Why is Ireland living in the Dark Ages ?

Anouilh · 10-12-2008 1:06pm

littlebug wrote: »

Thanks Anoilh,

I know it was a public place but you know... it was a lovely tender moment between father and his children who were not looking for attention. Maybe if it was just you Anouilh (or any of you here for that matter) with your experience and artistic eye you could have taken a photograph discretely (or is that discreetly?) without being obtrusive but all of them standing up at once was too much and the moment and feeling was gone.

I seem to have spent years wondering about the role of the photographer, without even realising it . A course in French film I attended in the 1990's made much of the photographer as hunter and the "male" aspect of the art forms that have emerged as a result.

I don't think I would have done much better than the cast of thousands that ruined such an important moment.

People are not particularly sensitive in public settings and somehow the extra bit of armour that the camera and lens provide can make instinct dominate reason and emotion.

Anouilh · 10-12-2008 1:07pm

On reflection, the fact that there were children involved might have stopped me from taking photos in the first place...

AnCatDubh · 10-12-2008 9:26pm

Personally as an approach I have no major issue in taking pictures of a general scene. If adults or children end up in it then so be it - not my fault and i'm happy that my right to capture and scene in a public place is maintained.

However, just reading back through some of the posts here and there is a point which is coming through. There's something in my makeup which would never let me even dream of 'singling' out someone else's child to be photographed without being expressly asked to do so. I don't think it would ever strike me that I should. I don't think that I would even offer - the approach would have to come from the other side.

The other day - me, my wife and family were in a fast food place and a family sat at a table beside us. Their children were gorgeous and very photogenic. One young child in particular was just a little dote and my wife and I both commented 'wouldn't that be the picture' and indeed it would have been. But even if I had my camera gear with me, I would never have dreamed of taking it out. (Ok, in this example we were on private property but you get the jist of what i mean).

I think in the example above, the parents would have had every right to be upset if I had of taken a camera out. I'd have no problem if i was taking a scene and the child happened to be in it - i don't think an individuals right to be in a public place (scene) includes the right to not be photographed as part of that scene but I don't think that the individual should be singled out in any way such that they become the subject of that scene. At such a point, I can whole heartedly appreciate why someone may have a problem with a photographer in that situation.

bins · 10-12-2008 10:28pm

:rolleyes:

Fajitas! · 10-12-2008 10:32pm

bins wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Fascinating. Such depth.

democrates · 11-12-2008 1:15am

Kids make great subjects with perfect wrinkle-free skin the big eyes and all the expressions reflecting their rollercoaster moods without diplomatic filtering.

Many people around my vintage shrink from the lens for fear of the flaws of age being highlighted, some just aren't happy in their lives, you've got to take each person as you find them, there's generally no one size fits all approach in dealing with people, diverse as we are.

I've been thinking about the inner child theory. Psychologically we're like onions, each year a new layer gets added but none get subtracted. Just as we retain memories from years past we also have childhood stimulus-response pathways wired in our brains.

As adults other pathways have become the main roads, but there is that part of us that yearns for a simpler time, and there's no doubt kids bring us back for a trip down memory lane. As the saying goes "you don't stop playing when you get old, you get old because you stop playing". I have to say family gatherings have become a lot more fun with the arrival of nephews and nieces, can't wait to have kids of my own, God willing.

Thirdfox · 11-12-2008 1:25am

Fajitas! wrote: »

Fascinating. Such depth.

Well there's just no comeback to that though is there?

democrates · 11-12-2008 1:39am

bins wrote: »

:rolleyes:

+1
A tour de force in concision. Sometimes less is more, my hat off to you.

Apparantly saying nothing but being sarcastic, clearly a swipe at self-censorship and I have to agree with your position, we've gone too far and become too politically correct and it's time to grow a pair and protect the freedom and democracy our forebears died for, clearly given that set of values you're going to vote No to Lisbon 2.0 next year.

I'm disappointed in the slagging that happened here, there are none so blind as those who do not wish to see. Hold on, that's must be the point, I take it back Fajitas! and Thirdfox, bit slow on the uptake at this hour.

Simplicius · 11-12-2008 3:13am

Hi All, Great subject, great thread, lots of considered answers without people getting on their high horse and nice flow of humour too... now for my thoughts.

I have been doing more and more street photography as 2008 passed, I only seriously became a camera head this year. I like to get right up close and as I live around Dublin 1, I get plenty of chances to see the more unpleasant sides of life. But it's got me some fantastic shots too.

I don't tend to get much hassle, once only. Where one guy got upset and agressive, I snapped his picture, usual BS ensued.

"You can't take my picture"
"Yes I can"
"No you can't! delete it"
“No I won't and anyway it is film so I can't delete it"
He wasn't stupid enough to try and grab it but was off to get the Gardai, I pointed him to the nearest station. And saw no more.

The thing with whether you are entitled to or not in a public space/ private open space, inside Trinity (aren’t they just so annoying!), you should!

If asked to stop then politely do so. No-one is entitled to access your camera; a lawyer friend clarified this for me once. For me half the fun is the sniper feel you get when sizing up a shot, trying to frame it, keeping the camera down as long as possible, judging something else like a littler bin to be the same distance away and focusing on that and then turning toward target. I love it!

To anyone who says Street Photography is not Art, “Your honour, Exhibit A is the collected works of a Street Photographer called Robert Doisneau. You can now find it in every poster shop in the world” So that for me kills off the Flickr Argument about exporting data and data protection.

Commercial usage is an interesting one, anyone who did the naked and bloody freezing Spenser Tunick shoot will remember the waiver. That though is a ‘set-up’, whereas pictures of crowds or people on the street in the true sense of maintaining the integrity of the “Art of Street Photography” you cannot ask them for their waiver.

I strongly suspect if it came to court on a Street Photo, the law may well technically require signatures but it also like most laws will have an “as far as is practically possible” clause. Face it is isn’t practically possible to carry out your Art, which is to some extent being stealthy. I don’t know anyone who can do stealthy and carry a clipboard!

@democrates Kids make great subjects with perfect wrinkle-free skin the big eyes and all the expressions reflecting their rollercoaster moods without diplomatic filtering.

Yes Kids are usually fantastic, I covered the Education Cuts Protests, last Saturday. The kids were by and far the more interesting subjects. Some great shots as they came down O’Connell Street. The Adult’s are too stiff faced and subdued so looking for expression you end up with the kids. I use a 50mm prime and had a 35mm Rangefinder so I was always within 3 feet of my subjects. Only one foolish comment from a woman who as she marched pass said “I hope you are press” . I felt sorry more for her than anything else, that she has bought into the fear that is peddled so cheaply these days.

Anouilh“Perhaps sharing strategies for shielding people from public scrutiny and making private spaces in the midst of all this would be useful.

I carry an umbrella, which apart from acting as a sort of sun shield when taking sunsets, can also give a space within which I feel alone and free.”

A Very difficult thing to do, I’m well over 6 foot tall too, so hiding ain’t an option, two things have worked for me, is one I have this terrible Garda Blue shirt and wear that with stereotype trousers and shoes and have been asked why Gardai are taking pictures like this, but it stops anyone hassling you. The best advise I could give is learn your lens, just use one lens till you can pre-focus it without having it to your eye. Then stand somewhere where people don’t normally walk, like lean against lampposts or bins and wait a while, nothing doing or coming towards you move on.

I am almost convinced successful street photos are part luck, part skill and mainly shoe leather!

Simplicius

Defying Gravity since 1878.

This Human carcass was taken over by the Rodinal Chapter Of the Fifth Church of Analogue in 2008 and shall remain if all possible hidden in darkrooms with chemicals under red lights until it ceases to function.
Welcome to the planet Analogue, we mean you no harm..

My Photos
http://www.flickr.com/photos/13111789@N00/

Anouilh · 12-12-2008 3:00pm

AnCatDubh wrote: »

Personally as an approach I have no major issue in taking pictures of a general scene. If adults or children end up in it then so be it - not my fault and i'm happy that my right to capture and scene in a public place is maintained.

However, just reading back through some of the posts here and there is a point which is coming through. There's something in my makeup which would never let me even dream of 'singling' out someone else's child to be photographed without being expressly asked to do so. I don't think it would ever strike me that I should. I don't think that I would even offer - the approach would have to come from the other side.

The other day - me, my wife and family were in a fast food place and a family sat at a table beside us. Their children were gorgeous and very photogenic. One young child in particular was just a little dote and my wife and I both commented 'wouldn't that be the picture' and indeed it would have been. But even if I had my camera gear with me, I would never have dreamed of taking it out. (Ok, in this example we were on private property but you get the jist of what i mean).

I think in the example above, the parents would have had every right to be upset if I had of taken a camera out. I'd have no problem if i was taking a scene and the child happened to be in it - i don't think an individuals right to be in a public place (scene) includes the right to not be photographed as part of that scene but I don't think that the individual should be singled out in any way such that they become the subject of that scene. At such a point, I can whole heartedly appreciate why someone may have a problem with a photographer in that situation.

Times have certainly changed.

Many years ago we cycled round Ireland with our 16 month old child. In a camping site in Kerry an American couple asked permission to take photos as she danced round the camp fire. My own camera had stopped working during the trip and I was delighted. We never saw the final photos and the couple were writing a book on children round the World. I like to think that somewhere is a record of this magical moment.

Anouilh · 28-12-2008 4:02pm

Anouilh wrote: »

For most of my life, photos of children have been the most beautiful and heart warming images in our cultural iconography. It is sad that I would think twice now before uploading any image of a child, not because I have any personal qualms, but because of the odd way society views children in photography and art.

I hope this does not continue.

I now wonder how the odd perception of photos of children in the Western World might be reversed.

Having chatted with friends recently, they are happy for their photos to appear on Flickr, but have many reservations about posting children.

This is not a Worldwide phenomenon.
One lively person from an Eastern culture posted a thumbnail of himself, his wife and child on one of my photos, to wish me a "Happy Christmas".

This is a healthy way forward and perhaps by daring to have more images of children posted generally, the neurosis will abate?

Experts in cognitive theory may have some opinions on this?

democrates · 28-12-2008 10:44pm

Anouilh wrote: »

I now wonder how the odd perception of photos of children in the Western World might be reversed.

Having chatted with friends recently, they are happy for their photos to appear on Flickr, but have many reservations about posting children.

This is not a Worldwide phenomenon.
One lively person from an Eastern culture posted a thumbnail of himself, his wife and child on one of my photos, to wish me a "Happy Christmas".

This is a healthy way forward and perhaps by daring to have more images of children posted generally, the neurosis will abate?

Experts in cognitive theory may have some opinions on this?

I think it's just going to take time but we're getting there, radio stations are playing Michael Jackson again after all.

The era of abuse revelations created a wave of fear and suspicion. I'm sure others here remember growing up in the soviet era with a booklet from the government in the house explaining what to do in the event of a nuclear strike, I also recall a school drill where we all had to dive under the desks and cover exposed skin so it wouldn't be burned off in the heat blast.

It wasn't until Sting sang "if the Russians love their children too" that I personally saw sense and rejected the belief that we are all going to be destroyed, talk about a neurosis, we actually thought that impending apocalypse was coming, hard to believe a free society would raise kids to believe that now, then again, has everyone got their Iodine tablets in case Windscale Sellafield Fluffy Meadow goes Chernobyl?

There's still plenty of fear on the menu, pollution (dioxins), global warming, globalisation, terrorism, drugs, disease (bird flu, e-coli, cryptosporidium, foot and mouth, mad cow & CJD), lead in paint on toys, rogue traders, credit crunch, peak oil.

We'll never make a perfect society with imperfect humans, so ultimately, risk is the price of freedom. Managing risk wisely is the goal, not minimising it until we are reduced to prisoners of fear.

Getting back to your question, I think grassroots change will be slow, but I'd predict some celebrity will take a stand at some stage and bring a lot of people back to a moderate position founded on facts.

AnCatDubh · 28-12-2008 11:18pm

Anouilh wrote: »

I now wonder how the odd perception of photos of children in the Western World might be reversed.

Societal change.

But the reason (at least partly) that we are in the position that we find ourself in is the fear of bad things happening. Will society be willing to take the risk? Bad things did happen. Our society is afraid of the risk associated with it.

Other cultures haven't yet been through the realisation that bad things can be happening to their children and often like western culture, it can be happening right in front of their noses. The old saying comes to mind "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king" (one eyed man can also be a photographer if you think about it

).

I sometimes wonder the opposite of you though. I'm no expert on other cultures but I have visited a few. How long will other cultures take to realise what may be going on and for them to become as protective/paranoid as the western culture.

By that stage whenever it happens perhaps western culture will have moved out of this doldrum that we presently find ourselves in.

AnCatDubh · 28-12-2008 11:19pm

:rolleyes:

(save someone else putting it in

)

Calina · 28-12-2008 11:37pm

AnCatDubh wrote: »

Societal change.

But the reason (at least partly) that we are in the position that we find ourself in is the fear of bad things happening. Will society be willing to take the risk? Bad things did happen. Our society is afraid of the risk associated with it.

Other cultures haven't yet been through the realisation that bad things can be happening to their children and often like western culture, it can be happening right in front of their noses. The old saying comes to mind "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king" (one eyed man can also be a photographer if you think about it ).

I sometimes wonder the opposite of you though. I'm no expert on other cultures but I have visited a few. How long will other cultures take to realise what may be going on and for them to become as protective/paranoid as the western culture.

By that stage whenever it happens perhaps western culture will have moved out of this doldrum that we presently find ourselves in.

At the risk of expanding this still further I have a couple of comments.

1) We need to recognise that with freedoms come great responsibility. We have the freedom to move widely and use our cameras. We should also have the responsibility to use that freedom responsibly. I know that is a bit iffy on the sentence construction. Take the example above of the private family moment - is it not selfish of the photographer to intrude on that moment, even if it is in public?

Robert Doisneau's photograph The Kiss at the Place de l'Hotel de Ville was posed and yet it was still the subject of a court case for, grosso modo invasion of privacy by a separate couple. I realise that you can say that anything that takes place in a public space is public...but that doesn't mean that intrusion isn't possible...

The fear of bad things happening is based - probably - on an unrealistic assessment of the risks concerned. I think however, that there's a greater fear of a lack of control involved.

Let's assume person A is having an affair with person B and photographer C, completely unrelated, catches a tender moment between them in a public space, surrounded by 1000s of other people. Let's assume person A also has a relationship with person D who, by chance is a Flickr contact - never met - of photographer C and photographer C, pleading artistic licence, posts photograph of A and B on flickr to the consternation of A B and D.

Personally - regardless of how public the space is - I would always consider that an invasion of privacy anyway but also, if you want a modicum of control over what happens to images of you, don't perfect strangers also have right to the same control?

We can't always get it right, but personally I exercise a modicum of control over what photographs I take and if something looks deeply personal (eg, someone crying at a funeral), however removed from me, i leave my camera alone.

It's worth noting that some other cultures do not like photographs being taken of them. It's not a question of bad things happening, but that the mere act of taking a photograph is some form of soul stealing. Would you respect that belief if you ran into it?

I think the issue in the west is technology related. If you were a bogstandard burger, a photograph on a negative didn't matter. On an online gallery, seeable by millions...it's a bit different. There is considerably more scope for problems gaining legs and running, and for pictures to turn up in bad places (viz FaceBook)...than 20 years ago. Than 5 years ago, let's face it.

I think again, a lot boils down to the balance between photographer rights and responsibilities.

Anouilh · 29-12-2008 12:35pm

The ability of humans, when in a group, to think the worst has always puzzled me.

Most people are trying to move around on streets without getting bumped into.

Having Googled

private actions in a public space street photography ethics

I found this helpful analysis of ethics in a public space:

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001vdZ

The question of what is a private action in a public space has even been used in court cases in Britain where, in one case, a photographer who uploaded a photo of a lady who was a bit "under the weather" on the street was given a fine or community service (I can't remember which) by a judge who was sympathetic to the embarrassment caused.

Paulw · 29-12-2008 2:33pm

Anouilh wrote: »

The question of what is a private action in a public space has even been used in court cases in Britain where, in one case, a photographer who uploaded a photo of a lady who was a bit "under the weather" on the street was given a fine or community service (I can't remember which) by a judge who was sympathetic to the embarrassment caused.

It was in Scotland, and he was not given a fine for taking a photo, but rather from the result of him taking the photo. His photo was never used in the case, and his taking of the photo was not in breach of the law.

I'd recommend that people actually look at the case, in full detail.

The photographer got in to an arguement with friends of his photographic subject, and that resulted in him being arrested and charged with a disturbance of the peace.

Calina · 29-12-2008 2:48pm

In some respects, however, the law is a line in the sand and nothing more. The point I'd raise is just because something is legal doesn't mean it's ethically correct and every case is nuanced anyway.

EG, if you were drunk in the street I wouldn't consider taking the photograph for the delight and delectation of all as "art" to be ethically correct, but an invasion of your privacy. . On the other hand if you were PR for the Temperance Society, I'd consider it to be of public interest. Ie, it would still be an invasion of your privacy but the public interest argument may have more weight given on how evangelical you are.

Phototoxin · 29-12-2008 7:06pm

There is an explanation for why so many people like photographing children that is not at all sinister.

scientifically speaking they are cute. The big eyes thing. Apparently its evolutionary so that we go AWWWW and want to look out for them

Where one guy got upset and agressive, I snapped his picture

isn't that provocation ?

democrates · 29-12-2008 7:52pm

Phototoxin wrote: »

scientifically speaking they are cute. The big eyes thing. Apparently its evolutionary so that we go AWWWW and want to look out for them

Yeah I saw or read about that too, apparently the eyeballs don't grow once they reach a certain size in childhood, it's one way eyeliner which makes a womans eyes look bigger usually makes her more attractive, the eternal youth and/or childbearing appeal.

A tv documentary asserted that blondes are attractive because fair hair is associated with youth, think I'm an exception though, the darker the better, preferably straight, and no defense against melato skin tones bar my personality. Chemistry and charachter trump all the superficial stuff of course.

Now here's one for y'all - I can think back to my schooldays and the first time I met "a bird" who was a turn on, we were both around 12/13 and I've just sat back and thought about it and I can still retreive the arousal I felt back then. Is that just the nature of memory or does it make me a raving pedo since I'm much older now, have I just committed a thought crime?

Anouilh · 27-01-2009 11:25am

superflyninja wrote: »

earleir i nthe year I lived in the IFSc and was walking home from a shoot one evening (not taking photos) and a security guard advised me not to take any photos. Even though I was in the open air(near georges dock).and to be fair the guard was nice about it but I hadnt realised open public places were not fair game. Ive been told not to take photos in the illac shopping centre because of"security issues"....

I had my very first experience of being asked to not use my camera yesterday. It was very amicable and it seems that if one asks for permission from Information it is likely to be granted.

trishw78 · 27-01-2009 3:52pm

There seems to be a new development in UK Law

British Journal of Photography wrote:

The relationship between photographers and police could worsen next month when new laws are introduced that allow for the arrest and imprisonment of anyone who takes pictures of officers 'likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'.

Set to become law on 16 February, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 amends the Terrorism Act 2000 regarding offences relating to information about members of armed forces, a member of the intelligence services, or a police officer.

The new set of rules, under section 76 of the 2008 Act and section 58A of the 2000 Act, will target anyone who 'elicits or attempts to elicit information about [members of armed forces] … which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'.

A person found guilty of this offence could be liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years, and to a fine.

The law is expected to increase the anti-terrorism powers used today by police officers to stop photographers, including press photographers, from taking pictures in public places. 'Who is to say that police officers won’t abuse these powers,' asks freelance photographer Justin Tallis, who was threatened by an officer last week.

Tallis, a London-based photographer, was covering the anti-BBC protest on Saturday 24 January when he was approached by a police officer. Tallis had just taken a picture of the officer, who then asked to see the picture. The photographer refused, arguing that, as a press photographer, he had a right to take pictures of police officers.

According to Tallis, the officer then tried to take the camera away. Before giving up, the officer said that Tallis 'shouldn’t have taken that photo, you were intimidating me'. The incident was caught on camera by photojournalist Marc Vallée.

Tallis is a member of the National Union of Journalists and the British Press Photographers’ Association. 'The incident lasted just 10 seconds, but you don’t expect a police officer to try to pull your camera from your neck,' Tallis tells BJP

LINK

I have a feeling this could get more restrictive before it gets better.

Covey · 27-01-2009 4:08pm

Yeah buts thats the UK, different "Rules of Engagement" so to say.

I thought this thread was about Ireland.

I've only had one "incident" on the street, where a chap was being arrested for stealing and I took a shot. He roared " You can't take a photo of me", to which the guard replied. "Of course he can, your on the street mate".

Different stratosphere here I think.

xshayx · 27-01-2009 4:13pm

Covey wrote: »

"You can't take a photo of me", to which the guard replied. "Of course he can, your on the street mate".

hehehe

trishw78 · 27-01-2009 4:14pm

True but how long do you think it will be before some jumped up garda starts say the same thing.

Covey · 27-01-2009 4:23pm

A long time hopefully, we're no way near as paranoid as those across the way.

jaqian · 27-01-2009 4:49pm

Dragan wrote: »

i can only assume he had his reasons to not be seen anywhere, even accidentally in a photograph?

Like this asian fella who hid from a Garda helicopter at Connolly station...

jaqian · 27-01-2009 5:10pm

Covey wrote: »

I've only had one "incident" on the street, where a chap was being arrested for stealing and I took a shot. He roared " You can't take a photo of me", to which the guard replied. "Of course he can, your on the street mate".

Class. So far I haven't had any problems, long may it continue

Thirdfox · 27-01-2009 5:48pm

Phototoxin wrote: »

scientifically speaking they are cute. The big eyes thing. Apparently its evolutionary so that we go AWWWW and want to look out for them

isn't that provocation ?

And big head - look at the kawaii (cute) Japanese anime - massive heads, massive eyes. Or for something more Western oriented - teddy bears - very disproportionate head/body sizes.

Probably could strenuously argue provocation but more likely to be harassment (which is also illegal). (But I didn't read the context of what the OP meant - did he upset the guy and continue taking photos? If so, then that is a breach of the law - basics of the law are, in Ireland, in a public space, you can always snap off one shot without violating the law, any more and you could edge towards trouble).

Why let courts/gardai decide though? Use your own personal wisdom/judgment...

nilhg · 27-01-2009 6:54pm

trishw78 wrote: »

There seems to be a new development in UK Law

LINK

I have a feeling this could get more restrictive before it gets better.

They are all mad, some genius in the US wants to make it compulsory that cameraphones emit a "tone or other sound audible within a reasonable radius of the phone" when they take a picture.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/01/our-intrepid-leaders.html

The lunatics are taking over the asylum it seems.

Why is Ireland living in the Dark Ages ?

Comments