Your Dumb iPad Picture Taking Is Keeping Real Photographers From Doing Their Jobs

[NickTrop]

Shooting with a tablet at an event is just rude. Societal tech-manners are evolving, and hopefully people will just use common sense. I get tablets though. If I had my druthers (and as a married with kids guy, I don't), I'd ditch cable and the TV, spring for a 10" Android tab and a nice set of headphones - get me some arcade style game apps like Zen Pinball, card apps, checkers, chess, music, Pandora, Kindle app, Youtube, and Netflix and that would be it - what more do you need as far as digital entertainment? But the camera part of it? Nevah! Don't even care if it has one.

 

[muser53]

"Shooting with a tablet at an event is just rude."
Thank you Nick.

 

[swoop]

It was worse back in the days when seating in cinemas wasn't as good as it is now and some people had afros! (cringe) No cinema ever offered me my money back for having to peer around a huge black blob for two hours!

This is why I only go to theaters with stadium seating. Even though it's 30 minutes further out than my local theater.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I'm not paid to take photos of famous people. Therefore I find the photo of people with iPads taking photos of POTUS much more interesting than a picture of POTUS standing and smiling in the same setting.

The drunk uncle at the wedding is far more interesting than the run-of-the-mill wedding couple. Interesting is always better.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

No, people in a theater actually do not have the right to yell which is why they can be removed by security. Same goes for the drunk uncle.

Wouldn't someone getting so close to the president actually be a security concern? And wouldn't someone so drunk that they interrupt a wedding be just as concerning? Or are we applying double-standards (as in, I'd do that, so he has the right, but I wouldn't do the other thing so they don't have the right to do that either)?

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I don't think you're getting what Jamie123's point and to be honest, you're analogy doesn't even fit.

Non-professionals taking pictures are not being egoistical. Heck they will probably share it on Facebook. People got that common sense that you think is missing.

I'm not an analogy. And analogy-fitting is not a science, just like opinions are.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I walked into a museum with my Leica, and was told no photos inside. Meanwhile everyone inside is snapping away with their iPhones.

I took photos at a classical concert with my Leica, and I was told I had to put that away. Later on, the P&S flashes went by unnoticed.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Hey, stop living your life... you're getting in the way of my photos! 😉 Entitlement sucks.

Photojournalist entitlement vs iPad entitlement? 😱

 

[Jamie123]

Wouldn't someone getting so close to the president actually be a security concern? And wouldn't someone so drunk that they interrupt a wedding be just as concerning? Or are we applying double-standards (as in, I'd do that, so he has the right, but I wouldn't do the other thing so they don't have the right to do that either)?

I really have to assume that you're joking otherwise I don't know what to think of you.
Obviously this wasn't a crowd that just ran up to the president. I'm sure the appropriate security measures are taken whenever the president decides to go into the crowd and shake people's hands. I don't know what security has to do with it anyways and why you're bringing it up. I said security personnel can remove a yelling person from a movie theater, not because this has anything to do with security but because they are usually responsible for such tasks. Why you want to discuss security in regards to iPad photography is beyond me.

And no, we're not applying double standards. The point is that when the president goes up to his people and shakes their hands it is their moment not the media's. They don't have to get out of the way just so somebody else can get a good shot.

And don't get me wrong. I think the iPad photography thing is absolutely ridiculous and I'm very annoyed by the fact that these days everbody feels the need to record whatever noteworthy event occurs in their life. But that doesn't mean that everybody should change their behaviour just because I don't like it.

 

[igi]

I'm not an analogy. And analogy-fitting is not a science, just like opinions are.

This is funny. I may have just struck something deep within you that you just have to point at my grammar, not on what I said.

Sorry Mr. French, but I hope you got my stupid point which is perfectly understandable on the rest of the world.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I really have to assume that you're joking otherwise I don't know what to think of you.

(...)

Why you want to discuss security in regards to iPad photography is beyond me.

I don't think that arguing about this point is going to make each other understand others' views, as we're evidently thinking from completely different backgrounds and points of view on this matter and it is absolutely beyond the confines of RFF.

And no, we're not applying double standards. The point is that when the president goes up to his people and shakes their hands it is their moment not the media's. They don't have to get out of the way just so somebody else can get a good shot.

I agree on it being "their moment". I think I missed the hand-shaking part from the iPad photo snapper.

My only point is that somebody "having the right" to do something doesn't trump somebody else's "having the right" not to be affected by it. I believe this thread illustrates perfectly how everybody has their own point of view and the only thing that we can hope for is people behaving as if there are others who may not agree or may be inconvenienced or, indeed, have their own rights undermined: this is why at many venues photography is not allowed, because many people stretch "their moment" into ruining other people's "moment".

A quick example is Orsay's Museum in Paris: photography used to be allowed at least through 2005. It is now prohibited, and it was due to visitors taking out their P&S and not knowing how to turn off their flash (the "digital explosion" was in full-swing, compounded with users' lack of technical knowledge back then...and (still-existing) poor UI design), as it was explicitly asked of people not to use. Whether or not one believes that a flash is detrimental to "vintage" paintings (and other dye-based art), people abusing "their moment" at the museum got everybody else to be treated under the same no-tolerance policy.

All that is asked is for prudence and common-sense. "I have the right" as an absolute argument undermines it.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

This is funny. I may have just struck something deep within you that you just have to point at my grammar, not on what I said.

Sorry Mr. French, but I hope you got my stupid point which is perfectly understandable on the rest of the world.

I'm Mr. Aguirre. Geography does not someone make (as I'm not French, either). I apologize if you took offense to a point being made about misunderstandings (I assumed you'd get how contrived postings can get --yet that did happen...that also illustrates how things are not "perfectly understandable" when emotion gets in the way of discourse. The intertoobes are prone to such happenings.

 

[Jamie123]

All that is asked is for prudence and common-sense. "I have the right" as an absolute argument undermines it.

Of course having the right to do something doesn't mean you should do it. We all may have the right to behave like an a-hole but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

But the point of the 'You're keeping real photographers from doing their jobs' argument rests on the assumption that 'real' photographers somehow have more rights to take a picture than normal people.

 

[sanmich]

But the point of the 'You're keeping real photographers from doing their jobs' argument rests on the assumption that 'real' photographers somehow have more rights to take a picture than normal people.

I do think that if doing something just for fun would prevent somebody else to do just the exact same thing but on which his income depends, I would be extra careful about it.
In the situation described in the picture, I doubt we cannot seriously pretend that the person holding the tablet realizes that he obstruct a photographers job. So remain the simple regular people selfishness....

 

[Jamie123]

I do think that if doing something just for fun would prevent somebody else to do just the exact same thing but on which his income depends, I would be extra careful about it.
In the situation described in the picture, I doubt we cannot seriously pretend that the person holding the tablet realizes that he obstruct a photographers job. So remain the simple regular people selfishness....

What do you mean by "just" for fun? That is a once in a lifetime opportunity for these people whereas it's just another photo for the photgrapher who probably photographs the president every other week. Getting paid for something doesn't make it more important.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

But the point of the 'You're keeping real photographers from doing their jobs' argument rests on the assumption that 'real' photographers somehow have more rights to take a picture than normal people.

My argument does not rest on somebody having "more" rights. My argument rests on selfishness undermining everybody else's rights.

 

[jsrockit]

Getting paid for something doesn't make it more important.

Well, I agree. Unfortunately, most of the world doesn't.

 

[Sparrow]

Well, I agree. Unfortunately, most of the world doesn't.

... now, if he were topless one could understand all the fuss

 

[igi]

I'm Mr. Aguirre. Geography does not someone make (as I'm not French, either). I apologize if you took offense to a point being made about misunderstandings (I assumed you'd get how contrived postings can get --yet that did happen...that also illustrates how things are not "perfectly understandable" when emotion gets in the way of discourse. The intertoobes are prone to such happenings.

No problem 😉 Sorry as well for my temper.

 

[zauhar]

...

A quick example is Orsay's Museum in Paris: photography used to be allowed at least through 2005. It is now prohibited, and it was due to visitors taking out their P&S and not knowing how to turn off their flash (the "digital explosion" was in full-swing, compounded with users' lack of technical knowledge back then...and (still-existing) poor UI design), as it was explicitly asked of people not to use. Whether or not one believes that a flash is detrimental to "vintage" paintings (and other dye-based art), people abusing "their moment" at the museum got everybody else to be treated under the same no-tolerance policy.

All that is asked is for prudence and common-sense. "I have the right" as an absolute argument undermines it.

Yes, I ran into that this Summer. I was using my M3 (no flash of course) to take some photos and was brusquely informed by a guard that no photography was allowed.

I told him "I hope you're keeping an eye on all the people with iphones". He just glared at me.

Now I understand that the concern is over flash, and I have a better understanding of their position (thanks!). That said, after I saw no end of people with P&S cameras WITH FLASH, I continued to take photos.

By the way, did you ever visit the Musee Gustave Moreau? Beautiful little place, and friendly to photographers. My daughter insisted that we visit, and I thought it was wonderful (esp. of course if you like Moreau and the Symbolists). It was nice to be able to take photos at ease in full view of the guards.

Randy


Randy