that would feature extensive displays of "natives" in the form of an anthropological freak show.
 
Journeyman said:
What would you say, pray tell, if someone asked if they could photograph your wife's or daughter's legs?
Click to expand...

I'll agree that it is creepy if someone were to ask that. But we weren't talking about that.

I think in general you (and others) may be jumping to the conclusion that candid photography in public serves a lurid purpose. The wonderful galleries on this board without exception suggest otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Journeyman said:
Would you like a stranger to take the same photo of your wife or daughter?
Click to expand...

Probably not. And, I do not think my wife, two daughters, daughter-in-law, or any of the five female grandchildren (all teenagers) would have a big problem with it either. It is not a matter of being liberal but one of being self confident.
 
noimmunity said:
Male photographers, especially middle-aged ones, regularly display incredibly aggressive behaviour around my blond-haired, blue-eyed, white-skinned daughter. They will often come and set up a tripod right in front of her while she is playing on the beach, without talking to her at all.
Click to expand...

I can understand this, as I have 6 y.o. daughter. In that case I'd ask - mister, yes, mister with camera, are taking picture of my daughter?

Photography is about communication. Visually and this case, also verbally. If man with camera would answer reasonably and explain motifs for taking picture, most probably I wouldn't mind at all.

If he would be one of those with etch in finger, snapping strangers without any idea and unable to express at least some empathy to people he takes pictures of, then I'd go to amuse him - maybe by offering him to pay for photo opportunity (unreasonably high price - not to get money, just to fear him away). Maybe I'd jump into frame and gimmick in front of lens -again, to see what kind of shooter he is. I'd be open to discussion, though.

I've had people in front of camera reacting to camera in my hands and this is perfect moment for feedback. Ideal moment to establish connection. Or raise camera and leave.

If one can't communicate, he probably doesn't deserves having picture. In this case he has to snap from hip walking by. If one sets up tripod in front of my kid, he must have damn good reason to do so, and not to be afraid tell it.
 
Last edited:
Well, in the US people in public spaces have no legal expectation of privacy.

In NY State, for instance, privacy is legally defined a place where person would undress and reasonably expect no one would see them.

With the exception of up-skirt photography and other obvious invasions of personal space, if you or your kids are in public, and the photographer is in public, you, and they have no expectation of privacy and photography is perfectly legal.

It is also ethical because when a person (or a parent) decides to be in a public space, or be visible from a public space, they legally give anyone else in a public space the right to photograph them (whether they realize it or not). If you are standing on your front lawn. I can stand in the middle of the street and photograph you. But I can not raise my camera over your tall backyard fence and photograph you as you choose not to be visible from a public space.

You (we, me, us, our children) have no privacy when we are in public.

Photographing the Mom's legs is legal and ethically valid. If she didn't want anyone to see her legs, she would cover them. Would I mind or not if it was my wife/daughter? Well if I actually minded then I would insist they wear cloths that cover their legs in public spaces. It turns out that some religions actually forbid women to display bare legs in public. That option is available. Use it if you would mind.

Photographing children is exactly the same situation. Beat me up for exercising my rights as a US citizen and I will press charges and sue. And I will win the case.

If the above upsets you, then work to get the law changed. Otherwise, get over it or stay out of public spaces.
 
Male photographers, especially middle-aged ones, regularly display incredibly aggressive behaviour around my blond-haired, blue-eyed, white-skinned daughter. They will often come and set up a tripod right in front of her while she is playing on the beach, without talking to her at all.
Click to expand...

In the UK at the moment there is so much paranoia about paedophilia this would pretty much be guaranteed to get you arrested or if you were unlucky beaten up. Sometimes even taking pictures of your own children has caused problems:

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1028189_no_photos_of_your_baby_

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vert--photographing-children-public-park.html

Anyway, back on topic there's nothing wildly wrong about taking a picture of a stranger's legs but I just wouldn't feel comfortable doing that personally.

And this blog (which is really excellent, thanks for introducing me to it) I think shows that some moments can be captured just as well or better with other means:

http://www.unphotographable.com/
 
Last edited:
Journeyman said:
BTW, even in the U.S. we do not have an absolute right to photograph other people in public. There are all sorts of legal restrictions. If the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy you can't take their picture. If the subject is on a military base, within a court building or at a nuclear power plant you can't take their picture. The list goes on...

Public places may also be private property, so photography can be restricted or even banned within them.
Click to expand...

I'll remember not to photograph anyone's legs or children on military bases or in nuclear power plants when I'm standing on public property. The same goes for tunnels and other infrastructure related to public transportation. Of course I won't obstruct an officer of the law (usually going inside the yellow tape).

Public spaces (unrestricted access) on private property are exactly the same as any other public space until the property owner (or their legal representative) tells you to stop. The subjects have nothing to say in the matter if the property owner doesn't care. After all, we are constantly photographed by security cameras when we're on private property (even children).

If you don't stop photographing, all the property owner can do is insist you leave. They can't (legally) touch you, detain you, or take your equipment. If they do, you can file charges and sue. If you refuse to leave, they can (and will) have you arrested for trespassing by the law enforcement officers (not private security guards). They can have you arrested if and when you return.
 
There's so many images I'd like to make, that I don't. The only comfort is that the world is full of oportunities, of history, character and sights to behold. Whenever a chance is lost, a new one presents itself. I only regret I am not braver..

On the other hand, who want to get into a possible confrontation when you're in your "happy place", the image making process? I sometimes envy the old masters such as Cartier-Bresson that worked before the paranoia seized the world. On the other hand, that was a another time and place, the world has changed and mass hysteria seems to have settled for good. We only reap the fruits of the very societies man himself, in his infinite wisdom, created.

/Mac
 
In my opinion, you should have grabbed the shot. If in retrospect you decided that it was in poor taste or "creepy" or voyeuristic or whatever, you could simply have destroyed it.
But not having taken it, you don't have those options and the shot is gone forever.
 
How is knowing and exercising one's constitutional rights to self expression futile?

I don't understand what you're saying.

Would you you stop someone who is not breaking the law based on your personal ethical worldview? Do you think people who exercise their right of self-expression within the law are misusing those rights to hide evil behavior?

What exactly aren't you interested in and why aren't you interested?
 
That happens almost on a daily basis for me... and i'm pretty sure my best pics are all the ones i didn't have the guts to take. Damn :(
 
Journeyman said:
One lesson I've taken from studying the work and work ethics of master photographers is to respect my subject...
Click to expand...

I think that is the heart of the matter. Anytime I walk away from a shot it is because I'm not clear on my own motives in taking it.

If I have reason to suspect that the subject might feel hurt or ridiculed by how I'm portraying them then I don't shoot. If I am certain that no hurt is intended then I'm not worried about how they feel about it.

Of course there were some master photographers who didn't give a hoot one way or the other, about how their subjects might feel - Weegee comes to mind.
 
A few times. Usually it's a shot that would require serious elbow and/or head butting to get it so I choose not to. I tend not to worry to much about those - to me they are like what Mr. Winogrand is alleged to have said - no photo's happen while I'm changing film.

Karma people, karma...

William
 
It's the shyness and reticence to intrude on others, mainly, for me. So rather than approach and interact I wimp out and pass on by, missing a photo possibility. Landscapes don't look you in the eye... but it's a major frustration that you can't/shouldn't stop on the freeway for a good landscape opportunity.
 
Daneinbalto said:
Last Saturday I was at the playground with my kids, carrying my camera. It was a pleasantly warm, bright day. At one point I notice a mother sitting on the edge of the sandbox sunning her nice legs. Hmm, I think, those legs would make a great shot. But I'm not really in the habit of taking pics of the lower extremities of strangers. Then I notice that my 4 year-old son is playing with construction toys with her daughter. Hmm, I could move over and stand next to the mother so her legs would enter the frame from the bottom right corner. The children would be in the center. Wouldn't that be a great shot? For reasons that are not entirely clear to me (maybe something about, would the woman realize I was taking a picture of her legs, or what would my wife think), I never get around to taking the picture. After a few minutes, it's too late.

Now I'm kicking myself for not having the wherewithal to getting that shot. I don't have many shots that are about more than a single subject matter, but this picture would have a complex subject/ground relationship. It could tell the story of how the children are still into playing with their construction toys but a day will come when they look at the world differently. As the picture looks in my imagination, it is the favorite shot I haven't done.

Did you ever see a great shot while you were carrying your camera and not do anything about it? Any regrets? How do you handle those regrets?
Click to expand...

Taking pictures I've found are very similar to asking a girl out for coffee. You could either let her walk away and never see her again, or approach from a position of caution and curiosity.

You've got the right mindset, you'll do fabulously in the future I'm sure.
 
willie_901 said:
Photographing the Mom's legs is legal and ethically valid. If she didn't want anyone to see her legs, she would cover them. Would I mind or not if it was my wife/daughter? Well if I actually minded then I would insist they wear cloths that cover their legs in public spaces. It turns out that some religions actually forbid women to display bare legs in public. That option is available. Use it if you would mind.

Photographing children is exactly the same situation. Beat me up for exercising my rights as a US citizen and I will press charges and sue. And I will win the case.

If the above upsets you, then work to get the law changed. Otherwise, get over it or stay out of public spaces.
Click to expand...


It takes heart, empathy, and humanity to be a great photographer. If someone is dying in public is it right, ethical, and humane to stick a camera in their face because they're dying in public where photog is "legal?"
 
Last edited:
i missed a lot of great moments because of hesitation and shyness.. and the fact that i have to get my camera out of my bag.. but there are times that i think to myself, "to hell with it" and take the shot.. and when confronted, i just simply say i am a photography student.. and taking that picture is part of my assignment.. im 23.. i always get out of trouble.. hehe.. but it doesnt always work.. there was one time, a guard asked me to take the film out the camera and give it to him.. of course i said no.. given the knowledge of civil laws here in the philippines, he cant do anything.. lol.. i walked out with my film..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom