Last edited by TheQuestion; 7th April 2009 at 12:15 PM.
Opinions are like A-holes. Everyone's got one.
coming from the view of a street photographer, while i understand that it is not fair for any organiser to just happily allow reporters into shoot, for obvious reasons, technically there is nothing wrong with anyone, reporter or not, to shoot the model, or the photographers involved.
especially when it is in a public place.
maybe i do not shoot, so i do not understand, but if there is no monkey business going on, as you rightly pointed out, since it is happening in a public place, and the end result of photograph does not have any negative impact on involved members, i.e. face obscured, no deliberate angles to make him look like he is doing something perverted when he is not.. then is there really any issue?
once again, i state that yes, organisers should not allow reporters into shoots without prior permission in advance, but if a reporter chances upon a shoot? then the involved parties, if they have done nothing wrong, or will do nothing wrong, what do they have to fear?
Just to add, whilst legally, there is nothing wrong and you really cannot stop people from shooting; a good organiser will know how to stop the public from shooting. Shoots I've organised in the past, never really sufferred from such a problem if you know how to handle the public.
Once again, standing from a photographer's POV, even though we know that shooting in public cannot be stopped, we don't have to tell that to the curious public right? Become the security guard now and tell them they cannot shoot!! At the end of the day, it is about who has the most information and is the most well informed that will prevail.
Why else would I take so much trouble to share my knowledge with the pple in CS here, so that at the end of hte day, us photographers will know more as compared to other folks, and hence we get all round benefits for ourselves!
Everything in this world is double standards. Only on Utopia would one standard exist.
The court cases you see - each side presents his best view. Even lawyers acting for parties do the same.
There is no abuse of law here - it is just that the other side is not advised enough. This is the real world, if you have knowledge, you are naturally have a one-up compared to the rest.
The same applies to any industry; even buying your camera (people who research more fare better during negotiations). Anyone who has more knowledge will have one up compared to someone who does not. Does it mean the person who is more knoweldgeable is abusing his knowledge? Sorry, that is not a foregone conclusion.
Back to the present case - by telling the member of the public "I would be grateful if you don't shoot" - where does it abuse the law?
Its all in the delivery. Do think a little harder before posting, or perhaps applying your own sense of values (or misvalues)
Strong emotive words, this whole concept of "abuse", unfortunately, it didn't quite pan out here.
Last edited by vince123123; 7th April 2009 at 02:22 PM.
Well, I did say that a good organiser knows how to deliver it. In any case, if that has potentially misled you or others, I'll withdraw my earlier comment and apologise for the misconception it may have caused.:
"Become the security guard now and tell them they cannot shoot!!" (comment withdrawn)
I hope you now understand where I'm coming from and that your whole idea of abuse no longer applies and is therefore inaccurate.
P.S. I find it strange that you say you are not supposed to talk to me, and yet you initiate a conversation. Very perplexing.
Last edited by vince123123; 7th April 2009 at 02:47 PM.
Of course if no hanky-panky takes place, one could certainly argue that "what's the harm in letting the reporter observe? Nothing to lose wat"... but in my personal opinion, if it was me taking part in the photoshoot, I would feel disappointed with such a surprise.
least all photographers be tarred with the same brush for being public nuisance, would the general public who saw a photographer snapping photos of a photoshoot from afar know that photographer's identity?
have u seen the "light" yet?
monkey business or not who's now seen as a monkey? for every action there's a reaction, from the article published in ST, on what basis did u conclude there was no negative impact on involved members?
have u seen the "light" yet?