Your mistake was to walk away at that point.
When called a "pervert", you should have challenged them IMHO.
Leaving that unchallenged is almost like an acknowledgement that they are
onto you.

I would have said something to the effect that what is perverted is a person
so quick to asume that any attention payed to children is an automatic
indication of perversion.
I'm quite frankly sick and tired of the paranoia that has meant NO kids play
outside anymore...
...NO kids walk to school anymore...etc. etc.

It's just sickeningly sad.
If parents would collectively allow their children to do some of these
things, they would create a safer environment by increasing the number of
kids out there.  Instead, because everyone has become so paranoid, the FEW
kids who ARE allowed to venture out become MORE at risk, because now they
are typically the ONLY kids there...whereas before, there would have been
safety in numbers.

You might have simply said, "What is it about YOU that makes you immediately
think of perversion when you see someone who appreciates the joy of kids at
play."

when i shoot candid work... my emphasis is never on
focusing on someone i dont know... i go for composition,
which can help the image without being too directly pointed at
the individual.  it also allows you to casually see "through" the subject,
while you're standing there with a camera and not staring at them... they
are
much more comfortable.

the best places to do candid work is also on the streets where people
are singled out and arent sitting around doing nothing... dealing with
the mob mentality is never the best way.

should you decide to do candid work, you should make a full day of it.
it takes some warming up to the idea of shooting strangers and going from
shooting stills to people.  you need to show no hesitation and be confident
about
your actions.  nothing freaks people out more than jerky movements and
hesitation
with a camera.

candids are also aggressive in nature, it helps to get in tune with just
getting the picture and
not caring about consequences.  look at gerry winogrand, he never took
pictures he'd thought he'd get away
with... its always "bang" in your face (28mm).  winogrand challenged people,
its a hard thing to do but keep it up, its one
of the most rewarding things i've discovered about photography.

www.kframe.org

k.

Let's face it, your approach wasn't exactly subtle, was it?

I agree.  In general, the most paranoid people are usually the most
stupid.  You'll find that they watch a great deal of TV and often never
read at all.  Their paranoia comes from the media sensationalism they
encounter on TV, and from a natural tendency to allow their behavior to
be guided by their emotions (since their intellects are quite weak).

Its the way things are going.

In a few years time it will generally be considered ill mannered or rude to
take photographs in a non tourist public place.

I even feel uncomfortable getting my kids friends to pose with them at a
birthday party in case the parents complaint hey didn't give their
permission.

Gordon

The secret is confidence. I just shot two rolls of KR today in one
hour at the downtown arts festival. Nothing but people, and no-one
bothered me, not even big guys who were with the girls I took photos
of.

       Quite possibly, the reason you even received the catcall was because
you walked away without, innocently and with great surprise, asking someone
to tell you how taking photos of children in the open public was something
unsavory.

       Not that this is an easy thing to accomplish, if you already feel
unsure of yourself, but bluntly, there's nothing wrong with it, or illegal,
or immoral, and you have to assure yourself of this first. But by defending
yourself, non-belligerantly, you turn it around on the accuser. In other
words, "Prove to me that I did something wrong," rather than tacit
agreement. If they insist, shrug, laugh, tell them you understand, and move
on. Or ask them, 'Which one's your kid?" and agree not to take pictures of
them.

       The key, perhaps, is to be mildly amused by it all. This implies that
you're surprised anyone would make a fuss - nobody has *before* - and thus
takes a little wind out of their sails. Never get defensive or angry, or
ashamed. These imply guilt. If someone really wants to make a fuss, invite
them to call the police if it will make them feel safer, and say that
you'll be happy to wait. The worst the cops will do is ask you to move on,
but it's highly unlikely that it will ever go that far.

       I have gone back and forth, good days and bad, with candids. Some
days I'm asked to take the shots, or have people mugging. Some days
everyone's shy. Haven't been able to predict it yet. I think one of the
better approaches has been that I don't concentrate on people shots, but am
usually facing the other way doing nature shots. People see me, maybe watch
for a bit, notice I'm not watching people. Then, when something occurs that
makes for a good candid, I'm in a "secure" position to capture it simply
because it's interesting, and not because I'm "following kids around" or
anything of the sort.

       Last weekend, I actually posed a kid with a kite on the beach, and
did so directly in front of his parents with a disarming smile (if I'm
capable of such a thing - it was an attempt at one, anyway). The parents
found it amusing, but afterwards, I was jokingly challenged with, "Let's
see some ID there!" I was already walking forward with my card and promptly
handed it over, explained that I was "freelancing" (nobody understands
anything else), and invited them to drop me an e-mail for a copy and the
chance for some prints. Worked fine.

       If I was in the habit of shooting people, I'd have a practiced spiel
down for this point, with a ready-made package or card, model release, and
possibly a flyer (hard to do on the beach when you're wading, but hey).
Because, not one person has ever gotten back to me, so getting a model
release after the fact doesn't seem too efficient.

       Don't take one occurrence as an indication of anything - conditions
are too widely variable. Ask any wedding photographer ;-). Same with any
one opinion. Instead, just keep trying, different approaches if necessary,
different areas, whatever. Overreaction isn't worth it.

    - Al.

<snip>

I can sympathize with you, but I have a few comments that might be
helpful.  First, I think you did the right thing by ignoring the
name-calling.  To have responded, even by an overtly friendly attitude,
might well have gotten you a hiding and your gear smashed, if the
objectors were of the type you describe.  A group who have been drinking
and engaging in physical contact sport would be unlikely to listen to your
explanations, and likely would have seized the first excuse to attack
you.  In this I have to disagree with those like mxmanic who say you have
a right to do it so go ahead.  Your rights won't protect you from getting
a hiding if you stand up to the wrong people.  Discretion is always better
than valor when faced with threatening people - unless you are a black
belt or a pro boxer.

Also,  consider that your misgivings and some apprehension and lack of
confidence at taking candids of the kids as you describe would most
probably have translated to unmistakable body language to anyone watching,
which they may well have interpreted as furtiveness, leading them to class
you as a 'pervert'.

It's a lamentable truism that people judge others by their looks and first
impressions.  Some people can manage to convey charm and trustworthiness
by their bearing and looks - they are said to have 'presence'; others are
just invisible till they do something like taking a photograph, and then
the snap judgement brands them as undesirables - particularly if the
onlooker cannot see why you might want to take the shot, and automatically
suspects the worst.

On top of it all, photographers today are up against public opinion formed
by sensational news reporting about child pornography; by states such as
Florida which I believe has banned taking photographs of children,
complete with reports of fathers being arrested for taking shots of their
own kids at swimmimg pools; by reports of cellphone cameras being banned
in many places because of shots being taken up womens' skirts, in toilets,
etc,; even banning the use of children as models in legitimate advertising
shots.  The upshot of all this attention on 'prurient' photography is that
anyone with a camera is immediately suspect unless they are seen to be
taking only touristy snaps.  Anything else will brand them as perverts.

It's not so bad here in New Zealand, but it's there alright.  Anyone with
a camera is literally at the mercy of the onlookers, and if they take
exception ... which is why my photography is confined these days to
scenery and landscapes, apart from my own grandchildren.

Colin D.

You must look like a pervert and/or need practise in taking candids.