SMH Article : "A cheap shot at street photography"

Have your say on issues related to using a DSLR camera.

Moderator: Moderators

Forum rules
Please ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.

SMH Article : "A cheap shot at street photography"

Postby BT*ist on Thu Sep 07, 2006 6:00 pm

http://www.smh.com.au/news/cameras--videos/a-cheap-shot/2006/09/06/1157222139470.html

Interesting comments...

The Imaging rule is this: it's OK to take a spontaneous photograph of any person who looks as though they would be able to take a picture of us in another time and place. We draw the line at snapping people who look as though they will never be able to scrape together enough money to buy a camera.
User avatar
BT*ist
Senior Member
 
Posts: 609
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 8:38 am
Location: London, United Kingdom

Postby adam on Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:02 pm

Interesting!

and a good way to get many flickrstream views - although perhaps unintended.

We don't have to give $5 right? :)
User avatar
adam
Senior Member
 
Posts: 633
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 5:27 pm
Location: New Caledonia

Postby Yi-P on Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:27 pm

Very interesting on how people react to photographers nowadays....
User avatar
Yi-P
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3579
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:12 am
Location: Sydney -- Ashfield

Postby Matt. K on Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:15 am

Five bucks! The cheap bum! If he had any class he would have asked for $50!
Regards

Matt. K
User avatar
Matt. K
Former Outstanding Member Of The Year and KM
 
Posts: 9981
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 7:12 pm
Location: North Nowra

Re: SMH Article : "A cheap shot at street photography&q

Postby rmp on Sat Sep 09, 2006 9:11 am

BT*ist wrote:http://www.smh.com.au/news/cameras--videos/a-cheap-shot/2006/09/06/1157222139470.html

Interesting comments...

The Imaging rule is this: it's OK to take a spontaneous photograph of any person who looks as though they would be able to take a picture of us in another time and place. We draw the line at snapping people who look as though they will never be able to scrape together enough money to buy a camera.


I don't agree with this because the logic is flawed. Simply, while in Australia one does not have copyright over one's image, photographers need to exercise common decency when taking images of people. I can't see why the affulence of any given person would change that, and it's far too subjective a call anyway.
rmp
Member
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 8:29 pm
Location: Western side of Melbourne

Interesting

Postby zafra52 on Sat Sep 09, 2006 12:34 pm

Thank you that is a very interesting article BT*ist dealing with issues I had to content with during my last trip to China last year. Many of the tourists in my group were what I consider quite aggressive and did not respect privacy of their subjects. I did, but my photos were fewer and not as good.
I guess my problems were and still are should I ask permission, if I do would the subject play to the camera, should I take candid photos and deal with the issue later? Is not demanding a payment for a candid photo another form of begging? Are we not allowed to photograph public places? And if people happen to be in them can they not always move, or at least cover their face? I am never sure. But, I am always sure of one thing and that is that I don’t photograph children without first asking their parent permission and later I make a point of showing the pictures. I guess you can say I am too scared of the consequences.
User avatar
zafra52
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4827
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:22 pm
Location: Brisbane


Return to General Discussion