Candid photography involving children in public

[a1ex2001]

And this is the problem with raising this issue, it will divide people and promotes an emotional from all. In the end, you need to consider how the image will be used, displayed and perceived by the viewer. There are a lot of sick people out there who do get their thrills with children and images of them, this breeds paranoi and not the attitude's of the photog.

It's people making comments like this that breeds paranoia, the number of people who get a kick out of this sort of thing is seriously tiny.

 

[Witch]

Thats hardly fair is it.. I know its a forum. I am joining in with my opinion. Why do you feel the need to talk down to me like that?
.....
This thread is about people taking pictures of children playing without the parents giving consent or even knowing.. I am commenting on that..
.....
As for the rest of your post it would seem i need to repeat my earlier answer again
.....
Perhaps I should use it as a sig

I'm not talking down to you Kipax. You have made some fairly powerful statements on this thread, one of which I personally found quite objectionable in its phrasing. As people have started to challenge you on this you have now in effect played the "I'm entitled to my opinion" card so often seen on forums. If you post your oinion, you have to be prepared to debate that opinion with others who may, or may not, agree with you. To save you quoting your "what makes the world go round" comment yet again, yes, you're right, it's us all being different that makes this forum an interesting place. Please though, don't feel you can verbally sneer at others for holding a differing opinion to your own and not expect challenge.

My personal opinion is that choice, or lack of it, is actually irrelevant in this case. Most parents sitting watching their kids playing in the park haven't actually decided to go there for their own sake - they've most likely ended up there because the kids have said "Mum! Can we go to the playground please!" so in that case you could even say that the choice lies more with the child than the adult. A true candid shot is just that - a shot taken without the knowledge of the subject. Some people prefer to ask permission to retain the shot afterwards, others feel this is not necessary. If you are going to take the view that taking photos of children is "using" that child for your own pleasure, then logic suggests that it's also wrong for adults to be watching children acting on a stage, competing in the sports field, or indeed - god forbid! - taking part in a swimming gala!

 

[Witch]

Theres a lot of selective quoting going on in this thread isn't there Grab the bits that make someone look mad as a march hare and leave the other bits..
....

Not quite sure what you're referring to there - the previous statement of yours quoted by pxl8 was quoted in full......?

 

[a1ex2001]

It's a different attitude to yours... but I wont be tagging yours

My appologies I didn't word that very well, it's just I find your attitude and the proliferation of ones like it within society very troubling. 30, hell even 10 years ago very few peope would have assumed a person taking pictures of children was doing so for dubious reasons. In reality nothing has changed your kids are less likely to be victims today if anything but people have allowed the media to influence their views which leads to paranoia and crazy reactionist laws. For example the media said hand guns were bad in the wake of the dunblane shootings so we banned licensed hand guns even thoough thosed used were unlicensed and gun crime has got worse not better as a result.

I would hat to see a similar situation with photography where every time you picked you camera up in public you risked being arrested for having a child in shot and believe me if this paranoia continues it will happen.

 

[h4rri]

It's people making comments like this that breeds paranoia, the number of people who get a kick out of this sort of thing is seriously tiny.

I beg to differ but I'm not about to go digging for any form of statistics. As I said, it's each to their own and I for one shy away from any form of unsolicited candids.

 

[KIPAX]

I'm not talking down to you Kipax.

YOU SO ARE! why do you feel the need to explain to me that this is a forum with different opinions when I am involved in a healthy debate containing differnt opinions.. You where being condescending at best

If you post your oinion, you have to be prepared to debate that opinion with others who may, or may not, agree with you.

and you think i havent been doing that? how strange..

 

[KIPAX]

I would hat to see a similar situation with photography where every time you picked you camera up in public you risked being arrested for having a child in shot and believe me if this paranoia continues it will happen.

But thats not what this thread is about.. this thread is about a photographer purposly going out to photograph children without them or there parents knowing.. and thats all I am basing my comments on.. or trying to.. but people keep moving the goalposts ..


hey mate..its a messageboard thats all... open healthy debate

 

[Witch]

OK then Kipax, let's draw a line under previous comment shall we?

So - you attend a sporting event at which your child is competing. Do you take a camera with you, but only take shots when you can be 100% certain that only your own child, or children, will appear in them? Do you first ask every other parent there if they object to their child appearing in any pictures taken by you? Or do you leave the camera at home?

 

[donut]

i believe the guns used at dunblane were held legally ( a smith and wesson 686 and a browning hi power 9mm i think ) as was the guns used by m ryan in about 87 at hungerforn.

 

[h4rri]

OK then Kipax, let's draw a line under previous comment shall we?

So - you attend a sporting event at which your child is competing. Do you take a camera with you, but only take shots when you can be 100% certain that only your own child, or children, will appear in them? Do you first ask every other parent there if they object to their child appearing in any pictures taken by you? Or do you leave the camera at home?

Most schools/leagues would require you to have signed releases before you could take pictures. The real issue with this one is why are the P&S brigade exempt from the same rulings?

 

[Witch]

Most schools/leagues would require you to have signed releases before you could take pictures. The real issue with this one is why are the P&S brigade exempt from the same rulings?

Is that the case then? A bit like taking pics at a station or shopping centre then - start snapping away with your P&S or cameraphone and you're fine, break out the SLR and everyone starts fretting?

 

[KIPAX]

OK then Kipax, let's draw a line under previous comment shall we?

fair enough... should we hug ?.... sorry

So - you attend a sporting event at which your child is competing. Do you take a camera with you, but only take shots when you can be 100% certain that only your own child, or children, will appear in them? Do you first ask every other parent there if they object to their child appearing in any pictures taken by you? Or do you leave the camera at home?

Short answer..I leave the camera at home..

long answer.. my youngest lad plays for a local team exactly as in your example.. every players parent in the team has signed something to say they will allow photography... I think its a standard thing at most if not all kids clubs nowerdays.. If the other club have signed agreements from all the parents then I would photograph the game.

I would never photograph kids at sport without knowing that every parent had signed a form agreeing to it.

I do a lot of sport and I take crowd shots and kids appear in them... thats part of the picture which I already posted isnt what this debate was about. I dont take pics of kids on there own in the crowd unless there mine or I already know the parents and know it's OK

Its just the way I do it.. My choice.. I know others do it differently.. there choice

OK so wheres the childs choice? there isnt one is there. thats the grey area isn't it? but still a far cry from hiding in bushes with a long lens taking pictures of kids playing on swings....

 

[ShawWellPete]

I went to the park the other day with my camera +grip + 70-200 2.8, so not a subtle combination.

I took lots of photos of my kids and there were probably other kids in the background, nobody said a word.

At one point a very pretty girl was swinging on the monkey bars in just the right position relative to the sunlight and my instinct was to take the photo. Why? because I like to take good photos. I didn't take it for fear of someone getting the wrong idea.

If there had been time I might have asked her parents, offering them a copy, but what's the point?

 

[dod]

I dont think the OP is talking about accident photography where children are in the background or walk into the frame.. thats unavoidable and part of the scene.

Going out to take pictures of children playing in a public place without the consent or as the OP suggests without them even knowing is wrong. You may want to dress it up as OK and theres some very poor excuses in this thread.. but it's simply wrong and I would challenge anyone I saw doing it even if it wasn't my kids playing.

Like I say. just beacuse it is legal doesn't make it right. and again... IMHO of course

There's nothing selective about this quote.
Right, you say it's wrong and it's just your opinion. That's fine but WHY is it wrong when we've already established there's nothing illegal being carried out? You must have some pretty strongly held beliefs if you would challenge people you may or may not know taking pictures of kids you may or may not know.

You might even convince one or two others to think like you do if you put forward a compelling case.

 

[Witch]

There's nothing selective about this quote.
Right, you say it's wrong and it's just your opinion. That's fine but WHY is it wrong when we've already established there's nothing illegal being carried out? You must have some pretty strongly held beliefs if you would challenge people you may or may not know taking pictures of kids you may or may not know.

You might even convince one or two others to think like you do if you put forward a compelling case.

Or this one.......thanks Dod - this was the substance of my first post on the thread.

 

[Witch]

fair enough... should we hug ?.... sorry



Short answer..I leave the camera at home..

long answer.. my youngest lad plays for a local team exactly as in your example.. every players parent in the team has signed something to say they will allow photography... I think its a standard thing at most if not all kids clubs nowerdays.. If the other club have signed agreements from all the parents then I would photograph the game.

I would never photograph kids at sport without knowing that every parent had signed a form agreeing to it.

I do a lot of sport and I take crowd shots and kids appear in them... thats part of the picture which I already posted isnt what this debate was about. I dont take pics of kids on there own in the crowd unless there mine or I already know the parents and know it's OK

Its just the way I do it.. My choice.. I know others do it differently.. there choice

OK so wheres the childs choice? there isnt one is there. thats the grey area isn't it? but still a far cry from hiding in bushes with a long lens taking pictures of kids playing on swings....

How do you know that all those you have given permission to take photos of your kids, by signing that consent form you mentioned, are using them for totally innocent purposes? How do they know that you're using pics in which their kids appear for totally innocent purposes? What do you do if you take a picture whilst out and about in which someone's child has walked into the frame without you realising?

Sorry - lots of questions I know.

 

[KIPAX]

There's nothing selective about this quote.
Right, you say it's wrong and it's just your opinion. That's fine but WHY is it wrong when we've already established there's nothing illegal being carried out?

if you go back to the start of the thread you will note others have agreed the right and wrong isnt just legal but also moral..

You must have some pretty strongly held beliefs if you would challenge people you may or may not know taking pictures of kids you may or may not know.

eeerm it would seem so yes If I thought for whatever reason that someone was taking pictures of children without the parents/carers? knowing then yes I would challenge them... quite strongly...

You might even convince one or two others to think like you do if you put forward a compelling case.

I dont need to put a compelling case forward.. I am not trying to convince anyone... I am putting my opinions forward.. people are questioning them and a debate starts...

Thats why I said

At the end of the day its down to who feels what. I feel its wrong. Others feel it's OK. It's what makes the world go around I guess

Does that really look like I am trying to convince anyone that I am right?

 

[Smarty]

I was in the park the other day and took some candids. It's only the second time I've taken them. I posted some of them in one of the photo sharing sections on this site (they're not very good). I have to say that I felt very uncomfortable taking people's pictures without them knowing and even more guilty about taking pictures of children. I did feel like I was breaking some unwritten moral code by doing it and the thought did cross my mind as I was taking them that someone could accuse me of doing something wrong. I took solace in the fact that it was after Chinese New Year and there were loads of people out and about taking photos.

It's interesting reading the posts here. At the time when I was taking the pictures I thought that it was novice's nerves but I think it's something more than that. I'm not sure I'll try any more candids and I certainly don't think I'll take any more of kids without their parents consent.

Unwarranted self censorship ? Perhaps - but photography should be enjoyable and if you feel guilty about doing something there's no enjoyment IMO.

 

[KIPAX]

How do you know that all those you have given permission to take photos of your kids, by signing that consent form you mentioned, are using them for totally innocent purposes? How do they know that you're using pics in which their kids appear for totally innocent purposes? What do you do if you take a picture whilst out and about in which someone's child has walked into the frame without you realising?

Sorry - lots of questions I know.

I dont know any of the above.. I also dont know what relevance your question has to the thread... the debate is photographing without permission.. not what is done with the pics


love the way you got around selective quoting though... luverly red

 

[KIPAX]

Unwarranted self censorship ? Perhaps - but photography should be enjoyable and if you feel guilty about doing something there's no enjoyment IMO.

Thats a great way of putitng it. each to his own

 

[Witch]

ROFL - you REALLY don't like expanding on your opinions, do you?!! I would ask who that is, but oddly enough I'm not convinced it's worth the typing!

 

[KIPAX]

yet you typed?

 

[Witch]

Yes, I did, so why not then...

Come on then Kipax, I've asked, Dod has asked I'm sure others have asked also, and if they haven't, they are very possibly wondering....

What is your reasoning behind your opinions please? As has been pointed out, they are extremely strongly worded opinions, so it's to be assumed that there is some fairly strongly reasoned feeling behind them.

Why is taking pictures of children without their parents opinion so wrong that you would involve yourself in other people's business to challenge them over it?

 

[pxl8]

If I thought for whatever reason that someone was taking pictures of children without the parents/carers? knowing then yes I would challenge them... quite strongly...

I refer to my earlier question - if someone was simply watching would you also challenge?

Having challenged someone because of your moral beliefs what do you then do when they respond with something like "I'm not breaking any laws and have no legal obligation to answer any of your questions. Good day."

I find your moral standpoint and the action you'd take interesting because the situation pretty much describes how I work when shooting lifestyle/portraits of kids on a paid job - that is down the park, kids playing and me shooting candids from a distance. Of course the parents have given permission but you wouldn't know that.

While we're talking about morals - I find it immoral that people can get the police involved without reasonable cause other than holding a DSLR. In my book those who panic and assume the worst and ultimately waste police time should be brought to book for it with a hefty fine.

 

[KIPAX]

I refer to my earlier question - if someone was simply watching would you also challenge?

I have no idea.. has that got anything to do with the thread?

Having challenged someone because of your moral beliefs what do you then do when they respond with something like "I'm not breaking any laws and have no legal obligation to answer any of your questions. Good day."

there is no way of knowing that until it happens is there. I could give you a thousand scenarios and you couldnt tell me the outcome of any unless they had already happened.

I find your moral standpoint and the action you'd take interesting because the situation pretty much describes how I work when shooting lifestyle/portraits of kids on a paid job - that is down the park, kids playing and me shooting candids from a distance. Of course the parents have given permission but you wouldn't know that.

While we're talking about morals - I find it immoral that people can get the police involved without reasonable cause other than holding a DSLR. In my book those who panic and assume the worst and ultimately waste police time should be brought to book for it with a hefty fine.

Thats your opinion and I dont see anyone taking you to task for them... unfortunatly my opinions seem to have the oppositte effect

 

[dod]

if you go back to the start of the thread you will note others have agreed the right and wrong isnt just legal but also moral..

I might be missing it but nobody, not even yourself, has came out saying it's immoral to photograph kids. There might under certain circumstances be questionable motives but assuming that there aren't what's immoral about it?

eeerm it would seem so yes If I thought for whatever reason that someone was taking pictures of children without the parents/carers? knowing then yes I would challenge them... quite strongly...

So what are those opinions? Why would you feel the need to intervene?

I dont need to put a compelling case forward.. I am not trying to convince anyone... I am putting my opinions forward.. people are questioning them and a debate starts...

No, you're just saying it's wrong. You'll note I haven't given a view on whether or not I think it's moral or immoral or if I would take pictures at this stage.

Does that really look like I am trying to convince anyone that I am right?

To be fair, using that statement, no it doesn't. What people are picking up on is the fact that you're so against it but haven't given any justification for that view. You may be right, you may be wrong but until you've made you're argument all you've got is a statement which on a photography forum is bound to be controversial.

 

[Witch]

As an aside Kipax, I notice also that a fair number of the shots on your website include children in the background. Did you obtain signed consent forms from their parents first also?

 

[KIPAX]

Yes, I did, so why not then...

I knew you wanted to deep down

Come on then Kipax, I've asked, Dod has asked I'm sure others have asked also, and if they haven't, they are very possibly wondering....

what what what ?

What is your reasoning behind your opinions please? As has been pointed out, they are extremely strongly worded opinions, so it's to be assumed that there is some fairly strongly reasoned feeling behind them.

you assume too much.. do you know the reasons behind all your opinions.. I very much doubt it... why do I need to justify mine anyway.. why cant I have an opinion like you do.. have I asked you to justify yours ?

 

[KIPAX]

As an aside Kipax, I notice also that a fair number of the shots on your website include children in the background. Did you obtain signed consent forms from their parents first also?

sigh.. thats really not on is it... your now looking for things to attack me with... I already covered this in an earlier post... please have the common decency to read my responses if your going to try to trip me up


from an earlier post

I do a lot of sport and I take crowd shots and kids appear in them... thats part of the picture which I already posted isnt what this debate was about. I dont take pics of kids on there own in the crowd unless there mine or I already know the parents and know it's OK

I dont mind a debate fella but your now starting to just be on the attack.. I have an opinion that differs to yours... try and live with it

 

[pxl8]

I have no idea.. has that got anything to do with the thread?

The first time of asking I quoted you:

You can't compare an adult with a child. adults have choices. children don't and as such you, me or anyone else should not be "using" them. because that is exactly what you are doing. watching, taking pictures. it's all about you using those children for your own pleasure.

Which I read as a moral objection to taking pleasure from watching children and someone is "using" the children who have no choice in the matter.

Hence the question - if you saw someone doing that would you also challenge them?

Moving on - you've said "each to their own" more than once yet doesn't the act of challenging someone go against the spirit of that philosophy? If someone wants to enjoy the innocent pleasure of children playing who are you to object?

 

[Witch]

I knew you wanted to deep down



what what what ?



you assume too much.. do you know the reasons behind all your opinions.. I very much doubt it... why do I need to justify mine anyway.. why cant I have an opinion like you do.. have I asked you to justify yours ?

I'd like to think that if I was certain enough of my opinions to post them on a public forum, then yes, I could give a good account of my reasons for them. And anyway - you don't know my opinion on the matter as I haven't posted it. Had I posted an opinion, then I would have attempted to back it up with reasoning at the time of posting

 

[dod]

sigh.. thats really not on is it... your now looking for things to attack me with... I already covered this in an earlier post... please have the common decency to read my responses if your going to try to trip me up

Yep, please keep this in the context of the thread, the legality and morality of taking pictures of kids without their knowledge

 

[Groucho]

I think is someone objected to me taking a photo of their own child, i would respect that and given the sensitive nature of
photographing kids, i would always ask first and inform them why regardless of whether i have the right to do so, its just common good manners and courtesy.

But has anyone thought about why they are afraid of someone taking photos of kids, what do they think the photographer is going to do with them, after all if one of the vile peadophiles wanted photos of kids all he has to do is to get one of the many mail order catalogues that sell kids clothes, cant see why one would want to take pictures of kids
just out with their parents or being in the background of another photo, or maybe i am just naive:shrug:

 

[Canon Bob]

Totally off the current trend of this thread but....

One of the supposedly most iconic photographs of the 20th century depicts a naked Vietnamese girl running towards the photographer
Did he, or has he since, receive any criticism for this shot?...I doubt it.

Almost every news report about war or third world famine shows candid and/or graphic shots of children so why is it considered in a different light if the child is on a British beach or in a British park?

Bob

 

[Trev Rich]

If I caught someone taking photos of my kid with a zoom lens I wouldnt hesitate in walking straight over and knocking him out..
Just my opinion...

If you want photos of kids... have kids or use family members..
dont mess about togging other peoples kids.. especially secretly!

 

[ShawWellPete]

If I caught someone taking photos of my kid with a zoom lens I wouldnt hesitate in walking straight over and knocking him out..

Wow.

 

[Trev Rich]

Totally off the current trend of this thread but....

One of the supposedly most iconic photographs of the 20th century depicts a naked Vietnamese girl running towards the photographer
Did he, or has he since, receive any criticism for this shot?...I doubt it.

Almost every news report about war or third world famine shows candid and/or graphic shots of children so why is it considered in a different light if the child is on a British beach or in a British park?

Bob

Bob... If there was a major event and the photo was of my kids running away from it then that IS different..

 

[mattyh]

If I caught someone taking photos of my kid with a zoom lens I wouldnt hesitate in walking straight over and knocking him out..
Just my opinion...

If you want photos of kids... have kids or use family members..
dont mess about togging other peoples kids.. especially secretly!

and if you did that... you'd end up getting sued and arrested.

 

[Trev Rich]

Wow.

why wow?

 

[Trev Rich]

and if you did that... you'd end up getting sued and arrested.

yeah no justice lol.