Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots)
You guys should try to get hold of the UK publication 'Amateur Photographer' for 11/6/2005 and read the latest from the Lord Mayor of London on photographers in parks in London, and then scare yourself to death with Roger Hick's article foretelling just how bad it could get! Tom's thoughts would be only the first step on the long march to loss of photo freedom. John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 6:41 AM Subject: Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots) And that is why the law would be completely unenforceable. How could they possibly regulate zoom lenses? Maybe they could license them. That's how government usually works. Levy a tax on all lenses longer than 100mm focal length. Then the govt. could set up a bureaucracy with plenty of jobs for political hacks and campaign donors. You would have to prove that you paid your license fee or the cops would confiscate your lens and you'd have to pay a fine to get it back. Carrying a camera bag would naturally be probable cause to search you. Tom (The Cynic) Reese
Re: Porto street shots (?)
William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Joaquim Carvalho Subject: Re: Porto street shots (?) Never been to Russia but I was in Poland last year and it is a photographer's dream. So they don't arrest you any more for pointing your camera at the wrong things? Honestly I could not find any wrong things. I went through their country by car, with some Portuguese friends who are working in Germany, from Berlin to the Tatra Mountains. On the return trip I took trains, buses and the underground, and visited large cities and small towns. All the things, from houses to the bus stops, inc. cars, roads, trains and train stations, churches and people, look old fashioned but are very good and clean. There is cheap and good public transportation everywhere. Ex. the train has rooms with real beds and goes directly to Zakopane (the very small skiing village), you can go out of the train and WALK to the cable car that goes up to one of the top skiing mountains in the world, the cable car was built in 1936 (pre WWII) and is still in a good condition and working. There are lots and lots of very large trees everywhere and not too many cars, all the cars look 10, 20 or 30 years old. People look very interesting but they don't speak English and they don't like having their picture taken so I only shot a few. Joaquim
Re: Porto street shots (?)
Joaquim Carvalho wrote: William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Joaquim Carvalho Subject: Re: Porto street shots (?) Never been to Russia but I was in Poland last year and it is a photographer's dream. So they don't arrest you any more for pointing your camera at the wrong things? I think all the years without freedom have left a feeling of sadness in the air that will probably last for some generations but they're highly educated and physically their country is in pretty good shape.
Re: Re: Porto street shots (?)
From: Joaquim Carvalho [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/06/28 Tue AM 09:11:19 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Porto street shots (?) William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Joaquim Carvalho Subject: Re: Porto street shots (?) Never been to Russia but I was in Poland last year and it is a photographer's dream. So they don't arrest you any more for pointing your camera at the wrong things? Still the case with military establishments but that's the same worldwide. Honestly I could not find any wrong things. I went through their country by car, with some Portuguese friends who are working in Germany, from Berlin to the Tatra Mountains. On the return trip I took trains, buses and the underground, and visited large cities and small towns. All the things, from houses to the bus stops, inc. cars, roads, trains and train stations, churches and people, look old fashioned but are very good and clean. There is cheap and good public transportation everywhere. Ex. the train has rooms with real beds and goes directly to Zakopane (the very small skiing village), you can go out of the train and WALK to the cable car that goes up to one of the top skiing mountains in the world, the cable car was built in 1936 (pre WWII) and is still in a good condition and working. There are lots and lots of very large trees everywhere and not too many cars, all the cars look 10, 20 or 30 years old. People look very interesting but they don't speak English and they don't like having their picture taken so I only shot a few. Joaquim Mountain folk are notoriously, er, different.. - Email provided by http://www.ntlhome.com/
Re: Re: Porto street shots (?)
From: Joaquim Carvalho [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/06/28 Tue AM 09:56:15 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Porto street shots (?) Joaquim Carvalho wrote: William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Joaquim Carvalho Subject: Re: Porto street shots (?) Never been to Russia but I was in Poland last year and it is a photographer's dream. So they don't arrest you any more for pointing your camera at the wrong things? I think all the years without freedom have left a feeling of sadness in the air that will probably last for some generations but they're highly educated and physically their country is in pretty good shape. Those are some very strange Poles you've been mixing with, Joaquim. The ones I know have a lust for life that makes Iggy Pop look like a maiden aunt. - Email provided by http://www.ntlhome.com/
Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots)
Frank Theriault wrote: I wasn't defending the law, Tom, I was just saying that it would be easily enforceable is all. Of course, I too would be dead set against such an infringement of personal freedoms. I didn't think you were defending it. I interpreted what you wrote as your saying the law could be reasonably enforced. I guess I should have worded that better. I understand the reasons why someone would want such a law but I do not believe that rudeness can be effectively regulated by government. I don't blame Sean Penn for busting those guys in the chops. I'd be tempted to do the same thing. The threat of violence can be a great civilizer. Stalkers are a different issue entirely. There are plenty of laws on the books against that already. They don't seem to do much good though. Tom Reese
Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots)
On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 12:42, frank theriault wrote: I wasn't defending the law, Tom, I was just saying that it would be easily enforceable is all. No it wouldn't, people would just start using 85mm (the longest legal lens) lenses on top of a few 1.7x (the maximum allowed) tele-converters
Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots)
On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 13:39, William Robb wrote: And yes the propose CA ordinance I mentioned was an anti-paparazzi one. I do still wonder why it was the paparazzis fault that Diana's driver was doing 100+ mph in city streets? Probably because the paparazzi were going 105+. Let's not believe in everything we're told: Below 100mph most bikes accelerate 2 times faster than any car, there's no way a car can escape from a bike inside a town. I don't believe a professional car driver would even try to run away from paparazzis on a bike.
Re: not morality, not Porto street shots
The purpose of proposed legislation is to see whether some crackerjack's knee-jerk idea has any merit. These proposals failed, so the legislators did their job. Godfrey
re: not morality, not Porto street shots either
On Jun 28, 2005, at 8:12 AM, Joaquim Carvalho wrote: Below 100mph most bikes accelerate 2 times faster than any car, there's no way a car can escape from a bike inside a town. I don't believe a professional car driver would even try to run away from paparazzis on a bike. I don't know whether you've ever tried to chase a car on a motorcycle, but cars are stable and don't fall over on nasty surfaces, and are not affected by being bumped a little bit. It's very difficult indeed for a motorcycle to catch a car on city streets at high speed, and usually ends up nastily for the motorcycle. Godfrey
Re: Porto street shots (?)
That kind of depends, you may take photos of anything not considered secret in the US at least. In some places it's even encouraged. mike wilson wrote: From: Joaquim Carvalho [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/06/28 Tue AM 09:11:19 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Porto street shots (?) William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Joaquim Carvalho Subject: Re: Porto street shots (?) Never been to Russia but I was in Poland last year and it is a photographer's dream. So they don't arrest you any more for pointing your camera at the wrong things? Still the case with military establishments but that's the same worldwide. Honestly I could not find any wrong things. I went through their country by car, with some Portuguese friends who are working in Germany, from Berlin to the Tatra Mountains. On the return trip I took trains, buses and the underground, and visited large cities and small towns. All the things, from houses to the bus stops, inc. cars, roads, trains and train stations, churches and people, look old fashioned but are very good and clean. There is cheap and good public transportation everywhere. Ex. the train has rooms with real beds and goes directly to Zakopane (the very small skiing village), you can go out of the train and WALK to the cable car that goes up to one of the top skiing mountains in the world, the cable car was built in 1936 (pre WWII) and is still in a good condition and working. There are lots and lots of very large trees everywhere and not too many cars, all the cars look 10, 20 or 30 years old. People look very interesting but they don't speak English and they don't like having their picture taken so I only shot a few. Joaquim Mountain folk are notoriously, er, different.. - Email provided by http://www.ntlhome.com/ -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots)
That was my point, if the law is vague enough to cover all circumstances it's too vague to enforce, if it's specific, then you just stay inside the legal definitions, if it annoys to many people it will be ignored. Joaquim Carvalho wrote: On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 12:42, frank theriault wrote: I wasn't defending the law, Tom, I was just saying that it would be easily enforceable is all. No it wouldn't, people would just start using 85mm (the longest legal lens) lenses on top of a few 1.7x (the maximum allowed) tele-converters -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots)
On 28/6/05, Graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed: I do still wonder why it was the paparazzis fault that Diana's driver was doing 100+ mph in city streets? Assassination by MI5 Moto-Gucci pap. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots)
- Original Message - From: Joaquim Carvalho Subject: Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots) On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 12:42, frank theriault wrote: I wasn't defending the law, Tom, I was just saying that it would be easily enforceable is all. No it wouldn't, people would just start using 85mm (the longest legal lens) lenses on top of a few 1.7x (the maximum allowed) tele-converters The 2 out of 1000 people that actually have one, anyway. Everyone else has zoom lenses. William Robb
Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots)
William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Joaquim Carvalho Subject: Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots) On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 12:42, frank theriault wrote: I wasn't defending the law, Tom, I was just saying that it would be easily enforceable is all. No it wouldn't, people would just start using 85mm (the longest legal lens) lenses on top of a few 1.7x (the maximum allowed) tele-converters The 2 out of 1000 people that actually have one, anyway. Everyone else has zoom lenses. And that is why the law would be completely unenforceable. How could they possibly regulate zoom lenses? Maybe they could license them. That's how government usually works. Levy a tax on all lenses longer than 100mm focal length. Then the govt. could set up a bureaucracy with plenty of jobs for political hacks and campaign donors. You would have to prove that you paid your license fee or the cops would confiscate your lens and you'd have to pay a fine to get it back. Carrying a camera bag would naturally be probable cause to search you. Tom (The Cynic) Reese
Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots)
Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And that is why the law would be completely unenforceable. How could they possibly regulate zoom lenses? I say ban 'em outright. For everyone. It's for our own good ;-) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots)
i don't think it is that high. Herb - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 3:00 PM Subject: Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots) The 2 out of 1000 people that actually have one, anyway. Everyone else has zoom lenses.
Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots)
a bust in the chops can be worth it for half a million. http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=lifeAndLeisureNewsstoryID=2005-06-27T152722Z_01_N15295939_RTRIDST_0_LIFESTYLE-MEDIA-PAPARAZZI-DC.XML Herb... - Original Message - From: Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 9:35 AM Subject: Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots) I understand the reasons why someone would want such a law but I do not believe that rudeness can be effectively regulated by government. I don't blame Sean Penn for busting those guys in the chops. I'd be tempted to do the same thing. The threat of violence can be a great civilizer.
Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots)
- Original Message - From: Herb Chong Subject: Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots) i don't think it is that high. I dropped a couple of zeros. William Robb The 2 out of 1000 people that actually have one, anyway. Everyone else has zoom lenses.
Re: Porto street shots (?)
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Boris Liberman wrote: Hehs, that Greek Nose really stands out... You should come here... I wouldn't want to start an argument, really, but I think our Nose-iness is much higher :)... Aye, we don't call them Greek in Greece ;-) K
Re: Porto street shots (?)
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: Aye, we don't call them Greek in Greece ;-) We call them Roman in the UK... blame all those busts of Julius Caesar :-) S
Re: Porto street shots (?)
On 6/26/05, Joaquim Carvalho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some Porto street shots (?) taken with the SMC FA 80-320mm F4.5-5.6 mostly at 320mm (480mm on the *ist DS) F6.8 1/500 200 ASA http://x64.com/joaquim/photo/photo03 These people were minding their own business and I wouldn't want to interrupt them, this would not have been possible with a noisy eye level SLR and a lens much shorter than 200mm I'm getting Error 404 Not Found... -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Porto street shots (?)
http://x64.com/joaquim/photo/photo03 These people were minding their own business and I wouldn't want to interrupt them, this would not have been possible with a noisy eye level SLR and a lens much shorter than 200mm I'm getting Error 404 Not Found... Sorry, fixed it
Re: Porto street shots (?)
How acceptable is it to take pictures of people without asking for permission? On Sun, 2005-06-26 at 14:35, Joaquim Carvalho wrote: Some Porto street shots (?) taken with the SMC FA 80-320mm F4.5-5.6 mostly at 320mm (480mm on the *ist DS) F6.8 1/500 200 ASA http://x64.com/joaquim/photo/photo03 These people were minding their own business and I wouldn't want to interrupt them, this would not have been possible with a noisy eye level SLR and a lens much shorter than 200mm
Re: Porto street shots (?)
In a message dated 6/27/2005 10:34:14 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How acceptable is it to take pictures of people without asking for permission? In a public space in most places there is no problem. From my experience, though, if you are right in among the people taking pictures, then it turns into a consensual situation. If you are standing afar with a 300 mm lens, in my opinion, you are stealing their image, but leaving their soul behind. Regards, Sonny http://www.sonc.com Natchitoches, Louisiana Oldest continuous settlement in La Louisiane égalité, liberté, crawfish On Sun, 2005-06-26 at 14:35, Joaquim Carvalho wrote: Some Porto street shots (?) taken with the SMC FA 80-320mm F4.5-5.6 mostly at 320mm (480mm on the *ist DS) F6.8 1/500 200 ASA http://x64.com/joaquim/photo/photo03 These people were minding their own business and I wouldn't want to interrupt them, this would not have been possible with a noisy eye level SLR and a lens much shorter than 200mm
morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots)
How acceptable is it to take pictures of people without asking for permission? Joaquim, Your question instantly reminded me of a discussion that took place just under 2 years ago here started by Shel, entitled The morality of taking a photograph. It started from a photo of an obese woman that Shel posted, entitled bigeater. That discussion may hold the pdml record as, if you check the archives, you'll see that the discussion took off and continued for over ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY emails (crazy!!!). Anyhow, the short answer / consensus that *I* got from that discussion was that it simply depends on your intentions as the photographer, not to mention your intended use of the photo. The entire discussion starts here: http://www.mail-archive.com/pentax-discuss@pdml.net/msg148946.html Enjoy g PS... The link on Shel's page has since been made inactive... but if you were truly interested, perhaps he would be so kind as to let you sneak a peak. Best regards, - Jerome
RE: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots)
There's something called tacit permission, such as when the person knows you're making a photograph but you've not specifically asked permission to do so. FWIW, in almost all of my photos the person knows they're being photographed. IIRC, the woman in the photo you mentioned saw that I had a camera when I sat beside her, and suspected that she was being photographed. But it was a while ago and I don't recall all the details of how I made the pic ... I believe the photo in question is on one of my other computers. If someone really wants to see it, I'll look for it. BTW, this brings up an interesting question that may arise from a discussion in another thread, that of using a telephoto lens. If the photographer feels that some sort of permission is needed before taking a photo, then the use of long lenses would be unacceptable. Shel [Original Message] From: Jerome Reyes How acceptable is it to take pictures of people without asking for permission? Joaquim, Your question instantly reminded me of a discussion that took place just under 2 years ago here started by Shel, entitled The morality of taking a photograph. It started from a photo of an obese woman that Shel posted, entitled bigeater. That discussion may hold the pdml record as, if you check the archives, you'll see that the discussion took off and continued for over ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY emails (crazy!!!). Anyhow, the short answer / consensus that *I* got from that discussion was that it simply depends on your intentions as the photographer, not to mention your intended use of the photo. The entire discussion starts here: http://www.mail-archive.com/pentax-discuss@pdml.net/msg148946.html Enjoy g PS... The link on Shel's page has since been made inactive... but if you were truly interested, perhaps he would be so kind as to let you sneak a peak. Best regards, - Jerome
Re: Porto street shots (?)
On Jun 27, 2005, at 9:36 AM, Joaquim Carvalho wrote: How acceptable is it to take pictures of people without asking for permission? Legally, in the USA, it's perfectly all right to photograph people in public places, at public events, etc. I won't delve on legal issues as I'm not a lawyer. Ethically, morally, intra-personally ... It varies. In a sense it depends on how well you and the people you're photographing get on together. Invade someone's privacy, whether legal or not, and be ready to deal with their emotional reaction. What you intend to do with the photographs, and why, make a difference. I photograph people all the time. Sometimes with their knowledge, sometimes without. Usually from fairly close up, where it is obvious that I have a camera pointed in their direction. I find most of my favorite photos have a connection between me and the person being photographed, however brief or trivial, that makes a difference. Godfrey
RE: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots)
Shel, If the photographer feels that some sort of permission is needed before taking a photo, then the use of long lenses would be unacceptable. I think that is a very reasonable assessment. Basically, a let your conscience be your guide kinda thing. The only time I've really gotten conflicted about that is when photographing infants / children in a park or some other public place. With the way of the world these days, I always feel obligated to ask the parent for permission, ESPECIALLY if I'm using a long lens. Given the Law and Order society that we live in these days, long lens + children in viewfinder = maybe he's a pedafile... and so I occasionally get the looks :o( but by the time I inquire for the shot, the moment is usually way gone. So wudduya do? [answer: have your own kids, and stage your own shots g] Anyhow, your point is well taken. For every other circumstance, it's likely a no-brainer. Best regards, - Jerome
Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots)
I guess I would like to add a couple of comments about street shooting. The first is that it is hard when you start. After you do it a bit you become much more comfortable. But if you stop for awhile you have to go through that discomfortable period again. It is just the nature of the beast. The second is that you photograph people on the street because you think they are interesting. Think about that for a moment. How do you react to people who seem to think you are interesting? You do not usually get angry. Maybe a bit embarrassed sometimes, but not angry. In a way you are saying nice things about people when you photograph them. That is why sometimes people even ask you to take their picture when they see the camera. Sometimes someone really does not want you to photograph them. They usually wave you off, or shake their head. I always respect that and clearly turn away. Occasionally you run into someone who is truly paranoid, turning away will almost always defuse them. Although once I had a guy follow me for a block ranting and raving, that has only happened once in 50 years of photography. Another thing that happens nowadays is sometimes people think you are documenting something they are doing for legal purposes. That usually has happened to me when photographing people working. Talking to them a bit about my photography has always defused that situation. I remember one time there was this Ferrari parked outside a junk yard. The bright red immaculately detailed car opposed to the junk in the background was irresistible. A guy that looked like a movie mafioso came running out, demanding, Why are you photographing my car. I told him I was taking a photo course at the community college and our current assignment was the color red, and that his beautiful car was the reddest thing I had ever seen. He not only calmed down, but even offered to move the car so I could get a better angle of it. Also got some nice shots of him in the car, and with him standing in the open door leaning on the top talking to me across the car. Well I guess this turned into a mini-essay, sorry. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.2/29 - Release Date: 6/27/2005
Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots)
On Jun 27, 2005, at 10:13 AM, Graywolf wrote: Sometimes someone really does not want you to photograph them. They usually wave you off, or shake their head. I always respect that and clearly turn away. Occasionally you run into someone who is truly paranoid, turning away will almost always defuse them. Although once I had a guy follow me for a block ranting and raving, that has only happened once in 50 years of photography. I think we're in complete agreement, Tom. Godfrey
RE: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots)
If the subject knows you're photographing him or her, the chance of capturing a candid, unposed moment is lost. Thus, in the interest of good photography, I believe it's better to apologize after the fact if necessary. I would guess that more than half of HCB's subjects didn't know they were being photographed. Thus, lens length becomes somewhat irrelevant. But FWIW, even shooting with a 200 or 300, close to half of my subjects realize they're being photographed. When I shoot with a 35 or 50, the percentage probably goes up to about 60. I prefer long lenses more for the minimal depth of field rather than for the element of surprise, but they help with both. Paul There's something called tacit permission, such as when the person knows you're making a photograph but you've not specifically asked permission to do so. FWIW, in almost all of my photos the person knows they're being photographed. IIRC, the woman in the photo you mentioned saw that I had a camera when I sat beside her, and suspected that she was being photographed. But it was a while ago and I don't recall all the details of how I made the pic ... I believe the photo in question is on one of my other computers. If someone really wants to see it, I'll look for it. BTW, this brings up an interesting question that may arise from a discussion in another thread, that of using a telephoto lens. If the photographer feels that some sort of permission is needed before taking a photo, then the use of long lenses would be unacceptable. Shel [Original Message] From: Jerome Reyes How acceptable is it to take pictures of people without asking for permission? Joaquim, Your question instantly reminded me of a discussion that took place just under 2 years ago here started by Shel, entitled The morality of taking a photograph. It started from a photo of an obese woman that Shel posted, entitled bigeater. That discussion may hold the pdml record as, if you check the archives, you'll see that the discussion took off and continued for over ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY emails (crazy!!!). Anyhow, the short answer / consensus that *I* got from that discussion was that it simply depends on your intentions as the photographer, not to mention your intended use of the photo. The entire discussion starts here: http://www.mail-archive.com/pentax-discuss@pdml.net/msg148946.html Enjoy g PS... The link on Shel's page has since been made inactive... but if you were truly interested, perhaps he would be so kind as to let you sneak a peak. Best regards, - Jerome
Re: Porto street shots (?)
On 27/6/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed: Legally, in the USA, it's perfectly all right to photograph people in public places, at public events, etc. I won't delve on legal issues as I'm not a lawyer. USA readers may be interested in this page. Download the PDF, print it out, keep it in your bag. http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm UK readers, there's a link at the bottom of the page for your version. HTH Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
RE: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots)
I'm quite hesitant about shooting children with any lens. As some of you may recall, I was stopped and searched by the police for allegedly photographing children in Birmingham, Michigan. I hadn't done so, but I pointed my camera at a young child and changed my mind earlier that day. The police seemed to believe it was illegal. It's not, but I didn't argue. After looking at all the pics on my flash card and having me empty out my pockets, they let me go. Paul Shel, If the photographer feels that some sort of permission is needed before taking a photo, then the use of long lenses would be unacceptable. I think that is a very reasonable assessment. Basically, a let your conscience be your guide kinda thing. The only time I've really gotten conflicted about that is when photographing infants / children in a park or some other public place. With the way of the world these days, I always feel obligated to ask the parent for permission, ESPECIALLY if I'm using a long lens. Given the Law and Order society that we live in these days, long lens + children in viewfinder = maybe he's a pedafile... and so I occasionally get the looks :o( but by the time I inquire for the shot, the moment is usually way gone. So wudduya do? [answer: have your own kids, and stage your own shots g] Anyhow, your point is well taken. For every other circumstance, it's likely a no-brainer. Best regards, - Jerome
Re: Porto street shots (?)
Joaquim Carvalho wrote: How acceptable is it to take pictures of people without asking for permission? I think it depends entirely on where they were (public or private) when you took the images, and what you do with (how/where you display) those images... keith whaley On Sun, 2005-06-26 at 14:35, Joaquim Carvalho wrote: Some Porto street shots (?) taken with the SMC FA 80-320mm F4.5-5.6 mostly at 320mm (480mm on the *ist DS) F6.8 1/500 200 ASA http://x64.com/joaquim/photo/photo03 These people were minding their own business and I wouldn't want to interrupt them, this would not have been possible with a noisy eye level SLR and a lens much shorter than 200mm
Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots)
On Jun 27, 2005, at 11:16 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...If the subject knows you're photographing him or her, the chance of capturing a candid, unposed moment is lost. ... Absolutely untrue. The trick is to see when to click the shutter ... which is when they are NOT posing. You can take candid, unposed photographs in the course of a lengthy discussion or on a brief encounter, if you keep your eyes open. Godfrey
RE: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots)
It depends on what you're trying to photograph, Paul. See my comments to Keith ... some people want candids, others, myself included, want something different. And it's not an either/or proposition. A photographer can take more intimate photos AND candids, even on the same day with the same lens ;-)) Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 6/27/2005 11:17:55 AM Subject: RE: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots) If the subject knows you're photographing him or her, the chance of capturing a candid, unposed moment is lost. Thus, in the interest of good photography, I believe it's better to apologize after the fact if necessary. I would guess that more than half of HCB's subjects didn't know they were being photographed. Thus, lens length becomes somewhat irrelevant. But FWIW, even shooting with a 200 or 300, close to half of my subjects realize they're being photographed. When I shoot with a 35 or 50, the percentage probably goes up to about 60. I prefer long lenses more for the minimal depth of field rather than for the element of surprise, but they help with both.
Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots)
True. But the moment is contrived. The photographer has arranged it by starting a conversation and creating a photo-op. A true slice of life is achieved only when the subject is unaware. On Jun 27, 2005, at 11:16 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...If the subject knows you're photographing him or her, the chance of capturing a candid, unposed moment is lost. ... Absolutely untrue. The trick is to see when to click the shutter ... which is when they are NOT posing. You can take candid, unposed photographs in the course of a lengthy discussion or on a brief encounter, if you keep your eyes open. Godfrey
RE: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots)
I agree completely. And I frequently engage subjects. But I don't consider long-lens -- or short lens -- candids to be in any way immoral. Paul It depends on what you're trying to photograph, Paul. See my comments to Keith ... some people want candids, others, myself included, want something different. And it's not an either/or proposition. A photographer can take more intimate photos AND candids, even on the same day with the same lens ;-)) Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 6/27/2005 11:17:55 AM Subject: RE: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots) If the subject knows you're photographing him or her, the chance of capturing a candid, unposed moment is lost. Thus, in the interest of good photography, I believe it's better to apologize after the fact if necessary. I would guess that more than half of HCB's subjects didn't know they were being photographed. Thus, lens length becomes somewhat irrelevant. But FWIW, even shooting with a 200 or 300, close to half of my subjects realize they're being photographed. When I shoot with a 35 or 50, the percentage probably goes up to about 60. I prefer long lenses more for the minimal depth of field rather than for the element of surprise, but they help with both.
Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots)
I disagree completely but perhaps one must define what a slice of life is. Isn't an encounter with someone a slice of life, a piece of the whole pie, as it were. In this case I'd agree with Godfrey - you can get a candid when you're close and interacting with people. Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] True. But the moment is contrived. The photographer has arranged it by starting a conversation and creating a photo-op. A true slice of life is achieved only when the subject is unaware. On Jun 27, 2005, at 11:16 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...If the subject knows you're photographing him or her, the chance of capturing a candid, unposed moment is lost. ... Absolutely untrue. The trick is to see when to click the shutter ... which is when they are NOT posing. You can take candid, unposed photographs in the course of a lengthy discussion or on a brief encounter, if you keep your eyes open. Godfrey
Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots)
In a message dated 6/27/2005 1:49:24 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: True. But the moment is contrived. The photographer has arranged it by starting a conversation and creating a photo-op. A true slice of life is achieved only when the subject is unaware. Can't help myself: http://www.sonc.com/slice.htm Regards, Sonny http://www.sonc.com Natchitoches, Louisiana Oldest continuous settlement in La Louisiane égalité, liberté, crawfish
RE: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots)
Did someone say something about the immorality of a lens choice? I must have missed that. Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I agree completely. And I frequently engage subjects. But I don't consider long-lens -- or short lens -- candids to be in any way immoral. Paul It depends on what you're trying to photograph, Paul. See my comments to Keith ... some people want candids, others, myself included, want something different. And it's not an either/or proposition. A photographer can take more intimate photos AND candids, even on the same day with the same lens ;-)) Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 6/27/2005 11:17:55 AM Subject: RE: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots) If the subject knows you're photographing him or her, the chance of capturing a candid, unposed moment is lost. Thus, in the interest of good photography, I believe it's better to apologize after the fact if necessary. I would guess that more than half of HCB's subjects didn't know they were being photographed. Thus, lens length becomes somewhat irrelevant. But FWIW, even shooting with a 200 or 300, close to half of my subjects realize they're being photographed. When I shoot with a 35 or 50, the percentage probably goes up to about 60. I prefer long lenses more for the minimal depth of field rather than for the element of surprise, but they help with both.
Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots)
Now we're getting into definitions. Anything can be called a slice of life. But once the photographer interacts, he or she is no longer an observer but becomes a participant. It's a different situation. It's not necessarily better or inferior, but it's different. Although I shoot both ways, I prefer to be an observer, because I don't want to change what would have occured without me and my camera. I've seen memorable photographs achieved both ways. Neither is right or wrong. But there is a distinct difference. Paul I disagree completely but perhaps one must define what a slice of life is. Isn't an encounter with someone a slice of life, a piece of the whole pie, as it were. In this case I'd agree with Godfrey - you can get a candid when you're close and interacting with people. Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] True. But the moment is contrived. The photographer has arranged it by starting a conversation and creating a photo-op. A true slice of life is achieved only when the subject is unaware. On Jun 27, 2005, at 11:16 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...If the subject knows you're photographing him or her, the chance of capturing a candid, unposed moment is lost. ... Absolutely untrue. The trick is to see when to click the shutter ... which is when they are NOT posing. You can take candid, unposed photographs in the course of a lengthy discussion or on a brief encounter, if you keep your eyes open. Godfrey
Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots)
IIRC that very long thread a couple of years back got started by a proposed California law to make photos taken with telephoto lenses an invasion of privacy. Since I have head no more about it, I guess it did not pass. But it does give an idea of what the public in general thinks of the issue. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Shel Belinkoff wrote: Did someone say something about the immorality of a lens choice? I must have missed that. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.2/29 - Release Date: 6/27/2005
Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots)
So are you saying you can't get a candid shot when you're interacting with someone? If that person is unaware that you're making a photo, isn't it a candid? And if I understood you correctly, you were equating slice of life with candids. While a photographer may be interacting with someone, when that person's attention is elsewhere - perhaps talking with another person or enjoying the view of a handsome person walking by, isn't catching his or her expression while they are unaware of you making the shot as much a slice or a candid as anything done with a longer lens. And what about the times you've been talking with someone while slyly snapping a pic every now and then, unbeknownst to them? They are neither posing nor aware that the photo is being taken - they are acting naturally within the context of their interaction with you, the photographer. And I don't see the moment as being contrived necessarily. I think we're just going to have to disagree here, Paul, although I will admit to your being wrong ;-)) Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 6/27/2005 12:13:48 PM Subject: Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots) Now we're getting into definitions. Anything can be called a slice of life. But once the photographer interacts, he or she is no longer an observer but becomes a participant. It's a different situation. It's not necessarily better or inferior, but it's different. Although I shoot both ways, I prefer to be an observer, because I don't want to change what would have occured without me and my camera. I've seen memorable photographs achieved both ways. Neither is right or wrong. But there is a distinct difference. Paul I disagree completely but perhaps one must define what a slice of life is. Isn't an encounter with someone a slice of life, a piece of the whole pie, as it were. In this case I'd agree with Godfrey - you can get a candid when you're close and interacting with people.
Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots)
In a message dated 6/27/2005 2:38:28 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IIRC that very long thread a couple of years back got started by a proposed California law to make photos taken with telephoto lenses an invasion of privacy. Since I have head no more about it, I guess it did not pass. But it does give an idea of what the public in general thinks of the issue. - What elected representatives think and what the public thinks may be two very different things. Regards, Sonny http://www.sonc.com Natchitoches, Louisiana Oldest continuous settlement in La Louisiane égalité, liberté, crawfish
Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots)
What does the public in general think of the issue? Someone or some group proposes a law or an ordinance, and nothing comes of it. How does that equate to what the general public feels about the issue in question? How does what transpires or doesn't transpire in California reflect the thoughts and ideas of the general public outside the State of California? Shel [Original Message] From: Graywolf IIRC that very long thread a couple of years back got started by a proposed California law to make photos taken with telephoto lenses an invasion of privacy. Since I have head no more about it, I guess it did not pass. But it does give an idea of what the public in general thinks of the issue.
Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots)
Enforcing such a law would be problematic. First there would have to be some definition as to what was legally a telephoto lens... [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 6/27/2005 2:38:28 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IIRC that very long thread a couple of years back got started by a proposed California law to make photos taken with telephoto lenses an invasion of privacy. Since I have head no more about it, I guess it did not pass. But it does give an idea of what the public in general thinks of the issue. - What elected representatives think and what the public thinks may be two very different things. Regards, Sonny http://www.sonc.com Natchitoches, Louisiana Oldest continuous settlement in La Louisiane égalité, liberté, crawfish -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots)
Sometimes an attempt to pass a law has nothing to do with elected representatives. Lots of special interest groups are very good at lobbying for their interests as well as generating propaganda for their points of view. Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IIRC that very long thread a couple of years back got started by a proposed California law to make photos taken with telephoto lenses an invasion of privacy. Since I have head no more about it, I guess it did not pass. But it does give an idea of what the public in general thinks of the issue. - What elected representatives think and what the public thinks may be two very different things. Regards, Sonny http://www.sonc.com Natchitoches, Louisiana Oldest continuous settlement in La Louisiane égalité, liberté, crawfish
RE: Porto street shots (?)
Joaquim Carvalho asked; How acceptable is it to take pictures of people without asking for permission? It depends on a lot of things. The answer on this question will vary a lot from one culture to another. Have you ever observed an Englishman talking with an Arabian? If they stand upright at an open space, the Englishman will constantly be backing off, and the Arabian will move forward. Very funny. The explanation is simple, the Englishman prefers more space around him than the Arabian. If the Englishman is one of the creatures of this list, it would probably be a completely different issue. They would bump into each other. I'm not referring to any particular person now. I'm just in silly old fart mode, as usual. Here in the rural parts of Norway it is unacceptable to stick a camera under somebody's nose and shoot without asking. In some walleyes you could end up with a knife sticking out of your belly ;-) In the capital, and other more urban regions, there's completely different. There people would ask for a copy of the photo (if your gear looks impressive enough). Tim Another Norwegian. Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke?) -Original Message- From: Joaquim Carvalho [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 27. juni 2005 18:36 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Porto street shots (?) How acceptable is it to take pictures of people without asking for permission? On Sun, 2005-06-26 at 14:35, Joaquim Carvalho wrote: Some Porto street shots (?) taken with the SMC FA 80-320mm F4.5-5.6 mostly at 320mm (480mm on the *ist DS) F6.8 1/500 200 ASA http://x64.com/joaquim/photo/photo03 These people were minding their own business and I wouldn't want to interrupt them, this would not have been possible with a noisy eye level SLR and a lens much shorter than 200mm
Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots)
On 6/27/05, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Enforcing such a law would be problematic. First there would have to be some definition as to what was legally a telephoto lens... Defining a telephoto lens would be quite easy. Choose a number. any lens longer than 90mm (35mm equivalent, as applicable to other photographic formats). If it's not in the law, all you need is judicial interpretation. A judge will either throw the law out due to it's imprecision, or interpret telephoto and stick a number in that will now follow the law around by legal precedent (that's all case law is). Of course, this California law we're talking about here was likely passed as an Anti-Paparazzi or Anti-Stalking law (assuming it was ever passed at all). So one doubts that guys walking along Venice Beach with a big lens would be harrassed by California's finest... cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots)
Yeah, I'll say. A 600mm is really immoral VBG Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots) Did someone say something about the immorality of a lens choice? I must have missed that. Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I agree completely. And I frequently engage subjects. But I don't consider long-lens -- or short lens -- candids to be in any way immoral. Paul It depends on what you're trying to photograph, Paul. See my comments to Keith ... some people want candids, others, myself included, want something different. And it's not an either/or proposition. A photographer can take more intimate photos AND candids, even on the same day with the same lens ;-)) Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 6/27/2005 11:17:55 AM Subject: RE: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots) If the subject knows you're photographing him or her, the chance of capturing a candid, unposed moment is lost. Thus, in the interest of good photography, I believe it's better to apologize after the fact if necessary. I would guess that more than half of HCB's subjects didn't know they were being photographed. Thus, lens length becomes somewhat irrelevant. But FWIW, even shooting with a 200 or 300, close to half of my subjects realize they're being photographed. When I shoot with a 35 or 50, the percentage probably goes up to about 60. I prefer long lenses more for the minimal depth of field rather than for the element of surprise, but they help with both.
Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots)
Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, I'll say. A 600mm is really immoral VBG I consider just *owning* one immoral! EBG* * Even Bigger Grin -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots)
And they say size doesn't matter... Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots) Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, I'll say. A 600mm is really immoral VBG I consider just *owning* one immoral! EBG* * Even Bigger Grin -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots)
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots) True. But the moment is contrived. The photographer has arranged it by starting a conversation and creating a photo-op. A true slice of life is achieved only when the subject is unaware. Can't you decontrive the picture on Photoshop? WW
Re: Porto street shots (?)
- Original Message - From: keithw Subject: Re: Porto street shots (?) Joaquim Carvalho wrote: How acceptable is it to take pictures of people without asking for permission? I think it depends entirely on where they were (public or private) when you took the images, and what you do with (how/where you display) those images... What you do with them is another matter entirely. Technically, if you are in a public place, you can take pretty much whatever picture you want. OTOH, the USA is becoming eerily like old Soviet Russia from this photographers perspective. William Robb
Re: Porto street shots (?)
Still better than France. William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: keithw Subject: Re: Porto street shots (?) Joaquim Carvalho wrote: How acceptable is it to take pictures of people without asking for permission? I think it depends entirely on where they were (public or private) when you took the images, and what you do with (how/where you display) those images... What you do with them is another matter entirely. Technically, if you are in a public place, you can take pretty much whatever picture you want. OTOH, the USA is becoming eerily like old Soviet Russia from this photographers perspective. William Robb -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots)
Yes, but it requires a special plug in, Decontrivance 3.1. Paul On Jun 27, 2005, at 9:36 PM, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots) True. But the moment is contrived. The photographer has arranged it by starting a conversation and creating a photo-op. A true slice of life is achieved only when the subject is unaware. Can't you decontrive the picture on Photoshop? WW
Re: Porto street shots (?)
William Robb wrote: OTOH, the USA is becoming eerily like old Soviet Russia from this photographers perspective. Never been to Russia but I was in Poland last year and it is a photographer's dream.
Re: Porto street shots (?)
- Original Message - From: P. J. Alling Subject: Re: Porto street shots (?) Still better than France. Thats true on many more levels that the original discussion allows for. William Robb
Re: Porto street shots (?)
- Original Message - From: Joaquim Carvalho Subject: Re: Porto street shots (?) Never been to Russia but I was in Poland last year and it is a photographer's dream. So they don't arrest you any more for pointing your camera at the wrong things? William Robb
Porto street shots (?)
Some Porto street shots (?) taken with the SMC FA 80-320mm F4.5-5.6 mostly at 320mm (480mm on the *ist DS) F6.8 1/500 200 ASA http://x64.com/joaquim/photo/photo03 These people were minding their own business and I wouldn't want to interrupt them, this would not have been possible with a noisy eye level SLR and a lens much shorter than 200mm
Re: Porto street shots (?)
Interesting. I like Porto and Waiting. Thanks for sharing. Paul On Jun 26, 2005, at 10:35 AM, Joaquim Carvalho wrote: Some Porto street shots (?) taken with the SMC FA 80-320mm F4.5-5.6 mostly at 320mm (480mm on the *ist DS) F6.8 1/500 200 ASA http://x64.com/joaquim/photo/photo03 These people were minding their own business and I wouldn't want to interrupt them, this would not have been possible with a noisy eye level SLR and a lens much shorter than 200mm
Re: Porto street shots (?)
Attic is my favorite ;) 2005/6/26, Joaquim Carvalho [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Some Porto street shots (?) taken with the SMC FA 80-320mm F4.5-5.6 mostly at 320mm (480mm on the *ist DS) F6.8 1/500 200 ASA http://x64.com/joaquim/photo/photo03 These people were minding their own business and I wouldn't want to interrupt them, this would not have been possible with a noisy eye level SLR and a lens much shorter than 200mm -- -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX and KR-10x ...
Re: Porto street shots (?)
Hi! Some Porto street shots (?) taken with the SMC FA 80-320mm F4.5-5.6 mostly at 320mm (480mm on the *ist DS) F6.8 1/500 200 ASA http://x64.com/joaquim/photo/photo03 These people were minding their own business and I wouldn't want to interrupt them, this would not have been possible with a noisy eye level SLR and a lens much shorter than 200mm Hehs, that Greek Nose really stands out... You should come here... I wouldn't want to start an argument, really, but I think our Nose-iness is much higher :)... Porto is my favorite. It has the look *and* feel. Feeding the pidgeons is great. The flying seeds and the boy on the left - it just clicks together. Coca-cola - I think I would crop on the left so as to remove the pole. Then it will be Coca-cola totally unlimited on the left ;-). The chimping gentleman Photographer is very funny. Julia just chuckled. Just my pixels... Boris
Re: Porto street shots (?)
In a message dated 6/26/2005 10:38:06 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: These people were minding their own business and I wouldn't want to interrupt them, this would not have been possible with a noisy eye level SLR and a lens much shorter than 200mm You might be surprised at how your noisy slr blends into the ambient sound in the great outdoors. These are nice pictures, most of them, but I'd bet they would be lots better if you stopped being a sniper and got in there with a 90 or less. The several with dark foreground blobs need a bit more cropping. It also looks like you were relying on the autofocus too much as your compositions sometimes have way too much headroom with subject dead center. That's a problem I have myself, so it is easy for me to spot. I would have edited out all the pictures of people's backs. My favorite was the two girls smiling, and that one I wished I could see the vendor (?) who is making them smile. Too many pretty girls squinting in the sun. Pigeons is pretty cool, but the foot growing out of the bird growing out of the kids head is confusing. Time to get out there and shoot some more. You are on to something, just get brave and leave that hunka-hunka glass at the football field. Regards, Sonny http://www.sonc.com Natchitoches, Louisiana Oldest continuous settlement in La Louisiane égalité, liberté, crawfish
