PDA

View Full Version : Photography today


MargaretR
9th February 2016, 10:58 AM
Interesting article from "The Australian" (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/not-a-good-look/story-e6frg8n6-1225930635070)about the hazards of being a photographer in the 'modern' age. Its quite a long read, but it has much of interest to say, not just pertaining to Oz, but attitudes seen everywhere these days.

Perhaps our antipodean cousins can comment on whether they perceive it as accurate. Is it really that hard to photograph at Uluru & Kakadu these days? I was through there on tourist trips in the late 90s, and had no problem snapping away, but of course that was before the days of 'cultural sensitivity' and bureaucracy run rampant.

And the guy taking a sunrise at Cairns, whom the local council wanted to charge a fee for the privilege .....!! :confused: Words fail.

Imageryone
9th February 2016, 11:55 AM
Carry a CAMERA :eek: and you risk all kinds of interference, mostly from the uniformed.
Carry a Mobile phone, the worlds your oyster. No-0ne bothers.

Nice to read we are not the only regulation bound country in the world.

Easy answer? :- for all Photographers to put a personal ban on ALL political photography for a year. See who shouts the loudest then :mad:

David M
9th February 2016, 12:52 PM
Carry a CAMERA :eek: and you risk all kinds of interference, mostly from the uniformed.
Carry a Mobile phone, the worlds your oyster. No-0ne bothers.

Nice to read we are not the only regulation bound country in the world.

Easy answer? :- for all Photographers to put a personal ban on ALL political photography for a year. See who shouts the loudest then :mad:

When there was money in stock photography I had a clause in my contracts saying the agency couldn't license my images to political parties.

You've needed a license to use a tripod in London parks for decades and pros need permits for all sorts of locations.

Otto
9th February 2016, 12:58 PM
Carry a CAMERA :eek: and you risk all kinds of interference, mostly from the uniformed.


Not to mention the uninformed!

Ross the fiddler
9th February 2016, 01:12 PM
Yes, it is rather sad the way things have gone. As far as photos of people being displayed publicly, it can now be a problem when a family is hiding from an estranged partner (usually an abusive & dangerous husband/father) & showing it on a public site could mean revealing their whereabouts.

Imageryone
9th February 2016, 01:25 PM
One of my friends wanted photographs of their son, 8 yrs old ) playing football for his youth team. I found out I needed to get disclaimers signed by the whole of his teams parents and all of the opposite teams parents before I dare take a single frame.
Needless to say I had to decline, and they never did get any record of him playing.

crimbo
9th February 2016, 04:45 PM
Several years back I was hauled up by the police for carrying a camera past a school.

alfbranch
9th February 2016, 05:44 PM
One of my friends wanted photographs of their son, 8 yrs old ) playing football for his youth team. I found out I needed to get disclaimers signed by the whole of his teams parents and all of the opposite teams parents before I dare take a single frame.
Needless to say I had to decline, and they never did get any record of him playing.

I presume these stupid people held these games in a very private location and I bet you use your phone no one would pay any attention.

I bet if someone from the local press turned up and wanted a shot they would give them names and all.

I have had similiar stupity suggested at Scouts but plainly said no we are ot doing that.

benvendetta
9th February 2016, 06:56 PM
One of my friends wanted photographs of their son, 8 yrs old ) playing football for his youth team. I found out I needed to get disclaimers signed by the whole of his teams parents and all of the opposite teams parents before I dare take a single frame.
Needless to say I had to decline, and they never did get any record of him playing.

That is mental...............but doesn't surprise me.

benvendetta
9th February 2016, 07:02 PM
I have to take some photographs of tosd conditions outside a primary school in Barnet on Thursday for work. The school has been informed................but probably not the parents. It will be interesting to see if I am approached. It has happened here in south Wales in the past and I have been accused of being some not very nice things.............wish me luck!

Wee man
9th February 2016, 07:15 PM
Dave hard hat and take the tablets, make a paper PRESS armband and you will be all right?

Crazy Dave
9th February 2016, 08:53 PM
A few years ago, I was stopped by a 'security' person in Trafalger Square. He said my camera and lens was too 'professional' and that he was prepared to block my view until he went off shift several hours later. My sin was to carry a Nikon D300 with a 18-200 lens.

I called him a sorry s*d and went on my way. There must have been dozens of tourist there at the same time carrying cameras. Bizarre.

David

IanB
9th February 2016, 10:05 PM
cannot say I have ever had any real dramas with photographing people, places or things. Certainly got some weird looks and questions.
Would likely to be a bit different in the bigger cities.

pity the world cannot loosen up a bit. Doesn't matter what is said or done, it seems someone will take offence, be offended or worried.

One thing about the lumix fz200 is no one takes any notice even though it has a fast 600mm lens. There is no doubt the smaller camera/lens is noticed less. I used to get some great photos with the little Olympus MJU2 when the Nikon F4s would have been too much too obvious.

Now they were great little cameras; and the Oly mju wide (??) with 24-80 or 100 mm lens . Forgotten now. The mju often had b/w film and the wide had fuji 400 or 800 asa film which was incredible stuff. Used them at weddings where I found people 'played' in front of them whereas they would be stiffer in front of the bigger cameras. Hated 120s at weddings; and for portraits
Sorry; bit off topic again

Graham_of_Rainham
9th February 2016, 10:06 PM
Our local Council has installed CCTV outside some schools in the borough to combat the "school run" parking problems.

So: have they got the permission of all the parents, who have their children caught on the cameras... :rolleyes:

We are one of the most surveilled countries in the world. Both Government & Private CCTV is being used all the time. This almost never challenged, but the individual photographer is any easy target for anyone who feels they have more rights than others. It's little short of any other type of bulling by people who have only their own opinions & agendas in their minds.

benvendetta
9th February 2016, 10:09 PM
Dave hard hat and take the tablets, make a paper PRESS armband and you will be all right?
The company I work for is emblazoned across the back of my florescent jacket.

Wee man
9th February 2016, 10:18 PM
Dave should that not be "company I am employed by"

benvendetta
9th February 2016, 10:22 PM
Dave should that not be "company I am employed by"
If you like Ed.

Wee man
9th February 2016, 11:06 PM
Dave a miss read by you I think, my comment was referring to the admission that you WORK for them?

benvendetta
9th February 2016, 11:08 PM
Dave a miss read by you I think, my comment was referring to the admission that you WORK for them?
Ah, I see what you mean Ed😊

Naughty Nigel
10th February 2016, 03:14 PM
Several years back I was hauled up by the police for carrying a camera past a school.

Our daughter took part in a primary school brass band concert a few years ago. I was 'official tog' at many school events including 'tivity plays and so forth and had never had any problems.

On this occasion there were youngsters from other schools taking part in the concert. Numerous parents and family members were shooting away with video cameras and compact cameras, but I was using my Mamiya 645 with Metz 45 CL4 flashgun attached. This led to the Head Teacher of one of the other schools challenging me. I explained that I often took photographs on behalf of the school, and suggested that she speak to the Head about it. She wasn't at all happy about this arrangement and asked to see the photographs that I had taken. However, when I explained that it was a film camera she went away happy. :confused:

I can only conclude from this that it is perfectly acceptable to take photographs of children using mobile phone and compact cameras. Film cameras are also acceptable as long as they don't have flashguns attached. :mad:

But what a shame that today's children will have no photographic record of their time at school thanks to these misinformed eejits. :(

Graham_of_Rainham
10th February 2016, 03:23 PM
But what a shame that today's children will have no photographic record of their time at school thanks to these misinformed eejits. :(

OR: They can just be posted on Face Book ;-)

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpl1/v/t1.0-9/12717528_1240449239303935_8322866627442892002_n.jp g?oh=2160598ca8b2ccf2c48bc79d2490b4d1&oe=57659BA8

https://www.facebook.com/EWTIngrebourne/photos/pcb.1240449449303914/1240449239303935/?type=3&theater

Naughty Nigel
10th February 2016, 03:26 PM
The company I work for is emblazoned across the back of my florescent jacket.

That's OK then. You can get away with anything if you wear a fluorescent jacket, it seems. :D

One thing that puzzles me is motorway roadworks, where it is now commonplace to impose a 50 MPH speed limit enforced by average speed cameras; with fines presumably used to pay for the road repairs.

These speed limits ore often justified on the grounds of "protecting the workforce", but if that is really true why is it that a): I rarely see anyone actually working on site, and b): I am often overtaken on the roadworks side by a "Highway Maintenance" van complete with flashing amber beacon, driven by someone wearing a fluorescent jacket and a hard-hat, but no seat belt! :confused:

Naughty Nigel
10th February 2016, 03:27 PM
OR: They can just be posted on Face Book ;-)

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpl1/v/t1.0-9/12717528_1240449239303935_8322866627442892002_n.jp g?oh=2160598ca8b2ccf2c48bc79d2490b4d1&oe=57659BA8

https://www.facebook.com/EWTIngrebourne/photos/pcb.1240449449303914/1240449239303935/?type=3&theater

Which presumably is perfectly safe as Facebook now owns the copyright? :mad:

Bikie John
10th February 2016, 03:53 PM
One of my friends wanted photographs of their son, 8 yrs old ) playing football for his youth team. I found out I needed to get disclaimers signed by the whole of his teams parents and all of the opposite teams parents before I dare take a single frame.
Needless to say I had to decline, and they never did get any record of him playing.

I am deeply embedded in our local rugby club and from time to time I am asked to shoot juniors' events. As part of signing up for membership, the parents sign a form which says that photos may be taken for legitimate purposes (publicity etc.) and that they are OK with it. As far as I am aware no parent has ever objected. Our annual min-rugby festival is a huge event with hundreds of the little darlings from dozens of clubs, and the entry form spells out the same conditions. There are usually commercial photogs there with a van from which they can churn out prints on demand. I think all this is pretty standard for rugby clubs nowadays.

I am always worried that someone might cut up rough at these events so I wear a club rugby shirt and carry my membership card and make sure I know who and where our child protection officer is. In fact I usually get the opposite problem, when a proud mum asks me to take a photo of little Tarquin or Jocasta being heroic on the field - I don't have the heart to tell them that all the little ********s look the same to me!

Ciao ... John

Ross the fiddler
10th February 2016, 09:58 PM
I am deeply embedded in our local rugby club and from time to time I am asked to shoot juniors' events. As part of signing up for membership, the parents sign a form which says that photos may be taken for legitimate purposes (publicity etc.) and that they are OK with it. As far as I am aware no parent has ever objected. Our annual min-rugby festival is a huge event with hundreds of the little darlings from dozens of clubs, and the entry form spells out the same conditions. There are usually commercial photogs there with a van from which they can churn out prints on demand. I think all this is pretty standard for rugby clubs nowadays.

I am always worried that someone might cut up rough at these events so I wear a club rugby shirt and carry my membership card and make sure I know who and where our child protection officer is. In fact I usually get the opposite problem, when a proud mum asks me to take a photo of little Tarquin or Jocasta being heroic on the field - I don't have the heart to tell them that all the little ********s look the same to me!

Ciao ... John

I took many photos on one Sunday morning where the kids were "taking over church" that day & I was asked days later by one doting grandmother if she could have a copy of a photo of 'Little Johnny' & so I put together a CD of all the acceptable photos including all the kids etc & told her the CD was ready to pick up. Oh no, she only wanted a photo of Little Johnny, whoever Little Johnny might have been! *sarc I was not impressed when she the said not to bother (I already did!) & she would ask someone else that might have taken one on their phone. *livid

I also took photos at a choir event my daughter sang in & the choir conductor gave me permission to photograph her young son playing his cello with the choir (I got some lovely shots of him as well as members of the choir etc), but I've not heard any feedback at all. :( I think I'll just stick to photographing birds & animals instead. At least they appreciate the feed they get for being my subjects. :rolleyes: But, who knows, I might get complaints from my neighbours though. One neighbour said she liked to see the birds & lizards & that there were young Blue Tongue lizards in her garden. I didn't dare tell her the mother Kookaburra fed one of those lizards to one of her babies though (I have photos of it). ;)

sapper
11th February 2016, 07:57 AM
I once met with quite a few photographers in a town centre to protest about a photographer who had been arrested for taking a photo of a shop. He was using film and the council warden didn't know that with film, you couldn't see the pic on a camera screen. A couple of dozen photographers then met and wandered around the town taking pics of anything, I remember my mate remarking, "I am quite disappointed Dave, not been arrested yet!"

Naughty Nigel
11th February 2016, 10:18 AM
There seems to be an obsession amongst certain demographics about shielding their offspring against the realities of the outside world.

Not only is it unacceptable to use a camera within a one mile radius of a school, (smartphones and compacts excepted of course), but children must be conveyed to and from school in a car with blacked out windows*, so that nobody can see them, and paparazzi cannot grab photographs of them.

(* I think it is called Privacy Glass, which was a 1,440 option when I ordered my car. :mad: Thank God we are 'ordinary' and don't need it. :( )

But who on earth do these people think they are? Is this the effect of today's 'celebrity' culture, where parents are so stage struck by their celebrity idols that they feel their entire families are at risk of being exploited by the media and spread across the front pages if their offspring are seen in public? Or do they really believe that anyone walking the street and carrying a camera is a paedophile, a terrorist, or both?

Yes, I daresay that some children do live in 4 x 4 families, which is a lifestyle choice of the parents concerned; but should that mean that every child is now deprived of having photographs taken whilst enjoying school activities, sports events and so forth?

What sort of world have we created and why? :confused:

sapper
11th February 2016, 10:24 AM
Which presumably is perfectly safe as Facebook now owns the copyright? :mad:

Not True Nigel.
See http://www.snopes.com/computer/facebook/privacy.asp

Naughty Nigel
11th February 2016, 11:06 AM
Not True Nigel.
See http://www.snopes.com/computer/facebook/privacy.asp

Well thank you for clearing that one up Dave. However, I believe it is still true that Facebook reserves the right to claim a percentage of commercial sales generated by advertising/posting photographs on Facebook?

Is this true or not?

sapper
11th February 2016, 11:22 AM
Well thank you for clearing that one up Dave. However, I believe it is still true that Facebook reserves the right to claim a percentage of commercial sales generated by advertising/posting photographs on Facebook?

Is this true or not?

Dunno. But I don't think that is unfair. FB makes it's money by advertising, if you advertise stuff on FB, then you should pay.

Naughty Nigel
11th February 2016, 11:42 AM
Dunno. But I don't think that is unfair. FB makes it's money by advertising, if you advertise stuff on FB, then you should pay.

Yes, FB makes its money by displaying paid advertisements. The amount they are paid is determined by the number of views, which is why FB are very slow to remove distasteful and sensational material whilst it is generating page views/income.

FB claim that "Membership is free, and always will be". FB actively encourages members to upload images, but at no point when doing so is there any agreement that FB reserves the right to a share of any profits generated by sales of the images concerned.

David M
11th February 2016, 12:02 PM
There's a difference between owning the image and usage. Posting on Facebook means they can use an image not that they own it.

benvendetta
11th February 2016, 07:47 PM
Well I have just returned from my site visit to a school in Barnet. Shot loads of video and lots of stills. Just did the former when all the kids came out in the afternoon using my GoPro and my chest mount as it is less obvious than shooting stills. No one came up to me in the near three hours I was there. If I had been in Merthyr Tydfil here in South Wales, it would have been a whole lot different..........

Petrochemist
12th February 2016, 07:07 PM
That's OK then. You can get away with anything if you wear a fluorescent jacket, it seems. :D

One thing that puzzles me is motorway roadworks, where it is now commonplace to impose a 50 MPH speed limit enforced by average speed cameras; with fines presumably used to pay for the road repairs.

These speed limits ore often justified on the grounds of "protecting the workforce", but if that is really true why is it that a): I rarely see anyone actually working on site, and b): I am often overtaken on the roadworks side by a "Highway Maintenance" van complete with flashing amber beacon, driven by someone wearing a fluorescent jacket and a hard-hat, but no seat belt! :confused:

Several years ago the local dual carriage 'for workforce protection' way speed limits dropped to 40MPH. I got caught doing 50MPH through the roadworks at 5am. No one was on site at the time nor four hours later on my return trip. At least on the return trip I was now aware of the change in speed limit - the signs were well camouflaged in a sea of yellow signs - army pattern khaki would have stood out more!
It strikes me as odd that the large concrete blocks installed between the lane in use & the working area are not considered sufficient to make it at least as safe as walking along a pavement (where cars can often legally pass at 60).

pandora
12th February 2016, 10:13 PM
Margaret - sorry to come late to the table but have recently been preoccupied with a bad dose of flu and another project.

I have just read the Australian's article of Ken Duncan's and agree with everything he says, it is true. From a personal point of view I continue to photograph covertly in public places where it is legal if not wise to openly do so. Street photography interests all, photographers and public alike because humans are intensely and naturally interested humans. But as Ken notes, "a lone man with a camera is not a good look" - I was aware of this recently at Geelong foreshore recreation area when looking for 'decisive moments' with the E-3 + SWD50-200mm, definitely not advisable - better results with my phone while pretending to make a call!). Of course it's okay for City Hall to install CCTV cams everywhere, they are the lords of intrusive photography but no one complains as we are told that it is for our own security, and undoubtedly so.