- Messages
- 7,937
- Name
- Terry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
and please use their services
People photography and children in the pictures
- Thread starter Crotal Bell
- Start date
- Messages
- 9,312
- Edit My Images
- No
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.
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.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 41,998
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
You are making a blanket assumption which is totally incorrect ... just as some people accuse photographers who photograph a child/children.
Again a blanket assumption that is totally ill-informed.
What precludes 'religious' people from being "intelligent"?
Your arguments are totally biased and ill-informed.
However, I'm done with reacting to the neanderthal thinking being displayed in the thread.
- Messages
- 3,764
- Name
- Trevor
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Anyway, getting back on topic before I upset someone else:
I took this picture of a couple of kids on a beach a few years ago. I took it because it reminded me of my sister and I doing the same to our little brother when we were kids. It wouldn't have worked if it had been adults doing the same.
Besides, I've always enjoyed photographing kids at play - mine as well as those of other people and I will continue to do so. I wouldn't have taken this photograph if the kids had been wearing swimsuits though - which just goes to show the way we're being forced to change our ways because of other people's beliefs.
View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/skyraspberry/50062764642/in/dateposted-public/
I took this picture of a couple of kids on a beach a few years ago. I took it because it reminded me of my sister and I doing the same to our little brother when we were kids. It wouldn't have worked if it had been adults doing the same.
Besides, I've always enjoyed photographing kids at play - mine as well as those of other people and I will continue to do so. I wouldn't have taken this photograph if the kids had been wearing swimsuits though - which just goes to show the way we're being forced to change our ways because of other people's beliefs.
View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/skyraspberry/50062764642/in/dateposted-public/
- Messages
- 9,312
- Edit My Images
- No
Given the recent advances in our knowledge of the Neanderthal people, I for one am pleased to be associated with them.
It's worth noting that this is NOT the case in all countries.
OP
- Messages
- 2,565
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I had been waiting for ages, that bridge is like Spaghetti Junction.
OP
- Messages
- 2,565
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thank you. I guess that's what partly prompted me to ask the question.
I don't take pictures of other peoples children, but as I panned with the birds and ended up at this scene, I took it.
In all the pictures, the birds were too far away for the lens and didn't really work as hoped, but when I looked at this one I thought it really worked as a scene.
Yes, I know there is a child in the bridge shot too, but before today I have always avoided children in my picture.
I'm pleased the general response is positive as I like the photos.
- Messages
- 220
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
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.
Last edited:
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,814
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
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.
- Messages
- 220
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
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.
- Messages
- 9,089
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- Yes
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.
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.
OP
- Messages
- 2,565
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
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 think I was worrying too much and being over-cautious, this thread has been very helpful.
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 21,006
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
OMG I ave seen these youtobe videos... If I saw some body doing this I swear I would have a go at them.... they give us all a band name...
OOPS BAD NAME
Last edited:
Nod
Tootles
- Messages
- 45,724
- Name
- Nod (UK)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 377
- Edit My Images
- No
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.
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 2,565
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I was going to say "unbelievable" but sadly it's all too believable these days.
- Messages
- 7,937
- Name
- Terry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have found that parish officials have the least understanding of the law regarding photography.
I no longer argue with them. If they will not use images it is their problem not mine.
Internally they have a very confused set of rules, that they think apply to other people.
- Messages
- 12,775
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
Then frankly, they are a bit of a d1ck.
ancient_mariner
Moderator
- Messages
- 23,576
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
I also 'work for free' for the village recording events etc. I never ask if people with children mind - they're out with their kids in a public place, everyone is clothed and doing normal things. Lots of people also take phone pictures that get posted on social media too. Of course if someone asked me not to take their kids picture I'd be happy to comply, especially if there was a good reason.
The only picture I've ever taken that I felt 'close' was of a boy in the sea, wearing swimming trunks and with his back to me. While I feel the picture is legal, it could also be misconstrued more easily because of the trunks, therefore I've not posted it on my flickr feed. If police were to come knocking and start going through my computer files, it's obviously part of a series of pictures of Weston Supemare beach and not a series of pictures of children on the beach.
The only picture I've ever taken that I felt 'close' was of a boy in the sea, wearing swimming trunks and with his back to me. While I feel the picture is legal, it could also be misconstrued more easily because of the trunks, therefore I've not posted it on my flickr feed. If police were to come knocking and start going through my computer files, it's obviously part of a series of pictures of Weston Supemare beach and not a series of pictures of children on the beach.
- Messages
- 220
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
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:
(This is Agfa Vista 200, shot with a Minolta Dynax 500si and a Tamron AF 80-210, unedited)
(This is Agfa Vista 200, shot with a Minolta Dynax 500si and a Tamron AF 80-210, unedited)
Last edited:
- Messages
- 436
- Name
- Dayle
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Interesting thread,
I wouldn't go without them and do it - and I probably wouldn't aim to make a strangers child the main subject of my images without consent
but in general wouldn't have issue with keeping photos that happened to have children in at all. I think it falls into general etiquette more than a legal issue.
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.
I wouldn't go without them and do it - and I probably wouldn't aim to make a strangers child the main subject of my images without consent
but in general wouldn't have issue with keeping photos that happened to have children in at all. I think it falls into general etiquette more than a legal issue.
- Messages
- 6,068
- Edit My Images
- No
Think 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
by Mike.Pursey, on Flickr
OP
- Messages
- 2,565
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
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
I think it depends a lot on why you are taking the picture.
There's a lot of 'street photography' where photographers just seem to be photographing someone who happens to be on the street just for the sake of photographing them, without any real artistic intent. Definitely no kids in those shots.
Then there's the photos of a street scene, which include someone in that scene just to show that this is a public place and people walk past here. Kids here are Iffy in my books. Wait for a better subject.
BUT if you see a shot where a child IS the subject and there simply wouldn't be a photograph without that child doing what they're doing (Mike P's shot is a great example)... Then I think it's worth it. But I'll make damn sure it's justifiable and anyone looking at the back of the camera could see that this was a 1/100 shot that can stand on its own merit. Definitely no working the subject, standing around trying to frame up a nice scene... sadly my wife gets away with this, but feel that I don't. The world we live in.
That said, when I'm out with my own kids I often do take photos of other kids, especially when they're interacting with my own at the beach or at a park.
There's a lot of 'street photography' where photographers just seem to be photographing someone who happens to be on the street just for the sake of photographing them, without any real artistic intent. Definitely no kids in those shots.
Then there's the photos of a street scene, which include someone in that scene just to show that this is a public place and people walk past here. Kids here are Iffy in my books. Wait for a better subject.
BUT if you see a shot where a child IS the subject and there simply wouldn't be a photograph without that child doing what they're doing (Mike P's shot is a great example)... Then I think it's worth it. But I'll make damn sure it's justifiable and anyone looking at the back of the camera could see that this was a 1/100 shot that can stand on its own merit. Definitely no working the subject, standing around trying to frame up a nice scene... sadly my wife gets away with this, but feel that I don't. The world we live in.
That said, when I'm out with my own kids I often do take photos of other kids, especially when they're interacting with my own at the beach or at a park.
- Messages
- 9,312
- Edit My Images
- No
Photography is the sort of tool that can be used, with equal facility, for good or evil.
I think it's good to show people, including children, enjoying themselves, just to prove there is happiness available and the world is not a miserable place run by thought police and spoilsports.
I generally use a long lens, though, so as not to intrude...
I think it's good to show people, including children, enjoying themselves, just to prove there is happiness available and the world is not a miserable place run by thought police and spoilsports.
I generally use a long lens, though, so as not to intrude...
- Messages
- 1,205
- Name
- Morris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
When I was the stay at home dad in the early noughties I would take my camera to the park with me to get shots of my son playing. The idea being to have something to share with my wife who was at work all day. 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. I would explain I was taking pictures of my son and not their children. I stopped taking the camera but still found myself having to 'connect' with my son every few minutes to show I had a reason to be there. Sad really!
The picture on my website front page is of a child having fun in the fountain in Piccadilly Gardens. I shot it side-on with the intention of making it appear to be a generic child rather that a specific child. Based on my previous experiences I chose not to ask the mum if I could take the picture however if she came across the image and asked me to remove it then I would.
The picture on my website front page is of a child having fun in the fountain in Piccadilly Gardens. I shot it side-on with the intention of making it appear to be a generic child rather that a specific child. Based on my previous experiences I chose not to ask the mum if I could take the picture however if she came across the image and asked me to remove it then I would.
- Messages
- 9,312
- Edit My Images
- No
That'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.
- Messages
- 1,205
- Name
- Morris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
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 gorillas
- Messages
- 9,312
- Edit My Images
- No
...which is the mistake many people appear to make.I do like to think we have moved on from behaving like ducks or gorillas
We are in no way the logical, sensible species some seem to believe we should be. Look around at the violence that humans perpetrate on one another every single day. We are animals like any other and the big brain seldom over rides the instinctive responses built into us by a billion years of evolution,
ancient_mariner
Moderator
- Messages
- 23,576
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No