Street summer fashions

Actually, I have a problem with hydrids...they suck down ethynol. What is ethynol? Do a Google search and you'll get it all figured out. Now you know why food prices hyper inflated, the air emissions of ethynol plants impacting the claen air standards...thus pollution, etc....
--
Dejan Smaic

http://dejansmaic.smugmug.com

justahack said:

Again, what's the difference? An individual CHOOSES to place
themselves in PUBLIC view, a non-private setting, are you suggesting
that we should all avert our eyes and not look their way...
c'mon...give me a break.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is saying that. I think what people are saying is that there is no problem looking, but there might be something strange about actually recording the image of the unaware subject and posting it on the internet. There IS a difference.

justahack said:

Perhaps the Talliban are alive and well in America.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, and perhaps there are immature people aliive and well in America who have to revert to name calling and exaggeration to get their "point" across.

thank you for my photograph said:

arielelf said:

... When multiple people make a complaint that something is
offensive, then shouldn't there be some kind of reaction to it?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

And there was a reaction, a discussion.

thank you for my photograph said:

ELF, I suggest you follow your own advice. One month ago you stated:

"Just don't read the link! It is one thread in the 5thousand threads
to read, so skip over it if you are offended by it". The link is
below.

Click to expand...

Yes I said this, and I said it because people were complaining about a discussion over an issue.

If someone is offended by a discussion then they can CHOOSE not to read it. These women do not have to ability to choose wether or not people on a photo board are oogling them or not. It is not an issue of ME being offended. It is an issue of someone not having the right to know about, or do anything about offensive actions being taken against them. And I do not believe that legitimate street photography has anything to do with oogling. By that is my opinion.

There is a difference.

Hi again,

arielelf said:

arielelf said:

Should I stop you in the street and tell you that this is not
acceptable by MY standards, even though you have not broken any laws,
OR should I just buy a hybrid and hope that more people will come
around over time?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

arielelf said:

Well let's just say that if this kind of thing had happened in a
workplace then someone would have been fired. In a second! So yes it
would have broken the workplace Sexual Harrasment Laws and you would
have landed yourself on the street without a job. And I realize that
there are no such "laws" like this on this forum, but just the fact
that it is not apporpriate in a workplace should give you an idea
that it proabably is not appropriate anywhere.

Click to expand...

What kind of thing? What are you responding to here? I can't see how this is relevent to my hybrid example!

arielelf said:

arielelf said:

The point is that there will always be differing views. We cannot and
should not change this. This is precisely why we have laws. Laws are
the "common morality" that guide our society and as I have previously
mentioned, Jim has not breached any law.

Click to expand...

The issue is, is that you cannot understand why these women in these
photos would be offended by the juvenile remarks that went on about
them in this post.

I would assume that you would think that they would be flattered by
it, or that they were "asking for it" by dressing a certain way.

But then again, maybe I am wrong and you do understand that they
would be offended by it and you don;t care about how they would feel.

It is one of these, which one is it?

Click to expand...

Actually, you are wrong on both counts! Please go back and re-read my posts.

You will not find ANY reference whereby I have condoned crude or inappropriate remarks towards anyone.

My post have been very specific. I am refering to:

1. A persons right to take photos in a public place.
2. The perons right to post those photos on the web.

3. Questioning why other people feel the need to come onto the OP's thread and attack him for doing something that doesn't fit within their own "moral standards" even though he has not breached any law.

Can you please direct me to any statement that I have made that would make you think that I condone crude remarks that you are referencing here??? You are clearly confusing my post to someone else's.

To the OP, I am sorry for dragging this out. I was trying to offer some support, however I have just added fuel to the fire.
--
http://www.pbase.com/thrumyeyes

Hi Dejan,

I think you are taking that example out of context. I actually put the word "hypothetical" in brackets as I was just using this as an example. I wasn't making a stand on the "hybrid" issue either way.

The purpose of the example was to ask if I had the right to stop a person in the street and tell them to stop using a V8 car as it is against my "moral standard", even though they are legally entitled to do so.

Cheers
Allan

Dejan80501 said:

Actually, I have a problem with hydrids...they suck down ethynol.
What is ethynol? Do a Google search and you'll get it all figured
out. Now you know why food prices hyper inflated, the air emissions
of ethynol plants impacting the claen air standards...thus pollution,
etc....
--
Dejan Smaic

http://dejansmaic.smugmug.com

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/thrumyeyes

I won't go into some big detailed discussion, but just say that I would not like it if someone took pictures of me that I didn't know...without my permission, and especially would be offended if I knew they were on a website or forum. Also, I would be interested to know...when you did your poll on how people felt about this...what the ratio of men to women who commented was.

That's all I wanted to say. Not saying that the pictures weren't in good taste as far as how they were dressed....or anything like that. Just how I would feel if it was me.

Annette

AllanW said:

AllanW said:

AllanW said:

Should I stop you in the street and tell you that this is not
acceptable by MY standards, even though you have not broken any laws,
OR should I just buy a hybrid and hope that more people will come
around over time?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

AllanW said:

Well let's just say that if this kind of thing had happened in a
workplace then someone would have been fired. In a second! So yes it
would have broken the workplace Sexual Harrasment Laws and you would
have landed yourself on the street without a job. And I realize that
there are no such "laws" like this on this forum, but just the fact
that it is not apporpriate in a workplace should give you an idea
that it proabably is not appropriate anywhere.

Click to expand...

What kind of thing? What are you responding to here? I can't see how
this is relevent to my hybrid example!

AllanW said:

AllanW said:

The point is that there will always be differing views. We cannot and
should not change this. This is precisely why we have laws. Laws are
the "common morality" that guide our society and as I have previously
mentioned, Jim has not breached any law.

Click to expand...

The issue is, is that you cannot understand why these women in these
photos would be offended by the juvenile remarks that went on about
them in this post.

I would assume that you would think that they would be flattered by
it, or that they were "asking for it" by dressing a certain way.

But then again, maybe I am wrong and you do understand that they
would be offended by it and you don;t care about how they would feel.

It is one of these, which one is it?

Click to expand...

Actually, you are wrong on both counts! Please go back and re-read my
posts.

You will not find ANY reference whereby I have condoned crude or
inappropriate remarks towards anyone.

My post have been very specific. I am refering to:

1. A persons right to take photos in a public place.

Click to expand...

And I have agreed that they do have the right to do that, but if the subject has been taken advantage of, as in the case of sexual harrasment then it is unethical, not illegal.

AllanW said:

2. The perons right to post those photos on the web.

Click to expand...

Again, they have the right to post it, of coarse, but again, if it is presented as a group of only attractive women in a forum where people are making uncalled for comments and oogling them then it becomes inappropriate.

AllanW said:

3. Questioning why other people feel the need to come onto the OP's
thread and attack him for doing something that doesn't fit within
their own "moral standards" even though he has not breached any law.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if it is specifically a "Moral Standard". It is a Human Right not to be treated in way that is disrespectful. There is a difference, and it is a right that is defined in the Workplace with Sexual Harsment "Laws", as I was saying before.

AllanW said:

Can you please direct me to any statement that I have made that would
make you think that I condone crude remarks that you are referencing
here??? You are clearly confusing my post to someone else's.

Click to expand...

Well your Entire post, that I have just pasted bellow , lays out that you have a "difference in Morality" than me, so obviously you dissagree with my observations that the conduct was inappropriate, therefore you condone it.

You say "What I don't accept is people attacking Jim and others based on THEIR sense of morality even though he has not breached any law." So obviously you accept their sense of morality and the way the conducted themselves.

Hi there,

arielelf said:

I guess you would defend this kind this post Allen.
http://www.pbase.com/thrumyeyes/summertime

Click to expand...

Yes I would and for the same reasons that I have already mentioned.

Do you acknowledge that there has been NO breach of the law here?

If so, then the only issue we have is the differences in "morality". If you read my other post you will see that I accept there are different points of view here. You clearly disagree and that's fine by me. What I don't accept is people attacking Jim and others based on THEIR sense of morality even though he has not breached any law.

So, should we all just accept that your point of view as "correct" and stop posting anything that conflicts with this? Of course not!

All I am saying is that maybe the better way for you (and others who share your perspective) to protest would be to simply NOT acknowledge the OP's post in the first place and move on to a more acceptable thread.

Where do we draw the line on "morality". What sort of car do you drive? I wouldn't have a clue, BUT lets say it was a large V8 vehicle. It's not against the law to drive these cars but maybe (hypothetical) I have an issue with you impacting on global warming.

Should I stop you in the street and tell you that this is not acceptable by MY standards, even though you have not broken any laws, OR should I just buy a hybrid and hope that more people will come around over time?

The point is that there will always be differing views. We cannot and should not change this. This is precisely why we have laws. Laws are the "common morality" that guide our society and as I have previously mentioned, Jim has not breached any law.

Have a great day.

Cheers
Allan

AllanW said:

To the OP, I am sorry for dragging this out. I was trying to offer
some support, however I have just added fuel to the fire.
--
http://www.pbase.com/thrumyeyes

Click to expand...

I'm just curious how consistant your stance on this issue is. You have said that basically if you are out in public, you are fair game for being photographed surreptitiously and having those images posted on the internet.

Fair enough.

Let's say you opened this thread called Summer Fashions and all of the shots were obvious candid shots of 5 year old girls, taken at a playground or some other public place. Nothing sexual, but obvious that some guy was hanging around a playground shooting little girls at play.

How about if you went to this person's gallery and all of the shots were of little girls and you found pictures of your daughter or niece included.

Would you be upset or more like she shouldn't have left the house if she didn't want to be on the internet.

I know this is an extreme example but it stills fits the parameters of what you say is acceptable.

As for me, I know creepy when I see it, regardless of how Webster defines it. I do realize that it is just my opinion and I don't know the photographer's intent without them stating it.

I know. I was making a point, but just trying to get people off the "stink" in this thread.
--
Dejan Smaic

http://dejansmaic.smugmug.com

arielelf wrote:
[snip]

arielelf said:

arielelf said:

If so, then the only issue we have is the differences in "morality".
If you read my other post you will see that I accept there are
different points of view here. You clearly disagree and that's fine
by me. What I don't accept is people attacking Jim and others based
on THEIR sense of morality even though he has not breached any law.

Click to expand...

No, the issue is not completetly about morality, it is about
stripping away these women's privacy and personal liberties so that
members of this board can oogle over them and discuss them in a way
that is inappropriate without them ever having know that it was going
on.

Click to expand...

In your other posts, you were saying that street photography is fine. That entails photographing people, without their permission, in public. So how is it that the OP's photos violate their privacy but street photographers' work doesn't? You make mention of the presentation of the photos but they're basically centered shots of women walking on the street.

Again, you're mainly upset by the comments of some of the posters to this thread, as well as the OP's motivations which you presume to know. But even though this is the case, you keep bringing up privacy and photographing-without-permission as part of your argument.

arielelf said:

The issue is, is that you cannot understand why these women in these
photos would be offended by the juvenile remarks that went on about
them in this post.

Click to expand...

Any photo of a woman (or man, for that matter) can receive juvenile remarks. The photos themselves aren't unethical in any way, certainly no more than any example of street photography.

I apologize to Jim for dragging this thread out for so long, and I'll now cease and desist. Arielelf is presenting no new argument or explanation for his or her position, nor am I. We obviously disagree (major understatement) despite having presented our respective points.

larsbc

I used to spend my lunch times taking pictures of people at Covent Garden in London. One very hot summer's day, there were two young ladies, very scantily dressed sitting on the ground resting against a pillar. They were eating icecreams and laughing continually. It made fo wonderful photography. At that time I had a brand new Minolta 7i and was laoding my better images onto a special Minolta site. When I looked at the picture I saw that one of the ladies knickers was showing, but the overall expresion of the picture was great. I approached them and asked their permission if I could picture on the web sight and mentioned that the reason that I was asking is because of the knickers showing. They lauhed and agreed and asked me to email them a copy. This is the only time that I have ever asked anyone for their permission.

Young ladies with beautiful bodies wear clothing that are comfortable and appropriate to the weather conditions. They are prepared to go out unashamed into growded streets and be proud of how they look. Posting their pictures on the web for photographic discussion is not a crime and should be welcomed as we all can learn from someone elses skills. I draw the line at taking pictures of children as they are protected by law and the will of their parents.

Richard

larsbc said:

larsbc said:

larsbc said:

If so, then the only issue we have is the differences in "morality".
If you read my other post you will see that I accept there are
different points of view here. You clearly disagree and that's fine
by me. What I don't accept is people attacking Jim and others based
on THEIR sense of morality even though he has not breached any law.

Click to expand...

No, the issue is not completetly about morality, it is about
stripping away these women's privacy and personal liberties so that
members of this board can oogle over them and discuss them in a way
that is inappropriate without them ever having know that it was going
on.

Click to expand...

In your other posts, you were saying that street photography is fine.
That entails photographing people, without their permission, in
public. So how is it that the OP's photos violate their privacy but
street photographers' work doesn't? You make mention of the
presentation of the photos but they're basically centered shots of
women walking on the street.

Again, you're mainly upset by the comments of some of the posters to
this thread, as well as the OP's motivations which you presume to
know. But even though this is the case, you keep bringing up privacy
and photographing-without-permission as part of your argument.

Click to expand...

Because their privacy IS part part of the argument when there has been a case of abuse. Street photography does not ABUSE privacy unless it abuses the subject for no other good than to allow a few guys in a photo forum to carry on as teenagers.

larsbc said:

larsbc said:

The issue is, is that you cannot understand why these women in these
photos would be offended by the juvenile remarks that went on about
them in this post.

Click to expand...

Any photo of a woman (or man, for that matter) can receive juvenile
remarks. The photos themselves aren't unethical in any way,
certainly no more than any example of street photography.

Click to expand...

No, and I have said that from the beginning, but when the photos are presented in the way that these have with the responses that followed, then someone if definitely going to get upset, and they have good reason to.

larsbc said:

I apologize to Jim for dragging this thread out for so long, and I'll
now cease and desist. Arielelf is presenting no new argument or
explanation for his or her position, nor am I. We obviously disagree
(major understatement) despite having presented our respective points.

Click to expand...

Yes we obviously cannot see eye to eye on the issue of respecting other people. You feel that if a photographer can do something that is legal, then it doesn't matter if someone gets hurt by it.

larsbc said:

larsbc

Click to expand...

Lamprecht said:

I used to spend my lunch times taking pictures of people at Covent
Garden in London. One very hot summer's day, there were two young
ladies, very scantily dressed sitting on the ground resting against a
pillar. They were eating icecreams and laughing continually. It made
fo wonderful photography. At that time I had a brand new Minolta 7i
and was laoding my better images onto a special Minolta site. When I
looked at the picture I saw that one of the ladies knickers was
showing, but the overall expresion of the picture was great. I
approached them and asked their permission if I could picture on the
web sight and mentioned that the reason that I was asking is because
of the knickers showing. They lauhed and agreed and asked me to email
them a copy. This is the only time that I have ever asked anyone for
their permission.

Young ladies with beautiful bodies wear clothing that are comfortable
and appropriate to the weather conditions. They are prepared to go
out unashamed into growded streets and be proud of how they look.
Posting their pictures on the web for photographic discussion is not
a crime and should be welcomed as we all can learn from someone elses
skills. I draw the line at taking pictures of children as they are
protected by law and the will of their parents.

Click to expand...

If this thread had been about "photographic discussion " and didn't single out attractive women and others on this forum didn't decide to make the kind of replys as were made on the first page of this post then maybe it would have not gotten so much attention.

Lamprecht said:

Richard

Click to expand...

Good grief! Shots of folks at the beach. What, they don't wish to be seen less than fully clothed?

I can't tell which of these were posed and which were candid.

WHAT IF they were all posed...?

--
Cheers.

...Please don't rub up against my glass...

arielelf said:

Well let's just say that if this kind of thing had happened in a
workplace then someone would have been fired. In a second! So yes it
would have broken the workplace Sexual Harrasment Laws and you would
have landed yourself on the street without a job. And I realize that
there are no such "laws" like this on this forum, but just the fact
that it is not apporpriate in a workplace should give you an idea
that it proabably is not appropriate anywhere.

Click to expand...

Ridiculous. There are many completely normal behaviors that are considered to be inappropriate for the workplace. Giving birth in the workplace is inappropriate, but with it, life wouldn't go on.

Jim, the only disappointment about this thread is that you caved in to some feminist behavioral repressionist and removed your original photos. That sets an example for every guy posting a picture of woman, be it of their family or for the enjoyment of others. Regain your manhood by reposting the pictures.

Lars, I understand where you are coming from and how you are trying to fight against censorship and for photographer's rights, and I agree with you that these are good causes.

However the post and the comments that came after it do not help your plight. I fully agree that photographers should have the right to shoot in public, as long as there is some respect shown to the subject.

This is a public forum, and we are chosing how we want to present our hobby/profession/art to the world every time we make a post, and by doing it in a juvenile and disrepectful way then we are setting ourselves up for a negative reaction, and consequently possibly more restrictions and laws against ourselves(if this kind of thing keeps happening more and more) This would be a bad thing, and I really don;t want a few imature men ruining it for me and the rest of us just because they cannot see, and refuse to see that their actions have not been appropriate.

Beautiful street shot Pierre. I love this kind of images.

simon

arielelf said:

arielelf said:

arielelf said:

arielelf said:

The point is that there will always be differing views. We cannot and
should not change this. This is precisely why we have laws. Laws are
the "common morality" that guide our society and as I have previously
mentioned, Jim has not breached any law.

Click to expand...

The issue is, is that you cannot understand why these women in these
photos would be offended by the juvenile remarks that went on about
them in this post.

I would assume that you would think that they would be flattered by
it, or that they were "asking for it" by dressing a certain way.

But then again, maybe I am wrong and you do understand that they
would be offended by it and you don;t care about how they would feel.

It is one of these, which one is it?

Click to expand...

Actually, you are wrong on both counts! Please go back and re-read my
posts.

You will not find ANY reference whereby I have condoned crude or
inappropriate remarks towards anyone.

My post have been very specific. I am refering to:

1. A persons right to take photos in a public place.

Click to expand...

And I have agreed that they do have the right to do that, but if the
subject has been taken advantage of, as in the case of sexual
harrasment then it is unethical, not illegal.

Click to expand...

Just remember that you are responding to MY POST here! So, with THAT IN MIND can you please tell me how taking photos of people in a public place and posting these on the net is "sexual harrassment". If it was, then the act in itself would be illegal. Now we have both agreed that it is not so therfore, by default it is not sexual harassment.

What I am trying to say is that your replies to my comments should be given on the context of MY post and not the post of others who have made some crude remarks.

arielelf said:

arielelf said:

2. The perons right to post those photos on the web.

Click to expand...

Again, they have the right to post it, of coarse, but again, if it is
presented as a group of only attractive women in a forum where people
are making uncalled for comments and oogling them then it becomes
inappropriate.

Click to expand...

Well you managed to re-post my entire dialogue BUT you did NOT manage to come up with the goods.

I asked you to show one place where I condoned crude comments. Do you think re-posting my entire dialogue has achieved this??? Where in that dialogue does it say that I think the crude comments that followed the OP's post was an acceptable thing???? The answer is nowhere!!!

If you actually read my post you will see that I was refereing to the taking of photos in public and posting those photos on the net. That's it!!! I have tried to reiterate this but you continue to argue with me on issues that I HAVE NOT RAISED. Specifically the crude comments that followed.

So, for the record I have not read the "uncalled for" comments that you are referring to but I can tell you that I DO NOT condone such comments. What I am defending is the taking of photos and the posting of those photos on the net.

arielelf said:

arielelf said:

3. Questioning why other people feel the need to come onto the OP's
thread and attack him for doing something that doesn't fit within
their own "moral standards" even though he has not breached any law.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if it is specifically a "Moral Standard". It is a Human
Right not to be treated in way that is disrespectful. There is a
difference, and it is a right that is defined in the Workplace with
Sexual Harsment "Laws", as I was saying before.

Click to expand...

As above.

arielelf said:

You say "What I don't accept is people attacking Jim and others based
on THEIR sense of morality even though he has not breached any law."
So obviously you accept their sense of morality and the way the
conducted themselves.

Click to expand...

Wrong again! My post lays out that we have a "difference in morality" in regard to the taking of photos in a public place and posting those photos on the net.

IT DOES NOT confirm that we have a "difference in moraity" when it comes to making crude remark about people. As nowhere in my "entire post" have you showed where I have said that crude remarks about people are acceptable! You are continually trying to drag this into my post for some unknown reason.

So why don't you just put the "crude remarks" issue aside for a second (as this is something that you should be discussing with whomever actually tried to defend it) and address the question I put to you IN MY POST.........

In my hybrid example I asked you a specific question which you have cleverly avoided answering.

arielelf said:

"Should I stop you in the street and tell you that this is not
acceptable by MY standards, even though you have not broken any laws,
OR should I just buy a hybrid and hope that more people will come
around over time?"

Click to expand...

I am curious as to your response here as in a sense, this is what you have chosen to do with Jim.

You have acknowledged that taking the pics and posting them on the net is not illegal but YOU just find it inappropriate (remember now that we are NOT referring to crude comments here), SO you have chosen to LET HIM KNOW THIS.

So, IN THAT CONTEXT, my question still stands. Should I stop you on the street and verbally attack you for driving that V8 vehicle because I don't think it's appropriate AND even though I know you have not broken any laws???????

--
http://www.pbase.com/thrumyeyes

answer Allen's specific questions instead of losing the argument over and over?? You're really not very good at this.

You have the gall to call yourself an artist, yet come here and succeed in an act of censorship directed toward photos that could only be seen as offensive by someone possessing an extremely narrow view of the world and sexuality. Certainly too narrow to be a creative "artist" in any sense of the word. What a pathetic joke.
--
If it moves, shoot it.
Kevin