People photography and children in the pictures

Crotal Bell

Crotal Bell

Messages
2,634
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
Yes
I've got some shots from today that I'm really pleased with, some include children.
I am fully aware of the world we live in and the sensitivities around cameras and other peoples kids.
My brother in law is not allowed to film his daughter at the swimming pool because there are other children on the pool at the same time.
So with all this in mind, is it acceptable for me to have people shots that include families with kids or should I just delete them?
 
:headbang:
what are the photos of?
what are you planning on doing with them?
are they sexually explicit?
 
My general rule is not to photograph children and wait until they are not in shot even if it means waiting for some time. Having said that if they happen to be in say a scenery shot and not directly at them it can't be avoided. An alternative is editing them out quite easily using adobe elements editing suite for example if your really concerned.
like this
now you see him


Rspewiq.jpg
Now you don't as a very very quick edit more time would have even been better but gives some idea

Rspewiq113.jpg
 
Last edited:
I never take pictures of children except if they happen to be in a scene I want to capture.

I have seen "street" pictures on this site which include children more as the scenery and I'm not sure I would have taken them.

It's a sad world we live in.
 
Phil V said:
:headbang:
what are the photos of?
what are you planning on doing with them?
are they sexually explicit?
Click to expand...
NOO !!
Pictures of people, families feeding the ducks etc, outdoors fully clothed nothing else.
 
woof woof said:
I never take pictures of children except if they happen to be in a scene I want to capture.

I have seen "street" pictures on this site which include children more as the scenery and I'm not sure I would have taken them.

It's a sad world we live in.
Click to expand...
Yes you have to be careful and protect your own integrity at all times.
 
I would never take a photo of someone else's child as the subject (without permission), but I have no qualms about taking a shot in a public place that has children appearing in the background.
 
I think I'm getting the picture.
The scene I have posted is simply a scene of people feeding the ducks and another group walking in the background, a happy scene that reflects part of the day out.
However, it could be misunderstood and in this day and age none of us want that. I'll delete it, and refrain from taking pictures like this in the future.
In this picture I explained to the parent that I was shooting the bridge, not his child. He smiled and said "no problem"
BE0001 30 10 22.jpg
 
The Oldun said:
I really don't see anything sinister in a shot like this. It's a family group having family fun.
Click to expand...
Well there was certainly nothing sinister going on Keith, I took over 170 photos this afternoon, this was the only group with kids in it, and this was accidental.
As soon as anyone gets the bread out, the birds start flocking over, I was shooting the BIF to the left as they headed over and ended up at this scene.
I thought it was nice, but if there's the slightest chance that it crosses a line then I'll get rid of it.
 
Crotal Bell said:
In this picture I explained to the parent that I was shooting the bridge, not his child. He smiled and said "no problem"
Click to expand...
I'm not really surprised by the parents response, what does surprise me is if you were photographing the bridge why you didn't wait for the child (or anyone else) to move out of the frame.
 
gramps said:
I'm not really surprised by the parents response, what does surprise me is if you were photographing the bridge why you didn't wait for the child (or anyone else) to move out of the frame.
Click to expand...
exactly my thoughts and what I also said. A little patience and you would have got the shot without the family in it. But I suspect you wanted the family scene in it to make the photo

BE 0008 30 10 22.jpg

Well that has solved photographing children issue.
 

Attachments

  • BE 0008 30 10 22.jpg
    BE 0008 30 10 22.jpg
    142.7 KB · Views: 3
Last edited:
First of all it is not illegal to take photographs of other peoples children in public places, although common sense should be applied by both photographer and parents alike.

Of the two pictures that you have posted the one of the bridge is by far the better image, and the inclusion of the child adds a splash of colour to the lower left third of the photograph.

The image of the “duck feeding” I would bin, the main reason being that the ducks are lost in the highlights and reflections on the water making them difficult to see.
 
The official view from my local police force...
Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.


There is no law preventing people from taking photographs in public. This includes taking photos of other people's children. However if you take photos of other people's children and it is reported to us we may treat this as suspicious behaviour and depending on the circumstances would create an incident log.
Click to expand...
( https://www.devon-cornwall.police.u...mmunity/taking-photographs-in-a-public-space/ )

...so a picture such as this is entirely legal...

Woman and young girl in Heavitree Road P1011130.JPG
 
If you're comfortable making photos with children in, then go for it and if you're not, then don't. No one here will change how you feel about it. The same goes for sharing those images, your ethics and what you find acceptable are personal to you. If you think about what your intent was behind the photo, this might help with judging your ethics
 
We had a visit from the police the other day, just a follow up to the recent assault and racial abuse of Mrs WW. I mentioned that I'd been taking pictures and the pc stunned me a bit when he said "You're perfectly entitled to take pictures." That may be the state of the law and how well informed officers interpreted it but the reaction of others is a different thing and personally I'd rather not take a shot than risk any confrontation with an angry parent or other.
 
woof woof said:
I mentioned that I'd been taking pictures and the pc stunned me a bit when he said "You're perfectly entitled to take pictures." That may be the state of the law and how well informed officers interpreted it but the reaction of others is a different thing and personally I'd rather not take a shot than risk any confrontation with an angry parent or other.
Click to expand...
and that is a personal choice Alan ... the officer didn't 'interpret' the law that IS the law (in a public place).
The problem with all of these 'can I photograph children' posts is that it feeds into the idea that it is wrong to photograph children ... it isn't. Also that every photographer is a paedophile ... they aren't.
Taking obscene or voyeuristic photos of children is obviously wrong, nobody needs to have that explained to them but suggesting that photographing children is 'wrong' is wrong in itself.
Personally if I took a photo including/of a child and was asked by a parent or guardian to remove it, I would but there is no legal obligation to do so.
I also wouldn't take photographs in a children's playground, unless I was with my own children/grandchildren and was photographing them but that is my decision.
 
gramps said:
and that is a personal choice Alan ... the officer didn't 'interpret' the law that IS the law (in a public place).
Click to expand...

I deliberately used that phrase because some clearly interpret the law in other incorrect ways. It was refreshing to hear an officer be so sure of what he was saying to the point of sounding so matter of fact and blunt.

For me context and location are key. I live in a very working class area and very close to relatively deprived areas in east Cleveland and it's not an area where you see people with cameras appearing to photograph children and being challenged is a likelihood. In an area frequently visited by tourists and with more "photographers" you/we would be less likely to be challenged as what we'd be doing could appear more ordinary.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
For me context and location are key. I live in a very working class area and very close to relatively deprived areas in east Cleveland and it's not an area where you see people with cameras appearing to photograph children and being challenged is a likelihood. In an area frequently visited by tourists and with more "photographers" you/we would be less likely to be challenged as what we'd be doing could appear more ordinary.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with you, hence it must be a personal decision ... but as photographers we should not perpetuate the falsehood that photographing children in public places is a 'no-no'. :)
 
So you are worried about children in the shot and you are going to delete it, after posting it on here where anyone can view it :confused:
If you would answer Phil V's questions you may get a reasoned response.
 
I find the general public's view on this topic as one of the most infuriating things in photography. If you take a photo specifically of children out playing these days you could fully expect to get harassed, either when you're taking the photo, or later if you posted it online (if you posted it on a site such as Facebook rather than a specific photography site such as this).
A large proportion of the general public see it as outrageous or illegal for a random person to take a photo of children playing but those same people would love seeing an old photo of children innocently playing out on the streets from years gone by. It's as if they had no idea that the photograph was probably taken by an amateur photographer back in the day, who would now be labelled as a weirdo (or worse).
 
Northern Photography UK said:
I find the general public's view on this topic as one of the most infuriating things in photography. If you take a photo specifically of children out playing these days you could fully expect to get harassed, either when you're taking the photo, or later if you posted it online (if you posted it on a site such as Facebook rather than a specific photography site such as this).
A large proportion of the general public see it as outrageous or illegal for a random person to take a photo of children playing but those same people would love seeing an old photo of children innocently playing out on the streets from years gone by. It's as if they had no idea that the photograph was probably taken by an amateur photographer back in the day, who would now be labelled as a weirdo (or worse).
Click to expand...
My view is if you're going out with the intent of photographing children playing - then it's not going to work well as a one off. You'd need to cultivate a relationship with the local population over the medium term, so they get used to you, the fact you're a photographer and have knowledge of your intent. It's like having a local patch where you're shooting your project - here is Neil and he's doing a photography project on the estate on play, for example. and by cultivating the relationship, you'll end of shooting the project as an insider and not as an outsider.


Northern Photography UK said:
If you take a photo specifically of children out playing these days you could fully expect to get harassed, either when you're taking the photo, or later if you posted it online
Click to expand...
here are a couple of candid public photos I've taken of children playing and I was not harassed at the time or afterwards online - so, I don't think it's true that you can fully expect to get harassed.

I actually don't go out with the intent of photographing children, but I don't avoid them either if something good is happening in front of me


DSCF0730.jpg
DSCF6364-Edit-2.jpg
 
Northern Photography UK said:
I find the general public's view on this topic as one of the most infuriating things in photography.
Click to expand...

The problem is that it 'mostly' isn't their view. It's the view of idiots on Faceache, Twatter etc. and in MSM feeding so much misinformation for so long that people come to believe it.

Religion works the same way - it 'programmes' the innocent and weak minded to 'believe' because that's all they've ever known.
 
Sky said:
Religion works the same way - it 'programmes' the innocent and weak minded to 'believe' because that's all they've ever known.
Click to expand...
I agree.

Religion and the internet work in much the same way: if someone disagrees with the priest, the congregation turn on the "evil doer" :headbang:!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sky
Sky said:
Religion works the same way - it 'programmes' the innocent and weak minded to 'believe' because that's all they've ever known.
Click to expand...
AndrewFlannigan said:
I agree.

Religion and the internet work in much the same way: if someone disagrees with the priest, the congregation turn on the "evil doer" :headbang:!
Click to expand...
Oh dear, isn’t that just the sort of negative attitude that you are condemning?
 
gramps said:
Oh dear, isn’t that just the sort of negative attitude that you are condemning?
Click to expand...
Au contraire.

It's never wrong to reflect the negative effects of group think.
 
I think the problem is photographers being too scared of there own shadow... Just take the pic and use however....IF and its a big IF anyone says anyhting in the future just offer to delete and everyones happy :) My response is because I see more photogrpahers worrying about what picture thay are tkaing than I see people worrying about being in a picture...

IMHO :)
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Au contraire.

It's never wrong to reflect the negative effects of group think.
Click to expand...
You are classifying every 'religious' person in the same negative way, if you can't see how wrong that is then I can't take your comments on the thread subject seriously.
 
gramps said:
You are classifying every 'religious' person in the same negative way, if you can't see how wrong that is then I can't take your comments on the thread subject seriously.
Click to expand...

woof woof said:
Maybe no need to bring religion into this at all... or Brexit :D
Click to expand...

It's nothing to do with religion or politics. Gramps' is just an emotional response to a very emotive subject; 'one's belief'.

It's just people - we're actually just biped ('two-legged' for the lesser educated) sheep. We follow each other in the same way and adopt each other's beliefs and ideals. It's just in our nature to always disagree with someone who doesn't believe as we do.

The more intelligent person would want to study both sides of any differing opinion to truly be able to decide for themselves which has the most merit. Unfortunately, most people are not intelligent and will just follow the example set by their peers. This is why we're constantly fighting one another with the larger group always 'ganging-up' on the smaller . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top