Photography in Public Places

[RobEW]

Re: Photography in Public Places

There may be people with mental health problems which mean they get irrational fears if they see someone wearing a sombrero, or eating a burger, or writing in a notebook, or sneezing. We don't ban those activities because of the minute chance that it will be seen by someone with an irrational phobia and "trigger" them and put back their recovery.

[Naughty Nigel]

Re: Photography in Public Places


Hmm. The situation you describe here represents something of a dichotomy and would be difficult for the the man or woman in the street to reasonably avoid.

Whilst I have every sympathy with the plight of the woman concerned how was the photographer in question to know that the sight of a camera would cause so much damage and distress? You cannot keep institutions top secret but still expect the general public to refrain from certain unspecified activities if within the sight of secret patients. Or do you suggest that nobody uses a camera in the street anywhere just in case that street is near to one of these secret establishments that we are not supposed to know about?

For what its worth people can be freaked out by all manner of things including certain clothing or even colours, just as some people can suffer fatal anaphylactic shock when exposed to certain allergens. What are we to do? Dare I open that packet of dry roasted peanuts in the pub?

[Naughty Nigel]

Re: Photography in Public Places

If your opinion is that the satisfaction you get from a street image is so great that you can ignore potential damage to other peoples mental health then go ahead.

What about the harm to my mental health caused by the phobia of going out into the street and triggering somebody's irrational fear of whatever I might be doing, wearing or using. You seem to be suggesting that we should all stay indoors (with all the associated health risks that that implies) just in case there is somebody around with a screw loose.

[Jax]

Re: Photography in Public Places

If your opinion is that the satisfaction you get from a street image is so great that you can ignore potential damage to other peoples mental health then go ahead.

You seem to be suggesting we should not take photos which contain any human images in case someone's tender sensitive feelings or mental health may be compromised. That being the case, this also means all TV outside broadcasts, news and public interest programs should be banned on the off chance someone is offended by being pictured in the background. Maybe this should also include landscape photography just in case a farmer has a mental breakdown having been pictured driving his tractor or tending his flock.

Sorry but your statement has to be one of the most ridiculous I've had the misfortune to read on here in a very long time. I would suggest if someone is so traumatised by having a camera or indeed a phone aimed in their direction within a public place then the problem lies directly with them and not with the person holding the camera.

Jax

[MJ224]

[Jax]

Re: Photography in Public Places

sometimes a little red flag should be hoisted to warn others...

Do you mean like they used to do with the very first cars ? Someone had to walk in front holding up a red flag

Jax

[MJ224]

[jeremyc]

Re: Photography in Public Places

What 'current situation'?

And how can a camera cause alarm and distress?

Suppose a child and his mother have moved from their home to escape an abusive father. The father would like to track them down. Your photograph might tell the father where thy are. A good cause for "alarm and distress"?

Schools which such children attend (and there are many!) are very careful about allowing any images of these children to be published, or even taken.

Pervading this discussion is a defence of photographers' rights. What about photographers' responsibilities?

[Naughty Nigel]

Re: Photography in Public Places

Suppose a child and his mother have moved from their home to escape an abusive father. The father would like to track them down. Your photograph might tell the father where thy are. A good cause for "alarm and distress"?

Schools which such children attend (and there are many!) are very careful about allowing any images of these children to be published, or even taken.

Pervading this discussion is a defence of photographers' rights. What about photographers' responsibilities?

So where exactly would you say it is safe and socially acceptable to use a camera?

You seem to be suggesting that an innocent photographer carrying (and not necessarily using) a camera might be a cause for alarm and distress. How logical is this?

If an 'abusive' absent father really did want to track down his children there are surely much safer and easier ways of doing it than sending a Photographer out onto the street: FaceBook for instance. (Many allegedly 'abused' mothers have plenty to say about it online and make themselves easy to track down.)

Any why stop at hand-held cameras? Many vehicles have dashcams these days, and what about Google's Street Cars? Are we to ban those too? In any case, any 'Private Dick' worth his (or her) salt would use much more covert methods.

This is all becoming a bit like buying a motor car: Buying one is still perfectly legal, and government is happy to collect taxes for it; but actually using a motor car is becoming increasingly difficult and socially unacceptable.

Please stop this world. I want to get off.

[jeremyc]

Re: Photography in Public Places

So where exactly would you say it is safe and socially acceptable to use a camera?

You seem to be suggesting that an innocent photographer carrying (and not necessarily using) a camera might be a cause for alarm and distress. How logical is this?

If an 'abusive' absent father really did want to track down his children there are surely much safer and easier ways of doing it than sending a Photographer out onto the street: FaceBook for instance. (Many allegedly 'abused' mothers have plenty to say about it online and make themselves easy to track down.)

Any why stop at hand-held cameras? Many vehicles have dashcams these days, and what about Google's Street Cars? In any case, any 'Private Dick' worth his (or her) salt would use much more covert methods.

This is all becoming a bit like buying a motor car: Buying one is still perfectly legal, and government is happy to collect taxes for it; but actually using a motor car is becoming increasingly difficult and socially unacceptable.

Please stop this world. I want to get off.

Your reply demonstrates perfectly what I mean about rights and responsibilities. The bit about cars seals it.

[Naughty Nigel]

Re: Photography in Public Places

Your reply demonstrates perfectly what I mean about rights and responsibilities. The bit about cars seals it.

So then please answer my first question?

Are you suggesting that the sale of cameras and motor vehicles should be banned outright to protect 'vulnerable' individuals? That would certainly avoid any ambiguity.

Talk about the lowest common denominator.

[MJ224]

Re: Photography in Public Places

Suppose a child and his mother have moved from their home to escape an abusive father. The father would like to track them down. Your photograph might tell the father where thy are. A good cause for "alarm and distress"?

Schools which such children attend (and there are many!) are very careful about allowing any images of these children to be published, or even taken.

Pervading this discussion is a defence of photographers' rights. What about photographers' responsibilities?

Not sure I see your logic here. If I took a street photo, and your scenario was happening, where would the father see the photo? Would the father be on this site, or Flickr, and he would have to be following me on the latter. A bit coincidental if it were to happen I think.

At my grandsons school open day, the headmistress announced that we were free to photo our little darlings, but NOT to publish the photos on social media. Sounded Ok to me.

I personally don't do Facebook, so am unsure how this social medium would work in your scenario. Is it any worse (if that's the right word) than this Olympus forum?? Or Flickr, where there may be odd people lurking, but the chances of that happening must be miniscule.

And anyway, would a photo of a street in any town be recognizable to anyone but people who live locally...…..??

Yes we have responsibilities, and decency and just good manners. But as Nigel says there are just so many images and videos in every day life, just where do you stop...…………..

Nothing personal Jeremy, just food for thought...……….

[Naughty Nigel]

Re: Photography in Public Places

Not sure I see your logic here. If I took a street photo, and your scenario was happening, where would the father see the photo? Would the father be on this site, or Flickr, and he would have to be following me on the latter. A bit coincidental if it were to happen I think.

I a slightly puzzled as to why anybody who evidently thinks that carrying or using a camera is socially unacceptable should be on a photography forum in the first place?

For what its worth I don't really do street photography; much preferring landscapes and architectural photography, but I do enjoy seeing the work of others. I did fancy giving street photography a go myself but I think Jeremy has just changed my mind.

[Jax]

Re: Photography in Public Places

Not sure I see your logic here.

Perhaps because there isn't any logic

Jax

[Naughty Nigel]

Re: Photography in Public Places

You seem to be suggesting we should not take photos which contain any human images in case someone's tender sensitive feelings or mental health may be compromised. That being the case, this also means all TV outside broadcasts, news and public interest programs should be banned on the off chance someone is offended by being pictured in the background. Maybe this should also include landscape photography just in case a farmer has a mental breakdown having been pictured driving his tractor or tending his flock.

Sorry but your statement has to be one of the most ridiculous I've had the misfortune to read on here in a very long time. I would suggest if someone is so traumatised by having a camera or indeed a phone aimed in their direction within a public place then the problem lies directly with them and not with the person holding the camera.

Jax

This is rather like some of the ancient tribes living in what remains of the Amazon Rain Forest, who fear their souls will be stolen if their photographs are taken; although I am told that many are happy to pose if payment is made.