UPDATE: CLASSIFIEDS section refreshed, redesigned, searchable: Go take a look
where the chosen ones go on the coming of the lord/apocalypse?
Its similar to a 'point' especially if you haven't got your reading specs and are writing on a phone.
Only pedant knobs get bothered by the difference usually.
Ooooh....sensitive wee snowflake.
Arent Fairs just gathering ponts for halfwits?I wouldnt go to one with under any circumstances.
Proximity of **** to bollocks; often a good thing, not in this case 🙂
The original incident sounded very much like a bunch of pack animals behaving, well, like pack animals.
I doubt it was really your actions that stirred them up, OP, trying to reason with baying mouth-breathers will only have enraged them further as they probably didn't understand you if you used any long words.
They're just projecting their own neuroses on to an easy target, but are too thick to realise.
I get dragged to our local fair every year and I hate it. Feral kids running everywhere effing and blinding, getting ripped off at every turn and being jostled left right and centre.
Cultural heritage? You can stick it up your arse.
Ooooh....sensitive wee snowflake
Cough....to the fair halfwit.
I'd have probably taken pics somewhere else other than a fair. Might have been more acceptable had you had children with you.
There was a fair in Victoria Park, Bath, last year, which prompted me to take a few photos, but it was mid-morning, it was cloudy and dull, with nobody around but those doing maintenance so I thought I'd go back later if the weather cleared.
Glad I did, it was fantastic, there were loads of people about, and the rides were made for taking photos!
Like most of the people there, I was using my phone, because it was unexpected and I don't habitually carry my compact camera, but there were people there with 'real' cameras, and nobody seemed to much give a shit.
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
Some interesting (and not so interesting) points of view in this thread. IMO there is a big difference between being the focal point of a photo and just being captured in a photo. I wouldn't feel comfortable with any family member being the first without permission, I am not sure if it is an invasion of privacy thing or something else but it just doesn't sit comfortably with me and I'm struggling to work out why.
I am not sure if it is an invasion of privacy thing or something else but it just doesn't sit comfortably with me and I'm struggling to work out why.
It's really worth wrestling with it to come up with an answer. There's a good chance it's the product of some underlying bias or fear, perhaps not entirely unreasonably and I'm not suggesting it's specific to you. I encounter the issue a lot and I think it has a lot more to do with the nature of our society now.
Think of it like this; every day you walk down the street you are already being photographed without your knowledge or consent. Like it or not, surveillance has become an every day part of our lives that most of us don't think too much about. But see someone pointing a camera at you and that apathy changes, often quite dramatically.
It's illogical, but it is real and it's interesting, or at least it is to me which is why I do what I do (though bear in mind most of my work is done entirely with consent).
That's a peado in the 3rd pic, best send that to operation yewtree.
badnewz - MemberYeah you probably shouldn't go around photographing like that without asking parents permission.
just to point you don't need anyones permission to take their photo in public wither they are a child or not.
geetee1972Think of it like this; every day you walk down the street you are already being photographed without your knowledge or consent. Like it or not, surveillance has become an every day part of our lives that most of us don't think too much about. But see someone pointing a camera at you and that apathy changes, often quite dramatically.
The thing about surveillance is that whilst we might not agree with it, we understand the point of it. Even if there is a security guard observing, generally the point is to monitor a set field of view for something out of the ordinary.
The fixed security camera doesn't curate or discriminate. It merely documents. A photographer with a camera is functioning in the opposite way. They are making a conscious decision to take one snapshot, for whatever motive.
Most of us will agree that it's acceptable to photograph a crowd scene, even if it contains children. It may well be fine to have a random child be the focus provided it's not exploitative. But it's impossible for a parent to know what the intentions of a complete stranger are.
poah
just to point you don't need anyones permission to take their photo in public wither they are a child or not.
There are many rude or inconsiderate things you don't need anyone's permission to do which are also not illegal.
There are many rude or inconsiderate things you don't need anyone's permission to do which are also not illegal.
Is it rude to take a photo? How about to look at you? What if I write some notes about your appearance? Or mention you to my wife over dinner? All rude?
The thing about being in public is that you're, you know, in public. Luckily for you, there is less and less space in the UK which is actually public, much of it being sold from under your feet to business, so you won't have long to wait before there is actually no "public" left and your paranoia will find support from the rentacops patrolling the streets.
Many folk dont like their photo being taken
this will only be exacerbated by a person they dont know doing it in public without consent
As a photographer how you wish to deal with this is your choice but you know it will happen
Is it rude I dont really know but i think most folk would get annoyed if someone followed them everywhere taking photos so i guess the only question is where is the line.
To save me getting grief I dont mind I simply understand that some folk do and we all would if it became "intrusive"
I guess the real point is what is intrusive and what is ok. the answer will vary as this thread shows.
Probably around the same point as the difference between a look and a stare.
Difficult situation and not one that I would put myself in, but I love a candid street shot and have a lot of respect for those that take them (I failed miserably on the street shot module of a college photography course.. I didn't have the balls for it)
Your best reaction would have been to show them some of your shots in good grace and offer to delete anything relevant to them that they objected to. If this didn't diffuse the situation then steadfastly demand police involvement.. I don't imagine any right-minded paedo wanting the police looking at the contents of their camera and it would have proved your innocence to the Jeremy Kyle mob.
Wierd that you didn't tbh but probably incredibly hard to remain reasonable, calm and friendly in that situation though..
You're gonna havta work on your conflict management charm offensive if you wanna keep putting yourself out there like that
Many folk dont like their photo being taken
People do lots of stuff I don't like, but I don't go round threatening to punch them. If you get upset by other people doing things, go live on a desert island.
Bit late to the thread, but those women are the sort that watch Eastenders, Jeremy Kyle and the like - they expect life to give them these dramas, and part of them goes looking for it to revel in it. I know people like this.
Sad for you to have bumped into them and encountered their stupidity in this way.
Glad to hear it whoever said this was a suitable response will feel foolish now - who said this?People do lots of stuff I don't like, but I don't go round threatening to punch them.
you are right not only is it the only choice its the sensible one 😕If you get upset by other people doing things, go live on a desert island.
Just out of interest GeeTee, which town was this ?
Reason I ask is that there a couple of towns nearby with fairs at the moment and wondering if it might have been one of those.
horrible situation Greg, and I agree - it's sad that society now has this in built fear of people doing completely innocent things.
The more I thought about this, the angrier it made me so if I were you I wouldn't let it lie. I haven't read all of the thread, so someone else might have suggested similar, but I'd go back. I'd take my wife and I'd go around making it so bloody obvious that I was taking photos of the general atmosphere of the fun fair and being the most artsy, considered photographer around. Now some might argue that this is because I'm an obstinate bugger (and they'd be right), but I value the freedom to do what we want, where we want (within reason), and I don't want some jumped up mums getting all agro on me and stopping that.
I'm not saying you're wrong for walking away (far from it), but I don't think I'd be able to let it rest.
Just out of interest GeeTee, which town was this ?
Horsham in West Sussex.
Probably Crawley scumbags visiting then...
Ps. Crawley Scumbag here
Most of us will agree that it's acceptable to photograph a crowd scene, even if it contains children. It may well be fine to have a random child be the focus provided it's not exploitative. But it's impossible for a parent to know what the intentions of a complete stranger are.
A couple of genuine questions, not just for you.
What do you think the chances are that someone photographing a crowd scene is a paedophile and will use those images for some paedophilic purpose.
Suppose it does happen, what do you think the outcome will be?
@spin - I think the answers are evidently
a) approximately zero
b) nothing
I agree, which rather begs the question, why all the brouhaha?
1) the women over-reacted
2) ask for permission before taking individual photos of people you don't know
2) ask for permission before taking individual photos of people you don't know
Do you think Nick Ut asked for permission before photographing Phan Thi Kim Phuc, or Kevin Carter before he photographed the starving boy in Sudan?
I know that my work is not in the same league of importance or merit, but what you're advocating amounts to censorship.
At the end of the day, this is the first time this has ever happened to me in over ten years of taking photo's like this. I almost never shoot children specifically (and wasn't really in this case either) and when I have been confronted I have always managed to not only talk people down, but get them to pose directly for me.
This incidence was an outlier albeit a very worrying and deeply upsetting one.
Do you think Nick Ut asked for permission before photographing Phan Thi Kim Phuc, or Kevin Carter before he photographed the starving boy in Sudan?
That feels different to me - a photo journalist capturing 'news'. Most people photographed for news are previously known but the fate of these people was the news story.
How much of your photography is candid? Most of the best shots seem to be posed.
It's been interesting thinking about this. How would I react if someone stood in front of me and took a photo of me (very me of me in the landscape, not the landscape with me in it) as I walked down the street? Probably a bit weirded out. However I've had countless stranger take photos of me when I've being doing something notable and never thought anything of it. Would it make a difference if it was taken 6ft away or 106ft? Again yes it would but you could argue that 6ft away is more honest and less clandestine. I also wonder if the propensity of 'vigilante' photography by people wanting to record people doing something something they disapprove of has made 'normal' less predisposed to having photos 'of them' taken without permission.
Finally how the photographer fits into the environment seems to play a role in my attitude. If the person looks like an Art student doing Art student kind of stuff it is obviously explainable. If it was a fair goers clearly enjoying the fair and also taking photos it also kind of works. Somewhere in the middle makes you stand out.
Do you think Nick Ut asked for permission before photographing Phan Thi Kim Phuc, or Kevin Carter before he photographed the starving boy in Sudan?
How does that compare to a funfair in Sussex?
They were major World events. There was a duty to report them.
After apologising for your earlier extravagant comparisons, you're at it again. 🙄
How very depressing. A guy going about his day, harmlessly indulging his hobby for photographing people, and the vigilantes line up to condemn him. Reminds me a lot of the red socks brigade complaining about MTBs on "their" footpaths - no doubt they would consider them as "rude and inconsiderate".
For another data point, here is a video that a friend of mine uploaded yesterday. I guess I have to tell him he's a rude paedophile. Probably he won't be that bothered as he started in photography getting his skull cracked by police at demonstrations in Chile.
They were major World events. There was a duty to report them.
How big of an event does something have to be before we have your permission to photograph it? Do you have a hotline so we can call to check?
^^^ Kids with oversized balls, at fairgrounds, need documenting too. 😆
How big of an event does something have to be before we have your permission to photograph it?
I am not questioning the right of the OP to photograph people in public spaces. It has been clearly indicated he has every right to do so.
My criticism is of his ludicrous comparison of those photographs and what he was doing, especially as he earlier stated that it was similar to a rape when he was shoved by a woman who is know shown to weigh about 9 stone.
I'd be pissed off if you took pictures of me let alone my son (if you didn't show me the pics and explain why you were taking them)
IMO OP should have shown them the photos and moved on
My criticism is of his ludicrous comparison
To show that the comparison is ludicrous, you would have to give some logical criteria for deciding what is legitimate to document and what is not.
I'd be pissed off if you took pictures of me let alone my son
How you react to people harmlessly acting within the law is, of course, up to you.
Do you think Nick Ut asked for permission before photographing Phan Thi Kim Phuc, or Kevin Carter before he photographed the starving boy in Sudan?I know that my work is not in the same league importance or merit, but what you're advocating amounts to censorship.
I don't think it does. You are not so much recording wars as starting them!
I'd be pissed off if you took pictures of me let alone my son (if you didn't show me the pics and explain why you were taking them)
Genuinely, why? Obviously there's a scale between a one off shot and someone hovering around you for 15 minutes. But at the one off end, would it really concern you if someone took your picture without asking first?
Dr J you are normal so rational but on this one issue you seem to have gone completely off the rails.
No he does not now move to an island ON YOUR OWNyou would have to give some logical criteria for deciding what is legitimate to document and what is not.
TBH i think we would all agree his photo and what he compared it to was fatuous act.
Bit like me arguing my right to call someone fat and ugly [ its not illegal] is right up there with Martin Luther Kings I have a dream speech just because it involves speaking in public
PS i dont need their consent to call them fat and ugly so how they react to this is their choice.
I value my privacy. Unfortunately in this day and age you could end up splayed all over the Internet.
My son and I have been in the Sun news paper, but the photographer asked if he could take our pics, gave us copies and a list of where the image had been used.
The fact OP refused to show the images concerns me.
No he does not
True, he does not. He can continue to invent arbitrary boundaries which he imagines people should respect if he wishes. When he's done with that he can put on a cowboy hat and imagine he's riding the range. No problem.
He can continue to invent arbitrary boundaries which he imagines people should respect if he wishes.
I never stated any boundary. The OP is perfectly entitled to take those pictures if he wishes.
However the comparison with taking of a candid picture of a child at a fairground to post on his Flickr account, with some of the iconic images of World events taken by professional photo-journalists is just ludicrous.
However the comparison with taking of a candid picture of a child at a fairground to post on his Flickr account, with some of the iconic images of World events taken by professional photo-journalists is just ludicrous.
So you keep saying. Forgive me, but "an internet bloke says so" is not a very convincing line of reasoning.
People document stuff. It's not so unusual. What makes it OK for someone to document one thing and not another?
So you keep saying.
I drove to the supermarket yesterday. Does that compare with what Lewis Hamilton is doing this afternoon? It's basically the same activity.
