That's one position to consider. Actually, it's not unreasonable to suggest that 90% of numerous other activities that people engage in don't qualify as 'needed' either.
I know about a couple who sued a photo-club here in France. A pic of their wedding - with all the guests pictured in front of the City hall - had been selected for a book. The book was intended to be a testimony of the life in the city.
So you equate discussions about candid photography (or any other topic, for that matter) on Internet fora with the question of whether or not you should have a right to take another person's photo in the street? A poor analogy, I think.
It's pretty much the same in most genres of photography. Consider the nude. Everyone shooting nudes claims theirs is art. Many looking at other's work consider it trash and smut. Many will come to its defense and many will condemn it.
What's legally allowed, and what might get you beat up, are two different things.
And that assailant might be beaten or killed in turn. But neither is pertinent to the OP's question.
In that case, the person photographed committed a crime and would probably end up in prison with a felony record.
A bit of a sad statement about dpr, but true.
I haven't equated anything with anything.
I haven't presented an analogy either. I presented a variation of the other poster's statement about how much of anything different people think is 'needed'.
whatever. you sought to say that the same could be said of many other things - your purpose was to trivialise the debate (presumably because you don't think it is worth having). It wasn't very illuminating.
I contend that it's not unreasonable to apply the same thought to numerous other activities.
People may choose to question the necessity of candid photography, and people may also choose to question the necessity of debates about it. Their purposes for questioning these things would be a different matter.
Perhaps not, though it's at least as illuminating as the comment to which I replied.
Unfortunately, it degenerated into how terrible street photography is and what terrible people street photographers are. Everybody has a right to their own opinions but sometimes it's better to say nothing.
nonsense. I am a street photographer and I use telephotos (sometimes). No-one said street photographers are terrible people - someone simply pointed out that there is a moral issue that needs to be considered - what's wrong with that? what's degenerate about that? are we so thin-skinned? It is possible to love and enjoy street photography and still consider these issues. unless you'd rather DPR was the kind place where there are sacred cows.
Tough to say if it was illuminating but it was a perfect and needed reply. I disliked the use of the word should. I don't like being told what sort of photography I should or shouldn't do. The word need doesn't fly either. I don't know if I need to take one picture or ever eat ice cream again. That's not going to stop me.
I think the person who made those assertions was simply saying what he feels . he doesn't have the power to stop anybody from doing street photography the way he feels they shouldn't. As you say, it's not going to stop you - and after thinking about it, it's not going to stop me either. if that's how he feels, what other way is there to make that point? I think the sensitivity of many to this topic belies he fact that he has a point. There is a moral dimension to street photography, it's ignored by street photographers and it's good that it gets an airing.
SP by its very own nature is voyeuristic, seems you have a problem with this, guess you haven`t learned a lot, after all we are all voyeurs.
--
There's a moral dimension to everything. Every type of photography. Wildlife photographers who leave bait. Landscape photographers trodding over the land. Just have to do good the best we can do whatever we are doing.
in my city, downtown, new buildings are popping up like mushrooms. And old ones are disappearing.
