Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Is This Acceptable?

Attention!

This topic is locked.

Reason : Gone off topic and discussing individual member


MikeRC e2
9 3.5k United Kingdom
2 Sep 2013 2:03PM

Quote:Superimpose on a picture of King Louie? Grin (cue that song...)


....Nice one Mike....not what I had in mind but if I had a shot of King Louie.... Smile Smile

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

2 Sep 2013 2:04PM

Quote:I don't think it's acceptable, what were the parents doing letting them carry on like this? No respect for property. Wink

They were probably being noisy, too Wink
mikehit e2
5 7.1k 11 United Kingdom
2 Sep 2013 2:09PM

Quote:As a photographer I don't like it, but as the possible object (did I scratch in public?) I think it's great.


But also bear in mind that France has, historically, had the most punitive privacy laws to the extent that any investigative journalism about the misdoings of heads of state have been virtually cut off at source and only recently has that sort of reporting been considered acceptable. And although the cases may not be linked, the attitude certainly is.


Quote:but I have to admit I would have wondered about 'why.'

Why would anyone want to take a picture of a marketplace full of people....or a sporting event...or...whatever. Why are kids subject to special rules?


Quote:... and yes the photographer may be a perfectly nice, wonderfull, warm human being but how on earth are the parents to know that?

And that, sadly, is where the problem starts and is the argument used to justify the paranoia.
I remember a programme about pornography and one porn-addict said that one thing the general population don't understand is that the addict does not need nudity: they can get their kicks from an attractive woman wearing a flowing dress as much as a hard-core picture. So the answer is to forbid photos of women children because someone may get their kicks? I think not. And perversely I was reading an interview with a rural muslim leader in Afghanistan who asked about the burkha and his comment was that if the woman revealed any flesh he would not be able to control his desires so the burkha was for her protection.
The two are worryingly close in attitude.
2 Sep 2013 2:47PM

Quote:As a photographer I don't like it, but as the possible object (did I scratch in public?) I think it's great.

But also bear in mind that France has, historically, had the most punitive privacy laws to the extent that any investigative journalism about the misdoings of heads of state have been virtually cut off at source and only recently has that sort of reporting been considered acceptable. And although the cases may not be linked, the attitude certainly is.



Yes, I am aware of the history and I find it rather ironic that I'm happy with unintended consequence of something introduced to cover what I consider to be corruption. The problem of heads of state etc. is a real issue, and it's notable that after they left office various prominent politicians got into trouble.....


Quote:but I have to admit I would have wondered about 'why.'
Why would anyone want to take a picture of a marketplace full of people....or a sporting event...or...whatever. Why are kids subject to special rules?



absolutely, yet we do want to photograph marketplaces full of people. Usually rather colourful and often interesting to look at. The freedom to look / stare is contradictory to any sort of freedom to be not looked at or stared at.
Why children should be subject to special rules is probably because we wish to protect them while they are young and still vulnerable (animals do this too with their young) in order to ensure the future of our species. Protection against photographers is all rather complicated - I don't understand it, really, just feels instinctive I guess, but see also the response below.


Quote:... and yes the photographer may be a perfectly nice, wonderfull, warm human being but how on earth are the parents to know that?

And that, sadly, is where the problem starts and is the argument used to justify the paranoia.
I remember a programme about pornography and one porn-addict said that one thing the general population don't understand is that the addict does not need nudity: they can get their kicks from an attractive woman wearing a flowing dress as much as a hard-core picture. So the answer is to forbid photos of women children because someone may get their kicks? I think not. And perversely I was reading an interview with a rural muslim leader in Afghanistan who asked about the burkha and his comment was that if the woman revealed any flesh he would not be able to control his desires so the burkha was for her protection.
The two are worryingly close in attitude.



Absolutely. It's one of the interesting things about the human condition. There are many different views around the world, people often react differently depending on their background and so on. These issues are complicated, and yes, once more I admit to not understanding them. I think the logic of 'not having photos of kids' available to those who are turned on by that sort of thing is twofold:
1. by giving them images of whatever truns them on they are, well, truned on by the image and may be tempted to act.
2. having been tempted to act, if they are able to find the object that turned them on......
WhiteRose1 e2
4 1.1k 137 England
2 Sep 2013 3:07PM
Nothing wrong at all but I do err on the side of caution when children are about and avoid parental confrontation. You could always say you wanted a picture of the railings for a project but got fed up waiting for the kids to move!! GrinGrinGrin

Dave
mikehit e2
5 7.1k 11 United Kingdom
2 Sep 2013 3:13PM

Quote:The freedom to look / stare is contradictory to any sort of freedom to be not looked at or stared at.

True. And the mark of good society is how competing 'rights' are balanced and it is widely accepted that once you are in the pubic space, you accept people will look at you and if you don't like it you go somewhere else. Unfortunately we are in an age where too many people bang on about their 'rights' and ignore their responsibilities to act in a harmonious way.



Quote:protect them while they are young and still vulnerable (animals do this too with their young)


Is it 'protecting children' to imbue in them a sense of 'don't look at me' or 'you are looking at me because you are a pervert' (children will not understand the concept of 'they may be a pervert so just in case'). What the person does with the picture behind closed doors the child will not know about, so how are they being 'protected'?



Quote:Absolutely. It's one of the interesting things about the human condition. There are many different views around the world, people often react differently depending on their background and so on. These issues are complicated, and yes, once more I admit to not understanding them. I think the logic of 'not having photos of kids' available to those who are turned on by that sort of thing is twofold:
1. by giving them images of whatever truns them on they are, well, truned on by the image and may be tempted to act.
2. having been tempted to act, if they are able to find the object that turned them on......


At the start of your post you referred to 'unintended consequences' that you are happy with. But that also works in the opposite direction: where could this go given the current sensitivities to (a) violence against children (b) violence against women and the dissatisfaction some feel about the low conviction rate. As I see it, adults are not trying to protect their kids but are actually avoiding the issue because trying to stop it is easier than putting the brain time into discussing it.
spaceman e2
10 5.2k 3 Wales
2 Sep 2013 3:32PM
When I first got into photography 25yrs ago I wouldn't think twice about photographing children, any children. Sadly those days are gone. Nowadays I wouldn't dare.
2 Sep 2013 3:38PM
Quote
'Is it 'protecting children' to imbue in them a sense of 'don't look at me' or 'you are looking at me because you are a pervert' (children will not understand the concept of 'they may be a pervert so just in case').

A.
As far as I'm aware there is no need for children to be aware of people's not being allowed to photograph them.

Quote
What the person does with the picture behind closed doors the child will not know about, so how are they being 'protected'?

A.
That was answered before:
1. by giving them images of whatever truns them on they are, well, turned on by the image and may be tempted to act.
2. having been tempted to act, if they are able to find the object that turned them on......
note specifically (2). Local photographer, local children etc.

Quote
At the start of your post you referred to 'unintended consequences' that you are happy with. But that also works in the opposite direction: where could this go given the current sensitivities to (a) violence against children (b) violence against women and the dissatisfaction some feel about the low conviction rate. As I see it, adults are not trying to protect their kids but are actually avoiding the issue because trying to stop it is easier than putting the brain time into discussing it.

A
Is this a 5 or a 10 argument? Protecting their children now does not preclude them from looking / discussing the longer-term issues. But that is your opinion to which you are, of course, entitled.
SlowSong e2
6 4.8k 29 England
2 Sep 2013 3:57PM
Well, I was only looking for some brief guidelines but you've all gone into paedo-mode. Grin I don't go out specifically looking to photograph children but I do like to document an area and in packed touristy spots there are always lots of children and/or adults doing interesting things. People say, why photograph a load of strangers? Fair enough, but people like looking at people and I find a shot with people in it more interesting (mostly) than one without. I just liked these two boys doing what boys do and having fun, even without rubber mats and protective headgear. Smile Mum was looking on and was just about to rush forward to "save" her precious bundles from danger, of falling off, not from me. Perhaps I should've snapped her too. I did get her in the original frame, but only half. Smile

If it's bad form to upload such pics to a public gallery then I'll desist as there's no point in taking the shot if I can't share it. I don't even like kids. Grin
mikehit e2
5 7.1k 11 United Kingdom
2 Sep 2013 4:00PM

Quote:A.
As far as I'm aware there is no need for children to be aware of people's not being allowed to photograph them.



parent (on seeing a photographer who may be taking pictures with their kids in it): "Please stop taking pictures of my children. You have no right to do that."
Child: "Why did you tell him to stop taking pictures?"
Parent: "...er......"

Not to mention some parent's response: "Stop taking pictures of my child, you pervert"
Child: "what's a pervert"?
Parent: "...er...."

Unless of course you are saying there should be a blanket cultural prohibition on photographing children.

Of all the people who fear taking pictures of children in UK, I wonder how many happily snap away at kids when in foreign cultures?
mikehit e2
5 7.1k 11 United Kingdom
2 Sep 2013 4:01PM

Quote:Well, I was only looking for some brief guidelines but you've all gone into paedo-mode.


Unfortunately, any discussion about taking pictures of kids is imbued with 'paedo mode'. Sad
2 Sep 2013 4:26PM
Mike
your imagination is very interesting. Yes it could happen like that, or maybe it could happen another way. Either you accept that there is another view from yours or you don't - that's entirely up to you.

Personally, I can see both sides and it is a really annoying issue as Slowsong has explained. Most of my paintings for a long time were of busy scenes - I really enjoy painting pictures of people, but am not so confident of my abilities as to approach and ask permission. It certainly curtailed my painting activities for a while here in France because I tend to paint people so that they are recogniseable - because I'm rather a 'pedantic painter' really. Oddly enough, though, I rarely included children as they really didn't fit. For a while I did portraits but stopped accepting commissions because i hate doing them - always worry too much if they will or not be acceptable, and anyway it was usualy of somebody's child.

So yes, it's a problem.
This:
1-viol.jpg


I believe is dubious because I did not ask permission, even though its in a public place and this is a public performance. Actually, I tried later to find him and failed....

For a while I got round it by using 3d models (Poser and DAZ studio), but of late for various reasons have been unable to do much painting and when I restart I'll probably go to landscapes.
mikehit e2
5 7.1k 11 United Kingdom
2 Sep 2013 4:47PM
Nice picture, Pete.
When painting buskers (assuming that's what he was) I always throw some money into the hat as a fair transaction. I have an image in my mind of the person coming up and saying 'have you been painting me? I want to see what it looks like' and hanging around for 6hours while you finish it, with you assuring him 'if you don't like it I will delete you'. Tongue

It is always a problem playing these 'what if' scenarios because you can always go to unnecessary extremes but no-one can deny there is an unhealthy attitude towards photographers building up and most of it is because of press stories about intrusion: sadly, you don't need to work hard to find problems people have encountered with photographing buildings or people. Yet many of those same people will gawp happily at pictures of street scenes of decades ago and talk about how it was a wonderful snapshot of life and muse ironically about how times back then were so much more innocent. Ah, well....
2 Sep 2013 4:50PM

Quote:....
If it's bad form to upload such pics to a public gallery then I'll desist as there's no point in taking the shot if I can't share it. I don't even like kids. Grin


Unfortunately it got far heavier than I'd intended, for which I apologise. I wished to rationalise why parents may be somewhat wary as it seemed to be being misunderstood - and then sadly found myself having to field questions / defend etc. Next time I'll just let it all pass.

I don't see it as bad form, and personally I'm not that fond of the little darlings either.
2 Sep 2013 5:02PM

Quote:Nice picture, Pete.
When painting buskers (assuming that's what he was) I always throw some money into the hat as a fair transaction. I have an image in my mind of the person coming up and saying 'have you been painting me? I want to see what it looks like' and hanging around for 6hours while you finish it, with you assuring him 'if you don't like it I will delete you'....... Ah, well....


Thank-you. Yes, a busker and actually a really quite excellent violinist which was one of the reasons I wanted to paint him. Well, he looks quite striking too. I chucked money in the hat and took a few photos, I'm afraid, so he's no idea that I painted his picture. I hate painting with people looking over my shoulder, and the Saturday Market tends to be extremely crowded. Photographs keep still so in one sense they are easy to get an outline, but they miss the sense of movement as I guess you know (slight changes in where the light strikes). Sigh, I haven't painted for a while, it may be difficult to restart....