Philosophy of Photography

[Khortal]

Thanks Kort ...that's really got my head spinning!! .........but the camera's still in my hand!

Please dont let go Marcus ....and keep clicking away... as your images in the loop may well reveal a Universal Answer (other than 42)


Cheers , Kort .

[thelps]

To me the process of creating an image -scouting a location, figuring out the composition, taking the shot, developing the raw file, printing - is at least as important and enjoyable than the end result on the wall. I enjoy slowing down an taking my time for each of these steps. Photography led me to take care about things I never expected to be interested in and I'm curious where it will lead me in the future.

Yeah, the idea of making an image is a different process to say something like "street photography" where you "grab" an image. The making is quite creative, the grab image requires skill and good reflexes. Perhaps street photography is something the young do better? I'm not sure. The making of a photo needs some inspiration I think.

[Marana]

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, :^)

[Tom Caldwell]

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, :^)

Sandy

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.

Tom

[wok64]

... Doisneau's innocent and charming "street urchin" images are hardly possible any more.

Tom

Sad but true. People definitely got paranoid about photographers, even if they are only interested in architecture. Photographing nice buildings or monuments within a city was not a problem at all before 9/11. I can´t remember a single incident where anyone bothered. After 9/11 I had countless encounters with people getting offensive because they thought I took their picture. Of course staying friendly helps (and in the worst case being 6 foot and some inches tall helps too )

Of course what makes things even more complicated is that the average citicen knows even less about the legal situation concerning photographs than the average photographer. For example in Germany you are allowed to photograph a persons belongings in a public area without the persons agreement. But you´re not allowed to photograph the person itself. So you may take a picture of a motorcycle or a nice car but the owner - not knowing the law - may interpret that as inapropriate.

[MarcusEyre1]

Please dont let go Marcus ....and keep clicking away... as your images in the loop may well reveal a Universal Answer (other than 42)

Thanks Kort......BTW, 42 is the best Universal Answer I've seen yet!! ....although 27 is a close second.

BTW2.......nicely put Tom.

[Tom Caldwell]

Is it the French law where you must get permission from everyone in the proposed image before it is legal? An impossible situation.

Willi Ronis, one of the all time great street shooters that made French photography renowned world wide said that he gave up street photography when these restrictive laws were introduced.

Now we here of not only getting model releases but property releases as well.

Here in laid back Australia the PC of taking images of children is getting out of hand as if all blokes are pedophiles on the make. I take great offence to even the thought that I might be a danger to society and very carefully only take images of the children of close family and friends. Robert Doisneau and others would be locked up these days as P-nasties.

I see it the duty of every adult in this world to care for and protect all children and if you see one running around without the apparent attention of a concerned parent then of course any sensible adult will keep and eye out on what they are doing lest they run under a bus or fall in and drown. Just don't take their picture before they do so ...

Taking photographs in National Parks here is now a permit only job (in theory). No one is going to get caught in practice but if you use the image commercially then who knows who might come knocking at your door.

So we all know the natural laws of innocent and useful photography but the advent of surreptitious use of mobile phone cameras and discreet hidden video surveillance has caused a nervous back-bite on any image capturing and of course it is the innocent easily seen and targeted casual photographer waving a camera about openly that gets the angst.

Not the real villains. Mobile phone idiots will still keep at it and surveillance video makes us "safe".

Tom

[thelps]

Taking photographs in National Parks here is now a permit only job (in theory). No one is going to get caught in practice but if you use the image commercially then who knows who might come knocking at your door.

Tom, I haven't heard of this one. I wonder if the law is retrospective to when the image was taken. How could it be proven either way?
How does the like of Ken Duncan and others get on?