- Messages
- 7,945
- Name
- Terry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
This is a shot I want to keep, if acceptable.
View attachment 371937
Absolutely...
No reason not to.
This is a shot I want to keep, if acceptable.
View attachment 371937
I've always said, and I always will say, there's nothing wrong with religion. if you practice it in private and don't impose your views on others.It's nothing to do with religion or politics. Gramps' is just an emotional response to a very emotive subject; 'one's belief'.
You are making a blanket assumption which is totally incorrect ... just as some people accuse photographers who photograph a child/children.Gramps' is just an emotional response to a very emotive subject; 'one's belief'.
Again a blanket assumption that is totally ill-informed.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.
What precludes 'religious' people from being "intelligent"?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.
Given the recent advances in our knowledge of the Neanderthal people, I for one am pleased to be associated with them.However, I'm done with reacting to the neanderthal thinking being displayed in the thread.
It's worth noting that this is NOT the case in all countries....
Which brings us back to the original discussion. If you are in public, your face is public and you have no right to prevent yourself being photographed, other than in some very specific circumstances.
I had been waiting for ages, that bridge is like Spaghetti Junction.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.
Thank you. I guess that's what partly prompted me to ask the question.This is a lovely picture with great layers, gestures and it tells multiple stories, one I'd personally be proud of
A few years ago I was walking around Newcastle with a couple of cameras round my neck and we took a shortcut across Times Square at The Centre for Life. There was an outdoor ice rink so we stopped to observe people of all ages having fun. Within a minute a security guard came up to me and told me I wasn't allowed to take photos. I told him I wasn't taking photos at that time but there was nothing legally stopping me if I wanted to. I was told it was private property and the landlords didn't allow photographs. I replied that Scotswood Road passed through Times Square and it was an ancient right of way as well as a public highway. A long discussion ensued and at the end of it I was fuming, even though there was nothing I wanted to take a picture of. When I got home I fired off an email to the Centre for Life and to the City Council. The Council replied within 24 hours stating that the route of Scotswood Road was an adopted public highway and enclosed a map. I forwarded that email to the Centre for Life stating that I realised I had been about 5 feet off the route of Scotswood Road and therefore within their property, but I resented the security guard insinuating that because I was carrying cameras I represented some sort of danger. They replied with free tickets to the visitor centre.
I've seen the "Audit" videos on youtube where people deliberately provoke confrontation by taking pointless photos outside police stations and government buildings, pretending they are legitimately taking shots because they are interested in the architecture or police cars. They are only doing it to boost their views and increase their earnings from the 'tube. I was genuinely taken by surprise and reacted to the insinuation that there was a sinister purpose behind me carrying (though not using) cameras. The site was outdoors and very public, with quite an audience, but I respect the decision of the landowners to set the rules. My mistake was that I was 5 or 6 feet from the public highway.IMO. There are too many people who seem to actively seek and and enjoy confrontation. From security guards though angry parents and agressive teenagers. To me it's just not wort the agro but I can see how some want to stand their ground.
I think those are great photos, and I like all three in different ways. The 3rd is my favourite, I love the layers and to me, perfect sharpness is less important than catching that scene.Just been looking through the archives, I've got quite a few pics featuring children.
Here's a set from 2018 in Hyde Park taken with a little 1" sensor compact.
All perfectly acceptable.
Could be sharper, I know.
I don't know who started this p**** scare surrounding innocent pictures of children, a dirty rotten tabloid journo no doubt. But it's not going away.
I've seen the "Audit" videos on youtube where people deliberately provoke confrontation by taking pointless photos outside police stations and government buildings, pretending they are legitimately taking shots because they are interested in the architecture or police cars. They are only doing it to boost their views and increase their earnings from the 'tube.
I was going to say "unbelievable" but sadly it's all too believable these days.I have often been the local photographer (ie Free) for village events and had many pictures printed by local media. Earlier this year was asked by the Parish Council chairperson to photograph a tree planting ceremony by the county councillor. There was a small audience which included three or four children with their parents. I specifically explained that the picture was for the local parish news and perhaps local paper, and asked before taking the pictures, whether anybody objected. A couple of people dropped out, but only because they were visitors and it was a purely local event. The children were with their parents, one even being held in its mother's arms. On a boring picture scale of 1 to 10 I would give it about 9.5.
The Parish News editor refused to publish because it had children in it.
I have often been the local photographer (ie Free) for village events and had many pictures printed by local media. Earlier this year was asked by the Parish Council chairperson to photograph a tree planting ceremony by the county councillor. There was a small audience which included three or four children with their parents. I specifically explained that the picture was for the local parish news and perhaps local paper, and asked before taking the pictures, whether anybody objected. A couple of people dropped out, but only because they were visitors and it was a purely local event. The children were with their parents, one even being held in its mother's arms. On a boring picture scale of 1 to 10 I would give it about 9.5.
The Parish News editor refused to publish because it had children in it.
The Parish News editor refused to publish because it had children in it.
Interesting thread, this response made me think of the time I took my nieces to a local splash park. Parents all had phones out recording videos which I'm sure would have other kids in the background. I took my camera and did take some images which I think are really fun. Never even entered my mind all these potential concerns.Nearly ten years ago my grandson was having a great time playing in the water features at a park, so I took quite a few photos of him. It was a hot day and a lot of other kids were also having fun but no-one gave me any hassle about taking photos, even though I couldn't avoid getting other kids included in all but one shot. This is the exception:
View attachment 372294
(This is Agfa Vista 200, shot with a Minolta Dynax 500si and a Tamron AF 80-210, unedited)
Brilliant photoThink I have only once taken a picture of kids on purpose .... it was a parade of some sort many years ago and if a picture could tell a thousand words then this was probably it. Even then it was shot from the hip.
by Mike.Pursey, on Flickr
That's not unexpected.On a few occasions I got berated by mothers who warned me not to take pictures of their children or told me I had no right to be there.
It would have been nice if they asked me before moving into attack mode. I do like to think we have moved on from behaving like ducks or gorillasThat's not unexpected.
Most of the more intelligent animals and birds are genetically programmed to be protective of their offspring. If you appear even slightly threatening, you can expect an aggressive response, whether from a duck or a gorilla. Human females exhibit a wider range of behaviours but most are still going to respond to any perception of threat.
...which is the mistake many people appear to make.I do like to think we have moved on from behaving like ducks or gorillas