| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/15/2004 06:00:06 PM · #26 |
you're right.. it doesn't. this is not a question of if its 'right' or 'wrong', I say its wrong and unethical if done on purpose. but if you accidentally get a shot because something is 'hanging out', or someone looks twice because of it, the person shouldn't act shocked and offended.
Originally posted by aerogurl:
If a woman wears a low cut top or a short skirt there may be many reasons. We might dress that way to impress a boyfriend, to look sexy, to attract attention, etc.. but that never ever ever gives anyone the right to take an 'upskirt' photo or a 'down top' photo, no matter how one is dressed.
And thats my last comment on the matter. |
|
|
|
|
09/15/2004 06:14:26 PM · #27 |
.
Message edited by author 2004-09-15 21:27:08.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2004 07:19:34 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by aerogurl:
well.. i guess that wasnt my last comment, this IS. lol
I understand what you are saying, if its done on purpose it IS unethical and wrong. But this thread was started because the guy is taking candids from a new angle, one he chooses to take from. He doesnt happen to be there and catch a shot of a woman with her tits out, he is standing there snapping shots of women and its probable that he will come home with a few shots of womens cleavage. The dude should NOT be taking candid shots from above, its that simple. Imagine a guy on a ladder taking shots of women from above or lying on the ground taking shots as they walk by, imagine a police officer walking by, what do you think will happen? I just got a call from a girlfriend of mine, I asked her, totally unbiasedly, "If you were walking down the street, looked up and noticed a guy taking photos of you from above, what is the first thing that would cross your mind?" She said, Pervert.
But I'm not going to feed this thread anymore.. If nothing else we must agree to disagree. :o) |
The subject knew I was taking the pic. I was going for the big head small body look and this turned out so well without that effect that is why i shared it with you.... |
|
|
|
09/15/2004 07:53:35 PM · #29 |
.
Message edited by author 2004-09-15 21:26:53.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2004 08:00:12 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by aerogurl:
Not once in this long thread did you reply with "She was modeling for me". The subject of the thread says "Candid". The definition of Candid is: "unposed pictures of serendipitous moments when the subject is unaware of the camera." If I had known she was modeling for you I would have never mentioned 'down shirt' or 'up skirt'. Geesh... |
I ment candid like pose not looking at the camera... Why do you think there is a tripod beside her forgot to move it out of the way... |
|
|
|
09/15/2004 08:08:53 PM · #31 |
Why do you think there is a tripod beside her forgot to move it out of the way... [/quote]
he's got a good point there.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2004 08:11:19 PM · #32 |
since i saw the tripod, i had figured she was knowledgeable about cameras being pointed at her. so when he said candid, i figured he meant her just not looking at him and acting natural.
|
|
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: 09/13/2025 05:55:19 AM EDT.
