Street pics and 'rules'?

HoppyUK said:
You can cry foul, but people act on what they believe to be true, not what is actually fact.

The bottom line is most people don't like having their photo taken by a stranger. And they certainly don't like having their children photographed. They don't understand why you could possibly want to do that, without being a pervert or at least some other dodgy ulterior motive.

You can jump up and down all you like, but you'll only get tired and you won't change public opinion.
Click to expand...

Yup, but until my legs get tired, or my asthma kicks in, I'll be jumping up and down like the future of my photography depends on it!! :thumbs:
 
About Slimbert

Real First Name
Damien
Location
Norwich
Occupation
Social Worker (Childrens Services)

Very interesting.
 
BarryG said:
About Slimbert

Real First Name
Damien
Location
Norwich
Occupation
Social Worker (Childrens Services)

Very interesting.
Click to expand...

very confused? :suspect: what was the point of that. I can look at Damien's profile outside of the thread if I wish :shrug:
 
Last edited:
BarryG said:
About Slimbert

Real First Name
Damien
Location
Norwich
Occupation
Social Worker (Childrens Services)

Very interesting.
Click to expand...

As A social worker he's probably more aware than most that the vast majority of child molesters are family members, not total strangers off the street.
 
BarryG said:
About Slimbert

Real First Name
Damien
Location
Norwich
Occupation
Social Worker (Childrens Services)

Very interesting.
Click to expand...

I think an explanation is owed to Slimbert here!

I know Damien. Yes he does work for Norfolk Social Serviceas - Childrens dept. Why is that so interesting and what exactly are you implying by your comment?

Oh, I also have some pics of Damien's kids on my hard drive. Shall I go and turn myself into the police now?
 
It's very relevant to the thread. He's banging on about taking pictures of kids and he works as a social worker for children.

It's interesting, that's all.

Anyway, I'm going off to the real world to take some pictures!!!
 
HoppyUK said:
You can jump up and down all you like, but you'll only get tired and you won't change public opinion.
Click to expand...

If as a photographer you won't jump up and down to defend your rights, or try to shift public opinion away then who will?

Not sure about most people not liking it either, a vocal group of very scared people maybe
 
Lynton said:
Oh, I also have some pics of Damien's kids on my hard drive. Shall I go and turn myself into the police now?
Click to expand...

You dirty, filthy pervert!!! :annoyed: Don't bother turning yourself in, I've already dialed 999....and I know you can't do a runner, even if you have just had your casts taken off!! :lol:
 
BarryG said:
It's very relevant to the thread. He's banging on about taking pictures of kids and he works as a social worker for children.

It's interesting, that's all.

Anyway, I'm going off to the real world to take some pictures!!!
Click to expand...


You still haven't made any attempt to answer the question - nor any other question on this thread............. other than a vague "very interesting" right of way.

Yes he does work as a social worker and works with vunerable kids? He also has a couple of cameras. And your point being exactly is??????

I also have a copper friend who owns a camera, and a solicitor mate with a long lens......... oh and a teacher friend who owns a camera............

:shrug::shrug::shrug:
 
BarryG said:
It's very relevant to the thread. He's banging on about taking pictures of kids and he works as a social worker for children.

It's interesting, that's all.

Anyway, I'm going off to the real world to take some pictures!!!
Click to expand...

I'm still not sure of the relevance of Damian's job, or why its interesting for this thread? Unusually I find myself agreeing with Voyager, and hes assessment of why its interesting
 
BarryG said:
It's very relevant to the thread. He's banging on about taking pictures of kids and he works as a social worker for children.

It's interesting, that's all.

Anyway, I'm going off to the real world to take some pictures!!!
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your trying to imply? Just because he's standing up for his legal rights as a photographer your post seems to suggest that because of his job he shouldn't take photographes of children? Why not?
If your implying something more sinister come out and say it properly, it's this attitude thats causing us photographer a problem in the first place.
 
BarryG said:
It's very relevant to the thread. He's banging on about taking pictures of kids and he works as a social worker for children.

It's interesting, that's all.
Click to expand...

Bit perplexing if you ask me - are you insinuating something!?

My wife is a teacher and has taken picture of the kids doing art and stuff. I've got access to those picture by defualt its on the hdd....

..tis a fair cop, gov. :cuckoo:
 
boyfalldown said:
If as a photographer you won't jump up and down to defend your rights, or try to shift public opinion away then who will?

Not sure about most people not liking it either, a vocal group of very scared people maybe
Click to expand...

If you want to make a difference, pick a fight you can win. And this one you will not.

There's a good argument that says you will actually make things worse by drawing further attention to "your rights" and the somewhat spurious "social documentary" validation claim.

Joe Public just doesn't understand why you want to photograph strangers, and doesn't like the idea of having photos of themselves or family appearing anywhere except in their own private albums.

And I have to say I think they've got a point. There are a million other things to keep us very happy with our cameras.
 
BarryG said:
It's very relevant to the thread. He's banging on about taking pictures of kids and he works as a social worker for children.

It's interesting, that's all.

Anyway, I'm going off to the real world to take some pictures!!!
Click to expand...

UNBELIEVABLE! :cuckoo:
 
BarryG said:
It's very relevant to the thread. He's banging on about taking pictures of kids and he works as a social worker for children.

It's interesting, that's all.

Anyway, I'm going off to the real world to take some pictures!!!
Click to expand...

Surely that means he is in a much better position than you to determine if photographers in the street pose a thread to a random child they will likely never ever see again.

And to even bring this into the debate shows much more about your character than it does about his. :nono:
 
You guys are too quick to jump on someone.

Of course I'm not saying anything like what you are suggesting.

I was in fact just pointing out it's relevance due to the amount of inside info he would have.

You guys need to calm the **** down and stop jumping all over someone without cause just to vent whatever built up aggression you've got from elsewhere.

Ridiculous.
 
BarryG said:
About Slimbert

Real First Name
Damien
Location
Norwich
Occupation
Social Worker (Childrens Services)

Very interesting.
Click to expand...

BarryG your comment above and the way you made it is very unnecessary and has overtones that are very unpleasant indeed.

Perhaps you are not very adept at making a point but I would think an apology to Slimbert would be a wise move at this stage when you are back from the 'Real World' just so we are clear that there is nothing implied here by yourself!

Edit: I see you got in before me....always worth rereading what you post my friend before you post it....;)
 
Dark Star said:
Edit: I see you got in before me....always worth rereading what you post my friend before you post it....;)
Click to expand...

I didn't actually say anything to re-read. This **** storm started by people assuming this and that.
 
HoppyUK said:
If you want to make a difference, pick a fight you can win. And this one you will not.

There's a good argument that says you will actually make things worse by drawing further attention to "your rights" and the somewhat spurious "social documentary" validation claim.

Joe Public just doesn't understand why you want to photograph strangers, and doesn't like the idea of having photos of themselves or family appearing anywhere except in their own private albums.

And I have to say I think they've got a point. There are a million other things to keep us very happy with our cameras.
Click to expand...

I think there are numerous fights that can't be won, but I'll disagree with you that this is one of them.

Some of Joe Public, you're bang on about, but all, or a majority? not so sure.

One of the things I love about photography is it is such a diverse hobby, but what keeps you happy, won't always keep me happy and vice versa, I wonder if (for example) you'd be so quick to capitulate to opinion if the land owners started complaining about landscape photography and agree with them that cause they own the land they own the copyright?.

I don't think the social history agruement is invalid either, Sime's Harrow photograph I referenced earlier tells more about that period then an essay could. A picture really does speak a 1000 words in that case.

As many people have alreeady stated in this thread, very few people approach street photography in anything less than a tactful, sensitive manner. I never understand why those people who are so vocal about their 'privacy' will then slap photos of themselves and their' vunerable' children all over facebook.
 
Last edited:
It's because of Damiens job that I think his views are totally valid and well worth listening to. As someone who supports vunerable youngsters, Damien has a better understanding of what is good for youngster and what's not good for them. Highlighting Damien's occupation just goes further to undermine your own stance BarryG. And then running off when you realise how foolish you've been is just cowardice.

What's most sad is that this thread turned ugly when it started moving into the horrible world of paedophiles. Why it had to go this way is beyond me. Surely none of us on this forum are going to get a kick out of shooting kids - in public or otherwise. I would have thought the average perv is shooting with a mobile or a cheap compact. Not worrying about composition, dof etc like us lot.

I really enjoy street photography and have never (in three years of doing it) had anyone suggest I'm dodgy. I shoot with a smile, never act furtively and put my camera down when children are around. The only time I ever had anyone make the slightest implication that I was "up to something" was when I was shooting a childrens party -my own nieces!! :bang:

Lets get off the paedophile/pervert/peeping tom/dodgy geezer bandwagon and as photographers get back to enjoying a great genre of photography.




EDIT - I noticed there were about 10 posts in the time it took me to type the above. Feel free to ignore and get back to the OP. :)
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
There are a million other things to keep us very happy with our cameras.
Click to expand...

Name them! :lol:

@ Barry: I think it's my day job that makes me so pee'd off about this subject. As someone who works day in day out with children who've been subjected to all kinds of abuse from all kinds of people, I understand the risks more than most.....I work in a small specialist team that deals with the most damaged children on the councils books, I'm involved with the very worst cases that Norfolk has to offer, and I promise you, photographing children on a street is waaaaaay down the list when it comes to level of risk and vunerability.....it's pretty much non existant!!

Some people might think this is strange, but the vast majority of safe guarding work I do, is non-sexual.....by far the most common kind of abuse is neglect, as in parents who simply don't know how to raise their children so don't bother. Sexual abuse cases are very small in number, it's only the media that tells you everyones at it.....sadly some people believe everything they read!! :shake:

Media wins nearly everytime, there was a ton of information around the Baby P case that never made it out in to the open, because we as social workers are told to keep our mouths shut when the media are involved, and the truth is deemed to boring to print most of the time.....Sadly, Hoppy is right (although I'm getting bored of that always being the case :p)
 
Slimbert said:
Name them! :lol:

@ Barry: I think it's my day job that makes me so pee'd off about this subject. As someone who works day in day out with children who've been subjected to all kinds of abuse from all kinds of people, I understand the risks more than most.....I work in a small specialist team that deals with the most damaged children on the councils books, I'm involved with the very worst cases that Norfolk has to offer, and I promise you, photographing children on a street is waaaaaay down the list when it comes to level of risk and vunerability.....it's pretty much non existant!!

Some people might think this is strange, but the vast majority of safe guarding work I do, is non-sexual.....by far the most common kind of abuse is neglect, as in parents who simply don't know how to raise their children so don't bother. Sexual abuse cases are very small in number, it's only the media that tells you everyones at it.....sadly some people believe everything they read!! :shake:

Media wins nearly everytime, there was a ton of information around the Baby P case that never made it out in to the open, because we as social workers are told to keep our mouths shut when the media are involved, and the truth is deemed to boring to print most of the time.....Sadly, Hoppy is right (although I'm getting bored of that always being the case :p)
Click to expand...

:clap: Very well phrased Sir!
 
boyfalldown said:
I think there are numerous fights that can't be won, but I'll disagree with you that this is one of them.

Some of Joe Public, you're bang on about, but all, or a majority? not so sure.

One of the things I love about photography is it is such a diverse hobby, but what keeps you happy, won't always keep me happy and vice versa, I wonder if (for example) you'd be so quick to capitulate to opinion if the land owners started complaining about landscape photography and agree with them that cause they own the land they own the copyright?.

I don't think the social history agruement is invalid either, Sime's Harrow photograph I referenced earlier tells more about that period then an essay could. A picture really does speak a 1000 words in that case.

As many people have alreeady stated in this thread, very few people approach street photography in anything less than a tactful, sensitive manner. I never understand why those people who are so vocal about their 'privacy' will then slap photos of themselves and their' vunerable' children all over facebook.
Click to expand...

In all honesty, I think the best policy with this one is to keep a low profile and let it blow over - which I think it will.

Twenty years ago when I took my kids to the local pool I often a took a splash-proof camera and nobody batted an eyelid. I took pictures of my children and others, and gave prints to other parents and everyone was very happy. Today, I'd get lynched.

I think the big difference is the internet, in all it's facets, which has helped fuel a media fire that was already smouldering. We are all hyper-sensitive about invasion of privacy and general surveillance issues. There are already notices put up restricting the use of cameras in certain places, and legislation is on the cards.

But while the internet is not going away, since there actually isn't a real problem here and restrictions on photography affect everyone and not just keen photographers, I think that given time the harmless reality of the situation will prevail and we'll all be able to carry on as before. Just give it another 20 years!
 
HoppyUK said:
In all honesty, I think the best policy with this one is to keep a low profile and let it blow over - which I think it will.

Twenty years ago when I took my kids to the local pool I often a took a splash-proof camera and nobody batted an eyelid. I took pictures of my children and others, and gave prints to other parents and everyone was very happy. Today, I'd get lynched.

I think the big difference is the internet, in all it's facets, which has helped fuel a media fire that was already smouldering. We are all hyper-sensitive about invasion of privacy and general surveillance issues. There are already notices put up restricting the use of cameras in certain places, and legislation is on the cards.

But while the internet is not going away, since there actually isn't a real problem here and restrictions on photography affect everyone and not just keen photographers, I think that given time the harmless reality of the situation will prevail and we'll all be able to carry on as before. Just give it another 20 years!
Click to expand...

I think you're right about it blowing over.

I also think you're right in large part about the internet, but I'm hopeful that this government will over time reduce or reverse some of the very legislation happy attitude of the last one.
 
Photodiva said:
With that in mind, what sort of lens do you favour? A wide-angle, get in up close and personal or a telezoom and stand back and hope to be unnoticed? I ask as I went to a Canon showcase of some (can't recall the name) photographer who specialized in what I'd call 'tourist' photography, but more like exotic documentary photography. There he was, in what looked like a desert oasis getting right in the face of some native with a wide angle. Shot was stunning, but I just wondered how he had the nerve!
Click to expand...

I use neither wide angle OR telezoom. I use a 50mm generally on a 1.5 crop body. Getting noticed or not isn't about the focal length you use but about technique. People tend to have a habit of taking the shot then dropping the camera down and looking at the subject which is, of course, a dead giveaway. It was a member of this forum who taught me the technique of keeping my eye to the viewfinder after I've taken the shot, more often than not, the subject will think you are photographing something behind them.

Some people like to use wide angle lenses and get right in peoples' faces but they tend to be more about themselves rather than their subjects and it hardly captures street life, more the reaction to having a camera shoved in their face.
 
don't do it with your new 800mm to snipe anything with breasts, take an interesting photograph, preferably engaging the subject and then its photography
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top