boffen
Established
You would be wasting the police's time. He hasn't done anything illegal. God forbid the police should stop actual criminals.
Shooting from the hip = morally questionable?
- Thread starter user237428934
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 155
- Views 12K
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
- Local time
- 7:24 PM
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,045
Can you explain in logical terms what exactly is creepy about it?
I admit I "feel" similar to you, at least I would feel uncomfortable taking photographs of someone else's kids (unless as part of a larger crowd), but I can't logically explain why. The nefarious purposes of such a photographer seem pretty far-fetched and generally, unlikely.
I can get emotionally defensive about my own child like every other parent. I do like to analyze my behavior in logical terms, however, hence my question.
I admit I "feel" similar to you, at least I would feel uncomfortable taking photographs of someone else's kids (unless as part of a larger crowd), but I can't logically explain why. The nefarious purposes of such a photographer seem pretty far-fetched and generally, unlikely.
I can get emotionally defensive about my own child like every other parent. I do like to analyze my behavior in logical terms, however, hence my question.
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
- Local time
- 7:24 PM
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,045
Depends on where. I think in Denmark, for example, there are some pretty strict laws about photographing children without parental consent. Any Danes correct me if I'm wrong!
user237428934
User deletion pending
When you look at my 2 photos in the first post then where do you see a reason to call the cops? Even in Germany taking these photos is legal, but showing them on the internet is the critical part and might be problematic (as someone else stated, the term "illegal" is not correct here). So in which part of the world do you live where calling the cops is normal for such a situation?
RanceEric
The name is Rance
The only person in a sour mood on this thread seems to be you. I think you're taking this a little too seriously. Just take a deep breath, count to 10, and relax.. :angel:
The Meaness
Well-known
user237428934
User deletion pending
Every once in a while when street photography is discussed, the combination of street photography, children and perverts comes along. It seems some people want to forbid street photography all together just because 1 out of 1000000 street photographs are done with some "not normal" or evil thoughts in mind.
This is not what I wanted to talk about. My point was if it's morally ok for YOU when YOU use a stealth technique.
This is not what I wanted to talk about. My point was if it's morally ok for YOU when YOU use a stealth technique.
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
- Local time
- 7:24 PM
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,045
One funny observation...I find it harder to defend/recommend the use of long telephoto lenses for the purpose of surreptitious photography. I guess because it's cowardly! Be a man and shoot up close, from the hip! Of course, I'm on Rangefinderforum...who the heck likes to look through framelines smaller than the RF patch? 🙂
Chris101
summicronia
Who of us would claim to be immoral?
user237428934
User deletion pending
Beautiful. That's what I'm looking for and why I want to have a little training in the technique.
I'm not so sure it isn't creepy.
user237428934
User deletion pending
Why? What's so creepy in the example of Lynn with the girl at the beach?
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
- Local time
- 7:24 PM
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,045
Lynn, that photograph is just stunning. The color and texture of the ocean really takes my breath away.
Now, not so seriously: You should have broken that girl's contemplation to ask if it was okay to take the photograph. Then you could have gotten her forcing a smile and maybe making a V sign with her fingers. That would have been cool.
Now, not so seriously: You should have broken that girl's contemplation to ask if it was okay to take the photograph. Then you could have gotten her forcing a smile and maybe making a V sign with her fingers. That would have been cool.
The Meaness
Well-known
I don't understand it, either. I don't like the approach, form factor, or any results I've seen. And certainly if you had bad intentions a long tele would probably be better than using an RF 4m away from someone.
But the reality is that a camera phone, or p&s, or hidden camera would be the better than either option. The likelihood that someone really malicious would use anything that could be noticed seems pretty stupid to me.
So though I don't get it, I don't think the telephoto guys are doing anything inherently different from any other street shooter. No matter how you shake it, you're taking photos of strangers. Isn't saying "I'm brave" skirting the issue by morally justifying our behavior by condemning someone else's (which is pretty much the same in nature)?
I realize yours was a light hearted comment, so sorry if I am pushing it.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
ronnies
Well-known
Roger Hicks
Veteran
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
- Local time
- 7:24 PM
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,045
long telecowardice
long telecowardice
I was mostly being ironic. Telephoto shooting feels wrong to me as a practice, but I can't condemn it morally just like I can't condemn other forms of surreptitious photography. I don't think it works nearly as well as up-close-and-personal hip shooting. So I agree with you, actually, on all the points you made.
Interesting question:
How often is hip-shooting really surreptitious? Given that's it often done at pretty close quarters, I wonder sometimes if people are more aware of the photographer than he/she may think. To take Lynn's example...doesn't appear to be a crowded beach. Was the girl aware of the photographer and camera? It could be. Some of the examples posted here certainly give the viewer the sense that the subject is at least aware of the photographer and camera's presence, if not necessarily the presence of "le click".
Complex stuff!
long telecowardice
I was mostly being ironic. Telephoto shooting feels wrong to me as a practice, but I can't condemn it morally just like I can't condemn other forms of surreptitious photography. I don't think it works nearly as well as up-close-and-personal hip shooting. So I agree with you, actually, on all the points you made.
Interesting question:
How often is hip-shooting really surreptitious? Given that's it often done at pretty close quarters, I wonder sometimes if people are more aware of the photographer than he/she may think. To take Lynn's example...doesn't appear to be a crowded beach. Was the girl aware of the photographer and camera? It could be. Some of the examples posted here certainly give the viewer the sense that the subject is at least aware of the photographer and camera's presence, if not necessarily the presence of "le click".
Complex stuff!
user237428934
User deletion pending
I'm pretty sure that with every hip-shot I did, the person(s) on the photo noticed me and my camera, but not the click. So you don't change the situation just because people know they are being photographed.
I cannot answer for the girl in the photo (she is ultimately the one who is going to feel creeped out). However, it just seems like many people do notice after their photo taken and I seem to get a more positive reaction after the fact when I am just blatant about what I'm doing.
Now, does intent make it creepy or does how the person feels about the photographer make it creepy? I believe it is the latter, whether justified or not.
Last edited:
Similar threads
