|
He's in the legal clear, but I really wonder if the guy being stubborn about deleting the photo made the thing bigger? I checked out the guy's Flickr and he's got good subjects but the scenes just feel flat (does anyone else agree with me here?). So maybe I'm biased against him. Unless the photo was of some amazing caliber, what is deleting one of those photos going to do? He could have been courteous and even fake deleted if it really mattered to him so much. I think it's part of street photography to not just get good shots but also sell yourself to people, be non-intrusive, etc. It calls for being really personable and charismatic when taking street photos. Again, before anyone jumps on me, I understand he was in the legal clear. I'm just saying it's part of taking these kind of photos to deal with people more than you would in taking landscapes or something like that. I get the impression he could have handled that a bit better.
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2010 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 19:53 |
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Watch Bruce Gilden at work, you'll be amazed. I've seen him. I know a lot of people disagree with his style and to say his style is analogous with this is unfair. Gilden shoots busy people in NYC, take a photo and these people are on their way. It's sure to piss people off but NYC is a different environment from any other US city. Can't any of you put yourself in the woman's position, though? Maybe you weren't having a good day, looked bad, etc. -- just go out for a smoke to relieve stress and 50 ft. away there's a guy taking photos of you. All you can do in that position is ask to kindly stop and delete the photo. What I'm saying is sometimes photographers get a little too possessive about their photos and not the subject itself. What did that photo accomplish? An addition to Flickr account but ruined a person's day. That's not being professional, I don't care about the law in that regard. It's nice to take photos of anything in open space, as a photographer that is a great right to have. As a person, I wouldn't appreciate a photographer being so defensive if I didn't want my likeness used in his portfolio. I understand the whole philosophy of "my best shot is the one I'm taking" and the freedom to take photographs in an open space, but I don't know if this guy is using any sense. He gets plenty of shots of people, what loss is his portfolio by deleting the photo and sparing the woman added stress? I think there's an overemphasis on her demanding. This guy is being labeled as a creep by the public because he probably doesn't broach the person after taking a candid shot when he's noticed. That's drat creepy and really unprofessional -- any legal or photo freedom beliefs aside. No. 9 fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Mar 17, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2010 00:53
|
|
|
So how does one get the photo to the person? Email, I'm assuming? Printing would only result to like .50/photo profit.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2010 05:16
|
|
|
dik-dik posted:No, no, no. The way it works is, someone approaches you asking you for cash. You say "I'll give you $2 if you let me take your picture." You take their picture, give them $2. Ah jeez I had it way backwards. This actually works more in my favor since my city has tons of homeless!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2010 05:40
|
|
|
Boiler posted:I've been finding that I'm finally losing my shyness about street photography. These three photos from Vegas are some of my favourites from the trip. The first one could benefit from being wider framed. The second one too but not as much. I like the colors quite a bit on the second one, whereas the first one does nothing for me really. The second one evokes something, but it feels off somehow too. However, I really like the third one for some reason. I really like the colors and the scene makes up for the people not being interesting. I really like the third shot a lot; it really works. It reminded me of Brassaļ in a more abstract way.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2011 08:05
|
|