Children as photography subjects
-
- Thread starter gr82bart
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Minolta C E Rokkor-X 50mm f2.8 enlarger lens
- Started by J Durr
-
For Sale Lot of (78) NOS Pakon 35mm Plastic Slide Mounts
- Started by AnselMortensen
-
For Sale Pentax Spotmatic SP II 35mm film camera
- Started by J Durr
-
For Sale Fuji Fujica GS 645 Pro medium format film camera
- Started by J Durr
Forum statistics
81 views and not one comment. Hmmmm... let me be the jerk who starts off with a negative reply.
As a thought piece I found it incredibly non-thought-provoking. A tired thesis... although I did struggle to even find a thesis... and not sure I ever succeeded. I did learn of a couple of photographers I never heard of and enjoyed the style of Loretta Lux.
But more than that, I learned that paying attention to any thread that is a link to an article with no more commentary than "thoughts?" is not worth my time. Sorry, Art.
As a thought piece I found it incredibly non-thought-provoking. A tired thesis... although I did struggle to even find a thesis... and not sure I ever succeeded. I did learn of a couple of photographers I never heard of and enjoyed the style of Loretta Lux.
But more than that, I learned that paying attention to any thread that is a link to an article with no more commentary than "thoughts?" is not worth my time. Sorry, Art.
Pictures of a childs joy at play and first experience at discovery in the world around them are wonderful delights, reminding us to see things with the freshness of a child and that all life doesn't have to be serious. A shot on skid row may show the desolate unfortunates and drunks and druggies struggling to escape the sad reality of their existence while at the same time, pictures of a child on skid row may find them creating a new game to play with others or alone - still able to discover the beauty of life hidden under the dirt and filth. Unfortunately, pictures of children in any form seems to be taboo these days with people accusing you of being a pedophile or something similar equally as bad. If you try to take pictures at a park of children at play or at a friendly game of soccer or baseball, you must have ulterior motives - you're sick - a perv - etc. It couldn't be that you are merely trying to capture the spirit of the children.
I never even try to take pictures of children, unless they are mine or my grandchildren. In the spirit of today's political correctness, my park pictures are of inanimate objects (fortunately I like both trees and clouds) and I limit my shots in the slums to the crack whores or others whose images seem to be more acceptable to today's society
I never even try to take pictures of children, unless they are mine or my grandchildren. In the spirit of today's political correctness, my park pictures are of inanimate objects (fortunately I like both trees and clouds) and I limit my shots in the slums to the crack whores or others whose images seem to be more acceptable to today's society
But I was mildly impressed that the author steered clear of a couple of very obvious examples of potential controversy: Jock and Sally.
Now there's a photo!
Child abuse is indeed a real and serious issue. Child pornographers is a real and serious issue. Child photography is not necessarily child abuse or pornography. There are some people who are so sick that they could somehow see a picture of a rotting tree stump as erotic. There is no avoiding that, but there is no reason to paint everyone with their perverted brush. Not that anyone is suggesting that; just sayin.
... but I object to links with "discuss". So I'm out of hear. I'm craving some terramasalada for supper... for some odd reason... whatever that is.
+4... submitted on behalf of SeriusSteve.
The world hasn't changed for me. If someone is trying social engineering, I have seen it. Soviet time. Lefties are Soviet, anywhere, anytime.
I have resisted for a long long time the impulse to respond to your politicisation of so many threads, but just as a reminder, it is contrary to the site rules. The soapbox is the place to take your political axes to grind.
I routinely shoot children in the park and on the street.
This weekend, I put a hyperactive six-year-old in front of an 8x10 camera and got two great pictures. And yes, they were in focus.
But the scuttlebutt is that one's a no-no, and one's a no-go. It's all about your approach.
This weekend, I put a hyperactive six-year-old in front of an 8x10 camera and got two great pictures. And yes, they were in focus.
But the scuttlebutt is that one's a no-no, and one's a no-go. It's all about your approach.
True, it is a waste of both links and bandwidth.
These images are by my wife Laura Paterson, she has specialized in Children and Mother nature with all her work. She never seems to have
a problem and can capture moods that I know would be hard for me to do. I think this is a niche area of her work that she really hits a home run.
Enjoy
Bob
I cannot read the article as I am at work and the site is banned....
But guessing the content. I was recently asked to stop photographing my friend's teenage daughter while she is in her swim suit. We had been on a camping trip, and these are people I have known for about 8 years. The weather was very warm and the photos were simply of a teenager splashing around in a paddling pool to cool off. However, if the girl in question felt uncomfortable being photographed the request is not unreasonable. Any photos I took were in any case shared with the family for their enjoyment. On the other hand I know one mother who absolutely refuses to allow anyone (including herself and her husband) to post even fully clothed pics of her children to any social media because she is afraid of "perverts".
There exist photos of me peeing by the roadside as a toddler, being bathed as a baby and toddler, running naked in the back garden as a child and so on. I think they are great ways to remember my childhood and to capture moments. However these days some people are rather fixated on child abuse, and of innocent images being used for the gratification of paedophiles. While I am all for making such practices as difficult as reasonably possible...it would be a tragedy if a result was that we lost childhood memories. I actually work with kids and receive training on child safety (including photos/social media) at least twice every year. Nobody giving these training sessions has yet suggested anything other than common sense...ie small kid naked in the bath is fine....kid swimming in swimsuit is fine as long as the kid and parents don't mind. Kid trying out their abilities to visually flirt in provocative clothing is not fine. They are far more concerned for several reasons about the photos kids send *of themselves* than of any reasonably skilled photographer taking candids of kids enjoying life.
PS I had great fun photographing a friend's 3 year old last year....and almost as much fun when the tables were turned and said 3 year old took up my DSLR and took a few photos of me and her parents. What better way to get kids into photography than by taking photos of them?
But guessing the content. I was recently asked to stop photographing my friend's teenage daughter while she is in her swim suit. We had been on a camping trip, and these are people I have known for about 8 years. The weather was very warm and the photos were simply of a teenager splashing around in a paddling pool to cool off. However, if the girl in question felt uncomfortable being photographed the request is not unreasonable. Any photos I took were in any case shared with the family for their enjoyment. On the other hand I know one mother who absolutely refuses to allow anyone (including herself and her husband) to post even fully clothed pics of her children to any social media because she is afraid of "perverts".
There exist photos of me peeing by the roadside as a toddler, being bathed as a baby and toddler, running naked in the back garden as a child and so on. I think they are great ways to remember my childhood and to capture moments. However these days some people are rather fixated on child abuse, and of innocent images being used for the gratification of paedophiles. While I am all for making such practices as difficult as reasonably possible...it would be a tragedy if a result was that we lost childhood memories. I actually work with kids and receive training on child safety (including photos/social media) at least twice every year. Nobody giving these training sessions has yet suggested anything other than common sense...ie small kid naked in the bath is fine....kid swimming in swimsuit is fine as long as the kid and parents don't mind. Kid trying out their abilities to visually flirt in provocative clothing is not fine. They are far more concerned for several reasons about the photos kids send *of themselves* than of any reasonably skilled photographer taking candids of kids enjoying life.
PS I had great fun photographing a friend's 3 year old last year....and almost as much fun when the tables were turned and said 3 year old took up my DSLR and took a few photos of me and her parents. What better way to get kids into photography than by taking photos of them?
For me only pictures of my own children or very close family, my children have grown up now and a large part of my photography came to a end.........Now apart from street I am left with trees and yawning boring landscapes and railway bridges.........Though I can't think of anything more boring then taking pictures of other peoples children......I mean why?ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz ....................Just woke up there is another boring tree I need to photograph,
Attachments
Last edited:
I don't know any kids. The only kids I shoot are stranger kids on the street. Article bored me so didn't get far reading it. Botttom line...if it is legal, do as you like.
Even though it is legal to shoot stranger kids on the street, if male, you will be hassled and branded a pedophile child molesting pervert if caught. This is where candid skills come in or being a woman helps. If you don't have candid skills, better ask or be ready for a war.
Two weeks prior to shooting the Lost Princess I was shooting at a Catholic block party fair. After shooting for 10 minutes a chairperson from the fair came up to me and started to question me as to what I was doing. They asked to see my photos I was taking. I was shooting a Widelux and explained to them it was not digital. I told them I was a documentary photographer and was taking pictures of people at the fair. They said if I didn’t leave they would call the police. Being private property, I complied.
The gal in the back, staring at me, near the food stand is probably the mom. I just keep walking after I shoot. No time to suck my thumb and stand around for hassles. I move out quick once I press the button. The key to candid photography is the ability to move.
Even though it is legal to shoot stranger kids on the street, if male, you will be hassled and branded a pedophile child molesting pervert if caught. This is where candid skills come in or being a woman helps. If you don't have candid skills, better ask or be ready for a war.
Two weeks prior to shooting the Lost Princess I was shooting at a Catholic block party fair. After shooting for 10 minutes a chairperson from the fair came up to me and started to question me as to what I was doing. They asked to see my photos I was taking. I was shooting a Widelux and explained to them it was not digital. I told them I was a documentary photographer and was taking pictures of people at the fair. They said if I didn’t leave they would call the police. Being private property, I complied.
The gal in the back, staring at me, near the food stand is probably the mom. I just keep walking after I shoot. No time to suck my thumb and stand around for hassles. I move out quick once I press the button. The key to candid photography is the ability to move.
Last edited:
Photographing children is a tired and worn out subject. I have no interest in reading yet another article on it, particularly when it appears at someplace as insubstantial as HuffPost. Is this really the level of our discourse.
Andrew O'Neill
Moderator
I don't know any kids. The only kids I shoot are stranger kids on the street. Article bored me so didn't get far reading it. Botttom line...if it is legal, do as you like.
Even though it is legal to shoot stranger kids on the street, if male, you will be hassled and branded a pedophile child molesting pervert if caught. This is where candid skills come in or being a woman helps. If you don't have candid skills, better ask or be ready for a war.
Two weeks prior to shooting the Lost Princess I was shooting at a Catholic block party fair. After shooting for 10 minutes a chairperson from the fair came up to me and started to question me as to what I was doing. They asked to see my photos I was taking. I was shooting a Widelux and explained to them it was not digital. I told them I was a documentary photographer and was taking pictures of people at the fair. They said if I didn’t leave they would call the police. Being private property, I complied.
The gal in the back, staring at me, near the food stand is probably the mom. I just keep walking after I shoot. No time to suck my thumb and stand around for hassles. I move out quick once I press the button. The key to candid photography is the ability to move.
Man with camera. People on guard. A woman with camera?
There is nothing wrong with taking a photo of a child. Many people in congress are still children on the mental capacity/emotion level and they are on ever news show there is with no issue.
Honestly, the actual dilemma that SHOULD be discussed in what constitutes child abusive material, aka child porn, versus stuff that isn't.
If you go into a Meijer or Walmart photo department and ask, youll be told that if you try to print out a photo of a kid in a swimsuit you will get kicked out after they call the police on you. They wont let you print out a photo of your 30 year old girlfriend in a bikini either...
teenagers have been charged, tried, and jailed for taking nude photos of themselves, and sending them to friends online or with a text message, and for receiving those photos, regardless of age of either of them. Most would say its stupid that the 14 year old girl who sends a nude photo of herself to her 14 year old girlfriend should be hit with a felony child porn distribution and manufacturing charge. Or for the 14 year old grifrlend to get hit with a felony possession of child porn charge.
Lots of MEN have gone to jail for having photos of naked children on their phone or computer. There is a whole industry in Europe of "non nude" preteen models in fetish gear in penthouse poses that's considered "non porn" simply for being clothed.
But yet some would say its a tired topic of asking why Sturges and Mann have avoided going to jail even though they have made a career of manufacturing and selling what would be called child porn if anyone else took it.
Honestly, the actual dilemma that SHOULD be discussed in what constitutes child abusive material, aka child porn, versus stuff that isn't.
If you go into a Meijer or Walmart photo department and ask, youll be told that if you try to print out a photo of a kid in a swimsuit you will get kicked out after they call the police on you. They wont let you print out a photo of your 30 year old girlfriend in a bikini either...
teenagers have been charged, tried, and jailed for taking nude photos of themselves, and sending them to friends online or with a text message, and for receiving those photos, regardless of age of either of them. Most would say its stupid that the 14 year old girl who sends a nude photo of herself to her 14 year old girlfriend should be hit with a felony child porn distribution and manufacturing charge. Or for the 14 year old grifrlend to get hit with a felony possession of child porn charge.
Lots of MEN have gone to jail for having photos of naked children on their phone or computer. There is a whole industry in Europe of "non nude" preteen models in fetish gear in penthouse poses that's considered "non porn" simply for being clothed.
But yet some would say its a tired topic of asking why Sturges and Mann have avoided going to jail even though they have made a career of manufacturing and selling what would be called child porn if anyone else took it.
If you don't want your child photographed, lock them in the house.
MattKing
Moderator
And that is incredibly sad.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |