turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
This thread is proving ...
1) Most people have no idea what makes a good photo ...
2) They don't care if they bother posting a good photo ... as long as it's theirs ...
Of course, this thread is not called "The Good Photography Thread ... "
Originally Posted by ElectricPuppy
Are you a mind reader, Dear Sir ... ???
What I got from m.r.'s post is that an affirmative statement was made regarding certain photos were taken from a distance ... Any explanations of the photographer's motives pure or otherwise doesn't alter the act of taking the photos, choosing them to save them and then posting them on the internet ...
(Now granted, considering the subject and the conversation in question, m.r.'s statement is provacative in it's brevity and consequent ambiguity ... But it doesn't disqualify it's inherent truth, even if it leads down a thorny path ... )
Personally, I saw nothing eyebrow-raising about the photos except they are middling at best ... It's also obvious they are "without consent" photos of a SUBJECT I have no interest in ...
While we're on teh subject, folks ... SUBJECT is THE most important aspect of photography other than lighting and composition ...
So before you publish a photo, consider ... Does anybody give a damn about the subject I'm shooting ... If it isn't inherently cool or interesting -- not a small feat --- make sure the photo is technically perfect ... Again, not a little feat and something hardly represented here at all ...
1) Most people have no idea what makes a good photo ...
2) They don't care if they bother posting a good photo ... as long as it's theirs ...
Of course, this thread is not called "The Good Photography Thread ... "
Originally Posted by ElectricPuppy
What I got from m.r.'s post is that an affirmative statement was made regarding certain photos were taken from a distance ... Any explanations of the photographer's motives pure or otherwise doesn't alter the act of taking the photos, choosing them to save them and then posting them on the internet ...
(Now granted, considering the subject and the conversation in question, m.r.'s statement is provacative in it's brevity and consequent ambiguity ... But it doesn't disqualify it's inherent truth, even if it leads down a thorny path ... )
Personally, I saw nothing eyebrow-raising about the photos except they are middling at best ... It's also obvious they are "without consent" photos of a SUBJECT I have no interest in ...
While we're on teh subject, folks ... SUBJECT is THE most important aspect of photography other than lighting and composition ...
So before you publish a photo, consider ... Does anybody give a damn about the subject I'm shooting ... If it isn't inherently cool or interesting -- not a small feat --- make sure the photo is technically perfect ... Again, not a little feat and something hardly represented here at all ...
Originally Posted by Purity_Control
I'd love to be able to do stuff like that, but if you did it in the UK they'd try to arrest you as a terorist or a paedophile if there were any kids in it 
Everything here has got so paranoid
Everything here has got so paranoid 
), but people have no problem with security cameras recording their every move up the yingyang. A big digital SLR will inspire THE FEAR, but cell phone cameras don't (even though those worried about privacy have far more to be concerned about cell phone cams). My view: if you are in a public place, there is an implied consent. Yes, it's nice to be polite and respectful and whatnot, but I find it weird just how much bitching "being photographed" seems to inspire.
Anyways, on the topic of pictures... my wife and I recently took a trip to Nova Scotia / Newfoundland... these pics probably were the best of the bunch.
Take a picture of a crowd or person so far way that they are not recognisable:
You can use the shots how you want for any purpose that is legal. No subject consent needed.
See private land etc warnings below
Take a picture that makes the person recognisable:
If you sell the pics without a signed release of the subject (or their guardian) your on the wrong side of the law.
If the person was on private land and the subject did not give you permission e.g. their own garden in a secluded area, your on the wrong side of the law
If your a news paper and the photo demeans the person and is not news worthy, you on the wrong side of the law if you publish
If the person is in a public place. No one can stop you. The police may ask you to stop if it is causing a disturbance. The subject may be offended and ask you to stop. In those cases as a courtesy you should demonstrate you have deleted the pics of concern.
You take a photo of a teenager with bad acne and post it all over the Internet. Dumb, you could end up in court. Law is not black and white, a judge may do you under some law that you did not expect. Show respect for others.
You take a photo of someone in a public space that in no way demeans them and post it all over the Internet. If the subject is offended, then it would be the hosts of the images that would need to review your right to post on their site. You could end up banned if you caused multiple complaints on some sites, other sites may be more lax and allow your expression. Show respect and remove any images that cause concern
Places:
If your in a public place and you set up a tripod on a side walk, the police can force you to stop as you are causing an obstruction
If you photograph the inside of a shop you can be arrested by the police (or moved on by private security) for suspicion of casing a joint
The police have no right to grab your camera.
The police have no right to take your film or memory cards
The police may have some exceptional powers (e.g. anti terrorism) that allow firmer handling. In most cases they would probably be arresting you anyway, so what happens with the camera in that case is moot.
If you were braking a law by using your camera in a place where it was illegal to use a camera, then the police could take your camera. Cases vary but if you have just taken a picture of a top secret air base or jet fighter they would probably take your camera, but in a mall where your outlawed by the private land owner they may let you off with a warning.
Security guards are the most likely to try to grab a camera. They are on the wrong side of the law if they do. They can only ask you to move on. Only if they suspect your doing wrong can they hold you till the police come, but they can not grab you camera at that point unless you where trying to use it as a weapon.
Some areas of privately owned land that can be shot as landscpae can have a ban. Take care, where your feet are matters. If the land is so bonded and recognisable, you will not be able to use the work for commercial gain without permission.
Things/Brands:
You take a pic of a person waring an item of clothing that is recognizable (makers name etc) or on a bike (e.g. Harley etc). You get a subject model release and sell the pics. Your on the wrong side of the law. Your have breached copy right of the brand owner. Get a release or avoid branded goods in your commercial shots
Guardianship:
A parent lets you take nude picture of their child and signs a model release form. Your on the wrong side of the law. If the pictures are deemed porno graphic, the guardian's permission was worthless, it only allowed you to attempt to sell the shots, if you have broken the law the release form is worthless and will not protect you. Both you and the guardian can be prosecuted under a child protection law.
Nudity:
In commercial and non commercial work - no tits, bums, willy's under the age of 16. Breasts OK over 16. Full nudity OK over 18.
Some art work (including films) can be exempt but these days it is much less likely.
Yep I know we have all seen the pampers ads etc. Some times fully nude, sometimes airbrushed out, and sometimes covered up. Go figure the world is still confused.
Examples of total fucking stupidity:
A 14 year old girl in a gym slip drapes cloth over herself and asks dad to take a pic. The pic ends up looking like a shot where her nickers (or pubes) can be seen (its just black gym slip in dark shadow). The girl brings the photo to school. The school over react and bring child care in to see if the dad can be prosecuted.... Complete fucking assholes (the school that is)
A women takes Innocent pics of her kids playing in the bath on a film camera. The film processor calls the police. She is then quizzed to check if she is a pedo...
Different countries:
The law varies across the world. Look at Japan, legal age for sex is 13. Porn sold at eye level next to kids toys and vibrators.
Some states of American do not allow the sale of porn
Some states of American consider a nude shoot of an adult that looks like a child to be child porn
Example of a complete shit head:
A professional photographer walks into a kids play area with his Nikon F5 and 70-200 F2.8 zoom lens and starts taking pics of the kids. A mum asks him to stop. The shit for brains asshole carries on and the mum asks him again to stop. He pulls out his press card and screams his rights to the mum. The mother hits him over the head with her hand bag. He runs away and posts his experience on the Internet.
Stunningly it divided a forum.. He is obviously in the wrong, which proves even pro's don't know shit..
Just because you think you on the right side of the law, do not assume causing a disturbance is OK. Respect others, especially parents of young children!
Don't get me started on the Paps :-)
Lady Diana etc...
This is just a very rough guide. The law can vary around the world and change on a regular basis. Law is not black and white. Judges can so easily find in favour of a subject, company or pressure group. Take care, we live in a crazy world. If your a good person you will have no trouble if you consider other people, and places. Brands only become an issue for commercial work.
You can use the shots how you want for any purpose that is legal. No subject consent needed.
See private land etc warnings below
Take a picture that makes the person recognisable:
If you sell the pics without a signed release of the subject (or their guardian) your on the wrong side of the law.
If the person was on private land and the subject did not give you permission e.g. their own garden in a secluded area, your on the wrong side of the law
If your a news paper and the photo demeans the person and is not news worthy, you on the wrong side of the law if you publish
If the person is in a public place. No one can stop you. The police may ask you to stop if it is causing a disturbance. The subject may be offended and ask you to stop. In those cases as a courtesy you should demonstrate you have deleted the pics of concern.
You take a photo of a teenager with bad acne and post it all over the Internet. Dumb, you could end up in court. Law is not black and white, a judge may do you under some law that you did not expect. Show respect for others.
You take a photo of someone in a public space that in no way demeans them and post it all over the Internet. If the subject is offended, then it would be the hosts of the images that would need to review your right to post on their site. You could end up banned if you caused multiple complaints on some sites, other sites may be more lax and allow your expression. Show respect and remove any images that cause concern
Places:
If your in a public place and you set up a tripod on a side walk, the police can force you to stop as you are causing an obstruction
If you photograph the inside of a shop you can be arrested by the police (or moved on by private security) for suspicion of casing a joint
The police have no right to grab your camera.
The police have no right to take your film or memory cards
The police may have some exceptional powers (e.g. anti terrorism) that allow firmer handling. In most cases they would probably be arresting you anyway, so what happens with the camera in that case is moot.
If you were braking a law by using your camera in a place where it was illegal to use a camera, then the police could take your camera. Cases vary but if you have just taken a picture of a top secret air base or jet fighter they would probably take your camera, but in a mall where your outlawed by the private land owner they may let you off with a warning.
Security guards are the most likely to try to grab a camera. They are on the wrong side of the law if they do. They can only ask you to move on. Only if they suspect your doing wrong can they hold you till the police come, but they can not grab you camera at that point unless you where trying to use it as a weapon.
Some areas of privately owned land that can be shot as landscpae can have a ban. Take care, where your feet are matters. If the land is so bonded and recognisable, you will not be able to use the work for commercial gain without permission.
Things/Brands:
You take a pic of a person waring an item of clothing that is recognizable (makers name etc) or on a bike (e.g. Harley etc). You get a subject model release and sell the pics. Your on the wrong side of the law. Your have breached copy right of the brand owner. Get a release or avoid branded goods in your commercial shots
Guardianship:
A parent lets you take nude picture of their child and signs a model release form. Your on the wrong side of the law. If the pictures are deemed porno graphic, the guardian's permission was worthless, it only allowed you to attempt to sell the shots, if you have broken the law the release form is worthless and will not protect you. Both you and the guardian can be prosecuted under a child protection law.
Nudity:
In commercial and non commercial work - no tits, bums, willy's under the age of 16. Breasts OK over 16. Full nudity OK over 18.
Some art work (including films) can be exempt but these days it is much less likely.
Yep I know we have all seen the pampers ads etc. Some times fully nude, sometimes airbrushed out, and sometimes covered up. Go figure the world is still confused.
Examples of total fucking stupidity:
A 14 year old girl in a gym slip drapes cloth over herself and asks dad to take a pic. The pic ends up looking like a shot where her nickers (or pubes) can be seen (its just black gym slip in dark shadow). The girl brings the photo to school. The school over react and bring child care in to see if the dad can be prosecuted.... Complete fucking assholes (the school that is)
A women takes Innocent pics of her kids playing in the bath on a film camera. The film processor calls the police. She is then quizzed to check if she is a pedo...
Different countries:
The law varies across the world. Look at Japan, legal age for sex is 13. Porn sold at eye level next to kids toys and vibrators.
Some states of American do not allow the sale of porn
Some states of American consider a nude shoot of an adult that looks like a child to be child porn
Example of a complete shit head:
A professional photographer walks into a kids play area with his Nikon F5 and 70-200 F2.8 zoom lens and starts taking pics of the kids. A mum asks him to stop. The shit for brains asshole carries on and the mum asks him again to stop. He pulls out his press card and screams his rights to the mum. The mother hits him over the head with her hand bag. He runs away and posts his experience on the Internet.
Stunningly it divided a forum.. He is obviously in the wrong, which proves even pro's don't know shit..
Just because you think you on the right side of the law, do not assume causing a disturbance is OK. Respect others, especially parents of young children!
Don't get me started on the Paps :-)
Lady Diana etc...
This is just a very rough guide. The law can vary around the world and change on a regular basis. Law is not black and white. Judges can so easily find in favour of a subject, company or pressure group. Take care, we live in a crazy world. If your a good person you will have no trouble if you consider other people, and places. Brands only become an issue for commercial work.
Originally Posted by keybdwizrd
Here are some pics I took of people without asking permission. Am I in big trouble or what?
Only if you sell for profit could you be prossecuted for not getting a model release from all those who are recognisable.
You appear to be a good example of a good person on the right side of the law.
Proceed
Originally Posted by Bernard
So, yes, if you are secretly filming someone boinking in their bedroom, you are violating the law. If you are secretly filming someone just walking down the street, you are *not* violating the law.
Other issues that the person can sue over are things like defamation, where the photo was deliberately taken for malice purposes. They may not win. Most people are not defamed by simply walking down the street. The plaintiff has the burden of proof.
Copyright is another issue, for people whose actual image makes them money, and/or when the photo is being used *to* make money (eg in an advertisement). Most people are not famous enough for this to apply. Ordinary published photos are different than advertisements.
Photographer's rights
Originally Posted by Purity_Control
I'd love to be able to do stuff like that, but if you did it in the UK they'd try to arrest you as a terorist or a paedophile if there were any kids in it Everything here has got so paranoid
Everything here has got so paranoid US schools: 1970 vs. 2010
---------------------------------
Scenario: Jack goes quail hunting before school, pulls into school parking lot with shotgun in gun rack.
1970 - Vice principal comes over, looks at Jack's shotgun, goes to his car and gets his own shotgun to show Jack.
2010 - School goes into lockdown, the FBI is called, Jack is hauled off to jail and never se More..es his truck or gun again. Counselors are called in to assist traumatized students and teachers.
_________________________________
Scenario: Johnny and Mark get into a fistfight after school.
1970 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.
2010 - Police are called, SWAT team arrives and arrests Johnny and Mark. They are charged with assault and both are expelled even though Johnny started it.
_________________________________
Scenario: Jeffrey won't sit still in class, disrupts other students.
1970 - Jeffrey is sent to the principal's office and given a good paddling. Returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.
2010 - Jeffrey is given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. Tested for ADD. School gets extra state funding because Jeffrey has a disability.
_________________________________
Scenario: Billy breaks a window in his neighbor's car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt.
1970 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college, and becomes a successful businessman.
2010 - Billy's dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy is removed to foster care and joins a gang. State psychologist tells Billy's sister that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goes to prison. Billy's mom has an affair with the psychologist.
_________________________________
Scenario: Mark gets a headache and takes some Aspirin to school .
1970 - Mark shares Aspirin with the school principal out on the smoking dock.
2010 - Police are called and Mark is expelled from School for drug violations. His car is searched for drugs and weapons.
_________________________________
Scenario: Johnny takes apart leftover Independence Day firecrackers, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle and blows up an anthill.
1970 - Ants die.
2010 - Homeland Security and the FBI are called and Johnny is charged with domestic terrorism. Teams investigate parents, siblings are removed from the home, computers are confiscated, and Johnny's dad goes on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.
_________________________________
This scenario is relevant to the branching off of this thread: Johnny falls during recess and scrapes his knee. His teacher, Mary, finds him crying, and gives him a hug to comfort him.
1967 - Johnny soon feels better and goes back to playing.
2010 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces three years in federal prison. Johnny undergoes five years of therapy.
Originally Posted by soundwave106
I find it a weird world where Guy With Camera gives people THE FEAR (Girl With Camera probably wouldn't ), but people have no problem with security cameras recording their every move up the yingyang. A big digital SLR will inspire THE FEAR, but cell phone cameras don't (even though those worried about privacy have far more to be concerned about cell phone cams).
My view: if you are in a public place, there is an implied consent. Yes, it's nice to be polite and respectful and whatnot, but I find it weird just how much bitching "being photographed" seems to inspire.
), but people have no problem with security cameras recording their every move up the yingyang. A big digital SLR will inspire THE FEAR, but cell phone cameras don't (even though those worried about privacy have far more to be concerned about cell phone cams). My view: if you are in a public place, there is an implied consent. Yes, it's nice to be polite and respectful and whatnot, but I find it weird just how much bitching "being photographed" seems to inspire.
____________________________________
Back on topic:
Love the pics that you have posted. Some of them are professional-looking, others very artistic! I am relatively new to photography, but thanks to the massive amount of online resources [including youtube], I am learning slowly but surely. I have a lot of technical questions about photography and videography, but I am researching the answers through reading. If I don't find an answer or find it and don't understand it, I will definitely count on my friends here to explain things to me... and others. Meanwhile, keep them coming!
I think musicians are a special breed. They are talented in so many different things beside music. Thank you very much for sharing your work!
Hey, it's KSS. Remember?
[life size]
Help Desk