|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/12/2006 03:19:44 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
My concern is more that I believe all of us have a right to expect NOT to be photographed without our permission. |
Interesting argument but it's no different than saying I believe I have the right to shoot any photo I want. Why would your belief override mine?
Besides this is actually a mute point because we are talking about photographing children not adults and to this day I have never seen a child refuse to be photographed. About 99% of the time they would strike a pose or smile. It's not until they start to grow up when they learn from their parents there is something wrong with all of this. What is most ironic in all of this is parents that object the most from my experience tend to be ones that on the outside appear to be free spirits, yet get incredibly conservative at the drop of a hat in situations like this.
Btw, let me clarify when I say my experience I'm referring to my gf and I. It's actually her who shoots a lot of candids including children and I'm usually there to accompany her. And also let me say we do engage with the parent or guardian as a matter of courtesy not obligation.
Message edited by author 2006-06-12 15:21:05.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2006 03:40:00 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by Crafty Sue:
That's a good idea I mostly just take pictures of my GrandChildren People can get all kins of ideas as to what you are up to |
You know what? If they get "bad ideas", they are watching way to damn much "Fox News" and sensationalized BS shows from other networks.
I was walking my dog (who was a puppy then) last fall and a few neighborhood kids asked if they could pet him. He wanted to say "hi" to them, so I said okay.
The kids pet him, asked me a few questions about the puppy and before I knew it, these two wild-eyed guys came almost charging out of the backyard and started with a series of really aggressive questions about who I was, where I was from and what I was doing.
I said, "I am walking my puppy, I live a two blocks over, your kid asked to pet the puppy and that's it."
Anyway, everyone in this country is just getting to crazy fearful about the littlest things. The actual facts do not match up with the need to be crazy fearful. |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 03:41:09 PM · #78 |
Sorry for duplicating this long quote, but I agree with the sentiment expressed by Robert. Well stated.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I've been a photographer most of my life, a lot of that time as a professional. I started taking pictures at the age of 11 when we lived in Switzerland, and I've been doing it more or less continuously ever since, with a 10 year hiatus not that long ago.
And I've never taken photos "of" people without their express permission. The thought never occurred to me. They may show up as unrecognizable minor elements in some of what I've done, but that's all. I'm not particularly sympathetic, or approving, of people who wander around in the world photographing others unawares.
I'm tolerant of the need to do this from a journalistic standpoint, but I've never really been a photojournalist so I haven't had to do it. I did spend a couple seasons photographing the San Diego Chargers for the media, but the athletes of course have given their permission for this as aprt of their contracts with the team.
From my perspective, it's almost as if people are discussing the loss of something mythical. I don't think there ever HAS been a time when it was common and accepted behavior to photograph people unawares for personal or artistic use. It happens, sure, but I don't think it's been that common, and I see no part of the social contract that even implies we should have to tolerate it.
I think most of the photography we see is the result of an explicit interaction between photographer and subject. I think true "candid" photography involving subjects unknown to the photographer and unaware of him as well, is very rare. I see no reason why it should be somehow "protected", and I don't see that the question of whether it's children or not is especially relevant.
I'm of course aware of the possibility that images of my children, or your children, might end up being somehow morphed into something smutty, but this isn't the central issue for me. My concern is more that I believe all of us have a right to expect NOT to be photographed without our permission. So this hue and cry, however irrational it may seem to some (based as it is on a fear of having innocent children somehow demeaned by phantom photographers), nevertheless has at its core what I think is a very fundamental issue: "How dare you photograph me, or my children, without first asking me!"
Robt. |
|
|
|
|
06/12/2006 03:43:37 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by Nelzie:
Originally posted by Crafty Sue:
That's a good idea I mostly just take pictures of my GrandChildren People can get all kins of ideas as to what you are up to |
You know what? If they get "bad ideas", they are watching way to damn much "Fox News" and sensationalized BS shows from other networks.
I was walking my dog (who was a puppy then) last fall and a few neighborhood kids asked if they could pet him. He wanted to say "hi" to them, so I said okay. |
Next time just say "Sure, but go ask your mom/dad first." |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 03:52:08 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by RonBeam:
Ironically you chose to illustrate your point with a photograph that DID motivate many, many people who were previously on the fence about the Vietnam War, to join the anti-war movement. Photographs DO motivate action and that is one example of "in(sic)conclusive research" you wanted. Ted Bundy in an interview given days before he was executed stated that the progression through soft pornographic material to increasing more violence oriented photographs was his (and many cellmates') first steps into the dark corridor that led to acting out that visual stimulus. I would suggest you Google for that interview before you say A does not equal B. |
That's hardly true for everyone and could well be nothing more then an excuse for someone like Ted Bundy to use in order to raise fear of things that make certain people uncomfortable.
If soft pornography leads to harder pornography and then to acting out depraved acts, what about violent movies, TV shows and music depicting violence? That's far more prevalent and is even acceptable in our society.
Message edited by author 2006-06-12 15:53:53. |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 03:53:28 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Nelzie:
Originally posted by Crafty Sue:
That's a good idea I mostly just take pictures of my GrandChildren People can get all kins of ideas as to what you are up to |
You know what? If they get "bad ideas", they are watching way to damn much "Fox News" and sensationalized BS shows from other networks.
I was walking my dog (who was a puppy then) last fall and a few neighborhood kids asked if they could pet him. He wanted to say "hi" to them, so I said okay. |
Next time just say "Sure, but go ask your mom/dad first." |
Well, maybe since I don't live in some crazy world of fear that didn't enter into my thoughts.
Next time, I'll just say, "No and don't even come near me." and keep walking. That seems like the best thing to do these days. |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 04:12:35 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Sorry for duplicating this long quote, but I agree with the sentiment expressed by Robert. Well stated.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I've been a photographer most of my life, a lot of that time as a professional. I started taking pictures at the age of 11 when we lived in Switzerland, and I've been doing it more or less continuously ever since, with a 10 year hiatus not that long ago.
And I've never taken photos "of" people without their express permission. The thought never occurred to me. They may show up as unrecognizable minor elements in some of what I've done, but that's all. I'm not particularly sympathetic, or approving, of people who wander around in the world photographing others unawares.
I'm tolerant of the need to do this from a journalistic standpoint, but I've never really been a photojournalist so I haven't had to do it. I did spend a couple seasons photographing the San Diego Chargers for the media, but the athletes of course have given their permission for this as aprt of their contracts with the team.
From my perspective, it's almost as if people are discussing the loss of something mythical. I don't think there ever HAS been a time when it was common and accepted behavior to photograph people unawares for personal or artistic use. It happens, sure, but I don't think it's been that common, and I see no part of the social contract that even implies we should have to tolerate it.
I think most of the photography we see is the result of an explicit interaction between photographer and subject. I think true "candid" photography involving subjects unknown to the photographer and unaware of him as well, is very rare. I see no reason why it should be somehow "protected", and I don't see that the question of whether it's children or not is especially relevant.
I'm of course aware of the possibility that images of my children, or your children, might end up being somehow morphed into something smutty, but this isn't the central issue for me. My concern is more that I believe all of us have a right to expect NOT to be photographed without our permission. So this hue and cry, however irrational it may seem to some (based as it is on a fear of having innocent children somehow demeaned by phantom photographers), nevertheless has at its core what I think is a very fundamental issue: "How dare you photograph me, or my children, without first asking me!"
Robt. |
|
well stated, yes, but i completely disagree with it. the central issue is not one of permission, but rather "right to privacy"--and right to privacy is something you have in your own home, on your own property, or on private property, as long as you are taking reasonable measures to protect your privacy (ie, sunbathing nude on an unfenced front yard would not be considered reasonable, unless your front yard was 2 miles long).
aside from photographers, when you are in public, your image is constantaly being captured. it is captured when you walk in a convenience store or a bank or a grocery store. it is captured when you are in a cross walk. it is captured when you use an ATM. like it or not, having your image captured is a fact of life. if you don't want to risk it, you simply can't go out in public. if you don't want your children photographed, don't take them out in public.
(of course, you can always approach the photographer and ask them not to photograph you, and they may or may not comply.)
from an artistic standpoint, people have been captured unaware for years and years, whether by painters, sketch artist, or photographers. granted, it's a lot easier now than it was 100 or 200 years ago, but, all the same, not all artists bothered to get the names or permission from those who caught their eye.
and as for it being "rare," well, i really doubt if ed clarke or jj or any of their ilk really get names and permissions before the produce the images that captivate us. the candids they capture do not reflect interaction between the camera and the subject. instead, they are true candid moments where the camera is capturing a moment rather than creating it.
it really comes down not to capturing the image, but what is done with it. if it is for commercial endorsement, then all the i's have to be dotted and the t's crossed. if it is for personal use, it doesn't matter. if it is for editorial use, the image is fair game, as long as it is properly captioned and published in true context. if it is for art, well, the courts in NY recently upheld the artists right to produce and sell images of individuals without their permission.
just my 02.
Message edited by author 2006-06-12 16:14:56. |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 04:32:21 PM · #83 |
I'ts not only photographing kids that get you into troulble. Amateur photographer also ran the storyof another phototographers woes.
Seems he was doing some architecturec photos around the CAnary Wharf,when all of a sudden he was thrown to the ground handcuffed by a SWAT team, Every where he looked where armed police and there were Police helecopters hovering above him also with armed police.
After convincing them he was just a Tourist to London he was released.
I understand a Law suit against the Police the London council and others has been lodged by the photographer
|
|
|
|
06/12/2006 04:39:52 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Sorry for duplicating this long quote, but I agree with the sentiment expressed by Robert. Well stated.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I've been a photographer most of my life, a lot of that time as a professional. I started taking pictures at the age of 11 when we lived in Switzerland, and I've been doing it more or less continuously ever since, with a 10 year hiatus not that long ago.
And I've never taken photos "of" people without their express permission. The thought never occurred to me. They may show up as unrecognizable minor elements in some of what I've done, but that's all. I'm not particularly sympathetic, or approving, of people who wander around in the world photographing others unawares.
I'm tolerant of the need to do this from a journalistic standpoint, but I've never really been a photojournalist so I haven't had to do it. I did spend a couple seasons photographing the San Diego Chargers for the media, but the athletes of course have given their permission for this as aprt of their contracts with the team.
From my perspective, it's almost as if people are discussing the loss of something mythical. I don't think there ever HAS been a time when it was common and accepted behavior to photograph people unawares for personal or artistic use. It happens, sure, but I don't think it's been that common, and I see no part of the social contract that even implies we should have to tolerate it.
I think most of the photography we see is the result of an explicit interaction between photographer and subject. I think true "candid" photography involving subjects unknown to the photographer and unaware of him as well, is very rare. I see no reason why it should be somehow "protected", and I don't see that the question of whether it's children or not is especially relevant.
I'm of course aware of the possibility that images of my children, or your children, might end up being somehow morphed into something smutty, but this isn't the central issue for me. My concern is more that I believe all of us have a right to expect NOT to be photographed without our permission. So this hue and cry, however irrational it may seem to some (based as it is on a fear of having innocent children somehow demeaned by phantom photographers), nevertheless has at its core what I think is a very fundamental issue: "How dare you photograph me, or my children, without first asking me!"
Robt. |
|
well stated, yes, but i completely disagree with it. the central issue is not one of permission, but rather "right to privacy"--and right to privacy is something you have in your own home, on your own property, or on private property, as long as you are taking reasonable measures to protect your privacy (ie, sunbathing nude on an unfenced front yard would not be considered reasonable, unless your front yard was 2 miles long).
aside from photographers, when you are in public, your image is constantaly being captured. it is captured when you walk in a convenience store or a bank or a grocery store. it is captured when you are in a cross walk. it is captured when you use an ATM. like it or not, having your image captured is a fact of life. if you don't want to risk it, you simply can't go out in public. if you don't want your children photographed, don't take them out in public.
(of course, you can always approach the photographer and ask them not to photograph you, and they may or may not comply.)
from an artistic standpoint, people have been captured unaware for years and years, whether by painters, sketch artist, or photographers. granted, it's a lot easier now than it was 100 or 200 years ago, but, all the same, not all artists bothered to get the names or permission from those who caught their eye.
and as for it being "rare," well, i really doubt if ed clarke or jj or any of their ilk really get names and permissions before the produce the images that captivate us. the candids they capture do not reflect interaction between the camera and the subject. instead, they are true candid moments where the camera is capturing a moment rather than creating it.
it really comes down not to capturing the image, but what is done with it. if it is for commercial endorsement, then all the i's have to be dotted and the t's crossed. if it is for personal use, it doesn't matter. if it is for editorial use, the image is fair game, as long as it is properly captioned and published in true context. if it is for art, well, the courts in NY recently upheld the artists right to produce and sell images of individuals without their permission.
just my 02. |
Thanks.. I was wondering if someone was going to put it in the words I was trying to come up with and couldn't. |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 06:39:55 PM · #85 |
all this remids me of the ryerson student on his way to his final crit. he had his rints in one briefcse, his negs in another. he stopped to tie his shoelace, and forgot his neg case. when he came back, after getting to school and discovering his horrendous error - the bomb squad had blown it up.
Message edited by author 2006-06-12 18:40:20.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2006 10:03:12 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
... well stated, yes, but i completely disagree with it. ... |
Skip - I'll always honor your opinion. My thinking on this is that if someone was taking photo's of my kids I would ask them to stop, and probably not too politely. If someone politely asks, I would politely say no, go away.
Just being in public doesn't take away the rights that people have to some privacy and rights within their "space".
I'm not the most eloquent speaker, and I thought Robert stated a solid position...still think so. ;^)
|
|
|
|
06/12/2006 10:10:24 PM · #87 |
 
I guess ive been lucky so far I have 4 children of my own, and find lots of candids at there games
|
|
|
|
06/12/2006 10:24:15 PM · #88 |
I guess I fall mostly into the Bearmusic mindset on this topic. If someone photographs people who are unaware they are being photographed, in a public place, then those people are being exploited. The photograph has a purpose and benefit to the photographer or it would never have been taken. IMHO photography in a public place is a privilege that we may soon lose because of 'activist' photographers that abuse those privileges. It seems that courtesy and common sense should prevail, especially in the case of professionals, but I see a few opinions in this discussion to the contrary. The current fears of abuse have some foundation and I don't blame people for being wary of photographers.
In general, people resent the idea being photographed unaware, it is an invasion of privacy. Nevermind all the security cameras in public places, those cameras serve a purpose for the public good and I have never heard of any case where those images were used in an abusive manner. I would never photograph people that have no expectation of being photographed unless I have their permission in advance. |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 10:24:34 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by skiprow:
... well stated, yes, but i completely disagree with it. ... |
Skip - I'll always honor your opinion. My thinking on this is that if someone was taking photo's of my kids I would ask them to stop, and probably not too politely. If someone politely asks, I would politely say no, go away.
Just being in public doesn't take away the rights that people have to some privacy and rights within their "space".
I'm not the most eloquent speaker, and I thought Robert stated a solid position...still think so. ;^) |
heyah, barry, i understand where you're coming from, and i'd also want to have a conversation with anyone pointing a camera at my children, if i felt the situation warranted it.
however, there is one difference between our opinions that is key: when in public, i do not assume ANY right to privacy. i cannot legally stop anyone from watching/recording/documenting me. i can take action if i am assaulted or harrassed or stalked, but i cannot do anything about anyone else's legal activities. if they "use" these recordings (be they images/audio/video) commercially and/or slanderously, i'll have legal remedies, but it will still be up to me too prove damages.
and, to take it a step further, even if i'm on private property (ie, in a restaurant), my privacy is only protected to the extent that i'm not visible from a public place.
i'd recommend this thread for a more indepth study.
;-) |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 10:32:10 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by ElGordo:
I guess I fall mostly into the Bearmusic mindset on this topic. If someone photographs people who are unaware they are being photographed, in a public place, then those people are being exploited. The photograph has a purpose and benefit to the photographer or it would never have been taken. IMHO photography in a public place is a privilege that we may soon lose because of 'activist' photographers that abuse those privileges. It seems that courtesy and common sense should prevail, especially in the case of professionals, but I see a few opinions in this discussion to the contrary. The current fears of abuse have some foundation and I don't blame people for being wary of photographers.
In general, people resent the idea being photographed unaware, it is an invasion of privacy. Nevermind all the security cameras in public places, those cameras serve a purpose for the public good and I have never heard of any case where those images were used in an abusive manner. I would never photograph people that have no expectation of being photographed unless I have their permission in advance. |
you can argue against it all you want. you can say you wouldn't do it, and you can say you don't like others doing it. you can say that you have ethical and moral problems with it. that's fine, and that's your opinion.
the reality of the situation is, there is nothing illegal about it. just because someone doesn't want their picture taken doesn't mean that, if they are visible in public, someone can't take it. as bitter-tasting as this is, it is, in fact, the law. |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 10:41:38 PM · #91 |
| Legality is not in question (at least not at this time), exploitation and abuse, will in time, pressure our legislators to change the legality issue. |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 10:53:28 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by ElGordo:
Legality is not in question (at least not at this time), exploitation and abuse, will in time, pressure our legislators to change the legality issue. |
maybe, but i doubt it.
but, just in case you happen to be right, i'm going to start photographing every person i see. that way, when they take away my right to photograph people, at least i'll already have an inventory.
;-)
Message edited by author 2006-06-12 22:54:49. |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 10:57:47 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
Originally posted by ElGordo:
Legality is not in question (at least not at this time), exploitation and abuse, will in time, pressure our legislators to change the legality issue. |
maybe, but i doubt it.
but, just in case you happen to be right, i'm going to start photographing every person i see. that way, when they take away my right to photograph people, at least i'll already have an inventory.
;-) |
If he is right I would love to see what the argument is that some how proves the capture of light in a lens is an invasion of privacy but then again we are talking about politicians so anything is possible I suppose.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2006 11:01:37 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by skiprow:
... well stated, yes, but i completely disagree with it. ... |
Skip - I'll always honor your opinion. My thinking on this is that if someone was taking photo's of my kids I would ask them to stop, and probably not too politely. If someone politely asks, I would politely say no, go away.
Just being in public doesn't take away the rights that people have to some privacy and rights within their "space".
I'm not the most eloquent speaker, and I thought Robert stated a solid position...still think so. ;^) |
Actually, being in public *does* remove your rights for a reasonable expectation of privacy.. that's what *PUBLIC* means. |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 11:33:10 PM · #95 |
hehehe - nuthin' like stirring the pot by opening this thread up again...
Message edited by author 2006-06-13 15:57:45. |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 11:37:17 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by skiprow:
... well stated, yes, but i completely disagree with it. ... |
Skip - I'll always honor your opinion. My thinking on this is that if someone was taking photo's of my kids I would ask them to stop, and probably not too politely. If someone politely asks, I would politely say no, go away.
Just being in public doesn't take away the rights that people have to some privacy and rights within their "space".
I'm not the most eloquent speaker, and I thought Robert stated a solid position...still think so. ;^) |
Actually, being in public *does* remove your rights for a reasonable expectation of privacy.. that's what *PUBLIC* means. |
People in public become part of the environment. The rules are pretty clear on what you can/can't shoot, and how you can use the shots you can take, and I think they represent a reasonable compromise.
And if they can tell me I can't include them in the shot, does that mean I can tell them to move the hell out of my way and quit messing up my composition? |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 11:41:52 PM · #97 |
I wonder how people would respond to an artist in the park painting pictures of their children without asking. I bet they wouldn't blink an eye.
I use photography as an expression of my appreciation for the gift of sight. I have a softer delineation between taking photographs compared to my own ability to remember a scene. Many other people take photographs with the express purpose of capturing a memory of an event.
In this case, there is very little difference between seeing something and remembering it and photographing it for later review.
So if I am in public, will it soon be illegal to look at children because I might remember what they look like later?
I remember one lady who actually got uncomfortable being in a certain country because she felt that all the old men on the street were 'mentally undressing' her daughter every time they looked at her.
Such a thing is of course within the ability of our brains...
I'm not a big fan of pedophiles, but I think the connection here is bordering on the un-thinking reactions of the heart.
I too live in Asia, so I am probably in the better part of the world for this kind of thing, but even still, it's an issue I am aware of... If I take pictures of children, I will not generally leave the area without speaking to the parents first. I will actually show them the pictures and if there are any they don't like, I tell them I will delete them. I do end up having to delete some images sometimes. The goal here is to keep the parents happy.
If the parents aren't there, I show the kids.
They usually want them all deleted :)
Even still, because I am within my rights and not doing anything bad, I won't delete all my pictures of kids that I didn't get permission to shoot because circumstances didn't allow...
However, I find that this sharing with the subjects and with the parents usually works the best to defuse issues. Even if I take a picture and show some parents, the other parents seem to relax a lot more...
Around here, people view taking photographs as a form of compliment.
I have always found the thinking of western women to be extremely odd too (although the thinking is found to some extent here as well), where they will spend significant amounts of time and money to make themselves look nice to go out in public, but as soon as they go out the door, they look down upon people who look and appreciate what they worked so hard to arrange. |
|
|
|
06/13/2006 07:47:50 AM · #98 |
excellent sentiments, Keiran. thanks for sharing.
the issues in this thread go well beyond 'photographing children in public' or 'rights to privacy'. the real issues revolve around intent and execution. firstly, why is the image being captured? secondly, how is it being captured?
if your head/heart is in the right place, and you are confident of your intent and abilities, then you should be able to carry yourself as a person who can be trusted, without question. and, when questioned, you should be able to answer for yourself and and your actions honestly, in a manner becoming one who has nothing to hide. it doesn't matter if you are a professional, a hobbyist, or a beginner; if you can answer to yourself, you should have no problems answering to others.
as a professional, i am conspicuous. my camera is NEVER hidden. i RARELY ask for permission first, but, as soon as have a chance, i approach the subjects of my keepers and introduce myself and explain my intentions. and, sometimes, i am rejected, leaving me with an image or so that has no value other than whether or not i like it enough to keep.
along these lines, it doesn't matter what you are photographing, whether it is children, architecture, industry, transportation, or whatever--if you carry yourself as though you have nothing to hide, you will have a much easier go than if you not just give people a reason suspect you, but, when confronted, you justify their concerns.
@brad good luck in SA ;-)
@paul and if they won't move when asked, pop 'em with a taser ;-)
Message edited by author 2006-06-13 07:49:35. |
|
|
|
06/13/2006 08:06:04 AM · #99 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by skiprow:
... well stated, yes, but i completely disagree with it. ... |
Skip - I'll always honor your opinion. My thinking on this is that if someone was taking photo's of my kids I would ask them to stop, and probably not too politely. If someone politely asks, I would politely say no, go away.
Just being in public doesn't take away the rights that people have to some privacy and rights within their "space".
I'm not the most eloquent speaker, and I thought Robert stated a solid position...still think so. ;^) |
Actually, being in public *does* remove your rights for a reasonable expectation of privacy.. that's what *PUBLIC* means. |
I suppose you are correct legally, but common courtesy in most cases allows for even some modest amount of privacy while in public.
Certainly it depends on the venue. Riding the subway in NYC has a different set of "courtesy rules" than a family picnic at an isolated picnic table in a public park in rural Central Virginia.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2006 08:07:20 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
... i'm going to start photographing every person i see. that way, when they take away my right to photograph people, at least i'll already have an inventory.
;-) |
Hope you have a large inventory of release forms available. ;^)
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 06/06/2025 11:06:33 AM  |
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: 06/06/2025 11:06:33 AM EDT.
|
