Respect for subjects and society.

[John R]

Another video about "street" photography. Interesting and humorous, and a humane way of looking at spontaneous photography in public or private places. Advocates that one should try and show respect for subjects and society.

JR

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-isKDVNFIEM

[RSL]

You should always do that, John. It's exactly why I hate seeing people post pictures of hoboes.

[Peter McLennan]

How about this?  Disrespectful?

[RSL]

The problem, Peter, is the guy's face. Either you were getting some really flaky light, or the guy has some serious skin problems. If it was the latter, I'd say "yes" to your question.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

To hell with respect. We document life, and life has little respect for subjects or society.

[Peter McLennan]

The problem, Peter, is the guy's face. Either you were getting some really flaky light, or the guy has some serious skin problems. If it was the latter, I'd say "yes" to your question.

Oh well.

Dozens of people have seen this image.  Some even have it on their walls.  The image is at least 40 years old and all that time, not one person has commented negatively about the guy's skin.

Or the image, for that matter.  Most viewers love it.  As do I, frankly.

The lighting is self-evident.

[Two23]

How about this?  Disrespectful?

No, but I like any photo with a cat in it.


Kent in SD

[Ivophoto]

How about this?  Disrespectful?

How can this be disrespectful?
It’s a man standing in front of a bakery. How he looks like is who he is. Finding that disrespectful say something about how men feel about the man’s skin issue.

Photography can be disrespectful because it is subjective. It can be cynical, sarcastic, brutal.
And all the above is sometimes justified.

[Ivophoto]

But what about this picture?

I took this shot a few years ago. I was in Antwerp with my daughter and the yearly gay pride was on. It was the first year where politicians mingled among the parade to fish for votes.
It gave, and still give me an obnoxious feeling (The politicians)

Is this picture disrespectful?
To the gay community?
To the ‘knight’?
Or is it disrespectful to the politic party or maybe to that one member?

[faberryman]

The image is at least 40 years old and all that time, not one person has commented negatively about the guy's skin.

It's about the level of discussion you get from some members around here.

[RSL]

Dozens of people have seen this image.  Some even have it on their walls.  The image is at least 40 years old and all that time, not one person has commented negatively about the guy's skin.

The lighting is self-evident.

What that shows is that there are a lot of blind people commenting on photographs.

And when is lighting not "self-evident," Peter?

[32BT]

But what about this picture?

I took this shot a few years ago. I was in Antwerp with my daughter and the yearly gay pride was on. It was the first year where politicians mingled among the parade to fish for votes.
It gave, and still give me an obnoxious feeling (The politicians)

Is this picture disrespectful?
To the gay community?
To the ‘knight’?
Or is it disrespectful to the politic party or maybe to that one member?

No, it isn't. It probably tells the story just fine.

Disrespect is when you de-anonymise an individual in a compromising situation without it being their choice. (Victims of violence or disaster for example). None of these people seem to be recognisable or present without consent etc...

Were you btw carrying your telezoom for extra statement?

[Ivophoto]

Were you btw carrying your telezoom for extra statement?

Tx and no, it’s a 35mm shot slightly cropped.

[RSL]

Is this picture disrespectful?
To the gay community?
To the ‘knight’?
Or is it disrespectful to the politic party or maybe to that one member?

Of course not, Ivo. There's nothing in the picture that explains what's going on. It's just a picture of a guy with a flaky-looking hat and a fake sword.

[rabanito]

I don't think that the photographer documents life or tells a story.
The story is in the eye of the beholder.
Unless there is an explanatory caption (not just a title)
Just MHO

[Ivophoto]

Of course not, Ivo. There's nothing in the picture that explains what's going on. It's just a picture of a guy with a flaky-looking hat and a fake sword.

The image is more than a superficial look, I admit. Not for everyone.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... There's nothing in the picture that explains what's going on...

I think there is 

[RSL]

Yeah. Maybe that's where the sword guy's left hand is too.

[32BT]

I think there is 

You need the sword, the angle of the sword, and all of its connotations as well.

[rabanito]

As far as I was told in another topic, in the USA as soon as you tread the street you are fair game
Other countries know what is called "Personality Rights". Its treatment differs from land to land
I presume that the person in front of the bakery has rights over his image that the person with the sword hasn't, since he's taking part in a public show.
But I'm no lawyer.