Big question, Sir/ Madame, about when I should take the shots.

[Rocky]

Does not apply mostly. In my country the morons have a sign board outside almost everywhere 'photography not allowed'. At run down airports where no more than a single flight lands every day if you try to take a photo of your family near the plane someone will run frantically waving their arms 'no photo no photo'. Stupid jerk.

If you take a photo outside a temple, idiots will come by waving a stick "no photo".

I was in the lobby of a hospital and wanted to take a family photo before someone was getting admitted, the receptionist came running saying no photos in the hospital.

Been to Benaras? If you take out a camera at 50% of the places some stupido will come with authority saying 'no photos'. And you slip them some money and you can take photos to your heart content.

Is it a real law, or someone just want to make some money??

Real laws. I do not understand why most of India / Gulf are obsessed with "No Photos". Retards.

"NO Photo" as you have mentioned are due to either "respect" or security". Even in the western society, especially South America and Europe you are not allowed to take photo during the religious ceremony either inside or outside of the church. Some Buddhist temple in Asia would not allow you to take picture even there is no people inside. That is respect. For security, They do not want the information of the airport or hospital to be photographed and end up in the wrong hand. That is security. I can tell you that you cannot take any picture of the outside of the railroad station in Tibet even you are 300 feet away. That is security of the next level.
With a camera, that does not give you the right to take picture without any restriction. On the other hand , give someone money and you can take picture and does not obey the law is not right either.

 

[ninjapeps]

Real laws. I do not understand why most of India / Gulf are obsessed with "No Photos". Retards.

Same in the Philippines, except that it only seems to apply to dslrs. Someone taking pictures with a dslr in a park will be told by security that photos are not allowed without a permit while the dozens of people shooting with their phones will be ignored.

It gets even sillier when two people are standing next to each other and shooting the same thing inside a mall but security will only tell the one with the dslr to stop shooting.

 

[Orangutan]

Surapon.
In my opinion there is nothing NOTHING wrong with your shots. I belong to the thinking that the day a person chooses to be a 'life' photographer, nothing is taboo. Then it is the photographer's duty and religion to document everything. Go to every extend to document life the way it is.

Why?

Friendly discussion. Always.

"Why"? I believe that as a photographer my job is to photograph. If I choose to be a street/life photographer, I can't filter. Here are some examples of photos from internet. These photos would not have been made if the at the situation the photographer was scratching his head questioning the ethics of it all.

I believe these are great photos.

I'm sorry, I remain confused. Certainly there are great examples of journalistic photography, those which are certainly justified by the important effect they have on society. Why is it difficult or time-consuming to filter -- to make an ethical decision quickly? Humans do these things all day every day, with little effort. There is no difficulty or time lost in deciding that photographing inappropriate police conduct is ethically acceptable, while photographing a man in an expensive suit adjusting his zipper is not.

I've seen enough of your posts to know that your intentions are good; I just don't understand the absolute position you take: this is no more a black-and-white issue than any other part of human interaction.

Cheers.

 

[Orangutan]

sanj

I agree about the photos you posted, all great and I have no problem with any of them. But they aren't a good argument to back up your assertion that you should be allowed to take photos wherever and whenever you feel the desire to. They are rather different to sticking your lens into people's faces on the street. There have to be boundaries in anything and photography is no different. Though like I say, my main issue with street photography is not the taking of great images it is in what has become their regular publication without the permission of the subjects.

You have a valid point. My argument is limited to big events - earthquake type of situations. Of course no bugging anyone with a camera. But if someone is doing a show on the street, I will photograph it.

I agree with this.

 

[Orangutan]

I have no guilt I took these photos. And I know for sure if you would have asked them, the photos would have looked staged. This is what street photography is about. Catching fleeting moments.
(Not saying these photos are great. Don't throw stones.)

The first is a public performance, and is fair game. The second one I also find ethical because the subjects are distant enough not to be individually recognizable. If this had been close enough that they were recognizable then it would cross my ethical line.

 

[sanj]

sanj

I agree about the photos you posted, all great and I have no problem with any of them. But they aren't a good argument to back up your assertion that you should be allowed to take photos wherever and whenever you feel the desire to. They are rather different to sticking your lens into people's faces on the street. There have to be boundaries in anything and photography is no different. Though like I say, my main issue with street photography is not the taking of great images it is in what has become their regular publication without the permission of the subjects.

I understand and agree. But it is not always feasible. For example, see this attached photo. It was taken at a so called religious activity. Where on earth would I find these people to get a release form? And if I asked them to sign a form during this procession, they would think I am a lunatic.

This guy dresses up like this and poses for tourists for money and locals think he is God. Now, after hours, he lights up a joint. I take the photo.

 

[sanj]

Surapon.
In my opinion there is nothing NOTHING wrong with your shots. I belong to the thinking that the day a person chooses to be a 'life' photographer, nothing is taboo. Then it is the photographer's duty and religion to document everything. Go to every extend to document life the way it is.

Why?

Friendly discussion. Always.

"Why"? I believe that as a photographer my job is to photograph. If I choose to be a street/life photographer, I can't filter. Here are some examples of photos from internet. These photos would not have been made if the at the situation the photographer was scratching his head questioning the ethics of it all.

I believe these are great photos.

I'm sorry, I remain confused. Certainly there are great examples of journalistic photography, those which are certainly justified by the important effect they have on society. Why is it difficult or time-consuming to filter -- to make an ethical decision quickly? Humans do these things all day every day, with little effort. There is no difficulty or time lost in deciding that photographing inappropriate police conduct is ethically acceptable, while photographing a man in an expensive suit adjusting his zipper is not.

I've seen enough of your posts to know that your intentions are good; I just don't understand the absolute position you take: this is no more a black-and-white issue than any other part of human interaction.

Cheers.

Hi Orangutan. My current position (things change!): I should take photos uncensored to document the way humans are. Adjusting a zipper in public shows a certain side of humanity and should be documented. (Reminds me of a Fellini movie). What I would be against is hiding cameras in private areas of a person - their home etc. And also sneaking into private homes, offices via telephoto. In other words private spaces are out of bound. Public places are my playground. Unless of course I know very well that a particular photo will hurt someone. In that case I still will take the photo but not make it public until the point the act I am hiding is irrelevant. Also 'upskirts' (is there a word like that?) is out of bounds.

Btw I appreciate your morality towards your subjects. Cheers... It is Sunday brunch time. Beer, Sangria at the local pub. And I am writing this before getting drunk. I have noticed I write wrong things when tipsy. Hahahahaha.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Adjusting a zipper in public shows a certain side of humanity and should be documented.

That's a joke, right? Mother of God, tell me that's a joke!

You can't seriously believe that this prurient, perverse (no, perverted), unwarranted, unwelcome, unnecessary objectivisation of the minutiae of a stranger's life adds anything to the human condition!

This isn't "journalism": by definition journalism should be the capture of events that have inherent worth and interest to the wider world - "gathering, processing, and dissemination of news and information related to the news to an audience" - as described by Wikipedia.

This is photojournalism. Thinking it's OK - much less worthwhile - to take a picture of a stranger fiddling with his flies is frankly borderline abnormal.

Where's your inner censor?

My day job is as a privacy law advocate/practitioner in the UK, and every day I see the very real damage caused by unwarranted invasions of people's privacy: anyone who says that there's no harm in your kind of uninvited, invasive photography is just plain wrong, no matter what contrived excuses you make for it.

 

[Orangutan]

Adjusting a zipper in public shows a certain side of humanity and should be documented.

That's a joke, right? Mother of God, tell me that's a joke!

You can't seriously believe that this prurient, perverse (no, perverted), unwarranted, unwelcome, unnecessary objectivisation of the minutiae of a stranger's life adds anything to the human condition!

This isn't "journalism": by definition journalism should be the capture of events that have inherent worth and interest to the wider world - "gathering, processing, and dissemination of news and information related to the news to an audience" - as described by Wikipedia.

Some photographers think of themselves as akin to the style of poet who considers the mundane, overlooked and seamy aspects of life. Perhaps that's how he sees himself.

My day job is as a privacy law advocate/practitioner in the UK

The UK has a profession devoted to that ?!!! That's just so...civilized.

 

[sanj]

Adjusting a zipper in public shows a certain side of humanity and should be documented.

That's a joke, right? Mother of God, tell me that's a joke!

You can't seriously believe that this prurient, perverse (no, perverted), unwarranted, unwelcome, unnecessary objectivisation of the minutiae of a stranger's life adds anything to the human condition!

This isn't "journalism": by definition journalism should be the capture of events that have inherent worth and interest to the wider world - "gathering, processing, and dissemination of news and information related to the news to an audience" - as described by Wikipedia.

This is photojournalism. Thinking it's OK - much less worthwhile - to take a picture of a stranger fiddling with his flies is frankly borderline abnormal.

Where's your inner censor?

My day job is as a privacy law advocate/practitioner in the UK, and every day I see the very real damage caused by unwarranted invasions of people's privacy: anyone who says that there's no harm in your kind of uninvited, invasive photography is just plain wrong, no matter what contrived excuses you make for it.

You taking it literally. I always thought that was written as a metaphor. A metaphor for odd/funny behavior.

My and my camera's sensor are just fine. Thanks. They both exist to capture moments in life. They both make me travel to various parts of the world to photograph what I can.

 

[surapon]

Wow, Wow, Wow----Thousand thanks to all of my dear teachers and dear friends= for Comments on this Post, Yes, Difference people have difference IDEAS---All good and great ideas for difference situations---And Every Ideas are right in my concepts, depend on what " Times, Places and Situations".
I have learn a lot of great Ideas form you, and I will adopts these great Ideas.
Have a great Sunday, Sir/ Madame.
Surapon

 

[fragilesi]

The UK has a profession devoted to that ?!!! That's just so...civilized.

Of course, what else would you expect from us?

But I'm pretty sure that by now most of the Western world has similar practitioners.

 

[sanj]

The UK has a profession devoted to that ?!!! That's just so...civilized.

Of course, what else would you expect from us?

But I'm pretty sure that by now most of the Western world has similar practitioners.

Enjoy.
I prefer to be where I am not under the sword of censorship, moral policing and shades of smugness. Each to his own... Peace.

 

[fragilesi]

The UK has a profession devoted to that ?!!! That's just so...civilized.

Of course, what else would you expect from us?

But I'm pretty sure that by now most of the Western world has similar practitioners.

Enjoy.
I prefer to be where I am not under the sword of censorship, moral policing and shades of smugness. Each to his own... Peace.

And where would that be?

 

[sanj]

Hahahah. Good question. I guess in parts everywhere. 8)

 

[Don Haines]

Thousand thanks, to Dear Teachers and Friends.
Thanks for your Opinion, your expertise and your comments , that I have learn from you again.
One most important thing that I have learn from you to day, Plus I have learn from my dear son = Do the best as I can for the hobby that I love, BUT, I must concern about the effect of the photos , which might harm the feeling of the people , who I shoot.
Yes, I never think about that before, I just shoot and shoot for the recorded photos plus the story teller pictures.
Have a great Thursday, Sir/ Madame.
Surapon.

PS. If you have free time, Please go to the Shutterfly Link attached below for 490 Photos of "ANIMAZEMENT Convention"---Yes, With out (Deleted Photos) of eating time.

http://share.shutterfly.com/action/welcome?sid=0AbMnLlozaM3DEMA

First point - everyone is smiling and posing for you....
second point - it's a costume gathering....

If anyone didn't want their picture taken, they wouldn't be there posing for the camera..... Absolutely nothing wrong with taking photos there.... If fact, they would probably be upset if you didn't take their picture....

 

[fragilesi]

Hahahah. Good question. I guess in parts everywhere. 8)

Well if you ever find such a place let me know and I'll be straight over there.

Even so, I won't be trying to take pictures of your zipper ;D

 

[sanj]

Hahahah. Good question. I guess in parts everywhere. 8)

Well if you ever find such a place let me know and I'll be straight over there.

Even so, I won't be trying to take pictures of your zipper ;D

I use buttons.

 

[sanj]

Thousand thanks, to Dear Teachers and Friends.
Thanks for your Opinion, your expertise and your comments , that I have learn from you again.
One most important thing that I have learn from you to day, Plus I have learn from my dear son = Do the best as I can for the hobby that I love, BUT, I must concern about the effect of the photos , which might harm the feeling of the people , who I shoot.
Yes, I never think about that before, I just shoot and shoot for the recorded photos plus the story teller pictures.
Have a great Thursday, Sir/ Madame.
Surapon.

PS. If you have free time, Please go to the Shutterfly Link attached below for 490 Photos of "ANIMAZEMENT Convention"---Yes, With out (Deleted Photos) of eating time.

http://share.shutterfly.com/action/welcome?sid=0AbMnLlozaM3DEMA

First point - everyone is smiling and posing for you....
second point - it's a costume gathering....

If anyone didn't want their picture taken, they wouldn't be there posing for the camera..... Absolutely nothing wrong with taking photos there.... If fact, they would probably be upset if you didn't take their picture....

Yes Don! True. Obvious. Nothing wrong here. Zipper or not.

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi Kieth.
Am I mistaken that here in the UK we have no right to privacy if we are in a public place? Also, adjusting ones fly could be perfectly innocent, or it could be the completion of some sordid act, would it then be journalism?

Hi Mr Surapon.
I'm not sure about photos of people eating, I find seeing other people eat quite distasteful even when they have the best of manners. I also wouldn't want to be pictured eating as I think it would be less than flattering. As for all the other shots, they are of people enjoying themselves, quite possibly playing up to the camera, either consciously or subconsciously giving you their blessing to photograph them.

Cheers, Graham.

Adjusting a zipper in public shows a certain side of humanity and should be documented.

That's a joke, right? Mother of God, tell me that's a joke!

You can't seriously believe that this prurient, perverse (no, perverted), unwarranted, unwelcome, unnecessary objectivisation of the minutiae of a stranger's life adds anything to the human condition!

This isn't "journalism": by definition journalism should be the capture of events that have inherent worth and interest to the wider world - "gathering, processing, and dissemination of news and information related to the news to an audience" - as described by Wikipedia.

This is photojournalism. Thinking it's OK - much less worthwhile - to take a picture of a stranger fiddling with his flies is frankly borderline abnormal.

Where's your inner censor?

My day job is as a privacy law advocate/practitioner in the UK, and every day I see the very real damage caused by unwarranted invasions of people's privacy: anyone who says that there's no harm in your kind of uninvited, invasive photography is just plain wrong, no matter what contrived excuses you make for it.