"Shooting in public toilet" thread missing?

[ywenz]

Does this get me banned???

Ash this picture okay. However, the OP of the deleted thread wanted advice on taking pictures of unsuspecting people at a line up of urinals. That is truly sick and selfish.

ywenz if I remember correctly, yours was the first 'troll'-like post on that thread, about how you would like to see the OP (Jon) forcefull retained until the police arrived was it?

It seems again people missed the fact that the OP was asking how to go about such a photograph 'properly' and was prompted to ask the owners of the building. It was also stated the image would be of a person posing, not a stranger.

Nothing trollish about my post. Sorry if you had to take it that way. The OP wanted advice on taking pictures of "OTHER" people at a public restroom. There is no proper way taking such photo for a project of personal nature.

"I have a water theme idea so I want to take pictures of other people pissing into urinals. They'll be real eager to go at a bus station so I think that is the best place for me to do so" - How sick does that sound? Real sick to me.

 

[Ash]

What was the point of this photo? I don't care how much artistic value you or your fans see in this photo, I wouldn't like to be one of the people in that photo.

Of course, it's not like Koudelka ever held artistic merit either?



Ywenz, I believe my photo is just another angle of what the OP wanted. One person posing.

 

[Taqi]

Ash this picture okay. However, the OP of the deleted thread wanted advice on taking pictures of unsuspecting people at a line up of urinals. That is truly sick and selfish.

Well I'm not sure, I mean if there were clearly distinguishing, ahem, features then maybe (maybe not), but a bunch of blokes with their backs to you, hardly. It still might be a risky thing to do, but not really immoral.

 

[pmu]

What was the point of this photo? I don't care how much artistic value you or your fans see in this photo, I wouldn't like to be one of the people in that photo.

Point of this photo: none, I don't know why I took it and wouldn't shoot in public toilets without permissions anymore. That is an old photo from my archives. But still I don't find that offensive in anyway. Yes, shooting situation was weird but the actual image...no, IMO. There are lots and lots of "street" images that are much more offensive than this one. Again IMO.

But,

like I said in that deleted thread;

If I was going to shoot in public toilet I would

1. ask permissions beforehand from the owner of the
building or someone who takes care of the building (sorry I don't know the correct english term).

2. I would use friends in those pictures - NOT just
random people.

3. NOT HIDE MY CAMERA! It should be clear to EVERYONE in that particular toilet
that I have a permission to shoot there and authorized
to be there doing my job - be it a job assignment or
personal project.

Without 1,2 and 3 I wouldn't shoot at all.


Peace, love and poptarts!

 

[ywenz]

pmu: I fully agree with your above post!

 

[Keith]

This a bit of a storm in a pee cup ... sorry ... tea cup. I have only just got up to see this thread. I saw the original last night and didn't think it was out of the ordinary and Mr Gandy's response was much more confronting to me than the content of the afore said thread. This determination he seems to have to sterilize this forum concerns me somewhat ... but I guess he really only represents a small percentage of people who feel that 'pee pee' is a problem area for them!

After all such wowserism will eventually save us all from damnation ............. wont it?

 

[PRJ]

Why is a moderator interjecting their personal opinion or morals on the rest of us? If you don't like the thread, don't read it! I pay to be a supporter of this forum; I don't pay to have it censored no matter what. Even if you disagree with my opinion, are argumentative, anything short of name calling and trolling I am fine with. I am not fine with this.

Beautiful picture Ash. I think it makes the point. I had a female friend that did an art project once in women's bathrooms that was quite interesting, but I guess not interesting for RFF. I am curious what will be deleted next?

Patrick

 

[Ash]

Patrick the first photo was my own. The second is by one of the greats - KOUDELKA.


Was Jon banned?

 

[Silva Lining]

I'll agree that the subject isn't one to be considered conventional, but there is no explicit reason as to brand it perverse or sicko. (unless you were a guy intentionally sneaking into a girl's lavatory with a camera...then I would feel full justification in name calling)

Indeed, if you saw my original response I said that such a photographer would need to either be able to defend themselves or run very fast, or both. I would not take kindly to having my photograph taken whilst 'pointing percy at the porcelain'. Whilst I am lover not a fighter ( ) many members of the public would respond with a knuckle sandwich!

 

[John Camp]

Wait a minute. This isn't censorship. Censorship is when a government tells you that you can't publish something, and threatens to punish you if you do.

Gandy isn't forcing you to stop taking pictures, or even to stop taking pictures in a public toilet, or even to stop publishing pictures taken in a public toilet. He's just said that HE won't be the publisher of such pictures, as is his privelege as the owner of this forum. If you took those photos to your local newspaper, and the editors declined to publish them, they wouldn't be guilty of censorship, they'd just be declining to publish your pictures, as is their right; they don't even owe you an explanation, of any kind, because a newspaper is a private business.

Gandy has exactly the same right to decline to publish them. We might like to pretend otherwise, but this forum is a private business, and has some legal responsibilities and liabilities. If some teen-ager takes an up-skirt shot or a privacy violating toilet photo, and his total assets amount to a skateboard and a P&S camera with a scratched lens, who do you think will get sued?

Do you really think you have the right to force somebody to publish your stuff? Would you have the right to take photos in a public toilet, print them, and post them, say, in the local McDonalds, without the McDonalds owner having the right to object? Hang them up in the local grade school? Would you even have the right to do that with simple, inoffensive landscapes? Of course not. But you can post anything you want in your business, or on your website. And take the full responsibility for it.

Some people may find some merit in your photos; I don't. Some people might publish them; I wouldn't. That's not censorship, it's called an expression of a personal taste, and perhaps some concern about a violation of somebody else's privacy, and maybe even a concern about legal aspects. I really don't think we need these photos; and if I'd been the moderator, I would have banned them, too.

JC

 

[Ash]

go to google and type " DEFINE: CENSORSHIP "

[SIZE=-1]The practice of suppressing a text or part of a text that is considered objectionable according to certain standards.[/SIZE]


That's what happened.

 

[RML]

I'd be surprised to see Jon banned, really. I doubt anything like that happened. Let's not jump to conclusions here.

 

[Keith]

Deleting that thread was 100% appropriate. Anyone who would question that deletion severely needs to rethink their perception of RFF and even their own nature.

Every now and then, a thread is placed on the board that immediately screams "spam" or "troll". That was one. There have been an increasing number of these threads lately. Not generally posted by known RFFers, but rather by "new members" - most likely computers or trolls.

I applaud the deletion for numerous reasons.

If he felt that deleting that thread was apropriate then so be it ... it's his forum after all. What worried me was the rethoric in his justification for that action on this thread.

Sounded like a one man lynch mob to me!

 

[Michiel]

I'll go rethink my own nature, so I'm in the other room if you need me.

Should I be called a sicko as well for not thinking the thread was anything special?

 

[pmu]

Deleting that thread was 100% appropriate. Anyone who would question that deletion severely needs to rethink their perception of RFF and even their own nature.

Every now and then, a thread is placed on the board that immediately screams "spam" or "troll". That was one. There have been an increasing number of these threads lately. Not generally posted by known RFFers, but rather by "new members" - most likely computers or trolls.

I applaud the deletion for numerous reasons.

Yes, let's focus on cameras -- not photography and views on photographing "different and difficult subjects". Like the forum's name says, this is a camera forum, not photography forum.

I apologize for starting this thread.

 

[Bryce]

Well I guess if I ever get enough material for my "toilet humor" project together, I'll know where not to post it.
The series is of empty mens rooms and attendant graffiti... Inteded to suggest something about human nature, the need to mark one's territory.

 

[Nick R.]

. . .

Every now and then, a thread is placed on the board that immediately screams "spam" or "troll". That was one. There have been an increasing number of these threads lately. Not generally posted by known RFFers, but rather by "new members" - most likely computers or trolls.

. . .

No, it wasn't. It was an honest question by a longtime member.

But, please. Let's have some more bag posts and get back to normal.

 

[Ash]

I wanted to know about the latest M8 firmware.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Does this get me banned???

Apparently, Robert Doisneau would get banned (and arrested in England!) too:

 

[iml]

I didn't see the thread that followed, but I did read Jon's original post. It was entirely reasonable, and I can't think of any reason for censuring him *at all* for writing it.

Ian