Shooting from the hip = morally questionable?

[Sonnar Brian]

That was a great ad.

In Children's Hospital, in Washington DC- a sign was posted in the public areas that photography was allowed, and use of the public area was consent to have photographs taken.

We were there for months. Last day, Toy's R US finished a large playroom for the Kids, and the publicity photographers were there. Nikki was about to check out, looked great, and was quite happy. They used her photograph for the news event and then used her for the Toy's R Us website. "Click" the face to shop for girls 4~6 or something like that. We thought it was great, I could go to Toy's R Us and tell them "My daughter IS the Toy's R Us Kid".

 

[ruby.monkey]

People who put hip shots of kids on the internet, aren't these worthy of a bash in the head?

Imagine searching the internet and the picture of your young daughter is posted in some photography forum by a middle aged guy? wouldn't that piss the most calm of individuals?

And yes, I'm having in mind a certain set of pictures posted in this very thread.

The 'young daughter' is more likely to be assaulted by her father, mother, stepfather, uncle, brother, teacher, family friend, childminder, or priest, than she is by some random photographer - no matter how much of a pervert you deem him to be. Should we be smashing all her acquaintances over the head too?

 

[dreilly]

People who put hip shots of kids on the internet, aren't these worthy of a bash in the head?

No, they're not. At least, almost all of them are not. There are probably some fora out there that trade in some nasty stuff, but I really don't think they're looking for "street photography".

Imagine searching the internet and the picture of your young daughter is posted in some photography forum by a middle aged guy? wouldn't that piss the most calm of individuals?

No, it wouldn't. I might be upset if it was a better photograph than I can take, but that's my own personal issue.

Again, I ask you to explain in logical terms why this is creepy, wrong, or worthy of anger or even violence. It seems obvious to you, but clearly it's not to many here on the forum.

What harm could a photo posted of my kid in a photography forum by a middle aged dude possibly do?

I'm trying to imagine some danger or harm coming from it. Now, if the person posted an address or when my daughter walks home from school (yes, I guess it gives you a sense of my perception of risk that my 8 year old daughter walks home in this pervasive culture of fear we live in) then perhaps that's a different story. That doesn't happen in a photography forum particularly often...I've never seen it, matter of fact.

 

[TXForester]

If you want to take pictures of people responding to being photographed, then by all means make it obvious that you are taking a photograph of them. You will have a different sort of picture: "people responding to camera".

Street photography involves social trust - are you benign in your intentions taking that photo of me? - why should you feel it may not be "morally legit" to take a photo without interrupting the moment, if your intentions are benign and lawful?

I was going to put in my 2¢, but Lynn says it clearly.

 

[ampguy]

I remember that ad

I remember that ad

In San Jose on 101, northbound, near the Alum Rock exit. Was there in the '60s, '70s, maybe '80s or longer.

Our parents would tell us not to look at it, but of course we did.

Found this on google:

Coppertone Girl
For decades, Coppertone Suntan Lotion used the slogan "Tan, don't burn, with Coppertone," and a picture of a topless pre-adolescent girl whose dog, having seized her swimsuit's bottom in its jaws, pulls it down to expose her buttocks and the contrasting difference between her pale bottom and the rest of her tanned body. Child protective services across the country demanded that the image be retired, claiming that it represented child abuse and child pornography, that it appealed to child molesters and sexual perverts, and that it was, in general, not only "sick" but also "a sad commentary on a society that would profit from pedophilia." The gay community also criticized the image. "Why does it have to be a girl's butt?" Pansy Gay demanded, with a flick of his wrist. "Gay guys' butts are every bit as luminous and lovely." The suntan lotion giant sought to appease its customers by offering two new updates of its mascot, replacing the Copperone Girl with a man, for the gay community, introduced on the cover of a Rolling Stone issue, and a woman, introduced on the cover of an Esquire edition.

Cute kids Brian. This may seem a random thought, but some of the discussion here made me think of the old Coppertone sun tan lotion advertisement. I wonder if that would be considered "creepy" today? Sure, it was a drawing, but the artists used his own daughter for the model. Like I said, just a random thought. I think I'll go take some pics.

 

[TXForester]

People who put hip shots of kids on the internet, aren't these worthy of a bash in the head?

What is the intent of the photographer? A photo of kids behaving in a natural manner (not aware of the camera) in a public place where I can observe them with my eyes?

I open a magazine and there is a article about the value of city parks for recreation. In the article is photo of kids playing in a park. The photo was done from the hip to get an eye level shot of kids (funny how they aren't born full size) and to catch them behaving naturally. Does the hip shot make the photo wrong? Do I even think about it?

How many times do you see unposed images of kids in magazines and other media and wonder about the intent of the photographer/film maker? I'll bet you hardly ever think about it.

 

[retnull]

My personal opinion: yes, it is immoral, and I don't do it. BUT good photos can result from it.

Sometimes "the devil gets all the best lines."

 

[TXForester]

This may seem a random thought, but some of the discussion here made me think of the old Coppertone sun tan lotion advertisement. I wonder if that would be considered "creepy" today?

I remember the advertisement and never found it creepy. There was a time when a very young girls could be found topless on beaches. They were just kids and almost nobody gave it a thought. The the dog tugging at the suit was just a dog doing something natural. Dogs often tug at peoples clothing, especially when playing with people.

I don't think the ad was creepy, but people with hang ups made it so. I'm sure there are people who want to remove all art from museums that depict any level of nudity. While not great art, I'd consider the Coppertone ad art.

 

[lynnb]

If you zoom in on the woman's expression, she looks angry and pissed. Possibly because some stranger is 10 feet away trying to pretend he's not taking a photo while he is.

Ampguy - this was a very quiet beach, very few people around. I was out landscaping and noticed this woman walking towards me from some distance away (about 75 yards) as she came into my field of view - my thought was, "I wish she'd get a move on so I can get some good photos of the water and sky" - which was my motivation for going to this location at this time of day. It's one of my favourite places to take landscapes. But she walked slowly the whole time, just like she is in the photograph, with her arms crossed that way, holding her head that way, with that expression, apparently lost in thought the whole time. I don't know that she registered my presence; if she did, I would guess that it was only that I was another object on her periphery that she was in no danger of walking in to. She didn't look up or make eye contact with me, or with anything else for that matter, the whole time I observed her. She just walked slowly along, looking at the ground just in front of her feet. When she was quite close I thought: "That looks nice - I'll take a photo". I half raised the camera to chest height and took the photo using the presets I had for landscaping, I didn't raise the camera to eye level because I didn't want to disturb the moment.

Her whole manner and expression did not change once before, during and after when I took the photo. Right from the moment I first saw her.

Your comment is a good example of how we bring our own meanings to a photograph. How our sensory inputs are perceived depends on life experiences, current mood, mindset and any emotional baggage that each of us carries around in our mind. These frame our perceptions, unless we make a conscious effort to negate them.

I did not get the feeling that the subject in my photo was either angry or pissed, or that she even noticed my presence. She might have been feeling that way, but to be angry and pissed at the sight of a photographer 75 yards away would be extraordinary. My feeling, brief as this encounter was, was that she was simply lost in thought. People get all sorts of expressions on their faces when that happens. I sometimes look at my wife and think wtf? but then discover she was thinking about the grocery list.

Having brought your own interpretation to her expression, you've then made further assumptions that would validate that interpretation. These are all artefacts of you own perceptions and thoughts; other people will no doubt put their own, entirely different, interpretations on the same photo. Reading responses to a photo often tells us far more about what the viewers are thinking than about what the subject of the photo may have been thinking. We will never know what the subject's thoughts or emotions were. She may well have been deciding whether she had all the ingredients for her favourite chicken recipe that night.

Cheers,

 

[The Meaness]

Lynn, that is a fantastic shot - I meant to comment earlier. But if I'm not mistaken, Ted was commenting on the look of the lady in Chris' photo from post 104.

 

[RedLion]

All Hipshots.

All Hipshots.

The series is titled:

"Adaptation"
The psychological process of adapting to a milieu and its consequence.
​

Joe

 

[kbg32]

"Showing those photos is absolutely not legal in Germany, but when I leave that aside I ask myself if it is morally legit to shoot someone from the hip. If I don't have the guts to raise the camera to the eye to take the photo, wouldn't it be better to just move on?

What do you think?"


Me thinks you think too much.

 

[hteasley]

Again, I ask you to explain in logical terms why this is creepy, wrong, or worthy of anger or even violence. It seems obvious to you, but clearly it's not to many here on the forum.

More generally, I would ask why someone feels justified in equating a personal opinion of creepy with something immoral. Is it immoral to do something that makes someone else uncomfortable? Is society supposed to adhere to the most restrictive comfort level of the citizenry?

 

[xxloverxx]

If I don't have the guts to raise the camera to the eye to take the photo, wouldn't it be better to just move on?

What do you think?

I don't think it matters how you got the photo - the important thing is that you got it.

I've shot from the knee, hip, chest, side, eye and even pointing backwards (that one didn't work too well). I just find it easier to lift the camera to my eye and, if anyone tries to cause trouble, know that I did nothing illegal.

 

[ampguy]

Hi Lynn

Hi Lynn

Thanks for your comments. Yes, I wasn't there, like you were, so I don't know what her behaviors or looks were before or after your shot.

My assumptions are based on the context of this thread, street (or beach) shooting of a stranger keeping your camera hidden, or partially hidden.

It is a good photo, don't get me wrong. If I saw the photo in a different context, say an ad in a magazine, I would think it was an ad for a medicine or something, where they wanted to show a health conscious woman, who was also concerned about something.

But in the context of this thread, I zoomed in on her face, and saw what looks to me, is that someone is out seeking some quiet time, but putting up with the hipster street photographer sneaking a shot walking past her. She can only get so close to the water without getting wet, she doesn't make eye contact to say hi, possibly because she sees your camera lens aimed at her, so she sighs, and lets you get your satisfaction. As she passes you, she relaxes, at least you aren't a serial killer, and are getting further from her with each step she takes. All is good, she is back on her beach walk with no intrusions.

***

Ampguy - this was a very quiet beach, very few people around. I was out landscaping and noticed this woman walking towards me from some distance away (about 75 yards) as she came into my field of view - my thought was, "I wish she'd get a move on so I can get some good photos of the water and sky" - which was my motivation for going to this location at this time of day. It's one of my favourite places to take landscapes. But she walked slowly the whole time, just like she is in the photograph, with her arms crossed that way, holding her head that way, with that expression, apparently lost in thought the whole time. I don't know that she registered my presence; if she did, I would guess that it was only that I was another object on her periphery that she was in no danger of walking in to. She didn't look up or make eye contact with me, or with anything else for that matter, the whole time I observed her. She just walked slowly along, looking at the ground just in front of her feet. When she was quite close I thought: "That looks nice - I'll take a photo". I half raised the camera to chest height and took the photo using the presets I had for landscaping, I didn't raise the camera to eye level because I didn't want to disturb the moment.

Her whole manner and expression did not change once before, during and after when I took the photo. Right from the moment I first saw her.

Your comment is a good example of how we bring our own meanings to a photograph. How our sensory inputs are perceived depends on life experiences, current mood, mindset and any emotional baggage that each of us carries around in our mind. These frame our perceptions, unless we make a conscious effort to negate them.

I did not get the feeling that the subject in my photo was either angry or pissed, or that she even noticed my presence. She might have been feeling that way, but to be angry and pissed at the sight of a photographer 75 yards away would be extraordinary. My feeling, brief as this encounter was, was that she was simply lost in thought. People get all sorts of expressions on their faces when that happens. I sometimes look at my wife and think wtf? but then discover she was thinking about the grocery list.

Having brought your own interpretation to her expression, you've then made further assumptions that would validate that interpretation. These are all artefacts of you own perceptions and thoughts; other people will no doubt put their own, entirely different, interpretations on the same photo. Reading responses to a photo often tells us far more about what the viewers are thinking than about what the subject of the photo may have been thinking. We will never know what the subject's thoughts or emotions were. She may well have been deciding whether she had all the ingredients for her favourite chicken recipe that night.

Cheers,[/QUOTE]

 

[FalseDigital]

I shot these from the hip:


Untitled by Graham Meyer, on Flickr


Untitled by Graham Meyer, on Flickr


Untitled by Graham Meyer, on Flickr


Untitled by Graham Meyer, on Flickr

I think some of these arguments are pretty silly.
Unless you're stalking a person like paparazzi I think it's all fair game.
I shot over 100 strangers in the subway 3 ft away from them with a harinezumi.
I'll be sure to post those when I get a chance to upload them.

 

[user237428934]

you zoom in on the woman's expression, she looks angry and pissed.

Either your perception is way off, or ours. I bet most people here didn't see such an expression in the photo of Lynn.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I remember the advertisement and never found it creepy. There was a time when a very young girls could be found topless on beaches. They were just kids and almost nobody gave it a thought. The the dog tugging at the suit was just a dog doing something natural. Dogs often tug at peoples clothing, especially when playing with people.

I don't think the ad was creepy, but people with hang ups made it so. I'm sure there are people who want to remove all art from museums that depict any level of nudity. While not great art, I'd consider the Coppertone ad art.

Still happens here. At spas, too. I have the impression that it's less common than when I was a small boy in Malta in the 1950s, but I don't really remember. Some very small children (up to three? four? dunno: very bad at judging the age of small kids) even run around in the nude on beaches, but swimsuits are required at spas. No-one gets excited, either way. Nor does anyone worry if you have a camera around your neck at the beach. I daren't swim any more (I get ear infections), and I've always hated sunbathing, so on the rare occasions we go to the beach, I often wander around and take pictures while Frances is swimming.

I find it hard to remember the Coppertone ad without smiling. It was innocent, funny, and a brilliant visual representation of the difference between a tanned area, and untanned. To a small boy it was 'rude' and therefore funny: there's a bit of the child in all of us. I didn't know that it had been the target of such a strange campaign to have it banned, though I can't say I'm surprised.

Increasingly, innocence is sacrificed to the sick actions of one tiny, tiny minority and the equally sick fantasies of a slightly larger minority who want to kill, maim or at least assault the first minority. Another example is 'knife crime'. In the 50s, most kids carried a penknife as soon as their parents thought they were old enough to use one, and not cut themselves too often or too badly. My wife did; I did; all my friends did; and none of us ever stuck a knife into anyone. In the UK now, because a tiny number of inner-city teenagers do in fact stick knives in one another, the more hysterical gutter press supports the idea that anyone of any age who is carrying a knife should immediately be thrown in jail.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Jack Conrad]

These are terrific shots, RedLion...Bravo.
Their spontaneity is refreshing.

The series is titled:

"Adaptation"
The psychological process of adapting to a milieu and its consequence.
​

Joe

 

[Roger Hicks]

These are terrific shots, RedLion...Bravo.
Their spontaneity is refreshing.

Seconded. They're superb pictures, and tied together brilliantly in a sequence by the captions. This is the exact opposite of the sort of conceptual art where as soon as you know the concept, you could do the same thing better yourself. Few if any could do this better.

Cheers,

R.