|
Posting this in both this thread and Photographers and the Law. http://www.7dvt.com/2010photographer-banned-taking-pictures-church-street I love the part where the aggrieved party describes what he did...and it sounds not just legal, but perfectly normal street photography. quote:“If I had been drunk and gone into Uncommon Grounds and created a loud scene, I can understand why they wouldn’t want me in there,” Scott says. “But I wasn’t even in the store. I wasn’t even in front of the store.”
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2010 18:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 15:32 |
|
|
Whitezombi posted:I will not delete an image if someone asks or demands that I do but I will stop taking their photo if they ask. You certainly have to deal with people if you are in public shooting even if you are not shooting people. You just have to be polite. I think if she'd been friendly, and polite herself and asked, he may well have...but she "demanded" he delete it. gently caress that noise. When I'm asked about what I'm doing, I'm friendly and open. When people demand info/action, I'm completely and totally non-cooperative.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2010 22:34
|
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:We'll never know how he actually reacted to people. I'm betting he probably could have been more personable, despite what he says. Sure, we'll likely not get the whole story ever. However, the one person who has complained makes the same complaint again and again, that is, "he was taking pictures without permission." In fact, she says he was "creepy", but agrees none of the pictures was lewd, and goes back to, "I didn't want him to take my picture, and he did anyway." Given that, and that his story matches that really well, I suspect she's one of those people that loudly complains about poo poo like this, but is a "patron of the arts" at the coffee shop with no idea of the irony.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2010 22:49
|
|
|
Koth posted:Further to that article posted. He was banned from entering the business on Church street, but he wasn't banned from the street... so what's the point? I really don't understand that part. The point is to intimidate the photographer...there can be no other reason, since they admit he was never in the shops when taking pictures. And, the telephoto in question is 135mm, so hardly a giant. Take a look at his photostream.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2010 12:55
|
|
|
Frankly, if it's not made of plastic, to include the lens, it's not "street" as you "kids" with your "hippity hop" music and baggy denim trousers call it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2010 18:47
|
|
|
orange lime posted:I hate to be the guy who does this, but that's some strange bokeh. On the left (on the produce) it looks like little glowing worms, and in the center you've almost got some donuts going on. Not bad, just weird. Is that a characteristic of the Canon 1.2, or just the lighting? First, go to the flickr page of that photo. Then, look at the tags, and select the tag for that lens. You'll see a picture of a girl with a green/yellow bokeh-ey background. The comments there are about the weird bokeh the lens produces. It's a feature, not a bug, is going to be the argument.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2010 14:17
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:That's not what I meant. Yes the bokeh's busy, but I quite like some of the photograph (Grandma+kid being my favorite). And in most pictures the OOF areas aren't even distracting. I like all of them. bokeh discussions are just part of the "how did this happen this way" kind of thing for me. That bokeh in the one shot isn't attractive, but the picture's still good. It just makes me want to know, "why?"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2010 17:15
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Tri-x in Rodinal 1+25. Sometimes at work my computer won't display all images. This was one I passed up. Not enough love given to this. One of my favorites from you.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2010 13:13
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:For some reason, I really, really like this one. Don't know why, but I think the ethereal quality that appeals to me wouldn't appeal to say, oh, poopinmymouth.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2010 23:56
|
|
|
Street is filled with too much contradiction for me. I want it to be candid, but the rule is always, "don't use telephoto!" If people see you shooting, you've changed the scene already. If you shoot from anonymity, it's "not street!" Plus, while I'm an advocate for the whole "photography is not a crime" thing, when someone is walking to/from work, feeling like poo poo, I've got a lot of sympathy for their hostility to some stranger getting in their face taking their picture. I like looking at the good street stuff, but it's one shot in 10 of those I see posted, let alone the ratio to shots taken. On the other hand, I love the "my walk to work" series that Mannequin did. It wasn't street photography, but it had a lot of why I like street in it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2011 12:54
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:, I don't think I did a "walk to work" series, but I'm glad you liked it! I'll take credit for it either way. you didn't call it that, I just referred to it that way.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2011 01:24
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:It's only okay to call posters retards not actual people with actual disabilities.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
JesusDoesVegas posted:Cool. Oddly enough, I don't judge the dorkroom by fyad or gbs standards.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
thetzar posted:
Hey, you got the street photography "look". Success!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2018 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 15:32 |
|
|
8th-snype posted:You guys know that "street photography" is just a name for a particular form of candid documentary photography that tends toward a vernacular style? It doesn't have much to do with actual paved surfaces. Denied. Absolute slavish following of the literal meaning is all we have as forum photographers!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2018 22:46
|
|