Don't leave home without it!

[JBrunner]

First of all, the safety on a Glock is on the trigger.

Second of all, violence against someone participating in a perfectly legal activity because you don't like it also goes well against "basic human courtesy". If you don't want your picture taken in public the onus is on you to remove yourself, not kill someone. That sort of thing is the position of truly weak fortitude, and feeble minded in the extreme.

The argument that one knows the assault isn't right in the abstract but wouldn't mind if it happened in reality is a curious form of self delusion. A self enabling situational ethic on parade.

 

[firecracker]

Just like if someone gets drunk, drives off the road and gets hurt in the crash, I do not feel sorry for them either. That does not mean I want them to get hurt, but they brought it on themselves.

That doesn't even make an analogy in this context. Or it does, then the "drunk" must be the person(s) being their photo(s) taken, NOT the photographer...

 

[David Brown]

... I think I might just put my 10-20mm right in your face and give you the bird.

Heh! Welcome to APUG. This is what makes this site great ... :rolleyes:

 

[Flea77]

Second of all, violence against someone participating in a perfectly legal activity because you don't like it also goes well against "basic human courtesy". If you don't want your picture taken in public the onus is on you to remove yourself, not kill someone. That sort of thing is the position of truly weak fortitude, and feeble minded in the extreme.

I would agree, I stated that I would wish the perpetrator would be brought to justice which shows I would think the action is wrong.

The argument that one knows the assault isn't right in the abstract but wouldn't mind if it happened in reality is a curious form of self delusion. A self enabling situational ethic on parade.

I never once said I would not mind it happening, I said I would not feel sorry for the photographer if it did. Those are two completely different things. Please refrain from adding things to what I said.

Allan

 

[Flea77]

That doesn't even make an analogy in this context. Or it does, then the "drunk" must be the person(s) being their photo(s) taken, NOT the photographer...

The analogy is this:

Photographer takes picture of person who makes it clear they do not want it taken. Subject freaks out and attacks photographer. Had photographer respected the wishes of the subject prior to snapping the shutter none of this would have happened. Photographer brought it on themselves.

Person drinks too much alcohol and gets behind the wheel despite being told on billboards, TV and raidio ads, etc not to. Person crashes and injures themselves. Had person not gotten behind the wheel, none of this would have happened. Person brought it on themselves.

I am not trying to show that these things are similar in any context other than situations where I would not feel sorry for the injured party. I have never stated that I want for anyone to be injured or have violence done to them, nor to I condone any act of violence. I am mearly stating that I would not feel sorry for the photographer should something happened to him because he made the choice to not respect people's privacy when it is clearly expressed BEFORE THE SHOT that they do not want to be photographed.

Allan

 

[Akki14]

If you were talking about a photographer vs. a lion, you'd be correct. I'd feel no sympathy for a photographer hopping into a lion or tiger cage at a zoo then being killed. But there is thought and reason that separates us from the animals, as well as laws.

 

[JBrunner]

Anytime I exercise my legal rights and somebody doesn't like it and kills me, I brought it on myself? Are you serious?

Right, and that girl in the mini skirt who was raped, well, she was just begging for it.

Also, I'd parse a complete lack of empathy for a victim of a crime as in fact not minding the crime, but I suppose if that is an important distinction for you in remaining above advocating the endorsement of violence, you can have it. It's a pretty sexy veil, as see through garments often are.

The analogy is flawed. A drunk driver who crashes and hurts himself does it to himself, as you say, and hopefully no one else.

A photographer assaulted for the perceived insult of photography is the victim of violence perpetrated from another human being, who is breaking the law, and assailing the legal rights of photographer. The active participation of the perpetrator of the crime against a person who has committed no crime nor created any danger to the subject removes any prior consideration of "insult". The photographer would not have brought it on himself, it would be wrought upon him by a criminal for a perceived slight. One can not give credence to every persons perception of what does or does not constitute an insult. The world would be paralyzed. I would certainly feel sorry for a person who was murdered for merely taking a picture, even if I didn't like them that much. It's called empathy. Serial killers, hyenas, and misogynists lack it.

 

[Q.G.]

Yikes! Pulling guns on one another.
Shows how important it is to keep real, stay on the middle ground, be a civilised human.

How can one say that pulling a gun would be even understandable, in support of the believe that we should show basic human courtesy?!

As will be no secret, i do believe that a reaction provoked is a reaction provoked, and that a provoker is not just instrumental, but also bears part of the responsibility for what ensues.
If the result would be a picture with 'artistic merit', the provoker would be the first to claim responsibility. So why not when the result is something he or she dislikes?

But silly, even criminal responses to provocation are just that: silly, or even criminal.
The person provoked is not absolved from all responsibility for what he or she does, just because he or she is provoked.

It all revolves around common decency. On all sides.

 

[Flea77]

Anytime I exercise my legal rights and somebody doesn't like it and kills me, I brought it on myself? Are you serious?

When that person specifically asks (by word or action) that they do not want you to do what you did, you are at least in part to blame, even though you are legally in the right.

Just think, what if the person you are photographing is in the witness protection program and may be killed if your photograph is posted online? What if the person is escaping an abusive spouse? What if...... who knows! Did you think about anything other than your "need" to get the photo?

Right, and that girl in the mini skirt who was raped, well, she was just begging for it.

If she dresses provocatively enough in the right place at the right time, she may indeed have contributed to the instance happening. Does that mean it is her "fault", no.

Also, I'd parse a complete lack of empathy for a victim of a crime as in fact not minding the crime, but I suppose if that is an important distinction for you in remaining above advocating the endorsement of violence, you can have it. It's a pretty sexy veil, as see through garments often are.

You may see it as an unimportant distinction, I do not. I do indeed mind the crime, and think the criminal should be punished. That however does not make me feel sorry for the person when they clearly helped to cause the problem to start with.

The analogy is flawed. A drunk driver who crashes and hurts himself does it to himself, as you say, and hopefully no one else.

A photographer assaulted for the perceived insult of photography is the victim of violence perpetrated from another human being, who is breaking the law, and assailing the legal rights of photographer. The active participation of the perpetrator of the crime against a person who has committed no crime nor created any danger to the subject removes any prior consideration of "insult". The photographer would not have brought it on himself, it would be wrought upon him by a criminal for a perceived slight. One can not give credence to every persons perception of what does or does not constitute an insult. The world would be paralyzed. I would certainly feel sorry for a person who was murdered for merely taking a picture, even if I didn't like them that much. It's called empathy. Serial killers, hyenas, and misogynists lack it.

One flaw in your logic is that photographing the person is only a "perceived" insult, when in fact the insult could not only be very real to the person, but also deadly under the right circumstances. You say that the photographer has created no danger for the subject, so you know for a fact that the subject is not hiding from an abusive spouse, in the witness protection program, or has no other reason to not want to be photographed? Even if they do not, crimes happen all the time for perceived slights, ignoring that and doing it anyway makes you partially responsible for the outcome.

No you can not give credence to everyone for what they may or may not perceive as an insult, however when specifically asked not to take their picture, you are forewarned right there! Why insult the person, make them mad, and even take the chance that they may do violence?

Allan

 

[Flea77]

Yikes! Pulling guns on one another.
Shows how important it is to keep real, stay on the middle ground, be a civilised human.

How can one say that pulling a gun would be even understandable, in support of the believe that we should show basic human courtesy?!

Completely agree. Violence should never be an acceptable action, regardless of the situation. Unfortunately we live in a world where people think it solves problems and therefore use it. Sad but true.

As will be no secret, i do believe that a reaction provoked is a reaction provoked, and that a provoker is not just instrumental, but also bears part of the responsibility for what ensues.
If the result would be a picture with 'artistic merit', the provoker would be the first to claim responsibility. So why not when the result is something he or she dislikes?

My point exactly!

But silly, even criminal responses to provocation are just that: silly, or even criminal.
The person provoked is not absolved from all responsibility for what he or she does, just because he or she is provoked.

It all revolves around common decency. On all sides.

Absolutely correct! Common decency applies just as much to the picture taker as it does the subject. If the subject specifically asks you not to take the picture BEFORE you take it, be descent and respectful, don't take it!

Allan

 

[Q.G.]

Completely agree. Violence should never be an acceptable action, regardless of the situation. Unfortunately we live in a world where people think it solves problems and therefore use it. Sad but true.

You say that as if that makes it understandable after all.
It's not. It's crazy. Insane.

Sad, but true.

 

[AutumnJazz]

For the people against taking pictures of others in public, when they don't want their picture taken, how do you feel about photojournalists?

 

[Q.G.]

For the people against taking pictures of others in public, when they don't want their picture taken, how do you feel about photojournalists?

Much the same. Needs to be done with due respect.

But the question is not quite right.
It suggest that it is analogous, but it isn't quite. It needs more to be that.
It should be something about photojournalists who create their own news where there is none.
Photojournalists who, say, play loud music outside someone's bedroom window at night, and wait for an irritated, perhaps enraged victim to appear to complain, then shoot a picture to appear in next day's local tabloid, with a capture saying something like: "Free press in danger! Rage against journalists on the rise!".

 

[Flea77]

For the people against taking pictures of others in public, when they don't want their picture taken, how do you feel about photojournalists?

First I should point out, again, that I am not against taking pictures of people in public as a rule. I am only against it if the subject clearly makes it known BEFORE THE SHOT IS TAKEN that they do not want to be photographed.

To answer your question, once having been a photojournalist myself, that I would attempt to comply with the subjects wishes if at all possible. There are some cases however where the the subject is the only photograph that will do, and generally in that case they have done something to put themselves into the public spotlight (much more so than walking down a public street) and that kind of negates any privacy concerns for me.

Let me put it this way. If a person is minding their own business walking down a public street and sees me with a camera about to take their picture, and then asks me not to, I feel it is the correct, polite and respectful thing to do to wait until they are out of frame before I shoot. If on the other hand someone dresses wild, stands on a soap box, waving a huge banner, yelling at the top of their lungs asks me not to take the picture and taking that picture is my job, too bad for them because they made themselves into a public spectacle intentionally.

Lets put this another way: I am driving along a stretch of desert road where there is nothing for 100 miles and no traffic at all. I top a hill and see a broken down car with a guy flagging me down. I stop and roll down the passenger window and he says "man am I glad to see you, I am late to my wedding and my car broke down, I have been here three hours with no water, no cel phone service, and you are the first car to pass by". My response is "sucks to be you" as I roll up the window and drive away. Have I done anything illegal? No. Was that the correct, polite or respectful thing to do? No. Would you really blame the guy if he caught me later in town after his fiance had left him as the wedding fell through and he punched me in the face? I wouldn't!

Moral of the story? Just because something is legal to do, does not mean you should do it.

Allan

 

[AutumnJazz]

What if they are in the process of committing war crimes? I mean, I know that one of the basic pillars of photojournalism is the required mutual respect between the photographer and the people, but what about when they are doing really bad shit? Eg. shooting protesters in Tehran.

 

[Flea77]

What if they are in the process of committing war crimes? I mean, I know that one of the basic pillars of photojournalism is the required mutual respect between the photographer and the people, but what about when they are doing really bad shit? Eg. shooting protesters in Tehran.

Then I would say your greatest fear should be that they will indeed shoot you to prevent the photograph. But that is probably not what you were looking for. In that case I would again say that they have intentionally put themselves in the public view by doing something extraordinary. We digress. The basic premise I was addressing was general photography in public places of normal occurrences, not specific and wild circumstances.

I do find it interesting that you stated "required mutual respect between the photographer and the people" as that is the crux of my argument. Shooting a photograph of normal people in public places when they have thrown up their hands to prevent the photograph is not respectful, and will cause the subjects to instantly lose respect for the photographer.

Allan

 

[AutumnJazz]

I do street, and I want to be a PJ. Believe me, I only take pics when there is a mutual respect. Unless it is a candid. (I don't take pictures if it makes the person look bad.)

 

[Q.G.]

What if they are in the process of committing war crimes? I mean, I know that one of the basic pillars of photojournalism is the required mutual respect between the photographer and the people, but what about when they are doing really bad shit? Eg. shooting protesters in Tehran.

Then you, the photojournalist, would be doing common decency a very great service by showing the world what is happening.

Yes, you might be taking people's pictures against their wish, but the Greater Good clearly outweighs their individual 'rights'.

And what if: they, the war criminals, are provoking you, the photojournalist, into taking and publishing pictures that show them and their deeds. Were they not doing what they are doing, you would not take their pictures.
Same principal still at work.

 

[JBrunner]

Land of the straw men.

 

[jd callow]

land of make believe

 

[Q.G.]

Land of louts.

 

[Vonder]

How dare you!

It's called empathy. Serial killers, hyenas, and misogynists lack it.

How dare you insult hyenas that way? Hyenas are pack animals and certainly care as much about their packmates as any other non-human pack dweller does, such as wolves, dholes, lions and AHDs.



I'd rather trust a hyena than the other two.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Intreresting experience, but for where the paper does not help, I recommend a short, light monopod. I would never travel alone in less than perfectly safe places without one. Just slip it inside your belt and you will never know it is there. Its great for giving you a bit more scope for slow shutter speeds and if you ever need to defend yourself it would be very handy.

 

[Q.G.]

Yes, yes, yes. How surprising.

You do whatever pleases you, and if that doesn't work, resort to violence.
Why not, hey?

"Are photographers jerks?"

Well ... probably not all.

 

[3 Olives]

So, I have been shooting the streets of Los angeles for a while now and today for the first time I had my first confrontation with two young men who didn't like the fact that I took a picture of them.

Good luck to all of us and let's keep having fun in what we love to do.

You must have been in a nice part of LA. You have the RIGHT to do what you want, but you don't have the might. I respect your right, but I know many people who won't respect your might. I know quite a few people who would have taken your camera from you, and you would have been lucky if that is all you lost.
I always tell my son to ask permission unless the people are purely background. There is a growing segment of society that could care less what your rights are.