Anzac Square, Brisbane "Portrait"

[Glen]

Another thought with regard to point of reference. I live in Sydney, with it's big city social problems as evident as anywhere in Australia. I note that many of the individuals in this discussion do to. We may have our own values with regard to sleeping in public. I would not sleep in public, not because of a fear of having my dignity or image stolen, but a fear of having my watch, wallet or life stolen. Individuals may not have those fears in other locations. Possibly that is why some have the opinion that someone sleeping in public is someone with nothing to lose.

[sirhc55]

There is a small patch of grass behind the Neutral Bay Post Office and on any given day you will see a person - male or female - having a nap, in the sun.

IMO these people have something that a lot of us lack - trust

[rjlhughes]

Kerry,

I am not often accused of being a 'politically correct' person. There's been a number of people who have exaggerated my case and then pointed out that it was silly. That, in effect was what I objected to in kipper's post. It's not an effective way of making a rejoinder to a point.

Australia has a number of shock jocks, based perhaps on the American right wing radio announcers you'd be familiar with, and that's their tactic.

People who overstate the opponents arguments in order to win them are in the same class. It's silly. And yes I've just indulged in the same tactic to make the point.

I'm not vilifying Dion or his photo. Nor am I bullying him, as I have now said a number of times. He's far too big to be bullied. But I was initially simply asking questions about the circumstances of the shot and the thought process behind it.

Boy did I hit a nerve! And when I get a big reaction like that I'm very interested in why.

The general concensus here is that if you see it in public you can take a shot of it.

How much harm can a photo do, you ask? Well as someone else has already alluded to the efforts of photographers probably caused the death of the Princess of Wales. There are many examples of photos causing inappropraite harm.

You mention the 'bum on the street' and suggest he has no right to dignity.

I don't agree with that, at all. In fact restoring a person's dignity is often the first step to getting them off the streets. Often dignity is the last thing, along with hope that a person has.

The question about 'art' is a more interesting one. Is what the work is saying new? Does it need saying? Will it be seen as having lasting value? They are all issues that could be addressed there. Leak raised, quite reasonably, Sydney Unposed. It's a whole thought out project that doesn't leave any of the subjects looking at a disadvantage.

The essential issue is about the right to privacy (even in public) and to dignity. When we draw the line about how far we can invade other people's privacy because we have a camera around our neck, we're also making decisions about how far we're allowing people to invade our own privacy before we object. That's the a key decision point in this process.

And as I've said before it's a process - not necessarily just a set of rules.

Gary,

I hope that you're right when you say that we would all have similar standards that we set. That's not the message that I'm getting from this thread.

I'm happy you don't think that the man in question is a 'bum' as Kerry puts it. I can't quantify how many people would think that.

But enough would for it to be a problem.

The point I was making about the cost of the gear was that my impression is that most people here are fairly affluent. In the other thread someone said they didn't have to worry about the cost of their gear, for example.

That leads me to think that most people here hold responsible productive jobs. And then I compared the level of thinking here with that of senior executives I work with.

You mention the bloike with the Nokia being a dickhead. You're not saying that if someone with a phone camera is a dickhead then it's Ok for someone with a D70 to be one too, are you?

I would hope for better!

[rjlhughes]

Did I mention that I thought the subject of the picture was the father of a couple of my friends? It turns out it wasn't, although Ian has been in Brisbane in the past year.

[Frankenstein]

Did I mention that I thought the subject of the picture was the father of a couple of my friends? It turns out it wasn't, although Ian has been in Brisbane in the past year.

Interesting - did this possibly colour your initial reaction Bob?

Frank

[kipper]

You keep mentioning work, and how most of us probably hold jobs that are responsible and require a great level of thought. I think most of us on this forum do photography as a bit of a bit of a hobby, and a bit of stress relief from work. So I'd say most people here wouldn't be running the whole morality/ethical thought process through their brain when they take the shot. Mostly because of the fact they aren't doing it for a living (eg. making money out of it), so hence see no harm in taking the shot. If the man was penny less, and as some put it "a bum", and the person who took the shot sold it and made money out of it. Then I'd say that crosses the line, as the person is making money out of somebody at the expense of their "dignity".

As for dignity and embarrassment. How have we taken away from this man's dignity, or embarrassed him? He'd only feel less dignified if he knows that somebody that he is acquanted with has seen him in this state of destitute. Also if he is a vagabond/homeless person, his lack of dignity is going to be reminded to him every day whether we take the photo or not. For instance, while I was in Sydney there was what appeared to be a homeless lady who made an appartment out of her belongings and shopping carts at Circular Quay (I'm sure you Sydney siders know her by name). Well, would my photo make her feel any less dignified? I'm sure she has constant sniggers and looks every day to remind her of how unfortunate she is. So I doubt a photo is really going to drag her down any more than she already is.

I recently read up on Kevin Carter, after some of the guys at Melbourne Dinner were talking about him. It was quite a heart moving story about his life, and I'd like to see the movie The Death of Kevin Carter (formerly known as The Life of Kevin Carter). It seems like the photo that he took of the Sudanese child wasn't the catalyst for him committing suicide but he seemed like a trouble individual a long before this photo. Although the photo, and probably the questions of ethics that he recieved after that helped fuel his self-hate, it didn't seem like it was the primary cause. He could of helped the girl yes, but then again, there was hundreds of other adults/children around him also dieing. Should he of helped them too. Those accusing him of not helping, should probably have stood back and looked at his photo, and the many other photos like his, that send back a shocking/heart wrenching message to the rest of the world to do something. I mean without these photos, would anybody give a shit about places like Africa? No, because nobody would know about it, or know about how deep in shit some of these kids are in. The same applies to photos of homeless people to promote donating to organisations. Would we recognise there is a problem without photos of people in sorry states of affairs, and donate to places like the Salvation Army or The Smith Family (pretty sure they help financially disadvantaged families) etc? Probably not.

Anyway, that's my rant. I hope it made some sort of sense. It's probably the longest post I've ever done and you won't get another for a long time.

[rjlhughes]

My point, Frankenstein, was - what if it was your father?

[rjlhughes]

Kipper,

whether or not someone made money out of a picture doesn't necessarily make a difference to the hurt that it may cause.

It's the publication of the picture and the reaction that it gets that can be the problem.

I'd ask you to think carefully about whether someone who lives as a bag lady at Circular Quay thinks, or more to the point, admits that she has no dignity.

As I said to Kerry when you take that away thoughtlessly you may be doing a grievous harm.

It may also do us personally harm, as one interpretation of the Kevin Carter story would suggest. I think his photo is obscene, but it was important that it was taken and published.

You'd be amazed at the currency that media appearances have. People can be reminded of them years and years later. You've heard of the 6 degrees of separation theory I'm sure.

In a private conversation about this thread someone said that the problem is that when some people put the camera around their neck they think they have permission to do things they wouldn't normally.

I say that when you're taking photos of people you don't know for publication you should be very aware of your responsibilities as one human to another.

[Greg B]

It may also do us personally harm, as one interpretation of the Kevin Carter story would suggest. I think his photo is obscene, but it was important that it was taken and published.

I do not think the photo is obscene. The situation, yes, the suffering, yes, the photo, no. (In my opinion)

[kipper]

Bob, answer me this, in regards to Kevin Carter. Why do you think the photo is obscene?

Greg, I agree with you totally.

[Oneputt]

Whilst I believe that this has been a very useful debate, I know the photographer personally and the last thing he would have wanted to do would be to embarass his subject. I note that he voluntarily withdrew the image, which is a pity as those who have not seen it for themselves cannot make an informed decision.

It is very easy to pontificate on the moral and ethical considerations when publishing a photo when you are not the author, but not as easy when you have produced the image. I work in the human services field and no one is more aware of the sanctity of human dignity. I would however have been prepared to bet that the subject in this instance would not have objected to his picture being used, after all he would hardly expect people passing by not to look at him.

[KerryPierce]

Kerry,

I am not often accused of being a 'politically correct' person.

Let's get a couple of issues straight, Bob. I wasn't accusing "you" of anything. I'm neither bashful nor timid. If I have something to say to you, I'd make sure there was no doubt that it was you I was addressing.

I was decrying the PC movement and, by extension, anyone that supports it. If the shoe fits, wear it.

Australia has a number of shock jocks, based perhaps on the American right wing radio announcers you'd be familiar with, and that's their tactic.

I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about. I don't listen to talk radio. If you wish to label me a right winger, as a derogatory description, that's fine. But, let's also be clear that I don't follow politics or political bullshit. I can think for myself and don't care which side of the political fence I spit on.

People who overstate the opponents arguments in order to win them are in the same class. It's silly. And yes I've just indulged in the same tactic to make the point.

You'll have to do better. You made assumptions that don't fit. I have no idea what point you might have wished to make, other than the fact that you think I'm a low life right winger.

I'm not vilifying Dion or his photo. Nor am I bullying him, as I have now said a number of times. He's far too big to be bullied. But I was initially simply asking questions about the circumstances of the shot and the thought process behind it.

I don't recall your specific comments or questions. I don't like or appreciate political commentary in a photography forum, especially when the photo wasn't meant to be political. Political commentary have no place here. I didn't come here to discuss politics and don't appreciate innocent photos being used as a vehicle to advance some political agenda.

The general concensus here is that if you see it in public you can take a shot of it.

Absolutely.

How much harm can a photo do, you ask? Well as someone else has already alluded to the efforts of photographers probably caused the death of the Princess of Wales. There are many examples of photos causing inappropraite harm.

Absolute nonsense. The driver of the vehicle caused her death. Any other excuse is some diversionary tactic meant to forward some political agenda.

You mention the 'bum on the street' and suggest he has no right to dignity.

I didn't say that at all and you know it. I said, what dignity? What kind of dignity allows a person to reach that state? Nobody, but nobody, can give or take dignity from a person, especially by taking or not taking their photo. I know full well the concepts of dignity, honor and other human traits. I never met a bum with either dignity or honor, whether he was eating out of trash cans or sitting at a choice table at a 5 star restaurant.

Is what the work is saying new? Does it need saying? Will it be seen as having lasting value?

I would suggest that none of these issues have any basis in any discussion about someone's art. You like it or don't like it, according to your preferences. If you don't like it, does that mean it isn't art? I don't think so.

The essential issue is about the right to privacy (even in public) and to dignity.

No, that's nonsense. You have no right to privacy when you're standing in the middle of a crowd. If you have dignity, I can't take it from you. If you don't have it, I can't give it to you. It's like all of the other traits that define a person. Honesty, integrity, honor are things within, regardless as to where the person may be.

[kipper]

Oneputt, you have drawn upon the very point that I was going to make.
How is Kevin Carters photo obscene. If he was to go to Sudan on holiday, and saw the same very girl with a vulture waiting for it's next bit of carrion, would that make it any different to the fact that he photographed it?

Personally I don't, to me the camera is just a recorded image of what the eye has seen. To me if you can go out and see it with your own pair of eyes, what difference does it make if you photograph it.

Kerry, you have delved into some of the points that I was getting at in my top most post. That dignity is a state of mind.

[mic]

I think poor dionm will be hesitant to take another photo as the ethic's demon will be sitting on his shoulder, like a person about to release a trigger on gun Flintching.

I think this thread has gone on way too long and is starting to go in other directions.

Like I said earlier, Who Cares !

Dionm stick the pic back, don't let the ethic's demons burn you.

Mic.

[rjlhughes]

Kerry,

I'm not suggesting anything derogatory about you. There's no suggestion in my post that you're a "low life right winger". I think of you as the American who has the nice Sigma lens.

I continue to be surprised at the reaction to this thread. I don't have a political agenda. The issues here are basic human rights of dignity and privacy.

My point is that over-exaggerating someone's case and then ridiculing it isn't a response.

It is a tactic we hear here and you could hear in the US if you listened to some talk radio. This is not political commentary, but a reflection on people going over the top.

The suggestion about the death of the Princess of Wales was raised by someone else. It's a high profile incident where I believe some of the blame lies at the feet of the papparazi. I stand by my remark that photos can do harm.

I'm not sure that I understand your point about 'bums' giving away their right to dignity. I don't understand what you mean about a bum sitting at a table in a five star restaurant.

I'm sure you don't want to condemn people who are totally down in the gutter to have to stay there?

If I misinterpreted your words, then you're welcome to clarify them.

Photos certainly have an effect. Just as they can make something desirable in advertising, so they can freeze in time a moment the person photographed would rather forget.

You can have honour, integrity and honesty and yet be seen in photographs as betraying those characteristics.

Just because I don't like something doesn't mean it's not art. Some of the best art is challenging.

I'm bemused at how challenging my remarks seem to be to some people here.

[rjlhughes]

Kipper and Greg,

the subject of the Sudanese child is what's obscene in the sense of " Repulsive; disgusting"

The photo is by extension obscene - but I'd defend his right to take and show it. It think it's a great photo.

It's obscene in the sense that some people are sickened by it.

But it's a story that should be told.

[rjlhughes]

Oneputt,

the person to whom my initial question was addressed was Dion. He took the pic down without actually addressing the issue. I'm certainly not pontificating about someone else's picture. I'm raising a question that I would address in similar circumstances and was asking for Dion's thoughts.

Also although you'd be willing to bet that the person involved wouldn't care about publication, we can't be sure without asking can we?

mic,

I'm still on topic.

What does

" as the ethic's demon will be sitting on his shoulder, like a person about to release a trigger on gun Flintching." mean?

[kipper]

Bob, I also noticed on your website that you took photos, and even possibly knew Michelle Leslie in a professional sense. Has her portrail in the media recently helped spur on some of these thoughts about the ethics of taking a photo? Perhaps I'm over analysing here, and way out of the ballpark on this one.

[Oneputt]

Rob I was not having a go at you personally. If I gave that impression then I apologise.

No we cannot be certain, but what in life can we be certain about? Like you I was only talking about Dions image.

[rjlhughes]

Oneputt,

no offence taken at all. We ask people - or even hold up the camera and wave it as a gesture.

An off forum conversation reminds me of the Christian saying that he who is without sin should cast the first stone.

If you don't respect other people's privacy and dignity - then how can you expect your own to be respected?

(ps meditation can be tough for some people)

[KerryPierce]

Kerry,

I'm not suggesting anything derogatory about you. There's no suggestion in my post that you're a "low life right winger".

Okay, I'll take you at your word. You suggested that I'd be familiar with the right wing radio. I have serious issues with both left and right wingnuts and have no desire to listen to either.

I continue to be surprised at the reaction to this thread. I don't have a political agenda. The issues here are basic human rights of dignity and privacy.

I don't know why you're surprised. The "issues" here are photography, not politics.

blame lies at the feet of the papparazi. I stand by my remark that photos can do harm.

You'll have to give some better evidence that a photo of a person can do harm. What the papparazi may or may not have been responsible for, is not even close to an answer. We're talking about general photography of people in public. I already made my case and see no reason to believe that any photo can "harm" a person.

I'm not sure that I understand your point about 'bums' giving away their right to dignity. I don't understand what you mean about a bum sitting at a table in a five star restaurant.

A bum can't give away dignity, if he has none. A bum is not necessarily a beggar that sleeps on the street. A bum is determined by his state of mind. A thief is a thief, a liar is a liar, no matter how they're dressed or where they live.

I'm sure you don't want to condemn people who are totally down in the gutter to have to stay there?

How am I responsible for another person's behavior? How do I have the power to condemn someone to any particular life or state of mind? What does that have to do with photography?

You can have honour, integrity and honesty and yet be seen in photographs as betraying those characteristics.

Really? Even if that were true, how does that cause harm? How people perceive a photo, is often as much or more so, a reflection of their inner being, as it is a reflection of the artist's intent. A photo is a photo, nothing more, nothing less. Art is art. The photographer, artist, can't control the perceptions of those viewing his photo/art and can't be responsible for their perceptions.

As I said before, we either fully and completely control the cameras or we accept that there will be photos that we don't like. Not liking a photo is hardly injurious.

[mic]

Simply Bob that when dionm points & composes & is just about to capture something he thinks is worth taking, his brain will revert back to an image he thought was great for the taking that he once posted here.

He will of course hesitate thinking geez look what my other shot caused on the Forum, hmmm I better not, or should I

Of course there are sensitive pics that should not be shown, and I agree you just can't go What the Hell, I just think really, this is just a guy on a park bench out in public view to all to see.

Like a Bird, A dog, A cat, or any other Human in public view.

Demons : meaning this is whats going to be hanging around his thought process when he's about to push the camera button.

I'm not having a dig at you, just my $1 worth.

Mic.

[rjlhughes]

Kerry,

I'm happy to let your comments stand and let others judge.

Of course photographs can harm people.

This is not about "fully and completely controlling the cameras", nor is it about photos we don't like.

It's about a process that goes on in the photographer's mind that elevates what they do, or not.

[rjlhughes]

mic,

"Demons : meaning this is whats going to be hanging around his thought process when he's about to push the camera button. "

exactly! that's exactly what I'd hope to encourage somewhere along the workflow that takes the photo through to posting on the web page.

And if it means he (or any of us) walks up to the person and says - "I'd like to take your picture" - so much the better.

And if he or any of us think "how do I think this will look to the average viewer?" so much the better, again.

If he or any of us think "what emotional choices am I making when I point the camera here, when I focus on that, when I choose this setting or that one?", so much the better!

I'm not about taking away choices from people, I'm suggesting that we make conscious choices about what we photograph.

And I've been pleading in the face of being shouted down that we bring our humanity to what we photograph, especially when it's other people and most especially when we don't know them and they have no reason to trust us.

[sirhc55]

Without going into any great debate I am curious about these words after your name Bob - "The photographic image... is a message without a code." Roland Barthes.

A message without a code! - This was, I believe, a reference to his book Camera Lucida, which was an epitaph to his mother and himself as well as a study of photography. My interpretation of ”message without a code” means simply, that a photograph should not be judged by codes which would include ethics.

[rjlhughes]

It could well mean that Chris,

well spotted!

[KerryPierce]

Kerry,

I'm happy to let your comments stand and let others judge.

Of course photographs can harm people.

Why should I believe that? You present no evidence. I have seen no evidence that supports your claim, just meaningless words.

This is not about "fully and completely controlling the cameras", nor is it about photos we don't like.

Of course it is about controlling the cameras. Your whole agenda is about controlling the photographer and photos that you don't like, by insinuating that anyone that doesn't agree with your position is inhumane, irresponsible, disrespectful, sneaky, without morals, etc, etc.

That's about as disgusting as it gets.

It's about a process that goes on in the photographer's mind that elevates what they do, or not.

Who are you to judge what behavior is elevated? Who the hell are you to judge other people and their photography? Just who the hell do you think you are to talk down to other people, like some kind of annointed saint and speaker for all that is right and good in the world?

Just to be sure, it is you, Bob, that I am talking to. I don't know who the hell you think you are, but you are not anyone to be my judge.

[rjlhughes]

Kerry

I am sorry that you have reacted in this way.

You suggest that "anyone that doesn't agree with your (that is my)position is inhumane, irresponsible, disrespectful, sneaky, without morals". Well actually, no, I didn't.

I'm certainly not judging you, in my posts. I am encouraging people to judge their own work and in their own terms 'elevate' it.

I was suggesting that other people could make up their own minds about what you and I wrote.

In my view you're way out on a limb if you think that photographs don't have the capacity to harm people. I can't offer anything but words to support my claim.

You deny all advertising images in the world if you think photos can't have an emotional effect. Perhaps we're talking at cross purposes here.

My aim has been to stimulate, not to control. And I've certainly seemed to have done a good job of stimulating your response in this debate!

[xerubus]

unfortunately I have been really busy with other stuff and have not followed this thread from the beginning.. and have obvioulsy missed the shot as it has been removed.

from what I can tell though from reactions, the shot has worked as it has stirred up emotion and got people talking.

i would love to the what the shot was, even if it is sent offline.

cheers

[kipper]

Mark I have pm Dion, but no response yet. This debate is probably something that interests you, seeing as you've stepped into the roll of a PJ.

[xerubus]

Mark I have pm Dion, but no response yet. This debate is probably something that interests you, seeing as you've stepped into the roll of a PJ.

exactly.... the differing opinions are great to read! and that's the idea of photography.. you need to stir an emotion.. whether good or bad.

I have seen some PJ stuff which is almost sickening.. but at the same time the shot works as it invokes a feeling from the viewer, and will never be seen again in the same light...

cheers

[KerryPierce]

You suggest that "anyone that doesn't agree with your (that is my)position is inhumane, irresponsible, disrespectful, sneaky, without morals". Well actually, no, I didn't.

Those are the inferences that are the underlying theme of your posts. I reject that, completely.

I'm certainly not judging you, in my posts. I am encouraging people to judge their own work and in their own terms 'elevate' it.

You are encouraging people to modify their behavior, to your definitions of right, wrong, respect, disrespect. That is far beyond the scope of any image critique. It smacks of propaganda.

You deny all advertising images in the world if you think photos can't have an emotional effect. Perhaps we're talking at cross purposes here.

If you are suggesting that people have no capacity to resist the urge to buy something because they saw a photo advertising a product, I would suggest that you have a very diminished view of the human animal. People resist advertising images every day, dozens of times a day. How can that be?

When you see a photo of a naked person of your sexual preference, does that make you rape someone? When you see photos of food, do you always eat immediately? Instilling desire, via imagery is not the same as invoking irresistable, compelling action. People are not robots. They are responsible for their own actions.

Having an emotional impact is the very essence of art. It is SUPPOSED to have some kind of impact on the viewer. That is certainly not the same thing as causing harm. A photo is an inanimate object. How people react to their viewing of a photo is under their control.

[leek]

Ah Dear Bob,

Still ranting away I see – in the hope of saving some of our poor lost souls…

You seem to think that most people here disagree with you. Actually I think they are probably taking exception to the way you present your messages.

For someone who claims to work as a communication coach, you don't seem to choose your words very carefully... Or perhaps you do and you are deliberately trying to provoke people into arguing with you...
If that's the case, then you are little more than a troll and you should leave by the closest exit...

You seem to enjoy claiming the moral high ground and presenting your personal opinions as indisputable facts (I gave up counting the many examples of this). In addition, you are very fond of insinuating that other people's ideas / values are somehow inferior to yours (I gave up counting the many examples of this as well).
You are also very good at making ambiguous statements that are designed to provoke, but to which you later attach a more innocent meaning.

Personally, I withdrew from this debate a couple of days ago. I was angry because you were being very insulting and also because it seemed to me that you weren't remotely interested in what other people had to say - not really...

It is very sad that you chose to hi-jack this thread for a debate about ethics. I bet that poor Dion winces every time that another message is added to this thread…

You may not see what you did as bullying, but I'm very sure that many other members here do see it that way... You and one other person used a mix of unkind comments, misinformation and personal opinions to pressure Dion into removing it...
You have jumbled points of law and ethical questions in a very misleading way to a point that has created confusion in some people’s minds...
This is the first time that I have seen anyone pressured into removing one of their photos from this forum and that is a very sad event indeed…

Once again, as a communications coach – I am amazed that it has escaped your attention that you have severely upset and insulted several members with your comments in this thread. I daresay that there are several others who feel equally insulted by your holier than thou attitude, but haven’t bothered to comment.

The law governs what we can photograph and what we can publish and anything else is:
a point of view, a personal opinion, a belief and therefore subjective. You have your point of view and everyone else on this forum will have their own point of view…

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but to ignore everyone else’s opinion to the extent that you do is rather ridiculous / pathetic…

I sincerely hope that this thread will draw to a close very soon - in my view it should have been closed a long time ago. I think that it is damaging to the forum community and it is also very unfair to attach this extensive debate to a thread that was started to exhibit Dion's photo...

[rjlhughes]

And Kerry I guess you'd say that how you react to my posts is under your control.

Then just pull back a touch. You're inferring a lot about my intentions, in the face of my overt denials.

I'm not setting definitions of right and wrong. I am certainly asking people to clearly consider what their views are.

I'm not a propagandist.

Propaganda is the use of words and images to advance a cause, often a nationalistic one, isn't it? Does that suggest the power of images to benefit or harm?

Positive and negative images do change peoples' perceptions. Not everyone, not all the time, not immediately. It doesn't suggest people don't have choice, or a diminished view of the human animal.

But images can harm people and that's just how it is.

[KerryPierce]

Then just pull back a touch. You're inferring a lot about my intentions, in the face of my overt denials.

I don't believe your overt denials.

I'm not setting definitions of right and wrong. I am certainly asking people to clearly consider what their views are.

Who are you to do this? Who appointed you to police the thoughts and actions of others?

I'm not a propagandist.

Yes, I think you are. I find your words and actions revolting and disgusting. You hijacked this thread for your propaganda. You embarrassed Dion to the point where he removed his image. You should be proud of your accomplishments.

But images can harm people and that's just how it is.

Yeah, Bob. Images kill, rape, and maim people every day. That's just how it is. Now, you can have the last, saintly, word.

[rjlhughes]

Thanks John for your comments.

I think I've been responding to comments as they've been raised and I have certainly enjoyed the conversations. I've been interested in the way that some people have been attacking the messenger when I expected the debate to go in other directions. Perhaps that's ranting. Maybe I am a troll!

I certainly hope I haven't deliberately insulted anyone.

I hope I've been polite and impartial and have chosen my words well.

John you're welcome to PM me with some examples of where you think I've made moral judgements or gone wrong in my communication and I'll happily respond on a case by case basis.

If they seem important we can make them public. Or you can raise them here, but I don't want to bore people. You'll recall that I first responded to your now withdrawn post as a PM so that we could have a private conversation about it.

You withdrew from the debate a couple of days ago just at the point when I hoped you would define your own view of where you think the line should be drawn on privacy. I'm still interested. I think that's an area where you have a professional interest.

I'm sure the debate will run out of steam at some point, but I wouldn't like to see it censored.

[rjlhughes]

Thank you Kerry and bless you (and that's truly meant kindly)

(St) Bob.

[leek]

Maybe I am a troll!

I think that you are...

I certainly hope I haven't deliberately insulted anyone.

I think that you have...

I hope I've been polite and impartial and have chosen my words well.

I don't think you have...

John you're welcome to PM me with some examples of where you think I've made moral judgements or gone wrong in my communication and I'll happily respond on a case by case basis.

Not interested...

If they seem important we can make them public. Or you can raise them here, but I don't want to bore people. You'll recall that I first responded to your now withdrawn post as a PM so that we could have a private conversation about it.

Not interested...

You withdrew from the debate a couple of days ago just at the point when I hoped you would define your own view of where the line is drawn should be drawn on privacy. I'm still interested.

I withdrew because you insulted me and you've done so several times since... Where I draw the line in the sand is none of your business, but personally I don't think there was anything wrong in Dion publishing "that photo" - I'm glad to see that almost everyone else who contributed agrees with me...

I'm sure the debate will run out of steam at some point, but I wouldn't like to see it censored.

I don't think it should be censored, but it should be separated from Dion's original post... I wouldn't want anyone to forget this...

NO FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE WILL BE ENTERED INTO...

[rjlhughes]

Boy! I didn't mean to have that effect!

This continues to be a very interesting exercise.

I really do hate upsetting people.

Let's see what happens next......

[Glen]

Moved to general discussion as this has gone well past a discussion about an image which isn't even here anymore

[mic]

Anyone coming in on the end of this thread would seriously think that this was an image of a couple caught doing it behind some public toilets and should we as photographers feel we have the right to show their erotic private act that took place in a public place.

Not some guy sleeping on a park bench in B&W looking peacefull !

Bob, I suggest you don't ruffle Kerry's feathers anymore, he has a lot of animal friends in the animal kingdom that love his great shots of all of their kind.

He is what you could call, Our Dr Dolittle Of Photograpghy

I'd watch it next time you are in the wild or at the Zoo mate

Mic

[rjlhughes]

I think Kerry was the one who decided not to continue the conversation, mic.

And I didn't actually attempt to ruffle his feathers intentionally. I remain stunned and concerned at his response.

I'm sure you didn't mean that last sentence as a threat, either.

As someone has pointed out in a PM it's so easy for people to misinterpret posts.

[glamy]

I do not quite understand how one can get so upset about an argument where both sides have valid points. When it comes to decency, manners, ethics, politics and so on, it is a matter for the individual to decide. Very often the law is an ass that we still have to abide by but I think (I have not seen the picture) this may have been blown out of proportion. It is regrettable to see the bitterness expressed in some of these threads. It leads nowhere...
Cheers,
Gerard

[Greg B]

I think this is one of those situations where one or two people hold a particular view, very strongly, and a number of other people hold a different view.

The correspondents to this thread include a number of people who have previously demonstrated clear thought, and who have sufficient life experience to develop reasonable and valid views.

There is no rule in life that says that the view of the many is necessarily more valid than the view of the few, and nor is there a rule that says that the view of the most persistent is more valid than the view of those who tire of the discussion as it becomes apparent that it is making no progress.

I think that a number of correspondents have expressed the view that Dion's image was ethically reasonable. One or two correspondents have taken a different view. No-one appears likely to change their view.

Some of the tone of the discussion has become a bit unpleasant. I see little to be gained by the continued flogging of a horse which unfortunately passed away several pages ago.

Shall we just agree to differ and move on?

[rjlhughes]

Gerard,

I agree. The amazing thing has been how emotional this debate got.

It's been really interesting. I'd be interested if any of the calmer voices on the forum would like to advance their theories on what nerves I hit.

[mic]

Oh Bob

Unless you actually think that Kerry can talk to the animals I wouldn't worry mate

There is no threat there, just an attempt to show the sillyness of this silly thread Except for Dionm's Pic of course which has now been moved to the Extinct Section.

Only the Mods have access.

Mic.

[rjlhughes]

I'll be happy if this prompts some more thought in people here about what they're doing when they point their camera at someone who may not welcome their attention.

[wendellt]

Hi Bob and Sheetshooter

I have read this entire thread and now i am worried because i have really thought long and hard about doing freerange street photography, reportage and social photography without professional representation

Usually by luck i get into social events and take some of my best work of people who are generally unaware that i am taking photos of them for artistic reasons and for good practice. Now I have so many of these sort of social photos that i can't get permission to use on my portfolio or website. So i just keep them hoping one day when i die someone will discover them and brand me a real 'artist' I do not post any of my social photos on the web you will see on my website there are no photos of people, but i really think some of these have to be shown because they are beautifully shot portrayals of people in available light. I have only published a fashion show i covered on this site, i got direct permission from the organizers that i could publish them.

After talking to many people about this subject I recently had to look at practicality i like taking photos of people rather than abstract aesthetic and experimental shots, Im not a journalist or a represented artist. I would one day like to share with the world my aesthetic vision of candid social shots.

So bob and Sheetshooter with your vast experience can you share your knowledge on how about to facilitate taking candid shots of people legally, you have lots of experience in the media industry, please help.

Do we ammateurs have to go to journalism school, get a art grant, regsiter to be a pro photographer and learn how to do reportage legally with consent forms?

I have brought this up a number times and I get no response.

[gstark]

Bob,

Four points only ...

The essential issue is about the right to privacy (even in public)

I'm sorry, but I am yet to be convinced that any person, in a public place, has a right to privacy. If they want privacy, say, while sleeping, then surely they should not be doing so in public?

I hope that you're right when you say that we would all have similar standards that we set. That's not the message that I'm getting from this thread.

I believe most would. It's where we each lie, within a range between the extreme ends of that range, that the differences occur.

I'm happy you don't think that the man in question is a 'bum' as Kerry puts it. I can't quantify how many people would think that.

But enough would for it to be a problem.

Here is where we differ in our approach to things.

I'm really not qualified to make that sort of judgement. I would respectfully suggest that you too would also not be so qualified. Sure, we each have our gut feelings, but mine is no more valid than your's. And no less so either.

You mention the bloike with the Nokia being a dickhead. You're not saying that if someone with a phone camera is a dickhead then it's Ok for someone with a D70 to be one too, are you?

I would hope for better!

No, I'm definitely not saying it's ok.

I am saying it's possible.

Not only possible, but very highly likely to be the case.

Dickheads exist in all stations of life, and with D70s, D2Xs, EOS1s of various hues, BMWs, Ferraris, whatever. Dickheadedness knows no social nor monetary boundaries, I'm afraid.

[gstark]

Kipper,

whether or not someone made money out of a picture doesn't necessarily make a difference to the hurt that it may cause.

It's the publication of the picture and the reaction that it gets that can be the problem.

A point was well made earlier in this discussion, and it's one that you may be discounting too heavily, Bob.

If the subject of the photo is concerned about what they are doing in public, surely they should not be behaving in that manner that causes them concern?

That is surely an issue for the subject to confront, before we even begin to consider that there may be other people viewing that behaviour.