| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/30/2004 04:40:32 PM · #1 |
OK, so I have this new super-duper camera complete with telephoto zoom lens and now I start running into privacy issues.
Just because I CAN sit at a distance and take candid shots of unsuspecting folks, how ethical is it to do so? And in some cases, isnt there a very fine line between photography and voyeurism?
Ive never considered these issues before but Ive never had a camera that makes this an issue before. This past weekend I took a photo of a beautiful little girl walking along the beach whistling. But when I got back home and put it on my computer the guilt started. What right do I have to have a photo of someone elses child on my computer?
How have others handled this issue? If a stranger took a photo of me or one of my grandchildren, I would be quite upset but I see photos of people used without permission (most likely) often on DPC.
Not that I will ever become a paparazzi, but Im already thinking of some great shots I might get of people at the fair this year.
I need someone to tell me I can take candid photos of strangers and still remain sensitive, ethical and guilt free.
Please...
|
|
|
|
06/30/2004 04:43:15 PM · #2 |
Get a 50mm or 24mm lens - take great candids, be involved, not a voyeur. The best candid images make you feel you are right in the action (i.e., wideangle or normal lenses) rather than some passive observer from a distance.
Most of the 'classic' candid photographers used essentially a normal lens, on a rangefinder camera. That would be roughly a 30mm lens on the 300D.
Be a participant not a voyeur, and all the issues you describe go away.
|
|
|
|
06/30/2004 05:21:48 PM · #3 |
try taking candid shots of folks you know. there is no guilt there, and if you're good at it - they will appreciate your work more than a stranger ever will.
Message edited by author 2004-06-30 20:14:57.
|
|
|
|
06/30/2004 05:29:15 PM · #4 |
As long as you are taking pictures of people out in public, you're OK. It's only when you photograph people with a reasonable expectation of privacy (in their backyard, or looking into their car, for example) that it becomes an issue. Some people might get upset that you photographed their kid, but if they're out in public, then lots of other people probably saw the kid even without your camera. So what's the big deal?
EDIT- If you get a particularly good shot, walk over and show it to them. They might appreciate a print or email. You have a big advantage as a girl, since paranoid folks are far more suspicious of guys. I suppose male photographers have an unwarranted reputation for poor composition and color balancing. ;-)
Message edited by author 2004-06-30 17:36:02. |
|
|
|
06/30/2004 05:49:53 PM · #5 |
Being in public places they should _assume_ they are being photographed. Think of all the security camera's on public transportation, in parking lots, gas stations, the list goes on and on. I agree with scalvert, don't get into their areas where they would consider it private. But out in public I don't think you have anything to worry about.
Be wary of photograqhing kids. One time at Ikea, I bought these wood model artist dolls, and was photographing them in different poses all over the store. I saw a kid with one and signed that I wanted to take his picture. He smiled and held up the toy. I thought nothing of it. In the checkout, his mom approached and asked if I had photographed her son. She immediately said that was "not ok!" I explained why I had and apologized and she seemed more at ease. Low and behold the camera was filmless. But it still rattled my nerves.
On the flip side, I saw a little girl and her dad in matching knit hats, he was teaching her how to play chess. It was a perfect picture. I asked him if I could photograph them, he was totally cool with it. Unfortunately he told her to look at the camera and smile. Totally ruined the mood of the shot :/
My recommendation is if they are of age (18+ etc) go nuts. If they are a minor, be careful, or you might have some explaining to do. I'd recommend getting permission from parents ahead of time, it will remove the guilt your talking about. It might ruin the shot your going for, but it's safer for you.. and them. |
|
|
|
06/30/2004 06:03:44 PM · #6 |
| I should add that I shoot photos of kids all the time at local events, school functions and birthday parties where I hardly know anyone. I try to find the parents and show them if I get a good shot, and I sometimes offer them a print or post the pics online at PhotoAccess, where they can order a print if they like. Nobody has ever questioned it. |
|
|
|
06/30/2004 06:07:51 PM · #7 |
I think it is the surreptitious use of long lenses that can cause ire. Getting closer and being more obvious makes you less of a potential threat I think - you don't look like you are sneaking around the bushes - certainly people will be aware of you and you should respect them if they look uncomfortable or indicate that they don't want their picture taken.
|
|
|
|
06/30/2004 06:09:52 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
...you should respect them if they look uncomfortable or indicate that they don't want their picture taken. |
Or point that monster lens right at them at shoot them between the eyes. Be sure to laugh. ;-) |
|
|
|
06/30/2004 07:46:04 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Gordon:
...you should respect them if they look uncomfortable or indicate that they don't want their picture taken. |
Or point that monster lens right at them at shoot them between the eyes. Be sure to laugh. ;-) |
Yeah, laugh as you get pummeled with your big zoom lens
|
|
|
|
06/30/2004 10:16:40 PM · #10 |
I seem to get pummeled no matter if the lens is wide or normal. I get security escorts, threats to equipment or my person. If you're like me, I highly recommend a 400 + IS, flanked by two Dobermans.
Guilt? Hell, why? I do not sell clandestine photos. I do not even, privately, keep photos which compromise, offend or, otherwise, reduce people.
I am, however, interested in truth, beauty and humanity, which I record to the best of my ability. Often, people are offended by my presence, as I may be by theirs. How they manage their affairs is their business. It is my business to manage mine. I obey my conscience, which, sometimes, I need to be prepared to defend against all kinds of suspicions and conjecture.
|
|
|
|
06/30/2004 10:35:59 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
I seem to get pummeled no matter if the lens is wide or normal. I get security escorts, threats to equipment or my person. If you're like me, I highly recommend a 400 + IS, flanked by two Dobermans.
Guilt? Hell, why? I do not sell clandestine photos. I do not even, privately, keep photos which compromise, offend or, otherwise, reduce people.
I am, however, interested in truth, beauty and humanity, which I record to the best of my ability. Often, people are offended by my presence, as I may be by theirs. How they manage their affairs is their business. It is my business to manage mine. I obey my conscience, which, sometimes, I need to be prepared to defend against all kinds of suspicions and conjecture. |
I agree somewhat. But I do feel that guilt, especially now with the 828. The pictures are easy to take and are so clear. They can be cropped in quarters and are still very clear. The 717 always seemed to blur the image of people at a good distance whereas the 828 will pick up fine detail. Just a couple days ago I was waiting for the train to pass over the train bridge so I could get some pictures; there was a group of people waiting like me to see the train. With the swivel body I took some pictures of the group. Nice photos and some nice expressions on their faces but I couldn’t put them up on the net. I’m not sure why except I don’t think I would appreciate my picture being taken and used without my permission. And I have a suspicion some in that group would rather I not take their pic.
Then again I think if the group is large enough it’s OK.
|
|
|
|
06/30/2004 10:37:03 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
I seem to get pummeled no matter if the lens is wide or normal. |
Maybe you're just a scary looking guy? I looked at your profile and you don't look scary. You're a bit blurry though, mabe that's your problem. :P
|
|
|
|
06/30/2004 10:47:09 PM · #13 |
I'm not scary-looking at all and I carry no problems that should concern anyone. Nor do I try to attract any more attention than a tree. Dogs respect me.
|
|
|
|
06/30/2004 10:53:43 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Dogs respect me. |
Fair enough. :) Maybe it's something to do with where you live? Looks like birds respect you too, from your profile. You have some lovely shots there.
|
|
|
|
06/30/2004 11:38:34 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by mandyp:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Dogs respect me. |
Fair enough. :) Maybe it's something to do with where you live? Looks like birds respect you too, from your profile. You have some lovely shots there. |
Thanks, Mandy. You have cool boat ramps. :-)
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/26/2026 07:42:39 AM EDT.
