Dealing with your own ethical mistakes.

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

I haven't included it but you made a comment that suggested a picture of a particularly attractive design on a children's playground apparatus indicated you are a pervert. Clearly by itself as it stands it does not, nor of course and rightly so, do you believe it does either .

In another playground and/or with another set of parents there may not have been a problem but I just don't know as I wasn't there.

You have several choices: 1. Do not go anywhere near that playground again and feel wronged with nothing changing

2. Decide that photographing playground equipment is what you want to do and try and determine if there is anything you can do to avoid an altercation again such as the way you approach the area, how you act when in the area, what will be your strategy if there are children near by or on the equipment you wish to photograph. Did you engage the suspicious adults in conversation for instance, declare who you were, what you were trying to do etc

3. Simply ignore the adults protestations and summon the police yourself, asserting that you were under threat of assault and your right to photograph anything and anybody including kids in a public place

You then have to decide the likely outcomes of each course of action work and decide which produces the best result.

It is just possible that even option 2 will not change anything so the wrong you feel was done to you will remain a feeling forever. If this were to be the case then you have my sympathies that feeling of yours changes nothing. So I believe it to be in your self interest to solve the problem in the sense that no one else has a problem that needs solving so only you have a vested interest in improving future outcomes. No-one else except you has any incentive to do anything to change the future

Best of luck

pentaxuser

Keep in mind- the yellow and red playground, I was handholding a yashica mat 124g with 1999 expired gold 100 (so shooting at iso 25), the playground wasn't particularly busy (and there were no kids in that section anyway), so I could get in and get out without hassle.
the incident that inspired this thread, I was using a Mamiya c220, with 1980 expired vericolor II (iso 6, so I had to use a tripod and take longer). with the frame I shared, I actually waited for kids to leave the frame before I took it. the second frame I wanted, I was setting up and got confronted.

here's another one that was shot on an active playground about a year ago- using a 35mm nikon nikkormat. no accusations or confrontations whatsoever.

 

[pentaxuser]

the incident that inspired this thread, I was using a Mamiya c220, with 1980 expired vericolor II (iso 6, so I had to use a tripod and take longer). with the frame I shared, I actually waited for kids to leave the frame before I took it. the second frame I wanted, I was setting up and got confronted.
View attachment 254449

If you are sure that the confronting party was aware that you waited until the kids had left the scene, can I ask how the conversation went between you and the confronting party. I presume that you explained that you only had the equipment in mind and had only taken a picture of that equipment which was why you and the camera were still there when the kids had gone.

If all of this was done and an attempt was made to engage the confronting party with all of this in a calm and open manner while recognising parental concern then my sympathies in spades

If the party involved is an exception to the way people behave in your community then do the equivalent of pressing the ignore button which in this case is to try and ensure that the party in question isn't there the next time. If the party is a reflection of how the community in general behaves then it might be time to consider leaving that community by physically leaving the area hoping to find a better community or leaving t metaphorically by just withdrawing from anything other than essential contact. It certainly doesn't sound as if things are that drastic but only you can judge

So on balance it sounds like a one-off incident which, as life is short, needs to be put behind you.

If you cannot do this then that's OK as long as the OK covers you and is not adversely affecting you long term.

Best of luck

pentaxuser

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

If you are sure that the confronting party was aware that you waited until the kids had left the scene, can I ask how the conversation went between you and the confronting party. I presume that you explained that you only had the equipment in mind and had only taken a picture of that equipment which was why you and the camera were still there when the kids had gone.

If all of this was done and an attempt was made to engage the confronting party with all of this in a calm and open manner while recognising parental concern then my sympathies in spades

If the party involved is an exception to the way people behave in your community then do the equivalent of pressing the ignore button which in this case is to try and ensure that the party in question isn't there the next time. If the party is a reflection of how the community in general behaves then it might be time to consider leaving that community by physically leaving the area hoping to find a better community or leaving t metaphorically by just withdrawing from anything other than essential contact. It certainly doesn't sound as if things are that drastic but only you can judge

So on balance it sounds like a one-off incident which, as life is short, needs to be put behind you.

If you cannot do this then that's OK as long as the OK covers you and is not adversely affecting you long term.

Best of luck

pentaxuser

I even tried explaining that I was going to shoot it so slow you couldn't even see the kids.
That changed absolutely nothing.

 

[logan2z]

I even tried explaining that I was going to shoot it so slow you couldn't even see the kids.
That changed absolutely nothing.

That's probably because they had no idea what you were talking about.

 

[pbromaghin]

First off, forget explaining anything about photography to anybody. You might as well be explaining to a monkey whether the atmosphere of Venus is liquid or gas. Second, assume that you are in the right. You are in the United States and the 1st Amendment of the Constitution allows you to photograph anything you can see at or from a public place. Nobody owns the light that bounces off them or their property. So as long as you are standing on a public street, sidewalk, park, utilities easement, or government building you can photograph anything you can see. Of course, standing up for one's rights is not without risk or expense - you might get the crap beat out of you or even thrown in jail, depending on how far you are willing to push it.

Brian Shaw mentions 1st Amendment auditing in post #52. I think what these people are doing is extremely important for the future of photography and journalism. Many of them have gone to jail, been beaten, maced, even shot. As individuals, they have varying degrees of ethics, aggressiveness, abrasiveness and styles. Oh, they also have great big balls.

 

[pentaxuser]

That's probably because they had no idea what you were talking about.

I had thought that the kids were not there. Are you now saying there were but you explained it didn't matter as the film was so slow? If this is in fact what you did i.e. shoot while the kids were playing then I agree with logan2z .

Unless a person understands a lot about film and very slow film then just think how it sounds when you say my film doesn't capture anything as fast as a kid on playground equipment if I shoot it slow. It sounds both incredible in the sense of unbelievable and almost like a con trick which might seem insulting to a person's intelligence which means to that person that you consider him to be almost educationally sub normal.

Just as a matter of interest how slow was the film and how long the exposure for it not to show any signs of life on it. Are we really looking at a scene in colour of equipment that has kids on it but who have left not even a trace of their existence?

pentaxuser

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

I had thought that the kids were not there. Are you now saying there were but you explained it didn't matter as the film was so slow? If this is in fact what you did i.e. shoot while the kids were playing then I agree with logan2z .

Unless a person understands a lot about film and very slow film then just think how it sounds when you say my film doesn't capture anything as fast as a kid on playground equipment if I shoot it slow. It sounds both incredible in the sense of unbelievable and almost like a con trick which might seem insulting to a person's intelligence which means to that person that you consider him to be almost educationally sub normal.

Just as a matter of interest how slow was the film and how long the exposure for it not to show any signs of life on it. Are we really looking at a scene in colour of equipment that has kids on it but who have left not even a trace of their existence?

pentaxuser

I will attempt to explain-
the frame I posted, I waited for the kids to leave.
I attempted a second frame, where there were kids playing. I never took that one, because I got confronted. on a technical side, I was shooting at an iso of 6 with a wide angle lens in broad daylight.

so what I think happened was people saw me take the first frame and had no idea what I was doing.
I haven't mentioned this yet, but I also took a bw shot of some security cameras in the park, but I haven't finished that roll yet.

basically, this is another ideology I never remember to implement-
"I am incapable of being understood."

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for the reply I now understand, I think, what was actually happening. On a technical note if the light conditions were similar to the first shot when I think there were no kids present then at ISO 6 and even at f16 or f22 I'd expect there to be some evidence of kids. Perhaps you were trying to get across to the confronting party that the kids would be so blurry as to be unrecognisable.

This in itself is not an easy concept to explain to those with no experience other than maybe an i-phone camera but I think I'd have been tempted to say that you were willing to show the resulting picture to said party to prove your point at some date in the future.

I might even have been tempted to talk about early photography where film was so slow that pictures London often showed no people because they moved through the picture too fast to show up even at walking speed

Of course this is all with my benefit of hindsight which you, by definition of being present and on the spot, did not have

So can I ask what you have decided to do for the future?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

Thanks for the reply I now understand, I think, what was actually happening. On a technical note if the light conditions were similar to the first shot when I think there were no kids present then at ISO 6 and even at f16 or f22 I'd expect there to be some evidence of kids. Perhaps you were trying to get across to the confronting party that the kids would be so blurry as to be unrecognisable.

This in itself is not an easy concept to explain to those with no experience other than maybe an i-phone camera but I think I'd have been tempted to say that you were willing to show the resulting picture to said party to prove your point at some date in the future.

I might even have been tempted to talk about early photography where film was so slow that pictures London often showed no people because they moved through the picture too fast to show up even at walking speed

Of course this is all with my benefit of hindsight which you, by definition of being present and on the spot, did not have

So can I ask what you have decided to do for the future?

Thanks

pentaxuser

No more playgrounds. that's a fact. sticking to state/city/ county parks, rural backroads, and industrial decay. Just sticking with safe stuff for a while.

I'm always hearing- push yourself, take risks to improve your photography. I had reservations about what I was doing, but I did it anyway and I'm paying the price for it.

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

Sometimes I drive alone to our local National Wildlife Refuge for landscape and wildlife photography. Often the area is filled with tourists, so I leave and plan another time to return. I do this because I choose not to bring attention to myself, or to my expensive camera gear, or to my safety as a solo female photographer.

Yesterday after I left this thread I went on my home page to read the headlines, and this was at the top of the news feed:

Oregon man arrested after trying to kidnap 11-year-old girl at park, police say

I do not understand why this is such an issue when we can return at a time when children are not playing at a playground and we do not bring attention to ourselves or our gear and/or possibly disrupt the playtime of children. Afterall, the playground has been created as a place for children to play, often supervised for their safety, and not as an area designed with photographers in mind.

If I'd have trusted my insticts, not stopped- and come back at a later date I wouldn't have made this thread. I realize this stuff happens. it shouldn't happen but it does. fortunately, that man got caught.

 

[BrianShaw]

We all end up paying a high price in loss of freedom, rights, and dignity because of the minority of creeps in our society.... made only worse by the increasingly vocal (and too often, lying) Snowflakes and “Karen’s”... both female and male.

 

[Vaughn]

That is one of the first things one seems to learn about rules as a kid...the rules are there because someone messed up.

 

[railwayman3]

I remember a few years ago (think it was in the "last days of Kodachrome") being at a historic house, photographing an old statue and waiting patiently for the sun to come out from behind a cloud to give me the lighting I wanted. I suddenly realised that there were groups of young Mums picknicking with their kids about 50 yards away. and I immediately felt very vulnerable.....an old guy, on his own, lurking with a camera.....?

 

[guangong]

We all end up paying a high price in loss of freedom, rights, and dignity because of the minority of creeps in our society.... made only worse by the increasingly vocal (and too often, lying) Snowflakes and “Karen’s”... both female and male.

Much of this bagan with NY Gov. N. Rockefeller closing many mental health facilities as budget cut, then backed by ACLU. As result many people on the streets not capable of taking care of themselves and living on streets. One specific result of ACLU actions was that the sandbox for tiny toddlers in Washington Sq. Park was filled with broken booze bottles and needles. Mentally ill gained their rights, but children lost theirs.
This mental care ( or no care) policy then spread across country. Look as LA homeless and SF cell phone feces ap locator.

 

[VinceInMT]

Some of this reminds me of photographers being harassed for taking pictures of public building or industrial sites after 9/11. You may have your rights but you might lose your camera, your film, and your freedom and end up with no apology.

For me, I stick to safe subject matter and when I have taken photos in a playground I do it when no children are present.

I am also an "urban sketcher" but haven't encountered any objection to me sitting on my stool with my sketchbook and pen. People will approach me out of curiosity and comment on my drawing. I'm able to flip through the book so they can see what I am up to.

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

Some of this reminds me of photographers being harassed for taking pictures of public building or industrial sites after 9/11. You may have your rights but you might lose your camera, your film, and your freedom and end up with no apology.

For me, I stick to safe subject matter and when I have taken photos in a playground I do it when no children are present.

I am also an "urban sketcher" but haven't encountered any objection to me sitting on my stool with my sketchbook and pen. People will approach me out of curiosity and comment on my drawing. I'm able to flip through the book so they can see what I am up to.

 

[Wallendo]

I have never experienced this, but did have similar situations in mind when I went for a walk and planned to take a few infrared shots at a community pond. This park and pond has a small playground nearby, and I wondered if anyone would notice the IR720 filter and assume I was trying to take magic see-through pictures of kids. Fortunately it was 97F outside and no-one was at the park or playground.

I do find it strange that parents are worried about old analog cameras as if all pedophiles shoot film. I suspect that people planning illegal activities would be more likely to shoot digital images which don't need to be sent to a lab.

 

[warden]

I haven't given much thought to parents or privacy on the occasions when I've made pictures of playing children but I suppose one angry conflict would change all that. It's not a big deal to me and I have no particular reason to make pictures of kids anyway aside from enjoying the moment and their antics. This isn't a great picture but it sure brings me back to that day (maybe five years ago) so I'm glad I made it.

If I was engaged in a project that required pictures of children on a playground or whatever I'd need a good strategy to diffuse conflict (business cards, examples of work, a willingness to stop photographing if someone requests it, etc). And if I wanted pics of empty playgrounds or similar areas Covid definitely took care of that in my city as the playgrounds were completely empty for four months.

 

[logan2z]

I do find it strange that parents are worried about old analog cameras as if all pedophiles shoot film. I suspect that people planning illegal activities would be more likely to shoot digital images which don't need to be sent to a lab.

Like the post about film speed earlier in the thread, 99.999999% of the public won't know the difference between a film camera and a digital camera. They just see some 'weird' guy taking photos of their children playing and become (understandably) concerned.

As others have stated, it's simply best to avoid such situations given the world in which we currently live.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If you want to photograph the playground equipment only, take your photographs early in the morning.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

If you want to photograph the playground equipment only, take your photographs early in the morning.

That is what I would do. Photographing while kids and their parents are present is asking for trouble... unless you have a kid with you, or you're a woman! Seriously. Years ago, I photographed while my son played, and was approached by a very concerned mum. I told her my kid is right there playing. She said oh, and left me alone...but kept an eye on me. I've seen woman walk up with full on dslrs and not confronted...yes, most pedos are male. So, if you are serious about photographing monkey bars and slides, do it when there is no one playing on them... or from the bushes with a telephoto

 

[warden]

. or from the bushes with a telephoto

The Miroslav Tichy approach!

 

[pbromaghin]

That might get you shot.

 

[guangong]

Perhaps my choice of equipment is the reason I have never had a problem photographing in a playground...Contax or Leica rf with 50 mm lens. No long lens or gigantic zoom. It's possible that a huge camera outfit complete with tripod would raise some eyebrows. Sitting too distant from action could look a little creepy.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

That might get you shot.

Maybe in your country, it would. But seriously, I would only photograph playgrounds when no one was there.