Etiquette

[rabanito]

In the topic "Etiquette" I didn't find what I was looking for:

When I photograph people, I  go to them, talk to them, ask for permission for taking the pictures, ask their names and, if possible, I chat a little with them.
That's the way I do it. Otherwise I don't take any picture.

Usually they are looking to the camera or the photographer. I like it this way.

So I expect - and I guess my "subjects" too - that their "portraits" are treated with respect they deserve when I show the pictures to other people. That they are never commented in a negative way. Not even as a joke.

And I assume that this is the way most of us in the forum do. I have no complaints.

But a rule in this respect seems to be missing. Or I missed it.

What do you think?

[Rob C]

In the topic "Etiquette" I didn't find what I was looking for:

When I photograph people, I  go to them, talk to them, ask for permission for taking the pictures, ask their names and, if possible, I chat a little with them.
That's the way I do it. Otherwise I don't take any picture.

Usually they are looking to the camera or the photographer. I like it this way.

So I expect - and I guess my "subjects" too - that their "portraits" are treated with respect they deserve when I show the pictures to other people. That they are never commented in a negative way. Not even as a joke.

And I assume that this is the way most of us in the forum do. I have no complaints.

But a rule in this respect seems to be missing. Or I missed it.

What do you think?

People (photographers) are all different, and do things in their own divers ways; many believe that if you ask the subjects (strangers) for permission, then you have defeated the point of the exercise, which is that you get to play at urban hunter.

Remove that element of frisson, and there is little point in wasting time photographing people you don't know. Why would you want to bother? You might as well go to the park and photograph a duck in the pond.

Rob

[KLaban]

People (photographers) are all different, and do things in their own divers ways; many believe that if you ask the subjects (strangers) for permission, then you have defeated the point of the exercise, which is that you get to play at urban hunter.

Remove that element of frisson, and there is little point in wasting time photographing people you don't know. Why would you want to bother? You might as well go to the park and photograph a duck in the pond.

Rob

Well, there you go, that's reduced much of what I did in India to wasting my time photographing wild fowl.

[rabanito]

Remove that element of frisson, and there is little point in wasting time photographing people you don't know. Why would you want to bother? You might as well go to the park and photograph a duck in the pond.

Rob

Well, the same reason why I photograph two stones I don't know in the river or else.

But my subject was more that of respect for other humans, whether you ask for permission or not.
If I put a photo of my father and somebody WRITES that he looks like a criminal, it will upset me.
Or you do some cheap jokes on the image of a beautiful lady.
Let alone if there is his/her name there and his/her address.

So the point is that what is valid for say, the figure of my father should be valid for all humans as well.
In particular if they are identifiable.

[rabanito]

Well, there you go, that's reduced much of what I did in India to wasting my time photographing wild fowl.

Excuse me using your great photo to illlustrate the point
IMHO the man is allowing you to take his photograph.
Now anybody imagine I comment  not the picture but the person there in some disrespectful manner.
I would certainly not be happy.
This is what I believe should be "regulated"

[Rob C]

I can't believe you actually want more regulations; life is already overflowing with them, and with luck, the arts will still continue to manage to defeat them.

However, if you mean that one should not photograph people in a mocking or insulting way, then I agree with you, though you will still have to face the fact that one man's mockery is another's sense of humour, and you don't even need images to discover that.

How on Earth would you regulate such a rule of etiquette other than via self-regulation which, of course, opens the entire thing up to personal interpretation, as I just indicated a second or two ago?

However, perhaps you mean that from a strictly LuLa perspective, in which case, you might be suggesting that a Moderator be lumbered with the task... I don't think (hope) that will fly!

:-)

[Ivophoto]

Excuse me using your great photo to illlustrate the point
IMHO the man is allowing you to take his photograph.
Now anybody imagine I comment  not the picture but the person there in some disrespectful manner.
I would certainly not be happy.
This is what I believe should be "regulated"

You are talking about politeness rules of commenting on photos. Correct?

You are not talking about regulating the act of photographing, correct?


Let me tell you, if you pack the insult in a nice wrap and with a colorful ribbon, that’s fine here on Lula.

Don’t expect to much from the etiquette here on Lula. A bit hypocrisy is not far away.

[KLaban]

Excuse me using your great photo to illlustrate the point
IMHO the man is allowing you to take his photograph.
Now anybody imagine I comment  not the picture but the person there in some disrespectful manner.
I would certainly not be happy.
This is what I believe should be "regulated"

I understand where you are coming from and wouldn't have been comfortable had someone here shown disrespect for the man I chose to photograph, but please, no more regulation!

[rabanito]

You are talking about politeness rules of commenting on photos. Correct?

You are not talking about regulating the act of photographing, correct?

What you say is correct.
And probably I don't understand the idiosyncrasy.

I'll stick to landscape from now on 

[RSL]

Here's one of Cartier-Bresson's fantastic street shots: https://www.icp.org/browse/archive/objects/lock-at-bougival-france. Do you really think he posed the people and the dogs? Here are some of my own street shots: https://luminous-landscape.com/on-street-photography/. Check the picture of the two boys next to their dad, standing over what's obviously one of his wife's shopping bags -- a picture I titled "Waiting for Mom." Do you really think I'd have caught the expressions on those kids' faces if I'd walked over and asked if it were okay to take their picture? There's a thing called "expectation of privacy." When you're out in public -- at least still in the United States -- you have no expectation of privacy. That's what makes real street photography possible.

[RSL]

Well, there you go, that's reduced much of what I did in India to wasting my time photographing wild fowl.

No, Keith, your travel atmospherics are wonderful examples of their genre. They're just not street.

[faberryman]

No, Keith, your travel atmospherics are wonderful examples of their genre. They're just not street.

Are they "travel atmospherics" if they are taken by a local photographer?

[Rob C]

Are they "travel atmospherics" if they are taken by a local photographer?

Yes, they certainly are, especially if he has managed to find a stock agency that isn't already overflowing with the stuff.

I faced the local photographer problem soon after coming to live in Spain: my London agency asked me to stop sending in atmospheric travel shots of Spain because every agency in London was drowning under the weight of what they already held. At one stage, The Image Bank held 36,000 transparencies of the Eiffel Tower... you see a point to sending in one more?

After retiring when the industry turned into a bad joke, and after the hiatus before I found digital, I once again began to make local pictures but not what had been atmospherics denoting the perfect illustration of the traveller's dream: I began to shoot in order to please no more clients but just myself. That meant I never felt obliged to do "pretty" of even "interesting" again, just whatever turned me on at the time, or even do nothing at all. Hence, I stumbled onto what, for me, makes me think in the subjective 100% of the time, and I even shoot things that I'm not sure about at the moment but eventually, maybe after a month, turn out to have been worth the click. To me.

It's the subject matter that makes the definition, not so much the purpose; you can never escape genre, however much you try. It just is.

[rabanito]

When you're out in public -- at least still in the United States -- you have no expectation of privacy. That's what makes real street photography possible.

That's true, it seems. Other countries, other laws, other cultures.

[faberryman]

Yes, they certainly are, especially if he has managed to find a stock agency that isn't already overflowing with the stuff.

So an image of a homeless guy in New York is street but an image of a homeless guy in Mumbai is travel atmospherics. Maybe a Mumbai resident would think the image of the homeless guy in New York is travel atmospherics.

[Two23]

I think it all depends on the situation.  Often I ask, and just as often the image is so fleeting that I just snap it.  I'm never trying to make fun of people, I just want to catch an interesting image.

First photo grabbed, second photo asked the President if I could take his photo.


Kent in SD

[RSL]

So an image of a homeless guy in New York is street but an image of a homeless guy in Mumbai is travel atmospherics. Maybe a Mumbai resident would think the image of the homeless guy in New York is travel atmospherics.

No, Fab, an image of a homeless guy in New York isn't street. It's just a snapshot of a homeless guy. Unless. . . unless there's a story there that involves the homeless guy in something human besides just being a homeless guy. If he's just a homeless guy it may be travel atmospherics if he's a model of a local type, but if he's just a hobo it's probably not even that. The people in Keith's travel atmospherics tend to be classic examples of dignified humans. They're beautiful in their own way, but they aren't stories.

[Two23]

No, Fab, an image of a homeless guy in New York isn't street. It's just a snapshot of a homeless guy. Unless. . . unless there's a story there that involves the homeless guy in something human besides just being a homeless guy.

I don't normally take photos of bums, but do you see a story here?


Kent in SD

[LesPalenik]

Yes, they certainly are, especially if he has managed to find a stock agency that isn't already overflowing with the stuff.

I faced the local photographer problem soon after coming to live in Spain: my London agency asked me to stop sending in atmospheric travel shots of Spain because every agency in London was drowning under the weight of what they already held. At one stage, The Image Bank held 36,000 transparencies of the Eiffel Tower... you see a point to sending in one more?

After retiring when the industry turned into a bad joke, and after the hiatus before I found digital, I once again began to make local pictures but not what had been atmospherics denoting the perfect illustration of the traveller's dream: I began to shoot in order to please no more clients but just myself. That meant I never felt obliged to do "pretty" of even "interesting" again, just whatever turned me on at the time, or even do nothing at all. Hence, I stumbled onto what, for me, makes me think in the subjective 100% of the time, and I even shoot things that I'm not sure about at the moment but eventually, maybe after a month, turn out to have been worth the click. To me.

It's the subject matter that makes the definition, not so much the purpose; you can never escape genre, however much you try. It just is.

Adobe Stock has now 83,455 images of Eiffel tower. And 1,918,631 images of tomatoes.

[Ivophoto]

The topic is about commenting on pictures.

Not about genres.


Please, don’t hijack another thread.



The point is: we all should take care to comment on the picture, not on the person who made it, or on the person(s) on the picture.

The point behind the point is this:
The Lula habitues should understand not all members follow all threads or are interested in the cross topic tongue in cheek jokes and shots to each other.
Not all members can follow or expect the subsurface links to US or international politics coming out of the blue.

That create confusion and unnecessary discussion.

I had the same with the intrinsic harmless comment of Slobodan about ‘tension at the border’ and Rabinato logically misunderstood the sarcasm about the comment on his picture, what was a comment on the comment of Slobodan.

That is how concealed messages in comments leads to discussion, even to unnecessary anger.