D7100 @ the City (SB-700)

Started May 11, 2013 | Discussions
BirgerH
BirgerH Senior Member • Posts: 5,398
Re: there we go again

blue_cheese wrote:

I think that you are over generalizing, it is one think having random people in the picture for purposes of setting a scene/setting, there is nothing wrong with having a picture at the beach with people in it. It is not about that, it is about having these people purposefully framed in a way that is well... open to some very questionable interpretation.

Common courtesy should dictate when a permission should be asked, just as common sense should tell you when a picture is in appropriate.

In the case where the above fail, laws come into place. Hopefully we don't get to a point where society degenerates to a level where the current laws are changed.... for something as ridiculous as taking a picture in a public place. What everyone is saying is that the OP is not helping the case and it is people like that that bring out sensitivities where normally should be none.

Thanks.

I think, it's better explained here,  than my English would allow me to.

BirgerH

 BirgerH's gear list:BirgerH's gear list
Nikon D90 Nikon D7000 Nikon D800
Jakes Senior Member • Posts: 1,749
Re: This is why...

The PC police are among us... always.

-- hide signature --

jakes
WSSA# 107

latestart
latestart Regular Member • Posts: 180
Re: This is why...

Pretty much agree with all your points, but I think also this way...

If people are in public they have given up their freedom not to be seen as they then are. But a person, by going out in public, has not willfully given up the freedom to be captured for ever as they were in that public time. The ability to freeze a person in perpetuity (without taxidermy) has only been available to graphic artists until the last two centuries, and then for a long time required not just willingness but patience (with the photographer) on the part of the subject.

I rented a Nikon with three lenses in the 70s, for a trip to the FL Keys. The people at the camera shop in Memphis just gave me what they thought I'd want; I'm sure it was an old camera and well used lenses. I got a 28mm, about an 85mm, and about a 120mm. They were all a breeze to focus. I became aware back then that I was purposely trespassing on somebody else's beauty sometimes; at the beach, at the store, at a restaurant.

I am pretty sure it is better to be out there and known for what you're doing. Want a picture of a girl in a bikini. Go up and smile at her and see if she'll let you. If she lets you do one and then another and then turns around and plays --- great.

Or — take some remote snaps; it's a 300mm age. I love pictures of the beach; I definitely mean the the beach/photograph residents no ill; I get pleasure in the pleasure they're having, really, and admire their natural gainliness.

Street photography  is the same thing to me. At least look a man in the eye if you are going to take his picture; that would be my personal feeling (usually). But gosh I like a good picture of a person. I consider individuality to be a miraculous thing and never tire of seeing it's appearance.

Thanks.

Greg

westerner
westerner Senior Member • Posts: 1,008
Re: D7100 @ the City (SB-700)
1

sambomax wrote:

Mix testing particular the AF system

I didn't realize that AF stands for a$$ focus...

-- hide signature --

K.B.

 westerner's gear list:westerner's gear list
Nikon D810 Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD Sigma 85mm F1.4 EX DG HSM +5 more
nfpotter Veteran Member • Posts: 4,080
Re: D7100 @ the City (SB-700)

westerner wrote:

sambomax wrote:

Mix testing particular the AF system

I didn't realize that AF stands for a$$ focus...

-- hide signature --

K.B.

OH GOD, DUDE.  YOU SHOULD BE KICKED OFF THESE FORUMS PERMANENTLY!

MrIchiro Forum Member • Posts: 75
Re: D7100 @ the City (SB-700)

Pretty girls in bikinis? What's not to like!? Keep posting OP! To be frank, they're only pictures, I don't know why some people get their panties bunch over harmless photos. It's not like they're engaging in lewd acts or behavior.

I'm in Asia and we love these sort of photos, and its just something not really worth getting upset over. The only times you might refrain from taking photos are in red light districts, but even then that's up for debate.

ultimitsu
ultimitsu Veteran Member • Posts: 6,650
Re: D7100 @ the City (SB-700)
1

normanj wrote:

Though not illegal, some of these shots seem ethically questionable...

the more ethically questionable the better, wouldnt you say?

nfpotter Veteran Member • Posts: 4,080
Re: D7100 @ the City (SB-700)

MrIchiro wrote:

Pretty girls in bikinis? What's not to like!? Keep posting OP! To be frank, they're only pictures, I don't know why some people get their panties bunch over harmless photos. It's not like they're engaging in lewd acts or behavior.

I'm in Asia and we love these sort of photos, and its just something not really worth getting upset over. The only times you might refrain from taking photos are in red light districts, but even then that's up for debate.

Define "lewd acts or behavior".

See?

Mako2011
MOD Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 23,178
many

nfpotter wrote:

MrIchiro wrote:

Pretty girls in bikinis? What's not to like!? Keep posting OP! To be frank, they're only pictures, I don't know why some people get their panties bunch over harmless photos. It's not like they're engaging in lewd acts or behavior.

I'm in Asia and we love these sort of photos, and its just something not really worth getting upset over. The only times you might refrain from taking photos are in red light districts, but even then that's up for debate.

Define "lewd acts or behavior".

It's defined in many laws...penal code 314 of California is a good example. Actually pretty easy to consistently determine if a post is lewd. Many published guide lines to go on.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

nfpotter Veteran Member • Posts: 4,080
Re: many

Mako2011 wrote:

nfpotter wrote:

MrIchiro wrote:

Pretty girls in bikinis? What's not to like!? Keep posting OP! To be frank, they're only pictures, I don't know why some people get their panties bunch over harmless photos. It's not like they're engaging in lewd acts or behavior.

I'm in Asia and we love these sort of photos, and its just something not really worth getting upset over. The only times you might refrain from taking photos are in red light districts, but even then that's up for debate.

Define "lewd acts or behavior".

It's defined in many laws...penal code 314 of California is a good example. Actually pretty easy to consistently determine if a post is lewd. Many published guide lines to go on.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

And as exactingly enforced, I might add.

I saw a news story a couple years ago, about a poor old, demented man, in his late 70's, in a small town in southern Oregon, who was walking around naked in his front yard.  The sensationalist news media followed up with a quote from a woman who claimed "she had to shield her children's eyes".

This poor man was arrested, and then later found to be completely bereft of mental faculty.

Shall I continue, Mako, or are we "off topic"?

Mako2011
MOD Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 23,178
Good example

nfpotter wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

nfpotter wrote:

MrIchiro wrote:

Pretty girls in bikinis? What's not to like!? Keep posting OP! To be frank, they're only pictures, I don't know why some people get their panties bunch over harmless photos. It's not like they're engaging in lewd acts or behavior.

I'm in Asia and we love these sort of photos, and its just something not really worth getting upset over. The only times you might refrain from taking photos are in red light districts, but even then that's up for debate.

Define "lewd acts or behavior".

It's defined in many laws...penal code 314 of California is a good example. Actually pretty easy to consistently determine if a post is lewd. Many published guide lines to go on.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

And as exactingly enforced, I might add.

I saw a news story a couple years ago, about a poor old, demented man, in his late 70's, in a small town in southern Oregon, who was walking around naked in his front yard.  The sensationalist news media followed up with a quote from a woman who claimed "she had to shield her children's eyes".

This poor man was arrested, and then later found to be completely bereft of mental faculty.

Shall I continue, Mako, or are we "off topic"?

Not at all...that is indeed a good example of what would not be considered lewd behavior...assuming you posted the pic of the naked man because you had gone of the deep end   As I said, pretty simply to tell the difference.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

herbymel Veteran Member • Posts: 6,000
Re: many

nfpotter wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

nfpotter wrote:

MrIchiro wrote:

Pretty girls in bikinis? What's not to like!? Keep posting OP! To be frank, they're only pictures, I don't know why some people get their panties bunch over harmless photos. It's not like they're engaging in lewd acts or behavior.

I'm in Asia and we love these sort of photos, and its just something not really worth getting upset over. The only times you might refrain from taking photos are in red light districts, but even then that's up for debate.

Define "lewd acts or behavior".

It's defined in many laws...penal code 314 of California is a good example. Actually pretty easy to consistently determine if a post is lewd. Many published guide lines to go on.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

And as exactingly enforced, I might add.

I saw a news story a couple years ago, about a poor old, demented man, in his late 70's, in a small town in southern Oregon, who was walking around naked in his front yard.  The sensationalist news media followed up with a quote from a woman who claimed "she had to shield her children's eyes".

This poor man was arrested, and then later found to be completely bereft of mental faculty.

I'll have to remember that next time I mow the lawn.

 herbymel's gear list:herbymel's gear list
Nikon D810 Nikon D750 Nikon D500 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC +6 more
Shunda77
Shunda77 Senior Member • Posts: 2,132
Re: This is why...
2

nfpotter wrote:

I almost stop coming here, over and over.

Do you think you would be missed?

WHAT A BUNCH OF CRYING, HYPOCRITICAL, FAKE "PC", WEAK-SAUCE NAMBY PAMBIES.

Why? because they call it for what it is?

A: if you go out in public in ANY urban environment these days you ARE VERY, VERY likely being photographed - and more than likely by "big brother".  Get used to the idea, it's not going to lessen.

While I have no regard for modern political correctness, I also have no regard for the fools that give the PC police their ammo.

If you or anyone else is going to shove a long lens towards a girls backside and then plaster these pics all over the internet, YOU are the ones wrecking it for everyone else.

I can appreciate a beautiful woman and am far from prudish, but I sure wouldn't feel right turning my tele lens on some teenage girls backside for the sole sake of taking a picture of her bum.

Some of those shots (not all) were voyeurism, lets not pretend they weren't.

nfpotter Veteran Member • Posts: 4,080
Re: many

herbymel wrote:

nfpotter wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

nfpotter wrote:

MrIchiro wrote:

Pretty girls in bikinis? What's not to like!? Keep posting OP! To be frank, they're only pictures, I don't know why some people get their panties bunch over harmless photos. It's not like they're engaging in lewd acts or behavior.

I'm in Asia and we love these sort of photos, and its just something not really worth getting upset over. The only times you might refrain from taking photos are in red light districts, but even then that's up for debate.

Define "lewd acts or behavior".

It's defined in many laws...penal code 314 of California is a good example. Actually pretty easy to consistently determine if a post is lewd. Many published guide lines to go on.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

And as exactingly enforced, I might add.

I saw a news story a couple years ago, about a poor old, demented man, in his late 70's, in a small town in southern Oregon, who was walking around naked in his front yard.  The sensationalist news media followed up with a quote from a woman who claimed "she had to shield her children's eyes".

This poor man was arrested, and then later found to be completely bereft of mental faculty.

I'll have to remember that next time I mow the lawn.

Aww, you'll be fine, herby.  We already know the girls will be swooning.

nfpotter Veteran Member • Posts: 4,080
Re: Good example

Mako2011 wrote:

nfpotter wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

nfpotter wrote:

MrIchiro wrote:

Pretty girls in bikinis? What's not to like!? Keep posting OP! To be frank, they're only pictures, I don't know why some people get their panties bunch over harmless photos. It's not like they're engaging in lewd acts or behavior.

I'm in Asia and we love these sort of photos, and its just something not really worth getting upset over. The only times you might refrain from taking photos are in red light districts, but even then that's up for debate.

Define "lewd acts or behavior".

It's defined in many laws...penal code 314 of California is a good example. Actually pretty easy to consistently determine if a post is lewd. Many published guide lines to go on.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

And as exactingly enforced, I might add.

I saw a news story a couple years ago, about a poor old, demented man, in his late 70's, in a small town in southern Oregon, who was walking around naked in his front yard.  The sensationalist news media followed up with a quote from a woman who claimed "she had to shield her children's eyes".

This poor man was arrested, and then later found to be completely bereft of mental faculty.

Shall I continue, Mako, or are we "off topic"?

Not at all...that is indeed a good example of what would not be considered lewd behavior...assuming you posted the pic of the naked man because you had gone of the deep end   As I said, pretty simply to tell the difference.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Yes, as you say, "of the deep end".  

Daisy AU
Daisy AU Senior Member • Posts: 1,564
Re: D7100 @ the City (SB-700)
1

MrIchiro wrote:

Pretty girls in bikinis? What's not to like!? Keep posting OP! To be frank, they're only pictures, I don't know why some people get their panties bunch over harmless photos. It's not like they're engaging in lewd acts or behavior.

I'm in Asia and we love these sort of photos, and its just something not really worth getting upset over. The only times you might refrain from taking photos are in red light districts, but even then that's up for debate.

Yes?  They are only pictures?  How would you like to see a photo of your daughter's/wife's/sister's bum plastered on the internet?  I think we all know how some men think about women ... you are a perfect example!  For your information, to most women, THEY ARE NOT ONLY PICTURES!!  They are a form of invasion of ones private space and are a reflection of some men's disregard for the opposite gender.  Would you like the OP that took these photos to visit your usual beach / swimming pool, etc and focus his attention on your daughter/wife/sister while they are going about their life?  I seriously doubt it!

-- hide signature --

Thanks,
Daisy AU - Brisbane
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ney_images/

 Daisy AU's gear list:Daisy AU's gear list
Nikon D7000 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR +8 more
PepsiCan Contributing Member • Posts: 739
Re: Different values, different cultures

BirgerH wrote:

blue_cheese wrote:

I think that you are over generalizing, it is one think having random people in the picture for purposes of setting a scene/setting, there is nothing wrong with having a picture at the beach with people in it. It is not about that, it is about having these people purposefully framed in a way that is well... open to some very questionable interpretation.

Common courtesy should dictate when a permission should be asked, just as common sense should tell you when a picture is in appropriate.

In the case where the above fail, laws come into place. Hopefully we don't get to a point where society degenerates to a level where the current laws are changed.... for something as ridiculous as taking a picture in a public place. What everyone is saying is that the OP is not helping the case and it is people like that that bring out sensitivities where normally should be none.

Thanks.

I think, it's better explained here,  than my English would allow me to.

BirgerH

Right...so, because what the OP does, does not agree with your value system and with the customs of your culture, he should stop? Ok...

Perhaps you should stop trying to force your values upon others. It might be acceptable in the location where the OP took the pictures.

 PepsiCan's gear list:PepsiCan's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4 Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G +5 more
PepsiCan Contributing Member • Posts: 739
Re: D7100 @ the City (SB-700)

Daisy AU wrote:

MrIchiro wrote:

Pretty girls in bikinis? What's not to like!? Keep posting OP! To be frank, they're only pictures, I don't know why some people get their panties bunch over harmless photos. It's not like they're engaging in lewd acts or behavior.

I'm in Asia and we love these sort of photos, and its just something not really worth getting upset over. The only times you might refrain from taking photos are in red light districts, but even then that's up for debate.

Yes?  They are only pictures?  How would you like to see a photo of your daughter's/wife's/sister's bum plastered on the internet?  I think we all know how some men think about women ... you are a perfect example!  For your information, to most women, THEY ARE NOT ONLY PICTURES!!  They are a form of invasion of ones private space and are a reflection of some men's disregard for the opposite gender.  Would you like the OP that took these photos to visit your usual beach / swimming pool, etc and focus his attention on your daughter/wife/sister while they are going about their life?  I seriously doubt it!

-- hide signature --

Thanks,
Daisy AU - Brisbane
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ney_images/

There is no 'private space' in a public area.

 PepsiCan's gear list:PepsiCan's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4 Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G +5 more
Daisy AU
Daisy AU Senior Member • Posts: 1,564
Re: Different values, different cultures

PepsiCan wrote:

BirgerH wrote:

blue_cheese wrote:

I think that you are over generalizing, it is one think having random people in the picture for purposes of setting a scene/setting, there is nothing wrong with having a picture at the beach with people in it. It is not about that, it is about having these people purposefully framed in a way that is well... open to some very questionable interpretation.

Common courtesy should dictate when a permission should be asked, just as common sense should tell you when a picture is in appropriate.

In the case where the above fail, laws come into place. Hopefully we don't get to a point where society degenerates to a level where the current laws are changed.... for something as ridiculous as taking a picture in a public place. What everyone is saying is that the OP is not helping the case and it is people like that that bring out sensitivities where normally should be none.

Thanks.

I think, it's better explained here,  than my English would allow me to.

BirgerH

Right...so, because what the OP does, does not agree with your value system and with the customs of your culture, he should stop? Ok...

Perhaps you should stop trying to force your values upon others. It might be acceptable in the location where the OP took the pictures.

Rubbish ... it's not the location that is the problem.  It's the subject of his attention that is the problem!!  It is not the culture, it is the subject .... i.e. WOMEN'S BOTTOMS!!  which is unethical, when taken without their knowledge and consent.  The OP has some issues ....

-- hide signature --
 Daisy AU's gear list:Daisy AU's gear list
Nikon D7000 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR +8 more
ZorSy Veteran Member • Posts: 3,481
Re: D7100 @ the City (SB-700)
2

PepsiCan wrote:

Daisy AU wrote:

MrIchiro wrote:

Pretty girls in bikinis? What's not to like!? Keep posting OP! To be frank, they're only pictures, I don't know why some people get their panties bunch over harmless photos. It's not like they're engaging in lewd acts or behavior.

I'm in Asia and we love these sort of photos, and its just something not really worth getting upset over. The only times you might refrain from taking photos are in red light districts, but even then that's up for debate.

Yes?  They are only pictures?  How would you like to see a photo of your daughter's/wife's/sister's bum plastered on the internet?  I think we all know how some men think about women ... you are a perfect example!  For your information, to most women, THEY ARE NOT ONLY PICTURES!!  They are a form of invasion of ones private space and are a reflection of some men's disregard for the opposite gender.  Would you like the OP that took these photos to visit your usual beach / swimming pool, etc and focus his attention on your daughter/wife/sister while they are going about their life?  I seriously doubt it!

-- hide signature --

Thanks,
Daisy AU - Brisbane
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ney_images/

There is no 'private space' in a public area.

Actually, there is something everybody should be aware: a photograph cannot be used for a commercial purpose without the consent of the people recognisably and prominently presented in the photograph giving their approval. Similarly the 'owners' of the objects prominently represented in the photograph may need to give their consent.

Now, publishing on the net? In many cases this is deemed as commercial use. Although no money may have changed hands it is still often a commercial arrangement - eg Facebook has exchanged services of monetary value (ie hosting) in return for  the user handing over the considerable value of the reproduction rights of anything you place on Facebook and the permission to track and record your use of the site. The same is with this site, DPR. When you posts photo here, though one may think "here it is, for your enjoyment", this is a very very commercial site. Every click generates money, hence posted photos are commercially used.

Even if you consider this as blogging  and you  make no money out of it, doesn't matter. In most cases you will have entered into a "commercial arrangement" with a hosting body who provides you with a service in return for them being allowed to use your content to generate revenue. If it comes to a legal challenge the only question is whether you or the hosting organisation or both are liable. You may be able to figure it out from the 27 page terms & conditions you clicked 'accept' to.....May not be legally binding, though, but inconvenient - for sure.

Daisy asked it from the  moral standpoint, which should be just fine to reach conclusion. For those stubborn to "see" the problem, there are legal grounds why these photos may not be acceptable to be posted here - DPR is to answer that question as it should be their concern too. Not everybody buys and reads "yellow tabloids" and none was ever a template of even a good read. It's not about some puritanism, just a matter of thinking beyond one's butt....YMMV

 ZorSy's gear list:ZorSy's gear list
Nikon D80 Nikon D7100
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads