geekhack
geekhack Community => Off Topic => Topic started by: FinancialWar on Thu, 23 February 2012, 22:43:52
-
[ATTACH=CONFIG]41528[/ATTACH]
-
Japanese chicks at Central Station Sydney
[ATTACH=CONFIG]41579[/ATTACH]
-
I haven't seen this many Asians in one place since Tienanmen Square
-
or anywhere on the west coast
-
You should spend some time in Vancouver BC.
Frankly, when the Chinese invasion ot the USA happens I think it will happen from the North.
I am all for Richmond moving to the US.
-
town hall
[ATTACH=CONFIG]41622[/ATTACH]
-
so is that what you think of when you do street photography? I like beautiful Asian, fashion and photography. But I would never break any Anti-Voyeurism Law here in Australia.
-
Damn I am so brave.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]41911[/ATTACH]
-
^ Hahaha, dude the girls aren't supposed to look pissed when you take pics of them!
-
^ Hahaha, dude the girls aren't supposed to look pissed when you take pics of them!
I don't have any control over their facial expression.
-
[ATTACH=CONFIG]41915[/ATTACH]
her boyfriend confronted me and called the police...WTF? Since when do you have a right not to be photographed in a public place? Australia is a free country. Stupid ignorant Korean tourists.
-
Stupid ignored Korean tourists.
Obviously they weren't ignored. You took their picture.
-
xD .. so why exactly do you do this..?
(Attachment) 41915[/ATTACH]
her boyfriend confronted me and called the police...WTF? Since when do you have a right not to be photographed in a public place? Australia is a free country. Stupid ignorant Korean tourists.
-
Admittedly it's not a law*, but when you make someone the subject of your photo rather than them just incidentally being in the picture you're taking of something else then I would expect to be asked and otherwise would put up a stink. I don't care what things you like to look at or take pictures of, but if it turns out that I'm one of those things then you had better ask politely.
* In the US, don't know about elsewhere.
-
then you had better ask politely.
US/Canada/Uk/Australia have very similar laws.
Your permission is not required. You have no right not to be photographed in a public place because you have no right to privacy in a public place. If I can see you, I can take a picture of you. If you want privacy, then stay at home. If I want to photograph you, I will and I don't give a rat's ass who you are or how you feel. You can not force to delete the photo because it is my property. If you touch me or my camera, that's an assault.
When the police came, I explained that I'm a street photographer taking pictures in a public place. The police was on my side, hence why I was able to keep the photo. People think their permission is needed, legally no, socially well I don't give a **** because I don't even know you.
-
US/Canada/Uk/Australia have very similar laws.
Your permission is not required. You have no right not to be photographed in a public place because you have no right to privacy in a public place. If I can see you, I can take a picture of you. If you want privacy, then stay at home. If I want to photograph you, I will and I don't give a rat's ass who you are or how you feel. You can not force to delete the photo because it is my property. If you touch me or my camera, that's an assault.
When the police came, I explained that I'm a street photographer taking pictures in a public place. The police was on my side, hence why I was able to keep the photo. People think their permission is needed, legally no, socially well I don't give a **** because I don't even know you.
You're kind of a d-bag, aren't you?
-
self-portrait of a ****head
-
you obviously don't know Bruce Gilden
-
Wow op is a serious loser. Get a life.
-
you obviously don't know Bruce Gilden
i know mr gilden and you sir are no bruce gilden
-
Wow op is a serious loser. Get a life.
lol, coming someone who's a member of a keyboard forum. I think we should all stop playing this "loser" card,
-
Sorry. Judging from the looks on the people's faces. The proper term is probably creep.
Just calling it as I see it boss.
-
i know mr gilden and you sir are no bruce gilden
Of course I'm not, but I have the balls to do what he does. He's been called names like loser, pedo, D-bag etc. If he cared about other's feeling, he would never have gotten those shots. I agree with his philosophy, get the shots and don't sympathise. The same concept also exists in most areas of life, like if I am empathic with people, I probably would never make any money off my clients. Lawyers face the same issue and many other industry and businesses. Photography is no different, except the reward is not money but shots (for me anyway, I am no pro), which I guess why most people find it hard to accept.
It's socially acceptable to be a **** to make money but not acceptable for artistic purposes.
Don't see why you guys are so soft on the issue.
-
So you accept that you are a ****.
-
So you accept that you are a ****.
In the name of Art and street photography, I guess I will have to accept the fact that I will just have to a ****.[ATTACH=CONFIG]41930[/ATTACH]
-
[ATTACH=CONFIG]41931[/ATTACH]
-
i'm not here to criticize your work, but do you understand how your photos makes viewers and/or your subjects a little uncomfortable?
-
Art? For real?
-
i'm not here to criticize your work, but do you understand how your photos makes viewers and/or your subjects a little uncomfortable?
This guy seem pretty comfortable in Chinatown.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]41932[/ATTACH]
-
that's much better actually... if i could offer some criticism it'd be that your earlier photos don't really capture a moment or emotion...the first few pics that you opened with seem like you just walk up to girls and snap a picture w/o much thought...not that interesting
if you want some better feedback id recommend moving this type of discussion to a photography forum...doesn't seem like we "get it"
-
In the US the inside of the mall is not considered a public space.
-
that's much better actually... if i could offer some criticism it'd be that your earlier photos don't really capture a moment or emotion...the first few pics that you opened with seem like you just walk up to girls and snap a picture w/o much thought...not that interesting
if you want some better feedback id recommend moving this type of discussion to a photography forum...doesn't seem like we "get it"
On the contrary, I love street photography and am even fine with being a **** to get the shot. But if you're going to be a ****, own that you're a **** (which OP does) and make sure you have a great shot to get (haven't seen one here yet).
-
On the contrary, I love street photography and am even fine with being a **** to get the shot. But if you're going to be a ****, own that you're a **** (which OP does) and make sure you have a great shot to get (haven't seen one here yet).
Thank you for the criticism, I hope I will improve in the future. I am currently shooting with Canon S95 and don't have DSLR at the moment. I will be getting Fujifilm X100 rangefinder this week. Plus non of the photos have been edited, they look much better in black and white.
Actually I would like to add, I am not a **** most of the time. I say "thank you" after. Most White girls are happy to pose and smile, some exchange contact info with if they want the picture. Just the Asians one are a bit more conservative, especially when the guy is around, in which he tries to "protect" their girlfriend from a "creep" guy like me.
-
Just the Asians one are a bit more conservative, especially when the guy is around, in which he tries to "protect" their girlfriend from a "creep" guy like me.
Distract him with your Filco =)
-
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7044/6934964373_057cc37cc4_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/financialwarfare/6934964373/)
IMG_2441.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/financialwarfare/6934964373/) by 日本光学 (http://www.flickr.com/people/financialwarfare/), on Flickr
-
Well, I would think you could accept that when someone is shielding themselves from your camera that 1) it's a **** shot to begin with and 2) you should just not bother hitting the shutter release.
As to your belief that I would be unable to force you to delete your pictures of me were I the main subject, come to the US and try it. You'll likely find our courts disagree with you.
-
Lol you funny man.
Under what reason would the court use to force me to delete my pictures?
-
the thing that makes gilden's photos interesting isn't the fact that he's a ****, but the fact that he uses wide angles, tight off-kilter frames and harsh, high contrast light to emphasize the extraordinary nature of ordinary moments. his street photography inserts the viewer inside usually very busy scenes, inches away from candid subjects that don't seem aware that there's a gallery full of people deeply considering their furrowed brow or examining the pores of their face.
it's this expressive intent and careful design that makes his work interesting art, not the fact that he sometimes has to be a **** to get a shot.
-
Lol you funny man.
Under what reason would the court use to force me to delete my pictures?
You know anything about the courts in the US? Whatever reason I give them.
-
Y'all should check out my buddy's site: http://www.flickr.com/oakt
He's all about the street photography in Chicago
-
You know anything about the courts in the US? Whatever reason I give them.
like what? In a criminal court or a civil court?
Never gonna happen in a criminal court because police would never charge me since there is nothing criminal about taking photo of you. Unless your under some sort of witness protection or similar.
In a civil case, again you have to convince the court why they should delete the photo. You say whatever reason you give, well what is your reason? As far as I know, there is no tort against privacy, plus you don't even have privacy in public, again your case will not stand.
So don't be vague, if you say the court will be on your side then what is your reasoning?
-
Y'all should check out my buddy's site: http://www.flickr.com/oakt
He's all about the street photography in Chicago
wow, you're friends good. What camera does he use, it doesn't say on his flickr account.
-
Fuji X100 is a nice camera, should have waited for the Pro X1 though I think
-
Fuji X100 is a nice camera, should have waited for the Pro X1 though I think
yeah but I wanted a rangefinder.
-
I don't think you understand what a rangefinder is. The X100 isn't one.
I'll be on the lookout for some guy terrorising women in the city with his tiny camera from now on :)
-
At least Bruce Gilden was able to get his subjects to smile. Makes for a much better photograph.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]42044[/ATTACH]
Is this a ban-worthy picture, or is this okay since it's considered art?
-
that's disturbing..
-
You need more internet if you think that's disturbing.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]42045[/ATTACH]
I prefer food photography, gives your brain the tools to taste and smell.
Though that's a horrible example, it was at least a good test of macro mode.
-
that's not really a macro shot but yeah I prefer shooting human's reaction to my anti-social behaviour.
-
That is an interesting subject.
Post more to this thread, I want to see some freaked out Crocodile Dundees.
-
My street photography - set on Flickr. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bnerberka195/sets/72157629459824105/)
-
that's not really a macro shot but yeah I prefer shooting human's reaction to my anti-social behaviour.
Well he did say "mode" and therefore it is. Actually the VAST majority of macro shots are not technically macro shots (not by a long shot). However, the definition in general use has now come to mean close up photography. Roguemaster8's shot could be "technically" macro if he shoots 16x20 sheets or the can and cookies are very tiny models. haahaa =P
I am a photographer and a practicing one (less so now in the past couple years though, new job). I won't go into whether or not FinancialWar is a d**k in his photographic pursuits, that has been covered here ad nauseum. But I thought I would perhaps help to clear up some misconceptions, having shot for many years and having to produce release forms for commercial and non-commercial pursuits.
Perhaps I can clear up some misconceptions (in the US only).
Though not illegal to take photos of children in public places, many a photographer has gotten in to deep s***t for doing it, because many creeps do that. Ask, make your presence and intent known, be personable, don't own a white van with no windows.
If you see a sign that says no photography and you snap, buy a lotto ticket. You can easily be pursued, but unless it's some odd government and/or special security location you do not have to brandish your images or delete them right there on the spot.
The advent and popularization of video capable cameras is going to make things even more restricted and hazy regarding laws soon.
An individual has every right to not want their photo taken and they have every right to pursue you in order to stop it. Just as you have everyright to non-consenting photos in "public" places (in the US). It is however important to note that most places are not really public, even if open to the public. If they feel that you are harrasing them or portraying them in a negative way (public or not) you are also easily subject to a lawsuit. That doesn't mean you will automatically loose though, but in a way you already have if it goes that far, and it can.
Many states and regions in the US have quite specific (even if obscure) restrictions on what you can and cannont take photos of without a permit or permission/release. They can easily pursue you and they "could" easily win. The attitude of "I can do whatever I wan't" does not really hold up too well, nor is it taken kindly by many. The artist as "rebel" may be long in the tooth now but it only has room to grow fortunately/unfortunately.
It must be said though-
Using any of what you are doing for commercial gain/purposes (without legitimate consent) would of course place you in one or nurmerous legitimate violations. That doesn't mean anything will happen, but hey, it's your luck not ours.
Street photography is akin to cadid photography and as such they remain unposed and the subjectmatter are either indiferent to the photographer and camera and/or unaware of it's presence. This is however becoming less and less the case, I would term the new(ish) form of street photography as "pappivoyer" or perhaps "reactionary" photography where many artists work is based not on the definable pose or pure candid nature but on a forced interaction. Kind of a reality-show photographic pursuit.
I have been torn numerous times when doing candids and/or when shooting in the street and I was even called out on it once (legally). Of course this happened when I didn't have any release forms or cards but luckily because I don't really live outside my little bubble I found the person, got the release, and won a contest with the photo. LoL, I should have bought a lotto ticket! A number of institutions now require the brandishing of release forms when displaying even fine art now.
I find that the harder people push to do whatever they want, the harder the world pushes back.
Having said all that, I should probably throw up (bllllleekkkk) some photos soon. =P
For the tl;dr crowd-
Don't assume and if your personality permits, be respectful.
-
What cameras do you guys use?
I'm thinking of 'investing' in a new camera purely for street photography and travel, as my D7000 scares away the subjects...
-
And here I thought this thread was going to be about Banksy...
-
What cameras do you guys use?
I'm thinking of 'investing' in a new camera purely for street photography and travel, as my D7000 scares away the subjects...
Leica X1 and Fujifilm X100 are both great street photography and travel camera. Both of these have a focal range of 135 equivalent: 35mm
If you wish to be able to lens swap and not be bulky like a DSLR I would suggest the upcoming Pro X1 from Fujifilm.
-
Get a Panasonic.
-
got my X100 today. This camera is so unique. Gonna be a long learning curve with this camera. Will test out this camera this weekend.
-
I love pictures.
-
I love pictures.
fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu. surprise **** is effective
-
Yeah, i took it down, i didn't want to get banned.
Should I put it back?
-
Yeah, i took it down, i didn't want to get banned.
Should I put it back?
probably not
-
LOL. But it was pretty funny, right?
-
maybe for a second