DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Here we go again?
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 93 of 93, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 12/23/2005 08:49:03 AM · #76
Originally posted by mavrik:
Originally posted by Rose8699:
But in any case, the risk is too high today to just weild your camera anywhere you like.

You have to be quite cautious in today's society.


Or you can step up and assert your right to take whatever legal photograph you want to take. Again, Walmart is private - you don't have that right. Don't bring your camera there. The side of the road? Please.

I wonder what women's message boards would have been like before Suffrage. "Don't let those men know you want to vote - they won't think you're very ladylike and you won't get a husband, THEN where will you be - alone, unable to vote... you don't want to be alone! Just do what they say."

And the women who were arrested posing as men while they tried to vote? "Better not do that - you'll be arrested! That's against the law..."

Yes, but SHOULD it be?!


I guess it is just too odd for people today. It seems most expect to see cameras at the Zoo or at the Parks. Where I live, it is about 5 years (in some homes and with some people, many more than 5 years) behind the times of the rest of the country. Some even still ride their horses to the stores for supplies. Truly hickville USA. People do not take kindly to anything modern, new, or change in what they know. So for me to take candid shots from the side of the road, I would have to belong to the Press or something here not to have been in possible harm. I also had my son with me, so I don't like to take that chance. I only snapped about 5 shots and moved on. Maybe in places like New York, or the larger cities, it would be more acceptable. But in small small SMALL towns like mine..LOL..people do take offense. You have to do it incognito.

As for "rights"? LOL....Here in this town, I tell my husband all the time it is like being in another country or a place that has its own separate government from the rest of the USA. They make their own rules here, and there is little "fighting for rights" going on. It is likened to working for a company where both law AND policies of that company are the issue, and not just one or the other. If you are not breaking the law, but are breaking a policy, the policy will outweigh the law in the final standings. I live where the town has policies aside from the general laws of the country or the state.

Rose

Message edited by author 2005-12-23 08:53:16.
 12/23/2005 08:52:26 AM · #77
Originally posted by Rose8699:
I would have to belong to the Press or something here not to have been in possible harm....You have to do it incognito.


"harm"? Ok, so you, doing nothing illegal, will be harmed, illegally for doing it?

AND THIS SEEMS OK?!
 12/23/2005 09:03:18 AM · #78
Originally posted by mavrik:
Originally posted by Rose8699:
I would have to belong to the Press or something here not to have been in possible harm....You have to do it incognito.


"harm"? Ok, so you, doing nothing illegal, will be harmed, illegally for doing it?

AND THIS SEEMS OK?!


Well, this really should be another thread. But to answer, maybe "harm" was too harsh of a word. Let's just say that it would have been against the "rules" as they know them in this part of the country. I was already stopped once for taking pictures of something I placed in the road for another contest. The road is un-used and the area is under construction, but many acres away from where I was. HERE, where I live, you cannot enter an area (which is HUGE, and OPEN forest area with newly paved roads) while either condos are being built on that property, even if the condos and the construction are acres away from it. The area is still sanctioned as "restricted". No matter how large, no matter how safe, no matter how open. It is patroled for "trespassers". In the Northeast, I could have stood right next to a condo worker and taken candids of that worker and he probably would have posed for me. LOL....However, here they are very serious about being left ALONE and have very serious policies about what they deem as freaks who take photos of crows, trees, skies, etc.

In my case the cop just smiled and moved on. However, had it been a bad ass, he could have arrested me for being in a restricted area doing something stupid. I would have lost the case because of the policy of restriction, and that ONE SMALL SIGN that says so only as you drive deeply enough into the restricted area to notice it. And that is how they do things here. Its very "good old boy" in how the area is maintained, with the same geasers in elected offices and on council since 1930 (for example). When you have politicians and council still in office and elected to office by the same clique in the town year after year, you will have the mindset of rules for the town and laws put in place that ARE as old as the politicians. Change is not something looked upon with ease here, hence the same people voted in year after year. It's a long story, and I could go on and on about it, but that is the jist of it.

It's not the "freedom of photography" that is the issue where I live. It is the lupos in the system. In other words "pull off to the side of road to take pics?" This could have been placed as against the law by saying where I pulled off was "putting other cars in danger or driving to endanger". "Stand on the side of a busy road to take pics?" I would be noted as being to close to the road line and looking through the viewfinder and not paying attention to the road would be considered as endangering my own life and that of a possible other driver. When they do NOT like what you are doing, they will find a reason for you not to do it.

Does it make it right? To answer your question simply, and specifically for where I live? NOPE! LOL...

Rose

Message edited by author 2005-12-23 09:08:42.
 12/23/2005 09:11:42 AM · #79
Originally posted by Rose8699:

......Its very "good old boy" in how the area is maintained, with the same geasers in elected offices and on council since 1930 (for example). When you have politicians and council still in office and elected to office by the same clique in the town year after year, you will have the mindset of rules for the town and laws put in place that ARE as old as the politicians. Change is not something looked upon with ease here, hence the same people voted in year after year. It's a long story, and I could go on and on about it, but that is the jist of it......

Rose


You ought to be careful in case any of them read this post and you get in trouble :-)
 12/23/2005 09:16:46 AM · #80
Originally posted by UNCLEBRO:
Originally posted by Rose8699:

......Its very "good old boy" in how the area is maintained, with the same geasers in elected offices and on council since 1930 (for example). When you have politicians and council still in office and elected to office by the same clique in the town year after year, you will have the mindset of rules for the town and laws put in place that ARE as old as the politicians. Change is not something looked upon with ease here, hence the same people voted in year after year. It's a long story, and I could go on and on about it, but that is the jist of it......

Rose


You ought to be careful in case any of them read this post and you get in trouble :-)


LOL...I didn't mention any specific names, however, there are towns people that do voice this rather loudly at town council meetings. They are just laughed at by those that know they would have to pass away first before others will listen to them.

Rose
 12/23/2005 09:24:22 AM · #81
Originally posted by Rose8699:
The area is still sanctioned as "restricted". No matter how large, no matter how safe, no matter how open. It is patroled for "trespassers"...I would have lost the case because of the policy of restriction, and that ONE SMALL SIGN that says so only as you drive deeply enough into the restricted area to notice it.


Again, if these are private areas, you would be in the wrong to disobey their restrictions. If this is a public road and you aren't allowed to pull over for anything other than an emergency and that's the law, then don't pull over - I'm talking about an area where you can legally take a photo - say a public park, and you take a photo of the back of some kid's head walking by - legal, you may get harassed for it, but screw them.

If it's illegal to be where you are taking the photo, don't take the photo. Simple. If it's legal, screw them.
 12/23/2005 09:28:04 AM · #82
Originally posted by mavrik:
If it's legal, screw them.


I've seen Deliverance, it could end up the other way round!!!!

edit to add the hyperlink

Message edited by author 2005-12-23 09:29:57.
 12/23/2005 09:54:28 AM · #83
Hey, it is the restricted areas that have the most potential photographically. LOL....

I am going shooting right now as a matter of fact, but to my two favorite "legal" shooting spots. LOL....

I will be on later, but I have no thrill these days in the update button. LOL....I rarely even bother with it between my pun and my dof. So I need to keep shooting as I may get better and better shots for the upcoming present contests while the time frame is still open. :)

Later!
Rose
 12/23/2005 10:11:53 AM · #84
Originally posted by _eug:
Originally posted by Niten:
By the way, if anyone ever approaches you and says your not allowed to take photos where you have been taking photos just format your card right then and there without letting them see anything. Go home and run recovery software on your card and get them all back.


Last week I got told that I could take photo, but that I wasn't allowed to use a tripod. What do reccomend for that? :D


I reccomend the largest most envasive portable flashes you can find.
 12/23/2005 10:16:45 AM · #85
Originally posted by bluenova:
Originally posted by Niten:
You guys are right though any guy caught looking at womens butts is a lowlife. ;)

All guys look at womens butts (unless they bat for the other side), does that make all guys pervs?


Maybe it wasn't clear but that was my point. When you condem this guy go ahead and condem the people on this site that give all the nude shots all these thousands of hits. Do you think they are looking at them because they care about your photography skills?
 12/23/2005 01:05:57 PM · #86
Originally posted by Niten:
Originally posted by _eug:
Last week I got told that I could take photo, but that I wasn't allowed to use a tripod. What do reccomend for that? :D


I reccomend the largest most envasive portable flashes you can find.


Boy that would really get them riled up. lol Especially considering that it was in the Kimble Center in Philadelphia which is use for musical performances, mainly chamber music.
 12/23/2005 02:12:12 PM · #87
Originally posted by radionin:
Originally posted by tfaust:
For those of you that think he was committing a crime and they were right to arrest/charge him... first I refer you back to KiwiPix's post and then I ask... how does the papparazzi get away with it? Now THEY harrass people and car accidents have happened because of them and there aren't (usually) arrests of those photographers.


I kinda think papparazzi just gets away with it.
Correct me if I'm wroung but don't you need someones personal release before you can use there image to make profit?? I suppose they get away with it because they say its news. I guess all that guy needs is a press pass!


Just FYI... anyone can sell pictures of people editorially. No model release needed.

That's how they make their money- by stalking celebs & catching something no one else has. Then they can sell images to magazines for the high dollar.
 12/23/2005 02:57:08 PM · #88
Some of my favorite candid shots.....


All of these were taken in public places without the consent of the female subjects. So am I a perv too?
 12/23/2005 03:07:45 PM · #89
Originally posted by coolhar:

All of these were taken in public places without the consent of the female subjects. So am I a perv too?

That's the one that came to mind when I first read this thread. So according to many of the early posters and the cops in the story, yes, you are a perv. I suggest you turn yourself in for your own protection - I already see the mob gathering.
 12/23/2005 03:16:16 PM · #90
Before you turn yourself in, wipe your hard drive of any images you have taken in the last five years. And destroy all your camera equipment. Safer that way.
 12/23/2005 03:18:39 PM · #91
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Before you turn yourself in, wipe your hard drive of any images you have taken in the last five years. And destroy all your camera equipment. Safer that way.

And wipe off your monitor also - if you really are a pervert, I mean. ;-)
 12/23/2005 03:24:55 PM · #92
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by coolhar:

All of these were taken in public places without the consent of the female subjects. So am I a perv too?

That's the one that came to mind when I first read this thread. So according to many of the early posters and the cops in the story, yes, you are a perv. I suggest you turn yourself in for your own protection - I already see the mob gathering.


It gets worse! Look at the photographer's comments on THIS one!



"little cuties" indeed... We all know what he means by THAT, right? And I sure do hope "pet the pony" isn't code for you-know-what...

(in case anyone is wondering, I'm being satirical here)

R.
 12/23/2005 03:28:28 PM · #93
I think he intentionally withheld his shot at the zoo of where the zookeeper had to go into the primate's enclosure to discipline one of the animals. I think he titled it "Spank the Monkey"

Then there was that fowl-strangling photo - I forgot what that was called...
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/28/2025 01:37:18 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/28/2025 01:37:18 PM EDT.