If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Candid photography?
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
... David J Taylor wrote: Fred wrote: [] I couldn't believe the paranoia of some 'jobs worth' officials on recent trips to America, where I was accosted on various occasions for taking quite innocent photographs. One more reason I no longer have any desire to visit the USA. David I have never, in over 55 years of taking pictures, been accosted, anywhere in the US, or Canada, for taking a picture, of anything. Seems to me that 'innocent' is a matter of point of view. Perhaps the OP would enlighten us as to the particulars of those 'innocent' pictures. Most of the complaints have been while I've been taking photos of various forms of public transport, either from station platforms, the side of the road or stood on a footpath, none of the situations being in any way dangerous, causing an obstrucion or intrusive. I've been accosted by transport police, regular cops, and various other assorted 'officials'. I must point out that this sort of reaction is by no means exclusive to the USA, and is becoming ever more prevalent in other countries, eg the British aircraft enthusiasts who were thrown into jail in Greece for several weeks, for having the temerity to take photos of aircraft at an air show! |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Candid photography?
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:58:47 -0000, "Fred"
wrote: "Ron Hunter" wrote in message m... David J Taylor wrote: Fred wrote: [] I couldn't believe the paranoia of some 'jobs worth' officials on recent trips to America, where I was accosted on various occasions for taking quite innocent photographs. One more reason I no longer have any desire to visit the USA. David I have never, in over 55 years of taking pictures, been accosted, anywhere in the US, or Canada, for taking a picture, of anything. Seems to me that 'innocent' is a matter of point of view. Perhaps the OP would enlighten us as to the particulars of those 'innocent' pictures. Most of the complaints have been while I've been taking photos of various forms of public transport, either from station platforms, the side of the road or stood on a footpath, none of the situations being in any way dangerous, causing an obstrucion or intrusive. I've been accosted by transport police, regular cops, and various other assorted 'officials'. If you've been accosted that many times by that many officials, I suspect that your definition of what is obstructive and what is intrusive is quite different from what officials think is obstructive or intrusive. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Candid photography?
"tony cooper" wrote in message
news On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:58:47 -0000, "Fred" wrote: "Ron Hunter" wrote in message om... David J Taylor wrote: Fred wrote: [] I couldn't believe the paranoia of some 'jobs worth' officials on recent trips to America, where I was accosted on various occasions for taking quite innocent photographs. One more reason I no longer have any desire to visit the USA. David I have never, in over 55 years of taking pictures, been accosted, anywhere in the US, or Canada, for taking a picture, of anything. Seems to me that 'innocent' is a matter of point of view. Perhaps the OP would enlighten us as to the particulars of those 'innocent' pictures. Most of the complaints have been while I've been taking photos of various forms of public transport, either from station platforms, the side of the road or stood on a footpath, none of the situations being in any way dangerous, causing an obstrucion or intrusive. I've been accosted by transport police, regular cops, and various other assorted 'officials'. If you've been accosted that many times by that many officials, I suspect that your definition of what is obstructive and what is intrusive is quite different from what officials think is obstructive or intrusive. Nope, I've been taking photographs for nearly 40 years now, and this obssesion with suspicion and paranoia is a relatively recent phenomena. Nothing's changed in the way I take pictures, or the subjects that I take pictures of, but what has changed is the public's perception of amateur photographers, who are now often treated with suspicion and mistrust, just because they have a camera around their neck. I managed to pursue my hobby quite innocently for 20 years or more without any hassle from anyone, I suggest what you should be asking is why society has become so mistrustful of photographers, rather than trying to point the finger of blame at someone who you don't even know! |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Candid photography?
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:56:48 -0000, "Fred"
wrote: If you've been accosted that many times by that many officials, I suspect that your definition of what is obstructive and what is intrusive is quite different from what officials think is obstructive or intrusive. Nope, I've been taking photographs for nearly 40 years now, and this obssesion with suspicion and paranoia is a relatively recent phenomena. Nothing's changed in the way I take pictures, or the subjects that I take pictures of, but what has changed is the public's perception of amateur photographers, who are now often treated with suspicion and mistrust, just because they have a camera around their neck. I managed to pursue my hobby quite innocently for 20 years or more without any hassle from anyone, I suggest what you should be asking is why society has become so mistrustful of photographers, rather than trying to point the finger of blame at someone who you don't even know! Who is this "society" that you are pointing your finger at? You are referring specifically to officials, presumably public officials, in the society of which you are a part. In some cases, officials have reasonable cause to have become more aggressive in "hassling" you. Twenty years ago, if you would have injured yourself falling off a curb leaning over to catch a shot of an bus, you would have dusted yourself off and gone on about your business. Today, you'd sue the transportation authority for operating an attractive nuisance and the official for not stopping you for doing something dangerous. Twenty years ago you could photograph a playground full of kids and capture images of happy kids and scraped knees. Today the playground guard worries about images that end up on websites viewed by perverts. These officials are in some manner guardians of whatever it is that they are officially in charge of, and society has come up with so many ways to abuse the system that the officials have to be more protective. You are as much a part of that society as anyone. If whatever it is that you are doing attracts as much attention from officials as you claim, you are doing something beyond what the rest of us - who are not being hassled - are doing and causing your own problem. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Candid photography?
Fred wrote:
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message ... David J Taylor wrote: Fred wrote: [] I couldn't believe the paranoia of some 'jobs worth' officials on recent trips to America, where I was accosted on various occasions for taking quite innocent photographs. One more reason I no longer have any desire to visit the USA. David I have never, in over 55 years of taking pictures, been accosted, anywhere in the US, or Canada, for taking a picture, of anything. Seems to me that 'innocent' is a matter of point of view. Perhaps the OP would enlighten us as to the particulars of those 'innocent' pictures. Most of the complaints have been while I've been taking photos of various forms of public transport, either from station platforms, the side of the road or stood on a footpath, none of the situations being in any way dangerous, causing an obstrucion or intrusive. I've been accosted by transport police, regular cops, and various other assorted 'officials'. I must point out that this sort of reaction is by no means exclusive to the USA, and is becoming ever more prevalent in other countries, eg the British aircraft enthusiasts who were thrown into jail in Greece for several weeks, for having the temerity to take photos of aircraft at an air show! How many pictures? How long did you stand there? What kind of equipment did you have set up? And, while we are on the subject, just WHY were you taking pictures of those particular things? I have taken pictures at airshows, even of some aircraft that were classified at the time, and was only asked not to take pictures of the cockpit area. Note that those pictures were taken ON a USAF base. Naturally, I complied with any signs that precluded taking pictures of some things, like the SR71, and U2. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Candid photography?
Fred wrote:
"tony cooper" wrote in message news On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:58:47 -0000, "Fred" wrote: "Ron Hunter" wrote in message ... David J Taylor wrote: Fred wrote: [] I couldn't believe the paranoia of some 'jobs worth' officials on recent trips to America, where I was accosted on various occasions for taking quite innocent photographs. One more reason I no longer have any desire to visit the USA. David I have never, in over 55 years of taking pictures, been accosted, anywhere in the US, or Canada, for taking a picture, of anything. Seems to me that 'innocent' is a matter of point of view. Perhaps the OP would enlighten us as to the particulars of those 'innocent' pictures. Most of the complaints have been while I've been taking photos of various forms of public transport, either from station platforms, the side of the road or stood on a footpath, none of the situations being in any way dangerous, causing an obstrucion or intrusive. I've been accosted by transport police, regular cops, and various other assorted 'officials'. If you've been accosted that many times by that many officials, I suspect that your definition of what is obstructive and what is intrusive is quite different from what officials think is obstructive or intrusive. Nope, I've been taking photographs for nearly 40 years now, and this obssesion with suspicion and paranoia is a relatively recent phenomena. Nothing's changed in the way I take pictures, or the subjects that I take pictures of, but what has changed is the public's perception of amateur photographers, who are now often treated with suspicion and mistrust, just because they have a camera around their neck. I managed to pursue my hobby quite innocently for 20 years or more without any hassle from anyone, I suggest what you should be asking is why society has become so mistrustful of photographers, rather than trying to point the finger of blame at someone who you don't even know! It's a dangerous world, and many people have become rather close to paranoia these days. It doesn't help that governments and news media try to scare the hell out of people in order to curry their favor. I rather suspect that should I set up a long lens and camera on a tripod outside the nearby nuclear power plant and take pictures of all the traffic into, or out of, the plant area, and turn the camera lens on the plant itself, then I would probably arouse the interest of the security people. I have also been told by plant security people for chemical plants that they discourage people who seem to be taking a lot of pictures of individual units, or tanks, etc. at their plants. A couple of shots as you drive by, no problem, but set up your tripod and take closeups of the controls, or certain parts of the plant, and someone will get curious. Is this reasonable? Probably not, but people are scared. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Candid shots of people. | Peter Jason | Digital Photography | 42 | December 31st 06 03:32 PM |
Good for Candid Shots? | Lucid | Digital Photography | 83 | March 18th 06 11:14 PM |
Good for Candid Shots? | m Ransley | Digital Photography | 1 | March 18th 06 03:17 PM |
Getting candid people photos | Eric B. | Digital Photography | 51 | February 6th 06 04:08 PM |
Some Candid Shots | Robert R Kircher, Jr. | Digital Photography | 4 | November 8th 05 10:09 PM |