Nick De Marco Posted October 2, 2011 Share #1 Posted October 2, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Balmy October Part 1 My Blog is now up - with my favourite photos (from the Leica M9) from Brighton taken on Saturday 1 October - Please visit the link: http://rangefinderchronicles.blogspot.com/2011/10/balmy-october-part-1-saturday-1-october.html Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/163299-balmy-october-with-m9/?do=findComment&comment=1808289'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 Hi Nick De Marco, Take a look here Balmy October with M9 . I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Nick De Marco Posted October 4, 2011 Author Share #2 Posted October 4, 2011 Another from the series Rangefinder Chronicles: Balmy October, Part 1 (Saturday 1 October, 2011) Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/163299-balmy-october-with-m9/?do=findComment&comment=1809438'>More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2011 Share #3 Posted October 4, 2011 #1: Never show photos of people who won't be photographed! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick De Marco Posted October 4, 2011 Author Share #4 Posted October 4, 2011 I take it this is also tongue in cheek, like the idea about banning all kins of photos discussed in another place? Or are we really now going to have some kind of fascist thought police regulate photography with a set of absurd and subjective rules?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2011 Share #5 Posted October 4, 2011 If you should ever try photographing me when I show you that I really don't want to be photographed at that same moment, you should have good insurances for yor stuff and body... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick De Marco Posted October 4, 2011 Author Share #6 Posted October 4, 2011 Well there are sadly some people that think like you. If they were able to make the rules then so much of the great photography we have would not be there. Take any kind of photo journalism that seeks to expose either authority or something in a culture that those taking part would prefer to be kept hidden, or only shown in a sympathetic light. Luckily there are many brave photographers who are not in the slightest bit deterred by people like you Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2011 Share #7 Posted October 4, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) ...so much of the great photography we have would not be there.... Your picture #1 belongs definitely not to "great photography"!! Most photos like these are not worth loosing one word about. And it's a great difference photographing people of common interest or just private folks unwilling to be photographed. But first you should learn respecting their privacy if you don't want to get in personally troubles. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick De Marco Posted October 4, 2011 Author Share #8 Posted October 4, 2011 Unfortunately, we shall never agree Mr Nutzer, but I thank you for wasting so many words on my photos. Let's not bore the rest of the community with our quibbles. Here is another photo from a sunny day in Brighton Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/163299-balmy-october-with-m9/?do=findComment&comment=1809502'>More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2011 Share #9 Posted October 4, 2011 Seagulls are really the better motives for you! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguewave Posted October 4, 2011 Share #10 Posted October 4, 2011 #1: Never show photos of people who won't be photographed! I suggest being a bit more diplomatic. Feel free to express your opinion, but in a constructive manner. No one likes being assaulted or threatened. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2011 Share #11 Posted October 4, 2011 If the threadopener would have treated the young lady of #1 in this kindly manner, we would have been spared of this unnecessary photo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick De Marco Posted October 4, 2011 Author Share #12 Posted October 4, 2011 As you keep talking about my photo, Mr Nutzer (and I do hope you visited the blog) I should mention that she reminds me of Amy Winehouse That's why I took the photo. Indeed I clicked at exactly the point she noticed me and covered her face. I then decided I preferred the photo precisely because she (successfully) covers her face which you cannot thus see. It's simply a difference in opinion. What I don't understand is why people wish to ban photos they don't like, or start some boring row about them, instead of just taking their own photos and posting them. If we all took the same photos and applied the same rules photography would be very boring. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguewave Posted October 4, 2011 Share #13 Posted October 4, 2011 If the threadopener would have treated the young lady of #1 in this kindly manner, we would have been spared of this unnecessary photo. That doesn't give you the right to bully folks with your aggression. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2011 Share #14 Posted October 4, 2011 That doesn't give you the right to bully folks with your aggression. Until now you haven't written anything about the picture above. Offenses speak for itself and make each answer redundant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted October 4, 2011 Share #15 Posted October 4, 2011 ... now going to have some kind of fascist thought police Having lost half my ancestors to fascists I am not a bit amused by your usage of that word here. Next you'll be calling the weather "fascist" when you've mislaid your brolly, I suppose. Luckily there are many brave photographers Are we now supposed to congratulate you on your bravery for showing here a picture of a person who obviously did not want to be photographed? What kind of journalistic accomplishment is that? I do think people are overreacting here, on both sides of the dispute. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted October 4, 2011 Share #16 Posted October 4, 2011 If the threadopener would have treated the young lady of #1 in this kindly manner, we would have been spared of this unnecessary photo. Simple point. The lady is in a public place. She has no right to privacy. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
allamande Posted October 4, 2011 Share #17 Posted October 4, 2011 Nick, I like the strangely inviting rhythm of the third. The last one reminds me of de Chirico's dream sequences. Beautifully and cleverly done. Ece Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krug Posted October 4, 2011 Share #18 Posted October 4, 2011 I don't really want to prolong this ill-tempered exchange but although the young woman may have no right to privacy in a public place (which I think is legally questionable) she does surely have a right to the same courtesy and consideration that one would like for oneself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick De Marco Posted October 5, 2011 Author Share #19 Posted October 5, 2011 Philip - accept your points. Both of them. But back to the 'debate', I was interested in reading on another thread an argument that all street photography was bad if it did not engage the subject - ie candids (a point that was then retracted to be fair). I don't agree with the proposition either, but it made me think..if I was some dslr shooter with my lens and took a shot, including the woman who looks like Amy, without her being aware of it, those who have objected so strongly here would possibly have no objections as the photos would not show such an engagement. But the woman may not have wished to appear in the photo. Indeed, if I asked all the people in all the photos maybe more than half would at first decline, and anyway it would the be too late. But as I don't tend to hide my camera (whilst not wishing to be too indiscreet), in this case the woman in question simply covers her face, and thus achieves the relative anonymity her gesture intended. Yet to the objectors here that is somehow worse than the former type shot they would not have noticed. It just emphases to me that such blanket moralising about what should or should not be allowed photographically is not only aesthiticaly moribund but is also morally moribund. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted October 5, 2011 Share #20 Posted October 5, 2011 ... although the young woman may have no right to privacy in a public place (which I think is legally questionable) ... It isn't. I don't understand why this is so hard for some to grasp. Conflating legal fact and ethical viewpoints is muddled thinking. She is in a public place. She has no right to privacy. She has no copyright in her image. If you take a photo of her the result is yours. Provided you do not subsequently use that photo for commercial purposes (to advertise a product, for instance) or to defame her she has no grounds for complaint or recompense. IMO the dynamic in Nick's shot is there precisely because she reacted to having her picture taken; it would otherwise likely be a competent record shot of a young woman who chooses to look like a dead celebrity. I really don't understand the moral indignation and squeamishness about this. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.