 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / September 2006Is the street photographer an endangered species?
I was reading an article today about a show featuring the photographs of Lee Balterman. He spent years (particularly in the 50s and 60s) wandering the streets (and bars) of Chicago, camera in hand, photographing simply because, as he puts it, "I'm crazy about pictures." His photographs are quite wonderful, and capture emotions and moments. In the article published in the Chicago Sun-Times (here's a link: http://www.suntimes.com/output/entertainment/cst-ftr-balterman08.html), Mr. Balterman talks about how he managed to capture many of his photographs: ---------- Getting the photographs wasn't always easy, in the bars or elsewhere. A World War II veteran who spent time in a French hospital after the Normandy invasion, Balterman battled in his hometown. "One guy threw a bottle at me, but he missed," Balterman recalls. "Sometimes they said, 'You S.O.B., don't take my f---ing picture.'" "But you couldn't help yourself," Berlanga says. "Could you, Lee?" "No. I watched 'em, and when they weren't looking, I'd shoot," Balterman says. -------- Which got me to thinking... It seems as if the stray bottle or two is the least of a photographer's worries these days. With a greater awareness of privacy issues and a greater emphasis on litigious actions, is the classic, throw-back street photographer an endangered species? The hesitancy inherent in straddling the line between "capturing the decisive moment" and the subject's privacy (both out of respect but also out of not wanting to be ensnared in any legal wranglings) must have an adverse effect on the final product. Furthermore, in a world where the word "photoshop" has become a verb, has sensitivity toward privacy issues been heightened even more? Do street photographers suffer from the well-publicized celebrity/paparazzi feuds? I believe street photography as a genre is different from paparazzi photography in it's aim, goal, and spirit. But I also don't think that everyone (particularly non-photographers) see the nuances. Or perhaps I am just guilty of listening to Chicken Little. Perhaps it's not as bad as I've been led to believe. I love street photography, and feel it is a rich and vital use of the camera. I would hate to see it sterilized and sanitized to the point that it loses its spirit. Just a little something I've been mulling this afternoon. I'm with you. I love photographing people doing their jobs, going through their sufferings, etc. It is not always practical nor I am a professional photographer to ask for a release form for each one of my subjects. If I have to do it, I'll probably turn to something else, such as nature... cheers padu > I'm with you. I love photographing people doing their jobs, going through > their sufferings, etc. It is not always practical nor I am a professional [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > padu What you do for your private pleasure doesn't bother me so much. But enriching your life, off of my likeness or misery, and I am not a public figure, nor is this newsworthy, nor am I being compensated. Yeah, that seems fair. >> I'm with you. I love photographing people doing their jobs, going through >> their sufferings, etc. It is not always practical nor I am a professional [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > figure, nor is this newsworthy, nor am I being compensated. Yeah, that > seems fair. If you don't want to be photographed, limit your exposure in public. >>> I'm with you. I love photographing people doing their jobs, going >>> through their sufferings, etc. It is not always practical nor I am a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > If you don't want to be photographed, limit your exposure in public. Yeah, that's reasonable. If you don't want to be photographed, stay inside your house with all the blinds down. Great! -- Jeff R. >>>> I'm with you. I love photographing people doing their jobs, going >>>> through their sufferings, etc. It is not always practical nor I am a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >> If you don't want to be photographed, limit your exposure in public. >Yeah, that's reasonable. >If you don't want to be photographed, stay inside your house with all the >blinds down. >Great! In fact lawyers tell me that once in public you have no expectation of privacy. Many cities in the US routinely use street cameras to scan areas. Here in New York the famous Washington Square Park is filled with cameras. And in many places businesses have cameras scanning their store front and the street around it. ---- Paul J. Gans >>> If you don't want to be photographed, limit your exposure in public. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > ---- Paul J. Gans Yes, I realise there is no such thing as a right to privacy, but I wonder how reasonable it is for hack photographers to assume that this gives them carte blanche to gratuitously harass, annoy and invade the (reasonable) privacy of random members of the public just because it isn't illegal to do so. Is everybody fair game? Hnh! We wonder why the great unwashed regard photographers with such disdain. -- Jeff R. > >>> If you don't want to be photographed, limit your exposure in public. > > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > -- > Jeff R. It is true that once in public you have no expectation of privacy but I've always felt that you should ask someone if it's alright with them to take their picture before snapping away. That, to me, is the difference between a stree photographer and a paparazzi. Also it's just common courtesy to ask if it is ok, which is severely lacking in this day and age. >> >>> If you don't want to be photographed, limit your exposure in public. >> > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >> -- >> Jeff R. > It is true that once in public you have no expectation of privacy but >I've always felt that you should ask someone if it's alright with them >to take their picture before snapping away. That, to me, is the >difference between a stree photographer and a paparazzi. Also it's just >common courtesy to ask if it is ok, which is severely lacking in this >day and age. I'd feel rather like I was harassing someone if I stopped them in the street and ask if it was OK to take their photo. First, I'd no longer have a natural shot but a posed one, and second, they'd feel harassed. I try to be as unobtrusive as possible. ---- Paul J. Gans > I'd feel rather like I was harassing someone if I stopped them > in the street and ask if it was OK to take their photo. First, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > ---- Paul J. Gans That will be read as suspicious, lurking, leaching paedophile. >> I'd feel rather like I was harassing someone if I stopped them >> in the street and ask if it was OK to take their photo. First, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> ---- Paul J. Gans >That will be read as suspicious, lurking, leaching paedophile. These days that ain't funny.... ;-) ---- Paul J. Gans : >> I'd feel rather like I was harassing someone if I stopped them : >> in the street and ask if it was OK to take their photo. First, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] : : These days that ain't funny.... ;-) I wasn't kidding. videoed friends daughter playing on swings. Got a lot of dirty looks. > It is true that once in public you have no expectation of privacy but > I've always felt that you should ask someone if it's alright with them > to take their picture before snapping away. That, to me, is the > difference between a stree photographer and a paparazzi. Also it's just > common courtesy to ask if it is ok, which is severely lacking in this > day and age. Perhaps this should depend on the situation. For example, at a major public event, if I take a pic of a sea of 1,000 people in front of me, I can't ask all 1,000 for their permission. But if I walked up to a lone person sitting on a park bench, and I knelt down 1 foot in front of him/her and started wildly snapping photos, I should certainly ask first for their approval. I'm sure that there are some obvious situations where one need ask for permission, and then there are "gray situations" as well. As a teenager, I was once riding through a town recently hit by a tornado, and I snapped a photo of a shattered barn roof lying in a field. I heard shouting off in the distance, and it was the farmer whose barn had been destroyed, angry that I was taking pics of his misfortune. In this case, there wasn't a single person in the frame! Of course, I wasn't so much focusing on his misfortune as I was trying to capture shots depicting the the power of a tornado. It just goes to show how taking pictures that seem almost "scientific" to you might upset someone else. Recently, I was walking around downtown Baltimore at night, wanting to photograph store fronts or nightclub entrances with colorful neon lights. Of course, there were people walking into/out of the nightclubs, and, one time, when I took a shot from across the street, I saw a fellow waiting in line look at me as though he were bothered, but nothing else happened. Of course, in the case in question, it was a guy who was with an incredibly beautiful and provacatively dressed woman, so perhaps he thought I was "zooming in on" her more than anything else. So, in some cases, someone might become upset at a photographer if they feel that privacy is being violated even if that isn't the photographer's intention. > Recently, I was walking around downtown Baltimore at night, > wanting to photograph store fronts or nightclub entrances with [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > beautiful and provacatively dressed woman, so perhaps he thought I > was "zooming in on" her more than anything else. [snip] Maybe the woman wasn't his wife, and he didn't want their picture in the paper.  SignatureRay (remove the Xs to reply) According to Scott Speck <kaiju@comcast.net>: > Recently, I was walking around downtown Baltimore at night, wanting to > photograph store fronts or nightclub entrances with colorful neon lights. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > beautiful and provacatively dressed woman, so perhaps he thought I was > "zooming in on" her more than anything else. Or -- perhaps he was afraid that you were a private investigator hired by his wife. That may depend on whether they were both about the same age, or whether he was significantly older. > So, in some cases, someone > might become upset at a photographer if they feel that privacy is being > violated even if that isn't the photographer's intention. Indeed so. Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- "ShibbyShane" > It is true that once in public you have no expectation of privacy but > I've always felt that you should ask someone if it's alright with them > to take their picture before snapping away. That, to me, is the > difference between a stree photographer and a paparazzi. Also it's just > common courtesy to ask if it is ok, which is severely lacking in this > day and age. I think disclosing your intentions to your subject is very reasonable and shows respect. One of the aspects that I like about photographing people is making new friends, know their stories, their sufferings. I never had a problem in Brazil while photographing anyone in the streets. People would often get curious about my camera and sometimes I'd even send a copy of their pictures. Now I live in the USA, and people seem to be paranoid about privacy. The other day I was taking pictures of my daughter in a public park, and this woman came to me complaining that her daughter was being photographed on the background and she "demanded" that I deleted the pictures where her daughter appeared. I gently said to her to get off and not to bother me, and if she was bothered to move somewhere. It turns out that the in the only two pictures where her daughter was showing, I had a shallow DOF and she was only a blur. Peace Padu > Now I live in the USA, and people seem to be paranoid about privacy. Unfortunately, that's not really the case. Peoples' privacy is being violated in far worse ways than having someone take their picture on the street, many times every day, and even if you point it out to them they don't care in the least. They're not paranoid about privacy, they're just f.cking stupid. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com "Jeremy Nixon" >> Now I live in the USA, and people seem to be paranoid about privacy. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > don't care in the least. They're not paranoid about privacy, they're > just f.cking stupid. I'm not really sure if I got your point, but if yes, I bet the same mom that didn't want her child on my picture, could care less if the government was eavesdropping on her calls for "the sake of national security". >> Now I live in the USA, and people seem to be paranoid about privacy. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > don't care in the least. They're not paranoid about privacy, they're > just f.cking stupid. And just what is it that we should fear? Or, how is your privacy being violated? SignatureJohn McWilliams ~A Serenity Prayer~ "God, grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference." > And just what is it that we should fear? Or, how is your privacy being > violated? Tonight, I went up to the World Trade Center site. I spent a couple of hours in a crowd of people with cameras. I have no idea how many photographs I ended up in there, and I really don't care -- there aren't any privacy implications. The snapshooters will show their pictures to some family and friends, none of whom know or care who I am. The serious photographers probably avoided me; as a photographer I make a pretty lousy subject for other photographers. But even if they didn't, and they pointed their lens right at me, there's better than a 90% chance that those pictures will end up on their cutting-room floor, never to be seen again; and on the off chance someone took a decent shot of me, it could end up getting published somewhere, without my name, to be seen by people who neither know nor care who I am. So what? But let's look at the evening from another angle. First, my license plates were photographed and OCR'd at the toll booths on the Parkway, and an entry created in a database, matched with my identity. Then, I was photographed parking my car at the train station, where my purchase of a ticket created a few more database entries. I was again photographed boarding the train, and again exiting at Penn Station, where I was photographed walking to the subway E platform. I swiped my Metrocard, generating a couple more database entries, and was photographed boarding the subway, and exiting at the WTC station. On the street, the trail probably goes cold, though I may have ended up on a few random security cameras. I stuck it to the man by paying cash for my pizza, sneaking my culinary choice under the radar. But a couple hours later, there I was in the subway station again, and repeating the above process in reverse to get home. None of this is isolated; it is all easily correlated, along with my identity, to reconstruct my movements for the entire evening. Am I concerned that Big Brother knows where I went tonight? Not especially. Am I concerned about the broader implications? A bit, yes. But if you're actually paranoid about privacy, well -- people with cameras on the street are about the last thing you should be worried about. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> And just what is it that we should fear? Or, how is your privacy being >> violated? [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > you're actually paranoid about privacy, well -- people with cameras > on the street are about the last thing you should be worried about. Thanks, Jeremy; that's quite a narrative. I now live in the 'burbs outside of SF, and don't take public transportation often, although I did ride BART a whole week ago! The proliferation of cameras publicly mounted ones, that is, and the ability to create and use huge databases does bring up 1984, the novel, that is. But overall I don't find it worrisome, and to some degree, a small one, I suppose it may thwart some crime as well as catch some criminals and perhaps terrorists. I used to commute through - or rather end at the WTC PATH station- sounds like it's been resurrected? Where does one enter and exit now? SignatureJohn McWilliams > I used to commute through - or rather end at the WTC PATH station- > sounds like it's been resurrected? Where does one enter and exit now? The subway station comes out right next to the site, on, I think it's Church St.? I'm not that familiar with the street names. I don't recall having gone to that station pre-9/11 so I can't really compare. I've never taken PATH there so I can't speak to that part of it, but there are signs to it inside the subway station. I think you have to enter through there. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > ..I've always felt that you should ask someone if it's alright with them > to take their picture before snapping away. That, to me, is the > difference between a stree photographer and a paparazzi. Also it's just > common courtesy to ask if it is ok, which is severely lacking in this > day and age. Two memorable shots that weren't. The first, in Newton, Massachusetts - a rather rotund man reading a newspaper while waiting for a bus. He held the paper before his face such that it appeared to be held in position by his belly. The second in Hyeres, France - a residential street in the old town on a hill so steep that most cars would have difficulty, no problem, there weren't any. An old man wearing the classical beret with two fresh baguettes in a wicker basket on his arm. Before i could get a shot off, in the first case, the bus arrived, and in the second, the man entered his house. And you want me to ask permission to take the shot, or possibly request a signed release? Tony V. >Two memorable shots that weren't. The first, in Newton, Massachusetts - >a rather rotund man reading a newspaper while waiting for a bus. He held [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >in the second, the man entered his house. And you want me to ask >permission to take the shot, or possibly request a signed release? There are two main issues with street photography; image rights and potential for defamation. Image rights will only become an issue if you sell the image for money. In that case, the subject is entitled to claim a share of the money, unless the image was used for editorial purposes, in which case there is no entitlement. You can of course ask the subject to sign away their rights on a release form. Defamation will only become an issue if you portray the subject in a way that is insulting, usually by association (in the shot) with something unpleasant. Other than those two issues, street photography is like any other kind of photography. You have the right to make images of whom or what you like, as long as you avoid areas where photography is proscribed, for example for security reasons. That is the case in most countries, however I believe the law in France has recently been extended to include a right of privacy. Whether that would affect your shot of the man with the baguettes, I really don't know. As for asking permission to take the shot, if you are shooting candids, there is no need. If you ask permission you are only going to get a posed shot. > There are two main issues with street photography; image rights and > potential for defamation. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > there is no entitlement. You can of course ask the subject to sign > away their rights on a release form. There are exceptions to "editorial rights" (as you mentioned re: France). For example a woman in Montreal was photographed sitting on her steps and the photo was published without her consent as part of a story on a district of the city. She sued and was awarded damages. This was judged under the privacy provisions of the Quebec Civil Code. Had she been photographed away from her home, then it would have been fair play for editorial purposes. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > Yes, I realise there is no such thing as a right to privacy, but I wonder > how reasonable it is for hack photographers to assume that this gives them > carte blanche to gratuitously harass, annoy and invade the (reasonable) > privacy of random members of the public just because it isn't illegal to > do so. There is a right to privacy. Taking someone's photo, by itself, is not harassment. Nor is it, by itself, invading anyone's privacy when done in public. If you're morbidly obese and you insist on wearing a bikini on the beach, prepare to be photographed for someone else's humor. Likewise, if you're a female and very attractive, don't come crying foul when you saunter onto that same beach in a thong and pasties and someone with a 400 mm lens sets up camp 200 feet away. If your house is falling apart, don't cry when someone takes a photo of it. By not fixing the house, you are showing the world that it is falling apart. It doesn't matter whether the 500 people in your neighborhood see it every day or whether 500,000 see it in a coffee table book. >> Yes, I realise there is no such thing as a right to privacy, but I wonder >> how reasonable it is for hack photographers to assume that this gives [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Taking someone's photo, by itself, is not harassment. In your opinion... ..which is noted. -- Jeff R. >>> Yes, I realise there is no such thing as a right to privacy, but I >>> wonder how reasonable it is for hack photographers to assume that this [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > In your opinion... > ..which is noted. It's not my opinion, it's the law. >>>> If you don't want to be photographed, limit your exposure in public. >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> >> ---- Paul J. Gans >Yes, I realise there is no such thing as a right to privacy, but I wonder >how reasonable it is for hack photographers to assume that this gives them >carte blanche to gratuitously harass, annoy and invade the (reasonable) >privacy of random members of the public just because it isn't illegal to do >so. >Is everybody fair game? >Hnh! We wonder why the great unwashed regard photographers with such >disdain. I don't think photographers have the right to harass folks. However, taking a picture in and of itself isn't harassment. So that I have no right to shove my camera in someone's face, I see no problem in taking their picture from ten or twenty feet away -- or in many cases, even further. ---- Paul J. Gans > I see no problem in taking their picture from ten or twenty > feet away -- or in many cases, even further. > > ---- Paul J. Gans That makes you more creepy and obnoxious. If it was me I might be tempted to wrap your camera around your neck twist. SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com > > I see no problem in taking their picture from ten or twenty > > feet away -- or in many cases, even further. > That makes you more creepy and obnoxious. If it was me I might be > tempted to wrap your camera around your neck twist. That's silly. The entire point of street photography is to capture moments without interfering - to record a slice of life just for the sake of it. Take a shot, smile and nod at the subject - what's the big deal here? I daresay a vast majority of street photography rarely exploits the subject, and the few exceptions are easy enough to figure out? Is common sense and a sense of proportion so difficult to find these days, or does everything have to be reduced to hardline, extreme positions? Vandit > That's silly. The entire point of street photography is to capture > moments without interfering Violates the Heisenburg uncertainty principle. > > That's silly. The entire point of street photography is to capture > > moments without interfering > > Violates the Heisenburg uncertainty principle. (Not to be pedantic, but Heisenberg...). No it doesn't. The uncertainty principle has more to do with the wave-like aspect of wavefunctions than with any interference by the observer. This despite the fact that Heisenberg's actual paper gets the uncertainty principle from considering this interference (and any number of popular science books that ascribe this uncertainty to interference from the observer). The point is that the fourier transform of a function of x which is nonzero in a region of dimension L will be nonzero (or appreciably different from zero) in a region (in fourier space) of extend proportional to 1/L. Since in QM the fourier transform of a wavefunction in the position representation is the wavefunction in momentum representation, this means that a particle localized in a region of extend L will have an uncertainty in momentum of size constant/L, so an uncertainty in velocity of size constant/mL where m is the mass. There is a rather deep significance to the fact that one cannot observe anything without interfering (stemming from the fact that an "act of observation" collapses the wavefunction, and who collapses the observer's wavefunction etc), though. But actually it made me laugh, was a good joke, and my mini-rant was pointless, off-topic and humourless. Sorry. >>>That's silly. The entire point of street photography is to capture >>>moments without interfering [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > principle has more to do with the wave-like aspect of wavefunctions > than with any interference by the observer. Well DUH! Actually the HUP is most simply described the way H himslef vulgarized it: "The more precisely you measure (determine) the momentum of a particle (sub-atomic), the less precisely you measure (determine) its position, and vice versa." However, there is no way that a photogrpaher can be in a place without having conscious or subconscious effect on the surroundings, such as in a street or at an event. People react to the photographer in subtle and unsubtle ways and change the scene. Invoking the HUP is just a means of conveying it in a metaphor. <snipped what I didn't read 'cause I can read it in more detail in better materials <<i>> > > But actually it made me laugh, was a good joke, and my mini-rant was > pointless, off-topic and humourless. Sorry. Don't be sorry, you're way above some of the humourless dinks that visit this site. It was of course a joke. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > > That's silly. The entire point of street photography is to capture > > moments without interfering > > Violates the Heisenburg uncertainty principle. If that means fewer photos of all cats (not just Schrodinger's), than I'm all for it! :) Vandit >>>That's silly. The entire point of street photography is to capture >>>moments without interfering [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If that means fewer photos of all cats (not just Schrodinger's), than > I'm all for it! :) You cannot know the position of the cat when you shoot .... Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. "Greg \"_\"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote: >> I see no problem in taking their picture from ten or twenty >> feet away -- or in many cases, even further. >> >> ---- Paul J. Gans >That makes you more creepy and obnoxious. If it was me I might be >tempted to wrap your camera around your neck twist. You'd likely either not notice or think that I was a tourist shooting the sights. ---- Paul J. Gans > I was reading an article today about a show featuring the photographs > of Lee Balterman. I was looking for samples of his images on the web and could not find ANYTHING with his name associated. I have seen the one described with the couple kissing, out of focus... in a bar or large group... I think that one... Either he's paranoid about law suits or copyright infringement but even gallery listings omitted the thumbnail under only his showings. SignaturePaul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com > I was reading an article today about a show featuring the photographs > of Lee Balterman. He spent years (particularly in the 50s and 60s) [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > Just a little something I've been mulling this afternoon. Meanwhile, in London you are videotaped everywhere you go nowadays by the government and corporations who own the buildings, etc and no one seems to worry about that very much. >I was reading an article today about a show featuring the photographs > of Lee Balterman. He spent years (particularly in the 50s and 60s) > wandering the streets (and bars) of Chicago, camera in hand, > photographing simply because, as he puts it, "I'm crazy about > pictures." On the same subject, has anyone actually experienced any attempts to prevent you from photographing public buildings, bridges, railroad yards, etc? A couple years after 9/11, I started reading that photographers were being harassed, and sometimes actually arrested because they were taking pictures of what is not considered forbidden areas, off limits. I haven't seen this myself, nor do I know anyone personally who has run into this. Has this actually happened, and if so, under what circumstances? I'm not aware of any actual laws related to this, and if it is happening, I'm wondering if they're actually enforcing any type of law, or just strutting their personal preference. Bill Crocker "Bill Crocker" <wcrocker007@comcast.net> wrote in message news:CaOdnd4X- > On the same subject, has anyone actually experienced any attempts to > prevent you from photographing public buildings, bridges, railroad yards, > etc? A couple years after 9/11, I started reading that photographers were > being harassed, and sometimes actually arrested because they were taking > pictures of what is not considered forbidden areas, off limits. I haven't > seen this myself, nor do I know anyone personally who has run into this. While I have not experienced any problems, I do not typically photograph people on the street. But let's face it, people are more defensive about letting complete strangers walk up to them an take their photographs, and it is only a matter of time until restrictions begin to appear. Back in the 60, 70s and 80s we photographers were relatively few in number. The chances that any given member of the public would ever be photographed were very slim. But look at what is happening now: Perverts with tiny cameras on their shoes take "upskirt" photos of women waiting in checkout lines at stores. Nuts take photos of children at pools, and then post them on the Internet. Traffic intersections automatically photograph your car if you are in the inspection when the light turns red. Street corner security cameras are popping up all across America--to the point that one is bound to be photographed several times a day, just by being at certain locations. Paparazzi have become nuisances, and have turned off a lot of people just by their devil-may-care attitudes. Ordinary people have their identities stolen, and spend months trying to clear matters up with credit bureaus and credit card issuers. Almost 90% of home computer users have spyware or other malware residing on their systems. Web bugs, tracking cookies, and keyloggers are common. We will soon have those little chips embedded into just about everything we buy (Wal-Mart has been pushing this) and it seems a virtual certainty that our buying habits and the places we go to will all end up in marketing databases. Disney World is introducing a fingerprint ID system for admissions. WHY would anyone want their kids' fingerprint information to be harvested by Disney, or anyone else? Today, nearly everybody has cameras. From camera phones to cheap digicams to pro-level SLRs, cameras are no longer the possessions of hobbyists. And YOU want to be able to thrust a lens into someone's face and be allowed to take their photo--for who-knows-what-purpose--and to claim that their being on a public street affords you the "right" to do that? Given all of the underhanded things that are being don't to people, how long will it be before well-intentioned politicians start drafting legislation that would curtail or put an end to that? We may, as a society, tolerate streetcorner security cameras documenting our every move--but that is because there is a presumption of some degree of control being placed over what can be done with the images. And the London bombings underscored the benefits of those devices. BUT . . . how can anyone know what a private individual plans to do with photographs taken of other individuals? Even if we photographers exercise good judgment and discretion, what about all those other jerks who ruin it for the rest of us? Do you know that here in Pennsylvania we have a state law making "upskirt photography" a criminal offense? Who would have even thought that there would ever be a need for such a law? The first jerk convicted was right here in Philadelphia, at a Wal-Mart, with a tiny lens mounted on his sneaker. He was standing behind a woman who was bending over to put her purchases onto the checkout stand. Someone was observant, notified security, and they found a cable that ran up his pants, further up his shirt and down the shirtsleeve--to a duffle bag he was holding in one hand which had recording equipment inside. This is nuts--but it is really happening. I do not doubt for a moment that restrictions will come. The days of unrestricted street photography are one day going the same way as stopping off for a few drinks before driving home from work at night. > Today, nearly everybody has cameras. From camera phones to cheap digicams > to pro-level SLRs, cameras are no longer the possessions of hobbyists. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > will it be before well-intentioned politicians start drafting legislation > that would curtail or put an end to that? The Constitution trumps any legislation. See the First Amendment. > We may, as a society, tolerate streetcorner security cameras documenting > our every move--but that is because there is a presumption of some degree > of control being placed over what can be done with the images. And the > London bombings underscored the benefits of those devices. BUT . . . how > can anyone know what a private individual plans to do with photographs > taken of other individuals? As long as the photos aren't being used for commercial purposes without consent, it's none of anybody's business. > We may, as a society, tolerate streetcorner security cameras documenting our > every move--but that is because there is a presumption of some degree of > control being placed over what can be done with the images. Of course, there is no such "control" -- none whatsoever. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com According to Bill Crocker <wcrocker007@comcast.net>: > >I was reading an article today about a show featuring the photographs > > of Lee Balterman. He spent years (particularly in the 50s and 60s) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > of what is not considered forbidden areas, off limits. I haven't seen this > myself, nor do I know anyone personally who has run into this. I have. I stopped to photograph some Canadian geese, and just about the time I finished, I was approached by someone in a security guard uniform. It turns out that he was concerned about the building which appeared in the background of some of the shots (usually fairly out of focus, as I was concentrating on the geese). After noting the patch on his shoulder, which identified him as a security guard for the CIA, I realized that this was one of their many unmarked buildings. I was *very* cooperative in going through the shots and deleting any which included the building -- even though they included some of the better shots of the geese. I've worked in buildings where cameras were not allowed -- for security reasons, and wasn't about to press the issue, even though I am now retired. > Has this actually happened, and if so, under what circumstances? I'm not > aware of any actual laws related to this, and if it is happening, I'm > wondering if they're actually enforcing any type of law, or just strutting > their personal preference. I'm not sure that any laws apply, but I can certainly see why they would be concerned. Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- > According to Bill Crocker <wcrocker007@comcast.net>: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I have. I stopped to photograph some Canadian geese... How do you know they were from Canada? ;) >After noting the > patch on his shoulder, which identified him as a security guard for the > CIA, I realized that this was one of their many unmarked buildings. I > was *very* cooperative in going through the shots and deleting any > which included the building -- even though they included some of the > better shots of the geese. I would argue that cooperating actually endangers the rights of the rest of us to take photos in public. Because now you're just giving the government the idea that it can continue intimidating photographers. > I've worked in buildings where cameras were not allowed -- for > security reasons, and wasn't about to press the issue, even though I am > now retired. What buildings were these? >>I have. I stopped to photograph some Canadian geese... > > How do you know they were from Canada? ;) These clever geese were spying on the CIA building duping photographers into photographing them and attracting the guards attention to the photographer... Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. According to Ryan Robbins <redbird007@verizon.net>: > > According to Bill Crocker <wcrocker007@comcast.net>: [ ... ] > >> On the same subject, has anyone actually experienced any attempts to > >> prevent [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > How do you know they were from Canada? ;) I asked to see their green cards -- of course. :-) > >After noting the > > patch on his shoulder, which identified him as a security guard for the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > us to take photos in public. Because now you're just giving the government > the idea that it can continue intimidating photographers. They only do this in respect to the buildings where the CIA or similar organizations work. And they have not just recently started this. I was at an autocross sometime back in the early 1960s which happened to be held in the parking lot of the NSA (National Security Agency) -- one which concentrates on intercepting telecommunications via RF -- or did so back then -- and the rules were no photographing in the directions of the buildings. One guard stopped a woman from shooting the autocross from a certain viewpoint, and a higher-ranking guard showed up and countermanded that -- saying "The rules said 'with sophisticated photographic equipment'." (The woman was using an Kodak 126 Instamatic. :-) So -- overall, they were not being really unreasonable, except for that one guard. The reason for the restriction, as I understand it, is to avoid capturing where the antennas on top of the building were pointing. Since this was in the Washington DC area, it is quite likely that some were pointing to various embassys and such. :-) > > I've worked in buildings where cameras were not allowed -- for > > security reasons, and wasn't about to press the issue, even though I am > > now retired. > > What buildings were these? Do you really expect a lot of detail from someone who held a security clearance? They were on an Army post (where I worked), inside a security compound (where I worked), and there were things visible outside the buildings which were classified and thus should *not* be photographed casually. I was able to get permission to bring in my cameras to photograph one of the projects which I had just completed, with the government providing the film, and the government labs processing the film once it was exposed. I showed my camera to be without film going both in and out, along with the pass to bring it (and the lenses) in and out. And this particular project was not even classified. Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- > According to Bill Crocker <wcrocker007@comcast.net>: > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > patch on his shoulder, which identified him as a security guard for the > CIA, I realized that this was one of their many unmarked buildings. The Culinary Institute of America has unmarked buildings? I would think they wouldn't have anything to hide, except maybe some bad meals by students :-) SignatureMichael Meissner email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org http://www.the-meissners.org Da Mayor shutdown a lakefront airfield, Miegs field, since he felt it posed a security risk. But the real reason was his wife wanted a park. He is now spending over 2.5 million USD of city funds to avoid paying a 50,000.00 USD fine from the FAA for that action. He must be studying the new math. Da Mayor felt the "Culinary Institute of America" might serve duck liver and it should not be advertised and other unAmericah food like french toast and french fries. And it is now illegal to sell duck liver in Chicago restaurants. So Da Mayor at his whim will stop street photography in Chicago when one of them takes a photo he or his wife does not like. > > According to Bill Crocker <wcrocker007@comcast.net>: > > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org > http://www.the-meissners.org > Da Mayor shutdown << Snipped bits out >>. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>> patch on his shoulder, which identified him as a security guard for the >>> CIA, I realized that this was one of their many unmarked buildings. >> The Culinary Institute of America has unmarked buildings? I would think they >> wouldn't have anything to hide, except maybe some bad meals by students :-) Ta-dum! rimshot, this gem was at the bottom of a top posted reply; thought it should be highlighted. There's a CIA in San Francisco and Chicago? Where else? Signaturejohn mcwilliams : I've worked in buildings where cameras were not allowed -- for : security reasons, and wasn't about to press the issue, even though I am : now retired. especially if you know anything about undelete software. According to ian <where@remyposts.com>: > : I've worked in buildings where cameras were not allowed -- for > : security reasons, and wasn't about to press the issue, even though I am > : now retired. > > especially if you know anything about undelete software. I do -- but I did not bother to do that. Instead, I got quite a few more shots of the geese -- carefully pointed *away* from the building, before I left. This pretty much rendered the options for undeleting rather limited. Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- : According to ian <where@remyposts.com>: : > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] : Enjoy, : DoN. You did mention that some of your geese shots were good but had to go anyway. undelete then clone out the building or at least gaussian blur it out of recognisability. According to ian <where@remyposts.com>: > : According to ian <where@remyposts.com>: > : > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > : building, before I left. This pretty much rendered the options for > : undeleting rather limited. [ ... ] > You did mention that some of your geese shots were good but had to go > anyway. undelete then clone out the building or at least gaussian blur it > out of recognisability. But it is generally too late after I've shot quite a few more on the same CF card. I'm not really *sure* that the ones which I deleted were good -- they just seemed good as viewed in the LCD display -- I wasn't able to check them out on the computer screen at reasonable size. If I were going to do that, I certainly would have cropped the building out of the images anyway, as it was appearing in corners of the image mostly -- not directly behind the geese. And I did not have the ideal lens along for the shooting. If I had, I probably would have had a lot fewer with the building showing up at all. I happened to be driving on a different errand and had the 18-70mm "kit" lens on the D70. I would have preferred either my older 35-135mm, or the 180mm f2.8. Anyway, I'm not going back there to shoot geese again. There are other places where I can do that without the hassle. Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- > On the same subject, has anyone actually experienced any attempts to prevent > you from photographing public buildings, bridges, railroad yards, etc? A [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Has this actually happened, and if so, under what circumstances? I have a great-uncle who, a few years ago, was driving through the northern US (not sure where exactly, but possibly in the Detroit area). He was amazed at the amount of traffic on one particular bridge, and since he had a small video camera with him, he rolled down his window and attempted to capture the scene. Apparantly a police officer saw the camera, asked him what he was doing, and made him erase that portion of the tape, on the grounds that it was illegal to photograph or videotape bridges. That's a second-hand story that I heard a couple years back. While my uncle loves a good story and has been known to embellish, I have no reason to believe that the core elements are untrue (i.e. he got harassed for videotaping traffic on a bridge). When I fly, my camera is always in my carry-on baggage, and I have been tempted to take pictures out the plane window (especially of the airport and surrounding area during take-off/landing), but I've always felt that a relatively mediocre picture wasn't worth the possible hassle. - Darryl > Apparantly a police officer saw the > camera, asked him what he was doing, and made him erase that portion of > the tape, on the grounds that it was illegal to photograph or videotape > bridges. "Made him"? Yeah, right. And who would buy such a lame claim from a police officer that you can't photograph bridges? Are we Americans getting to be this dumb about knowing our rights? >> Apparantly a police officer saw the >> camera, asked him what he was doing, and made him erase that portion of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > officer that you can't photograph bridges? Are we Americans getting to be > this dumb about knowing our rights? I would say yes. Most Americans alive today haven't had to fight for their rights, so they remain clueless as to what it truly means to actually have them, ergo, what it truly means to lose them due to their own placid ignorance. Some will pretend to be interested on Veteran's Day for a few moments while channel surfing, and go back to the drivel they were interrupted from right after they refill their swill. God help those poor bastards, they sure ain't willing to help themselves at the ballot box. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > > Apparantly a police officer saw the > > camera, asked him what he was doing, and made him erase that portion of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > officer that you can't photograph bridges? Are we Americans getting to be > this dumb about knowing our rights? By "made him", I mean that he says that he was told "This is illegal. I could arrest you, or confiscate the camera/tape, but if you delete the offending video now, I'll let you off with a warning." As far as Americans not knowing their rights: My uncle's not an American (as far as that goes, neither am I). He was on vacation in the US. When you're in a foreign country and a police officer tells you "What you're doing is illegal", you generally take his word for it. I'm no lawyer, American or otherwise, and I have no idea whether or not he was -actually- breaking any law, but he was definitely harassed. - Darryl > "Made him"? Yeah, right. And who would buy such a lame claim from a police > officer that you can't photograph bridges? Are we Americans getting to be > this dumb about knowing our rights? Yes. The sad fact is that most people will believe that, without question. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> "Made him"? Yeah, right. And who would buy such a lame claim from a police >> officer that you can't photograph bridges? Are we Americans getting to be >> this dumb about knowing our rights? > > Yes. The sad fact is that most people will believe that, without question. Actually, the truly sad fact that if the police officer did arrest him or confiscate his equipment, he would have had basically no recourse. Rights are meaningless without the power to enforce them, and when not only a lone cop, but an entire police institution goes bad, there's really not much the average citizen can do, period. If anyone has links to stories showing otherwise, I'd be encouraged to read them. SignatureZed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org> PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed. > > Apparantly a police officer saw the > > camera, asked him what he was doing, and made him erase that portion of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > officer that you can't photograph bridges? Are we Americans getting to be > this dumb about knowing our rights? Right after 9/11, the Philadelphia police appeared to have been watching bridges fairly closely, but I've been photographing bridges along Kelly Drive (one bridge or clusters of bridges every mile) for around a year or so, and haven't had anyone tell me I couldn't photograph them. My street shooting technique is evolving to ask afterward if the people had an objection to my photographing them and then take a few more shots that are less candid, and talk a bit with them. The Leica is an interesting ice-breaker as is the 105 mm VR macro on the D50. I'm going to be curious to see how people take the Leica with the barndoor shade (just got this today). > My street shooting technique is evolving to ask afterward if the people > had an objection to my photographing them and then take a few more shots > that are less candid, and talk a bit with them. Are you finding that approach to work? My technique is evolving to develop better methods of being invisible. I hardly ever do "street portraits" or "candids" where it's just a picture of a person (as opposed to a person in context or whatever), but it seems like people want to be approached by some strange guy on the street about as little as they want to be photographed in the first place. And naturally they assume you're "zooming in" on them or whatever, even if they're just a small part of the shot. (I don't normally go longer than 50mm on the street, so if I'm shooting a close-up of you, you're probably going to know it. If I break out the 105mm it's usually because I'm too far away, not because I want a close-up.) I'm always interested in hearing about the "social" side of street shooting, because that's the most difficult area of it, and if anything it's gotten a lot harder in recent years. The only people who are happy to have you take their picture any more are cops or street performers. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > > My street shooting technique is evolving to ask afterward if the people > > had an objection to my photographing them and then take a few more shots > > that are less candid, and talk a bit with them. > > Are you finding that approach to work? As far as not getting bopped in the nose, yes, but I think some of it is being an older female rather than a younger male (someone made this point somewhere). I'm just less threatening. I'm also new at this in a city so I'll let you know how this works out over time. > My technique is evolving to develop better methods of being invisible. > I hardly ever do "street portraits" or "candids" where it's just a picture [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > going to know it. If I break out the 105mm it's usually because I'm too > far away, not because I want a close-up.) http://pics.livejournal.com/mouseworks/pic/000803sx/g14 is of a neighbor who asked what I was doing with that big lens. Some of this is that I take pictures of people I know, but not always. For this kind of shot, I'm about ten feet away. I generally carry that when I'm bug chasing. I haven't posted any of the street shots I took with the fourth roll of print film, but they were mostly of women and not as well focused as I'd want. Still learning the Leica. I just scanned two of them from the drugstore prints and put them up: http://pics.livejournal.com/mouseworks/pic/0008pwd5/ http://pics.livejournal.com/mouseworks/pic/0008qghx/ The first was the candid. The second was after talking to them a while. > I'm always interested in hearing about the "social" side of street > shooting, because that's the most difficult area of it, and if anything > it's gotten a lot harder in recent years. The only people who are happy > to have you take their picture any more are cops or street performers. I think all of it boils down to personalities and how approachable people look to start with. This was a social group of women. Same day, I saw a lesbian couple sitting outdoors at the local coffee shop, both older. I wanted to take their picture, but would have had to have asked, I felt. (Just wondered if some of this hostility to having pictures taken was due to photo galleries on line. Before, people weren't likely to have amateur photos circulated world wide.) When I had a Pentax as a teenager, I was inhibited about taking pictures of people and had to work to get over it. I ended up taking casuals and selling some of them to other students in my freshman year (for about fifty cents each but then my photofinishing costs $1 for a roll). One person fussed, but I found out that she couldn't afford even a fifty cent shot, and found some excuse to give her the one I'd taken of her. > Still learning the Leica. I just scanned two of them from the > drugstore prints and put them up: You did a nice job with the scans of drug store prints. Prints typically impart some degree of color cast, and you have managed to get yours to look neutral. Is there a reason that you prefer scanning prints to scanning film? > > Still learning the Leica. I just scanned two of them from the > > drugstore prints and put them up: > > You did a nice job with the scans of drug store prints. Prints typically > impart some degree of color cast, and you have managed to get yours to look > neutral. Thanks. I worked on it. The woman's skin tones were not really good in the initial scan. > Is there a reason that you prefer scanning prints to scanning film? No, other than it's quicker to just throw a photo in the scanner than to drag out the film holders, pull the pad out, etc. According to Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com>: > I'm always interested in hearing about the "social" side of street > shooting, because that's the most difficult area of it, and if anything > it's gotten a lot harder in recent years. The only people who are happy > to have you take their picture any more are cops or street performers. Another exception are people at a science fiction convention (called a "con"). Many are in what are called "hall costumes", and others may be very elaborately costumed for the masquerade (a costume competition), and almost all when they notice you pointing a camera their way will even go into striking poses for you. But I think that some of the problem is that many people believe that they don't look good in photos -- which really translates to the photos show something different from their mental image of themselves. Personally, I've been pleased with most photos of me -- but I don't try for any particular appearance, and I feel that the photos show me as I am -- and as I am happy to be. Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- > But I think that some of the problem is that many people believe > that they don't look good in photos -- which really translates to the > photos show something different from their mental image of themselves. When I was in college the first time, I had another student (a male art major) ask me to take photographs of him so he would know what he looked like. I think it's not at all uncommon for people's mental image of themselves to be how they looked at 23, so this may be a factor. Also, relatively few people *are* classically beautiful (when I was a hard-hearted eight year old, I used to find about one classically beautiful girl in a class of 20 passing in the hall). What makes people interesting visually isn't often a portrayal of classic beauty, but of personality. And that shows up when people are interacting with others, or with their own emotions. I suspect I'm more likely to take interesting shots of people I've interacted with than people I haven't. And a long lens of just the face can make up for people striking poses (I really think it's hard to take interesting pictures of people who are used to striking poses -- the worst shots I've taken have been of Michael Swanwick, though I suspect shots of Delany would be as hard). Getting people not to pose requires either camera-naive subjects or people who are interacting more with the photographer as a person than as a photographer. Taking shots of people at cons strikes me as getting shot after shot of people who strike attitudes (most on-line con photograph I've seen wasn't interesting to me photographically). I've done some interesting shots at a New York Review of Science Fiction weekend where the camera and the flash and the space blanket/reflector were there all weekend. People working tends to be more interesting than people posing for the camera. People interacting with something other than the lens are likely to be more interesting. And if they're distracted by a quarrel in the street or a flood (http://pics.livejournal.com/mouseworks/gallery/0001gzx0), they're likely to ignore the camera (I'd asked permission to photograph the children) or not care. According to Rebecca Ore <macogoense@gmail.com>: > > But I think that some of the problem is that many people believe > > that they don't look good in photos -- which really translates to the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > classic beauty, but of personality. And that shows up when people are > interacting with others, or with their own emotions. Amen! I am really turned off by classical beauty, but animated people interacting with the world are *much* more attractive to me. > I suspect I'm more likely to take interesting shots of people I've > interacted with than people I haven't. And a long lens of just the face [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > shot after shot of people who strike attitudes (most on-line con > photograph I've seen wasn't interesting to me photographically). Generally, I get a shot or two zoomed in before they notice me, after which I zoom out and take the photos they *want* me to take. :-) Of course, it helps that I am not official, so I can choose when to shoot and when not to shoot. > I've > done some interesting shots at a New York Review of Science Fiction > weekend where the camera and the flash and the space blanket/reflector > were there all weekend. People working tends to be more interesting > than people posing for the camera. Indeed so -- but the fact that they are expecting to pose means that in general they are more tolerant of cameras than people in general. > People interacting with something other than the lens are likely to be > more interesting. And if they're distracted by a quarrel in the street > or a flood (http://pics.livejournal.com/mouseworks/gallery/0001gzx0), > they're likely to ignore the camera (I'd asked permission to photograph > the children) or not care. There are some good shots in there. Thanks, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- > On the same subject, has anyone actually experienced any attempts to prevent > you from photographing public buildings, bridges, railroad yards, etc? A > couple years after 9/11, I started reading that photographers were being > harassed, and sometimes actually arrested because they were taking pictures > of what is not considered forbidden areas, off limits. I haven't seen this > myself, nor do I know anyone personally who has run into this. I've experienced it, quite a few times. I spent a half hour detained by the police for photographing a small, rural highway bridge, for example. Private security guards are the worst. Basically, the less significant their position, the more they want to throw their weight around when given the slightest chance. Luckily, you can completely ignore private security guards, and/or tell them to screw off, as long as you're not on the private property they're authorized to throw you out of -- and even then, all they can do is tell you to leave. > Has this actually happened, and if so, under what circumstances? I'm not > aware of any actual laws related to this, and if it is happening, I'm > wondering if they're actually enforcing any type of law, or just strutting > their personal preference. The latter. I have never had NYPD do anything like this to me, because they're not a bunch of idiots who need to find a way to make themselves feel important. It's invariably smaller-town local cops who want to be tough and feel like they're part of the "war on terror". They start talking about 9/11 while they're searching you for photographing some stupid highway bridge no one even knows exists, and you have to try hard to keep from laughing, they sound so absurd. Unfortunately, most people are so into doing what they're told that they accept this without question. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > > Has this actually happened, and if so, under what circumstances? I'm not > > aware of any actual laws related to this, and if it is happening, I'm [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > feel important. It's invariably smaller-town local cops who want to > be tough and feel like they're part of the "war on terror". Actually, that reminds me of another story. This happened to my father; who was travelling through the US (Arizona, I believe), and was taking some random roadside scenery picture with a little 2MP digital point-and-shoot. A police officer, with his car, was parked somewhere nearby, outside the shot, and after a moment came up and asked my dad what he was doing. I'm not sure whether the concern there was photographing a police car, or photographing a bridge (there was one nearby, but I don't think it was in the frame either). No harm came of it - my father said that he was a tourist and was taking some pictures, and went on his way without difficulty. (I also know a guy who was touring Washington, D.C., and while photographing the White House, was told by security that he wasn't allowed to take pictures from wherever he was...instead, if he wanted a picture of the White House, he had to go stand over *there* and take it. Bizarre. Naturally, the place he was allowed to take pictures from didn't get as nice a shot; there was a fence in the way or something) - Darryl >> On the same subject, has anyone actually experienced any attempts to prevent >> you from photographing public buildings, bridges, railroad yards, etc? A >> couple years after 9/11, I started reading that photographers were being >> harassed, and sometimes actually arrested because they were taking pictures >> of what is not considered forbidden areas, off limits. I haven't seen this >> myself, nor do I know anyone personally who has run into this. >I've experienced it, quite a few times. I spent a half hour detained by >the police for photographing a small, rural highway bridge, for example. AHA! That's where all our homeland defense money is going! That bridge is probably the best protected bridge in the US! ---- Paul J. Gans > AHA! That's where all our homeland defense money is going! > That bridge is probably the best protected bridge in the US! In the first case where it happened, the bridge was a tiny bridge over a *bicycle path*. It was all I could do to keep a straight face as the officers talked about 9/11 and asked me if I was a member of any anti-American organizations, standing next to that stupid little bridge. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message