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.
