Members xpander Posted June 10, 2010 Members Share Posted June 10, 2010 Originally Posted by scenicsquare your buchla shots are consistently beautiful, xpander. don probably owes you commission at this point. i've definitely fueled a lot of unhealthy gear lust! i think don has at least bought me dinner and they certainly don't make me wait for anything.i somehow need to con scott/harvestman into sending me a bunch of modules for me to photograph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members donaldcrunk Posted June 10, 2010 Members Share Posted June 10, 2010 Originally Posted by The Velvet Strangler But at least here, KWs photos are harmless (relatively, barring consent) and they are posted amongst a small group of friends. they do seem harmless, and keybdwizard i'm sure has only the purest of motivations - but when that off duty cop or service member or any other sharp eyed type-a personality notices someone snapping photos of his family with a {censored}ing zoom lense, i'm equally sure that that someone will have about 45 seconds to explain those motivations before receiving a sound beatdown. not a position i would like to put myself in, but perhaps keybwizard has contingency plans for such things. i would apologize for my continued derailing of the thread, but i personally feel that this discussion of ethics in relation to photography is important and germane to the topic of this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Metrosonus Posted June 10, 2010 Members Share Posted June 10, 2010 ur not going to get an argument from me..i already think people such as life guards / park rangers should have the authority to inspect cameras and whatever if there complaints or something. i usually keep my eyes on people like that when i go out... hey i heard you did my SD, thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members donaldcrunk Posted June 10, 2010 Members Share Posted June 10, 2010 sure thang. you are going to love that sea devils filter. i'm comandeering one myself. pluggin' away on .vca modules now... analog haven should have 25 of 'em in a couple days! i might try to sneak two of those bad boys out in me pockets... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Metrosonus Posted June 10, 2010 Members Share Posted June 10, 2010 sweet and further the thread derails Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ChristianRock Posted June 10, 2010 Members Share Posted June 10, 2010 I agree that if someone took photos of my son or daughter (or myself ) in beach clothing, i might have an issue with it.But if nobody can take pictures of scenery including the people in it, then I think we're seriously going to be limiting art, in the name of being stupidly and overtly PC.The following picture is now prohibited by the PC Police: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Metrosonus Posted June 10, 2010 Members Share Posted June 10, 2010 im very sure there was some verbal agreement there...in fact i remember reading about it on the bbc. but CR, yea..i think its intent..there is a law protecting people from persecution if you just happen to be in a public place and you end up in the background of a photo, then on the oter hand there are anti voyeur laws too.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ChristianRock Posted June 10, 2010 Members Share Posted June 10, 2010 And I think it's right to have anti-voyeur laws, but for the love of God, if anything sees anything erotic in those pictures KW posted, then they should probably be put in jail. It's not KW's problem at all, those pictures are absolutely innocent-looking and seem to celebrate life And a comment like "he takes pictures of little boys at the beach" was malicious, spiteful, hateful and wrong.Sorry about derailing the thread (maybe I AM a troll??), but Michael's a good guy and doesn't deserve this crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members carbon111 Posted June 10, 2010 Members Share Posted June 10, 2010 Originally Posted by TropicThink Hasn't Carbon111 even written a book about this subject? ...not so much about photography. It's just a fun collection of my photos:Here's some more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Metrosonus Posted June 10, 2010 Members Share Posted June 10, 2010 Originally Posted by ChristianRock And I think it's right to have anti-voyeur laws, but for the love of God, if anything sees anything erotic in those pictures KW posted, then they should probably be put in jail. It's not KW's problem at all, those pictures are absolutely innocent-looking and seem to celebrate life And a comment like "he takes pictures of little boys at the beach" was malicious, spiteful, hateful and wrong.Sorry about derailing the thread (maybe I AM a troll??), but Michael's a good guy and doesn't deserve this crap. i agree that it was..if it would make u feel better, report the post. i was going to until i saw u say something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members donaldcrunk Posted June 10, 2010 Members Share Posted June 10, 2010 mome rath is a good dude, and has contributed much more than his fair share to the synth community. if you want to report him for saying that keybdwizard took pictures of little boys at a great distance, feel free. but keybdwizard still took pictures of little boys at a great distance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Tomkeen Posted June 10, 2010 Members Share Posted June 10, 2010 Originally Posted by ChristianRock (maybe I AM a troll??) Maybe you are. Let's ask Umbra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ElectricPuppy Posted June 10, 2010 Members Share Posted June 10, 2010 Alright, I think everyone's point has been made. Yes, mome-rath's statement is technically accurate, but in context he is clearly implying that KW had ulterior motives, which I don't think anyone else here believes. Certainly I don't believe it. Let's get back to the nifty pictures and drop this, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Metrosonus Posted June 10, 2010 Members Share Posted June 10, 2010 Originally Posted by scenicsquare mome rath is a good dude, and has contributed much more than his fair share to the synth community. if you want to report him for saying that keybdwizard took pictures of little boys at a great distance, feel free. but keybdwizard still took pictures of little boys at a great distance. thats a literal intrepretation, however I felt that it constituted a provocation on a fellow member. Granted, i dont know this person and it was probably just a case of snarky humor..keeping that in mind, on the other hand I have no problem with criticsm, as weve been disussing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Metrosonus Posted June 10, 2010 Members Share Posted June 10, 2010 whoops..EP back t6o the posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Diametro Posted June 10, 2010 Members Share Posted June 10, 2010 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 ... clearly implying ... 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 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Goofball Jones Posted June 10, 2010 Members Share Posted June 10, 2010 Originally Posted by Diametro 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 ... "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 ... Up your medication dosages...Oh, an feel free to illustrate your points with samples of your photographic work. Picture worth a thousand words and so on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members soundwave106 Posted June 10, 2010 Members Share Posted June 10, 2010 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 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members suitandtieguy Posted June 10, 2010 Members Share Posted June 10, 2010 I for one have no interest in accellerating the police state or making life in America any more restrictive than it already is. If you give police power to control what you can take photos of in public it will be abused until it becomes accepted and that's when the terrorists win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members xpander Posted June 10, 2010 Members Share Posted June 10, 2010 your comments will be dealt with swiftly, STG-1138. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Metrosonus Posted June 10, 2010 Members Share Posted June 10, 2010 we were talking about perverted voyeurism and not government meglomania for the record. Originally Posted by Diametro 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 ... i think im pretty good, speak for yourself. but lo, subject is nary a concern these days what with digital auto everything these days. its all about the angles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members synthesia Posted June 10, 2010 Members Share Posted June 10, 2010 I'm looking for a new DSLR, since my old one got pawned by a junkie, any recommendations in the $300-400 range? a used Canon rebel xti looks tempting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bernard Posted June 10, 2010 Members Share Posted June 10, 2010 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 belowTake 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 lawIf 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 publishIf 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 concernPlaces: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 obstructionIf 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 jointThe police have no right to grab your camera.The police have no right to take your film or memory cardsThe 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 shotsGuardianship: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 {censored}ing 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 {censored}ing 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 pornSome states of American consider a nude shoot of an adult that looks like a child to be child pornExample of a complete {censored} 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 {censored} 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 {censored}..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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Metrosonus Posted June 10, 2010 Members Share Posted June 10, 2010 tree sphincter says what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members keybdwizrd Posted June 10, 2010 Members Share Posted June 10, 2010 Here are some pics I took of people without asking permission. Am I in big trouble or what?(In case anyone is wondering: Paris, Prague, Moscow, Florence, ????????????) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.