Candid photography?

Fred wrote:
>
> "Paul Heslop" <paul.heslop.DeleteThis@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:479758AD.25DDAE5C@blueyonder.co.uk...
> > /\\BratMan/\\ wrote:
> >>
> >> If he was taking photographs "in a covert manner", how did "members of
> >> the
> >> public" know he was?
> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/humber/7202847.stm
> >
> > Apparently they used the 'sensitive buildings' thing on him at first,
> > this is from the 17th of december
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/2hv6o3
> >
> >
> God forbid we upset a 'sensitive building'.
>
> )

They're so touchy when they don't have their blinds down :O)

--
Paul (We won't die of devotion)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
 >> Stay informed about: Candid photography? 

David J Taylor wrote:
> Fred wrote:
> []
>> I couldn't believe the paranoia of some 'jobs worth' officials on
>> recent trips to America, where I was accosted on various occasions
>> for taking quite innocent photographs.
>
> One more reason I no longer have any desire to visit the USA.
>
> David
>
>
I have never, in over 55 years of taking pictures, been accosted,
anywhere in the US, or Canada, for taking a picture, of anything. Seems
to me that 'innocent' is a matter of point of view. Perhaps the OP
would enlighten us as to the particulars of those 'innocent' pictures.
 >> Stay informed about: Candid photography? 

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter.RemoveThis@charter.net> wrote in message
news:frmdnQWuiNkK0AXanZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@giganews.com...
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> Fred wrote:
>> []
>>> I couldn't believe the paranoia of some 'jobs worth' officials on
>>> recent trips to America, where I was accosted on various occasions
>>> for taking quite innocent photographs.
>>
>> One more reason I no longer have any desire to visit the USA.
>>
>> David
> I have never, in over 55 years of taking pictures, been accosted, anywhere
> in the US, or Canada, for taking a picture, of anything. Seems to me that
> 'innocent' is a matter of point of view. Perhaps the OP would enlighten
> us as to the particulars of those 'innocent' pictures.
>
>
Most of the complaints have been while I've been taking photos of various
forms of public transport, either from station platforms, the side of the
road or stood on a footpath, none of the situations being in any way
dangerous, causing an obstrucion or intrusive. I've been accosted by
transport police, regular cops, and various other assorted 'officials'.

I must point out that this sort of reaction is by no means exclusive to the
USA, and is becoming ever more prevalent in other countries, eg the British
aircraft enthusiasts who were thrown into jail in Greece for several weeks,
for having the temerity to take photos of aircraft at an air show!
 >> Stay informed about: Candid photography? 

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:58:47 -0000, "Fred" <fredapain.RemoveThis@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>"Ron Hunter" <rphunter.RemoveThis@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:frmdnQWuiNkK0AXanZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> David J Taylor wrote:
>>> Fred wrote:
>>> []
>>>> I couldn't believe the paranoia of some 'jobs worth' officials on
>>>> recent trips to America, where I was accosted on various occasions
>>>> for taking quite innocent photographs.
>>>
>>> One more reason I no longer have any desire to visit the USA.
>>>
>>> David
>> I have never, in over 55 years of taking pictures, been accosted, anywhere
>> in the US, or Canada, for taking a picture, of anything. Seems to me that
>> 'innocent' is a matter of point of view. Perhaps the OP would enlighten
>> us as to the particulars of those 'innocent' pictures.
>>
>>
>Most of the complaints have been while I've been taking photos of various
>forms of public transport, either from station platforms, the side of the
>road or stood on a footpath, none of the situations being in any way
>dangerous, causing an obstrucion or intrusive. I've been accosted by
>transport police, regular cops, and various other assorted 'officials'.
>
If you've been accosted that many times by that many officials, I
suspect that your definition of what is obstructive and what is
intrusive is quite different from what officials think is obstructive
or intrusive.


--

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 >> Stay informed about: Candid photography? 

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213.TakeThisOut@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:o86hp35d7kbtl77lnvp7o1lbf1f3rsvfp6@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:58:47 -0000, "Fred" <fredapain.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Ron Hunter" <rphunter.TakeThisOut@charter.net> wrote in message
>>news:frmdnQWuiNkK0AXanZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> David J Taylor wrote:
>>>> Fred wrote:
>>>> []
>>>>> I couldn't believe the paranoia of some 'jobs worth' officials on
>>>>> recent trips to America, where I was accosted on various occasions
>>>>> for taking quite innocent photographs.
>>>>
>>>> One more reason I no longer have any desire to visit the USA.
>>>>
>>>> David
>>> I have never, in over 55 years of taking pictures, been accosted,
>>> anywhere
>>> in the US, or Canada, for taking a picture, of anything. Seems to me
>>> that
>>> 'innocent' is a matter of point of view. Perhaps the OP would enlighten
>>> us as to the particulars of those 'innocent' pictures.
>>>
>>>
>>Most of the complaints have been while I've been taking photos of various
>>forms of public transport, either from station platforms, the side of the
>>road or stood on a footpath, none of the situations being in any way
>>dangerous, causing an obstrucion or intrusive. I've been accosted by
>>transport police, regular cops, and various other assorted 'officials'.
>>
> If you've been accosted that many times by that many officials, I
> suspect that your definition of what is obstructive and what is
> intrusive is quite different from what officials think is obstructive
> or intrusive.
>
>
Nope, I've been taking photographs for nearly 40 years now, and this
obssesion with suspicion and paranoia is a relatively recent phenomena.
Nothing's changed in the way I take pictures, or the subjects that I take
pictures of, but what has changed is the public's perception of amateur
photographers, who are now often treated with suspicion and mistrust, just
because they have a camera around their neck. I managed to pursue my hobby
quite innocently for 20 years or more without any hassle from anyone, I
suggest what you should be asking is why society has become so mistrustful
of photographers, rather than trying to point the finger of blame at someone
who you don't even know!
 >> Stay informed about: Candid photography? 

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:56:48 -0000, "Fred" <fredapain RemoveThis @hotmail.com>
wrote:

>> If you've been accosted that many times by that many officials, I
>> suspect that your definition of what is obstructive and what is
>> intrusive is quite different from what officials think is obstructive
>> or intrusive.
>>
>>
>Nope, I've been taking photographs for nearly 40 years now, and this
>obssesion with suspicion and paranoia is a relatively recent phenomena.
>Nothing's changed in the way I take pictures, or the subjects that I take
>pictures of, but what has changed is the public's perception of amateur
>photographers, who are now often treated with suspicion and mistrust, just
>because they have a camera around their neck. I managed to pursue my hobby
>quite innocently for 20 years or more without any hassle from anyone, I
>suggest what you should be asking is why society has become so mistrustful
>of photographers, rather than trying to point the finger of blame at someone
>who you don't even know!

Who is this "society" that you are pointing your finger at? You are
referring specifically to officials, presumably public officials, in
the society of which you are a part.

In some cases, officials have reasonable cause to have become more
aggressive in "hassling" you. Twenty years ago, if you would have
injured yourself falling off a curb leaning over to catch a shot of an
bus, you would have dusted yourself off and gone on about your
business. Today, you'd sue the transportation authority for operating
an attractive nuisance and the official for not stopping you for doing
something dangerous.

Twenty years ago you could photograph a playground full of kids and
capture images of happy kids and scraped knees. Today the playground
guard worries about images that end up on websites viewed by perverts.

These officials are in some manner guardians of whatever it is that
they are officially in charge of, and society has come up with so many
ways to abuse the system that the officials have to be more
protective. You are as much a part of that society as anyone.

If whatever it is that you are doing attracts as much attention from
officials as you claim, you are doing something beyond what the rest
of us - who are not being hassled - are doing and causing your own
problem.


--

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 >> Stay informed about: Candid photography? 

"Paul Heslop" <paul.heslop.DeleteThis@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote

> As for TV cameras they should expect to be stopped if they are acting in a
> suspicious manner, just like anyone else.

Ditto still press photographers a.k.a. 'Paparazzi'. I've been in the
situation of having a dSLR and flash unit held against my window when I
refused to answer the door to a reporter (for reasons I won't go into.) If
I'd have had access to a phone (I was in my garage at the time) I would have
rung the police and had them both arrested for trespass and invasion of
privacy. I eventually rung their editor and told him I'd contact the Civil
Liberties Union - they didn't use the pictures...

Paul (B)
 >> Stay informed about: Candid photography? 

Fred wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter.RemoveThis@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:frmdnQWuiNkK0AXanZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> David J Taylor wrote:
>>> Fred wrote:
>>> []
>>>> I couldn't believe the paranoia of some 'jobs worth' officials on
>>>> recent trips to America, where I was accosted on various occasions
>>>> for taking quite innocent photographs.
>>> One more reason I no longer have any desire to visit the USA.
>>>
>>> David
>> I have never, in over 55 years of taking pictures, been accosted, anywhere
>> in the US, or Canada, for taking a picture, of anything. Seems to me that
>> 'innocent' is a matter of point of view. Perhaps the OP would enlighten
>> us as to the particulars of those 'innocent' pictures.
>>
>>
> Most of the complaints have been while I've been taking photos of various
> forms of public transport, either from station platforms, the side of the
> road or stood on a footpath, none of the situations being in any way
> dangerous, causing an obstrucion or intrusive. I've been accosted by
> transport police, regular cops, and various other assorted 'officials'.
>
> I must point out that this sort of reaction is by no means exclusive to the
> USA, and is becoming ever more prevalent in other countries, eg the British
> aircraft enthusiasts who were thrown into jail in Greece for several weeks,
> for having the temerity to take photos of aircraft at an air show!
>
>
How many pictures? How long did you stand there? What kind of
equipment did you have set up? And, while we are on the subject, just
WHY were you taking pictures of those particular things?

I have taken pictures at airshows, even of some aircraft that were
classified at the time, and was only asked not to take pictures of the
cockpit area. Note that those pictures were taken ON a USAF base.
Naturally, I complied with any signs that precluded taking pictures of
some things, like the SR71, and U2.
 >> Stay informed about: Candid photography? 

Fred wrote:
> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213.RemoveThis@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:o86hp35d7kbtl77lnvp7o1lbf1f3rsvfp6@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:58:47 -0000, "Fred" <fredapain.RemoveThis@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter.RemoveThis@charter.net> wrote in message
>>> news:frmdnQWuiNkK0AXanZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> David J Taylor wrote:
>>>>> Fred wrote:
>>>>> []
>>>>>> I couldn't believe the paranoia of some 'jobs worth' officials on
>>>>>> recent trips to America, where I was accosted on various occasions
>>>>>> for taking quite innocent photographs.
>>>>> One more reason I no longer have any desire to visit the USA.
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>> I have never, in over 55 years of taking pictures, been accosted,
>>>> anywhere
>>>> in the US, or Canada, for taking a picture, of anything. Seems to me
>>>> that
>>>> 'innocent' is a matter of point of view. Perhaps the OP would enlighten
>>>> us as to the particulars of those 'innocent' pictures.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Most of the complaints have been while I've been taking photos of various
>>> forms of public transport, either from station platforms, the side of the
>>> road or stood on a footpath, none of the situations being in any way
>>> dangerous, causing an obstrucion or intrusive. I've been accosted by
>>> transport police, regular cops, and various other assorted 'officials'.
>>>
>> If you've been accosted that many times by that many officials, I
>> suspect that your definition of what is obstructive and what is
>> intrusive is quite different from what officials think is obstructive
>> or intrusive.
>>
>>
> Nope, I've been taking photographs for nearly 40 years now, and this
> obssesion with suspicion and paranoia is a relatively recent phenomena.
> Nothing's changed in the way I take pictures, or the subjects that I take
> pictures of, but what has changed is the public's perception of amateur
> photographers, who are now often treated with suspicion and mistrust, just
> because they have a camera around their neck. I managed to pursue my hobby
> quite innocently for 20 years or more without any hassle from anyone, I
> suggest what you should be asking is why society has become so mistrustful
> of photographers, rather than trying to point the finger of blame at someone
> who you don't even know!
>
>

It's a dangerous world, and many people have become rather close to
paranoia these days. It doesn't help that governments and news media
try to scare the hell out of people in order to curry their favor.
I rather suspect that should I set up a long lens and camera on a tripod
outside the nearby nuclear power plant and take pictures of all the
traffic into, or out of, the plant area, and turn the camera lens on the
plant itself, then I would probably arouse the interest of the security
people. I have also been told by plant security people for chemical
plants that they discourage people who seem to be taking a lot of
pictures of individual units, or tanks, etc. at their plants. A couple
of shots as you drive by, no problem, but set up your tripod and take
closeups of the controls, or certain parts of the plant, and someone
will get curious.
Is this reasonable? Probably not, but people are scared.
 >> Stay informed about: Candid photography? 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Candid photography?