Good for Candid Shots?

I need to take candid shots of people in public places, from about 5 to 10
feet distance, for a community web site. Most people change their facial
expressions and behavior when they realize that a camera is pointing at
them. I'm looking for a camera with a somewhat unusual design so that people
don't recognize it immediately, in their peripheral vision. I also need the
camera to take very clear pictures.

With a DSLR up to my face, I get fractions of a second to take the photo
before the subject realizes what is happening. This does not allow for good
results most of the time. With a $15 digital camera that I found at
Wal-Mart, I was able to take pictures without most subjects ever knowing
that I had a camera. It is rectangularly shaped, about 2 inches wide and
five inches tall and one inch deep. I took most shots without placing the
camera near my face. If I could find something similar to that one, but
capable of much clearer pictures (it made grainy, blurry and noisy photos),
I would be most happy. However, I realize that such things are not common.
I would be happy with something more conventional, but easy to use away from
my face.

I am working on my nonchalant techniques that would allow me to be more
successful with normal digital cameras, but a less-noticeable piece of
equipment will still be helpful.

Right now, I am considering the Sony DSC-R1, because of the picture quality
and the movable LCD that lets you frame shots without putting the camera to
your face. Can anyone recommed other digital cameras that might fill this
need? Preferrably smaller cameras than the Sony. I don't need anything on
the level of a spy camera.

Luc

"Lucid" wrote in message
...

I need to take candid shots of people in public places, from about 5 to 10
feet distance, for a community web site. Most people change their facial
expressions and behavior when they realize that a camera is pointing at
them.


Taking shots of peoples' likenesses--even when taken in "public places"--and
then publishing them on Internet web sites is probably a violation of their
privacy, and may result in your being smacked with numerous lawsuits.

Courts have consistently held that ordinary people, as opposed to
celebrities or political figures, are not considered "public persons," and
have the right to be left alone. That is why we have something called
"Model Releases," to document that the photographer was AUTHORIZED to record
the subjects' likenesses.

You can usually get around the legal restrictions by photographing people in
such a way that they cannot be identified individually, but you should ask
an attorney for advice in your jurisdiction.

Aside from the legal obstacles, I think that your blatant disregard for
peoples' privacy concerns is appalling, and that you ought to find some more
constructive activity with which to fill your time. People like you are
encouraging a legal backlash against photography by the general public and
by legislators. Responsible photographers should not have unnecessary
restrictions imposed upon them because of the actions of a small minority
like you.

And, tell me please, just WHAT would a "COMMUNITY" web site want to be doing
putting photos of members of their community on public display when they
know that such activities are unwelcome by the subjects of the photos? I
suspect that the web site is YOURS, not any COMMUNITY'S . . .

"Jeremy" wrote in message
news:zdBSf.17$gD4.11@trnddc05...
Chop Useless Blather

Yeah, thanks for the info, Jeremy. I'll take it under consideration.

Anybody have any constructive suggestions?

Luc

"Dave Cohen" wrote in message
news:TpBSf.8$yo1.4@trndny09...
We thank Jeremy for his unsoliceted legal advice.
In regards to the op question, take a look at the canon line. The better
models have swivel lcd's
Dave Cohen

Thanks Dave. There's a Jeremy in every newsgroup. You learn to ignore
them.

As for the Canon line, I have looked at some of them. Are there any in
particular that you think would fit this application?

Luc

Jeremy wrote:
"Lucid" wrote in message
...


I need to take candid shots of people in public places, from about 5 to 10
feet distance, for a community web site. Most people change their facial
expressions and behavior when they realize that a camera is pointing at
them.



Taking shots of peoples' likenesses--even when taken in "public places"--and
then publishing them on Internet web sites is probably a violation of their
privacy, and may result in your being smacked with numerous lawsuits.

Courts have consistently held that ordinary people, as opposed to
celebrities or political figures, are not considered "public persons," and
have the right to be left alone. That is why we have something called
"Model Releases," to document that the photographer was AUTHORIZED to record
the subjects' likenesses.

You can usually get around the legal restrictions by photographing people in
such a way that they cannot be identified individually, but you should ask
an attorney for advice in your jurisdiction.

Aside from the legal obstacles, I think that your blatant disregard for
peoples' privacy concerns is appalling, and that you ought to find some more
constructive activity with which to fill your time. People like you are
encouraging a legal backlash against photography by the general public and
by legislators. Responsible photographers should not have unnecessary
restrictions imposed upon them because of the actions of a small minority
like you.

And, tell me please, just WHAT would a "COMMUNITY" web site want to be doing
putting photos of members of their community on public display when they
know that such activities are unwelcome by the subjects of the photos? I
suspect that the web site is YOURS, not any COMMUNITY'S . . .


Amen!!!

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 11:26:24 -0500, "Lucid"
wrote:

"Jeremy" wrote in message
news:zdBSf.17$gD4.11@trnddc05...
Chop Useless Blather

Yeah, thanks for the info, Jeremy. I'll take it under consideration.

Anybody have any constructive suggestions?

I take it that "constructive" means "stuff I want to hear or agree
with" to you.

I'm not as rabid as some about the loss of privacy in what you
describe, but I don't think I'd want to see my picture up on some
community website. I'm not wanted in some state, and I'm not prone to
visiting neighborhoods for nefarious or immoral reasons, but I'm just
not comfortable being depicted as a "typical resident of Pleasant
Acres". Especially if the shot is unflattering and shows a blinding
glare reflected off of my bald head or shows my nose to be as
humongous out-of-porportion to my face as it really is.

I don't think it's a matter of legality or untowards invasion of
privacy, but it is a matter of allowing the subject to choose whether
or not he or she wants to have his or her image displayed on the
website.

If I'm in a crowd scene it's not particularly objectionable, but a
within-five-foot-close-up should require my permission and I want the
opportunity to tuck my shirt in first and inhale.

My constructive advice is to use a camera with a tiltable viewfinder,
but my to-you non-constructive advice is to re-think your plan and
consider what might be the wishes of the subjects.



--


Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
...

I'm not as rabid as some about the loss of privacy in what you
describe, but I don't think I'd want to see my picture up on some
community website. I'm not wanted in some state, and I'm not prone to
visiting neighborhoods for nefarious or immoral reasons, but I'm just
not comfortable being depicted as a "typical resident of Pleasant
Acres". Especially if the shot is unflattering and shows a blinding
glare reflected off of my bald head or shows my nose to be as
humongous out-of-porportion to my face as it really is.

My use of these photographs are as generic content. The value of being close
enough to recognize faces is the fact that we are a fairly small town.
Visitors to the site are very pleased to see people they know and our
traffic has skyrocketed since we began doing this. The shots usually
involve multiple people, but may occasionally show only one. They stay on
the web site for about a week and then get zapped to a DVD for storage, and
probably never to be seen again (unless I have your name and you become
President).

I don't think it's a matter of legality or untowards invasion of
privacy, but it is a matter of allowing the subject to choose whether
or not he or she wants to have his or her image displayed on the
website.

I understand this concern, and share it to some degree, but with the number
of surveillance cameras in society today, I think this is a naive concern.
Clean up your appearance before you leave your home, or don't worry about
it. If you are disheveled, then your photo probably won't be used. Slobs
don't make good content.

Luc

"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...
I photograph people all the time and post their photos on the web. I
don't have problems with anyone being mad about their photos on the
web, more problems if I miss someone.
I also have problems with people reacting to the camera, my approach is
to take so many photos that people start to ignore me.

That's a good idea. I can imagine that it might work.

For what it's worth, I did find a camera that seems to fit my needs. The
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-M2 is the winner. I don't think the picture quality will
equal my more conventional cameras, but this one will help get the difficult
shots.

Luc

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 12:19:17 -0500, "Lucid"
wrote:

I don't think it's a matter of legality or untowards invasion of
privacy, but it is a matter of allowing the subject to choose whether
or not he or she wants to have his or her image displayed on the
website.

I understand this concern, and share it to some degree, but with the number
of surveillance cameras in society today, I think this is a naive concern.

I don't see the connection. The images captured on surveillance
camera are not displayed to the public. It is not that our images are
captured so frequently that we should be inured to this that is the
issue. The issue is where the images are displayed and who has access
to the display.

Clean up your appearance before you leave your home, or don't worry about
it. If you are disheveled, then your photo probably won't be used. Slobs
don't make good content.

Ah, well, you don't rehevele baldness or a big nose. This community
you represent wouldn't have "Stepford" in the name, would it?

There is a retirement community in Florida known as "The Villages"
which is known for demanding conformity and image control. (Not
"image" as in photograph, but "image" as in appearance) Residents
have been chastised for not appearing happy in public. It gives
visitors a bad impression.


--


Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
...
I understand this concern, and share it to some degree, but with the
number
of surveillance cameras in society today, I think this is a naive concern.

I don't see the connection. The images captured on surveillance
camera are not displayed to the public. It is not that our images are
captured so frequently that we should be inured to this that is the
issue. The issue is where the images are displayed and who has access
to the display.

Your assumption that images captured on surveillance cameras are not
displayed to the public may be naive, as well. Not all surveillance cameras
are for security. There are five webcams pointed into public places in our
small town alone, and those are only the ones I know about. People visiting
those web sites can observe people in public at-will, and capture those
images.

Clean up your appearance before you leave your home, or don't worry about
it. If you are disheveled, then your photo probably won't be used. Slobs
don't make good content.

Ah, well, you don't rehevele baldness or a big nose. This community
you represent wouldn't have "Stepford" in the name, would it?

Actually, I was referring to your comment about tucking in your shirt and
inhaling, not your bald head and big nose.

Luc