Do we really know our Photoshoot Organizers ...

[TheQuestion]

i know i know... i guess all got to be as rich as mr DP... to have own home studio den can shoot safely protecting all the models and photographer.. make sure all curtains are closed properly too..wan shoot what also can hor... hahaha.. your photograph did give all a great idea.. we shall all work towards your direction...

not to mention his nudes got leeched and splashed all over the web for a scandal. so yes we should know our organizers.

 

[TheQuestion]

On this, I agree, which was why I stated my POV in the earlier post that permission ought to be sought BEFORE the ST team appeared on set, not during/after.

my counter argument is if there's nothing to hidethen why the issue? esp since if all the participants there know what's going on and later the paper turns around and misquotes them or proves that it misrepresented its intentions wouldn't the victims involved be able to fight back with a big fat lawsuit?

 

[denniskee]

not to mention his nudes got leeched and splashed all over the web for a scandal. so yes we should know our organizers.

:bigeyes::bigeyes: dp pose nude??:sweat::sweat:

 

[TheQuestion]

:bigeyes: dp pose nude??:sweat:

:bsmilie:no la the nudes from his port. should've phrased that better. :bsmilie:

 

[denniskee]

:bsmilie:no la the nudes from his port. should've phrased that better. :bsmilie:

pie say pie say.:sweatsm::sweatsm:

 

[TheQuestion]

pie say pie say.:sweatsm::sweatsm:

though u have to admit, the story would have been alot more interesting if things turned out according to your interpretation :bsmilie:

 

[night86mare]

Do we know our organizers? Meaning, can we trust our organizers to do the right thing. The organizer who let the reporter into his shoot claimed that if the photographers are not comfortable, he will tell the reporter to leave. Sorry, too late, they are shooting in a public place, and anyone can take picture of anything in public. DUH! And journalist will claim said pictures are newsworthy, nothing any of the photographer can do.

I am asking this question to organizers, who needs to protect the photographers and models from infiltrators, and to the photographers, whom must protect themselves from an organizers whom had cut other under the table deals with someone whose intention is not taking pictures of the model.

this is very interesting.

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? :dunno:

 

[vince123123]

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!

 

[night86mare]

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!

i think this reeks of double standards.

knowing the law to abuse it? do unto others what you would do unto yourselves. gaining knowledge for the sake of pulling wool over others' eyes and abusing their lack of knowledge..

well i know what i think of that.

 

[vince123123]

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.

i think this reeks of double standards.

knowing the law to abuse it? do unto others what you would do unto yourselves. gaining knowledge for the sake of pulling wool over others' eyes and abusing their lack of knowledge..

well i know what i think of that.

 

[night86mare]

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

Become the security guard now and tell them they cannot shoot!!

let's backpeddle, shall we? anyways, i'm not supposed to talk to you. farewell.

 

[vince123123]

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.

let's backpeddle, shall we? anyways, i'm not supposed to talk to you. farewell.

 

[TheQuestion]

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!

eh security guard cannot take a picture for security reasons?

 

[vince123123]

Hahah, the reference to the security guard is to try to stop others from shooting lah, not to take their own pictures.

eh security guard cannot take a picture for security reasons?

 

[Danntbt]

wahaha the last part at the end makes it sound so wrong

...precisely what I meant...would you invite?...so unless you itchy backside wanna court the reporter.......

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

On this, I agree, which was why I stated my POV in the earlier post that permission ought to be sought BEFORE the ST team appeared on set, not during/after.

I'm quite certain that if the photographers were informed that an ST reporter would be present at the shoot, a number of them would back out.
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.

 

[vince123123]

I feel the same way as well, which is why I'm advocating informing in advance so that sufficient opportunity is given to back out.

I'm quite certain that if the photographers were informed that an ST reporter would be present at the shoot, a number of them would back out.
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.

 

[sORe-EyEz]

The organiser had already put them in a spot where it was "damned if I do and damned if I didn't". The newspaper photographer was already there, like it or not. Whatever they do will be reported. It would appear worse if it was reported in the Sunday Times that their photographer was chased off. wouldn't it?
Besides, they wouldn't be able stop him from shooting the whole group at it from a distance and no-one can be sure if he came prepared with an ultra-telephoto or not.
At the mercy of the press, it would have been far wiser to be co-operative than antagonise them.

like to correct some misinterpretation here. my point never was/is to antagonise anyone (lensmen, press photog, hobbyist) in public. but more of being respectful, if photographers from the press were to chance upon a photoshoot, s/he should approach the organiser to ask for permission to snap some photos for a newspaper article.

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?

 

[sORe-EyEz]

this is very interesting.

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? :dunno:

i am not a press photographer, but do press photographers wonder about the island aimlessly to "chance upon" a news worthy incident to write an article without any research? is that the normal workflow?

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?

 

[razor]

Maybe the next qn u can ask is ...

"Do we really know who are CS admins and mods....?";p