Berlin tube

[gylee]

A lucky grab, the camera was sitting on my lap, I guessed the exposure and the focus...

[k_g_wolf]

... beautiful shot, I like your photograph.


Best

[semrich]

Very nice, I like the photo also, for its perspective and tones.

[robert_parker]

Gordon

Cleverly shot and neat timing and composition

[samwells]

Gordon - Lovely shot...great angle and perspective.
cheers:
Sam

[earleygallery]

Hmmm interesting to read comments here - then read the thread in the Bar about they guy who shot ladies bottoms on his camera phone!

Fine lines indeed.

[jacksparrow]

james, very good observation
as I said before, butt pictures are always nice
Gordon, you really didn't GRAB, did you??

[rob_x2004]

James this is shot with a Leica. Therefore its art.

Yeahhh right.

[Edward S. Isaacs]

...the debate on the other side was "if you've done this at WalMart you would be in jail by now"


.

[fotografr]

Give me a break. Why not just tape a camera to your shoe, put a remote trigger on it and go around shooting up women's dresses?

[earleygallery]

Just a couple more thoughts, this woman is clearly dressing to impress - I think she'd have been flattered to have her photo taken.

What if she'd been facing towards the camera when the shot was taken? How would it be percieved then?

[rob_x2004]

We would never have seen it. It wouldnt have been taken.

[fotografr]

Originally Posted by earleygallery

Just a couple more thoughts, this woman is clearly dressing to impress - I think she'd have been flattered to have her photo taken.

That same argument has been used to "excuse" someone raping a woman who was wearing revealing clothing. "Well, she was just asking for it."

It's really too bad we don't have more women forum members. I'd love for some of them to jump into this discussion.

[gylee]

Interesting mix of comments here. I nearly titled the thread "Gratuitous?" but in the end went with the other title.

A couple of observations:

1. Perhaps posting this was misjudged on my part - I certainly did not really give it the degree of thought that others clearly have and it is not, in reality, the sort of picture I normally take. In this case, it was there and I took it - my thoughts in relation to the image are simply that I like the composition and I liked the angle and the framing. Would it have been the same image if the subject matter was different - no of course not. Is the subject matter inherently prurient or offensive - I don't think so. Would I have posted it if it had just been a shot of some woman's backside - no, of course not. In my view, this picture works because the dress of the main subject is completely at odds with everything around her (which in unsurprising as it was freezing), because of her stance, and because of the fact that everyone else is ignoring her.

2. The picture was taken in a public place - there are I agree certainly limits to this argument, and not all conduct is justifiable simply because it takes advantage of a public circumstance. However, in my view, this image falls a long way to the acceptable side of any line. Did I in fact tape a camera to my shoe and take a photograph up a woman's skirt. Nope. If I had would that have been acceptable? Nope. What is the difference - the difference would be that would have been utilizing for titillation that which someone intended to conceal. In my view this image is not in any way titillating (although some people might consider that it has a sexual element (for the record, I don't) - that in my view does not render it unacceptable either - within limits) and it makes no use at all of anything that someone intended to conceal.

3. There was no motive behind the taking of this picture other than the fact that the subject was dressed so radically differently from everyone else in the carriage that it amused me - is the shortness of the shorts part of the amusement - absolutely. It also amused my wife who was sitting beside me. We looked at other and smiled just before I clicked the shot.

4. The suggestion that this photograph is in some way unacceptable because it was (a) taken without the knowledge of the subject; (b) was taken from behind; and (c) utilizes the manner of her dress as a theme in its composition is silly. To take the first aspect - this is the case with virtually all street photography. Street photography relies on unawareness. To take the second aspect, if you are only going to take the shot because the subject is unaware, then is it relevant whether it is taken from the front or the back. In my view no. Would this picture, as a picture, have the same impact if it was taken from the front? Nope. To take the third aspect, and hold on kids, you might find this controversial, I don't accept that utilizing the manner of someone's publicly exhibited dress, particularly when it is clearly as carefully selected as this, as the theme of a photograph is in any way unacceptable. Please note before you start typing your incensed notes along the "that's akin to saying she was asking for it" line, that I am stating only that using someone public dress as a theme for a photograph is acceptable. Nothing more.

5. If you don't like the picture, or the subject, that is fine. However, don't guess at the motives for taking it. Rob is of course entitled to his view that this is a crap picture. His slightly outraged sentiments above, however, don't quite tally with his observations that the woman in question has a great arse. I posted the picture, he commented on her anatomy...

[gylee]

Originally Posted by jacksparrow

james, very good observation
as I said before, butt pictures are always nice
Gordon, you really didn't GRAB, did you??

No Jack, I didn't.

[fotografr]

I don't think anyone is "incensed" or "outraged" here. You've clearly rationalized your taking and posting of the image, so I suppose that's the end of it. Nothing more to say.

[jacksparrow]

Just as a side note, I think people here take things too seriously, and these threads degrade too quickly into personal attacks. people need to chill out a bit.
prozac anyone?

[earleygallery]

Oh dear! as I posted the link in the other thread I should just say that personally I don't think there's anything wrong with this photo, yes its a grab shot etc., but its in public and fair game.

The Wallmart thread shows how much paranoia there is out there around the whole subject photographing strangers, and what an individuals rights are.

[gylee]

Originally Posted by jacksparrow

Just as a side note, I think people here take things too seriously, and these threads degrade too quickly into personal attacks. people need to chill out a bit.
prozac anyone?

Jack - it's not an issue. You post something on a public website, you accept that different people have different reactions. Don't like that, don't post I guess. It is in any event at least 80% my own fault. I assumed that people would have the same reaction to this picture that I did - amusement. That as I noted above, was probably misjudged. It is fortunate, I understand, this this shot was not taken in a Walmart.

G.

[gylee]

Originally Posted by earleygallery

Oh dear! as I posted the link in the other thread I should just say that personally I don't think there's anything wrong with this photo, yes its a grab shot etc., but its in public and fair game.

The Wallmart thread shows how much paranoia there is out there around the whole subject photographing strangers, and what an individuals rights are.

James - no worries, the link was fair. Clearly on point. I have also found some of the comments interesting. Rob's observation about the picture not having been taken if the subject was facing the other way is probably correct. I am assuming that his comments regarding her posterior would not have been made if she had been in earshot either - he appears to have missed the double standard.