Why Do Tourists...

Kintarō Hattori

... photograph the police? I've never understood the fascination of striking a pose with the local police and taking a photo. Strolling by the National Gallery some tourists came out and asked a young guard if they could pose with him. Fair play he obliged. Later by the GPO the same thing again.

I've been to a few countries and have never wanted to have my photo taken with the local police. So why... what's the big attraction?

Is there anything that people take photos of that you just don't get? And before you reply- we'll rule swans out of this one.

Masada

I wouldn't want my photo taking with the cops, but i have taken pics of the cops from countries all around the world, I dunno why really, maybe its the uniform and the "out of the ordinary"ness of it.

Well I would like to get photos of them, but I'm a fan of our own 'boys in blue' anyway so it'd be nice to get some more images.

I think a lot of people do it because it's something that's almost a landmark in itself. You wouldn't see a Garda car or uniform in New York, London or Japan. Nor will you see an NYPD car in Dublin, Toronto or Rome.

In saying that, I'd imagine our boys get this a fair bit more than a lot others because there's no "police" over here, and we've Garda instead. Very Irish.

sensibleken

maybe it of the funny defenceless yellow police with no guns .

i see allot of people taking pictures of bins. but then i have allot of pictures of mundane things (such as my ex....zing!) that people must have been thinking 'wow what is that lunatic doing'

Ghost Train

I think its like a landmark, it identifies where you are

sineadw

Paintings. WHY do people take photos of paintings???? I was in Orsay last year and you wouldn't believe all the eejits taking shots of them. I watched one guy for a minute and he shot a whole series of Van Goghs without actually looking at them. Seriously people - buy a postcard. The shots must be dreadful..

jpb1974

The shots must be dreadful..

So what if they are?

Can photography not be about personal preference and enjoyment if someone chooses it to be?

I'm not keen on the idea of scoffing at the choices of others. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's wrong.

sineadw

I'm not scoffing. I'm making the point that people take photos of a work of art, and there's no way the light is sufficient to capture any of its beauty. And most of the time they don't even look at it. It's like collecting or something.

If that's what you want to do then fair enough. There is also the small point though that flash photography isn't actually allowed in Orsay. And no photography is allowed at all in the Louvre. I was gobsmacked at the sight of people using flash to photograph egyptian papyrus scrolls there. Or mauling the sarcophagus box of Ramesses III.. There's a room at the top of Orsay with watercolours so delicate they have to be viewed in subdued light, and people are in there flashing away.

jpb1974

I'm not scoffing. I'm making the point that people take photos of a work of art, and there's no way the light is sufficient to capture any of its beauty. And most of the time they don't even look at it. It's like collecting or something.

But so what? If the person taking the photos is content then there's now't worth worrying about.

There is also the small point though that flash photography isn't actually allowed in Orsay

Well that's another matter. I was addressing your original point "WHY do people take photos of paintings????" and not "WHY do people take photos of paintings using flash when it is not allowed????"

sineadw

@jpb - the question asked in the thread was "Is there anything that people take photos of that you just don't get?". I'm answering that. I don't get why people would want to take a photo of a painting, when they can get a *much* better representation of it elsewhere. These are (I assume) purely record shots. They're not taking an image of the painting in its environment. Or the gallery (that I get - some of the rooms are spectacular).

jpb1974

the question asked in the thread was "Is there anything that people take photos of that you just don't get?". I'm answering that.

Fair point. Apologies.

My only beef would be the assumption that the 'photos must be dreadful'... it's a fairly sweeping judgement... you'd have to assume that you've seen at least 51% of them.

buy a postcard.

Aye... you can't beat a good postcard. Maybe even have it framed?

Going back to the original question "Is there anything that people take photos of that you just don't get?"

My answer is no... I get the fact that we're all individuals and we all have different interests, tastes and personal preferences.

NothingMan

I don't get why most tourists feel they need to be in every picture. Obviously sometimes it's nice to have a pic of yourself beside a landmark but when I was in a national park in Croatia with amazing landscapes and green areas that made excellent photos, most people were getting their mugs in the shots too. Why would you need 200 pictures of yourself beside various waterfalls and lakes when the waterfall or lake is the beautiful subject you want to capture?

Kintarō Hattori

jpb1974 wrote: »

...Going back to the original question "Is there anything that people take photos of that you just don't get?"

My answer is no... I get the fact that we're all individuals and we all have different interests, tastes and personal preferences.

We don't need to rationalize everything. It's fact that we will be puzzled why folks want to do things we wouldn't do or that we find odd. I accept they have the right to, I accept that we are all different. Part of our nature is to interpret things differently to other people. While I can understand why they have the right to see things differently to me, it can still seem strange/funny or odd.

This is just a light hearted thread, please bare that in mind.

jpb1974

I don't have much of a problem with the original question... although I guess for some it'll be an opportunity for a minor rant.

It does bother me though when people have to throw in the "the shots must be terrible" bit at the end. I mean there's not getting it bit which is fine... but lets not just assume that the photos are terrible.

magicbastarder

graffiti. i don't understand why people take a straight shot of other people's artwork and then present it as a good photo in its own right.

undergroundeye

A friend of mine was lying on a beach in Australia, suddenly an Asian guy stood infront of him and took more than one photo of him wearing only his bathers.
There is nothing weird or out of the ordinary about him, just a normal bloke!

sineadw

jpb1974 wrote: »

I don't have much of a problem with the original question... although I guess for some it'll be an opportunity for a minor rant.

It does bother me though when people have to throw in the "the shots must be terrible" bit at the end. I mean there's not getting it bit which is fine... but lets not just assume that the photos are terrible.

Without a tripod there's no way they're getting a decent copy of the image. Not a chance. Have you ever tried?

I honestly don't see why you have such a problem with my statement.

jpb1974

Which one is it -

"WHY do people take photos of paintings????"

"WHY do people take photos of paintings with flash when flash is not allowed????"

"WHY do people take photos of paintings without a tripod????"

Have you ever tried?

Have you?

Kintarō Hattori

I don't want to sound rude but can you two stop it? We get your opposing viewpoints.

sineadw

NP Kintaro..

nonsequitir

I've frequently taken shots of military or police personnel when in other parts of the world because there's certainly a novelty value in the differences in uniforms, weaponed status and general demeanor that I think reflects a culture. That's just me.

I've also taken a (non-flash) photograph of a painting in the Louvre (the one opposite the Mona Lisa), but for novelty value as it had lots of people in it and was surrounded by a lot of people and it looked like they were an extension of the painting. http://www.flickr.com/photos/nonsequitir/3387827914/

Is it a crap photo? Yea, of course it is, it's a "Tourist shot" and crap by default. Most tourist photos, imo, are crap but the point of them isn't generally to produce technical masterpiecery, it's to remember a place, an event, a feeling - and I'm fine with that. So shoot away, because taking photographs often and everywhere is what makes it fun!

SouthDublinMan

NothingMan wrote: »

I don't get why most tourists feel they need to be in every picture. Obviously sometimes it's nice to have a pic of yourself beside a landmark but when I was in a national park in Croatia with amazing landscapes and green areas that made excellent photos, most people were getting their mugs in the shots too. Why would you need 200 pictures of yourself beside various waterfalls and lakes when the waterfall or lake is the beautiful subject you want to capture?

Surely people can take a picture of whatever they want! If they wanna put themselves beside the Tak Mahal or pretend to have the Eiffel Tower on their head what concern is it of yours, I only yesterday joined this forum and from what I have read a lot of you take yourselves and your photography too seriously!

humberklog

SouthDublinMan wrote: »

Surely people can take a picture of whatever they want! If they wanna put themselves beside the Tak Mahal or pretend to have the Eiffel Tower on their head what concern is it of yours, I only yesterday joined this forum and from what I have read a lot of you take yourselves and your photography too seriously!

You've missed the point, it's not a serious thread. You've taken it seriously.


I always get pics of me with police when away somewhere peculiar....and I don't know for the life of my why.

And advertising on vans in foriegn countries!!? But I do, I do, ido.

nonsequitir

SouthDublinMan wrote: »

Surely people can take a picture of whatever they want! If they wanna put themselves beside the Tak Mahal or pretend to have the Eiffel Tower on their head what concern is it of yours, I only yesterday joined this forum and from what I have read a lot of you take yourselves and your photography too seriously!

But this is a serious forum, for serious photographers, with serious intent and serious faces. Some of the people on this forum even have tripods and prime lenses!

jpb1974

Some of the people on this forum even have tripods and prime lenses!

And if you do you better act professional.

NothingMan

SouthDublinMan wrote: »

Surely people can take a picture of whatever they want! If they wanna put themselves beside the Tak Mahal or pretend to have the Eiffel Tower on their head what concern is it of yours, I only yesterday joined this forum and from what I have read a lot of you take yourselves and your photography too seriously!

This has already been mentioned and I don't wish to further sidetrack a possibly interesting thread, but I did not say I have a problem with the way people take photographs or that they do anything wrong. Just that it's not something I do or particularly understand. I like to try and capture the mood of a time as I see it and not with me looking at the camera doing blue steel. Even when I take my camera to a social occasion I like to get more candid pics of people than poses. That's me, if others want to pose in every shot they take then excellent, pose away.

As for a picture where the Eifel tower looks like it's on your head, sounds fun. I'd like to try it.

jpb1974

Even when I take my camera to a social occasion I like to get more candid pics of people than poses. That's me, if others want to pose in every shot they take then excellent, pose away.

It's strange to say that you don't get why people want to pose in all their photos... and then you say you prefer to stay behind the camera. You've sort of answered what it is that you don't get i.e. personal preference - that some people simply like posing in their photos and others don't like in your own case.

There's nothing not to get really other than the fact that people are different

magicbastarder

i think the 'that's just your opinion' response to a thread calling for people to express their opinions is a bit redundant; people like expressing their opinions and disagreeing with others, and that's all this thread is. plus, you tend to learn more and be challenged more by people whose opinions differ than you are by people you see eye to eye with.

in the end, it's all just friendly chatter.

nonsequitir

magicbastarder wrote: »

in the end, it's all just friendly chatter.

But seriously friendly chatter for serious people, serious about photography and not unserious touristy snapshooting of culturally significant edifices on people's heads! That's very unserious indeed!

sensibleken

well not so much the constant snapping by tourists but why do parents, especially new parents insist on showing you eleventy-two pictures of their baby pooing its nappy every day to try and convince you that their kid is cute

we only need one picture of it and only if its lost (child, not the poo)

melekalikimaka

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

I don't want to sound rude but can you two stop it? We get your opposing viewpoints.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo