Marana wrote:Well, regarding the privacy question, I am amazed at how little privacy the general public has. I took a local community college course on photography, and privacy laws were a big part of it. It emphasized how little privacy or right to his own image a person has. If you can see it with your natural eyes outside of privately owned buildings, you can photograph it. For example, a super-zoom lens pointed into the private window of a celebrity home is non-publishable. But as soon as the celebrity (or person you wish to photograph) steps outside, it's all free game. Street photography is absolutely legal, but certainly something I don't envision I'd ever have the guts to do, :^)
I think what you are saying is how it should be. "Political correctness", and in some countries, laws are restricting just what it might be possible to record in a public place.
And yet video surveillance is now "everywhere" unfettered and watched by unknown persons as well as being recorded. So what has done more to de-humanise the very human "privacy"? Casual in your face, obvious but innocent, street shooting? Or video cameras that surreptitiously follow every move and record it? The one that is obvious and can be seen bears the angst for the other that is invisible and truly invasive. But people seem happy to give away their rights to privacy if this is offered in exchange for "security".
Now grey hair, and an innocent with camera in hand, and there are children within a hundred metres and you risk both reputation and liberty but whilst in Asia I witnessed parents snapping each others children in a swimming pool quite naturally and without hang-ups whilst I well-trained in my "free" country of residence carefully kept my camera packed away.
Political correctness gone mad? The restrictive laws are hardly necessary if public opinion has been wound up by the media.
Doisneau's innocent and charming "street urchin" images are hardly possible any more.