• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

People have gone insane...

Patrick Robert James said:
As others have stated as well, it is better to call the cops yourself. Then they look at it from your perspective instead of from the other persons. It also helps to understand the law a little.
Click to expand...

Problem is that the police themselves likely do not understand the law. At least here.
 
AgX said:
Problem is that the police themselves likely do not understand the law. At least here.
Click to expand...
That may be true but in this case the cop had the correct response. So I'm not too sure what the fuss is about. The guy allegedly being photographed was a jerk and talking to cops is a minor inconvenience... but the story had a happy ending.
 
bvy said:
This from a rational intelligent person -- the likes of which I don't think we're dealing with here.
Click to expand...
Yup, you are more than likely 100% right. Spiratone used to sell a lens hood with a built-in 90 degree mirror. You could photograph people standing to your right or left while aiming straight ahead. I had one I got from the son of a PI when the PI died. Never used it, but saw results and they do work splendid.
 

Not just the UK. I got yelled at and 'detained' for taking photos near a mostly inactive railroad bridge. I told the RR Employee that I can find about a million photos of this bridge online and I can find the blueprints in city hall. He countered with 'Ain't ya ever herd of Al Kayda?'

Now, I'm Jewish and look overtly Jewish. I laughed in his face and drove on.
 

If you had an F-2 instead , you could wield it like a morningstar to fend him off if needed

faberryman said:
Maybe it wasn't his girlfriend.
Click to expand...

+1!!!

Helios 1984 said:
This thread did not help me to overcome my fear of photographing people.
Click to expand...
It's not my thing either. I really don't like being photographed, and just assume others wouldn't either. I'm sure I saved myself a lot of grief with that attitude.
 
If I were going to street-shoot people I'd use my Kodak Medalist I or II camera. It did it's job in WWII and could be used as a backup weapon to boot.
 
In my case, I rarely take photos of people I don't know (any more) but when I do, it is usually in one of two situations:
1) when they are involved in activities where they might be expected to be photographed - think parades, fairs, birthday parties and similar; or
2) when for one reason or other I have engaged their interest. The engagement is often what makes the photograph work.
The photo below is an example of the latter:


While it is prudent to be careful when photographing children, most parents are relaxed about it if they too are in the photo. I always seek approval from them first.
 
AgX said:
Problem is that the police themselves likely do not understand the law. At least here.
Click to expand...
And the same here: Several years ago, while street shooting in Calgary AB, I was told by an overzealous security guard (at a now defunct business that was located on the end of Stephen Avenue in downtown Calgary) that I couldn't photograph a very colorfully-dressed window washer at the front of the establishment he was "guarding." My attempts to explain to the individual that there was in fact no reasonable expectation of privacy once one crossed the threshold of one's domicile, fell on deaf ears. He grew more more insistent, to the point that i just told him to go f**k himself. Off he went to find one of Calgary's finest. Moments later, the clown showed up with one of the boys in blue. The officer then asked what I was photographing and why. I gave him the same lecture re public and private domain and the differences therein. As well, a short discourse on the law and the "no reasonable expectation of privacy while in the public sphere." My discourse was met with a deer in the headlights look, and the suggestion that I should, in the future, ask for permission before photographing strangers? Right...
 
Here basically in public one may take photographs of everybody. However the trouble starts when publishing where legislation is complicated (right of personal-image and copyright).

The last years however some strange court decisions were made, as "inherent to taking a photograph is the possibility to publish it and thus taking a photograph already is equivalent to publishing". Weird and not of general application, but in the current trend of privacy protection or not-molesting people.
 
Michael Guzzi said:
It's not my thing either. I really don't like being photographed, and just assume others wouldn't either. I'm sure I saved myself a lot of grief with that attitude.
Click to expand...

I rarely shoot strangers, I only do it when I feel like the person don't mind (Like that couple, a few months ago, who saw me and took the pose loll).
 
At one time postal inspectors might believe that you had some sort of contraband however that did not have the legal authority to make you open the letter. The sanctity of the mail was considered primary. So leaving the envelop on the mantle unopened would drive them up the wall. A question for any lawyers out there would the same apply to not developing film? Until the film is developed there is no evidence.
 

Maybe they wanted to boost their postcard sales by forbidding to take own photographs?
 

If you are not very used to using the Spiratone Mirrotach, it is very hard to handle (Light and angle can play a bad turn) and the design is not very isinconspicuous.

Not to mention that you always end up looking at the place you're aiming ...
 
Two more: I took a shot of some guy selling beach crafts to tourists, I forgot what they were, shell pictures or driftwood people or something. Two minutes later he stood in front of me with a camera and took my shot, which I was completely fine with. He'd followed me all that time because I'd taken a picture of him showing his stuff to tourists! Then there was the woman at a craft fair who was selling her "homage" to Faberge eggs. Her stall was covered in No Photography signs. The irony of a copyist banning copies was not lost on me.
 
I took this shot (Fuji TX-1 w/ Pro160S film) at Santa Monica. This is an area where what I call the circus folk and pseudo exhibitionists hang out. They are practicing gymnastics, bending each other like pretzels, and basically playing a huge game of twister.
It happens to be in a tourist area, so there is always a large crowd of people watching.

The dood w/o the shirt holding the kid comes up to me after I took the pic, and said he would appreciate it if I did not take pictures because there are kids around.
I mentioned that he and his whole troupe were in a tourist trap causing quite the deliberate scene and that he had little expectation of privacy.
Well, in my head I did. He was a much bigger dood than me! So I smiled and moved on, photo already captured with the majestic permanence of film.



Please do not pass this image on. The people in it demand their privacy. Especially the lady on the left airing her grievances to the universe.
 
I wonder if you snapped the photo with your back turned to them using your iphone in "selfie mode" if anybody would even notice? I very much doubt it. But yes, the entire world has gone nuts. Everyone. Me. You. That wide eyed innocent child that looks up at your with nothing but love and trust in their eyes. nuts. Everybody's nuts these days. I'm going to get fitted for my tinfoil hat as we speak!

and as I post this I notice the forum is suggesting a similar thread entitled, "I have gone mental".
 
I don't know where you live in S. Cal, but if you lived in Big D, you would understand you're pretty much on camera anytime you're outside your house and pretty much anywhere you go. Sure it is all digital, but there are so many of these things running all the time it is a bit unnerving.
 
You need an ancient Deceptive Angle Graflex or better yet, one of those right-angle mirror gizmos you attach to the front of your lens.
 
As Jon said, everyone is basically filmed and tracked everywhere outside. People shouldn't be worried about their privacy in public. They should be worried about their privacy in private.
 
I'm tempted to think people would get less grief if they looked like Dennis Hopper's photographer in Apocalypse Now. Behave as though you had every damned right to be there with lots of not so subtle direction, wows and hold its. Bruce Gilden thinks the whole world is his personal performance arena, and people generally buy into it. I find the public notice whether I raise an iPhone, and Olympus 35mm clamshell or a pro SLR, so may as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb.

The cameras that raises the least ire are my vintage 120 folders. People think I'm a harmless nutter with no film in the camera, or part of a performance. Hard to mistrust a man trying to line a number up in a little red window without his reading glasses on.
 
 
If I ask you (politely) to stop taking my picture, I expect you to be polite and comply. After that... politeness stops.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register