DSLRUsers.com

A favourite.

Taken looking down from an overhead walkway.

Converted to BW in PS from RAW, levels adjusted.

Edit: Image removed.

This is an interesting subject, perspective and a good image. If there are any critiques I can offer they are. Things that reduce its impact are the frame is not square to the flagstones and perhaps in PS you could adjust the perspective so that the camera position looked more directly overhead. Good to see a Brisbane image on the forum.

**** HASTY ASSUMPTION REMOVED ****

I think that a tighter crop may have improved the shot... but good work...

Excellent image.
I think it's terrific.
I might be inclined to do as dargan said and improve the verticals but this is great in my books!

Thanks guys.

I deliberately left it off centre and the lines crooked to add to it. I have tried a crop of just the guy but I'm a fan of the smallest rectangle being 6:4 or a square frame (MF) since I'm used to those photo sizings

Good reasons Dion.My comments were only suggestions/musings. When you start examining an image it is sometimes hard to know when to stop. That is an art in itself. Just one more point as I had another look at it. Could you put a frame of choice around it and repost? You can see I haven't got the art myself yet

Dargan wrote:Good reasons Dion.My comments were only suggestions/musings. When you start examining an image it is sometimes hard to know when to stop. That is an art in itself.

No worries. Comments appreciated.

You didn't feel that this was somehow intrusive, if not sneaky shot?

(That is presuming you didn't speak to the subject, since you said it's not a self portrait).

Intrusive, and I think I would add disrespectful or even mocking to the mix Bob.

Cheers,

rjlhughes wrote:You didn't feel that this was somehow intrusive, if not sneaky shot?

(That is presuming you didn't speak to the subject, since you said it's not a self portrait).

Sheetshooter wrote:Intrusive, and I think I would add disrespectful or even mocking to the mix Bob.

Cheers,

what is so intrusive, disrecpful or mocking about this photo?? its merely stating the fact, its certainly not pretty.

Great picture DionM, do you do alot of PJ work?

Of course it's intrusive unless it's taken with permission!

I'm not sure that the intention was disrespectful, but I'd like to hear that from the photographer. And it would be good if the accompanying text also made that clear.

The bloke is napping on a bench with some shopping bags. The reaction here was that it was a sad reflection on society. The implication is that he's somehow a vagrant. He's clearly identifiable - I think his name might be Ian. And if it is him he's not a vagrant.

Is the photographer looking down on this man? Well that's the implication.

The international charter of human rights makes it clear that we should respect peoples' rights to dignity.

Just because you have a camera in your hand doesn't mean that you have the right to snap everyone you see no matter what their situation.

In fact if it's illegal to take pics of bare breasted women at the beach it should be illegal to capture pictures of people who are caught unawares in undignified positions. Unless there's a compelling need to show the truth about them, in the public interest or possibly for art. This photograph doesn't qualify for either.

And I'm surprised no one's been far more critical for it not even being square.

Sorry Bob & Sheetshooter, but I really don't agree...

This is a documentary photo... nothing more...

No permission is required...

John,

It is certainly shot in a documentary style although if it were not specifically to document a particular aspect of life for a particular purpose then it is not, by definition, documentary per se.

Coming from a background with a close association with journalism both Bob and I have probably had the matter of ethics and intent a little more ingrained into us than some others, perhaps.

There is a certain arrogance and carte-blanche attitude that overcomes some people when they see their camera as much as a badge of office as a creative tool, and it is that arrogance that has moved me to say that the picture goes beyond invading the subject's right to privacy (yes, even in a public place if the subject is identifiable - which he is) making it intrusive, but is also disrespectful in that if the subject were sitting awake, alert and normally and not with his dignity in question then the motivation to capture the snapshot might never have arisen. Clearly the opportunity to mock or discredit (sensationalise) was fundamental to the exercise - either consciously or not. And it is the EDITING process which affords us the opportunity to have another thought about our actions in such cases. To not recognise the intrusive and ethically questionable aspects of the shot in the editing process and to then publish it globally on the internet ends up not earning my disrespect for the unfortunate subject (victim) but for the perpetrator.

Cheers,

rjlhughes wrote:Of course it's intrusive unless it's taken with permission!

I'm not sure that the intention was disrespectful, but I'd like to hear that from the photographer. And it would be good if the accompanying text also made that clear.

The bloke is napping on a bench with some shopping bags. The reaction here was that it was a sad reflection on society. The implication is that he's somehow a vagrant. He's clearly identifiable - I think his name might be Ian. And if it is him he's not a vagrant.

Is the photographer looking down on this man? Well that's the implication.

The international charter of human rights makes it clear that we should respect peoples' rights to dignity.

Just because you have a camera in your hand doesn't mean that you have the right to snap everyone you see no matter what their situation.

In fact if it's illegal to take pics of bare breasted women at the beach it should be illegal to capture pictures of people who are caught unawares in undignified positions. Unless there's a compelling need to show the truth about them, in the public interest or possibly for art. This photograph doesn't qualify for either.

And I'm surprised no one's been far more critical for it not even being square.

bob
well i think the image works because pple are talking about it. And your conclusion is different than mine.

and why is baring breast at the beach ok, but not anywhere else? i thought it was illegal to bare breast in public places, isnt the beach a public place??

Sheetshooter wrote:John,

It is certainly shot in a documentary style although if it were not specifically to document a particular aspect of life for a particular purpose then it is not, by definition, documentary per se.

Coming from a background with a close association with journalism both Bob and I have probably had the matter of ethics and intent a little more ingrained into us than some others, perhaps.

There is a certain arrogance and carte-blanche attitude that overcomes some people when they see their camera as much as a badge of office as a creative tool, and it is that arrogance that has moved me to say that the picture goes beyond invading the subject's right to privacy (yes, even in a public place if the subject is identifiable - which he is) making it intrusive, but is also disrespectful in that if the subject were sitting awake, alert and normally and not with his dignity in question then the motivation to capture the snapshot might never have arisen. Clearly the opportunity to mock or discredit (sensationalise) was fundamental to the exercise - either consciously or not. And it is the EDITING process which affords us the opportunity to have another thought about our actions in such cases. To not recognise the intrusive and ethically questionable aspects of the shot in the editing process and to then publish it globally on the internet ends up not earning my disrespect for the unfortunate subject (victim) but for the perpetrator.

Cheers,

are you saying unless we ametaurs can provide images that you approve off, we should crawl back into our hole?

I didnt realise this was a Pro Forum? has there been another change i wasnt aware of??

The elevation from which you shot provides a unique perspective and adds another dimension to the candid. While I compliment you on the crop, providing a sense of space and breathing room for the subject, I don't believe the slight horizontal tilt brings anything to the image (IMO). I'd like to see it either as plum straight or at an greater angle.

I don't have any issues with the 'ethics' of taking this photo, as it is after all a candid. There is no element of defamation to subject as there has been no suggestion that he is homeless or not. I believe this is an excellent portrayal of an individual resting on a bench. The birds-eye-view gives the image an artistic quality engaging the audience to take more than a quick glance.

Good work Dion, I'd like to see more of you work.

Genji,

I see no reason to be inciteful. It is not a matter of amateur or professional. It is only ever a question of human and humane. As witnessed in another of today's thread there is broad condemnation of ethical practices in the media. Surely that same morality encompasses the entire community at all levels and all aspirations.

Sheetshooter wrote:Genji,

I see no reason to be inciteful. It is not a matter of amateur or professional. It is only ever a question of human and humane. As witnessed in another of today's thread there is broad condemnation of ethical practices in the media. Surely that same morality encompasses the entire community at all levels and all aspirations.

mate

i apologise that my previouse post appeared to be inciteful. but i believe you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. BTW you must think the same of this image

http://www.d70users.net/viewtopic.php?t ... c&start=30
(third post from top)

this reminds me of kevin carter, i hope DionM doesnt suffer the same fate...

Genji

I don't get your point about baring breasts. The illegality was to do with photographing bare topped girls on beaches, not going topless.

I can't speak for Sheetshooter, but I'm not trying to impose unwelcome standards of professionalism on the forum. The question was about basic human decency.

Until we get an answer from Dion we don't know about the situation in which he took the shot.

The question is whether when we take candid photos we're taking something from people that they wouldn't freely offer.

If the answer is that we are and there's not a compelling reason for that - then it calls into question a lot of ethical issues.

Not all professionals hold high standards about these issues, of course.

When you sneak a photo of someone that puts them at a disadvantage and which they wouldn't want published then you have to ask - how would I feel if that happened to me, or to someone in my family?

When as photographers we steal photos of people they don't want us to take then we expose ourselves as sneaks.

Worse when we sneak shots it shows us up as people who lack the heart to be brave enough to fully engage in the world.

The other photo you refer to (of the beggar with his or her head covered) doesn't identify them, of course. But it does show the shame they deeply feel at their situation.

As a human we should respect that.

I don't think there's any question that Kevin Carter's pic of the starving Sudanese child with the vulture waiting behind her was justified. Of course you wouldn't wish his fate on anyone - it suggests he engaged too much with his subjects.

In any case Happy Birthday for tomorrow, Dion.

Bob & Sheetshooter

(I apologise to DionM for taking this off-topic)

i think that if you can write an essay to praise a photo, then you can certainly do the same when you criticise a photo.

Genji,

not sure I understand.

Bob & Sheetshooter,

I think that you are unlikely to get an answer from Dion now, having unfairly accused him of inhumane and indecent behaviour...

I think that you are taking things far too seriously if I may say so... If we played by the rules that you suggest, then many of the candid people shots that have been displayed on this forum and in photographers' portfolios around the world would not be allowable either...

Worse when we sneak shots it shows us up as people who lack the heart to be brave enough to fully engage in the world.

I actually find that very insulting... I frequently take pictures of people without their consent and am quite within my rights to do so. BTW. It is not illegal to take pictures of bare-breasted women on the beach and I'm surprised that you should think it was with your professional background.

The fact is that Dion was quite within the law to take such a photo and to display it as he did without comment... I found it quite appealing and do not think that it denigrated its subject in any way... As part of a wider study of homeless people it would have great documentary value.

rjlhughes wrote:Genji,

not sure I understand.

i should clarify..

rjlhughes wrote:You didn't feel that this was somehow intrusive, if not sneaky shot?

(That is presuming you didn't speak to the subject, since you said it's not a self portrait).

Sheetshooter wrote:Intrusive, and I think I would add disrespectful or even mocking to the mix Bob.

Cheers,

IMHO, both those critic should have been elaborated on. Your subsequent post clarified your reasons.

John - I fully expect Dion to respond. I also see that you haven't read my PM to you, but have chosen to air your views here in public.

The suggestion that I accused him of inhumane and indecent behaviour is yours, not mine.

Nor was it my intention to insult you.

And we do not know that this man was homeless as you suggest. Indeed the evidence of the picture suggests that he isn't, if you look closely.

There was a successful prosecution of a young man taking pictures of topless girls at a Sydney beach last year. The story "Phone snappers illicit topless shots" has been archived on the news.com.au site, so I can't give you a live link.

Now we've covered the facts, let's get onto the vitally important issue here:

There's a difference between a candid shot and a shot that (perhaps unfairly) portrays someone in a bad light.

If it's a shot of a Lord Mayor of Sydney jaywalking against a traffic light, then it's got news value.

If it's a Sudanese child being stalked by a vulture then it has great potential for humanitarian relief.

If it's a shot of an accused woman in Bali in distress, then I'm not so sure.

If it causes a celebrity to urge her driver to speed to the extent that she's involved in a fatal car crash, then I'm not so sure.

If it's a picture of a child at a swimming carnival that's inappropriately distributed on the net then I'm very sure it's wrong.

If it's the look of grief on the face of a victim of crime then it depends on the circumstances, and their view.

It's a choice that the photographer has to make. Reputable responsible photographers choose to preserve human dignity, in my view.

The AJA has a code of conduct that spells this out clearly for professional journalists.

As amateur photographers who don't have the excuse that the pictures are in the public interest, intruding on people's private moments against their wishes (even in public) and then publishing them is wrong, without compelling reasons to do so.

rjlhughes wrote:I also see that you haven't read my PM to you, but have chosen to air your views here in public.

I wasn't aware that you had sent me a PM as I read these forum posts thru RSS... I have read it now and don't understand why you sent it as a PM... There's nothing that couldn't be discussed here...

rjlhughes wrote:The suggestion that I accused him of inhumane and indecent behaviour is yours, not mine.

My message above was addressed to you and Sheetshooter... Words such as "a question of human and humane", "sneaky", "disrespectful", were used in previous posts by Sheetshooter...

rjlhughes wrote:Nor was it my intention to insult you.

Nevertheless - that's the way I interpreted your statements... I'm afraid that I find them rather condescending...

rjlhughes wrote:And we do not know that this man was homeless as you suggest. Indeed the evidence of the picture suggests that he isn't, if you look closely.

Indeed... that was my assumption - maybe I'm wrong - that doesn't reflect on the photo or photographer though...

rjlhughes wrote:There was a successful prosecution of a young man taking pictures of topless girls at a Sydney beach last year. The story "Phone snappers illicit topless shots" has been archived on the news.com.au site, so I can't give you a live link.

The young man involved was convicted at Bondi for offensive behaviour because he was acting inappropriately while blatantly taking photos of young women on the beach... The case was discussed at length on this forum at the time.
Taking photos of topless sunbathers on the beach is not illegal and I find your introduction of that subject into this discussion spurious to say the least.

rjlhughes wrote:There's a difference between a candid shot and a shot that (perhaps unfairly) portrays someone in a bad light.

If it's a shot of a Lord Mayor of Sydney jaywalking against a traffic light, then it's got news value.

If it's a Sudanese child being stalked by a vulture then it has great potential for humanitarian relief.

If it's a shot of an accused woman in Bali in distress, then I'm not so sure.

If it causes a celebrity to urge her driver to speed to the extent that she's involved in a fatal car crash, then I'm not so sure.

If it's a picture of a child at a swimming carnival that's inappropriately distributed on the net then I'm very sure it's wrong.

If it's the look of grief on the face of a victim of crime then it depends on the circumstances, and their view.

It's a choice that the photographer has to make. Reputable responsible photographers choose to preserve human dignity, in my view.

The AJA has a code of conduct that spells this out clearly for professional journalists.

In short - there is a line in the sand that should not be crossed - I'm just not convinced that this photo is on the wrong side of the line... I think it's a question of taste & culture...

rjlhughes wrote:As amateur photographers who don't have the excuse that the pictures are in the public interest, intruding on people's private moments against their wishes (even in public) and then publishing them is wrong, without compelling reasons to do so.

It depends on your definition of a private moment, but I think that we will have to agree to disagree on this subject... I take the law of Australia as my guide - and I'm pretty sure that I'm nowhere near breaking it...

Some interesting comments starting to appear here.

As an image, I would like to see the pavers and chair squared off with the photo's edges; as it stands, it's almost a good image, but to me, that little aspect leaves me with the feeling that the photographer doesn't care about how things look through his viewfinder.

The square cropping suits this image quite well, however, as it adds space beyond the subject.

rjlhughes wrote:Is the photographer looking down on this man? Well that's the implication.

Interesting observation, Bob.

In fact if it's illegal to take pics of bare breasted women at the beach

But it's not.

Bob,

rjlhughes wrote:There was a successful prosecution of a young man taking pictures of topless girls at a Sydney beach last year. The story "Phone snappers illicit topless shots" has been archived on the news.com.au site, so I can't give you a live link.

That was discussed here fully at the time. The perp in that particular case was charged with offensive behaviour, not of taking photos of bare breasts.

In point of actual fact, he was really guilty of little more than gross stupidity; it was his harrassment of the ladies, rather than the actual taking of photos, that was the cause of the charges.

That he plead guilty to the charges as laid is a testament to the fact the he was guilty of stupidity: you may be aware that for two other subsequent similar cases, also at Coogee beach (IIRC), all charges have been dropped. They obviously had better legal representation.

DionM wrote:I deliberately left it off centre and the lines crooked to add to it.

With respect, I don't believe that they do.

Leek, Bob, Sheetshooter ....

I suspect that there's a little bit of an overreaction going on here.

The image was presented with no comment about the subject matter or his "social status", if I may use that expression.

I see the image as being nothing more than a gentleman - identifiable - sleeping on a bench in a public place. he appears to be reasonably well dressed, albeit casually so. He also would appear to be quite clean, and indeed, the shoes almost look new.

Within that context, and taking the image as presented and at face value, I see no ethical issues surrounding this image. He's certainly more than just a face in the crowd, but he is also a member of the public, in a public place.


That said, John introduced the observation - his opinion and interpretation of the image, I venture to say - that the image represented a sad point for our society. While I can certainly see how he might arrive at that observation, I see little in the image that actually supports it - see my comments above about his clothing etc.

Bob and Sheetshooter are each reacting to John's observations, which may, or may not, be accurate.

The simple fact is that we just don't know, and at this juncture the photographer has not even given us any clues. For all we know, the image might even be posed!

Might I respectfully suggest that we put our guns back into their holsters until Dion provides us with something a little more concrete to mull over?

I have removed the photo.

The angle of the photo was more for interest sake. It was not a social comment.

I do not believe the person is identifiable. It is only half a face. I am always careful when taking candids to avoid clear identification (having said that, this is in fact only my second 'candid' capture, and only the first I have put on the internet. The other capture was of a chaotic morning in the markets of Melbourne).

I just thought it was an interesting capture.

You guys can read into it what you like (many have, it seems).

But I am always welcome to criticism, and have removed it as I can see the validity in some peoples comments about it (morally and ethically speaking, that is). Thus I have removed it out of caution, and respect; rather than of any guilt.

Was this your first pic post on this forum DionM?

kinetic wrote:Was this your first pic post on this forum DionM?

Yes.

Bit of a baptism of fire there Dion.
I came in too late to see the image so I can't make any comment on it. If nothing else, it proves that this forum is exactly that - a forum for opinion. We expose ourselves to that opinion every time we post a photo and sometimes the controversy seems justified, sometimes not. There are few right and wrong answers but often there's an awful lot of grey area toi navigate through amongst the responding posts.

I guess what I'm saying is that I hope you can take something positive out of this experience and come back to post another day.

Manta wrote:Bit of a baptism of fire there Dion.

Appears that way

I came in too late to see the image so I can't make any comment on it. If nothing else, it proves that this forum is exactly that - a forum for opinion. We expose ourselves to that opinion every time we post a photo and sometimes the controversy seems justified, sometimes not. There are few right and wrong answers but often there's an awful lot of grey.

Indeed. As I said, it is an area I am not experienced in (trees and birds seem not to worry about model releases ...) so I will err on the side of caution.

You didn't miss much; just a crooked, poorly framed picture of the side of someone lying on a park bench in Anzac square, who was in the city.

I guess what I'm saying is that I hope you can take something positive out of this experience and come back to post another day.

Indeed I have.

I'm sorry to see that you felt the need to remove the photo Dion...

I've also removed the rather hasty assumption from my original post...
It seems to have been partially my negative interpretation of the guys situation that was responsible for the flood of messages that followed... sorry about that...

Please don't let this sad experience stop you from contributing to this forum again...

Ah...glad to see we have the photo police here now. I feel much safer!

I'm rather disappointed that the image has been removed.

I believe that the discussion that ensued, while certainly vigorous, was also healthy and an opportunity for many to exchange points of view, and perhaps learn from that exchange of points of view.

That said, I respect Dion's decision to remove the image, and I would fully encourage you post more of your images.

embi wrote:Ah...glad to see we have the photo police here now. I feel much safer!

Hmmm .... nobody asked that the image be taken down, and nobody, to my knowledge, twisted Dion's arm in this matter. From an historical perspectuve I would rather see the image retained, but as I've said, I respect fully Dion's decision.

Certain assumptions about the image were made, and whether those assumptions were correct or not, they led to an important discussion that related to aspects of the image, as well as incidental to it.

I have absolutely no issues at all about the discussion that's taken place here - surely we can have a divergence of opinion and discuss the points of difference freely and frankly, as has been done here?

I'm dissapointed its (the photo) gone as well, as I missed the start of this thread and would have been good to make up my own mind on the subject.

Good lively discussion on the bounds and responsibilities of the photog. Well done guys.

gstark wrote:

embi wrote:Ah...glad to see we have the photo police here now. I feel much safer!

....surely we can have a divergence of opinion and discuss the points of difference freely and frankly, as has been done here?

Yes I agree. And my above quote is my opinion!

Dion - I did see the picture and i thought it was good, perhaps you could have straightened it up a little but other than that i liked it.

I NEVER thought for a moment that it was anything other than some man just taking a nap on a public bench. Strange thing to do i must admit though.

Dion

Wow what a storm, and all I wanted you to do was put a frame around it!!!

I have just come back to this thread to read your decision to remove the image. I am very disappointed that this has happened. Let me make a case for reinstating it. I treat my camera as an extension of my vision of the world, what I take with it (in many cases imperfectly unfortunately) is my view of the world that I sometimes allow others to see, should I stop looking at things that others feel uncomfortable about and by extension stop recording my view of them. If I wanted to I could take a picture of a much more confronting image of the bag man of Brisbane who lives at Indooripilly at the side of the road. In fact, the Courier Mail has provided a picture of his diminished circumstances (which he chooses to maintain BTW) on their front page when he was attacked by a group of low lives last year.

I treat this as recording reality. How would some of you feel if I returned to India and took pictures of the slums and poor there and then displayed them?

I think Dion provided a unique view all his own, and added to our collectiven understanding of the human condition. For all we know the guy might have been returning exhausted from a trip to the Cathedral of Commerce (sorry my name for Myer ) and decided to stop for a rest.

What the comments do show in our different reactions is the preconcieved ideas we all harbour within us.

Loosen up. A great read so far. I am going to mention a guitar if this goes on much longer.

Cheers

Wow, leave a (seemingly) inconspicuous for a while and all hell breaks loose.

IMHO, and yes its just an opinion, is that the politically correct & self important photo nazi's have had some ridiculous spontaneous brain explosion.

Geeze (a couple of) you guys need to get out in the real world more.

BUT, I rather you contine to express opinions regardless of any contrary opinions, just as I'd prefer the photo to have remained viewable.

The least desirable outcome is
a) for DionM to feel intimdated and hesitant to post images.
Equally
b) despite my strongly disgreeing with rjlhughes & Sheetshooter, I hope they will not hesitate to post genuinely held opinions.

Wouldn't it be a wonderful world if a topic such as ethics could be discussed without the inclusion of personal attacks and denigration?

Fact is that RJLHughes and I are probably out in the real world and at the coal face of media considerably more consistently than many others.

On the subject of 'politically correct & self important' I believe that we should ALL be above puerile and inappropriate epithets such as Photo Nazis. As for "ridiculous spontaneous brain explosions" I feel that that statement says far more about the author than about me.

Sorry to keep going on with this subject but........

Is there anywhere i can find out what i can legaly take pictures of and what i cant?

I dont, and very very rarely take pictures of people that i dont know. With all the recent talk of laws about taking pics in certain places etc, everytime i pull out the camera in a public place i feel as if im going to be looked upon as some kind of perv.

Sheetshooter wrote:Wouldn't it be a wonderful world if a topic such as ethics could be discussed without the inclusion of personal attacks and denigration?

Fact is that RJLHughes and I are probably out in the real world and at the coal face considerably more consistently than many others.

On the subject of 'politically correct & self important' I believe that we should ALL be above puerile and inappropriate epithets such as Photo Nazis. As for "ridiculous spontaneous brain explosions" I feel that that statement says far more about you than about me.

Well it is my opinion and I do think my coments accurately reflect your attitude based on your comments. Does your being "at the coal face considerably more consistently..." mean you are a superior photgrapher &/or you have superior judgement and ethics?

I'm no expert on this Jamie at all, but as far as I can tell it is perfectly legal to take a picture of someone on public property. As long as you don't intend to sell that image with their face on it, otherwise you need to get their permission.

Jamie wrote:Sorry to keep going on with this subject but........

Is there anywhere i can find out what i can legaly take pictures of and what i cant?

I dont, and very very rarely take pictures of people that i dont know. With all the recent talk of laws about taking pics in certain places etc, everytime i pull out the camera in a public place i feel as if im going to be looked upon as some kind of perv.

An example of the the symptoms...how ridiculous when we all feel afraid of taking a photo in a public place.
Will we all need to cary a large manual prescribing where & what we are permitted to photograph? Carry a large pad of release & consent forms? a 1800 emergency number to "call before you click".

Allow me to answer that question about judgement Greybeard - I'm not parading superiority - certainly not in ethics. I may have a more practised judgement, because of my work over many years.

I have had to be very careful and weigh my words as Sheetshooter has the effect of his images on many occasions, and to be held accountable.

If you read my posts closely you'll see how careful I have been.

I stand by the attitudes I've expressed and I'm not the photo police or a photo nazi.

When we use a camera to capture an image, that's one thing. When we disseminate the image that is publishing, and it becomes a more sensitive issue.

Gary you're right, the bloke with the camera phone at Coogee was fined for offensive behaviour. Peter MacKenzine took photos, the girl and her boyfriend objected, he was fined and his camera phone destroyed.

As an example of when photos are illegal, that's pretty close.

As discussed here many councils have legally restricted the use of cameras in public pools. Many gyms restrict them, too. Photography in many places and of many subjects can be illegal.

The issue raised here, and by the recent assault on Xerebus is an ethical one.

The question to ask when we take and publish photos that aren't flattering is: how would I feel if this was done to me?

When it's in the public interest, or on the public record, or perhaps when it's a work of art then its acceptable. Otherwise think about it.

Of course it's unlikely Dion would ever be inconspicuous when taking a photograph.

rjlhughes wrote:Allow me to answer that question Greybeard - I'm not parading superiority certainly not in ethics. I may have a more practised judgement, because of my work over many years.

I have had to be very careful and weigh my words as Sheetshooter has the effect of his images on many occasions, and to be held accountable.

If you read my posts closely you'll see how careful I have been.

I stand by the attitudes I've expressed - I'm not the photo police or a photo nazi.

When we use a camera to capture an image, that's one thing. When we disseminate the image that is publishing, and it becomes a more sensitive issue.

Gary you're right, the bloke with the camera phone at Coogee was fined for offensive behaviour. Peter MacKenzine took photos, the girl and her boyfriend objected, he was fined and his camera phone destroyed.

As an example of when photos are illegal, that's pretty close.

As discussed here many councils have legally restricted the use of cameras in public pools. Many gyms restrict them, too. Photography in many places and of many subjects can be illegal.

The issue raised here, and by the recent assault on Xerebus is an ethical one.

The question to ask when we take and publish photos that aren't flattering is: how would I feel if this was done to me?

When it's in the public interest, or on the public record, or perhaps when it's a work of art then its acceptable. Otherwise think about it.

I have no problem with an opinion being expressed or even that particular opinion (other than I disagree). It was however interpreted as being a definitive statement and quite disapproving rather than a more objective "this is my interpretation of this image".

I certainly agree there are inappropriate locations and circumstances to be taking photos, but I do think context & intent are important aspects of decision making, not just the location.

And you raise another indefinable issue of when is it art or voyeurism or erotica or intrusive or public record/interest or propaganda or manipulation or exploitation.

Yes there should be some thought in some situations, but often a banana is just a banana, not a social commentary on Central American autocracies.