Why do so many people hate photos?? (person, member, children)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ignorant, irrational, paranoid, selfish - simply because others have a preference that doesn't match yours. You may continue to snap photos unbidden and demand that you have the right to do so until someone takes exception to your insistence that you WILL take that picture and decides to put an end to your camera and possibly, you.
Sure, when your jaw heals and you can speak. I wouldn't deem anyone's photo worth that much, much less a photo of a stranger's kid, but then again, I have healthy boundaries.
Do you see how illogical you're being? You say they're your photos, but they're of someone else's face and body, or, in the case of a wedding, someone else's event. If you don't like the rules, don't go to the wedding. And yes, weddings have dress codes. They may not be that specific, but they are there: Formal/black tie, semi-formal, casual, beach. If you show up to a black-tie event in jeans, security may not let you in because you don't look like you belong there. Hey, certain restaurants still keep generic jackets and ties on hand for people who don't dress appropriately. If you don't wear them, they don't let you in. Start snapping photos at an event where they are not allowed, security will escort you off the premises.
Maybe you don't have a lot going on in your life right now that you need to pry into other people's and try to capture them for whatever weird reasons you have--and your visceral reaction to what people are telling you here tells me that your reasons are probably pretty weird, and perhaps prurient. Most photographers don't get so upset about this kind of thing. Like I said, plenty of narcissists in the world who would live their entire lives on a camera. Why not bother them?
The reality is, I have no interest in going to a private event where photography isn't allowed and pressing the issue. In public, however, I know my legal rights and won't be intimidated. The photos themselves may not be that important, but the freedom to take them without being intimidated and threatened certainly is, especially considering their innocent nature--and no, it's not that "they're innocent to you but not to others," they're innocent PERIOD.
Your post tells me you don't know what photography is. It's about capturing expressions of life. No one's soul is being stolen, no one is being harmed. People can CHOOSE to be offended at stupid things, they do it all the time, that doesn't mean the offense was genuine and whatever triggered the person's reaction was inappropriate.
Street photography is not "prying," and it has nothing to do with desperation. Read up on Henri Cartier-Bresson sometime. Like I said, if you don't understand, read.
Why put it online? Because it's MY photos and MY page and because I WANT to. Satisfied?
Let some fruitcake some unhinged. They'll answer for it. They'll be dealing with assault and battery charges, because you better believe I'm pressing the issue. If they can't accept the reality of public space and the 1st amendment that's their problem, and their battle to fight by attempting to have the laws changed--good luck there, the 1st amendment tends to be a very protected thing. The entire world of public photography isn't obligated to stop just because someone forgot to go to the birth control section of the local drug store.
Of course someone can make whatever demands, as STUPID as they are, with respect to their wedding being a camera-free zone, and given that they're inviting people to it, they have no business whining if someone calls them on their selfishness. Would they expect nothing but support if they demanded that every attendee had to wear yellow underwear and burgundy long-johns, I mean it's their wedding? They could always just say that cameras are allowed but that they're not going to bother with the elaborate "shoots" which, I admit, can be draining the way they typically go.
Honestly, you see awfully hostile to me. I hope you never take my picture!
In social situations in the home, sure. In public, taking "overview" shots--I'm not obligated legally OR MORALLY to not take photos of the PUBLIC views in front of me. It's that simple.
Would you attempt to take pictures of the Amish in PUBLIC?
Would you attempt to take pictures of the Amish in PUBLIC?
I don't have any dealings with them where I live. If I did, it would depend on the situation, I suppose. Here is how I'd likely be about it:
(1) If I visit an Amish business, I won't photograph it from the inside. They have the right to set this as a rule within their private property. However, I may take a photo of the business itself from the public road, trying to avoid getting any of their faces in it. Regarding the inside again--I wouldn't eat at an Amish restaurant, because I KNOW I'm going to want to take photos in there, especially if it's a birthday or the like, so I just won't go inside at all.
(2) If I see a roadside stand, yes, I'm photographing it if it's visually interesting. I'll do so from a longer distance to be discreet and/or try and frame around faces.
If that sounds rude, well, the thing is, you can't be part of the world at large and then complain about how others are photographing you--not even if you're Amish. To the extent that they are on their own land not part of the outside world at large, of course they can, and if they invite you into their home, you respect the rules of their house. I would be PLEASANT about it, and again frame around faces, but yes, if I see a roadside stand that looks like it would make a good picture, and there aren't 80 other such non-Amish stands around that are just as good, I'm not turning that down. If that makes me selfish, so be it, but again, to me, if you want to engage in the world at large, you have to accept that such is the potential price of admission. It would be like me setting up shop in a rodeo town and then complaining about all the cowboys in the place, or the like.
One person said "they're photogenic, and we're photographers living in a free society." Exactly. Again, though, I'm more interested in the SCENERY. To wit:
Regardless, in the readings I've done, they don't mind you photographing so much, so long as you're not "paparazzi"-esque about it and as long as they aren't being nagged to pose. I've read plenty of articles about people visiting Amish country and getting good shots of the "scenery" in general without any problems.
(3) This is how I would be if I LIVED near such areas. As for vacation--I would deliberately avoid vacationing in the Amish country at all, ever, specifically for these reasons. I want to photograph ANY visually interesting elements in the world around me, especially in public, I don't want to be restrained. If that means not visiting an area at all, then so be it. They'll be happier as well, so everyone wins.
There are 2 articles I read about this which were enlightening. This one (http://www.slate.com/blogs/behold/20...wisconsin.html) is from a photographer who actually took photos of the Amish. Mostly, the situation was that children, contrary to us, are more readily photographed and allowed to be photographed vs adults. He actually was able to STAY on an Amish farm and, with their full consent (although with a certain amount of "delicacy" he would engage in), get lots of photos of the children without a problem. Granted, he was respectful, he wasn't all "tough, get over it" about it--but then, he was on their property.
This article (How Do You Photograph the Amish? Let Us Count the Ways - Columbia Journalism Review) talks of how newspaper photographers treated the Amish area after the school shooting there some years ago. Some did, in fact, speak of how they "had a job to do" and used long lenses to get the shots ANYWAY, but without being in their faces. Others took no photos at all due to their customs. One person said "It was about five girls who were executed by a sick person. We were covering a news story." So they took photos anyway, just at as much of a distance as possible. In the article I read it noted that children aren't under the obligations that adults are, and the reporters got photos of the children.
I guess the short answer to your question is this--I'm glad I don't live in Amish country, and I will never vacation there, because to be restricted in my photography that way would not be something I'd want to be a part of. ANYTHING I see, especially if it's not in someone's home, I want to be able to photograph if it it's visually interesting, ALL of it, ALWAYS, otherwise I want no part of it at all. To do otherwise is to just "window shop" or to do something like visit a strip club--it's all in your face, but what's the point, you can't fully enjoy it anyway, so what's the point of even going?
Why put it online? Because it's MY photos and MY page and because I WANT to. Satisfied?
Let some fruitcake some unhinged. They'll answer for it. They'll be dealing with assault and battery charges, because you better believe I'm pressing the issue. If they can't accept the reality of public space and the 1st amendment that's their problem, and their battle to fight by attempting to have the laws changed--good luck there, the 1st amendment tends to be a very protected thing. The entire world of public photography isn't obligated to stop just because someone forgot to go to the birth control section of the local drug store.
Of course someone can make whatever demands, as STUPID as they are, with respect to their wedding being a camera-free zone, and given that they're inviting people to it, they have no business whining if someone calls them on their selfishness. Would they expect nothing but support if they demanded that every attendee had to wear yellow underwear and burgundy long-johns, I mean it's their wedding? They could always just say that cameras are allowed but that they're not going to bother with the elaborate "shoots" which, I admit, can be draining the way they typically go.
Yet another example of "I am entitled to........" as written by you.
The reality is, I have no interest in going to a private event where photography isn't allowed and pressing the issue. In public, however, I know my legal rights and won't be intimidated. The photos themselves may not be that important, but the freedom to take them without being intimidated and threatened certainly is, especially considering their innocent nature--and no, it's not that "they're innocent to you but not to others," they're innocent PERIOD.
Your post tells me you don't know what photography is.
Of all the ignorant things you could say, this is the most ignorant of all. You sound like a petulant child. With all of your vehemence and self-centeredness regarding other people's boundaries, it's pretty clear you live through your camera because you can't relate to people normally, SHYguy.
Of all the ignorant things you could say, this is the most ignorant of all. You sound like a petulant child. With all of your vehemence and self-centeredness regarding other people's boundaries, it's pretty clear you live through your camera because you can't relate to people normally, SHYguy.
In public, regarding photography, THERE ARE NO BOUNDARIES. I'm courteous enough to not get in one's face, that's all you can reasonably ask for.
Apparently you don't know as much about photography as you think.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wouldn't deem anyone's photo worth that much, much less a photo of a stranger's kid, but then again, I have healthy boundaries. 
