# Big question, Sir/ Madame, about when I should take the shots.



## surapon (Jun 4, 2015)

Dear Teachers and friends.
I love to take the photos of any things in front of me, just for my record of the picture( My Photojournalistic style) in that mili-second moment. 
Last week end, There are " The ANIMAZEMENT FESTIVAL/ CONVENTION " in my home city, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. We ( my son and me) went to take the photos of Heros, Heroins, Evils and the Good guys/ Gals.
The question for you, Sir/ Madame---After we come back home, My son look at the photos and Tell me that. " I should not take any photos , when the people eating or make -up their face" , I should take their pictures only when they post the perfected ACTION.
Is my son = Right ?
Here are the photos that he told me do not take this kind of Photos again, It not good for the people in the Picture.
Thank you, Sir/ Madame and my dear Teachers.
Surapon


----------



## surapon (Jun 4, 2015)

Last week end, There are " The ANIMAZEMENT FESTIVAL/ CONVENTION " in my home city, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. We ( my son and me) went to take the photos of Heros, Heroins, Evils and the Good guys/ Gals.


----------



## surapon (Jun 4, 2015)

Last week end, There are " The ANIMAZEMENT FESTIVAL/ CONVENTION " in my home city, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. We ( my son and me) went to take the photos of Heros, Heroins, Evils and the Good guys/ Gals.


----------



## surapon (Jun 4, 2015)

Last week end, There are " The ANIMAZEMENT FESTIVAL/ CONVENTION " in my home city, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. We ( my son and me) went to take the photos of Heros, Heroins, Evils and the Good guys/ Gals.


----------



## surapon (Jun 4, 2015)

Last week end, There are " The ANIMAZEMENT FESTIVAL/ CONVENTION " in my home city, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. We ( my son and me) went to take the photos of Heros, Heroins, Evils and the Good guys/ Gals.


----------



## surapon (Jun 4, 2015)

Last week end, There are " The ANIMAZEMENT FESTIVAL/ CONVENTION " in my home city, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. We ( my son and me) went to take the photos of Heros, Heroins, Evils and the Good guys/ Gals.


----------



## ksgal (Jun 4, 2015)

These are wonderful! Like them all!


----------



## surapon (Jun 4, 2015)

ksgal said:


> These are wonderful! Like them all!




Thanks, Dear Friend Ksgal.
If you are the member of Facebook, Here are more photos :

https://www.facebook.com/surapon01/media_set?set=a.10206643347300046.1073742601.1163677771&type=1&pnref=story


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jun 4, 2015)

People who are eating often make unattractive shots, maybe that's behind what he says. The first shot is a good example of that - not flattering, not interesting, no empathy with the subject. IMHO of course. But all the rest - superb!


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jun 4, 2015)

Dear friend Surapon.

The work of photojournalist is to show the facts, whether beautiful or not. On the other hand, the photographer hired for organizing the event (or the artist) should show the most beautiful, correct, appropriate times.

If you are shooting just for their own fun, do what you will, but do not disclose the photos of moments "ugly".

The Facebook generation is accustomed to cuidadosamemte posed shots (poses tasteless), and does not value candid shots. If you like the photos of the "ugly" moments, so have fun with your hobby.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 4, 2015)

As I've been clear before, I prefer to take photos when I know people will not mind. In this case, I'd agree with your son on eating photos since that's downtime from cosplay. Doing make-up in public, on the other hand, is part of it, and I would think it's OK so long as it's not unflattering. I would choose not to take photos of "wardrobe malfunctions" or basic maintenance (reinforcing supports, etc). However, photos in public of cosplayers doing their face make-up does seem legitimate to me.

Nice photos, by the way.


----------



## kaswindell (Jun 4, 2015)

I agree that shooting all aspects of the event is fair game if the intent is to do a journalistic style coverage, even the less flattering moments. What is actually shown after is a matter of editing to tell the story you intend to tell.


----------



## surapon (Jun 4, 2015)

Thousand thanks, to Dear Teachers and Friends.
Thanks for your Opinion, your expertise and your comments , that I have learn from you again.
One most important thing that I have learn from you to day, Plus I have learn from my dear son = Do the best as I can for the hobby that I love, BUT, I must concern about the effect of the photos , which might harm the feeling of the people , who I shoot.
Yes, I never think about that before, I just shoot and shoot for the recorded photos plus the story teller pictures.
Have a great Thursday, Sir/ Madame.
Surapon.

PS. If you have free time, Please go to the Shutterfly Link attached below for 490 Photos of "ANIMAZEMENT Convention"---Yes, With out (Deleted Photos) of eating time.

http://share.shutterfly.com/action/welcome?sid=0AbMnLlozaM3DEMA


----------



## distant.star (Jun 4, 2015)

.
Are you lonely?


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jun 4, 2015)

It does come down to empathy or concern for the subject. This is an ethical decision that goes far beyond whether one has a "legal" right to take the photograph. The ethics of photographers varies.

If you are documenting the application and removal of the make-up, then by all means take pictures, with their permission, of the make up process. On the other hand, if you are documenting the final product, then I think you should wait until they are finished and "in role". 

To me, it comes down to whether you respect the subjects as people or are they just props for your photography. Each photographer has to decide this for themselves. 

To me, if my photography can make someone feel uncomfortable, I don't want to do it. Other photographers don't have empathy for the feelings of the subject. 

Like all ethical issues, it is not always easy to decide.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 4, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> It does come down to empathy or concern for the subject. This is an ethical decision that goes far beyond whether one has a "legal" right to take the photograph. The ethics of photographers varies.
> 
> If you are documenting the application and removal of the make-up, then by all means take pictures, with their permission, of the make up process. On the other hand, if you are documenting the final product, then I think you should wait until they are finished and "in role".
> 
> ...



+10


----------



## Pookie (Jun 4, 2015)

I think it comes down to are you taking snapshots (journalistic) or are you taking photographs. From what I see at most cos-play conventions... everyone takes snapshots. They could care less about backgrounds or imperfection (like mouths open, eating, closed eyes, etc).

You need to ask yourself if you really care? Are you there to document and just have fun? Or are you there to have fun *and* take quality photographs. 

I started going to these years ago and in the beginning was doing what you are...documenting/journalistic in nature. A million photos that mattered the least because they were uninteresting candid's. About 4 years ago I started to take my professional lighting to these events and handing out cards. I realized there was a tremendous photography potential I was wasting and I wanted to do something better IMO. Within a month I had attended 3 convention and had over connected with 30+ new clients. Convention goers, my subjects, saw the difference and immediately responded. 

If you're not honest with yourself about the quality of your own work and motives, or care to improve... stick with snapshots and have fun.

Snap shots...




Photographs...


----------



## TexPhoto (Jun 4, 2015)

The first 2 photos are to me, not great. But not because they are candid! They are just not great photos. The first seems way over processed. And eating could be interesting, but not in that photo. The second would be much more interesting cropped much closer. Both photos have a distracting element in the left bottom that could be eliminated with additional zoom, or post processing cropping.

Some good candid photos mixed in with the posed photos would really add to set. They would tell more of the story.


----------



## NancyP (Jun 4, 2015)

If they try to avoid being photographed, don't photograph. If they are dying to have someone notice their makeup, costume, etc, by all means photograph the hams. After all, even superheroes have to eat.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jun 5, 2015)

Who can resist posting when *Surapon* wants feedback?! 

There have been some excellent responses to Surapon's question.

I break it down like this. Two sides = Photographer and Subject. Photographer has a job, goal, desire, mission or is just having fun. Subject has a role, image, vanity, shyness and/or loves or hates having their picture taken. Both sides have their respective rights and feelings and as such deserve respect and consideration.

The way the photographer/subject interact and relate depends on the setting and situation. I won't go into the myriad situations and settings, I'll just say that both the photographer and the subject(s) need courage to participate. The photographer doesn't (shouldn't) want to offend or intrude and the subject doesn't want to be objectified or abused by the invasion of space or the improper use of the images.

In most public settings and venues, especially large events that are highly visual like the one Surapon attended, I feel the least awkward and have the most fun as a photographer. Most subjects expect, assume and understand that there will be a lot of photos taken. If someone objects, I just apologize or try to put them at ease with some smalltalk. Maybe I share my contact info and/or offer to help them get copies of the images for their own use. If they insist I refrain from taking their picture, I avoid them like the plague and delete their images. It's not my desire to upset anyone or draw negative attention to my actions in public.

I rarely keep/use/share images that are not complimentary to someone. I shoot a lot but I try to only share the best shots. It's my hope that someone will see their picture and smile, not feel embarrassed. I keep this in mind when I shoot. If I wouldn't want that picture of myself, my wife or my kids then someone else probably wouldn't either.

Specific to the images mentioned above, images of people eating are fine if they are complimentary. Often they just simply aren't. The second image is just an activity. It's not unflattering, it just is what it is.

I tried not to simply repeat what others have already offered and others have provided great advice/points. Surapon is such a gentle soul, I don't think he could upset anyone. And as such, I think the 'treat others as you would like to be treated' advice is a good rule to follow and I am sure Surapon does this better than most already.

Great pics by the way, I bet you guys had a LOT of fun at that event!! Lots of color and variety.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 5, 2015)

All I can do is shake my head in disbelief.

What alternate universe are we sharing here?


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 5, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> All I can do is shake my head in disbelief.
> 
> What alternate universe are we sharing here?



Could you explain what you mean? Disbelief at what?


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Jun 5, 2015)

I love all the photos! Even the one of someone eating. Great job! You must have a really good camera! LOL


----------



## Hillsilly (Jun 5, 2015)

Ultimately, do whatever you feel comfortable with.

Personally, I tend not to take photos of people in situations where I wouldn't feel comfortable if I was the subject. I don't see a problem with eating. But I remember once viewing some photos of a funeral in Nepal (this was a couple of years ago - not earthquake related). The photographer was discussing street photography and how he walked up and took the photos and how photogenic it was. But all I kept thinking was "for real??" If a tourist turned up at one of my family's funerals and started snapping away in people's faces, I don't think they're camera would last too long.

I usually have the same thoughts about photos of homeless people. Or people living in poverty that depict that they really have problems. To me, unless you have some over-riding, legitimate reason for taking the photo, I think some photos are better off not taken. For that reason, I doubt I'll ever become a famous street photographer (unless the Eugene Atget "no people" approach returns to popularity).


----------



## ninjapeps (Jun 5, 2015)

As someone that regularly attends cons and is friends with a lot of cosplayers, it's usually best to err on the side of caution. They generally find it rude when people shoot them when they're clearly not ready to be shot so unless you know them personally, at the very least don't be conspicuous.


----------



## surapon (Jun 5, 2015)

Thousand thanksssss, Dear Teachers, and all friends.
Wow, If I do not know any thing, I just ask and post in CR= Yes, I get the most Knowledgeable/ Expertise of Photography, Such as my Teachers and my friends , to answer my question---And I continue learning in every days.
No, Sir/ Madame---Photography is a great hobby for me , to make happy feeling in my old life, NOT to make money as the Professional Photographer, which come with full schedule and full headaches. And plus, I plan to retire from my Architect profession at the end of this year 2015 ( 66 full years young), and to be traveling photographer ( HOBBY ) around the world with my dear wife, as professional travelers.
Thanks again, Sir/ Madame. Have a great weekend.
Surapon


----------



## Maui5150 (Jun 5, 2015)

surapon said:


> My son look at the photos and Tell me that. " I should not take any photos , when the people eating or make -up their face" , I should take their pictures only when they post the perfected ACTION.
> Is my son = Right ?



Your son is wrong. 

You should take pictures when every you are comfortable taking pictures, with what ever subject touches or moves you, as long as the environment is conducive and legal to do so.

Whether you POST those images, especially if they are unflattering is another matter. Some of my most loved photos, by the subjects, were ones where I was more of an interloper and happened upon a more private moment. You can never tell what those moments are or what you have captured until after the fact. 

I have also shot a lot of sports / endurance athletes and have captured some of them in their not-so finest hour. I am generally a more positive person and those images likely will never be posted, but as a photographer, I have found more often it is better to capture and select/edit when viewing the body of work than to select/edit 

It is far easier to toss a bunch of photos than it is to capture moments that were not shot and passed


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 5, 2015)

Maui5150 said:


> surapon said:
> 
> 
> > My son look at the photos and Tell me that. " I should not take any photos , when the people eating or make -up their face" , I should take their pictures only when they post the perfected ACTION.
> ...



I don't understand this, please explain. Why am I entitled treat everyone on the planet as my model? Why am I entitled to do whatever I want -- to indulge my art with anything that "touches or moves" me without regard for the effect it will have on those in my frame? I simply don't understand the mindset that puts the self-proclaimed artist above all else. There is plenty of art to be enjoyed and celebrated that is consensual or which demands no consent (inanimate and non-human subjects). Why is art allowed to be coercive and manipulative?

This is a serious question. I'd love to hear a cogent explanation yet never have. I've just never understood this, it seems so foreign to me.


----------



## sanj (Jun 5, 2015)

Surapon.
In my opinion there is nothing NOTHING wrong with your shots. I belong to the thinking that the day a person chooses to be a 'life' photographer, nothing is taboo. Then it is the photographer's duty and religion to document everything. Go to every extend to document life the way it is.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 5, 2015)

sanj said:


> Surapon.
> In my opinion there is nothing NOTHING wrong with your shots. I belong to the thinking that the day a person chooses to be a 'life' photographer, nothing is taboo. Then it is the photographer's duty and religion to document everything. Go to every extend to document life the way it is.



Why?


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jun 5, 2015)

Orangutan, I think I understand your position. And it has merit. But...

IMO, I think there is a middle ground. I agree with your point. And I am personally a shy and hesitant public photographer. Especially when small kids are around. But I also think that when in public, people are in view of everyone all the time. A photograph is just capturing that public view. I think that the photographer should be considerate and show all due respect but the photographer is still _entitled_ to capture what they see in a public setting. And trust me, I am NOT a fan of the word _entitled_. In most contexts, it usually rubs me the wrong way.

For instance, if a couple embraces and shares intimacy in public, it's not private. If they don't want anyone to view them or photograph them, don't be intimate in public. Get a frickin' room! They can't have it both ways and shouldn't expect it. OTOH, if someone is in a situation out of their control, like they are assaulted and vulnerable, a photograph might not be appropriate. Or polite. A news photographer is obligated to get the shot but an amateur might be a little out of line. But nice or not, it's still in public and not prohibited or illegal. But today, everyone has a camera, still and video and we can all expect just about anything to be captured and posted online in mere seconds. So like it or not, that's the voyeuristic world we live in now.

And think of some images that are spontaneous, public and perhaps a bit inappropriate in the moment but ended up being timeless images. The Marilyn Monroe Blowing Dress shot comes to mind. Or the V-J Day Times Square Kiss.


----------



## Rocky (Jun 5, 2015)

There is a simple minded way for the situation. Just imagine that YOU are the object in the picture that you are taking. Would you like it to be posted in the web? If the answer is YES. Then take the picture. If the answer is NO. Then, do not take it.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 5, 2015)

Rocky said:


> There is a simple minded way for the situation. Just imagine that YOU are the object in the picture that you are taking. Would you like it to be posted in the web? If the answer is YES. Then take the picture. If the answer is NO. Then, do not take it.



This is a good first step (a photo version of the Golden Rule), but I'd take this one step further: would you like to have your young child the subject of the picture?


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 5, 2015)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Orangutan, I think I understand your position. And it has merit. But...
> 
> IMO, I think there is a middle ground. I agree with your point. And I am personally a shy and hesitant public photographer. Especially when small kids are around. But I also think that when in public, people are in view of everyone all the time. A photograph is just capturing that public view. I think that the photographer should be considerate and show all due respect but the photographer is still _entitled_ to capture what they see in a public setting. And trust me, I am NOT a fan of the word _entitled_. In most contexts, it usually rubs me the wrong way.
> 
> ...



Rusty, thanks for the thoughtful reply. This is a good first step in the conversation. Of course, I've heard and considered all these arguments before, and I don't find them entirely compelling. I'll address a few specifics, then make a more general statement.



> when in public, people are in view of everyone all the time. A photograph is just capturing that public view.



The view itself is transitory, the photo has the potential to be permanent. The view is local to the people present, the photo has the ability to spread widely in minutes. The view has context: there is action leading up to the "event" and action after the event. The photo has no context. The view and the photo are not the same. Am I in public if I sneak behind a building to adjust my clothing, thinking I'm out of sight?



> For instance, if a couple embraces and shares intimacy in public, it's not private.



Partially agree here: if they're making out in public that's on them. If they sneak a quick kiss when they think no one is looking then not so much.



> but the photographer is still _entitled_ to capture what they see in a public setting



Do these ethics extend to sound recording? Am I entitled to record whatever can be heard in a public setting, then present it as a work of art? If not, I'd like to know the difference. Am I entitled to use a telescopic microphone?



> But today, everyone has a camera, still and video and we can all expect just about anything to be captured and posted online in mere seconds. So like it or not, that's the voyeuristic world we live in now.



Right, so take this to the next step: soon everything you do outside your home will be on video, and any frame from that can be extracted and presented without context. 

The ethics and law of photography developed in a time when there was no instant auto-focus, no usable ISO50,000, and each frame cost a significant amount of time, effort and money to transform from the snap of the shutter to a finished print. Additional prints cost more money, and could only be transmitted slowly and with significant expense. This made it unlikely that a photographer would "waste" a frame on something of little value. There is no longer any marginal cost to a single photo, so the possibility that every human imperfection will be recorded and shared. How many times have we seen people "checking out" an attractive person a little more obviously than they should have? Should this be preserved forever? I've seen a few photos that seemed to show just that, and a politician involved. It turned out to be DoF compression, and a different view showed something different. The lack of context can turn a photo from a record of the public view into a lie.

In just a few years, the world you describe has everyone on video every time they step outside a "private" place. I don't like that, how about the rest of you? Do you want everyone in your life to know where you are at all times? Do you want the spouse to know you didn't work an hour late, but were instead?


----------



## TexPhoto (Jun 5, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> Maui5150 said:
> 
> 
> > surapon said:
> ...



You don't say if you you are in the USA. But if you are the reason is the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, and the right to freedom of speech. Taking a photo in public is at most times considered protected speech. And 200 years of case law and various rulings on privacy. It boils down your rights and the rights of the person you photograph. The concept is if they are in a public place people are going to see and hear them. Why should recording that seeing and hearing be different. 

And before the board light up with 100 examples of someone who's rights were trampled, I know, I know, sometimes peoples rights are violated. That is not what I am trying to explain.

If you are not in the United States, your country may have similar laws.


----------



## distant.star (Jun 5, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> Do you want everyone in your life to know where you are at all times? Do you want the spouse to know you didn't work an hour late, but were instead?



This tells me everything there is to know about the position you've taken.

Most of the world does not share your paranoia, and I'm damn glad for that. If they did, we would have lost tens of thousands of dramatic images created in the last 100 or so years by photographers who were willing to show us to ourselves.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 5, 2015)

distant.star said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Do you want everyone in your life to know where you are at all times? Do you want the spouse to know you didn't work an hour late, but were instead?
> ...



Here I try to engage in a little friendly discussion; instead, you decide to dodge important issues and throw insults at me. And since you seem to think I'm in a tiny minority:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/americans-uneasy-about-surveillance-but-often-use-snooping-tools-post-poll-finds/2013/12/21/ca15e990-67f9-11e3-ae56-22de072140a2_story.html


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jun 5, 2015)

I think this is an important topic and a good discussion. Orangutan, I appreciate the time and thought you are putting into your posts.

However, IMO, the world we live in is seldom the way we wish it was. It just is. And yes, it seems to be moving toward a high degree of surveillance. Just consider the UK and all their police cameras as one example. Or when you go into a casino. Or a bank. Etc. Etc.

But closer to the topic of the OP, I think the individual photographer, while he/she is not prohibited by law from taking video or photos in public, does him/herself and his fellow photographers a disservice if he/she is inconsiderate and abusive when taking photos/videos. And if a photographer is attending a highly visual and public convention where the whole point of the event/interaction is to show off to one another visually - then shoot away and enjoy it! If the event is a private funeral - eh, not so much. Unfortunately, good manners/judgement is not guaranteed in any human endeavor, so good luck often finding it!

Unfortunately, no matter what we discuss here, we can't change the fact that a lot of people are essentially clueless and inconsiderate people regardless and nothing we think will change that.

And I'll repeat, the "golden rule" that has been mentioned several times is always in effect, treat/photograph others as you would like to be treated/photographed. Pretty simple!


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 5, 2015)

RustyTheGeek said:


> I think this is an important topic and a good discussion. Orangutan, I appreciate the time and thought you are putting into your posts.
> 
> However, IMO, the world we live in is seldom the way we wish it was. It just is. And yes, it seems to be moving toward a high degree of surveillance. Just consider the UK and all their police cameras as one example. Or when you go into a casino. Or a bank. Etc. Etc.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the reply. If you read my original reply to the OP I think you'll see we're on the same page.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jun 5, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



Orangutan, distant.star is a pretty cool member. And he makes a pretty good point. I didn't detect any insult intended toward you specifically. He simply commented on the perceived paranoia of your posts. He makes a good point about "the _position_ you've taken", and I think it was intended to be more about the mindset you present, not about you in particular. So get a beer, have a seat and let's all chill out together. 

After all, Surapon is in the room! We all know he'll throw some serious kung fu on us if we misbehave!!


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jun 5, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> RustyTheGeek said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately, no matter what we discuss here, we can't change the fact that a lot of people are essentially clueless and inconsiderate people regardless and nothing we think will change that.
> ...



I agree. But I still have about 300 more posts than you so I'm "more right"!! So there!! You buy the beer! Bwahh, ha, ha, haaaaa!!! 8)


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 5, 2015)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Orangutan, distant.star is a pretty cool member. And he makes a pretty good point. I didn't detect any insult intended toward you specifically. He simply commented on the perceived paranoia of your posts. He makes a good point about "the _position_ you've taken", and I think it was intended to be more about the mindset you present, not about you in particular. So get a beer, have a seat and let's all chill out together



I appreciate the thought, but I beg to differ: first, he takes one statement of mine and says "This tells me everything there is to know about the position you've taken," then he goes on to characterize it as paranoia. That word suggests more than over-caution, it implies mental illness. If d.s wanted to engage in a more civil discourse, he/she could have quoted my statement and said something like "don't you think this is a a little hyperbolic, there's no reason to worry about people tracking you at all times."

d.s declined to engage with the main theme of my argument, which is that publicized photos have real-world consequences, and it's presumptuous to assume the world shares your values in the balance of freedom vs. privacy. We could then have agreed to go off in separate directions and see if there's any opinion research on where the population as a whole settles on the issue.

Thanks for your civility, Rusty. BTW, I'm not actually un-chilled by d.s, I just thought his rudeness needed to be recognized. But a beer does sound good... ;D


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 5, 2015)

TexPhoto said:


> You don't say if you you are in the USA. But if you are the reason is the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, and the right to freedom of speech. Taking a photo in public is at most times considered protected speech. And 200 years of case law and various rulings on privacy. It boils down your rights and the rights of the person you photograph. *The concept is if they are in a public place people are going to see and hear them. Why should recording that seeing and hearing be different. *
> 
> And before the board light up with 100 examples of someone who's rights were trampled, I know, I know, sometimes peoples rights are violated. That is not what I am trying to explain.
> 
> If you are not in the United States, your country may have similar laws.



Hi Tex. 

Thanks for the civil reply. I am in the US. I don't think it's a Constitutional issue (but would be open to evidence to the contrary). If it were a First Amendment issue, there would not be restrictions photographing military installations, e.g. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/795, as well as some recent state laws regarding creeper photography.

Also, if it were a Constitutional Free Speech protection, that would also apply to sound recording, which is treated very differently under law from photography. Many states have laws against recording someone without consent.

I'm sure there are some lawyers out there who would know more, but I"m pretty sure this is a purely statutory issue.

However I'm more interested in the ethics than the law.


----------



## fragilesi (Jun 5, 2015)

Very important subject and I can't see there ever being a "right" answer. I love some of the street photography I see and even though I'm not exactly the most attractive subject and generally don't like my own photo being taken I wouldn't object to someone taking photos of me in a public place. In my view, as a general rule, if it's happening in public then you should be able to photograph it - obviously there are exceptions and I agree with one previous poster. I doubt I would hold back if someone started photographing a funeral uninvited.

Where I do see a problem though is when an image is published on a public forum. Then, in my mind, it becomes a very different thing. To have for example the fact you were appearing to indiscreetly view an attractive person (whether it was real or not) made public and widely distributed is a league apart from a stranger spotting it in the street. To be caught say in an uncharacteristic angry moment being published could be very damaging.

On one of the UK broadcaster's websites (presumably visited by hundreds of thousands of people) one of the leading entries in a street photography competition was of a very angry old lady falling over. The photographer said something along the lines of "She was clearly upset, angry, and got much worse when she realised I was photographing it". To me the fact that he went on to make that picture so widely available crosses miles over the line of fairness and was a massively selfish and inconsiderate act.

Of course, you can imagine a young man or girl who was the "star" of a winning entry being delighted with the whole idea if it showed them in a good light possibly. So it could go either way but in any case I'd make the point that the act of publishing the photo, in any way, raises far more questions and doubts to me than the mere act of taking it.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 5, 2015)

fragilesi said:


> Very important subject and I can't see there ever being a "right" answer.



Thanks for sharing your thoughts.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jun 6, 2015)

fragilesi said:


> Very important subject and I can't see there ever being a "right" answer. I love some of the street photography I see and even though I'm not exactly the most attractive subject and generally don't like my own photo being taken I wouldn't object to someone taking photos of me in a public place. In my view, as a general rule, if it's happening in public then you should be able to photograph it - obviously there are exceptions and I agree with one previous poster. I doubt I would hold back if someone started photographing a funeral uninvited.
> 
> Where I do see a problem though is when an image is published on a public forum. Then, in my mind, it becomes a very different thing. To have for example the fact you were appearing to indiscreetly view an attractive person (whether it was real or not) made public and widely distributed is a league apart from a stranger spotting it in the street. To be caught say in an uncharacteristic angry moment being published could be very damaging.
> 
> ...



At some point, if a photo is going to be publicized or used in some kind of promotion or commercial venture, a release form is not only a good idea but also sometimes required. Pubic or not.

https://asmp.org/tutorials/forms.html


----------



## distant.star (Jun 6, 2015)

.
Thanks, Rusty. I may have to hire you to write my posts!!




RustyTheGeek said:


> Orangutan, distant.star is a pretty cool member. And he makes a pretty good point. I didn't detect any insult intended toward you specifically. He simply commented on the perceived paranoia of your posts. He makes a good point about "the _position_ you've taken", and I think it was intended to be more about the mindset you present, not about you in particular. So get a beer, have a seat and let's all chill out together.
> 
> After all, Surapon is in the room! We all know he'll throw some serious kung fu on us if we misbehave!!


----------



## sanj (Jun 6, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Surapon.
> ...



Friendly discussion. Always. 

"Why"? I believe that as a photographer my job is to photograph. If I choose to be a street/life photographer, I can't filter. Here are some examples of photos from internet. These photos would not have been made if the at the situation the photographer was scratching his head questioning the ethics of it all. 

I believe these are great photos.


----------



## sanj (Jun 6, 2015)

surapon said:


> Dear Teachers and friends.
> I love to take the photos of any things in front of me, just for my record of the picture( My Photojournalistic style) in that mili-second moment.
> Last week end, There are " The ANIMAZEMENT FESTIVAL/ CONVENTION " in my home city, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. We ( my son and me) went to take the photos of Heros, Heroins, Evils and the Good guys/ Gals.
> The question for you, Sir/ Madame---After we come back home, My son look at the photos and Tell me that. " I should not take any photos , when the people eating or make -up their face" , I should take their pictures only when they post the perfected ACTION.
> ...



Your son is wrong.  You are a photographer and you photograph. Simple.


----------



## 100 (Jun 6, 2015)

As long as photographers personal ethics are within the boundaries of the laws of the country they are taking their photographs in they should do as they please. It might be beyond my own personal ethics so I wouldn’t take the picture but I can’t force my personal ethics on other people if they stay within the boundaries of the law. That’s an important part of freedom, I think. 

In a democracy it’s always possible to change laws if you can find a majority for your ethics or point of view.


----------



## sanj (Jun 6, 2015)

Rocky said:


> There is a simple minded way for the situation. Just imagine that YOU are the object in the picture that you are taking. Would you like it to be posted in the web? If the answer is YES. Then take the picture. If the answer is NO. Then, do not take it.



Does not matter how I would feel at that moment. I may never be part of a similar moment. A sports fan takes off shirt when the team wins, it looks amazing and I take a photo. Or would I ponder how it would be if someone were to take my photo at that point? I know I will never take off my shirt so I do not take the photo?


----------



## sanj (Jun 6, 2015)

100 said:


> As long as photographers personal ethics are within the boundaries of the laws of the country they are taking their photographs in they should do as they please. It might be beyond my own personal ethics so I wouldn’t take the picture but I can’t force my personal ethics on other people if they stay within the boundaries of the law. That’s an important part of freedom, I think.
> 
> In a democracy it’s always possible to change laws if you can find a majority for your ethics or point of view.



Does not apply mostly. In my country the morons have a sign board outside almost everywhere 'photography not allowed'. At run down airports where no more than a single flight lands every day if you try to take a photo of your family near the plane someone will run frantically waving their arms 'no photo no photo'. Stupid jerk.

If you take a photo outside a temple, idiots will come by waving a stick "no photo". 

I was in the lobby of a hospital and wanted to take a family photo before someone was getting admitted, the receptionist came running saying no photos in the hospital. 

Been to Benaras? If you take out a camera at 50% of the places some stupido will come with authority saying 'no photos'. And you slip them some money and you can take photos to your heart content.


----------



## fragilesi (Jun 6, 2015)

sanj

I agree about the photos you posted, all great and I have no problem with any of them. But they aren't a good argument to back up your assertion that you should be allowed to take photos wherever and whenever you feel the desire to. They are rather different to sticking your lens into people's faces on the street. There have to be boundaries in anything and photography is no different. Though like I say, my main issue with street photography is not the taking of great images it is in what has become their regular publication without the permission of the subjects.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 6, 2015)

FIRST RULE OF EVENT PHOTOGRAPHY: NEVER TAKE PICTURES OF PEOPLE WITH FOOD IN THEIR MOUTHS.

Unless the event is an eating contest, of course.


----------



## sanj (Jun 6, 2015)

fragilesi said:


> sanj
> 
> I agree about the photos you posted, all great and I have no problem with any of them. But they aren't a good argument to back up your assertion that you should be allowed to take photos wherever and whenever you feel the desire to. They are rather different to sticking your lens into people's faces on the street. There have to be boundaries in anything and photography is no different. Though like I say, my main issue with street photography is not the taking of great images it is in what has become their regular publication without the permission of the subjects.



You have a valid point. My argument is limited to big events - earthquake type of situations. Of course no bugging anyone with a camera. But if someone is doing a show on the street, I will photograph it.


----------



## sanj (Jun 6, 2015)

I have no guilt I took these photos. And I know for sure if you would have asked them, the photos would have looked staged. This is what street photography is about. Catching fleeting moments. 
(Not saying these photos are great. Don't throw stones.)


----------



## fragilesi (Jun 6, 2015)

sanj said:


> fragilesi said:
> 
> 
> > sanj
> ...



I see, yes and I tend to agree with both of those. If someone is performing in public then I don't think that they can complain much.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 6, 2015)

sanj said:


> I have no guilt I took these photos. And I know for sure if you would have asked them, the photos would have looked staged. This is what street photography is about. Catching fleeting moments.
> (Not saying these photos are great. Don't throw stones.)



Sometimes "staged" might be better. Not always. But sometimes...


----------



## Rocky (Jun 6, 2015)

sanj said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > As long as photographers personal ethics are within the boundaries of the laws of the country they are taking their photographs in they should do as they please. It might be beyond my own personal ethics so I wouldn’t take the picture but I can’t force my personal ethics on other people if they stay within the boundaries of the law. That’s an important part of freedom, I think.
> ...


Is it a real law, or someone just want to make some money??


----------



## sanj (Jun 6, 2015)

Rocky said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > 100 said:
> ...



Real laws. I do not understand why most of India / Gulf are obsessed with "No Photos". Retards.


----------



## Rocky (Jun 6, 2015)

sanj said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...


"NO Photo" as you have mentioned are due to either "respect" or security". Even in the western society, especially South America and Europe you are not allowed to take photo during the religious ceremony either inside or outside of the church. Some Buddhist temple in Asia would not allow you to take picture even there is no people inside. That is respect. For security, They do not want the information of the airport or hospital to be photographed and end up in the wrong hand. That is security. I can tell you that you cannot take any picture of the outside of the railroad station in Tibet even you are 300 feet away. That is security of the next level.
With a camera, that does not give you the right to take picture without any restriction. On the other hand , give someone money and you can take picture and does not obey the law is not right either.


----------



## ninjapeps (Jun 7, 2015)

sanj said:


> Real laws. I do not understand why most of India / Gulf are obsessed with "No Photos". Retards.


Same in the Philippines, except that it only seems to apply to dslrs. Someone taking pictures with a dslr in a park will be told by security that photos are not allowed without a permit while the dozens of people shooting with their phones will be ignored.

It gets even sillier when two people are standing next to each other and shooting the same thing inside a mall but security will only tell the one with the dslr to stop shooting.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 7, 2015)

sanj said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



I'm sorry, I remain confused. Certainly there are great examples of journalistic photography, those which are certainly justified by the important effect they have on society. Why is it difficult or time-consuming to filter -- to make an ethical decision quickly? Humans do these things all day every day, with little effort. There is no difficulty or time lost in deciding that photographing inappropriate police conduct is ethically acceptable, while photographing a man in an expensive suit adjusting his zipper is not.

I've seen enough of your posts to know that your intentions are good; I just don't understand the absolute position you take: this is no more a black-and-white issue than any other part of human interaction.

Cheers.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 7, 2015)

sanj said:


> fragilesi said:
> 
> 
> > sanj
> ...


I agree with this.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 7, 2015)

sanj said:


> I have no guilt I took these photos. And I know for sure if you would have asked them, the photos would have looked staged. This is what street photography is about. Catching fleeting moments.
> (Not saying these photos are great. Don't throw stones.)



The first is a public performance, and is fair game. The second one I also find ethical because the subjects are distant enough not to be individually recognizable. If this had been close enough that they were recognizable then it would cross my ethical line.


----------



## sanj (Jun 7, 2015)

fragilesi said:


> sanj
> 
> I agree about the photos you posted, all great and I have no problem with any of them. But they aren't a good argument to back up your assertion that you should be allowed to take photos wherever and whenever you feel the desire to. They are rather different to sticking your lens into people's faces on the street. There have to be boundaries in anything and photography is no different. Though like I say, my main issue with street photography is not the taking of great images it is in what has become their regular publication without the permission of the subjects.



I understand and agree. But it is not always feasible. For example, see this attached photo. It was taken at a so called religious activity. Where on earth would I find these people to get a release form? And if I asked them to sign a form during this procession, they would think I am a lunatic. 

This guy dresses up like this and poses for tourists for money and locals think he is God. Now, after hours, he lights up a joint. I take the photo.


----------



## sanj (Jun 7, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



Hi Orangutan. My current position (things change!): I should take photos uncensored to document the way humans are. Adjusting a zipper in public shows a certain side of humanity and should be documented. (Reminds me of a Fellini movie). What I would be against is hiding cameras in private areas of a person - their home etc. And also sneaking into private homes, offices via telephoto. In other words private spaces are out of bound. Public places are my playground. Unless of course I know very well that a particular photo will hurt someone. In that case I still will take the photo but not make it public until the point the act I am hiding is irrelevant. Also 'upskirts' (is there a word like that?) is out of bounds. 

Btw I appreciate your morality towards your subjects. Cheers... It is Sunday brunch time. Beer, Sangria at the local pub. And I am writing this before getting drunk. I have noticed I write wrong things when tipsy. Hahahahaha.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 7, 2015)

sanj said:


> Adjusting a zipper in public shows a certain side of humanity and should be documented.


That's a joke, right? Mother of God, tell me that's a joke!

You can't _seriously_ believe that this prurient, perverse (no, _perverted_), unwarranted, unwelcome, unnecessary objectivisation of the minutiae of a stranger's life adds _anything_ to the human condition! 

This isn't "journalism": by definition journalism should be the capture of events _that have inherent worth and interest to the wider world_ - "gathering, processing, and dissemination of news and information related to the news to an audience" - as described by Wikipedia. 

This is photojournalism. Thinking it's OK - much less _worthwhile_ - to take a picture of a stranger fiddling with his flies is frankly borderline abnormal.

Where's your inner censor?

My day job is as a privacy law advocate/practitioner in the UK, and every day I see the very real damage caused by unwarranted invasions of people's privacy: anyone who says that there's no harm in your kind of uninvited, invasive photography _is just plain wrong_, no matter what contrived excuses you make for it.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 7, 2015)

Keith_Reeder said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Adjusting a zipper in public shows a certain side of humanity and should be documented.
> ...


Some photographers think of themselves as akin to the style of poet who considers the mundane, overlooked and seamy aspects of life. Perhaps that's how he sees himself.



> My day job is as a privacy law advocate/practitioner in the UK


The UK has a profession devoted to that ?!!! That's just so...civilized.


----------



## sanj (Jun 7, 2015)

Keith_Reeder said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Adjusting a zipper in public shows a certain side of humanity and should be documented.
> ...



You taking it literally. I always thought that was written as a metaphor. A metaphor for odd/funny behavior. 

My and my camera's sensor are just fine. Thanks. They both exist to capture moments in life. They both make me travel to various parts of the world to photograph what I can.


----------



## surapon (Jun 7, 2015)

Wow, Wow, Wow----Thousand thanks to all of my dear teachers and dear friends= for Comments on this Post, Yes, Difference people have difference IDEAS---All good and great ideas for difference situations---And Every Ideas are right in my concepts, depend on what " Times, Places and Situations".
I have learn a lot of great Ideas form you, and I will adopts these great Ideas.
Have a great Sunday, Sir/ Madame.
Surapon


----------



## fragilesi (Jun 7, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> The UK has a profession devoted to that ?!!! That's just so...civilized.



Of course, what else would you expect from us? 

But I'm pretty sure that by now most of the Western world has similar practitioners.


----------



## sanj (Jun 7, 2015)

fragilesi said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > The UK has a profession devoted to that ?!!! That's just so...civilized.
> ...



Enjoy. 
I prefer to be where I am not under the sword of censorship, moral policing and shades of smugness. Each to his own... Peace.


----------



## fragilesi (Jun 7, 2015)

sanj said:


> fragilesi said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



And where would that be?


----------



## sanj (Jun 7, 2015)

Hahahah. Good question. I guess in parts everywhere. 8)


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 7, 2015)

surapon said:


> Thousand thanks, to Dear Teachers and Friends.
> Thanks for your Opinion, your expertise and your comments , that I have learn from you again.
> One most important thing that I have learn from you to day, Plus I have learn from my dear son = Do the best as I can for the hobby that I love, BUT, I must concern about the effect of the photos , which might harm the feeling of the people , who I shoot.
> Yes, I never think about that before, I just shoot and shoot for the recorded photos plus the story teller pictures.
> ...



First point - everyone is smiling and posing for you....
second point - it's a costume gathering....

If anyone didn't want their picture taken, they wouldn't be there posing for the camera..... Absolutely nothing wrong with taking photos there.... If fact, they would probably be upset if you didn't take their picture....


----------



## fragilesi (Jun 7, 2015)

sanj said:


> Hahahah. Good question. I guess in parts everywhere. 8)



Well if you ever find such a place let me know and I'll be straight over there.

Even so, I won't be trying to take pictures of your zipper ;D


----------



## sanj (Jun 7, 2015)

fragilesi said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Hahahah. Good question. I guess in parts everywhere. 8)
> ...



I use buttons.


----------



## sanj (Jun 7, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> surapon said:
> 
> 
> > Thousand thanks, to Dear Teachers and Friends.
> ...



Yes Don! True. Obvious.  Nothing wrong here. Zipper or not.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jun 8, 2015)

Hi Kieth. 
Am I mistaken that here in the UK we have no right to privacy if we are in a public place? Also, adjusting ones fly could be perfectly innocent, or it could be the completion of some sordid act, would it then be journalism? 

Hi Mr Surapon. 
I'm not sure about photos of people eating, I find seeing other people eat quite distasteful even when they have the best of manners. I also wouldn't want to be pictured eating as I think it would be less than flattering. As for all the other shots, they are of people enjoying themselves, quite possibly playing up to the camera, either consciously or subconsciously giving you their blessing to photograph them. 

Cheers, Graham. 



Keith_Reeder said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Adjusting a zipper in public shows a certain side of humanity and should be documented.
> ...


----------

