Are candid pics really unethical?

strange ideas.

morepix said:

So let's suppose it has nothing to do with m4/3 cameras. It's an interesting, human-oriented exchange of views. and why should we care whether it's about m4/3 cameras? This forum is two different things:

1. A place to discuss m4/3 cameras, and

Click to expand...

correct.

morepix said:

1. A place where people who happen to have an interest in m4/3 cameras get together to chat about whatever interests them, among (for some) a sympathetic group of people.

Click to expand...

false. DPR has a system of forums divided by topic. This exists for a number of reasons, one of the prinicple ones being making the fori (?) searchable by newcomers. If everybody can post anything anywhere no only does it become mayhem, but it becomes unsearchable by catagory. There are other equally valid reasons but I won't get into them now. It is sufficient to say that once you agree to participate in this forum, you also agree to abide by its rules. If that sounds strange, it is pretty much how softwear shrink wrap licenses work.

morepix said:

So unless you're a lawyer for dpreview , I suggest not worrying overly much about content. And you must admit, it's a pretty nice thread, mustn't you?

Click to expand...

You might be suprised. DPR has many eyes. Even a former troll, or King of Trolls could now be an agent for DPR.

Not saying it has actually happened, just saying it is possible. You wouldn't believe what some people might agree to just to get a suspension lifted.

Anyway, you are correct in that it is an excellent thread.

Carry on.

morepix said:

Cheers!
--
http://www.pbase.com/morepix

Click to expand...

TEdolph

s_grins said:

Do not mix legal and ethical

Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about legality. I made an ethical statement. But it doesn't matter anyway - they're related.

Photohobbyfun said:

What's legal and what's ethical aren't the same thing. Candid shots are legal (at least in the United States) but are they wrong?

Well whether or not they are wrong depends on each person's value system. It definitely is an ethics question.

I can see why people would not want their pictures taken and consider it a violation of their rights. At the same time I do take candid photography and in the grand scheme of things I don't see what the problem is. You obviously can't expect privacy when you are in public so you shouldn't. "As long as you don't take pictures of people that would embarrass them then what exactly is wrong?"

Click to expand...

"As long as you don't take pictures of people that would embarrass them then what exactly is wrong?" How about taking photos of a half naked guitar playing cowboy in New York? 'whether or not they are wrong depends on each person's value system' yeah... uh thanks for clearing it all up for us.

Take the photo and run! Unethical? Is it your Art or not? stealing? Is breathing stealing air? Stealing is stealing. Let's not muddy the waters hear with grade school philosophy. Oh you don't know what that is. Is photography stealing? (souls maybe).

I'll repost this from the other thread. Ron is the negative example of street photography. Rebuffed by Jackie O and Catherine Hepburn, he persecutes them by denying them any privacy.

'Ron Gallela is the famous paparazzi. He loved to take candid photos of celebrities in their most mundane and unattractive moments. His methods often involved harassment and provocation.

Marlo Brando broke his jaw. Jackie O had him arrested. A judge placed a distance limit on him. Yet, Ron continues his work at age 77.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Galella

Widely regarded as a pest (at best), Ron has his advocates and admirers. Many of his photos are impressive. Was it worth the anguish inflicted on the victims?

The problem is that these days, publications pay six figures for some pictures. So, Ron has a horde of ill-intentioned imitators. By association, all of us amateurs get a black eye.

The documentary 'Smash His Camera' is a balanced account of his personality and his work. Everyone who does street photography should see this.'

http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/smash-his-camera/index.html

Ray Sachs said:

(...) I'd like to think someone could see a book of my photos 50 years from now and think, 'huh, so that's what life looked like in the 2000-2020 era'.>
[images]

Click to expand...

Hi Ray,

Good stuff. I like your images, and a couple of them I really like a lot. You aren't that bad at all, OK?

But, there's always a but... I have to ask you, what is the base for your decision to give us your view of the 2000-2020 era in B&W with grain added?

I do it myself every so often. Somehow I have problems giving up the Tri-X look (and a FF camera with a 50/1.4) after so many years. For me I think it is about personal taste, I just like B&W. Now I'm not thinking anyone living in 50, or 10, years from now will be interested in any of my images so I do whatever I want with my current projects....

But when documenting nowadays I try to stick to colour. It isn't always easy.



Cheers,

Jonas

I agree! Besides what is legal is what shows other people respect. If I catch some stranger with a long lens shooting photos of me, my gf or my kids I'm going to be mad... wont say anything, but still

morepix said:

That's a great response. Inspiring, I would say. Thanks!
--
http://www.pbase.com/morepix

Click to expand...

mh2000 said:

If I catch some stranger with a long lens shooting photos of me, my gf or my kids I'm going to be mad...

Click to expand...

you should chill out.

you know that if you walk down the street in any major city in the world you will be filmed almost constantly from CCTV cameras?

tedolf said:

so I will give him a pass and allow this thread to continue.

Click to expand...

Dear Dear Tedolf,

I congragulate you on your speed. In two days, you're back on the top posters list. In another two days, you're the top poster. Now, you're head and shoulders above everyone else.

I'm amazed that you have so much wisdom to share with us.

You should be a moderator since you spend so much time here. Or, perhaps the Forum Overlord (F.O.) suits you better?

HappyVan said:

tedolf said:

so I will give him a pass and allow this thread to continue.

Click to expand...

Dear Dear Tedolf,

I congragulate you on your speed. In two days, you're back on the top posters list. In another two days, you're the top poster. Now, you're head and shoulders above everyone else.

I'm amazed that you have so much wisdom to share with us.

You should be a moderator since you spend so much time here. Or, perhaps the Forum Overlord (F.O.) suits you better?

Click to expand...

Well, HappyVan, any discussion community on some subject, whether it be the photography or something else, always has a number of members that have opted to compensate for their lack of talent and knowledge not by learning and improving themselves but by behaving as arrogant over-inflated frogs that are just plain crude, obnoxious, and completely clueless, if not self-delusional, about their ignorance.

So don't waste your breath / time on it, nor be surprised with 'Dolph's answer to you above, it was completely predictable. Remember, trolls live for that opportunity and will do anything to provoke further feeding.

Jonas B said:

But, there's always a but... I have to ask you, what is the base for your decision to give us your view of the 2000-2020 era in B&W with grain added?

I do it myself every so often. Somehow I have problems giving up the Tri-X look (and a FF camera with a 50/1.4) after so many years. For me I think it is about personal taste, I just like B&W. Now I'm not thinking anyone living in 50, or 10, years from now will be interested in any of my images so I do whatever I want with my current projects....

Click to expand...

As with you, I too shoot mainly for myself - if anyone actually DOES see my stuff in 10 or 50 years, it will just be some happy accident, nothing I'm planning on or anticipating. Its just a rationale behind the kind of documentary/street photography I like doing. If it has any value beyond my own personal enjoyment of it, it would be that, but I have no expectations.

In terms of the whole B&W v Color thing, I learned photography in the '70s shooting tri-x and plus-x and doing my own darkroom work. Very good color films were available then, but I learned B&W because I was just drawn to it - I loved it. I always felt more expressive working with the shadows and light and shapes and forms and contrast of a B&W photo than in color, where the flash of the color often (to my eye) obscured the underlying image. That may just be a failure of imagination on my part, but its what I like. And the tools for B&W processing are so much more powerful and easy to use today that I've sort of fallen in love with it all over again.

I do play around with color too, but it tends to be very muted and washed out color so it retains some of the feel of B&W. The grain is usually most evident when I shoot with the Ricoh GRD3 because I usually shoot it at iso400 to keep a small enough aperture and fast enough shutter speed for good zone-focussed street shots. Its a small sensor, so its got great DOF, but not great high ISO IQ. The upside being that the noise it produces does look pretty nice in the "film grain" sense. I also shoot with the Fuji X100 and an EP3 and those images tend to be far less grainy, often VERY clean.

So, my taste runs to B&W and probably always will. The world is no more or less B&W today than it was in the 50s or 70s and B&W images are still one of the choices we have and I just like them for the most part. But here are a couple more images with color and/or no grain just to show you I'm not ALL B&W - just mostly!





-Ray
-------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/collections/72157626204295198/

Like everything in life, we must weigh the benefits against the cost.

Yes, there is a definite loss caused by the hordes of camera toting enthusiasts, trying to emulate HCB etc. The public gets sensitized and it becomes harder to get genuine candid pictures. So, we need to have good reasons to do it.

Ron Galella is the negative predatory example. What motivated the famous photographers who we admire; besides a paycheck and maybe fame?

The photographers we most admire have a humanist agenda/eye. W Eugene Smith took this photo in the midst of the carnage of war.

http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/LargeImage.aspx?image=/lotfinderimages/d50379/d5037999x.jpg

We can surely criticize. But how many can do it with insight and subtlety? W Eugene Smith took this Spanish photo (Guardia Civil, Spain 1950). What does it say about the fascist superman? Do you guys see the point?

http://bintphotobooks.blogspot.com/2008/06/w-eugene-smith-guardia-civil-spain-1950.html

Or, perhaps just to share the joy of an occasion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%E2%80%93J_day_in_Times_Square

Or, as an outsider looking in.

http://www.artinfo.com/news/story/32776/finding-robert-frank/

So, the next time you're out there doing stylist snapshots. Think about the content. Why is it the decisive moment for you? It's not about the camera. It's about the mind behind the viewfinder.

Enjoy.

There would be no Bresson, Brassai, Doisneau, Erwitt, Frank, Salgado, Magnum Photos, etc. or the genre of street photography....

than I don't think anyone can help you...

tedolf said:

Isn't this better posted in a general photography thread?

Can you some how link this to u 4/3 photography?

Tedolph

Click to expand...

--

I refuse to wed myself to any of these vendors. I'm just having fun taking pictures,
and watching the technology develop.

sproket1 said:

There would be no Bresson, Brassai, Doisneau, Erwitt, Frank, Salgado, Magnum Photos, etc. or the genre of street photography....

Click to expand...

... what is ethical behavior. It may be legal, but should we do it?

Was any human harmed in the production of the pictures?

a street shooter and his thoughts..... http://www.jtinseoul.worldpress.com
--
Richard Souders http://www.flickr.com/photos/rsoud/

The what and why has quite a bit to do with it. An old Army buddy, a decent photographer, went to the "dark side" by taking candid photos of bikini clad girls on the beach. It wasn't art, it was T&A. Hate to see a funny, smart young man turn into a creepy old man.

If you have to ask; you know the answer !

Vjim

Courtesy of DPR.

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers

If it is a public event - street fair, folk-life festival, parade, native market, well, yes, I'll photograph it, and have never had any hassles. If it is walking the streets and taking random shots, no, won't do that. Nor will I go to the beach and photograph hot young women. There is a difference, can't exactly say what in legal terms, but I try to avoid invasion of privacy, while still doing candid documentary.
--
Gene in Deep South Texas
http://www.pbase.com/lahuasteca/