What/where you shouldn't photograph

[Bob Michaels]

you know bob, i can usually tell whether or not the photographer knows the subjects name when looking at a photograph. i like photographs where it seems the photographer knew the persons name.

I personally believe names are very important as they humanize people. Otherwise subjects, especially street people, tend to be viewed as ambiguous or generic rather than the real individuals they are.

 

[robklurfield]

"Sir, I'm with Security. You can't photograph in the store." A Saks Fifth Avenue store at a mall in NJ.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/37531245@N08/4020346145/

My said, "perhaps they're afraid you're going to steal ideas about their mannequins." Clearly an issue of national security import. Anyway, on the way to the parking garage, I snapped a few more shots on another floor in the store, only to be reminded by a sales associate, "this is against store policy."

http://www.flickr.com/photos/37531245@N08/4021105722/

My wife, who had been exchanging a gift, then had to go to another mall to return something else. Always the dutiful husband, I tagged along. Here, no problems. Shot at a kiosk that provides "eyebrow threading." Apparently, photographing plastic people is uncool, but shooting real, live people having personal care services done is okay. It is a strange planet you inhabit with customs that are unfamiliar to me.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/37531245@N08/4021106816/

 

[Pherdinand]

The bigger question is, Rob,- why would you do that?

 

[robklurfield]

If you mean, why would I take the pictures, the answer is because the subjects were there. Can't help myself sometimes.

If you mean, why would someone get their eyebrows threaded, I can't answer that because I sure wouldn't get mine done.

The thing that surprised me is not these ladies were getting this done, but that they were getting it done in a big open area of a public mall where everyone can stop and stare. I thought this kind of thing would usually be done in the privacy of a salon-type place. Anyway, if people do unusual things in public space and I'm carrying a camera, why not? I guess the answer must be that it's cheaper at a kiosk than at a typical beauty place.

The bigger question is, Rob,- why would you do that?

 

[crawdiddy]

Cat's and homeless people are about all I shoot. You can never get enough kitty porn:


Honestly I try to follow my understanding of Eggleston's philosophy of democratic photography: Everything interesting deserves one shot and only one shot.

And interracial to-boot. I hope Louisiana Justices of the Peace don't see this!😱

 

[emraphoto]

Under no circumstances should anyone say anything ever that's anywhere near as stupid as that.

why? i mean he wasn't writing an amendment to the constitution. i would presume he was expressing what he thought photography was to him. within that context it is brutally honest statement and admirable really.

if pressed into providing my own views i would probably echo the sentiments.

 

[Trius]

I feel badly for having caused him upset.

Don't bother feeling badly. His reaction is his "stuff" ... it is based not only on the fear/paranoia discussed, but also on ignorance of his "rights", plus perhaps a life full of him feeding his anger rather than compassion and understanding.

 

[quiscapi]

I try to read all these books you once read before and of course this time I promise myself not to disappear and read these lovely books by you, thank you.

 

[FallisPhoto]

why? i mean he wasn't writing an amendment to the constitution. i would presume he was expressing what he thought photography was to him. within that context it is brutally honest statement and admirable really.

if pressed into providing my own views i would probably echo the sentiments.

Because he's passing a value judgement on a lot of photographers who are a quantum leap more skilled than he is and who have chosen to photograph the very things he condemns. According to his "rules," photographers like Edward Weston, Joyce Tenneson, , Jerry Uelsmann, Wegman, Man Ray, Ansel Adams and etcetera are/were not doing photography and are somehow inferior to him -- and this is just because of the subjects they choose to shoot. Personally, I think the subjects he mentioned are among the very most challenging subjects there are to photograph well.

 

[lawrence]

and this is just because of the subjects they choose to shoot.

Photographs do tend to be 'about' their subjects. Personally if I see another tide-pool, shot with all due reverence and zone system fetishism, I will probably throw up in it. Adams was dismissive of Evans so in my book he was allowed to have a dig at him...

 

[splapinviv]

Years ago I had a colleague at work who moved almost every year, and was on a mission to shed his possessions. He would scan all his correspondence etc. and toss the paper originals. (I do hope he used quality storage media.)

 

[lawrence]

Years ago I had a colleague at work who moved almost every year, and was on a mission to shed his possessions. He would scan all his correspondence etc. and toss the paper originals. (I do hope he used quality storage media.)

I think that's a laudable idea but its relationship to this thread is a bit too subtle for me. Please can you explain?

 

[morback]

Growing a pair will not do it. But if you have real empathy and a sincere interest in the people and their culture, it flows naturally.

I think that's key. Genuine interest, not shock value or fame shot.

If you have a genuine interest in your subject you will have no problems explaining yourself (should you need to). If you can't explain yourself, then maybe you shouldn't have taken the shot in the first place. Your heart was not in it.

 

[ruby.monkey]

I think that's a laudable idea but its relationship to this thread is a bit too subtle for me. Please can you explain?

It's spam. I suspect that if you look at his profile, you'll find a link to a commercial website. I doubt he even knows what this thread is about.

 

[FallisPhoto]

Photographs do tend to be 'about' their subjects. Personally if I see another tide-pool, shot with all due reverence and zone system fetishism, I will probably throw up in it. Adams was dismissive of Evans so in my book he was allowed to have a dig at him...

Well, you know what they say about opinions and assholes.

Some people like taking photos of tidal pools. I'm not going to dismiss them as non-photographers just because I might happen not to like their subjects (personally, I'm kind of ambivalent about it). Now I might come up with a whole different list of subjects I don't like (I'd agree with him about cats). Would my list be valid? If I'm smarter than he is, would my list be more valid? I think my list would be just as good as his. I can probably find an even more intelligent person who doesn't like landscapes. I can probably find another guy, also pretty intelligent, who doesn't like street photography. My guys are even more intelligent than your guy. Does that mean anyone who does these things is not a photographer? No it does not. Period. And my guys are smart enough not to say anything as ridiculous as that.

 

[lawrence]

It's spam. I suspect that if you look at his profile, you'll find a link to a commercial website. I doubt he even knows what this thread is about.

Thanks -- it seemed a bit off the wall.

 

[lawrence]

Some people like taking photos of tidal pools. I'm not going to dismiss them as non-photographers just because I might happen not to like their subjects (personally, I'm kind of ambivalent about it).

I wouldn't dismiss anyone as a non-photographer, including people who've only ever taken pictures with their mobile phones. Fact is that the term photographer is practically meaningless, which I suppose is why some people refer to themselves as art photographers although that is another can of worms.

 

[robklurfield]

Shot late this afternoon on a public road running through the grounds of the Greystone Park State Psychiatric Hospital, Morris County, New Jersey.

I happened to be dressed in a suit and tie, passing through the park on my way home from a business meeting, when I decided to grab a picture of this fallen tree. Knowing the reputation of the local constabulary for not appreciating (and, understand why) trespassing on the grounds of this partially-abandoned "lunatic asylum", I was careful to avoid stepping onto the property. Nevertheless, the police managed to approach me in an SUV and insist that it is "against the law to take pictures" of buildings. I explained that the absence of any "no trespassing" signs had mistakenly led me to believe that I was still on a public road (I was), They disagreed, so I left quietly. They said "this is state property." Given that I was parked on a public road, I was surprised at their reaction, although, in their defense, the entire area is very popular with many youthful trespassers, vandals and the like. The statement that this "is state property" is ironic given that I pay loads of state taxes and therefore, theoretically at least, I am a shareholder in the propery.

 

[robklurfield]

another image from a different location at the same site.

 

[robklurfield]

Before he was diagnosed with Huntington's Corea, Woody Guthrie was a resident at Greystone, the illness having made his behavior sufficiently erratic that some folks thought he was crazy. It was here that Bob Dylan visited Woody.