Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | City, Street & Architecture | Join Upload & Sell
1
       2       end
   

Archive 2023 · F... You!

  
 
Push1stop
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · F... You!


Ive been sitting on this photo for years, Immediately after this he pulled his Pepper-spray. He really DID NOT want any photos being taken while on the public sidewalk.

Nikon D4 with a 16 2.8D fisheye
Korea Town, Los Angeles, California
2015'ish'



© Push1stop 2023
Oct 09, 2023 at 12:57 PM
castelnuovo
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · F... You!


Well, public space or not, people don't like their photo being taken without their permission. For celebrities paparazzi are annoying as hell as legal as they may be due to the famous "public space". For ordinary citizens like this guy, he probably seen you as a creep, disrespectful invader of his privacy. Who knows what will you do with his photo, photoshop it on an adult site...If you would have taken a photo in his general direction he probably wouldn't have done anything, maybe not even notice, but if you were up close in his face...
Don't quite know, in this day and age we should be more careful of taking photos of people in certain circumstances. Context as usual is important.



Oct 09, 2023 at 05:34 PM
fotoactvst
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · F... You!


castelnuovo wrote:
Well, public space or not, people don't like their photo being taken without their permission. For celebrities paparazzi are annoying as hell as legal as they may be due to the famous "public space". For ordinary citizens like this guy, he probably seen you as a creep, disrespectful invader of his privacy. Who knows what will you do with his photo, photoshop it on an adult site...If you would have taken a photo in his general direction he probably wouldn't have done anything, maybe not even notice, but if you were up close in his face...
Don't quite know, in this...Show more →

Yeah, it's called the 'North Korea Syndrome,' in which the First Amendment is ignored for being inconvenient to our personal specialness.


Oct 09, 2023 at 05:55 PM
Push1stop
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · F... You!



Surely even in Canada while in public space you would have no expectation of privacy.
In the states its our first amendment right to photograph anything and anyone while on public property.
This fellow was telling me that it was illegal to take a photo from a sidewalk vantage point even tho the property line for the building was roughly 10 to 15feet away from me . The photo of him ended up being much better than of the building so I thanked him and went on my way.
castelnuovo wrote:
Well, public space or not, people don't like their photo being taken without their permission. For celebrities paparazzi are annoying as hell as legal as they may be due to the famous "public space". For ordinary citizens like this guy, he probably seen you as a creep, disrespectful invader of his privacy. Who knows what will you do with his photo, photoshop it on an adult site...If you would have taken a photo in his general direction he probably wouldn't have done anything, maybe not even notice, but if you were up close in his face...
Don't quite know, in this...Show more →
Oct 09, 2023 at 05:58 PM
doady
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · F... You!


You should have taken a photo of him with the pepper spray in his hand and showed it to the police.
Oct 09, 2023 at 09:46 PM
castelnuovo
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · F... You!


fotoactvst wrote:
Yeah, it's called the 'North Korea Syndrome,' in which the First Amendment is ignored for being inconvenient to our personal specialness.

Sorry but I don't understand this
Oct 09, 2023 at 11:10 PM
castelnuovo
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · F... You!


Push1stop wrote:
Surely even in Canada while in public space you would have no expectation of privacy.
In the states its our first amendment right to photograph anything and anyone while on public property.
This fellow was telling me that it was illegal to take a photo from a sidewalk vantage point even tho the property line for the building was roughly 10 to 15feet away from me . The photo of him ended up being much better than of the building so I thanked him and went on my way.



I don't know the legalities of it in Canada but if I would want to take a photo of somebody I would first ask. It is not about legalities or rights or freedoms, just plain decency and respect. Maybe we can call it reasonable expectations of privacy?




Oct 09, 2023 at 11:13 PM
doady
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · F... You!


A security guard approached and harassed and even pulled out a weapon on the OP for photographing a building from a public sidewalk, and you are criticizing the OP for a lack of "plain decency and respect".


Oct 09, 2023 at 11:22 PM
fotoactvst
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · F... You!


castelnuovo wrote:
Sorry but I don't understand this



Your first comment makes generalizations that suggests you dislike or don’t understand street photography. How do you know that everybody dislikes having a camera pointed at them?

Celebrities have a dynamic alliance with paparazzi that obviously Taylor Swift understands well, others not so much.

The security guard may react with the same aggression to other kinds of encounters.

Photography is not an assailant but you are correct in that a few people, for reasons of their own, regard photography as a threat and may become violent. That is not new. What is new is the conjecture among a few but loud academics suggesting that, in essence, street photography as we know it is an assault and should be illegal. In my opinion that is a simple grab for power, an affliction that is apparently communicable.
Oct 10, 2023 at 04:47 AM
krug
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · F... You!


Surely this is a simple conflict of rights - the photographers right to take pictures in a public space versus an individuals right to maintain their privacy.
There is one answer that comes clearly from that, buildings are inanimate and are not capable of having a right of privacy (VERY few exceptions where REAL security might be involved). Whereas people in a considerate and sophisticated society have a right of consideration - even if it may not be an established legal right.
To jump to 'constitutional rights' in situations like this is an unfortunate overreaction which can only aggravate the issue.

In my experience if you smile at them very few people object - though I think they have a right to if they wish - and where they do I do not feel that I have been deprived of an Oscar worthy shot.

There will always be the problem of the uniform - some people just cannot stop themselves trying to display the power that they think a badge or uniform give them - they will never change but thankfully there are not too many of them and they can generally be easily avoided I find.
Oct 10, 2023 at 07:28 AM
fotoactvst
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · F... You!


krug wrote:
Surely this is a simple conflict of rights - the photographers right to take pictures in a public space versus an individuals right to maintain their privacy.
There is one answer that comes clearly from that, buildings are inanimate and are not capable of having a right of privacy (VERY few exceptions where REAL security might be involved). Whereas people in a considerate and sophisticated society have a right of consideration - even if it may not be an established legal right.
To jump to 'constitutional rights' in situations like this is an unfortunate overreaction which can only aggravate the issue.

In...Show more →

How do you define 'right to privacy' while in the public realm? Do you expect everybody to avert their gaze during a stroll in a public shopping area or square? All adults look at one another.

Photography does not probe our minds.




Oct 10, 2023 at 08:53 AM
Push1stop
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · F... You!




castelnuovo wrote:
I don't know the legalities of it in Canada but if I would want to take a photo of somebody I would first ask. It is not about legalities or rights or freedoms, just plain decency and respect. Maybe we can call it reasonable expectations of privacy?




Wait.. so you're suggesting that photographers should seek permission for every photo taken of a person in public and if denied (before hand or after) delete the frame or stop making the photo all together?
There goes A LOT of journalistic photography as well as street photography...
That to me is an insane stance for a fellow photographer to have.
Oct 10, 2023 at 04:43 PM
castelnuovo
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · F... You!


Photography is a broad thing and as a fellow photographer I say that I don't know or understand everything, there is nothing insane here. One learns a thing or two every day. People photography is not my thing, I just don't feel comfortable taking photos of people up close and personal. Whether it is legal or not does not matter to me much, I just don't do it, not my thing. Architecture, nature, ships in particular for sure. I did take a number of people photos but they are all not identifiable. Once I took a photo of a person doing martial art in a park and I did ask him. He was OK with it. If somebody would ask me to delete a photo, no problem, I am an amateur photographer, it is not my income so I would not bring up legalities, rights, first amendments and such. But you are right re journalism etc
Oct 10, 2023 at 07:06 PM
doady
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · F... You!


I recently got a fisheye lens like the OP specifically for street photography at night. With such extreme wide angle of view, a single person is not going to dominate the frame unless they behave aggressively toward the photographer, as this security guard obviously was. If someone wants privacy they are not to get so close to a photographer. Most people don't try to avoid the camera, and if they do get out of my way it's usually out of respect for me, afraid that they are going to ruin my photo. I've had people pose for me and ask me to take their photo as well.
Oct 10, 2023 at 07:26 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · F... You!


To me, shots like this are pretty simple ... you either feel like agitating people, or you don't. Your choice, but don't cry about the responses when you choose to get in their personal space.

If folks' (meaning us, the photographer) britches aren't big enough to respect that our actions might agitate folks, and be prepared for their unfavorable response ... then folks (i.e. us) should consider whether or not they have the temperament for shooting people on the street. That, or take a moment to consider if they are going about it in the right manner (or not).


Kind of a "What I learned in Kindergarten." type of thing.


The issues of legality and human nature are two very different things. Imo, a good hunter understands the nature of his quest. That goes for hunting animals, and the human kind are included in that. Folks that have developed an understanding of the human element, and have honed their craft in concert with that, make for better street photographers (again, imo).

Jamming a camera in someone's face has become "a thing" that folks think makes for good street photography ... when / where / how that came to be "a thing" is an evolutionary thing that (imo) is a poor excuse for good street photography. Imo, it isn't really what makes a good street photographer. I'm not saying proximity doesn't have its place, but I've seen far too many "proximity" shots that lack anything other than the proximity.

That said ... I get 1st Amendment (I served and defend the Constitution). But, even beyond the legalities that the courts have upheld, is the rudimentary respect we have and show for our fellow human beings. Where each of us draws that line of respect vs. 1st Amendment, is our own call. The 1st Amendment does not support hate speech, and while the image is not in the realm of hate ... our actions with our cameras can still be in the realm of intentionally agitating other people. So, if we are going to play in the playground of agitating others ... buck up and realize that folks are going to express their disdain when we agitate them.

Pretty simple ... agitate people, they get agitated. It ain't rocket science. Mirror check, what agitates us may be different from what agitates others. But, we would rather folks don't go around agitating us, so why should we wonder why other folks would prefer we don't agitate them.

Again, it ain't rocket science ... it's basic human nature. Take your shots ... and don't cry about it when you agitate folks that they have a response you don't like.

If we're gonna shoot folks (and I totally get the aspect of "the moment" vs. permission thing), it ain't no different than hunting lions, tigers and bears, in that if they get upset with you, it's part of the hunt ... buck up, and accept it, or be more stealth, or more respectful, or hunt something else.


Note: This is written as a general perspective, not targeting the OP ... as this has been ongoing for a long time and some folks have somehow come to think they are entitled to agitate folks without a negative reposnse.

People are people. Accept that when you agitate them, you agitate them. It ain't legal beagle, nor rocket science ... it's basic human respect (imo) that they simply don't like, what they don't like.
Oct 10, 2023 at 08:24 PM
doady
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · F... You!


RustyBug wrote:
To me, shots like this are pretty simple ... you either feel like agitating people, or you don't. Your choice, but don't cry about the responses when you choose to get in their personal space.

If folks' (meaning us, the photographer) britches aren't big enough to respect that our actions might agitate folks, and be prepared for their unfavorable response ... then folks (i.e. us) should consider whether or not they have the temperament for shooting people on the street. That, or take a moment to consider if they are going about it in the right manner (or not).

Kind of...Show more →

The OP was photographing the exterior of a building from a public sidewalk. It was the security guard who approached the OP and got into his face.
Oct 10, 2023 at 08:37 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · F... You!


doady wrote:
The OP was photographing the exterior of a building from a public sidewalk. It was the security guard who approached the OP and got into his face.

I understand ... I'm not saying that the photographer is in the right / wrong. Just saying that it comes with the territory that there will be folks on the street who are agitated with our actions (rightly or not), and that it cuts both ways that folks get agitated by what we do, and we get agitated by what they do.

I've got numerous stories here in the archives, of folks getting in my business when they had no real business doing so. It just comes with the territory that you cannot control how others feel about what we are doing.

That's part and parcel to shooting on the street, is my point. So, we shouldn't get that upset by it ... when we understand human nature (rightly or not). The point is to not let it get under your skin. I say that ... as someone who has let it get under my skin in previous years.

Most recently, I had a woman yell at me "You're getting reported." How peculiar, I thought ... recognizing and landing on the perspective that it was rooted in her lack of understanding, moreover than my impropriety.

In times past, that would have bothered me differently, but I can't control how she felt about me taking a picture in her direction. I just walked on past, without so much as blink. So, yeah ... it cuts both ways, sometimes.

Again, general perspective, not targeted toward the OP.
Oct 10, 2023 at 09:09 PM
doady
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · F... You!


I don't know why, but I have not been bothered by my occasional run-ins police and security over the years. It's not something I've worried much about. Maybe because I mostly photograph depressing suburban and industrial areas, and those photos are meant to incite people's displeasure anyways.

But of course for street photography in a vibrant city it is the opposite approach. Sometimes I notice people are bothered but they don't say anything. Other times they are too respectful of me, which doesn't work either. They are not being their true selves. While urban landscape photography is about antagonizing people, street photography is about connecting with people.

That's why I like the photo by the OP. You really get to see that man's true nature, what he is really like deep inside. That is getting to know people right there. The OP wasn't even trying to do street photography, but he ended up with a great street photograph. Maybe that's the key for street photography, not trying too hard to be a photographer.
Oct 10, 2023 at 11:06 PM
castelnuovo
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · F... You!


doady wrote:
I don't know why, but I have not been bothered by my occasional run-ins police and security over the years. It's not something I've worried much about. Maybe because I mostly photograph depressing suburban and industrial areas, and those photos are meant to incite people's displeasure anyways.

But of course for street photography in a vibrant city it is the opposite approach. Sometimes I notice people are bothered but they don't say anything. Other times they are too respectful of me, which doesn't work either. They are not being their true selves. While urban landscape photography is about antagonizing people,...Show more →

You really get to see that man's true nature, what he is really like deep inside

I wouldn't be too quick to call this a "true nature" of the security guard, it sounds too harsh, maybe judgmental. We can't see his true nature deep inside based on this one event, this one moment. Consider what may have happening in his day. Maybe he had to deal with one too many idiots on his shift, maybe he is tired working overtime after a night shift, maybe hungry and a bit cranky. Human beings are emotional and sometimes we are not at our best and sometimes we react the way we normally would not. Think of driving your car and suddenly somebody cuts you off. You lay on your horn, say few chosen words maybe finger the other guy and make an angry face. You are caught on a camera and...this is your true nature, this is who you are. Right? No, wrong. Humans are not robots and sometimes we react the way we don't want to. Happens to the best of us.


Oct 11, 2023 at 12:23 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · F... You!


One other (general) note ... we are frequently stereotyped along with those who have taken street to ever higher agitation levels over the years. Presumed guilty by many, thanks to guilt by association with those who have lesser regard for people on the street, than our personal higher standards of regard for folks may be.

YMMV




Oct 11, 2023 at 01:12 PM
1
       2       end
FM Forums | City, Street & Architecture | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.