[shuttertalk]

In the media there has been talk lately about banning cameras from beaches. In fact, in some cases life guards have been told to police the beaches to keep people from using cameras and camera phones on the beach.

I think it's a bit sad, don't you? What about precious family and holiday snaps at the seaside? In fact I was at a beachside restaurant the other day (yep, the vegetarian one) with about 20 minutes to kill waiting for the other people to arrive. There was a beautiful sunset but I was afraid to take photos as there were lots of people on the beach still, and I was a bit paranoid... sigh.

[byrt_001]

Hi


ooooh noooooo!!! is this country a bit paranoid!!! what next??

no cameras in parks?
no cameras in houses?
no cameras in cars

gooosh

Way too much

Take care


Christian

[adam]

!@#!@#!@#!@#!@#!@ sunset at the beach is the nicest looking thing! and they want to ban it!!@#!@#!?!?!?!? :x

[StudioJ]

Could be a bit of a worry, I'm down the beach with a camera on average once a week during summer. I don't think they mean that kind of thing though.

Unless you're a paedophile I doubt you'd have much reason to worry as long as you explain yourself and then if ask show the images to any authorities that are present.

The thing that bugs me is that there are girls who when interviewed about being on the beach in their bikinis and having strangers take photographs of them get all indignant about it. I mean come on, if you've got in show you're fair game.

Another thing that does bug me is on the other side of the coin where I'm escorting girls doing promo work for events and there are a horde of guys with their phone cams trying to get sneaky butt shots.

[Cailean]

The nice thing about a digicam is that if someone (uniformed or otherwise) did give you a hassle, you could flip through the pics for them and say "See, see? Just sunsets!"

[adam]

You don't have to show them your pictures.
If they try to confiscate your camera, that would be stealing.
If they take you away, that would be kidnapping.
but I guess that showing them pictures of sunsets and other obscure things would be best to avoid troubles

and PHONE CAMS :| and sneaky guys!! bad bad bad!

[byrt_001]

hi

uuuhmmm I just read this and just a bit similar.


At least two photographers were arrested in the post-game media scrum following the end of Super Bowl XXXIX in Jacksonville, Fla., Feb. 6. Several photographers at the game say the NFL is to blame for enacting last-minute rule changes to restrict field access.


this is the all storie

http://www.pdnonline.com/photodistrictne...1000797729

whats next?

Jamie. yes I stongly believe in that too. those camera phones are extremely anoining!!! I was on a function in sa where i was doing a group shot of a company, indoor with diferent light sources. well i was hijack by camera phones and all my set up was a biiig mess!!

Anyway they are here to stay.

Regards

Christian

[Rabid Penguin]

Yeah, it's a real shame that a few pervets have ruined things for the majority.

[Don Schaeffer]

It's more than a little bit sad. It's a disasterous invasion of human rights. Legally, you have as much right to take photos on a public beach as you have to keep your eyes open. Somebody has to begin a campaign of civil disobedience.

[matthew]

On a reputable forum that I visit there's a small thread going centered around a photo showing two women who are sunning themselves in bikinis. From the photo it does not look like the women knew that the photographer was there, and it was taken with a telephoto lens. It's not a landscape with people in it, it's not a glamor shot, it's not a slice-of-life documentary, it's not a significant moment, and it's certainly not art.

I know what the law says. I know public domain and I know public property. I know my rights as a photographer and as a photographer's subject. Morally and ethically, I don't see much distinction between the different types of voyeuristic photographs.

If you aren't willing to get permission to take someone's photograph, don't take it. It's not a few pervs who are ruining photography, there are some very real problems with how photographers act and what we do -- even those of us who aren't taking telephoto bikini photos. Done without proper respect and consideration, photography is an intrusive and aggressive act. I'm not at all surprised when people are against it.

[StudioJ]

I'm afraid I don't agree with you this time Matthew, there are many reasons why people shouldn't be taking photos of people but street and candid photography has provided some amazing images.

I'm not really surprised though, a few months ago I was working at one of the regular night clubs I work for and when we left to go home stopping to get the obligatory 4am kebab we were stopped by the police quite randomly but while I was talking to one the other had gone into the car and taken my camera out and was looking through it, I was quite rude to him but they explained there are people driving around taking photos of drunk girls in compromising positions. Still they have no right to do that.

I still feel weird taking pictures where it can be perceived as inappropriate like beaches but since I don't do much landscape work and there is usually a model, her friend and my assistant (hanger-on) there its not usually an issue

[Keith Alan]

I have been known to take photos of people in compromising positions, drunk and otherwise.

Since I work in bars and at concerts, there are often women and men who magically lose clothing and inhibitions and present themselves in less than flattering ways.
They are very often funny and worthy of ridicule, and bring it on themselves.
If other people are taking pictures (with the usual flash being ON no matter what), and the subjects don't seem to mind them, I feel no remorse at taking my own and going so far as to publish these on the web in the interest of humor, public humiliation be damned.

I think I have a well-tuned sense of who wants to be photographed and who doesn't, and more to the point who deserves to be photographed throwing up or rolling around on top of a pool table with their underwear sticking out.

My criteria involve whether someone is just going about their business in a normal citizen way versus those people who act out in an attention-seeking manner, screaming "Wooo" and pulling their tops down whenever a flash goes off.

It's a fine line that I might accidentally cross from time to time, but people who play the fool in public get what they deserve in my opinion.

On the other hand, I have had people who have seen too many movies & TV shows think that they can confiscate or smash my camera when I took photos they didn't agree with.
Such as the night a huge brawl outside a bar was next to and on top of my car, and I took flash photos to help identify the jerks for insurance purposes.
A girlfriend of one of them went crazy on me, grabbing at my camera and threatening me.
She was very drunk and didn't really know what what she was doing, so she escaped without me pressing charges or giving her a well-deserved black eye.

Perv photos are one thing, but there's a huge middle ground that isn't very well-defined.
I'm glad(?) the police in my town have much better things to do with their time besides harrass people with cameras, especially when you consider that EVERYONE has a camera or 2 these days.
We have had a handful of pervs arrested and convicted under the new laws lately, and these were serious scumbags with ropes and porn and 'toys' and handcuffs in their cars along with their (usually) video gear, and that's great. Shooting underwear videos under the bleachers at a high school football game isn't art or documentary or any other defensible thing.

The danger seems to be when the TV stations run sensational stories during the ratings sweep months that get the ignorant public agitated.
No good comes from being ill-informed and convinced that every camera is a WMD.

The main thing is to keep your composure and remember your rights.
If things get too crazy where you live, local photographers need to band together and meet with law enforcement officials and remind them that photography is legal, everyone has a camera, and that their officers need training to recognize the difference between a predator and an artist.

[Rabid Penguin]

Very well said, and entirely true.

[StudioJ]

Keith: The cops were referring to people on the streets. I like drunk people they're fun and yes they do like to shed their inhibitions so to speak!

[essaljay]

Someone being photographed outside a nightclub when they are off there heads is one thing. But a lot of people don't seek this kind of publicity and are quite happy to just get on with there lives, so why are these people hounded by packs of papperazi who are quite happy to employ tactics such as blocking the subject's car in and keeping someone trapped where they don't want to be just for the sake of "just one more picture". It is mob rule at it's worst. Where are the subjects rights in all this (and, quite often, their children's.) I have heard these people (and I use the term loosely) describe to each other what they would do to get a shot that sells and I wonder if they have ever heard of human rights.

[matthew]

I'm not saying that street/candid photography doesn't have value or offer tremendous creative opportunities. I certainly agree that there are people who are willing, or even enthusiastic, about being photographed. There are also plenty of people who either object to being photographed or who have no expectation that they are being photographed.

When I say "If you aren't willing to get permission to take someone's photograph, don't take it", I'm thinking of this second group. They deserve the right to not be photographed, and ignoring or circumventing their right to decline feeds the broader impulse to ban cameras from certain areas. I'm not expecting photographers to literally get a written model release for every person you photograph, but permission comes in many forms. My personal standard is that I can't be detached from my subject -- even if they aren't paying direct attention to me, they still know that I'm around and what I'm doing. If I'm not comfortable with someone knowing that I'm there, and willing to talk to them, then I don't take the shot.

There are always exceptions, of course -- it might be interesting to photograph members of a biker gang, but I'm not going to walk up to them with a wide-angle lens. (I've seen WA photos of a biker gang funeral, though, taken by someone who was a member of their club as well as my camera club. Access and permission does make for better photos.) But returning to my previous example, I find it completely unacceptable to photograph women sunning themselves using a telephoto lens in lieu of the subject's consent. Certainly on a public beach they expect to be seen, and may not object to being photographed, but people deserve the opportunity to say no.

[Keith Alan]

Well put, Matthew.
I'm re-thinking some of my attitudes, thanks to this thread.

[NT73]

on the beach in their bikinis and having strangers take photographs of them get all indignant about it. I mean come on, if you've got in show you're fair game.

Another thing that does bug me is on the other side of the coin where I'm escorting girls doing promo work for events and there are a horde of guys with their phone cams trying to get sneaky butt shots.

Last week I was on the harbour front with a small beach below. There was a young guy taking shots of what I assumed to be his girl friend in a bikini. She then took of the bikini and left a very small thong and postage stamp top. I did not have my camera, but would I have been ok taking a couple for posterity?