Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Street shooting with the 24/2.8

Subject: Re: [OM] Street shooting with the 24/2.8
From: "Mickey Trageser" <mickeytr@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 15:53:44 -0400
Giles,
I'm in basic agreement with you, but I think some basic courtesy is in
order. If I should photograph you as an incidental pedestrian in a
photograph, and you are recognizable, I believe the following:

1. I should not have to ask your permission, if you are not the focus of my
attention.
2. You should not expect that I am invading your 'personal space' by zooming
in on you.
3. I should not make public the shot that clearly reveals a booger or lunch
particles residing in your mustache.  ;-)
4. The guy who is accompanied by someone he'd rather not have record of , is
acting at his own risk, being in public anyway. But he is the one more
likely to offer his objection in a more physical manner....

Having a record of a moment frozen in time, to review repeatedly is not
inherently offensive. But if an image of an individual portrays them badly
due to a clumsy or unattractive expression, it's best not to make this image
public as it could form a durable negative characterization of them. To do
so, would put us in league with the National Enquirer and its ilk. I think
common sense and respectful judgement should be the rule, and we should take
heed at what the local customs are.

Just my 2 cents.
Mickey
----- Original Message -----
From: "Giles" <cnocbui@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] Street shooting with the 24/2.8


>
> My ethical view on it is this.
>
> People out in a public place, are there accepting without thought
> that other people will see them.
>
> Why should they object if their image is frozen in time and then made
> available for others to see. Anyone viewing the photogrph could have seen
> what the photographer saw had they themselves  been there when the photo
> was taken.
>
> I can not see why someone who appears in a photograph should have a
> valid objection to someone seeing them via a photograph when they would
> not have an objection to someone seeing them in person at the time.
>
> In a non public place a person should have every right to object to being
> photographed.
>
> Giles
>
>  John Hudson wrote:
>
> > Is there any consensus on the ethics of this kind of street photography?
> > After all, it is pretty much "right in your face" and I am wondering if
> > the photographer is intruding into the subject's personal space over
> > which the subject could have a valid objection?
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
>


< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz