I'm a Street Photographer, Not a Pervert . . .

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid

she and her kids were "attacked" too ...
and now stone ( and the peanut gallery ) has attached her again by suggesting the only reason she didn't
want to have her photograph taken was because she was "fat and ugly" ... ( like all fat / ugly women? )
and if she was a "beautiful person" she would have relished the extra attention she was getting.

if ming and stone did nothing wrong .. the lady did nothing wrong either ...
she didn't want a stranger who had been staring/spying at her and her kids
for 3-5 minutes photographing them.

if a person with a camera is going to take grab shots
( and if the subject is upset all the better ) then the photographer
gets what he paid for if/when the subject calls them names, verbally abuses them and/or calls the police.

the whole fat+ugly thing reminds me of next day pathetic excuses after a frat party.
 
OP
OP

Ming Rider

Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
112
Location
District of
Format
35mm RF
viridari said:
Cool! But why does a blog have to wait so long? It's not like a magazine or anything. They ought to be able to post it at any time.
Click to expand...

I suppose it's because each photographer is featured on the front page for a week and the owner has a healthy long list of people to display on a firstcome first served basis?

Yep, it is cool.
 

C.poulton

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Messages
23
Location
London
Format
35mm RF
Slightly off topic but what happens when we are all wearing Google type glasses and constantly filming everything around us - no camera to raise to the face, no way of people knowing whether your taking their picture or not.....

I think that this will change the whole game - how can you enforce something easily when it is ubiquitous?

It's almost there now with mobile phone / smart phone / tablet cameras - very difficult to enforce. Is someone making a call, browsing, reading an ebook of filming? How to really tell?

Unfortunately us 'old school' photographers give the game away by using these strange antiquated machines that require you to hold it up to your face, in plain view of everyone, just to record an image!
 

StoneNYC

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
8,345
Location
Antarctica
Format
8x10 Format

Again putting words in my mouth, I spoke of an individual person. This was a group dynamic with children involved my opinion changes and she was being protective of her kids the "unattractive perception/fat" thing does not apply here...


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
 

darkosaric

Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
4,568
Location
Hamburg, DE
Format
Multi Format
C.poulton said:
It's almost there now with mobile phone / smart phone / tablet cameras - very difficult to enforce. Is someone making a call, browsing, reading an ebook of filming? How to really tell?
Click to expand...

I think you have countries where is it illegal to make photos without a sound (I had a minox GL, and it was so quiet that you can say it is practically silent). But what about recording movie - no warning sound there...? Maybe there will be a law saying that you can check someones phone if you think he made picture of you ? Or maybe all picture will be recored in cloud - not locally, and then it will be checked for pictures of kids or whatever...?
 

winger

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Messages
3,975
Location
southwest PA
Format
Multi Format

Ming Rider has said he didn't even stand up and was sitting on a bench while photographing. That's hardly attacking when it's a public park. She called him a "perv" and yelled at him several times. He was trying to get a shot of the kids being kids while the older couple sat. He said nothing about it being "if the subject is upset, all the better" and he didn't get the shot he was hoping for. I'd even wonder if the lady thought he was taking the pictures to use as evidence of how her kids were misbehaving. No, there isn't a way to know what the subject is thinking. Should that seriously stop us from ever taking candid pictures?
The fat and ugly thing was an off-shoot of the original topic, not the OP's excuses.
Personally, I think a lot of people in this thread are taking the whole thing a little too much to heart (maybe the thread more than the original incident, too).
If someone got in my son's face, literally, and took pictures of him from less than 5 feet away, yeah, I'd get a bit anxious. I'd probably take their picture and ask them to move away, please (if they didn't move quickly, my response might be a little, um, stronger; I did do karate for several years and hung out with LEOs for 15 years). But if he were doing his usual running/jumping/climbing and someone aimed a camera at him from 20 feet away, I'd just ask if they could send me copies.
Yeah, different people have different reactions to situations and I think that's sorta the original point of the thread. I just don't see someone being photographed in public as being attacked. Getting screamed at and called perv, I do see as being attacked. My opinion.
 

Worker 11811

Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
1,719
Location
Pennsylvania
Format
Multi Format
I think we have already established that it is reasonable for a person to wave off a photographer and say, "No pictures, please!" Most people here would respect that request, simply on grounds of personal respect.
I think it is reasonable for a person to think that he or she can say that at any time. I don't think it's reasonable for a person to go off on a tirade without warning. If the photographer keeps shooting even after being asked, that's a different story.

I think, in the case at hand, the woman was out of line. She could have simply hollered, "Hey! No pictures!"



All of this talk about photographing kids gives me the impression that a hysteria is developing where ALL photos of children are suspect, regardless of who took them or why.

Just recently, we had an incident where one of our own members, here on APUG, was questioned by the police for taking an innocent picture of his own kid!

What's going to happen? Will it end up that anytime anybody ever takes a photo of a child, for any reason, he or she is going to be branded a pervert? Will we have photography police looking over our shoulders scrutinizing every photo we take to be sure we're not shooting kiddie porn?

It's downright, freakin' weird!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
winger said:
He said nothing about it being "if the subject is upset, all the better" and he didn't get the shot he was hoping for.
Click to expand...


he has insinuated that he doesn't really care and if someone is not happy with his photographing them ... great.
Ming Rider said:
Some of the best photo's have consisted of people displeased with the camera.

Click to expand...



maybe you don't mind people taking photographs of your kids being kids
but clearly the lady whose kids he photographed did.

she didn't know him, he wasn't a friend, he was some guy hanging out on a park bench/table
for 5 mins staring at her kids, and she felt violated by it ...
she had every right to act the way she did, just as he had every right to photograph her kids in the park.
i know he didn't literally attack her, but he violated her which to ME is the same as an attack.

sometimes people ( on both sides ) need to be responsible for their actions ...
and it seems that neither the lady nor the photographer have considered this ...
i am sure if the lady appeared here on apug we'd hear a different version of the story ..
 

lxdude

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
7,094
Location
Redlands, So
Format
Multi Format
jnanian said:
she and her kids were "attacked" too ...
Click to expand...
Taking pictures while sitting there on a bench (and remember, he was there first) does not in any way constitute an attack.


That was not the same woman, same situation, or same photographer.


if ming and stone did nothing wrong .. the lady did nothing wrong either ...
she didn't want a stranger who had been staring/spying at her and her kids
for 3-5 minutes photographing them.
Click to expand...
Stone was not involved in either situation; he just made a comment. There is nothing to indicate that ming had been staring/spying at them. If a kid is jumping over a bench right between two people (which lots of folks would call misbehaving), then watching that kid can hardly be called staring, and sitting on a bench in plain view while so doing can never be called spying.


if a person with a camera is going to take grab shots
( and if the subject is upset all the better ) then the photographer
gets what he paid for if/when the subject calls them names, verbally abuses them and/or calls the police.
Click to expand...
Yes, it comes with the territory. But it doesn't justify the name-calling and verbal abuse, or the general overreaction.
 
OP
OP

Ming Rider

Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
112
Location
District of
Format
35mm RF
Where I said that 'some of the best photo's have been where the subject is displeased with the camera', I posted a link to a famous photo by William Klein. Sadly the link didn't work, so hopefully here it is.



Could this picture be called exploitative, perverse or for sexual gratification? At the time, Klein was a relative unknown (irrelevant if you weren't into art or photography) and was younger than me.

At the risk of getting bored sh*tless, the 'lady' only objected or showed any interest (as far as I'm aware) when she was leaving.

I didn't stare, stalk, persue, hound or pester.

The method of shooting I use exclusively and one that will be familiar to anyone who's studied the work and techniques of Bresson, Winogrand, Meyerowitz etc, will be familiar with the style of pre-setting the focus, aperture and shutter and often way before you're ready to take the shot. Then you let your arm hang downwards with the camera and there it stays . . . until you see a shot, raise the camera and for the tiniest of moments check the composition, then click. Camera goes back down.
It takes 1.5 - 2 seconds (yes I've timed it).

That is not stalking, pestering or harrassing.

Winger,

I had also considered the possibility she thought I was going to 'split' on her.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
what a second ..
stone wasn't there ?
he's not the anchorman on the news?
someone can't figuratively attack someone?
people can't be respectful of others?
people can't over react or be FOS ?

get out of town .. !


:munch:
 

lxdude

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
7,094
Location
Redlands, So
Format
Multi Format
jnanian said:
she didn't know him, he wasn't a friend, he was some guy hanging out on a park bench/table
for 5 mins staring at her kids, and she felt violated by it ...
Click to expand...

He was there first. He said he tried three times to get a picture; she did not object. How long he spent trying to get a picture is not clear. After he gave up trying, another five minutes went by without a peep from her. It is not clear if he was even still watching the kid. It was only after those five minutes had passed, as they were leaving, that she accosted him. So how did that protect her kids, anyway?

she had every right to act the way she did,
Click to expand...
She was unreasonable. She accosted him, creating a disturbance, by yelling at him "You're a sick pervert for photographing my kids!"
So--anyone who takes a picture of her kid is a sick pervert. Is that reasonable?
Is it anyone's right to loudly attack someone else just because they don't like what that person is doing? She sounds to me like a bit of a nutcase, not behaving as a reasonable person would.

i know he didn't literally attack her, but he violated her which to ME is the same as an attack.
Click to expand...
Violated how? He tried to take a picture of her kid jumping over a bench, in plain view of everybody. Her child entered his field of view, his viewing space; he did not follow or pursue the child, or even move to get a different angle. Just because she FELT violated, it doesn't mean she WAS violated.

As I said earlier, what are we supposed to do? Avert our eyes whenever children are around?
 

zsas

Member
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
1,955
Location
Chicago, IL
Format
35mm RF
Seems to me a situation evolved around the OP, it doesn't appear to me that photographing unruly kids who were jumping on a park bench whilst elderly strangers share the same bench is a violation of their privacy. In my book, those kids were violating the privacy of those elders who were there first. I bet had one of those kids injured those elders Ming's pictures and corroboration of events would have helped. The actions of the mother I've no comment on....

So Ming, yes or no question, were there elderly strangers on a park bench that some kids (accompanied by their mother) turned into their play land?

Or were they all together - grandparents, uncles/friends, whatnot and their "energy intrigued you" and you attempted to photograph it?
 

BrianShaw

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
16,533
Location
La-la-land
Format
Multi Format
zsas said:
... The actions of the mother I've no comment on...
Click to expand...

.. but that is the ONLY thing worth focussing on. We all know Ming was within his legal rights. All of the rest is a discussion of his ethics and personal beliefs on privacy -- which aren't worth discussing. The details of the situation, particularly th realtionship between the parties on the bench, may be quite irrelevant... but it may be interesting.
 

StoneNYC

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
8,345
Location
Antarctica
Format
8x10 Format
Can you post the pictures because I wasn't able to see them before, I don't know how you posted them but it came up blank if I recall.


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
 
OP
OP

Ming Rider

Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
112
Location
District of
Format
35mm RF
lxdude said:
. . . what are we supposed to do? Avert our eyes whenever children are around?
Click to expand...

Funny you should say that.

On the train home, the carriage I was in was packed full, so I stood in the area by the exit door. In there were four young lads, probably about 12 years old. I was feeling so miserable, sick and with all self-confidence and street photography future lying in tatters, that I daren't face their approximate direction for even a second.

I spent the entire 35 minute journey looking out the window.

They probably thought I was weird.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BrianShaw

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
16,533
Location
La-la-land
Format
Multi Format
Ming Rider said:
I spent the entire 35 minute journey looking out the window.
Click to expand...

Check your trousers... they could have lifted your wallet. These things can happen when one is despondent and becomes less aware of their surroundings.
 
OP
OP

Ming Rider

Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
112
Location
District of
Format
35mm RF
I've processed the film and to my surprise I did get a shot (shows how much attention I was paying). It's not very good as the composition is wayward and the child is actually jumping away from the camera, but it shows the 'mother' and another two frames show the old boy with the hat, and the elderly lovers.

Will scan and post later. Maybe I should merge the three shots together, then you'll get the whole picture?
 

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
you gys take yourselves way to seriously

post all 4 together ming ..

you should get the email of the police
to see if they can forward you the one
where she gave you the "homer" or the mugshot
of when they processed you at the station ..
 
OP
OP

Ming Rider

Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
112
Location
District of
Format
35mm RF
BrianShaw said:
Check your trousers... they could have lifted your wallet. These things can happen when one is despondent and becomes less aware of their surroundings.
Click to expand...

Wallet survived unscathed. It lives in the camera bag, in a back pocket which is pressed against my side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…