Street summer fashions

--
Z-Man

AllanW said:

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

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...

Yes, you do have the right to your opinion . This is called discussion and can lead to good things.

AllanW said:

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

Click to expand...

Actually it is not the same as what I have chosen to do with not only Jim but the other members who made crude remarks. Here is how I see it,

If I saw someone abusing someone else, which was what was happeneing, then I WOULD stop and do something about it. Me being offended is not the problem, it was that someone else was being taken advantage of.

If you will see, I didn't chime in on this post until the second page, after I had read all of the uncalled for comments and discussion about how memebers in the board have tricks on how to fool women into being photogrpahed. Do you think that this is helping to make our hobby better or giving photgraphers a good name?

I think that it hurts us as photgraphers that this kind of activity is openly discussed, with excitement, on our public forum . This kind of stuff is perpetuating a voyeristic/sexist view of our hobby.

AllanW said:

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.

Click to expand...

I do not understand why we are NOT refering to the crude comments? This is the definition of spin. You have refused me the right to be able to include the arguments that I have been making throughout this entire post. This makes no sense at all!!!! Why do you NOT allow me to include the comments?

AllanW said:

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???????

Click to expand...

Again you are using the "if I didn't break any laws then I am doing nothing wrong" argument. I have said that I think that you analogy does not fit, because it does not include all of the facts of this argument, which you, for some reason, do not allow into the argument. Why is that?

AllanW said:

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.

Click to expand...

I have not said that I though that posting images on the internet constitues sexual harrasment, I have said that the actions of various members dirrectly after the post constitues sexual harrasment. If you read through my posts you will see that that is what I have said.

Again, you refuse to let me include the points that I have been making since the begining just because they are not the questions you are asking, which are not to the point of the issue. This is the definition of spin.

AllanW said:

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.

Click to expand...

Why can I not bring up the crude remarks in my argument? You are posing questions to me that do not include all of the points of the issue, and you are not allowing me to include those points, why not? This is because it does not support your arguement.

AllanW said:

AllanW said:

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.

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!!!

Click to expand...

You said "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."

If you say that someone does not have the right to defend someone who is being abused just because that persons "sense of Morality" is different than the person doing the attacking then you disallow the person being abused their rights to be defended. Therefor you make a judgement that the person doing the attacking had the right to do what they are doing because it is within the law. This is what I consider to be condining. If you do not think that I have the right to defend someone else, based on what I belive is right then you are condoning what is being done or at least allowing it to happen.

AllanW said:

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.

Click to expand...

And you do not allow me to bring them up in responses? Why?

AllanW said:

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.

Click to expand...

And again, I have on multiple times agreed that there is nothing wrong with posting photos on the net even if they are candid shots.

Thanks Kevin!

I thought I was speaking another language there for a while.

This guy chooses to respond to one of MY posts (not the other way around), offers a link to my website and a question "I guess you would defend this kind of post Allan".

I proceeded to respond to why I defended the OP's right to take pics and post them on the net. I at no stage defended anyone's crude remarks. My reply to him was specific to his question relating to the defense of taking a photo of someone in public and posting on the net.

From that point forward he has continually tried to bring up the crude remark issue and cannot see that it has nothing to do with my original post.

Now he asks me "why can't I use the crude remarks argument?" Simple really....Because I never tried to defend the crude remark, never even mentioned them in my OP. His argument about the crude remark should be addressed to whomever on this thread is trying to defend THAT.

I give up as I just don't know how to simplify this any further.

KRW01 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Couple of questions:

Based on my perusal of this thread, is street photography disallowed?

Or can we display street photography, but just not of attractive women?

Or can we display street photography, as long as we disallow crude comments?

I ask because I live in Hawaii and I enjoy street, beach and surf photography and an attractive woman or two may show up in my photos. And if I post such a photograph I certainly cannot control follow-up comments.

By the way, is Ariel Elf a moderator or administrator for dp review?

--
http://www.thesmokingcamera.com

It sounds like it's legally okay...but I think what some of us are trying to say is...it's just not a very nice thing to do to people. Isn't that enough of a reason to be careful in this kind of situation. Now there are people that love to have their picture taken and don't care...and may not even care if you post it. They may even be proud of it. The problem is here....we don't know which of these woman feel this way and I guess the posting of them without their consent...is what bothers me the most. It's just a respect issue....I guess is what I'm saying.

Even if a lot of you guys don't agree....I don't think it's that hard to see our point of view here. A woman should be able to go out on the street shopping etc...without having to worry that they may end up on the web somewhere. Can you do this kind of stuff if you want to??? Sounds like you can. It's just not a very nice thing to do....in my opinion.

Annette

arielelf said:

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.

Click to expand...

Not sure why you're addressing you post to me. As I mentioned earlier, I'm done with this discussion since we're going in circles now. Maybe you got your post attributions mixed up.

larsbc

Here here!

AllanW said:

disregard those who find them offensive.

A few of points if I may.......

1. Taking photos in public is not illegal. Therefor you have not
broken any law.
2. If people don't like to view these then there are plenty of other
posts on this forum to choose from.
3. NO ONE has the right to guilt you into taking these photos
offline. As you have not broken any law the only issue here is
everyones varying idea of morality. So, if SOME people see this as
immoral than they should choose not to view the pics BUT respect that
others have a different opinion.
4. The ladies in question........... If a lady puts on a nice
(sometimes scantly clad) outfit with the aim looking beautiful and
displaying this beauty to everyone that she passes in a public place,
then clearly she has no issue with people admiring her beauty and
outfit. If your photo captures that beauty and displays it to a
larger "general public" (via WWW) then the only thing that has
effectively changed is the size of the "general public". What have
YOU done that differed so dramatically from the intent of the lady
when she initially chose to where the said outfit and display her
beauty in public for all to see???
5. Now, if your photo was taken through the window of the lady's
house, then you would be in breach of some moral and legal issues.
However, THIS IS NOT THE CASE HERE.

So, I guess this post will simply add fuel to the fire, however my
intent here is to provide you with some support and offer some
perspective.

Cheers
Allan

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

Click to expand...

thesmokingcamera said:

Couple of questions:

Click to expand...

thesmokingcamera said:

http://www.thesmokingcamera.com

Click to expand...

Too funny. A friend of mine has the website, thesmokinglens.com and you have thesmokingcamera.com

Individually there is nothing wrong with any of the pics but put them into a collection together and claim it is for the purpose of testing a lens, then they suddenly take on a different perspective. As a woman, it made me feel creepy and somewhat uncomfortable.

It totally reeked of 'Nudge nudge, hey fellas, look what I can do with my lens!'

--
Pennyanne