Not wishing to flog a dead horse ... but "candids"

[DionM]

Okay, I do not want to flog a dead horse here, but my mind has been wondering ...

When I first joined this site, one of my first photos was of a person lying on a park bench. It was taken from a 'different' angle (overhead) and was B+W treated.

I received a lot of flack about that, particular w.r.t. the definition of a 'candid' and taking photos of people without permission. I quickly removed the image from the forum. I felt I had done something morally and ethically wrong.

However, I see of late many 'candids' being posted - some much more personable and identifiable than what I posted. Yet I see none of the same comments applied there.

Did my post attract criticism because I was new? Or was the topic of my photo much more controversial than a 'normal' candid?

[stubbsy]

Okay, I do not want to flog a dead horse here, but my mind has been wondering ...

When I first joined this site, one of my first photos was of a person lying on a park bench. It was taken from a 'different' angle (overhead) and was B+W treated.

I received a lot of flack about that, particular w.r.t. the definition of a 'candid' and taking photos of people without permission. I quickly removed the image from the forum. I felt I had done something morally and ethically wrong.

However, I see of late many 'candids' being posted - some much more personable and identifiable than what I posted. Yet I see none of the same comments applied there.

Did my post attract criticism because I was new? Or was the topic of my photo much more controversial than a 'normal' candid?

DIon

I think the controversy was stirred along a little by someone who had an issue with it. The real problem I think was about the interpretation of the circumstances of your subject. I'd suggest you post candids when you have them. BTW, as you know, I had no problem with your original post and I can understand why you're still pissed off.

I DO NOT think it had anything to do with you being new.

[DionM]

I think the controversy was stirred along a little by someone who had an issue with it. The real problem I think was about the interpretation of the circumstances of your subject. I'd suggest you post candids when you have them. BTW, as you know, I had no problem with your original post and I can understand why you're still pissed off.

I DO NOT think it had anything to do with you being new.

Stubbsy, I wouldn't say I'm pissed off, just wondering.

[birddog114]

DionM,
I have the same answer as stubbsy! I didn't see it as something odd and also not seeing it was happened coz you were new.

[Killakoala]

I shoot candids frequently. Although i never saw your image it is unlikely that i would have said anything ethically bad about it. I would have assessed it as an image or art but that's about it.

I doubt very much that it was because you are (or were at the time) 'new' because it's not happened to anybody else and everybody was new at some point.

I would like to have seen the image.

For the time being, candid photography is still legal. I say, 'Go out and photograph society as it is. It won't last forever.'

If someone has an ethical problem with that then that's what it is, their problem. But don't let opinion stand in the way of your interpretation of art, as we all see things differently.

A politician whose name i forget once said, 'You can't please all the people all the time.'

[KerryPierce]

Okay, I do not want to flog a dead horse here, but my mind has been wondering ...

I received a lot of flack about that, particular w.r.t. the definition of a 'candid' and taking photos of people without permission. I quickly removed the image from the forum. I felt I had done something morally and ethically wrong.

Did my post attract criticism because I was new? Or was the topic of my photo much more controversial than a 'normal' candid?

Dion, what happened to your post was very unfortunate and not at all deserved. You were targeted by a buffoon that wanted to impose more politically correct thinking on the subject, in a typical PC attack manner.

I don't think it had anything to do with you or your photo. Your post just happened to be handy for the spew of nonsense. It could have been anyone's candid shot.

You did nothing immoral or unethical, in spite of what was said by certain parties, IMO. Candid shots are supposed to capture people as they are, not posed and not faked. Candid shots are supposed to stir something in the viewer, as are all photos.

I saw your photo. There was nothing inappropriate about it. My advice would be to continue to take and post photos that appeal to your artistic sense. Just keep in mind that art is a very subjective thing and not everyone will view your work in a positive manner.

[abet]

hey, just out of interest (as i am new) can you post it again?

[MattC]

Dion

To be honest, I saw nothing wrong with that image which you refer to. I think that the "trouble" was stirred up by one individual who was looking for some "intellectual stimulation" and wanted to raise the issue of ethics in the forum. I thought that your image was a poor choice on which to start that particular debate. IMO, ethics is a worthwhile subject, but that thread just went completely sideways - probably because it singled you (a forum member) out. I did have a rather long private discussion with that person and he did agree that the overall ethical standard amongst forum members is generally fairly high.
Anyway, I do not think that the "stimulation" was forthcoming so that person moved on. I have to say that for a while there, the tone of this forum seemed to change a little for the worse...

As I said, yours was a poor choice of image for that debate. I would not worry about it. Repost your image if you wish. It would be welcomed. Continue to shoot in the style that you seem to do so well at.

Cheers

Matt

[Greg B]

Dion, Unfortunately I didn't see the image before you removed it, but I got a reasonable idea of what it was by the subsequent posts.

You were the unfortunate person in the wrong place at the wrong time - we had someone trying strongly to impose a particular view, and your image seemed to attract the attention of this person.

While differences of opinion are welcomed here, the debate in relation to your image got completely out of proportion. That is not a typical situation. The Moderator group was concerned that the comments directed at and about your image were excessive, and Gary in particular took steps to tone things down.

I am personally very pleased that you didn't allow this nonsense to put you off, and I know that others share that view.

[Hlop]

You were the unfortunate person in the wrong place at the wrong time

That's what moderator is saying! Greg, it is politically incorrect to describe our forum as a wrong place

[gstark]

I am personally very pleased that you didn't allow this nonsense to put you off, and I know that others share that view.

Including myself.

Dion,

I think you may recall that, at that time, and whilst invitying you to repost your image, I accepted your decision to decline that invitiation.

I'm unsure of which other images you're referring to, but certainly, and in many instances, I suspect that the subject of the images is well aware that their photo is being (or has been) taken.

As an example of this concept (and nothing more), in your image, that fact was not, of course, clear, and that could certainly not be inferred from simply looking at the image itself. By way of contrast, with Jaco's recent portrait postings here, it is very clear that the subjects must have been well aware that their photos were being taken.

I accept that many candids will not be as in-your-face as these images of Jaco's, but, and FWIW, I will often "sneak" photos while walking around at Bondi Beach. Whether I post those images here or not depends only upon the merit of those images, and that, of course, is truie of any images I choose to post.

But as others have said, it is not (yet!) illegal to make images in public in Australia, and as long as your images are legal, I have no issues with what you choose to post.

And (finally) if you have any concerns about this, what's to stop you from sending me - or any of the mods - a PM to clarify the situaion? Others have done this when they've been concerned about a particular image they wished to post, and while encouraging you to do this, I will also remind you that I have a very open mind about what is aceptable in terms of posting.

[gstark]

You were the unfortunate person in the wrong place at the wrong time

That's what moderator is saying! Greg, it is politically incorrect to describe our forum as a wrong place

Mikhail,

I'm confudes. Greg is one of our moderators.

What are you trying to say?

[stubbsy]

You were the unfortunate person in the wrong place at the wrong time

That's what moderator is saying! Greg, it is politically incorrect to describe our forum as a wrong place

Mikhail,

I'm confudes. Greg is one of our moderators.

What are you trying to say?

Gary

I think Mikhail was having a joke and impying that in fact this forum is the RIGHT place

[gstark]

Oh ....

ok ...

[Hlop]

Gary

I think Mikhail was having a joke and impying that in fact this forum is the RIGHT place

Thank you Peter! This is exactly what I ment to say! That's, probably, my english again

[Dargan]

I read your post and thought it important to state that I saw the photo and once again I state I saw nothing wrong with the choice of subject. Go take another one, maybe we can start a series here, I suggested the bagman at Indooripilly if you recall.

[bago100]

I read your post and thought it important to state that I saw the photo and once again I state I saw nothing wrong with the choice of subject. Go take another one, maybe we can start a series here, I suggested the bagman at Indooripilly if you recall.

Actually, I took my students to the Mags Court in January and the Toowong bagman was giving commital evidence resplendent with all of his bags.

Now I have to tell you that in my opinion, the Toowong bagman may be excentric but he has an awesome intellect and an excellent memory. Why he chooses to live the way he does, I don't know but I think my students had a few negative stereotypes about people who appear to be different blown away that day.

Oh well, viva la difference!!!!!!!

Cheers

Graham

[BBJ]

I cant recall the pic but i am sure if it was in good taste, who cares as i am sure there are a few of us to post a few candids me for one.