(Man with camera at fusion fest today)

[reetpetite]

thebeard Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ban all photography in public places!

> Ban all cameras in public places!

> Ban all old men in public places!

>

>

> Ban public places.

> Ban public events.

>

>

>

Ban public?

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[lenk]

reminds me slightly of this thing...

http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/the-twat-o-tron/

Sad but true,,, can't you see that kids today are getting tax-payers money,,, Time to act: call in the army now,,, never did me any harm!!!

[thebeard]

reetpetite Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ban public?

That might be a little difficult.

What exactly are you trying to say?

Are you trying to say, ?Ban the public??

If so unfortunately that is not possible.

Banning silly busybodies, overly protective parents and mysterious old men with cameras also not possible.

[reetpetite]

I know ,was just joking!

[thebeard]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Is the camera by the knee and the run away a new

> reportage technique?

Some amachaaa photographer will inform us it?s the ?genou technique? or similar french covert photographic speciality.

Bizarrely the French are happy for their kids to be photographed almost anywhere at anytime without fear of perverted thoughts and perversion overtaking their world.

[lenk]

thebeard Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ???? Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Is the camera by the knee and the run away a

> new

> > reportage technique?

>

> Some amachaaa photographer will inform us it?s the

> ?genou technique? or similar french covert

> photographic speciality.

>

It's an advancement on 'shooting from the hip' apparently.

[HAL9000]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Is the camera by the knee and the run away a new

> reportage technique?

As an old school reportage photographer, I used a mechanical film camera (usually a Leica or a Russian look-alike) with near silent leaf shutter and a wide-angle lens preset for focus and exposure. From a standing start I could capture 'the decisive moment' in less than a second and be on my way before the subjects had even realised they'd been photographed.

One cannot do that with a typical digital camera. It needs at least five seconds just to boot. By the time the auto-focus, auto-exposure, zoom and all the other bells and whistles kick in and then trying to frame the shot in a sunlit view screen - the opportunity has been and gone. Even if you get there in time, the shutter latency is more likely to snap a picture of ones shoes than the subject.

Perhaps that is why the chap was shooting surreptitiously? A digital camera user would definitely need stealth to capture traditional reportage-style photographs today.

[Having said that, the latest CMOS sensor technology is said to overcome most of the above latencies.]

[jollybaby]

The fact remains that taking photos of people without permission (in particular little children) is considered by many as unacceptable behaviour today. This man should have been sensitive to this. The odds are that he wasn't a perv but trying to take some reportage type shots in the surroundings he was likely to cause unease. You could argue for hours about privacy/nanny states etc but in this instance the OP clearly felt uncomfortable with his behaviour and did what she felt was right at that time.

I got the impression that rather than trying to create mass hysteria on the forum that she posted as a point of discussion - was she overreacting, would anyone have done the same and it's difficult for us to say without being there.

It brings me back to a time on my travels when one of my companions was trying to take atmospheric photos of the souks in Dubai - she tried to surreptitiously include a group of arabs - but one of the men saw her and came over and lectured her on respect, decency and how she should have asked to take the photo - which they would have agreed to. Although I'm not sure a row of men smiling - saying the arabic equivalent of 'cheese' was the look she was after.

[HAL9000]

jollybaby Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> surreptitiously include a group of arabs

Been there, done that! I was caught photographing unveiled women in Damascus, Syria and almost lynched by a mob. My camera was smashed and I had to make a run for it. [i've edit this post to add that I was just photographing a souk scene which happened to have people in the shot - it wasn't done surreptitiously.]

On another occasion I was arrested/rescued by the Police from a mob in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia after photographing a bizarre traffic accident where a dumper truck had got itself stuck under a flyover - the bystanders thought the photographs would be used abroad to humiliate Arab drivers! The police confiscated my film.

[Horsebox]

Disgusting behaviour.

Should be banned.

[Pierre]

I didn't really read most of the posts, frankly there's a load of the "you don't have kids so you don't understand" versus "calm down and stop making a fuss and by the way please get out of our pub" but has anyone asked why the original thread title was in parentheses (brackets)?

It gives an impression of "psst! ooh, haven't you heard?! How SHOCKING!", which of course instantly leans me towards the "calm down and stop making a fuss" side...

: P

[macroban]

> the original thread title was in parentheses (brackets)?

It was not.

[Pierre]

It wasn't? So it's been edited to include the parentheses? Why?

: P

[HAL9000]

Pierre Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It wasn't? So it's been edited to include the

> parentheses? Why?

It seems the Administrator changed the original title, probably because it was felt to be unsuitable in some way.

[OutOfFocus]

The thread as "xxxxxxxx (Man with camera at fusion fest today)" and presumably xxxxxxx was considered unsuitable.

[Administrator]

Exactly right HAl9000, the original title was not descriptive enough and slighly alarmist so I changed it. I tend to place my textual additions in brackets.

[Pierre]

ah. sorry.

: P

[Gimme]

tiger ranks Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> i put a thread on this last year while in dulwich

> park this man done the same thing but by the time

> i questioned the ladys who was sitting with thier

> childern he had dissapeared.

> Sorry to say but taking pictures of childern in

> public without parents permission is not

> acceptable and as this man is known if i see him i

> know what i am going to do if he tries to take a

> photo of my child

The sooner people realise the difference between something that is "unacceptable" and something that they don't like, the better. Using over the top language like "shocking", "unacceptable" and the like doesn't really help anyone.

Taking photos of people (children or otherwise) may annoy some people but it is only "unacceptable" in the same way that "the council didn't take away my rubbish two days running; that's unacceptable" should be used.

Perhaps there are a number of people who think that demonising some innocent bloke (and everyone is innocent until proven guilty), for doing something that press photographers do every day (i.e. take photos of people and scenes without asking permission), is unacceptable.

Did the OP and following posters actually stop to think that this guy may actually read this forum and may be completely mortified not just by the fact that he was accosted by the police on the say so of some busybody but also because he is being demonised on a public forum?

And no I don't think taking photos of people or children in public without their permission is worse than implying that someone is a kiddy-fiddler for taking phots in a park. The implication is actually much more unpleasant and dangerous.

And no it wasn't me. I was off cycling all day Sunday with a number of witnesses. Before anyone starts throwing any more unfounded accusations around.

[Marmora Man]

HAL9000 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Pierre Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > It wasn't? So it's been edited to include the

> > parentheses? Why?

>

> It seems the Administrator changed the original

> title, probably because it was felt to be

> unsuitable in some way.

The original title is apparent in my initial response to the OP (see top of page 1)

[cdonline]

Has this guy got a Flickr page?

[jumpinjourno]

Hang on a second... The press photographers have a role and a responsibility that they must adhere to.

If somebody doesn't like a picture taken by a member of the press or if it is indecent - they can request that it is deleted or that an explanation is given.

I don't think it is the same for a member of the public to walk around taking waist-height snaps.

While he is innocent until proven guilty - and the police had the opportunity to persue him for any wrong-doing and decided against it - I think the OP and any concerned parent has the right to know what pictures are taken of their children.

> Perhaps there are a number of people who think

> that demonising some innocent bloke (and everyone

> is innocent until proven guilty), for doing

> something that press photographers do every day

> (i.e. take photos of people and scenes without

> asking permission), is unacceptable.

>

[Gimme]

How naive you are jumpinjourno. You obviously don't read the tabloids. Full of photos that the subjects don't like.

No responsibility shown there. Perhaps someone asked Max Moseley if he minded them taking photos with a hidden camera.

Perhaps the Paps let Amy Winehouse choose her favourite shots or request any photos she doesn't like to be deleted.

Or perhaps you haven't seen war photographers taking photos of people lying in agony in dirty hospitals.

Perhaps they asked permission before printing those photos.

Bonkers.

[Aisling]

That clown site is hilarious. Didn't know clowns had their own forum. Brilliant!

[jenren]

Gimme, just because you can doesn't mean you should.

[????]

100