Altercation on the beach

[Erich_H]

Be cautious photographing other people’s children, even in public places. I’ve seen a similar altercation go against the photographer leading to broken gear, and the police took the parents’ side. It was ugly, but authorities will almost always look to child protection over public interest. The photographer isn’t going to get much sympathy.

And yet, if we want to, we can take any number of child pictures in public areas with the knowledge of photography we possess, without people ever noticing.

But if one is in search of titillation of some sort, I can't see there being much in pictures of, I presume, fully clothed kids on the street.

On the other hand, I hear there's a place called "Internet", where I understand, after reading various news stories, there's an unlimited number of pictures of kids in different stages of humiliation (let's just call "it" that).

Then, being me, I was not aware that the phenomenon, as such, even existed before it was pushed into my face by various news media, it being so far outside my limited mindset.

But I'm quite sure that the media only have the public welfare in mind when publishing stories in that vein.

Or, do they?

 

[RichardC]

If you open a newspaper and are confronted with pictures of today's 'celebrity' (translation of celebrity = someone without a useful job) - their kid's faces are always blurred out.

I think this gives credence to the idea that it is somehow wrong to capture incidental images of fully clad minors.

My stock response is to politely point out that I was there first and if they don't want to appear in my pictures they should move.

 

[Keeth101]

And yet, the funniest thing is that any altercation with said Karens/Kevins would never occur if we had an iPhone in our hands, instead of a "camera".
Incidentally both take pictures but only the larger one with a lens attached apparently irates them

And that is the thing which really p!$$e's me off so much. Do anything with a phone and it's fine, have a camera in your hand and "Whoooah ... it's a professional out to capture our lives inside that box".

Do these people not realise that no paedo or anyone else who wants to get 'unauthorized' pictures would use a camera ... no, they would use their phone because everyone else has one glued to their hand at all times and everyone thinks you're taking a selfie whilst in actual fact you're using the back camera to take whatever you want.

The thing with a camera is that you are pointing it at something or somebody and that is all they see.

 

[Erich_H]

And that is the thing which really p!$$e's me off so much. Do anything with a phone and it's fine, have a camera in your hand and "Whoooah ... it's a professional out to capture our lives inside that box".

Do these people not realise that no paedo or anyone else who wants to get 'unauthorized' pictures would use a camera ... no, they would use their phone because everyone else has one glued to their hand at all times and everyone thinks you're taking a selfie whilst in actual fact you're using the back camera to take whatever you want.

The thing with a camera is that you are pointing it at something or somebody and that is all they see.

Gives some credence to my "limited quantity of intelligence allotment" theory, doesn't it?

 

[Ghostbuggy]

And yet, the funniest thing is that any altercation with said Karens/Kevins would never occur if we had an iPhone in our hands, instead of a "camera".
Incidentally both take pictures but only the larger one with a lens attached apparently irates them

At least in my experience, this is true. Even with my small Pen-F and an f1.8 prime attached to it, the camera raises cautious attentions to people. Taking pictures in the town streets with a smartphone: Nobody cares. Taking pictures with a camera: What is he doing!?! The last photo I shared in the "Abandoned"-thread, about the old Konsum market in a small village, was one of those situations. The market is privately owned and attached to two restored houses which are inhabited. Standing there just wanting to take pictures of the old store I almost felt like some criminal, with neighbors staring out of their windows, closely watching what this intruder to the small community is doing there. I am actually surprised nobody came out yelling at me. That's not the only situation. Back in a bigger city I photographed some unrestored GDR apartment blocks, with two people from their balconies instantly yelling at me. Pretty sure nobody would've cared if I just took quick snaps with my phone.

It seems everybody fears pictures taken of them or their streets will become either the next big internet meme or being abused for criminal activities. In some way, I can't blame these people, but still... it strengthens my impression that technology have long outpaced the average ability of the human mind and spirit to handle that progress. Especially when it comes to the globally linked social aspects.

 

[Erich_H]

At least in my experience, this is true. Even with my small Pen-F and an f1.8 prime attached to it, the camera raises cautious attentions to people. Taking pictures in the town streets with a smartphone: Nobody cares. Taking pictures with a camera: What is he doing!?! The last photo I shared in the "Abandoned"-thread, about the old Konsum market in a small village, was one of those situations. The market is privately owned and attached to two restored houses which are inhabited. Standing there just wanting to take pictures of the old store I almost felt like some criminal, with neighbors staring out of their windows, closely watching what this intruder to the small community is doing there. I am actually surprised nobody came out yelling at me. That's not the only situation. Back in a bigger city I photographed some unrestored GDR apartment blocks, with two people from their balconies instantly yelling at me. Pretty sure nobody would've cared if I just took quick snaps with my phone.

It seems everybody fears pictures taken of them or their streets will become either the next big internet meme or being abused for criminal activities. In some way, I can't blame these people, but still... it strengthens my impression that technology have long outpaced the average ability of the human mind and spirit to handle that progress. Especially when it comes to the globally linked social aspects.

Well, as all of us in the Magician's Guild know, getting your picture taken with one of those boxes can easily hex you, or even worse, suck your soul into the box, replacing it with a mind controlled clone of your wetware.

 

[PakkyT]

If you open a newspaper and are confronted with pictures of today's 'celebrity' (translation of celebrity = someone without a useful job) - their kid's faces are always blurred out.

I think that has more to do with the unspoken agreement between celebs and the press. Celebs need the press to keep them relevant, but then the press also continue to take pictures when the celebs want a day off, don't look great, and probably hate it but live with it because it is part of the business and their livelihood as well. So while celebs begrudgingly tolerate photos of themselves in sweats and no make up getting coffee, the press knows the limits where the industry (music, Hollywood, theater, etc.) might finally push back as them taking it to far and those specific papers, magazines, or independent photographers might end up black listed from being able to get into legit events or be able to ever be granted an interview or stuff like that. Or put another way, the press knows they can legally publish the kids faces but they want to stay on the acceptable side of the "taking it too far" line so they are not outright hated more than the average outlet or photographer.

 

[hoggdoc]

My wife and I went for a stroll on the beach this morning as it was blowing a gale, with ten foot waves forecast.
However, the sea was rather messy so I didn't get any shots.
Walking back to the car I noticed a family of four playing French cricket.
They were all wrapped up in winter coats with hoods and wooly hats on and I simply thought it would make a great photo in the wintry conditions.
As I approached, (probably at least twenty meters away) the father saw me with my camera and gave me a thumbs up sign and I attempted to take a shot.
With that the mother gathered up the kids and turned them away from me and shouted something at me.
Being deaf, I apologised that I couldn't hear her in the gale force winds.
She approached me and yelled that she didn't want her children photographed.
(I'll add here that I guess they were around young teenagers or so and weren't much smaller than the woman and I couldn't even se their faces or know if they were boys or girls).
I told her that I hadn't actually taken any photos and she repeated her demand that she didn't want them photographed.
I repeated that I hadn't taken any photos and showed her my camera.
She eventually said I had no right to take photos to which I replied that technically I could, being in a public space, but that I appreciated her concerns and stressed I hadn't taken any.
As I walked away she again shouted that she didn't want them photographed.
All this time, her husband stood there looking bemused and I never even glanced to see where the kids were or what reaction they had.
I'm hoping that I didn't spoil their trip to the beach, but she sure as hell ruined mine and I'm still upset about it now.

Sounds another deranged KAREN. The world seems to be full of them these days.