Maybe if he had icluded photos of someone other than just attractive women, and others did't respond with tips on how to trick attractive women into being photographed, then maybe it wouldn't be offensive.
So these photos are art to you?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Street summer fashions
- Thread starter Jim Kaye
- Start date
"Nice women I mean clothes."
Can you not see the difference? Or are you so enthralled with this activity that you cannot see past the big boobs?
These photos are not what would be considered artistic street photography. I mean look at some of the responses. If he had photographed children, men and women on the street in some sort of other way then there would not have been responses like:
"Nice women I mean clothes."
Can you not see the difference? Or are you so enthralled with this
activity that you cannot see past the big boobs?
M
malch
Guest
I wouldn't exactly call them art. But they are quite interesting.
It is kind of fascinating to think about all of the decisions these women made; clothing, hair style, shoes, accessories, jewelry, glasses, piercings, etc. It's just a variation on classic people watching.
And just from a photographic perspective, the OP has made some interesting use of natural light to gain some quite decent subject isolation.
And there is certainly scope for reasonable discussion about the ethics of candid street photography. Personally, I would not be very comfortable taking these shots because I feel that someone just walking down the street has some limited expectations of privacy and anonymity. In contrast, if there was a street carnival taking place and lots of people with cameras I would feel much more comfortable shooting away myself -- people expect to see other people taking photographs.
However, inflammatory accusations of voyeurism are not appropriate and do not advance the debate.
I mean, I'm only thinking here but does that forsake the right of them to not have their photos published on a public website by a man that doesn't even know them? it would be different, in my opinion, if they were incidental to the photos but they are the main subject and not only that, they fill the frame. I would imagine that some might be upset about it, and even their better halves more so. That's my opinion, anyway
ps By the way, I also knew the definition of 'Voyeuristic' when I posted my comments. Only you know your intention, I'm just saying it seems odd to post close up's of women on the street without their permission, if that is what you were doing. I could be wrong but I just know I wouldn't do it
larsbc
Forum Pro
arielelf wrote:
[snip]
Furthermore, one could expand your argument to architecture photographers and suggest that they stop photographing bridges and other "sensitive" buildings because they're perpetuating this impression as photographers as terrorists.
In fact, for many photographers, it is precisely the question of "is this art?" that cases them grief. Security guards who scoff at the idea of someone photographing their factory for the sake of art. Policemen doubting the claims of a bus photographer that he enjoys photographing buses.
I may not see artistic merit in the OP's photos but it doesn't mean I should support the idea that we should never, in a public place, photograph people without their permission.
larsbc
[snip]
[snip]
If you've read my others posts, you will already know what I think of these photos as far as artistic merit is concerned. But whether I think it is art or not is beside the point. Your suggestion that candidly photographing people in public is unethical is, imo, wrongheaded. There are a great many street photographers whose work has both artistic and historical merit and photography in general would have been poorer without their influence.
Furthermore, one could expand your argument to architecture photographers and suggest that they stop photographing bridges and other "sensitive" buildings because they're perpetuating this impression as photographers as terrorists.
In fact, for many photographers, it is precisely the question of "is this art?" that cases them grief. Security guards who scoff at the idea of someone photographing their factory for the sake of art. Policemen doubting the claims of a bus photographer that he enjoys photographing buses.
I may not see artistic merit in the OP's photos but it doesn't mean I should support the idea that we should never, in a public place, photograph people without their permission.
larsbc
I'm making editorial use of photos taken in a public place. The women are not undressed or engaged in sexual activities. That's all there is to it from my perspective. I think you should read the definition of voyeurism in my subsequent post (or elsewhere) and that ask yourself what you are thinking when you see these.
I described the practice or experimenting with the AF system on the D300 I was doing, which makes the reason for the choice of framing obvious (though clearly not very creative). But I'm sure you will have your own attitude about that, which is fine. Do as you like in your own picture taking.
And you are certainly entitled to your opinion. And you are also free to look at what you want to as well as not to look at what you don't want to.
--
Jim Kaye
'I believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, and the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them.' -- Ansel Adams, 1981
larsbc
Forum Pro
arielelf wrote:
[snip]
In another post you wrote:
"This is a great forum, and I love coming here to see peoples photos, but there needs to be some kind of responsibility by it's memebers to keep the posts respectful. "
larsbc
[snip]
I can see the difference but can you? If so, then don't you think your original contentation that people in a public place should not be photographed without their permission is an over-reaction to those photos? Street photography is based on photographing people, in public, without their permission. "Throwing out the baby with the bathwater" is a hackneyed phrase but it's quite apt here.
In another post you wrote:
"This is a great forum, and I love coming here to see peoples photos, but there needs to be some kind of responsibility by it's memebers to keep the posts respectful. "
I think your above question/accusation isn't particularly respectful. If you want to discuss/debate the issue of public photography, great, I'm happy to talk. If you want to get into personal attacks, then you'll have to look elsewhere.
larsbc
Jim, I didn't mean to sound as if I was attacking you but..I still knew the definition of it when I saw the photos. I said I thought then and think now, that the series could certainly cause one to question if that wasn't true or not.
Most of those women were all young and attractive girls. If your purpose was to simply test your lens, weren't there ugly, fat and old men out there too (don't you dare post my photo!
> )
It's maybe just me, I just feel funny about posting a stranger's photo on line like that..there wasn't nothing lewd about them to make one need to turn away though
Most of those women were all young and attractive girls. If your purpose was to simply test your lens, weren't there ugly, fat and old men out there too (don't you dare post my photo!
> )It's maybe just me, I just feel funny about posting a stranger's photo on line like that..there wasn't nothing lewd about them to make one need to turn away though
I consider using slang language like that and asking the question you are asking in a public internet forum to be demeaning and degrading to women -- do you think they are defined only by their breasts, so someone would have trouble "seeing past" this part of their bodies (and clothed, no less)? And you throw out comments about "sexism"?? I find your asking this question in reference to my photographs to be highly offensive.
Whether you or anyone else considers them art or not is of no concern to me. If I were trying to sell them as art I would care, but I'm not and so I don't.
Others have made comments that you object to. Fine, you have commented repeatedly. Please let it go and do something more productive with your time.
--
Jim Kaye
'I believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, and the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them.' -- Ansel Adams, 1981
And I didn't take any offense from what you said. I just wondered if you know what the word means because from my perspective it is completely inapt.
Voyeurism, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?
Sure, lots, and I took some photos of them too. I just didn't spend much time on them or bother posting them. In fact, I deleted most of the photos I took that afternoon. Personal preference, that's all. In general I have nothing particular against fat, old men, I just don't spend much time making or looking at photographs of them unless I think there is something interesting about their facial expression, their clothing, or what they are doing.Most of those women were all young and attractive girls. If your
purpose was to simply test your lens, weren't there ugly, fat and old
men out there too (don't you dare post my photo!
Oh, I don't know, maybe some people are really turned on by a woman who's looking the other way -- fulfilment of some deep-seated masochistic need or something. ;-) (That symbol means I'm making a joke, in case anyone wonders. And I apologize in advance if anyone reading this actually does derive sexual satisfaction from women ignoring them.)
--
Jim Kaye
'I believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, and the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them.' -- Ansel Adams, 1981
Downward Dog
Well-known member
My reaction to these is that they just seem kind of creepy, much like the way I felt about the guy that put up pictures of homeless people he was shooting. I know if I saw my wife in that group of shots, I would not have been happy about it.
Plus, the subject title to this thread is misleading. It is not about fashion at all. The OP has said as much.
I'm not on a soapbox against street photography. I've done my share in the past and I have had subjects get pretty upset about it as well on occasion.
I do find myself wondering how many of these images would have remained in the camera if the OP had approached these women after he took their picture and said "I just took your picture without your knowledge. Should I delete it or can I keep it and post it on the internet."
Les
Plus, the subject title to this thread is misleading. It is not about fashion at all. The OP has said as much.
I'm not on a soapbox against street photography. I've done my share in the past and I have had subjects get pretty upset about it as well on occasion.
I do find myself wondering how many of these images would have remained in the camera if the OP had approached these women after he took their picture and said "I just took your picture without your knowledge. Should I delete it or can I keep it and post it on the internet."
Les
Great. I would also respectfully ask that if you want to pursue a discussion of that topic in general, please start another thread. This one has gone way beyond anything justified by the actual photographs that started it.
--
Jim Kaye
'I believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, and the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them.' -- Ansel Adams, 1981
Merriam-Webster again: "Creepy: having or producing a nervous shivery fear."
What is it that you are afraid of? That's meant as a rhetorical question, obvously you don't have to answer it. But the point is that everything critical I have read on this thread has to do with how people "see" these photos and the feelings aroused in them by these photos. They are not a property of the photos themselves. (Nor of the photographer who made them, though I understand you'll just have to take my word about that.)
I think you misunderstood me. Maybe I'm guilty of stretching things here, and if so I apologize, but the post was intended to show "street summer fashions" (not haute couture, certainly, if that's what you mean by "fashion") and to discuss the use of a particular lens/camera combination. Re-read the original post. But in fact the images are actually linked by this theme, although it has nothing to do with the reason for my making them in the first place which, as I explained, is why I believe they looked "clinical" to someone who commented earlier (their word).
--
Jim Kaye
'I believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, and the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them.' -- Ansel Adams, 1981
M
malch
Guest
How about the dozens (potentially hundreds) of CCTV cameras following her every move when she goes to the mall to do some shopping?
Now, that I find creepy. Makes a single frame seem fairly innocuous, no?
Are corporate cameras somehow more legit than personal cameras?
justahack
Senior Member
--
Cheers.
...Please don't rub up against my glass...
Cheers.
...Please don't rub up against my glass...
--
Jim Kaye
'I believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, and the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them.' -- Ansel Adams, 1981
Jim Kaye
'I believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, and the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them.' -- Ansel Adams, 1981
Not that I disagree with you, and just to clarify (since someone else also used the work "mall" earlier in this thread), these particular photos were not taken in a mall. Most malls as far as I know are private property. This was a public plaza on a public street, and in an area, I might add, where there is a lot of tourism and other activities besides shopping. So I wasn't the only one around with a camera by any means.
And what about government cameras? I understand the streets of London and the Underground are pretty well covered these days. Yes, people have legitimate security concerns there. And those worries are genuinely "creepy" IMHO -- the very thought of a disaster in the tube and hundreds or thousands of people being buried alive literally makes a chill run up my spine.
--
Jim Kaye
'I believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, and the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them.' -- Ansel Adams, 1981
M
malch
Guest
I realized that and didn't mean to suggest otherwise.
Yes they are. But by virtue of their use they are kind of public too.
In any event, I have certainly seen stores with security cameras that have a view of what is most definitely a public street. But this really wasn't my point.
I wonder why folks seem to have a bigger problem with "real photographers" when they apparently accept being subjected to CCTV surveillance on a massive scale in public (or semi-public) places.
And I still find the notion of a Walmart security guard or asset protection officer following my wife around the store on 100+ CCTV cameras pretty creepy.
I find that a very interesting bit of context. I will engage in street photography when there are a lot of other cameras around -- it's clear to everyone there that photographs are being taken. I guess you're not as courageous as I originally thought ;-)))
They're the most creepy of all. Anyway I need to run and adjust my tin foil hat right now!
sting
Veteran Member
Ohhh, wonderful background color wash. That is the art of the f2. Too bad the conditions for lighting the girl weren't better, although your model is beautiful.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum